[MD] Intuition?

[MarshaV]

Hi Dave,

That was Mark, not Matt.  I hope you don't mind; I made appropriate changes.  

On Jul 3, 2011, at 11:35 AM, David Thomas wrote:

> All,
> 
>>> Marsha
>>> Page 52, Pirsig’s 2000e e-mail to Anthony: ‘For scientists, the mind of the
>>> Buddha and the Mind of God are usually the same, even though the Buddha was
>>> an atheist. I think it is extremely important to emphasize that the MOQ is
>>> pure empiricism.  There is nothing supernatural in it.’  Compare this, later
>>> in the thesis, with Northrop’s ‘concepts by intuition’.
> 
>> Mark
>> Buddha was not an atheist, he used the current Gods in his
>> meditations.  Just read about all the gods that visited him under the
>> trees that he sat under. .
> 
> [Dave]
> I agree with Mak that "Buddha" was not an atheist in the classic sense of
> believing "that there are no deities." My understanding is that Buddha's
> take was that "God talk" was counter productive, it either did nothing or
> increased suffering. So he limited his path to what humans could achieve
> divorced from any thought, talk, or action concerning gods.
> 
> As Buddhism developed over time into a fully formed religion with various
> schisms and sects "Buddha" in some branches has taken on more and more
> godlike attributes. So when RMP says," For scientists [and many Buddhists],
> the mind of the Buddha and the Mind of God are usually the same." I
> generally agree, except lumping of all scientists [or for that matter all
> Buddhists] together is a bit of over generalization.


Marsha:
You bet it is over-generalization.  And very difficult to keep straight in one's 
mind the different schools and their differences.
  

>> Mark
>> When Pirsig says Atheist, he means
>> anti-Christian (or Muslem or Jew), he does not mean anti-Gods.
> 
> [Dave]
> I disagree, in other places he is clear that he believes there are no
> deities regardless of brand name.
> 
>> Ant & RMP:   
>> From your discussion of how enigmatic Zen appears to Westerners, I am reminded
>> of Pirsig’s statement in LILA:
>> Of the two kinds of hostility to metaphysics he [Phædrus] considered the
>> mystics’ hostility the more formidable.  Mystics will tell you that once
>> you’ve opened the door to metaphysics you can say goodbye to any genuine
>> understanding of reality.  Thought is not a path to reality.  It sets
>> obstacles in that path because when you try to use thought to approach
>> something that is prior to thought your thinking does not carry you toward
>> that something.  It carries you away from it.  To define something is to
>> subordinate it to a tangle of intellectual relationships.  And when you do
>> that you destroy real understanding. (1991, p.66)
>  
>  
> [Dave]
> RMP states, "that the MOQ is pure empiricism.  There is nothing supernatural
> in it."  But in the next breath he suggests that mystic experience coupled
> with intuition is the penultimate path to truly understanding reality.
> 
> In the end is this not ultimately the claim of all religions? Whether its
> "natural" or "supernatural" is kind of beside the point. Is coupling mystic
> experience and intuition and claiming it to be the best take on reality that
> humans can achieve really a good concept to base our life around?

Marsha:  

I just read a wonderful paper 'The Rationalists Tendency in Modern Buddhist Scholarship:
A Revaluation' by Sunguaek Cho.  He makes some interesting points, "From the Buddhist 
perspective, all philosophical speculation is based on a meditative experience, which is 
clearly distinguished from our daily, rational experience."  Maybe you would like to read 
the paper:  

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Philosophical/rationalist_tendencies.pdf  

I think of living a life based on experience & intuition living a life of mindfulness, and yes 
that is a good way to conduct one's life, but that isn't in lieu of education.  Chop wood, carry 
water, study quantum physics, and do them all mindfully.  I agree, it's a very good concept to 
base our life around.  Do we really need the constant, accompanying mental narrative that 
gunks up so many experiences and intuition?     No.    


Marsha


 
___