[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Taking off the glasses?


>
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 4:58 AM, Carl Thames wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Marsha:
>>> "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism 
>>> recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and 
>>> published by Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows 
>>> the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any 
>>> other I have seen."
>>>
>>>   (Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998.)
>>
>>> "We can't comprehend Reality with our intellects.  We can't pull it into 
>>> a static view of some thing.  All our explanations are necessarily 
>>> provisional.  They're just rigid frames of what is actually motion and 
>>> fluidity.  In other words, if you think of how Reality is, you can be 
>>> sure that's how it isn't.  Reality simply cannot be put into conceptual 
>>> form --- not even through analogy, for there's nothing like it.  Reality 
>>> simply doesn't fit into concepts at all.
>>>
>>> (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, p.71)
>>
Carl:
>> Isn't this what Pirsig worked out when he realized that "truth," like 
>> "beauty," were not fixed, static concepts but rather events?  That's what 
>> I bought away from ZMM so many years ago, and I haven't encountered 
>> anything since that would falsify the concepts.
>
Marsha:
> Falsify the concepts?  Good one.  Neti-neti.   -   I believe RMP was 
> pointing, not suggesting a Truth.   But then, he was suggesting reality is 
> not this, not that.  Mu.

Maybe that's what I'm having a problem with.  i.e. the whole idea that 
reality is not this, not that.  I understand the concept of Mu, but I'm just 
not sure I agree with it.  In order for us to fully grasp it, we have to put 
it into terms we can understand.  Okay, you say, but the whole concept of Mu 
is beyond intelligent conceptualization. It's like a koan.  A non-sensical 
phrase designed to get us out of our rational mind.  What IS the sound 
between the notes of a melody?  I have heard it described as the voice of 
God.  While I don't think idealogical concepts such as God apply, (mostly 
because most concepts of the word mean so many different things, depending 
on our cultural, etc. background)  I think you know what I'm talking about. 
While it avoids description, I don't think it avoids understanding.  It 
could be that we just don't have the words to fully articulate it.