Dear Colleagues,
The discussions and personal observations regarding this subject of "pure
quality" have been quite stimulating. I was heartened to find so many of the
contributors to this thread had also experienced those often too rare but
exciting moments when it seems that pure quality creations are manifested
through us as if the blueprints had always existed and the simple act of
surrendering our egos to "Wei Wu Wei", the practise which was so eloquently
explained by Andrea in the post of April 24, 2001 (reprinted below), allows
us to realize our destinies in the creative process.
ANDREA: ...The taoistic concept of "in-action", for example, is too often
misunderstood for "doing nothing" (so the children starve) but ask any
serious taoist and you will find it's actually more like "going with the
flow", which can also be restated by "doing the right thing here and how".
The mystic taoist believes, among other things, that "you are what you do".
Acting is of utmost relevance to most of the mystics I know. - from a post
of April 24, 2001
I also must agree with Andrea's statement of the illusory nature of the
future. Maybe the term abstract might further define it. After all, it seems
that the future is only a projection of anticipated outcomes, which from my
personal observations have never occurred exactly as predicted. The concept
of future seems to be akin to an exercise in probability, which like most
mathematics is pure abstraction. Yet, because, like mathematics, these
concepts of the past and future figure so prominently in the order of our
societal infrastructure, it is doubly difficult to stay in a state of pure
"mindfulness of the present" for very long before these abstract creations
distract us. It seems from the postings that I've read, that the miracle of
"pure quality" occurs when we focus only on the present and allow the
yet-to-be materialized creation to use us as its instrument for physical
manifestation.
Thanks to all for what has been a beautiful discussion of this subject of
"pure quality", the examples of which seem to cause generations to marvel
and for many provide evidence that would indicate that the Universe is, in
fact, by design, perfect when we allow it to be so.
The Bard
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrea Sosio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: MD Pure Quality!
> Hi Marco,
>
> > MARCO:
> > Well, Andrea, maybe you are right that the difference RMP assumes
between himself and a mystic is the attempt to analyze Quality with
metaphysical tools. What I don't accept is that *only*. It's like to say
that the *only* difference between an abstainer and an alcoholic is that the
latter drinks whisky. We can well cut it with the famous razor... and the
sentence sounds better: a MOQist analyzes Quality (Reality)... and this is
not *only* at all.
>
> Marco, I wasn't using "only" in a judgemental way. My point, again, with
added emphasis: "AS FAS AS PERSONAL ETHICS GOES, I can't remember any single
passage in Lila or ZAMM that establishes any substantial difference between
a MOQist and a mystic." Engaging in a metaphysical attempt to define Quality
is *not* what makes the MOQist willing to act, and the mystic just willing
to pray, for practical issues, is it? A mystic is not a philosopher, that's
allright. It doesn't take a philosopher to be a moral person. Of course,
moral attitudes may stem from a philosophical theory, and my point is, I
> don't think the moral teachings that stem from MOQ are any much different
from those found in any Good Book. And there's a good reason for it: I think
one of the goals of RMP was, in fact, that of providing metaphysical
(rational) support for the "truths" of many mysticisms, especially from the
eastern cultures. Wasn't the first book entitled (emphasis added :)): "ZEN
and the art of motorcycle maintenance"? (See below for another facet of
RMP's action...)
>
> > MARCO: if it was true what you wrote that "he [the mystic] knows
nevertheless that there is *no* future, ie, that the concept of future is
illusory" , well, it means IMO that a mystic attitude will not save the
children of your example. You have reminded me of ZAMM....
>
> I'm sorry that I couldn't let this point through. I think your mistake is
taking *some* tenets of mystic doctrines and then guessing their
consequences within an otherwise ordinary view. As I mentioned in a previous
post, you can be a mystic and act at the same time. The only difference is
the meaning you attach to this acting and whether you see it as a goal in
itself or *just* as functional to something that comes after.
>
> > PIRSIG HAD WRITTEN (in ZAMM):
> > + But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely
expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth
time and Phfdrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that
the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory.
The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.
> > Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been
correct, but for Phfdrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly
and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that
answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave
up ;.
>
> Excellent quotation. That's the other side of the (metaphysical) coin.
Just as RMP isn't satisfied with the suppression of "spiritual", "moral",
and other "immaterial" issues in (extremized, trivialized) western thought,
at the same time he is not satisfied with the suppression of "material"
concerns in (extremized, trivialized) eastern mystics, and thus tries to
bridge these two. But still we are talking about metaphysics and not
specifically morals. The professor who thought that bombs were illusory
could well think, too, that it was immoral to drop nuclear bombs on people.
If this seems
> non-coherent: mystics are not rational. Mystics are NOT rational. You may
not be interested in their thought, but take it as it is; don't try to
rationally derive part of their attitude from another part, it just won't
work.
>
> > MARCO:
> > Inadequate.... not wrong. YES! It's not wrong to pray for those
children: it's inadequate. In the end, I think that probably the MOQ *seems*
very mystic from our Western viewpoint... while probably it is very
Down-to-Earth from a mystic viewpoint (if any).
>
> Ah.. you said it! That's (a consequence of) what I said above.
>
> > DAVID LIND:
> > I don't think you'll find anything in mystic teachings that state that
mystics believe what you imply.
> >
> > MARCO:
> > The phrase "The mystic believes that "there is *no* future, ie, that the
concept of future is illusory", was not mine, but Andrea's. As said above, I
don't know a lot about mysticism, but I do believe that if you want to save
the children (Andrea's example) you can't go on thinking that future (as
well as the past, read the ZAMM quotes I offered) is illusory...
>
> I don't share your belief. I think I tried to explain it in my previous
post as well as this one.
>
> > I think the priests who are in Africa to help people must be a bit less
mystic than the ones living in a monastery. Then, of course, I don't blame
mystics. It's not their fault if people die for hunger, but also it's not
mysticism that cures hunger.
>
> Neither *mysticism* nor *metaphysics* (nor science, for that matter) save
children. It's the behavior of people who believe in them that may help save
them. BTW, you are mistakenly ascribing absence of behavior to mystics,
again, or restricting their behavior to something (you deem) impractical,
such as praying. As David suggests, I don't think you'll find many mystic
teachings that imply any of these.
>
> So much for the mystics, I guess. Side notes have the bad attitude of
growing to fill up threads, but I think now we return this thread to
Thracian Bard; that is, give up or move elsewhere :)
>
> Andrea
>
> --
> Andrea Sosio
> RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
> Tel. (8)9006
> mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
