Hey Everyone,
To continue my original post, the only two philsophers I have studied
seriously have been Pirsig and Krishnamurti. The two appear to
complement each other perfectly. (I promise to be more brief on any
follow-up stuff).
For me, Pirisig is a master of the static parts of his theory. He is
great at logic, ideas, and so forth. After reading Pirisig, I was
astonished at the clarity and creativity of his intellect. Still,
although I had a vastly different way of thinking of things, my
day-to-day life had not changed. I just thought of it diferently.
Krish was a master of the dynamic parts of Pirisig's theory. Krish
provided the love and spontaneity which Pirsig seemed to be missing.
Krish lived with a child-like curiosity in the dynamic realm by
intensely observing every thought, emotion and feeling that entered his
mind.
Krish was chosen at a young age to be the eventual spiritual leader of a
religious group group called the "Order of the Star". Upon maturity,
Krish concluded that he could not give his followers their desired
peace. They would have to discover it for themselves. He disbanded the
group and devoted his life to "setting mankind unconditionally free".
Krish denounced organized religion and any ism-s which he believed
divided man against man. Furthermore, these things divided the mind
against itself.
Krish taught that biggest (only) problem we have is that we do not do
what we love. People become dull, petty and insensitive because we of
fear. We are afraid of society calling us failures, we are afraid of
questioning our beliefs, we are afraid what others think, we want to
appear intelligent, we are everywhere but the dynamic present.
Krish feverishly fought for people to discover truth for themselves. He
did not tell people *what* to think but *how* to think. Krish was
vegetarian, but never once wrote or preached about it.
To him, the definition of religious mind is one which "is sensitive to
reality". That is when love, spontanaeity, gumption, or what have you,
emerges. (Another of my favorite quotes is "to be free of fear is to be
free of time").
For me, the 4 static levels of value are not that important. Don't get
me wrong, they seem to work, but one need not be conscious of them. I
think it is far better to concentrate on being "in the moment". The
appropriate PoV will emerge for itself outside the intellect. As for
the intellect, while being in the moment we retain our knowledge, but we
do not cling to it. That is what Pirsig seemed to miss. We need to be
open to the dynamic at all times. We will subconsciously fill in the
static values.
It is like being immersed in a great movie. We "become one" with the
movie, but retain our language, memory of plot, and so forth. That is
better than mentally clinging to static values such as "this movie is
going to be good because such and such a critic liked it." (Fresh Idea!
-- the dynamic level should be allowed to dominate the intellectual
level. !)
I have been taking Krish's advice by observing my intellect. If anyone
is interested, I am about complete 20 + page paper summarizing these and
other thoughts. I can email it. I have been taking Krish's advice by
observing my intellect. It has helped me to quit analyzing things when
I do not need to be wasting this energy.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:44 BST