Joe It is interesting, both words, mystical and realist . . . as we see there are those that claim zen/Zen one way or the other . . . I have witnessed hard-boiled Zen cases that I practiced along side of that would express a 'realist', oftentimes atheistic perspective . . . to them, these terms were synonymous. Then there were those from the other side of the equation. I sense that the author is perfectly aware of invoking both in the case of Dogen. While I don't know how much Zen/zen is in Kim's work on Dogen, and it is irrelevant to me as well, since I am just reading a book and sharing something I am interested in. I don't know how much it has to do with my wall-sitting, nor does it matter. Dogen, along with Ibn al Arabi, St Thomas, Meister Eckhart, Hui Neng is just something I am interested in. Of course my teachers have often spoken of Dogen, since my orientation to Zen/zen is and was Soto, for whatever that is worth.
I have read Underhill, Bucke, etc, I am not much interested in one way or the other . . . sort of, at this point, for me that is, just taking the one seat. I am sensing we are the same age . . . Underhill was the introduction to such things in the sixties . . . and probably is relevant from a Comparative Religious perspective. I was interested in this sort thing very much so at one time, even practice Islamic Sufism and was in a Tariqa, but that has all petered out for me and I pretty much back to where I started in the early seventies. Zen . . . But I will relate something below . . . I have had a Gonzo experience with Religion for four decades. I am saying that this wasn't all a diversion. I have a Zen Master who pointed at me after zazen and said in front of the other students, "this is for you, (meaning Zen)-- your wasting your time with that other nonsense!" So I offer this not as a badge of honor, only as experientail history . . . During this time I encountered Sufis, Hermeticist, Kabbalists, Fourth Way, so-called Gnostic Christian Mystics, Tantrists, Vedantists, Native American, Shamanists, Wiccans, Chaos Magickians, Gnostics, Ismailis, Catholics, Neo-Traditionalists, Perennialists, and Jungians. During this time I usually kept up a meditation (zazen) practice. I wrote a great deal about in various places, and I sort of gained a reputation amongst those who knew me, as someone who would go into the communities and participate as well as observe. In time I plan to write an over-view of those travels . . . fortunately I have lived in places where these sort of things are accessible. During this time, nevertheless Zen Buddhism was always home . . . and I have to say, this presents a problem to some . . . particularly Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Fundamentalists, etc . . . I have even had Sufis, supposedly the Universalists of Islam, come to the conclusion that I was a Kufr (heretic). At that point some distanced themselves from me. I even went so far as to study Islamic Shariah in a cross comparison to Buddhist Dharma, to see what that modern exploration could turn up. I realize all this is post-modern stuff, globalism of our times. Anyway, to cut to the chase, what I found, in terms of tradtions, my own experience, with the Soto Zen background, doing the so called field research in a Gonzo manner is this . . . I am now going to perhaps preach to the choir. Zen Buddhism has the least amount of excesses (guru, craziness, control, sexy business, money control, personal control of family) than any other tradition that I encountered -- the least along the lines of the amount of Cult formations. Which is not say that we don't have our problems, us zen dudes. In the case of America and Vedanta . . . the nonsense is off the charts -- fleecing the flock, guru worship, sexy business, money control, zaniness, with absolutely hardly any grounding of tradition whatsover . . . all just suprume goofiness. The amount of destruction created by Muktananda, Adi Da, and so many other is mind boggling. Same with Sufism -- continuous nonsense, other than with Idries Shah's people and Muzaffer Effendi and Hazrat Inayat Khan, the first Sufi here . . . the rest is no there there. There is now a strong Neo Traditionalism running in Islamic Sufism to compete with Wahhabis and Salafis. I have no experience with Taoism. Magickal circles, Kabbalistic, etc -- lots of cult nonsense. A reminder of cult definitions -- control of money, sex, and family. Kabbala - lots of cult nonsense Gurdjieff -- surprisingly fairly good schools where people come and go and learn along the lines of science of the self . . . presence, what have you? I know lots of good teachers that came out of the Gurdjeiff Foundation. Protestantism -- lots of control Catholicism -- almost a climate of irrelevance, unless you are in a Monastic setting. However, the liturgy is a powerful awakening and there is much Romance in the Catholic Church. Jungianism -- fairly open to exploration, hardly any control . . . not religious in any sense, but they do good work, for the most part. Neo Traditionalism/Perennialism (Huston Smith and the boys -- Nasr, Schuon, Guenon) -- apocalyptic end of times ravings along with control, sexy business, and a preoccupation with end of times Satanic secularism. Really out there . . . many Sufis with this cult. So, thought I would share . . . just my experience . . . and naturally, of course, Zen Buddhism is home for me . . . so there is that. But I have found this -- no wonder Bill Maur (sp) rails against religion all the time. And he is not even railing against the so-called insightful esoteric aspects of Religion, but the exoteric dogmatic side. I can understand why Dogen went to China in the time that he did, complete decadence in terms of folk religion, superstition, and corrupt monasticism. Pretty much what I found out there amongst the natives . . . a great deal of darkness . . . the equivalent would be along the lines of saying a deities name and being born in the future to a better life . . . in the meantime, nothing changes . . . Now we are back to Bill and the "Realist". /\ zendervish --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Salik, > > Mystical just means by direct, unmitigated, experience. > > It is not faith (nor ratiocination, nor speculation, nor Metaphysics). > > I think the best modern literature about Mysticism was written 108 years ago, > the number of beads on a Buddhist mala. By Evelyn Underhill; William James; > and Richard Bucke. > > --Joe > > PS Kim's title is a brilliant one. > > > "salik888" <novelidea8@> wrote: > > > > Bill > > > > The "subject line" refers to the book > > > > Ehei Dogen, Mystical Realist, Hee-Jin Kim > > > > Nevertheless, I would agree with you though, so how about that one! . . . > > Mystical is a word in our time that denotes something special . . . usually > > it has something to do with "spiritual but not religious." Or apologetics > > for certain Religions. > > > > Like the word esoteric . . . > > > > Enlightenment . . . how about that booby trap word? > > > > I am more from the school of "get your ass over there and sit down . . ." > > Or -- "don't!" > > > > Samey Samey . . . > > > > Anyway, I am not big on the word myself . . . it has worn out its > > usefulness, if it had any to begin with. > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
