Mike, Satori is not dualistic or subjective. Satori is holistic and the terms subjective/objective can not applied. IMO you are mixing up the subsequent DESCRIPTION of an experience, like realizing Buddha Nature, with the immediate DEMONSTRATION of Buddha Nature.
Descriptions, as I've stated earlier, and especially written descriptions in prose are necessarily dualistic because our written language is dualistic. In the case you cite it is also dualistic because Dogen was writing about a memory, a thought, something he was conceptualizing in order to put into words and try to communicate via language. He was not trying to directly communicate the immediate experience. The replies in the mondo's I cited previously were immediate non-dualistic demonstrations of Buddha Nature. The Commentaries and Teishos which accompany these mondos when assembled into a syllabus for use in koan study are dualistic. 'Ineffable' is a good definition/classification of these types of experiences. I'm open to changing my opinion of the word 'mystical' if it indeed is supposed to convey a holistic experience, but I still contend that's not the conventional and popular connotation the word conveys. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "mike" <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > > Haha! Lucky I just put my own coffee down or I would've snorted it thru my > nose! > > Bill!, if a mystical experience is dualist because it is subjective, then > what of satori? Although body and mind had dropped, Dogen could still recall > the experience to recount it. I've been fortunate to have had a mystical > experience that was as 'mind blowing' as any account I've ever read and > language is simply unable to deal with the contradiction of self dropping > away, yet still being subjectively aware of the experience. I guess this is > why 'ineffability' is considered one of the factors of a mystical experience > (James inter alia). > > I still consider that Wunen's koan of the ox-tail not passing thru the window > as addressing this point. > > Mike > > > > --- In [email protected], ChrisAustinLane <chris@> wrote: > > > > On the one hand I have to agree with Joe that most writers on mysticism > > mean something non-dual by it. On the other hand, I have always said that > > with a full blown mystical union with all and $5, you can buy coffee for > > yourself and a friend. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris Austin-Lane > > Sent from a cell phone > > > > On Feb 19, 2013, at 18:56, "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > Lexicographers are the keepers of our language and terms. Yes, if you > > > are using a term in some kind of specialized manner it might not exactly > > > fit the dictionary definition. If that's the case, and I do it all the > > > time, you need to explain your particular usage of the term. > > > > > > However in this case 'Mystical' is not used in a specialized manner, nor > > > is 'Realist' IMO. 'Mystical' is the term that does have the connotation > > > of 'special' or 'eclectic' experiences. I didn't read the book so I > > > can't say that's what the author meant, and maybe he does explain more > > > fully how he's using that term. > > > > > > As for 'subjective communion', that's entirely dualistic. First of all > > > it references a 'subject' which means there has to be an 'object', and > > > secondly it describes the 'experience' as a 'communion', which also > > > implies subject/object or at least multiple items/beings joining somehow. > > > I do however think the lexicographers got this one right. A 'mystic' > > > does believe he/she is in communion with some other entity - at least in > > > the normal use of the term. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > >> > > >> Bill!, > > >> > > >> That dictionary pair of meanings is simply incorrect. Lexicographers do > > >> not have the bottom-line on this. Their catalogings are just that: they > > >> list the common understanding and ways of usage. > > >> > > >> This word is a little of a technical term. > > >> > > >> The lexicographers are not good technicians in every field themselves, > > >> and sometimes miss the scent. Their attempt at that definition is one > > >> very good example of their incomplete surveying, despite their earnest > > >> efforts, smarting eyes, and their green visors. > > >> > > >> The "subjective communion" comes close to my understanding and > > >> experience of direct experience. > > >> > > >> C'ain't get no more direct than the subjective, nor the communion. > > >> > > >> The fact that it's subjective makes it so much more direct to me, and > > >> makes it truly mine. If it's subjective to others, and is also theirs, > > >> then we have a nice discovery in common. > > >> > > >> Bill!, this is fairly common knowledge, and is well propagated by the > > >> writers on Mysticism. Not by the Mystics themselves, but the writers > > >> *on* Mysticism, who try to tell us properly, by way of introduction > > >> perhaps, what Mysticism is. > > >> > > >> They say, and I say again, that it is experience. And the most direct > > >> and unmitigated. I do not interpose the word spiritual or religious in > > >> any of this (but I appreciate that Webster does). I do not take Webster > > >> as the authority, there: instead I take or allow those who study > > >> mysticism, or who may be mystics, to inform our understanding (at least > > >> of the word). > > >> > > >> I don't say that this is the view of Science (yet). > > >> > > >> I can recommend again to review Underhill, James, and Bucke. > > >> > > >> Webster had his head in books, too, like those three writers, but he did > > >> not talk to right people on this point, nor, I think, did his dharma > > >> heirs. > > >> > > >> --Joe > > >> > > >>> "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Joe and Salik, > > >>> > > >>> I'm sorry to have to disagree with you but 'mystical' does NOT mean > > >>> "direct, unmitigated experience". It is in fact just the opposite of > > >>> that. It is a mistaken belief that some illusory thoughts or feelings > > >>> you've had were a real experience. > > >>> > > >>> Here is the definition of 'mystical' from Merriam-Webster Online: > > >>> > > >>> a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to > > >>> the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the > > >>> sacrament> > > >>> b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective > > >>> communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the > > >>> Inner Light> > > >>> > > >>> Neither 'spiritual' or 'mystical' have any place in zen practice, > > >>> except as examples of illusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > > > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
