Bill!, If you're using the word as is commonly used, then yes. Unicorns are 'mystical', crop circles are, tarot readings etc. but I think you'll find this is a common misappropriation of the word. Better to read William James and Aldous Huxley to gain the proper meaning of the word (as in the perennial philosophy). Read any account of a mystical experience and words like "oneness" and terms like "union with the universe" will crop up. Still, the person *at the time* of the experience is aware that is happening to them and not the next door neighbour. Of course, the idea of themselves will never quite be the same again!
This subjective/objective split is nothing but a failing of language to describe what cannot be accurately described. Such contradictions are rife in Zen as it operates beyond language. All part of the fun, really. Mike PS I implore you to read Wunen's 'ox tail' koan. --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > 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/
