Joe, Then you've pointed out the problem well. I took it as axiomatic in Zen circles that there is no other to have a union with. I can understand a Christian (not necessarily a contemplative) feeling that they have joined the Godhead or experienced Christ Consciousness, but in Buddhism the 10,000 things have simply reasserted themselves and edged out the personality. This is a world-shattering and revolutionary event and yet John Doe watching tv next door has no awareness that it has just happened. This is what I mean by it being a subjective event.
Have you read Douglas Campbell's "On Having No Head"? Mike --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@...> wrote: > > Mike, > > No, no! On just one point. > > Bill! I think accurately points out that IF a mystical experience (that's > redundant... ) is claimed to have happened to have been a "union WITH THE > OTHER"... even though resulting in a UNION... there is dualism somewhere. > He's right that there WAS, before the union. But, upon union, what is there? > > I won't try to say. But it can't be dual, except in speaking about the > parties before the merger. Unless it's a Human marriage. > > (no, I don't mean the Bachelor Party, and the Bridal Shower). > > But Bill! shows that the DNA of his own understanding of the word Mysticism > -- like the "understanding" of the lexicographers -- is conditioned SOLELY by > the imagery and models of traditions like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim one, a > tradition of The Book, each of which posits a God. > > The dictionary 2nd-definition concerns "subjective communion". That image or > report falls right in line with what we would expect from a dualist tradition > of "I - Thou". God and me. And so it fits those traditions, because it came > directly from expressions of practitioners of them. > > A Christian Contemplative, let's say, experiences One Mind, Unity (not yet No > Mind), and uses the only language at hand to try to speak about it -- and > maybe also to satisfy his Spiritual Director -- and tells in Interview that > he joined God, or the Mind of God, and/or vice versa. > > In a Buddhist person, that terminology is not familiar and would not come > naturally. So, the practitioner might speak in Interview (Dokusan, say...) > about feeling one, not with "GOD", but with everyone, and with the > environment. The teacher will say, "That is very good. ENJOY this feeling". > > In the next interviews, the teacher will see if the student can be encouraged > to continue to practice, despite the Dharma-Joy that may be welling-up and > tickling the student. The teacher might give the student a new method of > practice, or else simple encouragement like, "Just keep empty". > > Well, maybe afterwards, the condition of No Mind enventuates... . > > There's then no communion with anything, there's just this experience of just > this, and it and everything else is entirely empty, and unmoving, and one is > utterly free, not bound or unified with anything whatsoever. The sky of > samadhi and the moonlight of wisdom continue to form the temple of our > practice, but it's all entirely natural, and not even ONE. And so it goes > on, say. > > The experience of this is what a Buddhist *might* call mystical, and which I > do so call it. But it is a return to our true nature, and the experience of > it unremittingly. Let's read Professor Kim's section of the Introduction to > see just how he means "Mystical" Realist. It's a long time since I did. > > Obviously he is not bringing God into the picture. > > With good night wishes, > > --Joe > > > "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 > ------------------------------------ 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/
