Bill, fellow travelers Well, perhaps a short little jaunt through the book to see just Mr Kim had in mind by using Mystical and Realist would be in order before a lengthy discussion. I mean, it certainly couldn't hurt. Having said this, of course we are no longer talking about the book, Dogen or the intended post.
Although I don't have any problem if you fellow travlers want to discuss dictionaries and meanings. Just so we know we are not talking about Dogen or the book by Mr Kim. /\ zendervish --- In [email protected], "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 <*> 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/
