Bill!, A metaphysical wrestling match sounds awesome. Imagine Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura facing-off against each other over whether Wittgenstein was correct in his theory that the world is made up of facts and not objects. Maybe I should start our future dialogues with "I'm gonna break you"..
Although a mystical experience (in all its varieties) and Buddha Nature are not synonymous, they share the same insight/experience that the self is seen thru - that there is no subject for the experience to be happening to. But there is still awareness. In fact, Awareness. By suggesting there is *no* awareness implies that satori and/or mystical experiences happen in some kind of trance, or void. This is not the case. In nature there are both elements of objectivity (the thusness of phenonema and things) and subjectivity (the awareness of that reality). Satori is thus subjective-objective. The 2 are inseparably present. Yes, your tail is showing. But then again, whose isn't? Mike --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Mike, > > I really don't want to get in a metaphysical wrestling match with you, and I > have read both William James and Aldous Huxley and do appreciate the state > they are referring to as 'mystical'. But...I don't think those states are > synonymous with Buddha Nature. This is just my opinion. > > Also you state below, "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." I contend that if this mystical experience > was indeed a 'oneness' and a holistic 'union with the universe' such as is > satori, then there would be no 'self' that would be aware this was happening > to it, nor would there be any concept of a "next door neighbour" to which is > it not happening. > > I am well acquainted with A COW PASSES THROUGH A WINDOW - Case 38 in the > GATELESS GATE collection. It was a koan I worked through during my koan > study, and one of the last ones. Why do you ask about it? Is my tail > showing? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "mike" <uerusuboyo@> wrote: > > > > 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/
