Mike, Satori (realization/manifestation of Buddha Nature) is awareness, but that awareness is not the awareness of a subject, nor is it an awareness of an object. It is just direct, pure, holistic awareness. Just THIS! I usually refer to this holistic awareness just as 'experience', since for me 'experience' implies awareness.
How this experience squares with 'mysticism' I don't really know, but from what I've read it doesn't sound like the same thing. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "mike" <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > 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/
