Bill!,
I think we're now beginning to say the same thing which is a good thing!
That "holistic-awareness" to me is just the same as my 'subjective-objective'
definition. The only thing I'd question is that when you say, "..not the
awareness of a subject.." - I'd say the subject is seen thru (as in an
illusion).
I also don't say that mystical experiences ("mysticism" is the wrong choice of
word) square with satori, but I think there are more similarities than
differences.
Mike
--- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote:
>
> 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/
