Mike, Okay, I can live with 'holistic experience in which subject/object (dualism) is seen to be illusory.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], "mike" <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > 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/
