Bill!, You should have gone to sleep!
I agree with most of what you've said, but not the line where you say there is "NO awareness of duality, subject/object or illusion". In satori/awakening, the whole deck of cards comes crashing down. In the Dhammapada, Buddha says, "Oh, house-builder! You are seen! You shall build no house for me again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed". I think the " Oh!" gives weight to the immediacy of the realisation. Again from Suzuki: "even in the twinkling of an eye the whole affair is changed and you have Zen, and you are as perfect and normal as ever. (But) you will have acquired something new [...] your mental activities will now be working to a different key". As opposed to (still with Suzuki): "When the mind has been so trained to as to realise a perfect void in which there is not a trace of consciousness left... In other words, when all forms of mental activity are swept clean from the field of consciousness... leaving the mind like the sky devoid of every speck of cloud...This maybe called a trance, but is not Zen". Read all the accounts of awakening in The Three Pillars of Zen and the spontaneity of satori does not eradicate the faculties as to what is happening. As I wrote earlier, the illusion of self is seen thru as are the dualities of subject and object. There is complete awareness. Mike --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Mike, > > I just went to bed but had to get up to basically retract what I had written > below. > > During 'kensho' or 'satori' there is ONLY pure holistic awareness; what I > call experience, and sometimes use the unnecessary qualifiers of pure, > direct, immediate and sensory. There is NO awareness of duality, > subject/object or illusion. It is only AFTER kensho/satori that we re-engage > our intellect and form thoughts/concepts that the holistic experience is > different than the dualistic illusions that we create and live with in our > everyday life. > > Zen practice BEFORE kensho/satori is geared towards enabling you to > experience (become aware of) Buddha Nature. Zen practice AFTER kensho/satori > is geared toward integrating Buddha Nature more and more fully into everyday > life. It is in this stage of practice that the ability to distinguish > between holistic Buddha Nature and dualistic illusions is cultivated. > > Okay, now I'm going to bed. Hasta manana..Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > 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/
