Zendervish, If you want to continue this discussion I'll have to know what you mean when you use the term 'dharma'.
I looked it up in Wikipedia and their definition of the Buddhist concept of 'dharma' has 4 parts: 1. The state of Nature as it is (yathā bhūta) 2. The Laws of Nature considered collectively. 3. The teaching of the Buddha as an exposition of the Natural Law applied to the problem of human suffering. 4. A phenomenon and/or its properties. My answer that 'dharma' is illusion was based on my understanding of the term as in #2, and #4 if the term 'phenomenon' implies an object. After looking at these I could also include number #3, but not #1. #1 IMO is the only one that is not based on illusion. What is your meaning when you use the term 'dharma'? ...Bill! ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "salik888" <novelidea8@...> wrote: > > Bill > > In reality isn't it all the same thing? > > Phenomena, enlightenment, taking out the garbage, zazen, one-eyed dogs, etc > is all Dharma? > > Questions about questions? > > Assertions about assertions? > > Buddha Nature > > > /\ > > zendervish > > > > --- 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/
