yes..my fav too doors of perception plus perennial philosophy...i love aldous huxley..genius!..merle Merle,
Brave New World Eyeless in Gaza Island (halfway) The Perennial Philosophy The Doors of Perception (my favorite) ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Merle Lester wrote: > > > > Â bill.. > which aldous huxley book have you read? > > oneness just is > Â we just are however we forget we are > > merle > > Â > 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" 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!" 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" 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 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!" 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" 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!" 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 > > > > > >>> b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct > > > > > >>> subjective communion with God or ultimate reality > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
