Bill But we could go with number 1, I have to think about number 3. But 1 works as Dharma . . . everything as it exists is Dharma
/\ zendervish --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > 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/
