Zendervish, I thought you'd choose #3.
#1 is not illusion, but also it has nothing to do with laws, teachings or perceptions of phenomena. These are all illusory. As always a BIG - IN MY OPINION... ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "salik888" <novelidea8@...> wrote: > > 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/
