Bill I answered this in another post to you. In the way I was using it, was a long the lines of what you put forth -- "is." Number 1.
That is Zen, my humble experience, from my teacher (soto) based upon Great Heart Wisdom Sutra and Three Treasures -- Buddha, Dharma, Sangah. So I guess that would be Zen Buddhist teaching. However, my teachers, all of them put great emphasis on the "isness" of Buddha, Dharma and Sangah as phenomenon -- back to your appreciation for reality -- "is'. Of course all of this description is talking zen, posting zen, and not getting us into the anything other than a finger pointing exercise. I willingly admit, Zen is just this . . . and the primordial impetus, if you will, of zen is just this -- reality as we experience it. As you know, we don't need to say Buddha, Dharma, or Sangah at all to experience and practice . . . no enlightenment, no looking, we can say these things here . . . that's easy . . . talking zen is always easy. /\ zendervish --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > Zendervish, > > So...what does the term 'Dharma' mean to you? You use it as a word so you > must have an idea of what it means. From your response I suspect it means > 'Buddha's Teachings'. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "salik888" <novelidea8@> wrote: > > > > My meaning would be from teachers in Soto tradition who honor the Three > > Treasures -- Buddha, Dharma, Sangah . . . > > > > I would not care to comment about wiki > > > > /\ > > > > 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/
