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!" <[email protected]> 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/
