Mike: Churchism: A collar can be changed for another collar. Mayka --- On Thu, 26/5/11, mike brown <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mike brown <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 11:06 Hi Mayka, The expression I like which seperates the spiritual core of a religion and the institutions that spring up around it is churchism. Mike From: Maria Lopez <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2011, 18:06 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverly: All what you mention is also done in all religious traditions but in a different way. It may change the way in which that is done, but it's done. The damage at time is more in the psychological level. Other times there is not damage at all and the person only gains benefit. People like myself who were born in Countries like Spain where Catholicism has been there for many centuries we know some of its labyrinths which give us the choice of putting on the side what we don't want. We also have the horrid experience from the inquisition. As a result of all that we can see the monster wearing different clothing from other religions. Or at the very least I can. All religions have their strong and weak points and in me experience the best is to use from them whatever is going to be of benefit of all life. But to leave ones tradition because is faulty to embrace another one with a previous idealism of the new one, it's as much as changing the collar to a doggy. The dog will be the same but the collar different. Mayka --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Beverley Huish <[email protected]> wrote: From: Beverley Huish <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 9:43 Hi Mayka, I tend to use 'Christianity' to indicate the movement, occasionally very unpleasant, where people with big egos started trying to enforce their will on other people (the problem which you mention) through the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus and people who follow his teachings (rather than all the stuff later people decided to hang on Christianity to control other people, like hatred of other religions, etc) aren't part of this dogmatic unpleasantness. Organised oppressive religion (like all extremism) is the problem. :-) Beverley. From: Maria Lopez <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 9:42:28 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverly: Authoritarians Romans changed their clothing and you may find them in a most modern appealing spiritual manifestations. Was it Christianity what it failed or was the usual ambition, desire of domination over others, politics, manipulators, speculators...etc, etc what destroyed Christianity?. Be cautious because those ones they only move home. They are within all of us western culture and all around in the new manifested modern religions. I'm in contact with the Jesuit Comunity and have never been so good to be into a Christian Community as it's now as all the remaining people are the genuine ones. The best beneficial shot in any religious institution actually is when they're in crisis. The highest is the unpopularity the highest is the quality. And viceverse the most popular an spiritual form or religion becomes the less quality one gets from it. This is why is so practical and useful to live by ones heart. In that way one never gets deceived by appareances. Plus one has the highest quality of any everything. The heart is something that allows one never get lost as lost. Whatever you'll be embracing do leave your heart being your real guide. Mayka --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Beverley Huish <[email protected]> wrote: From: Beverley Huish <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:26 Hi Bill, Aha! I think this is what I'd understand as the natural and inevitable link that early humans had with nature and everything. The thing that started dying out in Europe around the time the Romans started hassling everyone - and was topped off by the Christian establishment branding it witchcraft. Luckily, we don't have annoying Romans or authoritarian Christians any more - the role is now fulfilled by eg mass advertising and reality TV. ;-) Beverley. From: Bill! <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 2:36:17 Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question Beverley, As I just posted, zen is pure sensory experience, so of course it existed before Buddhism and before Guatama Siddartha. It has was also recognized long before Siddartha and before and since in many other places, times and cultures. I believe, as opposed to zen being a product of Buddhism, Buddhism is a product of zen - as are all religion. Zen is at the core of all these and an add-on or subset of them. ...Bill! ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Beverley Huish <beverley.huish@...> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Did Zen develop before it was linked to Buddhism? > > Beverley. > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011 10:09:49 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > > > Beverley, > > Also, zen is not a dependent sub-set of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is just a > Buddhist expression of zen. In fact most Buddhists don't even recognize zen > as a > legitimate sect of Buddhism. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Beverley Huish <beverley.huish@> wrote: > > > > Thank you, JM, :-) > > > > One of the things that appeals to me about Buddhism is that it > > is non-judgemental. > > > > I'm also glad to have you say that knowledge isn't Buddhism's emphasis - > > there > > > seems to be an awful lot of it about different types of Buddhism. (I > > already > > decided that I'm not going to make any effort to pick up what I don't need > > to > > know, or when I don't feel I can take anything else new on - unfortunately, > > being a newbie Buddhist, I don't know what I really need to know to be a > > Buddhist. I'm just focussing on mindfulness at the moment and hoping / > >trusting > > > > that other information will come to me as I'm ready to receive it.) > > > > :-) > > > > Beverley. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jue Miao Jing Ming - 覺妙精明 <chan.jmjm@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, 16 May, 2011 17:47:27 > > Subject: Re: [Zen] Newbie - hello & question > > > > > > Hello Beverly, > > > > Having your non-comparing mindset is the essence of Chan. Comparing is > > always > > > relative and reincarnates itself into endless hell. > > > > Also for your information... > > > > Long Shu Bodhisatva (龍樹） brought Chan to Tibet way back then. In China, > > Chan > >is > > > > nick named The Grand "Secret Lineage"/Vajrayana/Mizong (大密宗）, while Tibetan > > practice is just Secret Lineage（密宗）. > > > > Some knowledge for your non-Buddhist friend, though knowledge is never our > > emphasis. > > > > FYI, > > JM > > > > > > Learn to de-stress, energize and awaken http://www.chan-meditation.com > > Learn to > > > > live with Health, Happiness and Harmony http://www.chanliving.org Learn to > >reach > > > > enlightenment http://www.heartchan.org To save the world > > http://www.universal-oneness.org > > > > On 5/16/2011 8:38 AM, Beverley Huish wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >I'm a newbie in this group, and to Buddhism. I sincerely don't want to > > >upset > > > >anyone or start an argument. I want to join in this discussion, and this > > >has > > > >cropped up so I'm asking the question. > > > > > >I told a friend today that I feel Buddhism is for me, and I'm looking into > >Zen. > > > > >My friend replied that Tibetan Buddhism is a more spiritual type of > > >Buddhism > > >because they believe in God. Having looked into various types of > > >Buddhism, he believes that the Buddha communicated higher information, > >including > > > > >the existence of God, to Tibetan Buddhists because they were more > > >spiritually > > > >evolved at that point - Tibetan Buddhists claim this is the case and my > > >friend > > > > >agrees with them, he says. My response was to say that different things > >appeal > > > > >to different people and I don't think it's a matter of one being more > > >'spiritual' or more 'true' than another. (I really don't care what > > >might considered 'higher' or more 'spiritual' - at the moment that is > >irrelevant > > > > >to me. However, it did seem a kind of un-Buddhist thing to claim that > > >oneself > > > > >is better than another person? My friend is not a Buddhist.) > > > > > >What do other people think? > > > > > >Thank you. :-) > > > > > >Beverley. > > >
