Kris, That's not what I'm getting at. I'm saying that the jhana states, samadhi, 'mysitical' experiences and ultimately - Buddha Nature - are available to all. The means to attain them are not religious, but secular (such as simply following the breath). The key is a combination of concentration/meditation/mindfulness, contemplative practices and living morally/humanistically (The Noble Eightfold Path does it for me). No supernatural entities or beliefs are required (The Buddha said to not just believe him but to discover the truth for yourself). The potential problem with religion is that a person (especially from the 3 main monotheistic religions )who experiences any of the above states, or Buddha Nature, might tend to cloak them in the specific religious garb that they come from, further reinforcing to their mind that what they have witnessed is the Truth and this is the only (exclusive) way to the Truth. A secular worldview of such practices would seem to be less dogmatic.
Mike > ...what tends to happen when a person in an established religion > experiences them, is that they overlay them with the religious beliefs > and iconsnthey happen to be following. Whether you consider yourself so "established" or not, you do this nonetheless, with your talk of 'jhanas' and such. Your preference of certain terms and methods, same as what you reject from others - when not attached to appearances. ________________________________ From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 5 August 2012, 4:46 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen On 8/4/2012 6:48 AM, mike brown wrote: > ...what tends to happen when a person in an established religion > experiences them, is that they overlay them with the religious beliefs > and iconsnthey happen to be following. Whether you consider yourself so "established" or not, you do this nonetheless, with your talk of 'jhanas' and such. Your preference of certain terms and methods, same as what you reject from others - when not attached to appearances. If you cannot accept an ancient 'Christian' mystic was simply speaking as such, how are we to regard your assertions? Buddha, spoke as a Brahmin of his time, using his culture's terms, their myths and metaphors. This does not relfect his realization, only his venue and audience. Same for Christ, for anyone else. A point of agreement, where I would happily be wrong: I am quite sure you have made up your mind. 100% No matter what you believe, it only serves as proof you do not know. KG
