Kris, >>. [About the Sufis] They were careful not to make the same mistakes their >>Gnostic Christian cousins had centuries before. Wise indeed.
Could that be because the Christian Gnostics were wiped out as heretics and the Sufis knew the same fate would await them from the orthodox muslims? Pray, do tell. Mike ________________________________ From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 5 August 2012, 16:23 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen So it seems. An assumed view only. A way of relating/retelling. Your telling, using borrowed words and ideas. Others do not different, yet you focus on apparent differences. Do you also call this focus mindfulness? KG On 8/5/2012 10:25 AM, mike brown wrote: >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 > > >
