Kris, Would it have helped you understand better if I had italicised the words 'might' and 'potential problem' for you?
>The potential problem with religion... ...might tend to cloak them in the >specific religious garb that they come from, 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 > > >
