Kris, >same invented problem
That religious orthodoxy could obscure, hijack, or outright deny the kind of experiences of the mystics -You're joking, right? Mike ________________________________ From: Kristopher Grey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 5 August 2012, 17:48 Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Chan and zen For better or worse, same invented problem assuming different form. Seek no "better" koan than this. KG On 8/5/2012 12:09 PM, mike brown wrote: >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 >> >> >> > > >
