You're the only one talking about that.
KG
On 8/5/2012 12:59 PM, mike brown wrote:
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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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
