[Buddha-l] RE: Article of possible interest--correction

[L.S. Cousins]

Joy,

>  In fact, what made something unorthodox in the Catholic tradition 
>was a direct experience of God, without the intermediairy of Christ 
>and outside the traditional means that the church offered. As long 
>as one respects that rule, one has the right to become as mad as a 
>hatter.

This rather extreme formulation really applies to the situation from 
the 17th century (Quietists etc.) and is in part a reaction to the 
Protestant attack.

>  >We have to remember that belief in multiple lives was common (if not 
>>normative) among intellectuals at the time of the rise of 
>>Christianity. I suspect that it was not unusual among early 
>>Christians, but a considerable effort was made to prohibit the idea 
>>at a later date.
>
>Normative, I don't know, but it was an idea that circled although it 
>was not a fundamental idea without which a religious or 
>philosophical system would fall and lose its raison d'être.

I was thinking of the period around the third century when 
Neoplatonism was very much the dominant tradition. Were there any 
Neoplatonists who didn't believe in reincarnation ?

>The Cathars seemed to have believed in reincarnation as well.

I have heard that, but never seen any definite proof.

>  >I don't know that I believe in the 'subconscious' but it is clear 
>>that a process of this sort can occur. Indeed, that is obvious from 
>>dreams. But I would think of the meditative process as cleansing the 
>>mind from this kind of distorting tendency.
>
>It all depends on what one understands by meditation... If it is to 
>feed the mind with ideas, beliefs and images, I am not so sure

It almost certainly depends on how instruction is given.

>I am pretty distrustful of correct memories of childhood. I am not 
>sure correct memories exist. How does one correctly revive something 
>that is gone?

There is a description of how to do this in Achaan Brahm's latest book :-)

Lance