Its significance is in refuting the idea that one should attain paranormal powers. It points to the actual goal of Buddhism in attaining liberation in this body. That's why "walking upon the earth", a most ordinary activity, is supernatural.jeeprs wrote:What do you think is the significance of 'supernatural' in this quotation?
That is, only a handful of esoteric oriented Christians would consider God as one's own mind, not mainstream Christian churches. But this is going to a "comparative religion" area that is not for this forum.Substitute the word Juingong with 'God' and any Christian would say the same. ... That seems to be the kind of 'God' that many people pray to and atheists deny. But the mystical understanding of 'God' is completely different to that.
She says that one can call it god, father, mother, etc. It doesn't matter, because it's just a name. She is not talking about mashing up religious doctrines.But she herself says in that passage I quoted, that it might be thought of as God. She doesn't have a problem with that, even if you do.
This discussion is taking place in the Zen forum. I happily acknowledge the contextual nature of terminology. As you say, context is very important. And, as far as I'm concerned, the entire topic has meaning only in a Buddhist context. Other contexts (philosophies, religions, literature, etc.) are irrelevant. And that's why bringing in Western mysticism and equating it with Zen - as done in Ford's article - is disregarding the context.'The true nature', 'big mind', 'buddha nature', these are concepts from within a religious tradition, namely, Buddhism. I don't see how you can keep quoting them, referring to them, and saying 'this is what they mean', without acknowledging that elementary fact.