XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen
XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com
Julian wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 18:21, DT wrote:
>
>> Evelyn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "DT" wrote in message
>>> news:i418a202llk@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>> Evelyn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Julian" wrote in message
>>>>> news:i40qsf$hbn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/08/2010 13:10, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 5:18 am, Julian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/08/2010 08:18, halfawake wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Julian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/08/2010 11:39, Catawumpus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> halfawake:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fake conversation is between you and your ass. Hope
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're having a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fake conversation is the one Evelyn openly admitted to
>>>>>>>>>>> when she denied she was offering a real one. Which makes
>>>>>>>>>>> perfect sense in light of all the fake accusations she's tossed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are not fake. They are real accusations but unsubstantiated.
>>>>>>>>>> You can't expect anything else after the Occultists, and the so
>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>> "Korean Zen" and Tibetanista teachers, have so profoundly
>>>>>>>>>> twisted her
>>>>>>>>>> melon,
>>>>>>>>>> man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you really want to get occult, try the assertions of the
>>>>>>>>> Lotus Sutra,
>>>>>>>>> largely based on supernaturalism and magical thinking
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are keen and verbose in seeking evidence with respect to
>>>>>>>> Tibetan foetid rascalities before you'll cease to deny such
Yes, proving a negative was never my strong suit, since it is
impossible. One doesn't take assertions that have no evidence and find
evidence to refute it. I challenge you to find evidence that there is n
such thing as a unicorn. Prove it. You can't. If you assert that the
Tibetan lamas have done something you have to provide the evidence, and
it has to be real evidence or it is pure bullshit. That won't stop you
from saying it is true over and over again will it? Asserting things to
exist that have no evidence is a strength of yours and other
anti-Tibetan ideologues. You find a book with unsubstantiated
assertions and use it as a citation, or a picture that is supposedly of
skin taken from living people with no evidence to support it and then go
on about it as if it were proven. And that is the worst kind of
propaganda. If you said that Romanians skinned their babies alive I'd
have the same reaction. I don't care if it's about Tibetans or people
from Chicago. I'm not a fan of malicious propaganda.
>>>>>>>> so presumeably you must have copious evidence that the Lotus Sutra
>>>>>>>> is "largely based on supernaturalism and magical thinking"
>>>>>>>> and not on the assiduous practice and study of Buddhism.
>>>>>>>> Please share it.
When I get a chance I may do that. Meanwhile, if you think that the
whole setup of the Lotus Sutra, asserting the unending lineage of
Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, most of them never heard of in any other
Theravadin or Mahayana record before or after, speaking of their occult,
magical and supernatural doings, and how the sutra itself has myriad
magical powers, shifting the emphasis from personal enlightenment
through understanding to the magical thinking of being graced with
enlightenment by the mystical power of the sutra itself, is not an
exercise in magical thinking and supernaturalism of the highest order,
then that's fine. If you literally accept all of that on faith, then
you are a religious worshipper, which is also fine. And if you think
the same magical thinking that the repeated chanting of the name of the
lotus sutra, with or without any understanding of the kind that
characterizes the meditative tradition of Buddhism, is not an exercise
in occultism and magical thinking, then that is fine too, but it seems
pretty obvious that it is ordinary mantra meditation of the kind
believed in by Hindus more than Buddhists. Go ahead and say whatever
you like about it. I'm not even saying it doesn't work. What I am
saying is that it is rankly hypocritical to believe in that kind of
magical thinking and accuse Tibetan Buddhism of being overly occult!
What's the difference?
If the Lotus Sutra has great content and teaching in it, it is not in
the array of magical Buddhas and Bodhisattvas sitting on high making
pronouncements about the magical power of the sutra itself, which turns
the Buddhist teaching into a talisman or a magical object, a
wish-fulfilling gem, rather than an exercise in awakening.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ps.
>>>>>>>> It is not long since you admitted that you had never read
>>>>>>>> the Lotus Sutra and you promised to do so...
>>>>>>>> more vacuous verbosity I'm prepared to wager.-
You might try holding back from your own fountain of vacuous verbosity,
cheap swipes at other traditions including both Tibetan Buddhism and
zen, without ever getting into their content or their actual teaching.
If my vacuous verbosity on the Lotus and Nicherin offends you, take a
look at your own exercise of the same and maybe we can make a deal.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
