XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: evelyn.ruut@gmail.com   
      
   "Julian"  wrote in message   
   news:i45tgh$787$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   > On 14/08/2010 11:53, possum wrote:   
   >> "Julian"  wrote in message   
   >> news:i45nhs$kqe$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >>> On 14/08/2010 09:14, halfawake wrote:   
   >>>> Julian wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 12/08/2010 18:21, DT wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Evelyn wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "DT"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>> news:i418a202llk@news3.newsguy.com...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Evelyn wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> "Julian"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>> news:i40qsf$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,   
   >>>   
   >>> If you could just spend a couple of hours reading it you   
   >>> might then understand   
   >>> why a host of great sages from, for instance,  T'ient-t'ai   
   >>> to Hakuin and beyond   
   >>> hold it in such high esteem and why it is widely regarded   
   >>> as one of the seminal   
   >>> works of the Mahayana and even today Zen Temples across   
   >>> the world have it   
   >>> as a central part of their curriculum and daily practice.   
   >>   
   >> spoken like any ol'  jehovah's witness.  all of that may be   
   >> so, but it still ignores robert's point.   
   >   
   > I find Robert virtually unreadable so if you would do us   
   > both a favour by summarising his point that would be nice.   
      
      
   His post was extremely clear.   
      
   --   
   Best Regards,   
   Evelyn   
      
   In the stony fastness of the mountains there is a strange market, where one   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)