XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: zen102422@zen.co.uk   
      
   "Julian"  wrote in message   
   news:i465a8$cei$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   > On 14/08/2010 13:47, possum wrote:   
   >> "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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)