XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen
XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com
Julian wrote:
> 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.
I realize it's an important sutra. My problem has been that it is hard
to get through all the pomp, regal descriptions and supernatural doings
to get to the teachings. I will try to work through it more
systematically. I have to admit, despite my annoyance at the idea that
the sutra has magical powers, that I got a pretty intense buzz reading
the later chapters earlier this evening. Maybe it really does have
magic powers.
Robert
- - - - - - - -
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
