XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   syringe nipples wrote:   
      
   > On 16/08/2010 1:22 PM, halfawake wrote:   
   >   
   >> syringe nipples wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 16/08/2010 2:56 AM, halfawake wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Evelyn wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "Allen Barker"  wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:i42v3s$i2t$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 08/12/2010 08:26 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Aug 12, 1:18 pm, Julian wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/08/2010 17:42, DT wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Well, here's a question for you, or Jigme, or whoever.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> If somebody were to ask me for a brief synopsis of the New   
   >>>>>>>>> Testament, or   
   >>>>>>>>> of Jesus' teachings, I'd tell 'em to read Matthew 5-7, the Sermon   
   >>>>>>>>> on the   
   >>>>>>>>> Mount.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Is there a comparable portion of the Lotus Sutra that might hit   
   >>>>>>>>> all the   
   >>>>>>>>> high points,   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No (imo)   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> or do I need to just start at the beginning and go through   
   >>>>>>>>> all 28 chapters?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You might as well, but you can skip nearly half of each chapter   
   >>>>>>>> since often the prose is repeated as verse.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ps.   
   >>>>>>>> Nichiren followed the T'ien-t'ai line in emphasising   
   >>>>>>>> ch. 2 Expedient Means   
   >>>>>>>> and, particularly, the "jewel"   
   >>>>>>>> ch.16 The Life Span of the Tathāgata   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Expedient means? That's ALL it's about.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I'll save you the trouble of reading it. Here's the Cliff Notes   
   >>>>>>> version, which I call "Lotus in a Nutshell":   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The Buddha admits that everything he's told us up to now has been   
   >>>>>>> just   
   >>>>>>> a pack of lies. Now he's decided to come clean.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> But first, he makes a bunch of excuses for all those lies. It   
   >>>>>>> seems he   
   >>>>>>> did it for our own good because we were too childish to understand   
   >>>>>>> for   
   >>>>>>> real, and he just wanted to save our sorry asses.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So the real truth is: I wasn't really a man who became enlightened.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I was an immortal god all along, deserving of your worship. I'm only   
   >>>>>>> telling you this now because you're so much better than all those   
   >>>>>>> other uncomprehending dolts.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> A beautiful story with a special appeal to triumphalist egotists.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Wow, I wasn't expecting that "analysis" from Jigme...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> There are many others just as scathing in their opinions. This is what   
   >>>>> Richard Hayes, author of "land of no buddha" and others, had to say   
   >>>>> about it when he used to post here.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Buddha Baby wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Seeing that you have touched upon the subject of Buddhist traditions,   
   >>>>>> I would like to   
   >>>>>> take this opportunity to ask you to clarify your position on a   
   >>>>>> related matter. The   
   >>>>>> Saddharmapundarika Sutra a.k.a. the Lotus Sutra.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> My position in a nutshell is that I quite like the Lotus Sutra for its   
   >>>>> poetry, its imagery, its imaginative parables, its irony and its   
   >>>>> humour.   
   >>>>> I think it is a brilliant piece of literature. As a long-time Zen   
   >>>>> practitioner, I also happen to love it as liturgy. The chapter on   
   >>>>> Avalokiteshvara moves me deeply. (I have said all these things many   
   >>>>> times.)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Like Chih-I, I think the Sad-dahrma-pundarika is a text that a person   
   >>>>> should study only after having a mastery of the nikaayas, the   
   >>>>> praj~naa-paaramitaa and some of the other suutras such as the   
   >>>>> Vimalakiirti-nirdes'a. It is only when one has a firm foundation in   
   >>>>> the   
   >>>>> full dharma tradition that the subtlety of the text becomes apparent.   
   >>>>> Therefore, I think it is lamentable when people focus exclusively, or   
   >>>>> even primarily, on the Lotus Sutra and turn it into a polemic text   
   >>>>> trivializing other forms of Buddhism and suggesting that they offer   
   >>>>> lesser goals, lower aspirations and diminished attainments. Used as a   
   >>>>> pretext for triumphalism, as SOME (but by no means all) followers of   
   >>>>> Nichiren use it, the Lotus Sutra becomes a platform for a kind of   
   >>>>> bigotry that I find completely contrary to the spirit of the   
   >>>>> sad-dharma.   
   >>>>> Studied properly and in the proper sequence of study, as the   
   >>>>> T'ien-t'ai/Tendai traditions studied it, it is a beautiful text with a   
   >>>>> sublime message. It saddens me deeply to see it abused, both by   
   >>>>> some of   
   >>>>> its more ignorant and fanatical admirers (whose abuse is obviously   
   >>>>> unintentional but nevertheless quite damaging) and by its various   
   >>>>> detractors.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Mubul   
   >>>>> (Richard P. Hayes)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And here is another;   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Doc Mark Rogow wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> The Lotus Sutra teaches that icchantikas can be saved by virtue of   
   >>>>>> the   
   >>>>>> Sutra but nowhere does it teach that they don't exist.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If you have the time to give me a precise reference, I would   
   >>>>> appreciate   
   >>>>> getting it. You can cite the page number of any English translation of   
   >>>>> the Lotus Sutra. I have five of them. The reference works I have give   
   >>>>> many references to passages in the Lankavatara but not to any in the   
   >>>>> Lotus where the term is used.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I cannot recall seeing a discussion of icchantikas in the Lotus   
   >>>>> Sutra. I   
   >>>>> am, of course, quite familiar with the concept as it comes up in the   
   >>>>> Lankavatara. There is it said that for every icchantika there is a   
   >>>>> bodhisattva dedicated to bringing the icchantika to full   
   >>>>> realization of   
   >>>>> the Dharma. This is quite a wonderful image, like that of the   
   >>>>> irresistible force meeting the immovable object. Part of the emotional   
   >>>>> impact of the image, of course, is that bodisattvas are so altruistic   
   >>>>> that they will forever postpone their own entry into final nirvana.   
   >>>>> They   
   >>>>> will remain eternally in samsara, if need be, in order to work for the   
   >>>>> welfare of others. They will forgo the greatest good so that others   
   >>>>> can   
   >>>>> have it. That's a very beautiful image of nobility of spirit.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> I know quite a few personally.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)