d0c2880c   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: niunian@ymail.com   
      
   On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 19:43:25 -0700 (PDT), Jigme Dorje   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Sep 4, 8:52?pm, Catawumpus  wrote:   
   >> Evelyn :   
   >>   
   >> > Obviously that is why you're back!   
   >>   
   >> ? ? ?Obviously I didn't go away. ?Just as obviously, this round   
   >> began when Jigme made the typically unsupported accusation   
   >> that I misunderstood Buddhism. ?He didn't address anything I've   
   >> said, so his criticism was meaningless. ?By contrast, I've   
   >> been nice enough to show where he goes wrong. ?For example, his   
   >> idea "Buddhism does not comment negatively on life here" is   
   >> disproved by the Four Noble Truths, which call it suffering and   
   >> teach against rebirth.   
   >>   
   >> -- Catawumpus   
   >   
   >For clarification, I did not make an "unsupported accusation that   
   >[Catawumpus] misunderstood Buddhism." What I did do was mention   
   >Catawumpus in passing in discussing a position he identified himself   
   >with. In fact, I believe that Catawumpus probably understands Buddhism   
   >about as well as anyone could from the horizontal dimension alone,   
   >without the benefit of the vertical. My exact words were:   
   >   
   >"It is interesting that Catawumpus argued that nirvana/paranirvana   
   >was   
   >posited by the Buddha as an ultimate goal of escaping rebirth, a   
   >category error."   
   >   
   >That is no accusation, and does not allege that Catawumpus does not   
   >understand Buddhism, but it is a simple statement of my belief that   
   >this particular position is in error.   
   >   
   >And was it unsupported? Again, I am pleased to reproduce the rest of   
   >my musings, in which I supported my statement in their entirety:   
   >   
   >"Consciousness/Intelligence/Self chooses to express itself through   
   >form. Evolving into increasingly sophisticated forms (Pali:   
   >samvattanika-vinnana, evolving consciousness),it eventually develops   
   >the capability to experience itself more perfectly through human   
   >consciousness.   
   >   
   >But does this end the cycle of rebirth? Do you think that by   
   >awakening   
   >you can change the structure of the universe?   
      
   By awakening we can certainly better understand the nature of the   
   universe. It may or may not end the cycle of rebirth, but it will   
   definitely end the suffering of rebirth. That is what Nirvana(to never   
   come back) means.   
      
    Consciousness will   
   >continue to manifest as form, so, as consciousness, how can you say   
   >that there is ever an end to rebirth?   
   >   
   >And how could the Buddha himself, as he lived, have really spoken   
   >with   
   >any real authority about a cessation of the cycle of rebirth, when   
   >presumably he had not yet experienced his death?   
   >   
   >The purplexity that arises when the mind tries to reason these things   
   >out is famously parodied in zen koans. The mind can't wring out a   
   >solution because its vantage point is so miniscule - a discrete human   
   >form.   
   >   
   >The "shift" or perceptual switch that transports you from samsara to   
   >emptiness occurs when you cease to identify with form.  And from the   
   >perspective of Consciousness, the vow of a discrete human form to not   
   >be reborn is meaningless, absurd. When the form decays, as all forms   
   >do, the Self will not be affected, but will continue to express   
   >itself   
   >and to evolve as form. And in evolving, it will express itself as   
   >more   
   >awakened beings who can be in form but not of it.   
   >   
   >To such a being, it can be said that the cycle of rebirth has been   
   >broken. He lives outside karma in the sponteneity of the now, his   
   >consciousness increasingly attuned to what is beyond form until it   
   >ceases to identify with what is ephemeral, ie. illusory."   
   >   
   >The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra (Nirvana Sutra) among other   
   >writings discusses that which I call "the perspective of   
   >Consciousness" ("In every situation, constantly meditate upon   
   >[bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal,   
   >Bliss, and the Pure." The Buddha speaks of two kinds of self: the   
   >worldly, ephemeral, composite ego, which he calls a "lie" as it is an   
   >ever-changing bundle of impermanence, with no enduring essence of its   
   >own; and the True Self, eternal, changeless, blissful, and pure.   
   >   
   >Buddhist literature, especially in the Zen tradition testifies that   
   >the shift in consciousness (samadhi or awakening) is not a goal to   
   >strive for, but something that is already within us needing only to be   
   >recognized. The Prajnamaramita literature exhorts the practice of   
   >radical acceptance, the acknowledgement that "emptiness is no other   
   >than form; form is no other than emptiness," and that there is nothing   
   >to strive for as all is already perfect from the perspective of   
   >Consciousness. The Buddha also made it clear in Pali writings that   
   >discriminations, such as would be involved in harboring a negative   
   >attitude toward the world were to be totally abandoned for   
   >nonjudgmental equanimity/radical acceptance.   
   >   
   >While no one denies that there are seemingly contradictory writings in   
   >this vast body of Buddhist literature,  I (and several others) have   
   >pointed out that Buddhism acknowledges that two perspectives   
   >(conventional/relative and ultimate truth, as oxtail put it.)  To the   
   >human egoic mind, embroiled in dukha, the world is dukha, but   
   >Consciousness understands this egoic self to be a "lie," a fiction, an   
   >illusion.   
   >   
   >The fleeting world can only appear as dissatisfactory to the egoic   
   >mind, and it is only from the perspective of this egoic mind that   
   >there would be a need to escape the cycle of birth and death. So the   
   >sutras that discussed this were describing the experience of the egoic   
   >mind.   
   >   
   >Most important, it has been made clear that Buddhist practice is based   
   >not on conceptual understandings or arguments, but on practice, on   
   >realizations that open you to new degrees of awareness.  For more than   
   >2,500 years, this has been the most vital aspect, the mainstay, of   
   >Buddhism. This is the vertical dimension, the dimension of depth that   
   >must constitute the basis for any understanding of Buddhism.   
   >   
   >I write this as part of an ongoing spiritual dialogue taking place on   
   >this newsgroup between people who have already gone beyond the basic   
   >understanding of The Noble Truths from a horizontal perspective.   
   >   
   >Catawumpus, I feel it is ironic that no one, including myself, appears   
   >to have in fact disagreed with your position. Rather they have moved   
   >beyond the perspective that would maintain such a position, and were   
   >attempting to show you what lies beyond that horizontal level of   
   >understanding.  I have explained my perspective, and am done.   
   >   
   >Regards!   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)