XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   halfawake :   
      
   > You are   
      
        I'm pointing out Tang's claim everything's fine regardless   
   what happens makes practicing Buddhism into nonsense.  No   
   reason to follow the dhamma, because everything is fine, and no   
   need for the path for the same reason.  No need for a thing   
   -- it's all fine no matter what comes along -- except to "relax   
   and be serene."   
      
   > confused between cessation and liberation.  As I said before   
      
        You say lots of crap, often in lots of words.  (One of the   
   things that stands out about you.)  Doesn't follow anyone   
   should take your babbling seriously, even though I've helpfully   
   corrected you from time to time.   
      
   > Buddha may have allowed suicide for the enlightened   
      
        Not according to you, no.  You imagined a rule prohibiting   
   arahants from killing themselves and contended there was   
   merely a single, particular exception ("that one example of the   
   horribly ill arahat"), but you were wrong on both counts:   
   an arahant is free to commit suicide because he has a "pacified   
   mind" (i.e., his "kamma is no longer operative"), and the   
   Lotus Sutra gives an example:  the Bodhisattva   
   Sarvasattvapriyadarsana immolates his body after achieving full   
   consciousness, an action described as "the most sublime   
   worship of the law" by the eight Buddhas who are said to be his   
   audience.   
      
   > but he did not advocate it or emphasize it as you do.   
      
        Strawman.  I never argued otherwise.  I explained that the   
   Buddha's teaching against craving for non-existence in the   
   Four Noble Truths effectively bans suicide, unless done in some   
   other state of mind.   
      
   > Buddha may have had cessation without   
   > rebirth as a final goal of the path, but he did not insist, as you do,   
   > that other aspects of Buddhism are meaningless.   
      
        Oh, look:  you're lying again.  I never and nowhere argued   
   all "other aspects of Buddhism are meaningless."  It's   
   possible they are -- obviously the idea has been concerning you   
   -- but my consistent point has been that Buddhism includes   
   life-denying, world-rejecting teachings of the kind that you're   
   so threatened by.   
      
   > When you say that   
   > Tang's dictate "makes practicing Buddhism nonsense," you clearly   
   > demonstrate that you personally have no respect for the Buddhist   
      
        Wrong again.  When I note Tang's dictate makes it nonsense   
   to practice Buddhism, I clearly explain the difference   
   between his philosophy, which insists that everything's fine no   
   matter what comes, and Buddhism, which addresses life's   
   suffering.  But it's always interesting to see what goes by you.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)