7982d563   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   Jigme Dorje :   
      
        Hundreds of more words in the third article Jigme's posted   
   since saying "I have explained my perspective, and am done."   
   He can't even stick to his own pronouncements, forget about the   
   Buddha's.   
      
   > Not an unsupported accusation   
      
        Definitely an unsupported accusation:  Jigme didn't manage   
   to address what I said, let alone demonstrate that it was   
   mistaken in some way.  To repeat, Buddhism contains among   
   other things a highly critical perspective on worldly existence.   
   Examples include the Four Noble Truths, which begin by   
   describing life as suffering and go on from there to reject the   
   craving that leads to rebirth, and the Lotus Sutra, which   
   compares this world to a burning house, thus disproving Jigme's   
   dogmatic assertion "Buddhism does not comment negatively on   
   life here."  Tossing random attacks in my direction is his only   
   remaining reply.   
      
   > I and others explained it in detail, so why pretend that it never   
   > happened?   
      
        The pretence is entirely Jigme's:  he now wants to deny he   
   was arguing with me.  But he both tried to dispute me by   
   contending that Buddhism doesn't offer any critical comments on   
   life in this world and said in so many words that he was   
   disagreeing when he did so.  "Cat, I beg to disagree.  Buddhism   
   does not comment negatively on life here."  It's easy to   
   understand why he wishes he'd said something else, but lying is   
   a questionable solution.   
      
   > Not an idiotic falsehood   
      
        Definitely an idiotic falsehood.  In the Four Noble Truths   
   the Buddha describes life as suffering and rejects "the   
   craving that leads to rebirth."  In the Lotus Sutra he compares   
   this world to a burning house.   According to the Padhana   
   Sutta Gotama says "I spit on my life" or "Shame on life here in   
   this world!"  Etc., etc.  So Jigme's dogmatic assertion   
   Buddhism doesn't include negative commentary on worldly life is   
   wrong as can be.   
      
   > This is a hasty generalization, broad brushing Buddhism based on a   
   > single passage here, a single passage there, snipped from the context   
      
        That's Jigme lying again:  instead of generalizing, I made   
   the fairly specific observation that Buddhism includes a   
   critical perspective toward life in this world, and I backed up   
   my claim with examples.   
      
        In reply, Jigme made the kind of "hasty generalization" he   
   falsely attributes to me, wrongly claiming that negative   
   commentary on the world is missing from Buddhism, and he's been   
   trying to distract from his idiocy with unsupported   
   accusations like the above.  Just another Usenet fuckwit posing   
   as a holy man.   
      
   > of the whole. But this has been explained repeatedly and you have   
      
        So when Jigme says, "this has been explained," he means he   
   misrepresented what I said and made empty accusations:  the   
   only kind he ever comes up with, and the only thing that he has   
   to substitute for a cogent reply.   
      
   > Not my say-so since I have specifically cited the Prajnaparamita   
   > literature.   
      
        Still merely Jigme's say-so.  Hand-waving in the direction   
   of "the Prajnaparamita literature" proves zip, and nothing   
   Jigme has said can possibly rescue his ridiculous idea   
   "Buddhism does not comment negatively on life here," which made   
   plain what he wants to see:  a purely positive, hot-tub   
   philosophy that doesn't clash with his claim for the perfection   
   of what-is.   
      
   > It's the cause of your inability to interpret the written word with   
   > the insight or perspective of the long-term students and practitioners   
   > who have been explaining it to you.   
      
        The long-term hot-tubbers and self-announced awakened ones   
   I've been talking to have a demonstrated inability to   
   understand the Buddhist, Christian, or Jewish scriptures due to   
   their own dogmatism.  They're also very bad at supporting   
   their accusations.  When I've corrected their misreadings, I've   
   quoted them, quoted the texts they were referring to, and   
   showed the difference.  By contrast, all that Jigme ever offers   
   is his endless sermonizing.   
      
   > In the balance, but I did not say no absolutely.   
      
        Jigme offered the entirely unqualified assertion "Buddhism   
   does not comment negatively on life here."  No ifs, no ands   
   and no buts.  According to him there are no negative remarks on   
   life in this world in Buddhism.  But it so happens the   
   Buddhist scriptures say differently.  Therefore Jigme was wrong.   
      
   > I avoid broad   
   > generalizations since there are almost always exceptions to a general   
   > rule.   
      
        Jigme avoids self-awareness.  And who could honestly blame   
   him, considering.   
      
   > You have not demonstrated that Buddhism generally presents a negative   
   > commentary on life.   
      
        Strawman.  My claim is that Buddhism _includes_ a negative   
   perspective on worldly existence -- not an assertion   
   concerning "Buddhism generally."  Jigme has yet to show that he   
   can make an honest reply.   
      
   > No   
      
        Oh, yes:  definitely.  Instead of simply admitting that he   
   fucked up, Jigme alternates between denying his words and   
   making typically self-infatuated claims about the understanding   
   he imagines himself to have.   
      
   > I have not run from any of my statments.   
      
        Jigme is definitely running away from his claim by stating   
   that "No one, including myself, appears to have in fact   
   disagreed with your position."  Obviously false, since he wrote   
   "Cat, I beg to disagree.  Buddhism does not comment   
   negatively on life here," both disagreeing and saying he did so.   
      
   > No, what I said was that no one appears to have disagreed with your   
   > position in that there is an acknowledgement of suffering in the   
   > world.   
      
        Oh, look:  Jigme is lying again.  No, he did not limit his   
   claim of agreement to "acknowledgement of suffering in the   
   world."  He said, "No one, including myself, appears to have in   
   fact disagreed with your position."  Period.  My stated   
   position is that Buddhism includes a highly negative outlook on   
   worldly existence.  Jigme is on-record both disagreeing and   
   stating that he disagrees:  the very opposite of what he claims   
   now.   
      
   > here you are, still fixated on a single statement, intent on removing   
      
        The fixation is obviously Jigme's, since he brought up the   
   subject again.   
      
   >>      Of course you were stupid as stupid can be   
      
   > Another category error and argumentum ad hominem.   
      
        Heh.  Jigme hasn't established a first "category error" so   
   he's in no position to claim a second one, and he clearly   
   doesn't understand the terms he throws around, since there's no   
   ad hominem fallacy in the above.  Ad hominem confuses   
   criticism of a person with criticism of the statements that she   
   makes.  Arguing that Jigme's claims about Buddhism must be   
   false because he's afflicted with stupidity would be an example   
   of ad hominem, since the conclusion isn't entailed by the   
   premise.  Observing that he's being especially stupid is simply   
   speaking the truth.   
      
   > No   
      
        Oh, yes -- definitely.  I've offered several examples from   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)