d0c2880c   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   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? 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!   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)