XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   Jigme Dorje :   
      
   >> For clarification, I did not make an "unsupported accusation that   
   >> [Catawumpus] misunderstood Buddhism."   
      
        Not true.  Jigme insisted that I was guilty of a "category   
   error" regarding the idea of rebirth in Buddhism.  What he   
   _didn't_ do show where anything I had argued was mistaken.  All   
   he had to offer was an unsupported accusation:  his   
   alternative to addressing my point that Buddhism includes among   
   other things a highly negative attitude toward worldly   
   existence, for example in the Four Noble Truths, which describe   
   life as suffering and teach against coming back, disproving   
   Jigme's dogmatic claim "Buddhism does not comment negatively on   
   life here."   
      
   >> What I did do was mention   
   >> Catawumpus in passing in discussing a position he identified himself   
   >> with.   
      
        No, Jigme identified me with a position that he was trying   
   to criticize.  He should have been correcting his idiotic   
   falsehood that Buddhism doesn't contain any negative commentary   
   on worldly life.   
      
   >> "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.   
      
        That is definitely an accusation:  Jigme claims that I had   
   a false understanding of Buddhism (a "category error," he   
   called it) with regard to rebirth.  But he completely failed to   
   address what I said, namely that Buddhism includes -- among   
   other things -- a very negative perspective on worldly   
   existence, contrary to his idea it "does not comment negatively   
   on life here."   
      
   >> 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."   
      
        Buddhist tradition says all sorts of things:  unsurprising   
   since it covers thousands of years and thousands of miles.   
   Unfortunately for Jigme it includes a very negative perspective   
   on life in this world:  exactly what he denied when he   
   dogmatically contended "Buddhism does not comment negatively on   
   life here."   
      
   >> 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.   
      
        So Jigme would like to say.  But all he's providing is his   
   say-so, and nothing he's said can possibly rescue his   
   ridiculous assertion that "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.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
        Lucky for Jigme it's unnecessary for his misunderstandings.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
        Jigme writes from the perspective of a person disturbed by   
   the life-denying, world-rejecting aspect of Buddhism   
   represented by the Four Noble Truths.  According to him there's   
   _no_ negative commentary on life in Buddhism.  Obvious   
   nonsense -- the Four Noble Truths are only one of items turning   
   his idea into pure idiocy -- but that's what he said.  The   
   honest thing would have been to correct himself, but he prefers   
   peddling typically self-infatuated assertions about going   
   "beyond the basic understanding" to conceding his basic mistake.   
      
   >> Catawumpus, I feel it is ironic that no one, including myself, appears   
   >> to have in fact disagreed with your position.   
      
        Jigme, you move back and forth between disagreeing with me   
   and running away from the crap you say.  Now you claim you   
   never argued, but that ain't hardly what you said before.  When   
   I pointed out Buddhism comments negatively about worldly   
   existence in items like the Four Noble Truths, you replied like   
   so:   
      
        "Cat, I beg to disagree. Buddhism does not comment   
        negatively on life here."   
      
   Message-ID:   
   a3122d76-c02e-4be7-8726-220396f05204@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com   
      
        Of course you were stupid as stupid can be, since Buddhism   
   is highly critical of worldly life, as I've demonstrated   
   repeatedly.  Your dogmatic assertion is clearly contradicted by   
   the Buddhist scriptures:  they describe existence as   
   suffering, they teach to escape rebirth, they compare the world   
   to a burning house, etc.   
      
        So what do you do?  Do you correct yourself?  Not a chance.   
   You're too in love with the notion that you're an "awakened   
   one" to concede you were wrong about such a basic principle, so   
   instead you pretend you never disagreed.  But that's just a   
   lie, exactly like the claim about Buddhism you now want to deny   
   making.   
      
   halfawake :   
      
   > Just to summarize in a concrete way: The reality of the 4 noble truths   
      
        The Four Noble Truths and related teachings run counter to   
   Jigme's assertion "Buddhism does not comment negatively on   
   life here" and his claim it doesn't make any critical judgments.   
   Truth is Buddhism often disparages worldly existence:  a   
   scandal to Jigme and other worldlings, but old news to everyone   
   else.   
      
   > The reality of the 4 noble truths was preached for the unenlightened.   
      
        According to the scriptures, the Buddha preached the truth   
   of _dukkha_ after his awakening.  Nothing in the   
   Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta suggests he was just kidding, Rob's   
   wishes notwithstanding.   
      
   > The enlightened have gone beyond suffering   
      
        Or so Rob says.  But the Sakalika Sutta insists the Buddha   
   had excruciating pain when his foot was pierced by a   
   rock-shard; he's praised for bearing up so well.  I know   
   better than to close read a translation -- still, he isn't said   
   to escape, suppress, or transcend the experience, only to   
   endure his feelings.  So in that account he suffers _after_ his   
   awakening.   
      
        Also notice he chooses death over rebirth (and over living   
   until the end of the aeon, his option as Tathagata), once   
   again rejecting life.  Asvaghosa's _Buddhacarita_ describes him   
   saying life is a sickness and death its cure:  part of his   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)