XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   Catawumpus wrote:   
      
   > 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   
      
   You can't intelligently address my points without quoting them more   
   fully.  I can't even see what you're responding to in many cases.  Why   
   don't you do a better job of snipping if you actually want to discuss   
   this.   
      
   Robert   
      
   = = = = = =   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)