XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen
XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com
Catawumpus wrote:
> halfawake :
>
>
>>Not true.
>
>
> Very true. The Four Noble Truths begin by describing life
> as suffering and go on to teach against "the craving that
> leads to rebirth," disproving Jigme's brain-dead claim Buddhism
> "does not comment negatively on life here." Other examples
> include the comparison of the world with a burning house in the
> Lotus Sutra and Gotama's remark, "I spit on my life," or "Shame
> on life here in this world!" in the Padhana Sutta. Jigme
> couldn't have been more wrong, though you might be able to give
> him some competition.
>
>
>>The 4 NT advise against the craving that leads to rebirth.
>>Once the craving and delusion it is based on are gone, one is free to
>>show up as a Bodhisattva or not. Buddha would not advise against an
>>enlightened one undergoing rebirth. They have freedom to come and go as
>>they please.
>
>
> 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.
An arahant is also free to come back to form via rebirth without any
negative connotation as well. Do you acknowledge this? It's not just
that he can kill himself, he is also free not to enjoy cessation, even
though the Buddha is "negative" towards life. So an arahant is free,
period.
In case you haven't gotten the repeated update, I have acknowledged
several times that yes, an arahant can kill himself, but usually does not.
>
>
>>He also talks about the joy of seclusion, the pleasure of meditation and
>>the jhanas as a "pleasant abiding in the here and now."
>
>
> Interesting what you skipped. The same sutta in which the
> Buddha calls _jhana_ "pleasant abiding" describes him
> explaining that the _jhanas_ begin with a monk "quite withdrawn
> from sensuality" and with "rapture and pleasure born from
> withdrawal." Third time that you've managed to ignore the same
> detail.
So what? My point is that there are positive experiences within
existence as long as one is on the path, according to Buddha. If they
are dependent on withdrawing from sensuality in some cases, that is
fine. It still means that Buddha's view of form and existence is not
wholly negative, and is mainly negative when viewed in context of
delusion and clinging.
>
>
>>You can choose
>>nihilism as you do, or you can choose the middle path as Buddha did,
>
>
> You're confused. The "middle way" stands between extremes
> of sensuality and asceticism:
>
> There are these two extremes that are not to be
> indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That
> which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to
> sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble,
> unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
> painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these
> extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata.
Yes, one does not try to obliterate form, any more than one wants to be
attached to form. The middle way stands between attachment to life and
aversion to life, both of which are impediments to liberation. It is in
the middle.
Robert
= = = = = =
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
