XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   glitch wrote:   
      
   > On 09/07/2010 12:24 PM, halfawake wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)