XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   Catawumpus wrote:   
      
   > 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,   
      
   never said that.  I said they were preached, correctly, to the   
   unenlightened, which is most of us, but still only relevant to those who   
   are still trapped in delusion.  This is part of the point I am leading   
   up to, but you can separate them out to try to knock down each component   
   separately without acknowledging the connection between them in my argument.   
      
      Rob's   
   > wishes notwithstanding.   
      
   Incorrrectly understood, because you're stupid.   
      
   >>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.   
      
   Suffering and pain are not synonymous in Buddhism.  Pain occurs to the   
   body, suffering to the sense of identity.   
      
      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   
   > final words before entering nirvana.  "When the light of wisdom   
   > has dispelled the darkness of ignorance, when all existence   
   > has been seen as without substance, peace ensues.  When life   
   > draws to an end, it seems at last to cure a long sickness.   
   > Everything whether stationary or movable, is bound to perish in   
   > the end."   
   >   
   >   
   >>and are free to inhabit form, abandon form, or re-inhabit form   
   >>freely.   
   >   
   >   
   >      One day Rob says that arahants are prohibited from killing   
   > themselves, but another day he's just as positive they're   
   > welcome to do what they please.  Evidently he argues whatever's   
   > convenient for him at any time.   
      
   Nope, I stood corrected on that point and have now said so several   
   times, but you'd rather shoot more blanks than take yes for an answer.   
   You're an annoying dimwit.   
      
   >   
   >      He's also very good at overlooking things that don't match   
   > his taste.  In this case he's forgetting that choosing to   
   > remain in samsara is considered a sacrifice made to benefit the   
   > beings in need of liberation:  another indication of the   
   > negative outlook on worldly existence in Buddhism.  Suzuki puts   
   > it like so:   
   >   
   >      It is the Tathagata's great love (mahakaruna) of all   
   >      beings, which never ceases until everyone of them is   
   >      happily led to the final asylum of Nirvana; for he   
   >      refuses as long as there is a single unsaved soul to   
   >      enjoy the bliss of Samadhi to which he is entitled by   
   >      his long spiritual discipline. The Tathagata is indeed   
   >      the one who, endowed with a heart of all-embracing love   
   >      and compassion, regards all beings as if they were his   
   >      only child. If he himself enters into Nirvana, no work   
   >      will be done in the world where discrimination   
   >      (vtkalpa) goes on and multitudinousness (vicitrata)   
   >      prevails. For this reason, he refuses to leave this   
   >      world of relativity, all his thoughts are directed   
   >      towards the ignorant and suffering masses of beings,   
   >      for whom he is willing to sacrifice his enjoyment of   
   >      absolute reality and self-absorption   
   >      (samadhi-sukhabhutakotya vinivarya).   
   >   
   >            D.T. Suzuki, from his intro to the Lankavatara Sutra   
   >   
   >   
   >>For those on the path, the Buddha both discourages attachment   
   >>to form, and encourages the joyful states available on the journey to   
   >>liberation.   
   >   
   >   
   >      Rob always skips the Buddha's explanation that the _jhanas_   
   > begin with a monk "quite withdrawn from sensuality" and   
   > "rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal."  Seems he's unable   
   > to talk about Buddhism without editing-out what he would   
   > prefer to not see -- i.e., everything at odds with his admitted   
   > clinging to life.   
      
   I have not denied Buddha's statement about withdrawal from sensuality   
   etc., but it is not relevant to my point.  There's no reason to include   
   everything the Buddha ever said.  My only point was that Buddha allowed   
   for joyful states within this life and this form, withdrawn from   
   sensuality or otherwise.  You won't acknowledge the point, just make up   
   a strawman of something I didn't include but also never denied.  Why are   
   you so stupid?   
      
   Robert   
      
   = = = = = = = =   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)