XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen
XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm
halfawake :
> 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.
One day you claim that arahants are prohibited from killing
themselves, but the next you're just as positive they're
welcome to do what they please. Evidently you argue whatever's
convenient for you.
You're also very good at overlooking things that you would
prefer to not see. This time you forgot 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 ofmrelativity, 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
> So what?
So you shape and fold Buddhism to match your householder's
taste. Another example: every time you mention the jhanas
you describe them as "pleasant abiding in the here and now," in
keeping with a worldling's esteem for what-is. But it so
happens that in the sutta you've quoted the Buddha is referring
to a monk "quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures" who
experiences "rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal," a detail
always missing from your version.
More: the Buddha is in the middle of teaching against the
"five strings of sensuality," i.e., things pleasing and
agreeable to the five senses, which tie people up and make them
into Mara's prey. Conversely, monks who've abandoned
sensuality can become "invisible to the Evil One" and enter the
first jhana: already one step away from the world. From
there the Buddha goes on to talk about the "complete
transcending of perceptions of form" and "complete transcending
of the dimension of the infinitude of space," destroying
Mara's vision and making here-and-now into a meaningless notion.
> The middle way stands between attachment to life and
> aversion to life, both of which are impediments to liberation. It is in
> the middle.
Your falsehoods don't improve with repetition. Again, the
Buddha explains that the middle way is located between two
practices: one is "devoted to sensual pleasure," the other one
is "devoted to self-affliction." (Quoting from the
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.) So no, the middle way _isn't_ in
between attachment and aversion to life. The Buddha is
splitting the difference between sensuality and asceticism. In
context he describes life as suffering and rejects "the
craving that leads to rebirth" -- unquestionably a life-denying
philosophy -- while teaching that a path leading between
self-indulgence and self-denial (viz. the Eightfold Way) is the
road out of Dodge.
-- Catawumpus
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
