XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: Julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   On 08/09/2010 06:02, halfawake wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   It's a function of his choice of interlocutor.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)