XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   Catawumpus wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I wasn't going into detail - I was describing the definition of the   
   jhanas as given by the Buddha: "A pleasant abiding in the here and now."   
     That's Buddha's overall summary of those states, not mine.   
      
   Tell me, why is it that when I concede a point to you and try to move on   
   from there, or clarify a point and explain why I said something, you go   
   back to holding me to the original statement as if I never made the   
   concession or clarification?  Apparently you enjoy arguing against your   
   version of me more than the updated actual version.   
      
   This is Robert 2.0 dude.  Update!   
      
   >      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.   
      
   sensual pleasure does represent attachment to existence, and   
   self-affliction does represent an aversion to existence.  If you can't   
   make that extrapolation you're dummer than you pretend.   
      
      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.   
      
   The latter part of this statement describing the road out of Dodge as   
   between "self-indulgence and self-denial" is almost precisely what I   
   said the middle way was, "between attachment and aversion to existence."   
     Do you like it better when you say it?   
      
   Robert   
      
   = = = = = = = =   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)