XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   Catawumpus wrote:   
      
   > Catawumpus :   
   >   
   >   
   >>>     According to the scriptures, the Buddha preached the truth   
   >>>of _dukkha_ after his awakening.  Nothing in the   
   >>>Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta suggests he was just kidding, Rob's   
   >>>wishes notwithstanding.   
   >   
   >   
   > halfawake :   
   >   
   >   
   >>I never said that.   
   >   
   >   
   >      I said that, you big dummy, and it's true:  the Four Noble   
   > Truths date, scripturally speaking, from after the Buddha's   
   > enlightenment, and nothing in the sutta suggests he was kidding   
   > when he described life as suffering and put the root of the   
   > problem in "the craving that leads to rebirth," a very critical   
   > view of worldly existence.   
      
   This is idiotic.  The above does not represent what I said.  I said his   
   AUDIENCE was not enlightened, not him, and I've said this repeatedly.  I   
   said his teaching was FOR the unenlightened, not FROM someone who was   
   unenlightened.  For shit's sake don't waste my time.   
      
   I said that his message to those who were highly advanced or enlightened   
   was different than his message to those who were in delusion.  At least   
   get my argument straight.   
      
   >>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.   
   >   
   >   
   >      You said the "Buddha's message was tailored to the   
   > understanding of those in his audience," but all you showed was   
   > a desire to tailor his message to your taste.  And you   
   > explained what kind of taste that is by admitting you're "still   
   > a clinger to the life-experience."   
   >   
   >   
   >>Suffering and pain are not synonymous in Buddhism.   
   >   
   >   
   >      I never claimed they were.  I argued that according to the   
   > Sakalika Sutta (or at least the Bhikkhu translation), the   
   > Buddha _endured_ severe pain.  Again, I don't want to place too   
   > much weight on a single word in the English, but the sutta   
   > doesn't say that he escaped or transcended his painful feelings.   
   > Instead it says he _endured_ them, directly implying he   
   > suffered, since otherwise there would have been nothing for him   
   > to be enduring.  So in that account he suffers after his   
   > awakening, contradicting your notion "the enlightened have gone   
   > beyond suffering."   
   >   
   >   
   >>I have not denied Buddha's statement about withdrawal from sensuality   
   >   
   >   
   >      And therefore I haven't denied that you haven't denied the   
   > Buddha's statement about withrdrawal from sensuality.  With   
   > that little diversion out of the way, let's return to the topic.   
   >   
   >      You like to offer the jhanas as proof of "pleasant abiding   
   > in the here and now."  But every time you do, you somehow   
   > neglect to mention that in the sutta you're quoting, the Buddha   
   > is discussing a monk "quite withdrawn from sensuality" and   
   > "rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal."  The very opposite   
   > of your life-clinging attitude.   
      
   What does that have to do with my point?   
   Nothing!   
      
   >   
   >      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 have 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 are defined as a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" by Buddha,   
   not by me. ALL of them. Your idea that "here-and-now" becomes   
   meaningless in the higher jhanas is your own, not Buddha's.  In any   
   case, the point is that the Buddha extoled the virtues and positive   
   attributes of higher spiritual states while still in form, and did not   
   see leaving form permanently as the only positive solution to suffering.   
      
   Deal with the point if you don't mind, and stop quibbling over minor   
   bullshit.   
      
   Robert   
      
   = = = = = = =   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)