XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   Catawumpus wrote:   
      
   > halfawake :   
   >   
   >   
   >>You're brain-dead.   
   >   
   >   
   >      I'm pointing out you made a string of brain-dead responses   
   > when I answered your question about "liberation from   
   > delusion."  You somehow imagined I was playing Theravada versus   
   > Mayahana, you pretended I was explaining the Mahayana   
   > philosophy, and you invented a claim I've never made concerning   
   > "Mahayana as a whole," apparently so you could have the   
   > satisfaction of calling it wrong.  You never got anywhere close   
   > to what I actually said, namely that talk about mountains   
   > remaining mountains is comical if they're "like the city of the   
   > Gandharvas, a dream, and Maya."   
   >   
   > -- Catawumpus   
      
   I tried to explain a context in which that statement would make sense,   
   and distinguish where it would make sense and how, and in what context   
   it might not.  It's part of a zen sequence that I've thought about for   
   quite a while, and is not a stand-alone statement at all.  The sequence   
   does not describe a reality in which mountains are either mountains or   
   are not mountains. It is not an attempt to state an objective reality   
   about the status of physical reality.  It is a sequence that describes   
   the experience of one's relationship to reality before, during and after   
   experiencing awakening.  You take one part of that sequence out of   
   context and compare it with a statement from another part of Mahayana.   
   That is like the kind of fake journalism that snips part of a comment of   
   a politician and presents it out of context as a false statement.  Your   
   techniques for proving a point are underhanded and untruthful.   
      
   One could have a fruitful discussion about what this sequence signifies   
   and what it is about in the context in which it is presented, but you   
   have no interest in that.  You want to score a point that has nothing to   
   do with it, to prove a point that has no relevance to anything important.   
      
   I was not trying to make a "claim" about what you were saying in this   
   post you keep quoting and mischaracterizing.  I said that I thought you   
   had mistaken the question and gave you an idea of what I thought you   
   were replying to. I asked you to clarify if that was the case. Instead   
   you attacked for supposedly falsifying your statement.  More underhanded   
   stupidity that does not make any attempt to talk about the content of   
   the conversation. The shame of it is that you would probably be capable   
   of having a fruitful conversation about these topics, but you are only   
   interested in finding or creating holes in other peoples' statements so   
   that you can attack them.  What a waste.  And what a pernicious schmuck   
   you are.   
      
   Robert   
      
   = = = = = = =   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)