XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   halfawake :   
      
   [mountains = mountains]   
      
   > 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   
      
        Untrue.  Your talk about mountains remaining mountains was   
   just what you deny.  Dunno how you forgot, but you divided   
   objects which "remain as they are" from what you referred to as   
   "the mental and perceptual state," contending the mind   
   becomes clarified ("clear and empty") while the landscape stays   
   the same.   
      
   message-ID: i4fv65$m57$1@news.eternal-september.org   
      
   > 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.   
      
        In context you were responding to Oxtail's question, "Does   
   something change in awakening?"  You said the mind ("the   
   mental and perceptual state") becomes empty in distinction from   
   the mountains, which "remain as they are."  When Oxtail   
   wondered how that worked, you explained that it was like wiping   
   a camera lens.   
      
        So yes, that was a "stand-alone statement," your answer to   
   questions about what changes in awakening and how the   
   mechanism works, and it divided objective from subjective:  you   
   put the perceiving mind _here_, placed the unchanging   
   mountains over _there_, and defined awakening as a clearer view   
   of the unaltered landscape.   
      
        Needless to say, your chattering about mountains remaining   
   mountains contrasts with the perspective comparing them to   
   "the city of the Gandharvas, a dream, and Maya" or calling them   
   a mirage.  When looked at in that way, the world is an   
   illusion to be dispelled, the mind's unfortunate self-deception.   
      
   > 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.   
      
        More empty attacks, nothing like substantiation.  The same   
   as Jigme:  you talk crap, then complain that you've been   
   horribly misrepresented.  You did precisely what I've described:   
   you told me that I was confused ("I think you confused two   
   topics I brought up"), you 'corrected' my supposed confusion by   
   explaining "the Buddha's path to liberation from delusion   
   exists in Theravada as well as Mahayana" -- I hadn't argued any   
   differently -- and you said my understanding of Mahayana was   
   "superficial, "not quite accurate," and "not necessarily   
   representative of Mahayana as a whole."  All of which was total   
   bull, since I never made any of the assertions that you   
   attributed to me:  I didn't offer an interpretation of Mahayana   
   so I couldn't possibly have given a superficial or an   
   inaccurate one.  I didn't comment on Mahayana vs. Theravada, so   
   I couldn't have mischaracterized their relationship.  And I   
   didn't offer any remarks about "Mahayana as a whole."  You made   
   all that up.   
      
   message-ID: i69dld$b4p$1@news.eternal-september.org   
      
        Rather than apologizing and taking back what you said, you   
   pretend you didn't make any claims about what I argued --   
   another of your obvious falsehoods, since you devoted an entire   
   post to criticizing the statements you misassigned to me.   
   You're all bullshit all the time:  when you're not busy dodging   
   Buddhist scripture or history you keep yourself busy by   
   telling lies about what I've written in reply.  Peculiar choice   
   of hobby.   
      
   > 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.   
      
        There you go again.  No, you didn't ask for a   
   clarification:  you _assigned_ me an inaccurate and superficial   
   perspective I'd never taken, and you gave yourself the   
   pleasure of correcting the mistakes you had generously invented.   
      
   > Instead   
   > you attacked for supposedly falsifying your statement.  More underhand   
   > ed stupidity that does not make any attempt to talk about the content of   
      
        Underhanded stupidity perfectly describes you:  you try to   
   shave Buddhism down to the size of your own hot-tub   
   philosophy, then put on a show of wounded innocence when I note   
   what you've done.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)