Customer Discussions > Buddhism forum

A set of what should be very simple questions


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 33 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 19, 2009 7:50:53 AM PDT
J. Cane says:
Here is a set of questions that I would be very interested in seeing the person posting as Denise Anderson (or anyone else) take up, instead of simply repeatedly cutting and pasting (with nauseating formatting) "essays" that he/she has already written.

He/she claims that every extant school of Buddhism has failed to grasp the truth of the Buddha's adherence to Vedanta that he/she sees. Why is this?

How does he/she account for what he/she claims is a tremendous and rapid metamorphosis of Buddhism from a school of Vedic commentary that embraces the Atman to an entirely distinct and varied set of religious schools, none of which hold the Vedic view of the Atman?

Surely such a fundamental and rapid metamorphosis -- if it truly happened -- would have produced piles of commentary as adherents of Buddhism hashed out the transition, and surely debate on such a fundamental issue would have produced a commentarial literature at least as voluminous as, for example, the debate over much more nuanced perspectives between the two Madhyamika schools.

What are its primary texts?

Who were its major protagonists?

What were the arguments?

Why has he/she not mentioned any of this debate at all?

Why did those who rejected the Vedic view of the Atman win a victory so totally complete that every extant school of Buddhism for the last 2000 years has rejected the Vedic view of the Atman (including adherents of shentong and yogacara)?

Why did it take adherents of the British colonial project in South Asia (e.g., Grimm) to somehow uncover the truth of Buddhism?

Why have all established scholars over the past five decades considered the translations and interpretations of people like Grimm to be so erroneous as to once again submerge the notion that Buddhism = Vedantism into an oblivion so great that it is not even a subject of scholarly debate? In other words, why have the supporters of the notion that the Buddha held to the Vedantic view of Atman yet again suffered a defeat so resounding that they have faded into mere historical footnotes?

Posted on Jun 19, 2009 7:54:40 AM PDT
J. Cane says:
Note: I used not a single insult here, and I expect that the thread be devoid of insults. Also, anyone who wishes to answer the questions should -- for the purpose of clarity -- answer them one by one, as simply and directly as possible. If you are reading this and that is impossible for you to do, I would recommend not replying to this post.

Posted on Jun 21, 2009 5:20:57 PM PDT
J. Cane says:
It strikes me as a bit odd that the person posting as Denise Anderson has once again posted (copied and pasted) assertions regarding the Buddhist view of the Atman that he/she had *already* posted.

Why not answer questions here? It seems to me that, rather than repasting stuff that he/she has posted a dozen times here, it would be much more fruitful to address some of these questions so that he/she can demonstrate the correctness of his/her position in a way that we haven't seen before and which doesn't depend on the same old quotes and assertions.

Posted on Jun 21, 2009 6:21:05 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:20:14 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 21, 2009 10:33:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2009 10:38:42 PM PDT
J. Cane says:
Shockingly, despite the many words here, you manage to not answer the questions. Just to pick out a single example, what does it matter -- in the context of these questions -- that the Buddha did not call his teachings "Buddhism"? The current year is 2009, and the English word "Buddhism" has a long, well-established usage. Why you insist on things like this really is an indication of the fact that you simply have a few little tropes that you bring up again and again, regardless of the degree to which they actually have relevance to the matter at hand. I understand that your purpose is to deny that "earliest Buddhism" was anything but a Vedic commentarial school, but -- regardless of the dubious merit of this claim -- the modern English word "Buddhist" has a meaning regardless of your feelings on the matter.

The same goes to your "answer" to the question regarding the principle texts of any such long-running, contentious debate. Simply stating "the Nikayas are the oldest..." is not only incredibly tedious given the number of times that you have posted that exact sentence elsewhere, but it does nothing to answer the question. You have simply repeated one of your stock answers rather than answering the question, an indication that you are simply side-stepping the issue.

And, of course, your insistence that the Buddha did not teach nihilism is itself arguing a strawman position. Frankly, I could care less what Nietzche thought Buddhism is, and his thoughts do nothing to aid my practice. Your insistence that contemporary schools of Buddhism are nihilistic because they don't accept the Vedic conception of the Atman does nothing but show that you understand them about as well as Nietzche did. Of course, there is no shame in that; but why you insist that you know things that you clearly don't is frankly beyond me.

Regarding the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, why you seem to think that this is somehow ignored in contemporary Mahayana schools (as you claimed in another thread and suggest again here) is unclear. There is an extensive commentary literature in the Indo-Tibetan schools regarding all the Third Turning texts, and in them even those who embrace the shentong position do so from a standpoint within Madhyamika (e.g., the Jonangpa).

Incidentally, which are the contemporary Buddhist schools that you claim hold to the Vedic notion of the Atman?

Furthermore, regarding
>> "Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real" [Br. Sutra III.2.22] <<
Beyond the awkwardness of the translation (is it a question or a statement?), this does not posit that the "something real" that is the referent must exist in an absolute sense. If you find that hard to understand, then I can only assume that when I say "There are no pink unicorns in my backyard" you somehow think that my denial of pink unicorns in my backyard is an affirmation of their existence elsewhere. In fact, this is the same as when you repeatedly argue that the Buddha's negation of the aggregates as possessing a truly existing essence is actually an affirmation of an essence elsewhere is simply odd. I have brought this up repeatedly before and, since you still haven't managed to address this, I assume that you choose to ignore it because it undermines your position.

As I imagine you know, the Kathavatthu makes at least as much sense as a didactic text as it does a polemical one; its inclusion in the Abhidhamma Pitaka further suggests the former.

Regarding your citations of the Sutras, I can only say that I have zero confidence in your translations. When I find your translations in approximately in accord with those of others, you manage to give them an interpretation that is creative in the extreme, and that contradicts more consistent and reasonable interpretations. More often than not, however, I find that your translations simply stand in such stark contrast to those of everyone else that they are often impossible for me to recognize as the same (e.g., Itivuttaka 83). Interestingly, it is only in your translations and those of your fellow travelers that I have seen any *affirmation* of the Vedic view of the Atman in any Sutra. That is striking indeed.

If you would like me to elaborate further on why I think that your translations merit great skepticism, I'll be happy to do so in another thread.

In short, given the radical nature of your claims, you really should have far more convincing answers to the questions than what you have given here (and this is being generous, considering that some of your "answers" simply don't correspond to any question I asked). All that you have really done is convince me that there are systems of Vedanta influenced by Buddhism. But this is hardly a revelation, and hardly merits repeating ad nauseam as you have done in this forum.

Finally, regardless of how many times you insist that I am your "son", I remain unconvinced. I imagine that any decent psychoanalyst could help you work through that.

Posted on Jun 22, 2009 7:48:21 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:20:14 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 22, 2009 7:57:46 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:20:14 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 22, 2009 10:09:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2009 10:21:40 AM PDT
J. Cane says:
So, I see that you are unable to answer any of the points that I made in my previous post. This is really not surprising to me, and is precisely what I expected. I also expected you to insult and lie, and you came through on both counts. You certainly are predictable.

The person posting as Denise Anderson writes:
>> How non-ironic that you , in your logomacy diatribe above, provided no evidences NOR even personal logic in affirming a no-soul position in buddhism. <<

All that you have done here is prove that you really are incapable of reading English and more than capable of making things up. Where in this thread did I "affirm a no-soul position in buddhism"? Where here have I affirmed a "no-soul position" that you attribute to me and that you strangely insist I am desperately trying to defend?

You have done this before -- that is, simply invent statements that I haven't made and then attribute them to me. That is what people on the losing side of arguments do when they are unable to accept the fact that others remain unconvinced of their position. When in doubt, just make things up.

So, as far as I am concerned, this is further evidence of your inability to carry on a civilized exchange. First, you insist on using childish insults that do nothing but reveal an extremely fragile ego and unambiguous self-obsession. Second, failing to answer questions that were actually asked, you instead simply invent a position that you would like to argue against and then attribute it to me.

Why on Earth would I want to continue an exchange with someone who
a. has so little self control that he/she can't write more than two consecutive posts without throwing in some personal insult;
b. has a constant need for self-congratulation;
c. who fabricates statements and positions that he/she falsely attributes to me (i.e., who lies);
d. who is an unrepentant racist of the crudest sort who insists on calling me "boy"?

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously? All that you have done is confirm that nobody should. Oh, and please take your racism to the appropriate white-power forum of your choosing; it really has no place here.

Posted on Jun 22, 2009 3:54:40 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:20:14 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 22, 2009 4:16:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2009 4:24:12 PM PDT
J. Cane says:
The person posting as Denise Anderson writes:
>> cane says..........."youre a fool, everyone hates you............but despite all this, I have utterly NO capacity to prove there is a denial of the atman in doctrine" <<

Just how old are you anyway? 8? 12? 15?

Why do you insist on lying and insulting? I wrote absolutely nothing that you quote me as saying. Is this the kind of thing that gets your work rejected by real publishers and obliges you to publish via vanity press?

As far as "saying" anything: I was simply asking you to give some kind of evidence for your claims, and I thought that I would do it in a way that would allow you to avoid simply cutting and pasting and avoid simply littering your posts with childish insults. I had no intention of proving "there is a denial of the atman in doctrine." Just where exactly did I write anything of the sort, or are you once again simply making things up? Obviously the latter, as anyone capable of reading English can attest.

Clearly you are incapable of understanding what someone else writes, responding to it with logic, and restraining your racist tendencies and your silly little insults. I never wrote that anyone "hates" you; I did write that nobody takes you seriously. The fact that you can't see the difference, and instead lie and claim that I wrote that "everyone hates you" is PRECISELY the reason that nobody takes you seriously. You can't answer the questions, so you simply make things up and throw a fit. Clearly you can't have a conversation with insulting and lying. Grow up.

As far as I am concerned, this thread has served its purpose. I gave you the opportunity to have some kind of civilized dialogue, but apparently you "aryan" types are just not up to the task. Not really surprising at the end of the day...

Posted on Jun 22, 2009 4:28:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:19:14 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2009 5:17:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2009 5:25:11 PM PDT
J. Cane says:
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I'm supposed to let you lie and make claims on my behalf so that you can simply rehash your same old arguments. I apologize. You certainly have every right to *lie* any time that you feel unable to address the issue at hand, and if anyone should point out that you are simply lying, it is somehow "off topic." My oh my. That certainly is a mammoth ego that you have there.

Notice that simply making things up does nothing to advance anything other than your ego, which is obviously as fragile as it is large.

I'm not sure how you think my showing that your answers were inadequate is "off topic". Perhaps you think that it is "off topic" for me to point out that you *lied* several times so far in the thread, something that certainly does nothing to advance the discussion.

So what has everyone learned?
1. The person posting as Denise Anderson can't adequately answer the questions in the first post. There is no shame in this other than the shame that comes from claiming to know things that he/she obviously does not;
2. Failing to answer the questions, the person posting as Denise Anderson decided to simply fabricate a claim on my behalf, and deliver it as a direct quote, and pepper his/her post with insults that would make Freud jump up and down and a Klansman crack another Coors. Apparently he/she finds it much easier to argue against the lies that he/she invents than he/she finds answering these simple questions.
3. When the lie is pointed out, the person posting as Denise Anderson degenerates his comments even further, making still more fabricated claims that he/she attributes to me but that anyone can see I never wrote. When you can't answer a question, its best to insult and BS, no?
4. Claim -- once again -- that *I* am off topic for pointing out that I didn't write the things that he/she claims that I wrote.

So we are back to the cycle:
- make silly claims
- hurl insults at anyone who dare question them
- make things up
- throw a fit and stamp your feet when someone points out that he/she made things up
- "off topic!" "off topic!" "off topic!" "off topic!" "off topic!" "off topic!" "off topic!"

The person posting as Denise Anderson writes
>> When you have evidences to foward regarding the Atman, or negation of same, let me know, boy. <<

Well, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Aryan Klansman, if you had any understanding of the English language you would see that I am simply *trying* to give you the opportunity to convince me of *your* argument. I am not promoting a position of my own. It really is quite shocking that you can't grasp this, and this, together with your racist comments, your insults, you blatant lies, and your inability to manage simple sentences in the English language is precisely why nobody takes you seriously.

Given your refusal to address the topic of the thread and your inability to adequately answer the questions of the original post, I consider the point of this thread made.

What a silly little man, or woman, or kid, or whatever you are.

Posted on Jun 22, 2009 8:30:42 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:19:15 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2009 9:23:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 22, 2009 9:24:22 PM PDT
J. Cane says:
In other words, you can't answer the questions and are reduced to lying, attempts at distraction, and racist insults. That certainly does confirm quite a bit about the lack of validity of your claims. Thanks for making that perfectly clear.

Posted on Jun 23, 2009 7:27:26 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:20:14 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2009 10:02:04 AM PDT
J. Cane says:
The person posting as Denise Anderson writes:
>> I can answer ANY and ALL questions regarding buddhism and its doctrine son <<

Well, then why do you refuse to do so? In your response to my post of Jun 21, 2009 10:33 PM PDT in this thread, all you did was 1. make childish insults, and 2. lie about what I had written. When I asked you to show where I had written what you claim, you once again responded with more childish insults and more lies.

I'm not sure how posting questions and then critiquing your response makes me a "sophist", though your reaction does make it clear that you have absolutely no idea how to carry on a half-way civilized discussion, despite your self-proclaimed racial superiority.

I posted some perfectly legitimate questions. You wrote in response, but did not answer them. I pointed this out and asked some follow-up questions. Until that point, fine. But no, Denise Anderson doesn't like anyone actually challenging her and making her use her brain rather than simply cutting and pasting from some website. So, then you decided to lie and insult repeatedly.

Given that, I find it laughable that you claim that you "can answer ANY and ALL questions regarding buddhism and its doctrine". Anyone can simply read through this thread and see how completely ridiculous that claim is.

So, again, as far as I am concerned, this thread has run its course. I asked some questions that you either didn't answer or weren't able to answer in any sort of convincing manner. Unless you decide to actually return to the topic and write posts that address the questions at hand rather than engaging in lies and insults, I suggest that you move on to something else. Frankly, all that you are doing right now is making even more of a fool of yourself than usual.

Posted on Jun 23, 2009 11:11:33 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:21:14 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2009 11:30:37 AM PDT
J. Cane says:
The person posting as Denise Anderson writes:
>> None of the above posted logomachy is dirrectly or even indirrectly relavent to discussing buddhism...none of it....period <<

Well, then why did you take the discussion off topic? You managed fine for one single post (that of Jun 21, 2009 6:21 PM PDT), though you didn't really respond to my questions. After that, you went down in flames.

My, Denise, this certainly is getting embarrassing for you. Anyone can read the questions, your "answers" and my response. This thread started on the topic of Buddhism without any doubt, but, like virtually every thread in which you participate, you insisted on making it about *you* by going off topic to lie and insult. This is entirely predictable.

You really are just digging yourself in deeper on this. But hey, I figured that you would end up being an "eel-wriggler" with regard to the topic of this thread, and all you have done is keep wriggling.

Let me just repeat what I wrote before, as clearly you weren't able to read it: Unless you decide to actually return to the topic and write posts that address the questions at hand rather than engaging in lies and insults, I suggest that you move on to something else. Frankly, all that you are doing right now is making even more of a fool of yourself than usual.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2009 11:33:48 AM PDT
J. Cane says:
The person posting as Denise Anderson writes:
>> You, my little son, have utterly NOTHING to contribute to a discussion upon buddhism. <<

Translation: "I can't give adequate answers to your questions, so I'm just going to change the topic to ME, ME, ME, just as I always do."

Keep going, Denise, the laughs are nonstop.

Posted on Jun 23, 2009 11:42:22 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:21:14 AM PDT]

Posted on Jun 23, 2009 11:53:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2009 11:55:41 AM PDT
J. Cane says:
The person posting as Denise Anderson writes:
>> I fear you might suffer a mental defect in that you have claimed ----"so I'm just going to change the topic to ME, ME, ME" <<

Well, I fear that you suffer a mental defect in that you are unable to understand English, which you claim is your first language. Amazing. What you quote is me translating *your statements* into plain English. Sheeeesh. You are nothing if not completely humorless and oblivious to reality.

This thread *was* about Buddhism until *you* decided to make it about *you* by lying and insulting. You do this all the time. All that you have done here is prove definitively that all you can do is post things from websites, and that you are unable to actually engage in civilized discussion about Buddhism.

Why don't you just start another thread with something that you copy and paste from someplace?

Edit: Oh, I see that you already have started another thread with stuff that you copied and pasted from a website. My, that was predictable. I'm sure I can guess the topic, too!

Posted on Jun 23, 2009 2:56:49 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:19:14 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2009 5:50:22 PM PDT
J. Cane says:
Alright, let me get this straight. On the one hand you claim repeatedly that contemporary Buddhism is a complete distortion of "earliest" Buddhism because it doesn't accept the Vedic view of the Atman; on the other, you claim that there are tons, "100s of buddhist websites" with what you consider the correct view. Which is it?

Previously you claimed "the absurdity of the "no soul" non-doctrinal position of modern 'buddhism'" and "Modern buddhism dwells in the delusion that anatman is a negation..." and "all of modern Buddhism falls to dust" and "Leave "buddhism", the religion is dead,...its followers nihilistic demons" and "Why is modern "Buddhism" so damned evil?" and "Buddhism, sadly like nearly all religions, is wholly devoid of its formerly original content" and "Buddhism is and has become a magnet for the mentally depressed and moralistic neophytes" (just to cite a few examples). All of that is pretty unequivocal and all of those are direct and accurate quotes.

Now you claim that this is not the case, but instead that there is some kind of lively debate going on within Buddhism, one side of which you feel is in the right.

Which is it?

Or is this like "monk", where you self-righteously berate JimBeau and claim "there is no mention of "monk" in doctrine" only to have JimBeau point out that you translated "bhikkhu" as "monk" in your own (vanity--press published) version of the Dhammapada? Or is this like the term "buddhism", which you regularly use in your posts (such as the one above), but you throw a little fit if someone else uses it (as you do in that very same post above)?

Apparently this yet another case of a blatant self-contradiction on your part that nobody is allowed to point out without you stamping your feet, frothing at the mouth, hurling racist slurs and generally throwing a fit.

So, which is it? Is contemporary Buddhism hopelessly lost, nothing but "an extremely sick religion inhabited by atheists, agnostics, and at best pantheists. [Whose adherents] congregate together at `dharma-centers', which are little more than outpatient mental wards for depressed materialists, and engage in idle chatter about attainment of oblivion and the denial of all things spiritual"? Or instead is the (cough) "true" and "original buddhism" alive and well, as you claim here?

Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

With regard to the lack of a Pali term for "buddhism": I answered you on this more than once already. If you can't manage to wrap your head around the fact that this is 2009 and we are writing in English (or, in your case, an approximation thereof), then there really isn't much I can do about it. Interestingly, you use the term "buddhism" or "buddhist" three times in the above post; four if we count the time that you use it to say that the term doesn't exist and that it shouldn't be used. Truly bizarre, but I've seen this before from you, so no surprise.

Put this with your previous post and it is obvious that you really, really project your own failings onto others. You could keep a Freudian psychoanalyst busy for decades -- and perhaps you do.

You just keep digging deeper and deeper. It must be all that shoveling you are doing.

Posted on Jun 23, 2009 6:02:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 12, 2009 8:19:14 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2009 6:16:49 PM PDT
J. Cane says:
This does nothing to answer the questions of this thread. Clearly you are unable to answer them and instead are just doing the old cut-and-paste thing now.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Thank you for your support of Amazon Discussion Forums. Due to the changing needs of Amazon Forums, we have decided to stop supporting the ‘Active discussions in related forums’ feature in order to focus on providing the most value for our customers.  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Buddhism forum
Participants:  2
Total posts:  33
Initial post:  Jun 19, 2009
Latest post:  Jun 24, 2009

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions