Hmmmmm... Considering the virulence from you on my person and my critique of Buddhism that is a paradox. Perhaps you are an attorney in the employ of some pan-Buddhist Anti-defamation league? Or some PR practitioner having Buddhist groups for a client?
What an absolutely ... bizarre message.
It occurs to me, Yrreg, that you may actually believe yourself some sort of great champion of truth. You may believe that the light ou're shining on Buddhism is so bright and clrear that all non-Buddhists suddenly see your point and the only people who argue with you are Buddhists suddenly upset to be exposed to the bright glare of your criticism.
I assure you this is not the case. There is no paradox in my virulence. I, like many, many people who have read your posts, dislike you for you. I dislike the absolute absense of logic that your thinking employs. I find repulsive your pedantic tone which serves to deter rather than foster debate. And, of course, I find your obsession with a fairly benign religion to be a clear sign of mental illness.
One does not need to be a Buddhist or in the employ of Buddhists to find you repugnant. It is, in fact, a natural condition.
Also, what type of attorney argues on message boards for a living? Even if I was employed by the great Buddhist conspiracy, I certainly wouldn't take up their cause in my free time.
Hmmmmmm... That is a pro bono gesture from yours truly. Tell me, you are not a descendant of Abraham? You find my use of DA in this thread, my own coined phrase, for Descendant of Abraham, to be offensive to you?
Yes, I do. I don't find it offensive as a Jew. I find it offensive as a sentient being. There already is a word to describe the condition of being Jewish: "Jewish." When you invent a new word, you are saying to anyone reading that you care so little about the opinions of others that you won't even use their words. You're saying that your own thoughts are so much more important than anyone else's that you are free to just make up your own words and the rest of the human race can either keep up or get out of your way.
This is one more reason for the intense dislike I feel towards you.
Hmmmmm Why then did you have to bring up from the text of the Buddhist psychotherapist a point he did not make among several points according to you he did make?
Excellent question. The reason I highlighted what the author did NOT say along with what he did is that you have been misreading the article. You have been stating that certain points were made in the article when they were not. The reason I clarified what the article did NOT say is to point out to others that you are not interpreting it correctly and that they should discount what you say about it.
For example, you said after reading part of the article:
I am right to make a distinction between what I call modern psychological counseling and Buddhist psychological counseling.
The article makes no such distinction. It does not mention "Buddhist psychological counseling" at all.
In this first paragraph of the article, the author is telling us that many Buddhist converts do not take the task of examining themselves for their emotional difficulties.
I don't believe the author drew a distinction between Buddhist converts and natural born Buddhists. In any case, you have misrepresented the article if your point is that Buddhists do not examine their emotions while other religious adherants do. There is nothing special about Buddhism to be pointed out in this article.
So, the author for being a Buddhist himself is frank to admit that his fellow Western Buddhists did not find solution to their problems of mind and emotions, notwithstanding that many proffer the testimony that they have achieved peace and oneness with the universe (whatever) by turning to Buddhism.
You have confused two groups. The fact that many Buddhists say they have achieved peace is irrelevant to the fact that the author found some Buddhists who were not at peace. These may be two separate groups. The author's group may be the vast minority of Buddhists (even if it's the vast majority of Buddhists the author met). Taking a quick survey, I find that everyone I ask has the same last name. Am I correct in assuming all humans have the same last name? Perhaps. Or, perhaps when I took my survey I never left the house.
these subjects felt the need to seek the service of a psychotherapist to sort out their problems of mind and emotions; but then what was the purpose of taking up Buddhism or continuing in Buddhism if they had to first put their psychic house in order before Buddhism could mean anything to them?
Here you drastically mischaracterize the essay. The author makes clear that these emotional problems are common to people of all religions. It is no more an argument against converting to Buddhism than it is an argument against converting to Christianity. The author's point is that religion - any religion - is irrelevant to the psychological problems people face.
Yet ironically these Western converts to Buddhism felt the crucial need to first undergo treatment by a psychotherapist before they could derive the advantage of Buddhist liberation from desire and from thence suffering. Why indeed bother if you have to see a psychotherapist first. If you would be thrifty with time, money, and trouble, just employ Occam's razor and stop with the psychotherapist, no need to take up Buddhism or continue with Buddhism.
Your argument makes no sense. The fact that people of all religions have common psychological problems that they must deal with before they can open themselves to religion is not an argument that has anything at all to do with Buddhism. It is possible that once a person is psychologically healthy, Buddhism allows him to advance spiritually far, far better than any other religion. It is possible all religions are the same. The author does not say and your point does not logically follow from what the author has said.
None of your points, so far, have had any logical relation to the essay you claim to be interpreting.
Hmmmmmm...You told me that you are a practicing attorney in New York, is that how you go about with a document, telling the jury what the document does not say when no one is asking what it does not say?
Absolutely. I would think that I and all good litigators spend half our time arguing to judges and juries about what the evidence does not show. We do not argue in a vaccuum - there is another side attempting to convince the jury that the evidence leads to their conclusion. It is my job to show them how the evidence does not lead to that conclusion.
You say that "no one is asking what it does not say," but when you purport to interpret an essay, you are making an argument for what that essay does say. It is perfectly reasonable to attack your argument by showing that the essay does not say that at all and that it, in fact, says something quite different.
So add law to the list of topics you know nothing about. Your list should now read:
Buddhism
Law
