XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   Nobody in Particular :   
      
   > Well i tried.   
      
        You tried to deny that the Buddha suffers from pain in the   
   Sakalika Sutta, but you failed, not least because you   
   completely ignored what it says.  Apparently you think reciting   
   your beliefs is an adequate substitute for addressing the   
   contents of the sutta:  the fundamentalist attitude you wrongly   
   assigned to me.   
      
   > But it seems that you are not at all interested in discussing and   
      
        Seems that you're lying.  Again.  I've discussed the sutta   
   in some detail, explaining how it implies the Buddha's   
   suffering.  Short version:  rather than insisting he transcends   
   or otherwise escapes his pain, the sutta describes him   
   _enduring_ it, which would be nonsense if it didn't require him   
   to suffer in any way.   
      
        Again, I don't want to lean too heavily on one word in the   
   English, but I've found a second translation that says the   
   same thing.  U Tin U's rendering states the Buddha "endured the   
   pain," same as in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's version, which   
   describes him enduring his painful feelings -- not transcending   
   or escaping them.   
      
   > understanding what the Buddha tried to teach.  Instead, you are only   
      
        Rather than trying to understand what the sutta means, you   
   are merely describing your beliefs about "what the Buddha   
   tried to teach" as though the scriptures were forced to conform   
   to your doctrine.   
      
   > interested in winning arguments, and proving that you are right and   
   > resorting to attacks.   
      
        Pure hypocrisy.  You began by accusing me of confusion I'd   
   never fallen into and ended by attacking me for what you   
   imagined was a fundamentalist approach.  Just because the sutta   
   didn't say what you wanted it to.   
      
   > Have you *ever* in your life admitted that you were wrong?   
      
        I'll stand corrected if you show somewhere I misunderstood   
   the sutta.  So far the mistakes have been yours, and you   
   haven't admitted to a single one.  You claimed I'd equated pain   
   with suffering, but that was untrue:  I explained why the   
   sutta implies the Buddha suffers the pain that he receives from   
   a sharp rock.  You said English muddles things, but it can   
   easily make the same distinction, frex by saying a person who's   
   under anesthesia doesn't suffer from pain.  You said I was   
   like a fundie who insists the original has to match the   
   translation, but I explicitly said that I didn't want to depend   
   too heavily on the English.  And you said that the Buddha   
   doesn't suffer even though the sutta implies precisely what you   
   denied.   
      
   > Anyway, i wish you all the best, but i'm not interested in argument   
      
        You were interested in starting one, just not in admitting   
   it didn't go your way.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)