XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen
XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com
Catawumpus wrote:
> Nobody in Particular :
>
>
>>Nah, that guy is only interested in parading his ego and attacking anyone
>>who refuses to acknowledge to completely surrender to it.
>
>
> The guy there is going out his way to make an attack, more
> than likely because I pointed out a sutta contrary to his
> notion that the enlightened are beyond suffering. Fundies like
> him are easily provoked.
>
>
>>I watched him argue with Jigma and Rob, twisting and misinterpreting their
>>responses in an attempt to nail them.
>
>
> More unsupported accusations: the same kind Rob and Jigme
> toss when they can't defend the crap they say, i.e., the
> twisting and misinterpretation they depend on in discussing the
> Bible, the suttas, etc.
>
>
>>I tried to get him to understand the
>>difference between pain and suffering, but he's too stuck, and refuses to
>
>
> Shame the way that some people just plain lie when they're
> unable to defend their beliefs. I never claimed pain and
> suffering are always the same. The opposite: I showed English
> distinguishes them.
>
> The problem for Mr. Nobody is that the Sakalika Sutta very
> clearly implies the Buddha suffers from the pain that he
> receives from a sharp piece of rock. I explained why, but he's
> short of an honest reply.
>
> Short version: rather than claiming the Buddha transcends
> or otherwise escapes his pain, the sutta describes him
> _enduring_ it, which would be nonsense if it wasn't causing him
> any suffering.
There are two possible sense of "enduring" here. One is that he must
"endure" something that is difficult to endure; the other is that he is
able to endure what would otherwise be unendurable. In the second sense
it would imply that because Buddha does not take his pain personally, he
does not suffer from it the way he would if he attached self-concept to
the pain.
Whichever sense it is meant in, there is truth to the idea that a large
percentage of suffering is caused by the "second arrow" that Buddha
spoke of, the reactions one has to pain, that causes additional undue
suffering beyond the pain itself and increases it by adding resistance,
fear and mental and emotionl distress. This latter aspect of suffering
was missing for the Buddha, whatever physical pain he may have "endured."
This does not mean the Buddha did not experience physical pain - he did.
But whether one considers this to be selfless suffering, pain but
without suffering, or reduced suffering, the pain of the Buddha was
radially mitigated by his lack of self-concept, clinging and aversion.
Robert
= = = = = = =
>>even consider an interpretation other than his own.
>
>
> Mr. Nobody is lying again. Instead of coming up with some
> other interpretation, he's depended completely on the
> falsehood that I'm equating pain with suffering. Nothing close
> to the truth.
>
> I told Mr. Nobody I would stand corrected if he could show
> where I was wrong about the sutta -- but rather than
> addressing what it says, he's replied with meaningless personal
> attacks.
>
> Well, I shouldn't call them meaningless, since they reveal
> his inability to face up to the scripture. We've gone back
> and forth (though short of the canonical 5000), and he's ducked
> every time.
>
>
>>He would make a great Southern Baptist preacher.
>
>
> I might as well be talking to a bunch of Southern Baptists
> or any believers who answer with anger, lies and empty
> accusations when their treasured ideas are called into question.
>
> -- Catawumpus
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
