XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: niunian@ymail.com   
      
   On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:28:21 -0700, Nobody in Particular   
    wrote:   
      
   >Jigme Dorje wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sep 13, 6:24 pm, Nobody in Particular  wrote:   
   >>> Catawumpus wrote:   
   >>> > Nobody in Particular :   
   >>>   
   >>> >> "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts"   
   >>>   
   >>> > Mr. Nobody invented the facts he needed to ignore the ones   
   >>> > he didn't like too much.  (No wonder he's been quoting   
   >>> > Goebbels.)  More specifically, he manufactured the idea I mixed   
   >>> > up pain and suffering.  Not so.  I said the Sakalika Sutta   
   >>> > implies the Buddha suffered from pain by describing his ability   
   >>> > to _endure_ the unpleasantness instead of contending he   
   >>> > escaped its effects:  a point that Mr. Nobody completely failed   
   >>> > to address.   
   >>>   
   >>> I did address it, but you deliberately twisted what i meant, as you are   
   >>> wont to do.   
   >>> The Buddha felt the pain, he experienced the pain, he endured the pain,   
   >>> but he did not add dukkha to that experience.  I pointed out that in   
   >>> English, there is no proper translation for dukkha, so it is commonly   
   >>> translated as "suffering".  However, in English, "suffering" has an   
   >>> entirely different meaning.  When someone experience pain, the English   
   >>> usage describes this as "suffering".  You use the term in this way.  But   
   >>> that is not what is meant by the teaching.  The sutra does not claim, and   
   >>> no-one here has claimed, that the Buddha escaped the effects of the pain.   
   >>>  The claim is that he did not add aversion, dukkha, to the effects of the   
   >>> pain. The entire problem is one of translation.  But as long as you   
   >>> insist that the sutra's meaning of the word "suffering" is the meaning of   
   >>> its common usage in English, there is no solution to this argument.   
   >>> Incidentally, this applies to the noble truths as well.  My teacher was   
   >>> always very uncomfortable with the word "suffering".  He pointed out that   
   >>> a better translation of the first noble truth would be, "Component things   
   >>> are marked by dukkha."   
   >>   
   >> Additionally, pain can be said to be a cerebral interpretation of the   
   >> nerve stimulation.   
   >> No nerves, no pain. No brain no pain. No interpretation, no pain?   
   >>   
   >> The Buddha felt the stimulation, but when he felt it, did he label it   
   >> "pain"? Did he experience it as "pain"?   
   >   
   >The way i always heard it, the sensory experience does not change.   
   >I don't know if "pain" is the same if the interpretation and label of that   
   >experience is different.   
   >The one thing that is clear to me however, he did not add dukkha (badly   
   >translated as "suffering") to that experience, so he did not "suffer" pain.   
   >   
      
   Only an idiot like you would imagine that you or anyone else can   
   actually "enjoy" pain. You must be a real sick bastard. Perhaps it's   
   time to let the evil dalai lama to skin you alive to make a temple   
   drum since you will not suffer in your bloody skinless torso anyway.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)