XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   Catawumpus :   
      
   >>      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.   
      
   Nobody in Particular :   
      
   > I did address it, but you deliberately twisted what i meant, as you are wont   
   > to do.   
      
        Let's check.  You insisted "Enlightenment has no effect on   
   pain, but eliminates suffering."  So happened you were   
   disputed by the Sakalika Sutta, which states -- at least in the   
   English translation -- that the Buddha endured the pain he   
   received from a piece of rock and praises him for bearing up so   
   well, implying he suffered from its disagreeable effects.   
   Otherwise nothing for him to endure and no reason to praise him   
   for doing it nicely.   
      
   message-ID: i66c04$th9$1@news.eternal-september.org   
      
        Rather than addressing the sutta or the interpretation I'd   
   given, you falsely claimed that I'd equated suffering with   
   pain, saying "It seems very clear that you regard the two terms   
   as equivalent":  your illiterate misunderstanding or a   
   deliberate one, since I'd argued the Sakalika Sutta implies the   
   Buddha suffered from the pain he received by praising his   
   ability to endure its unpleasantness rather than saying that he   
   escaped in some way.   
      
        Best part came at the end:  you compared me to a Christian   
   fundamentalist who tries to make the Hebrew match a   
   translation, even though I'd explained I didn't want to put too   
   much weight on the English.  Another place you entirely   
   reversed what I said.  Obvious who's the fundie:  you're trying   
   desperately to defend your dogma "enlightenment eliminates   
   suffering," and you don't mind doing some lying and cheating to   
   get the job done.   
      
   message-ID: i68qo5$504$3@news.eternal-september.org   
      
        So it's no surprise you falsely claim I "twisted" what you   
   meant in some way you can't be bothered to show.  Fits   
   perfectly with your previous trickerations.  You've been unable   
   to make an honest reply.   
      
        In your own words:  you have lied so much and so often you   
   have absolutely no credibility anymore.  With each   
   repetition of your lies, which were disproved long ago, you dig   
   yourself deeper into hell.  The world knows the truth and   
   laughs at your pathetic, idiotic ramblings.  Just fuck off, you   
   shameless fool.   
      
        I'm not so sure about what the world knows.  But otherwise   
   you answered yourself very well.   
      
   > 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,   
      
        You wrongly contended English does not distinguish between   
   pain and suffering.  "Pain and suffering in the Buddhist   
   context are two very different concepts," you said.  "I realize   
   that this does not agree with common English usage ... "   
   Untrue.  English has no difficulty separating pain from   
   suffering.  Someone under anesthesia, for instance, is commonly   
   said not to suffer from pain.  She's avoided it thanks to   
   whichever drugs.  Therefore she isn't suffering and has nothing   
   to endure.   
      
         But the Sakalika Sutta tells a very different story.  The   
   Buddha _isn't_ said to escape or transcend the pain he   
   experiences.  The opposite:  he's described enduring his highly   
   disagreeable feelings and praised for bearing up so well.   
   That directly implies he suffered.  Otherwise the claim that he   
   _endured_ would be meaningless -- no suffering, nothing to   
   endure -- and the praise he's offered for doing it nicely would   
   be nonsensical.   
      
   > 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.   
      
        You insisted that enlightenment eliminates suffering.  Rob   
   similarly claimed that the enlightened have gone beyond   
   suffering.  But the Sakalika Sutta does not say that the Buddha   
   avoided suffering from the pain that he received.  On the   
   contrary, it implies the opposite by saying he endured the pain   
   the rock shard gave him.   
      
        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.   
      
   > The claim is that he did   
   > not add aversion, dukkha, to the effects of the pain.   
   > The entire problem is one of translation.   
      
        Your problem is that the Sakalika Sutta implies the Buddha   
   suffered from the pain he received when he was struck by a   
   rock, despite your idea that enlightenment eliminates suffering.   
      
   > 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.   
      
        How stupid can you be?  The word "suffering" isn't used in   
   either one of the English translations I've quoted, and I   
   never insisted on _anything_ about its meaning for the good and   
   simple reason it isn't there.   
      
        My point was that the sutta implies the Buddha's suffering   
   from pain by stating he endured rather than avoided its   
   effects.  A problem for your idea that enlightenment eliminates   
   suffering.   
      
   > Incidentally, this applies to the noble truths as well.   
      
        The various English words commonly translating _dukkha_ in   
   the Four Noble Truths -- e.g. suffering, pain, and stress --   
   all have negative connotations, so the Buddha is being critical   
   of worldly existence no matter which you choose.  What's   
   more, he goes on from there to reject the craving that leads to   
   rebirth, confirming that he's judging against life in the   
   world.  Or consider the Payasi-suttana, which likens this world   
   to a pit of dung and argues that departed souls don't come   
   back to report on the afterlife because they're so disgusted by   
   the one they've left behind.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)