e357198d   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   Hollywood Lee :   
      
   > You should probably take your own assessment seriously, and just let   
      
        You all take your "assessments" seriously.  That's how you   
   know Jesus wrote the Gospels, Buddhism is a consistently   
   life-affirming religion, _Job_ is about the Almighty's kindness   
   and generosity, the Buddha never taught about rebirth, the   
   tower of Babel pointed downward, and Yahweh is Polonius dressed   
   up for Halloween.   
      
   > - his posts on suffering are splendid examples of intentional   
   > misunderstanding as a tactical tool in debate.  Why go further?   
      
        Why make accusations you can't back up?  Your "example" is   
   completely missing since you haven't showed anywhere I   
   misunderstood.  I offered a simple, straightforward observation   
   about the Sakalika Sutta:  rather than claiming that the   
   Buddha transcended his pain, it credits him with _enduring_ his   
   painful feelings, implying they caused him suffering:   
   otherwise nothing to endure and no reason for all the praise he   
   receives.  (At least that's how it is in the English.)  You   
   may be able make yourself feel better by saying I intentionally   
   distorted the story, but that would require you to find   
   somewhere I got it wrong:  the step you've conveniently skipped.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)