XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   [Sakalika Sutta]   
      
   Hollywood Lee :   
      
   > > - his posts on suffering are splendid examples of intentional   
   > > misunderstanding as a tactical tool in debate.  Why go further?   
      
        Since you haven't shown anywhere I misunderstood the sutta   
   -- intentionally or otherwise -- your "examples" are   
   conspicuously missing.  All you've established is that you feel   
   unhappy with what it says.   
      
   Nobody in Particular :   
      
   > "studied ignorance of explanation" - you hit the nail square on the head.   
      
        Hollywood hit his thumb with the hammer, since his claimed   
   examples were missing:  he didn't show anywhere I've   
   misunderstood the sutta, so all he demonstrated was his need to   
   make an attack.   
      
   > You make a statement, he misinterprets it.   
      
        You make glaringly false assertions, then pretend you were   
   misinterpreted instead of correcting your mistakes.  Two   
   examples.  According to you I was guilty of confusing suffering   
   with pain.  Truth is just the opposite:  I said that the   
   Buddha's suffering is implied by the claim he _endured_ painful   
   feelings.  You told me that I was insisting on   
   misunderstanding the word "suffering" in the English, but I had   
   never insisted on anything about it, since it isn't there:   
   the word isn't used in either of the translations I quoted from.   
      
        I can see why you would like to forget you ever said those   
   things, and one or two more of the same kind, but adding   
   dishonesty to your stupidity doesn't strike me as good solution.   
      
   > You explain what you meant, he   
   > calls you a liar, ignores your explanation and insists that you meant   
   > something different.   
      
        Oh, look:  you're lying again.  When you ran from your own   
   words, I replied by quoting them verbatim and giving   
   message-IDs for the original articles, showing exactly what you   
   were trying to dodge.  Result:  you deleted the entire   
   dialogue from your reply, both your words and mine, rather than   
   face up to what you'd said.   
      
   > I was already thinking that no-one could be that stupid and still be able to   
   > operate a computer.  Your explanation makes perfect sense.   
      
        You were thinking enlightenment eliminates suffering.  The   
   Sakalika Sutta implies differently.  In reply you falsely   
   claimed I confused suffering with pain, mistakenly said English   
   doesn't distinguish them, and argued I was wrong in my   
   understanding of the word "suffering" in the translation.  Very   
   foolish of you, since the word isn't in either one of the   
   translations I quoted.  So it's no wonder that you're trying to   
   duck your own posts.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)