722e5a1e   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   halfawake :   
      
   > > >>> I haven't ignored them.  I've acknowledged all of them, everything you   
      
        Forget so soon?  You've tried to deny or diminish anything   
   in Buddhism which doesn't fit in into your confessedly   
   life-clinging attitude.  Most recently you re-routed the Middle   
   Way to make it into a compromise between attachment and   
   aversion to life rather than a path leading away from the world.   
   You also offered supposedly new information that was merely   
   old news you liked more than the world-rejecting ideas you were   
   trying to avoid.   
      
   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.   
      
   > > >> go of the fruitless discussion.  Cat has done an admirable job of   
   > > >> getting people to react to his studied ignorance of your explanations   
   > > >> - his posts on suffering are splendid examples of intentional   
   > > >> misunderstanding as a tactical tool in debate.  Why go further?   
      
        Hollywood is doing a bad job of lying.  (Better than doing   
   a good one, I guess.)  I answered Mr. Nobody's so-called   
   "explanations," which didn't much resemble the things they were   
   supposed to explain.  In other words, he made it a point to   
   misunderstand himself, as I showed by quoting him and providing   
   message-IDs.   
      
        That's the thing about 'tactical misunderstanding' -- it's   
   usually easy to expose.  I've done the same for Rob's   
   dodgerations and for Jigme's, too.  But Hollywood isn't backing   
   up his claims with even a shred of evidence.  All he's   
   offering is his say-so, not one thing to support what he's said.   
   He's angry enough to go on the attack, foolish enough to   
   embarrass himself with empty accusations.  Same as usual around   
   here.   
      
   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 accusation.   
      
   > > > 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.   
      
   1/2:   
      
   > > If cat were a social psychology experiment, it would be to see if people   
      
        If these threads were a social sciences experiment, they'd   
   be testing the reply of religious believers to elements in   
   their religion they prefer to dismiss or ignore -- in this case   
   Buddhism's world-rejecting, life-denying teachings.  The   
   result is unsurprising:  instead of freely agreeing Buddhism is   
   in part what they'd rather deny, the locals have shifted   
   between defending their narrow view and claiming that it's been   
   misdescribed.  Example:   
      
   > > continue to become increasingly more engaged in response to continued   
   > > misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what they say.  The answer is   
      
        Here the subject called "Rob" lashes out by saying that he   
   was 'misrepresented' and 'misunderstood.'  He doesn't show   
   anywhere that was the case, so this demonstrates the anger he's   
   feeling over being confronted with the ideas that his   
   belief-system excludes.  Colloquially speaking, "Rob" is trying   
   to shoot the messenger, although to a psychologist it's   
   obvious his target is the information he didn't want to receive.   
      
   HL:   
      
   > Sure, and irrespective of the silly content and poor logic quality of   
   > his posts, he is able to demonstrate that all the years of meditation   
      
        Hollywood Lee is demonstrating his continuing inability to   
   back up the accusations he nonetheless feels compelled to   
   keep making.  He can't put up or shut up.  Bit of a sad picture   
   but there it is.   
      
   > and Buddhist practice are of little value, as his interlocutors become   
   > agitated and attached to their views and ego.   
      
        My correspondents seem to think that lying and cheating is   
   a good enough reply to what they would rather avoid:  the   
   Buddha's implied suffering, Buddhism's frequently critical view   
   of worldly life, etc.   
      
        Whether that says anything about Buddhist practice depends   
   on whether these people are practicing Buddhism.  They   
   apparently believe they are.  Well, who knows.  Maybe it's true.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)