efb51f5b   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   RaaN :   
      
   > To say he "endured" implies he suffered   
      
        My point exactly.  By saying the Buddha _endured_ the pain   
   that he received from a sharp piece of rock and piling him   
   with praising for enduring well, the Sakalika Sutta implies his   
   suffering.  Otherwise there's nothing for him to endure, no   
   reason to praise him for doing it nicely, and the sutta becomes   
   nonsensical.   
      
   > (did you yourself not say so?)   
   > It is in fact intrinsically implied by the very definition of the word   
   > endure itself (!), therefore the word "suffer" is implicit(!), And so   
      
        You didn't say it was "implicit," you stated that the word   
   "suffer" was "offered as a translation," and you went from   
   there to babble about its meaning, never realizing it's missing   
   from both versions I quoted.   
      
   > assuming we agree, or at least you recognize that the word "suffering"   
   > used as an inexact translation (not restricting ourselves to just this   
   > one tract in isolation, but with reference to the entire canon e.g.   
   > the two arrows) differs in meaning from "suffering" in the usual sense   
   > (as of pain) then, as pointed out you are most certainly   
   > equivocating.  What I am pointing out here is so clear as to be   
      
        You're most certainly an imbecile.  Will that do?  Proving   
   me guilty of equivocation would require you to find   
   inconsistency in _my_ use of terms (frex between my premise and   
   my conclusion) -- not merely to offer your unsupported   
   opinions about their meaning here, there, and everywhere in the   
   canon.   
      
   > honestly irrefutable.  And now you are dodging by back peddling your   
   > own assertion that suffering is implied by the word endure because the   
   > word suffering wasnot explicitly used.  In so doing you undermine your   
      
        Wrong again.  I haven't moved my position by even one inch.   
   I began by arguing the Sakalika Sutta implies the Buddha's   
   suffering, at least in the English, by stating he _endured_ the   
   pain he received, not that he escaped it in some way, and   
   that's what I'm arguing now.  You're unable to think up a valid   
   reply.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)