9fdd108d   
   XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: niunian@ymail.com   
      
   On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:52:18 -0700 (PDT), RaaN    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Sep 17, 2:25?am, Catawumpus  wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   >There is no arguing with a fool that doesn't have the brain to realize   
   >he has already been beaten, therefore I decline to continue with this   
   >futile endeavor.  Suffice it to say it has been widely recognized by   
   >most any intelligent person here.that your argument is indeed   
   >fallacious and the very fact that you yourself admit you have not   
   >moved your position just underscores how foolish you actually are.   
   >That being said, I am not fool enough to flog this dead horse.   
   >Anything you say in reply to this other than a full retraction, will   
   >be met by my silence and a consensual disgust.  Find another forum   
   >where your incompetent arguments might not be recognized as such.  You   
   >have already wasted more than enough of my time with this juvenile   
   >nonsense.   
      
   That's a lot of hot air for somebody who has just lost the argument.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)