9fdd108d
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
Catawumpus :
>> 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.
Raan:
> 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
There's a change: rather than the unsupported accusations
that have been standard operating procedure in these
newsgroups, you're making a baseless claim of victory. Equally
meaningless, but something new.
> futile endeavor. Suffice it to say it has been widely recognized by
> most any intelligent person here.that your argument is indeed fallacious
Widely asserted by dimwits unable to show anywhere I spoke
falsely. Like for example you. So now you're appealing to
the mob instead of giving anything that backs up your criticism.
By contrast, I've explained where your errors are. You've
wrongly accused me of equivocation (I've been clear and
consistent, ergo I'm not guilty -- notice your lack of examples
to the contrary), and you rested your claims on what you
imagined the word "suffering" meant when "offered as a
translation" in the Sakalika Sutta, not realizing it isn't used
there.
> and the very fact that you yourself admit you have not
> moved your position just underscores how foolish you actually are.
Actually it shows you're a dunce to claim I retreated from
what I said.
-- Catawumpus
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
