XPost: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: kimmerian@fastmail.fm   
      
   oxtail :   
      
   [the "next world" in the Apannaka Sutta]   
      
   > You are trying to boil the cookbook to make a soup out of it.   
      
        I'm quoting the recipe and showing you beets appear on the   
   list of ingredients.  You hate beets.  But rather than   
   choosing a different recipe, you claim this one doesn't mention   
   them.   
      
        I remind you they're explicitly listed.  You say I'm being   
   literal-minded.  I note that even if you call the recipe   
   allegorical, _it still has beets_, so you were still wrong when   
   you said they weren't there.   
      
        You reply that the recipe doesn't require them.  I respond   
   that although making them optional permits you to cook the   
   soup without using them, it doesn't remove them from the listed   
   ingredients.   
      
        Unwilling to concede, you deny beets are truly part of the   
   recipe.  But I provide quotes showing you it asserts they   
   belong in "the true soup" and states that a person who includes   
   them is doing "right cooking."   
      
        You ask if I really believe in the recipe.  I point out we   
   are debating about the ingredients it uses, not whether to   
   believe what it says, and remind you yet again that it includes   
   beets, despite your denial.   
      
        You say the writer didn't really care about beets.  I once   
   again quote the recipe, demonstrating that she not only   
   included beets but firmly insisted on their truth and rightness.   
      
        Now you say I'm boiling the cookbook.  Not so:  I'm simply   
   showing you beets are a part of the recipe we've been   
   discussing.  When you argue they aren't in it, you're obviously   
   wrong.   
      
   -- Catawumpus   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)