|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: jfezl07jfezl07 Date: Mar 7, 2008 13:48
On Mar 7, 1:26 pm, oxtail newvessel.com> wrote:>
>>>> Throw away all your gathered mental knowledge of dharma and what do
>>>> you have to 'win' with?- Hide quoted text -
>>> _____________________________
>
>>> win ehh???
>
>>> ------------"he is called WINNER! HERO! He is supremely free
>>> (suvimutta), having transcended (nissarana) the world by prowress of
>>> his wisdom. Uddamsoto (upstreamer), flood-crossed"- Gotama Buddha-----
>>> Majjhima 2
>
>>> "one thing only do i teach, liberation won by wisdom
>>> (pannavimutta)"-------- Gotama..........common passage. >
>>> now son, shut your goddamn hole............ I am more interested in ...
|
| Show full article (1.24Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: NedNed Date: Mar 7, 2008 13:46
>
>> Kenny Wheeler. Long history. One of the "Let's get God and Soul
>> back into Buddhism where it belongs" crowd.
>
> ISHVARA, or a creationist god is NOT IN BUDDHISM..........nor have
> I ever goddamn said as much.
> The Soul, or Atman, however never LEFT Buddhism. There is nowhere
> a denial of the Atman in Buddhism,
> Nor, could you prove otherwise via doctrine.
>
Oh nonsense. The 'no self' (anatman) doctrine is fundamental
to all of Buddhism. It is SO fundamental that it is ensconced
in the "three marks" of Buddhism (which are 'dukkha' - suffering,
'annica' - impermanence, and 'anatman' - no-self).
|
| Show full article (2.18Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ancientbuddhismancientbuddhism Date: Mar 7, 2008 14:07
On Mar 7, 4:46 pm, "Ned" ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Oh nonsense. The 'no self' (anatman) doctrine is fundamental
> to all of Buddhism. It is SO fundamental that it is ensconced
> in the "three marks" of Buddhism (which are 'dukkha' - suffering,
> 'annica' - impermanence, and 'anatman' - no-self).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is NO SUCH THING as a " 'no self' (anatman) doctrine " in
Sutta, 22 nouns are anatta.
ANATTA nowhere negates the Atman, you are REFUTED, son.
a general acceptance of the concept of "A Doctrine of Anatta" exists
as a status quo, however there exists no substantiation for same in
sutta for Buddhism's denial of the atman, or in using the term anatta...
|
| Show full article (9.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ancientbuddhismancientbuddhism Date: Mar 7, 2008 14:28
On Mar 7, 4:46 pm, "Ned" ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Oh nonsense. The 'no self' (anatman) doctrine is fundamental
> to all of Buddhism. It is SO fundamental that it is ensconced
> in the "three marks" of Buddhism (which are 'dukkha' - suffering,
> 'annica' - impermanence, and 'anatman' - no-self).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Advaita Vedanta uses the term Anatman (Pali: anatta) in the exact
same
fashion as does Buddhist doctrine
Which begs the question, why is 'Buddhism' so demonically ignorant as
to presume that the usage of the term anatman implies a denial of
the
Atman
#1. "Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye"-"The wiseman should
discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in order
to
be liberated." [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152]
#2. "Anatman...
|
| Show full article (4.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jfezl07jfezl07 Date: Mar 7, 2008 14:51
> On Mar 7, 4:00 pm, jfez...@ googlemail.com wrote:> Your knowledge of doctrine is impressive and is what you're using to >> win by beating people over the head with it. That's your delusion. You
>> think your superior knowledge gives you superior wisdom. That's your
>> mistake.- Hide quoted text -
>
> +++++++++++++++
>
> Pathetic little boy, superior empirical knowledge i DO INDEED
> have, .................however i have never claimed or implied
> empirical knowledge is noesis (gnosis , wisdom), .....of which the
> Greek Platonists were fond of differentiating.
>
> YOUR MISTAKE, son, is making an attack, on something i NEVER FUCKING
> SAID..........or implied....
>
> This, boy, is called a strawman fallacy.......................
>
> Plato and I are in agreement, that fools "insult themselves, the wise
> only acknowledge and reaffirm it". ...
|
| Show full article (1.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AliAli Date: Mar 7, 2008 15:13
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:22:08 -0600, Keynes earthlinkspam.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:59:03 -0800 (PST), ancientbuddhism@ earthlink.net wrote:
> >>"he praises the wise, and insults the fools, ....as such he is
>>heralded as Hero"- Plato
>>
>>
>>"the wise love him...
|
| Show full article (1.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert EpsteinRobert Epstein Date: Mar 7, 2008 16:18
Benjamin wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 11:05 am, Keynes earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But sitting last night I flipped something
>>> and suddenly the living room was enlightened...
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert EpsteinRobert Epstein Date: Mar 7, 2008 16:21
> "he praises the wise, and insults the fools, ....as such he is
> heralded as Hero"- Plato
>
>
> "the wise love him for the same reason the fools hate him"- Proclus
>
>
> "to insult a fool is the praise of wisdom"- Plato
Plato sucked. stick with it though.
robert
- - - - - - -
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
