>
> "Joe Smith"
earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13d21ms6prglr22@corp.supernews.com...>>>
>>> "Joe Smith"
earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:13cvgluffdp2ob7@corp.supernews.com...>>>>
>>>> "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13cveovs8n5k8ce@corp.supernews.com...>>>>>
>>>>> "Sean"
blah.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46cfa963$0$18984$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:13cv98ia02qpf51@corp.supernews.com...>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Sean"
blah.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:46cfa025$0$7152$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:13cv7jjrhc35a7a@corp.supernews.com...>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Sean"
blah.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:46cf95c8$0$6925$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Mark Earnest"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:13cv3mrpjn96765@corp.supernews.com...>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Sean"
blah.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:46cf862e$0$7087$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Day Brown"
hughes.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:1188004042.877674.78710@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Buddha yearns for non-existance, then why should he giva
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuck why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we, who exist, suffer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why assume that he does, when he doesn't, .... or should I say
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because he does.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure? No doubt you'll offer up a quote from the teachings
>>>>>>>>>> ... maybe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are just talking about old Buddha. Millions of Far Easterners
>>>>>>>>> know he cares.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They could all be misguided there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe just a little. As a human, Buddha can only do so much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially as a dead human, even less.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes the dead come back to life.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comon already. Buddha is a title, not a name. No fareasterner who
>>>> knows their religion believes Buddha cares for them. Cared maybe, but
>>>> that would involve the Definition of the title (one who has achieved
>>>> enlightenment, thereby breaking away from the cycle of death and
>>>> rebirth, to guide others towards that same end). Also refering to the
>>>> definition of the word, anyone that says Buddha is going to come back
>>>> from the dead needs to read his teachings! Duh...broke away from cycle
>>>> of death and rebirth....that means he ain't'a comin back!
>>>> To be clear, the possibility exists for another Buddha, by these
>>>> teachings, but the one being debated is long gone.
>>>> And for the record Buddha would say that, from your perspective, he
>>>> doesn't exist, just as from his you don't.
>>>
>>> Buddha is a "state of consciousness", rather like Christ consciousness.
>>> Remember , both "guys" were reported as saying "you to, can achieve what
>>> i have".
>>
>> "Buddha" is not a state of consciousness, he is a man that has achieved a
>> state of consciousness (nirvana).
>
>
>>That is a whopper of a distinction, the understanding of which is
>>intrinsic to the religion being misquoted here.
>
> Religions have as many misqoutes as there are followers. Get beyond the
> religious connotations.,which is what Gautama discovered.
Once again, you are Mis Quoting. Yes, Buddha got past religious
'connotations', and religion, mostly, in western terms. That did not mean
that he thought his own words to be subjective. When you quote something,
you are responsible for accurately conveying the intended though. Your
interpretation is not always the same as the intent, and every person citing
something, or claiming a person or dogma claims something is responsible for
accuracy there, because, once again, that is not an opinion. They either
meant it a way, or not. They said it, or not. This entire debate between
yourself and I is a misunderstanding of me asking a person to stop
subjectifying fact. I'm not trying to change his mind, just trying to get
him to make sense.
>
>> Buddha did say that any could achieve what he had, but not Christ.
>
> No possibility of misquotation here?
No, I'm pretty sure christ never said you could become the son of god
through faith. Let me check. Nope, bible search is coming up empty.
>
>> He said that any could be 'saved', but not that any could faith heal, be
>> ressurected, etc. Further, he never claimed to achieve anything; it was
>> all the work of the father. Once again, a misquote.
>
> You show clear signs of dogmatic fundementalism. You can quote me if you
> wish.
First time I've ever, as a scientific atheist, been called a dogmatic
fundementalist. I think you've been misunderstanding me, despite my
clearing stating my point.
I have no problem with subjective arguments and points of view; just don't
claim person x said it if they didn't. If I'm not being clear enough, say
so.
>
> I could have wrtten that a couple of thousands of years ago, in a language
> three times removed.
In that case, you could tell me which translation led you to make that
claim? Passage or quote? Because I'd love to know the passage in any
version that says Jesus is not the son of god, but a state of Consciousness.
Now, please understand. If that is your Belief, your View, thats Fine. No
problem. But, you didn't present it that way. You even defend its textual
veracity by asking if I'm off on calling it a misquote. That means,
logically, that you have the quote somewhere?
>
> You havnt ever`played chinese whispers ?
You are misdirecting attention from misquoted words. You show me I'm wrong,
I'll admit it. Try it.
>
>>>
>>> As far as coming back or not, people often ask me if I ever go back to
>>> England.
>>>
>>> Same thing. Migratory birds, "go back" instinctively.
>>
>> Not the same thing; by the religion you are misquoting, souls with a
>> Karmic 'debt' or imbalance are Forced to return.
>
> You are quoting Obe wan. Who in the writiungs of which you speak is stated
> to do some forcing?
That would be souls. Need a Reincarnation link?
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/karma.html
Thats the first one that poped up, and its says what I just did. The words
aren't Identical, but i'll assume you know what they mean. For a quick
refresher, though; Reincarnation is Hindi, originally. Souls die and are
reborn based on their Karma, until they have achieved nirvana, when they are
free of this stage of existence. They do not get to choose.
>
>> There is no instinct involved.
>
> I was making a comparison between birds, and people, who use a different
> term,that being sub conscious.
I'm glad that birds migrate. Gold star.
>
>> If you are posing your personal views, state them as such. That is not
>> the same as 'explaining' religous cannon incorrectly.
>
> You are free to interpret them as you like.
And you are free to state them. Now that thats out of the way.
>
>
>> Not only does your own understanding suffer, but so does that of all
>> those that read the misquote and take it for accurate 'paraphrasing'.
>> Remember, the orginal question was about Buddhist teachings, not
>> interpretations thereof.
>
> Even people who wrote afrer "sitting at the masters feet" (many feet, many
> masters) all interpret within their own level of consciousness.
>
> As they each reach different levels diversion becomes oneness.
And not one of those interpretations change what is on the paper its written
on, does it?
>
>
>>>
>>> Its all about consciousness...here and now.
>>
>> That would be your interpretation.
>
> My experience. You interpre4tation of my experience.
>
> Whats yours?
That anyone who claims that wants money or attention.
One liner aside, I'm more a fan of socrates, Know thyself. To do that you
need logic, of course.
>
>
>> Most buddhists would agree.
>
> So some would misquote, or misundertstand ?
Cite the misquotation, or misunderstanding. I am always courteous enough to
do so, that my arguments not be seen as frivolous
or...condescending.
>
>> They would simply omit the implication of that conciousness being 'of
>> self', 'for self', or 'with self'. He would say rather, that
>> consciousness unencumbered by preconceived expectations, wants, and
>> 'suffering' Is nirvana.
>
> Such a state removing a feeling of being condescended to, misquoted or
> being misunderstood.
>
> Just Be ing.
By all means, tell me in what way I am misunderstanding or misquoting? By
summing up the 8 fold path for readers, to come to the same conclusion you
just state in two words without reference or explanation? Thats like
quoting the equation/theory of relativity, and not defining e, m, or c. Look
up condescending, and I'm sure it'll say something about ambigous certainty
of superiority. Pretty much what that last line conveyed, perhaps
unintentionally. Just, once again, you aren't following the lines you read
above, which are written plainly and concisely and with supporting argument,
but reading into them what you wish; must be nice to paint your opponent
stupid. And of course, everythings subjective, right?
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Freedom's just another word for "anywhere I choose". (with apologies to
>>> Bobby Magee) ;-)
>> McGee. misquote. Though, Janis' original lyric isn't far off topic.
>
> My quote, not misquote.
No, it was Janis Joplin you misquoted. Unless you care to dispute copyright
law now. While the song is public domain for distribution, it is still
illegal to claim authorship.
>
> BOfL
>>>
>>> BOfL
>>>
>>
>
>
