>>
>> "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.
I'm not quoting, period.
> 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.
Either you have discovered that first hand, or you are passing on
interpretations of another.
The objective world of beliefs and ideas, are simply a mutually reinforcing
conglomerations of the subjective. The individual transends such groupings.
> When you quote something, you are responsible for accurately conveying the
> intended though.
Which is why I very rarely do. If so, I always credit the originator. I just
pass on what I know.
> 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.
This misunderstanding cause of all human conflict. You are trying to align
his plane of reality with yours.
>
>>
>>> 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.
Somewhere in Mathew , I think vs24, something along the lines " Wherefor I
go, you can go and do greater works".
>>> 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.
Are you suggesting science is a dogma free zone ? Atheism...just another
ism.
Just trying to get you to make sense. See how ludicrous that statement is
>
> 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.
Some get their information from others. Any language or linguistic scholar
understands "first principle" of semantic interactive limitation.
> Now, please understand. If that is your Belief, your View, thats Fine.
> No problem. But, you didn't present it that way.
I'm a 'belief free zone" :-)
> 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?
No, just being wholistic. Those that need to compare quotes are in the
process of discovery, not discovery itself.
>>
>> 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.
There is no wrong. Admit that! Thats breakthrough stuff.
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
Transmigration is a more accurate term.
Souls force, or should that be soul's force.
What a difference a ' makes....:-)
>
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.
Thats religious belief for you. What do you know of this arena? Souls dont
die, only bodies.
>>
>>> 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.
Ive heard of gold finch.
"soul" trans migrates, knowingly or unknowingly.
>>
>>> 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?
Name one "master" who wrote anything.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
A good starting point. To me, Soc was king. Plato and his followers just
interpreted at lessor levels . Diluted , unknowingly, for and from lessor
states of conscoiusness.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
Condesending means "from a pov of arrogance". You dont demonstrate that. The
same pov can be expressed with humility. That doesnt work either. Like Soc,
I just tell it "as it is"
>>
>>> 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?
What you are misunderstanding is for you to discover.Misquoting is
inevitable for anyone expressing beliefs of others beliefs. The ' example is
a good illustration of the subtle nuances of language, written and spoken.
> 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.
Life's tough "near" the top.....:-). The 8 fold path leads to the ninth
door. Entry is by c.v only.....certainty validated ....:-)
> Look up condescending, and I'm sure it'll say something about ambigous
> certainty of superiority.
As good an interpretation as is written. Also a doozy of an oxymoron.
This is as far as the relative mind (mind is a relative entity...hence the
Buddhist illusion of "as 1",) can get.
Academics only ever talks of the "theory of everything". Keeps them
gainfully employed.....
> 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?
Yes..even yours. (feigning condesention for some "light relief ".......Now
what's this about stupid?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
Didnt know "anywhere I choose" was copyright. I did say "with apologies".
Humor is often based on disassociation of place.
Enjoyable ....:-)
BOfL
>>
>> BOfL
>>>>
>>>> BOfL
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
