[zeph] Some Replies
>Life is not so much suffering (as Buddha taught) as absurd, at leastaccording to my view point, and such
feeling of loneliness is more a result of absurdity than suffering.
"Suffering" in Buddhism is translated from the Pali word "Dukkha"- and might
be more appropriately translated as "dissatisfaction"- which ranges from
having an itch you can't reach to having big head-splitting trouble in mind.
If you look at it this way- our life is pervaded by Dukkha- we are
incredibly seldom Truly Happy. (Loneliness is an aspect of dissatisfaction
>One of the precept is not to steal for it is bad; but who says I want to begood?
The Buddha did not encourage us to take the Precepts as guidelines so that
we can be good- His intention was for our True Happiness- which surely
cannot come from harming others, but rather by not harming, or even by
helping others be nearer to True Happiness (which is unconditioned by
>And there are no facts, only interpretations.Facts are unchanging aspects of reality, the way things are- laws of the
Universe; interpretations are assumptions. Just because one does not have a
verified assumption yet does not mean verification is not possible.
>Who is to tell whether it is a delusion? A person who has a absolutevantage point. Does that person exist? Unfortunately, the answer is "no".
Why not? Just because the world has many different people who claim they
know the whole truth and expresses what they believe to be the Truth in ways
contradicting to each other does not mean not one of them is correct.
- Hi James,
When I look at how much of the original of my reply you have "discarded", I
see that all that is left is nothing.
>The whole of your orignal article was previously sent to all on the list.See http://www.egroups.com/group/zeph/13.html? (include the ? in the
Please, do not show my writing in piecemeals; either show it all, or nothing
at all, for the way you present
my writing is an inaccurate and inadequate representation of what I wanted
to express; worse still, your so-called replies, which is insincere based on
the previous reason, is done so out-of-context of my original writing. What
is left is really nothing, isolated sentences here and there, so little that
even if I am reincarnated as a margot to eat what remaining flesh I had from
you, it will not be filling.
>The only reason selected bits were replied to was simply because ALL theother parts I personally agreed with. Cheers! I see a need to be concise. I
made sure the snipped parts were self-contained- but understand if you
disagree. I shan't do that in future. Apologies brother!
I believe there is some truth in what I had to say, but you choose not to
see it; you select only those which are easily refutable (and when it is
selected in isolation out of context), or only those which are compatible
with Dhamma teachings.
>See above.Your attitude may be compatible to the teaching of Buddha (to defend it as
true absolutely), but it is not compatible with intellectual openness. I do
find your views pretty insightful.
>The Buddha never taught anyone to be intellectually closed- there ishistorically no teacher as open as Him. Remember the Kalama Sutta?
It is not as though I have no replies to your "some replies", but I doubt if
you have the openness to
>I believe we're Kalama enough? :-] This is an open discussion list afterall.