Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[zeph] Some Replies

Expand Messages
  • !Namo@mituofO!
    ... according to my view point, and such feeling of loneliness is more a result of absurdity than suffering. Suffering in Buddhism is translated from the
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 8, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      >Life is not so much suffering (as Buddha taught) as absurd, at least
      according 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
      too)

      >One of the precept is not to steal for it is bad; but who says I want to be
      good?

      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
      external factors)

      >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 absolute
      vantage 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.
    • !Namo@mituofO!
      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. ... See
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 9, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        address)

        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 the
        other 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 is
        historically 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
        accept it.

        >I believe we're Kalama enough? :-] This is an open discussion list after
        all.

        Metta: shian
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.