DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Is the seven further lifetimes of a stream-enterer a myth?

**JimmyHas** · 08-13-2011, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by stuka
Yeah, you never say what you said. I get it.

I don't say what you think I am saying You say one thing and they you claim you meant another.

- you seem to want to think I differ to your dogmatic views blah blah blah... It's about the Buddha's teachings, not "my dogmatic views". If they are dogmatic, then the Buddha was "dogmatic". So what? You are stuck in and push dogmatic mahavajra views and superstitions that have nothing to do with what the Buddha taught.

You are really hung up on this dogmatic mahayana antiintellectual-ism thing. Books are evil! Burn the books! The Buddha placed a great deal of emphasis on hearing the Dhamma correctly, learning it correctly, discussing it, and not misapprehending it.
Rather than anti -intellectualism, what I have been saying here is that at the time a person would not have needed to be an intellectual to hear, learn, discuss and practice the teachings which later became Suttas. This has nothing to so with "being an intellectual". One can't practice what one doesn't know and understand.

Nonsense. If you don't know what it is that you are practising and why, you are just spinning your wheels. More mahavajra dogmatism. This is not what I said at all. Yeah, you said folks don't need to study or discuss the suttas.

That doesn't really mean anything. What "teachers" have you found who were not "committed practitioners?
Many - informal teachers and also formal teachers. Who?

But I note that you said "ALSO" this time, instead of "RATHER THAN". Still the same baseless dogmatic assertion. But again, you never say what you said. The intention of giving the teachings, which later became Suttas was the information being used by anyone who had ears and the will, not to become the property of scholars. Straw Man -- No one has said anything about "becoming the property of scholars". And yes, the Suttas were intended for anyone who had ears and the will. To study AND discuss AND learn AND comprehend AND verify AND put into practice. Mahavajyra revisionist making up as you go along is not what the Buddha had in mind.

Today, in the West we need scholars to help us understand the nuances of language used. In reading the Sutta that Element started the thread with, without understanding the exact meanings, the picture created can still be understood, rather than misapprehended, if we contemplate. Unfortunately, some of those very scholars -- such as Bodhi -- are misrepresenting what the Buddha said and taught.

08-13-2011, 09:06 AM	#33
JimmyHas Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 393 Senior Member	Originally Posted by stuka Yeah, you never say what you said. I get it. I don't say what you think I am saying You say one thing and they you claim you meant another. - you seem to want to think I differ to your dogmatic views blah blah blah... It's about the Buddha's teachings, not "my dogmatic views". If they are dogmatic, then the Buddha was "dogmatic". So what? You are stuck in and push dogmatic mahavajra views and superstitions that have nothing to do with what the Buddha taught. You are really hung up on this dogmatic mahayana antiintellectual-ism thing. Books are evil! Burn the books! The Buddha placed a great deal of emphasis on hearing the Dhamma correctly, learning it correctly, discussing it, and not misapprehending it. Rather than anti -intellectualism, what I have been saying here is that at the time a person would not have needed to be an intellectual to hear, learn, discuss and practice the teachings which later became Suttas. This has nothing to so with "being an intellectual". One can't practice what one doesn't know and understand. Nonsense. If you don't know what it is that you are practising and why, you are just spinning your wheels. More mahavajra dogmatism. This is not what I said at all. Yeah, you said folks don't need to study or discuss the suttas. That doesn't really mean anything. What "teachers" have you found who were not "committed practitioners? Many - informal teachers and also formal teachers. Who? But I note that you said "ALSO" this time, instead of "RATHER THAN". Still the same baseless dogmatic assertion. But again, you never say what you said. The intention of giving the teachings, which later became Suttas was the information being used by anyone who had ears and the will, not to become the property of scholars. Straw Man -- No one has said anything about "becoming the property of scholars". And yes, the Suttas were intended for anyone who had ears and the will. To study AND discuss AND learn AND comprehend AND verify AND put into practice. Mahavajyra revisionist making up as you go along is not what the Buddha had in mind. Today, in the West we need scholars to help us understand the nuances of language used. In reading the Sutta that Element started the thread with, without understanding the exact meanings, the picture created can still be understood, rather than misapprehended, if we contemplate. Unfortunately, some of those very scholars -- such as Bodhi -- are misrepresenting what the Buddha said and taught.
	Quote