RaaN wrote:
> On Mar 26, 12:49 am, RaaN <raan2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 25, 10:42 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>RaaN wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mar 25, 10:49 am, Hollywood Lee <hollywood...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>>RaaN wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On Mar 22, 9:20 pm, ancientbuddh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>E: SASSATA, as meaning "forever and ever" or "perpetually...." Is
>>>>>>>neither IMMORTALITY (AMATA) , nor = NICCA (permanent) in any
>>>>>>>translation,.......these pali terms are reserved for = Atman.
>>
>>>>>>I take it amidst this barely coherent jargon that when you say: D:
>>>>>>The opposite of "the self is nothing".... is not Self/Atman,... but
>>>>>>"the self is ALL (sabba)". You are referring to some scriptural
>>>>>>tenet, because logically the opposite of "the self is nothing" would
>>>>>>be "the self is something" not "the self is everything (or all)"
>>>>>>Anatman is "no self". This does not mean a self which is nothing
not
>>>>>>does it mean a self which is all. It means no self. (period)
>>
>>>>>You misunderstand the peculiar logic of the dogmatist, who appears to
>>>>>think in either/or, black/white, only two choices terms.
>>
>>>>>So, if you set aside their dogmatic claim (which could be for many
>>>>>reasons, only some of which are of the formal logic variety), they
will
>>>>>then assert that you have affirmed its dogmatic opposite. The idea
of
>>>>>opposing the two dogmatic claims (as a demonstration of the futility
of
>>>>>engaging in a dogmatic net of views per the Brahmajala Sutta, the
>>>>>pyrrhonists, and on) simply does not occur to them. If you then take
>>>>>the bait of defending the dogmatic opposite, they have you in their
net.
>>
>>>>Luckily for me I write my own script as I go along.. can't imagine
>>>>being restricted to the script of another let alone some ancient
>>>>other. But then whose name is on the final exam? Not someone else's.
>>>>--
>>>>RaaN
>>
>>>You arrogant fool! Get back in the net and get back on the script that
>>>you have been given or else! I am not joking. Don't go off-script
again!
>>
>>>Robert
>>> "the Director"
>>
>>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>>Yes dear.
>
>
> Dat guy is a dogmatman I sez.
Yeah, I prefer some of my other sub-personalities myself.
Robert
- - - -
|
