From: Stephen Hodge
Message: 7738
Date: 2005-06-01
> Hey Rod Bucknall, that sounds like a scholar :)So ? What's the problem ? Shall I start saying "Hey, that sounds like a
> Okay, then by Theravada standards that would be a peta. Still semantics.I disagree.
> Well, I never like it when the conversations starts off with "rather thanIt may not be true of you, but I find that people who react in this way are
> blindly accept received dogmas..." but I'll take the bite this time... I
> refuse to be swayed by this type of comment, my friend.
> Your experiences are no more valid to me than these Buddha GodCheap jibe ! I could say in reply that your understanding of the Dharma is
> worshippers' experiences of the Buddha God.
> Are you a Buddha? No. The Buddha was, though...So show me where the Buddha explicitly denies an antaraabhava, please.
> What is at stake? The millions of people who rely on these texts forWow ! You really sound like a Christian here ! Have you always been a
> their
> peace and happiness and meditation practice. If people start doubting
> this
> or that teaching over some meditative experience, they might start
> doubting
> more important teachings like nibbaana, or just give up in their confusion
> over what is the real teaching of the Buddha.
> I don't see reason to adopt your terms, as they are clearly dealt with inFine, if your version of the Dharma meets your current needs but I truly
> the pali tipitaka under different but equally usable terms.
> In fact, though you still haven't answered my questionIn fact, I was not even aware that you had asked me personally a question.
> YuttadogmaI like it ! Yoked to dogma !