Wrong assumption, that is the fallacy you suffered instead .Subharo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:29 pmJames Tan and binocular, I think you are suffering from the logical fallacy called "black-or-white".binocular wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:10 pm
Except that it's not clear what the "original teachings of the Buddha" are. In fact, this is one of the controversial topics!
Except that it is the Buddha himself who does that, which I think is categorically different from anything anyone else can do. It's not clear that the situations described in the suttas can be meaningfully compared to present times when the Buddha isn't actually here anymore to take part in discussions.
James Tan seems to imply that only an arahat deserves to speak on the Dhamma in a way that can be trusted, not any monk with an attainment level lower than that (or no attainment level at all).
Binocular seems to imply that since we can't know 100% what the Buddha actually said (or would say, if he were still alive today), then what's the point of investigating it whatsoever (in a rigorous, debate-like manner)?
My meaning only saying that dhamma is something very profound not to mention to practise and mastered at it . How many people actually can mastered it like an arhat !
E.g. Schumacher , not many people can drive like him , a professional racing driver in the Formula One car race series .
Sure , you or anyone can join in on any debate , however that is not my point .
Anyway , just bring it on !
Just joking .