tiltbillings wrote:The suttas are the basis -- the touchstone -- for what we know of the Buddha-Dhamma.
You are only speaking for yourself. You don't speak for me.
And you neatly continue to make my point. Your "Buddhdhamma" has no basis in the actual teachings of the Buddha. It is just stuff you are making up.
. . . samsara.
I've already explained that I have direct knowledge of the nature of samsara and rebirth. I shouldn't have to say it more than once.
And the nature of this supposed "direct knowledge?"
The requirement of "human birth" is something found in the suttas.
No, it's something found by direct knowledge.
Directly from the suttas.
Without any support for them other than it is what you believe
I've given you solid reasons for what I've said.
No, you actually have not. You have repeatedly expressed what you believe, but you are unwilling, more likely simply unable, to show that it is grounded in anything other than your "direct knowledge," which is to say -- stuff you have made up.
As an example of your inability to read, I said about six times, very clearly indeed, that the Buddha experienced physical ageing and death. That fact was essential to my argument. You interpreted those words of mine to be saying that the Buddha didn't experience ageing and death at all. This is proof that you are a very poor reader, and unable to understand reasoned arguments.
The problem is that you are a very poor writer. Basically, I was asking questions in various ways to try to get at what it is that you believe and the basis for it. Well, of course, it is your direct knowledge, which is, of course, utterly reliable.
So, since you cannot back up you statements with the suttas
The Buddha did not back up his statements with suttas.
You are not the Buddha, and since it is his teachings that we are concerned with here, reference to the teachings of the suttas makes sense. Your claim to direct knowledge carries no weight beyond your mirror.
This is because he was a living example of the Buddhadhamma.
He was an example, and a pattern that we should follow.
And, of course, you would not have a clue as to what that is without the suttas.
the only conclusion is that you are simply making up stuff.
So, according to your reasoning, since the Buddha didn't support his statements with reference to suttas, the only
conclusion is that he was making stuff up.
Again, you are not the Buddha, and there is no basis here for taking your claim of "direct knowledge" as carrying any weight. So far you have given us your beliefs about rebirth and you have called that reasoning, but it really does carry that weight of being carefully crafted and exampled argumentation.