Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
so you are defining the word with the word it self.
It is like saying applejuice is juice made of apples... This answers NOTHING in regards to what is juice and what is an apple, i am sure there is some word for this kind of reasoning.
Furthermore by your own definition here it is both finite or infite, so you are also contradicting yourself.lasting forever or for a very long time.
it is called avoiding questions man. I asked you what exactly do you mean by everlasting, you tell me it lasts for ever. That is not an answer to my question. This is not called answering a question.
it is not an answer man, you did not even paraphase, you just took short form of "forever" which is "ever" and replaced the short form with original form, making no change but claiming that "everlasting" is defined by "lasts forever" this is not true in the world, you will be laughed at in any country for this, this is established in the world as not a proper definition nor an explaination for sure.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
your statements are heretic and it is not good to misrepresent me.
I suspect that you fall into this cathegory;
and/or eternalist but idk because you cant explain eternity. heck maybe ur some sneaky annihilationist even, it is hard to tell when you hide it like that."Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'
Maybe i am wrong of course and you can prove by disproving this prediction;
"Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation:
2. Is there no world beyond?
3. Is it that there both is and is not a world beyond?
4. Is it that there neither is nor is not a world beyond?
1. Are there beings spontaneously reborn?
2. Are there no beings spontaneously reborn?
3. Is it that there both are and are not beings spontaneously reborn?
4. Is it that there neither are nor are not beings spontaneously reborn?
1. Is there fruit and result of good and bad action?
2. Is there no fruit and result of good and bad action?
3. Is it that there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
4. Is it that there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
1.Does the Tathāgata exist after death?
2.Does the Tathāgata not exist after death?
3.Does the Tathāgata both exist and not exist after death?
4.Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor not exist after death?
Last edited by rightviewftw on Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
well you have 4 groups of questions presented to you, a prediction, inviting refutation here and now. Chose A, B, C or D and answer all 4.
If you can't it is clear that either you are stupid etc or you just do not know enough to discuss this stuff to begin with and in way over your head.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 30 guests