As always Rat_spit, take care.
free potato for your non-sequitur 
So you lied then, since neither of those quotes mention peer reviewed journals. You still can’t produce a post of mine mentioning peer reviewed journals, because I never did, or a post making the claim (below) that you dishonestly assigned to me.
Stop lying ratty. I asked you what objective process validated the Buddha’s teachings, and if for example they’d been peer reviewed. I never mentioned peer reviewed journals, and certainly didn’t make the claim you have repeatedly lied and assigned to me.
I doubt that, since the nature of suffering, and the experience of it are necessarily different.
Still waiting for you to demonstrate any objective evidence that consciousness can exist independently of a functioning brain.
Missed the irony and resorted to Ad Hominem. Sad
That’s not ad hominem, it’s an observation on your posts, and how they reflect your inability to take part in a debate, partly because you don’t seem to comprehend some fairly simple statements, like the one Nyarl quoted from your post.
The point wasn’t missed at all, it was yet another howler from you that Nyarl pointed out, and didn’t need reinforcing, but since you’re a naughty rat, here it is again then.
Like I said, it feels like kicking a puppy sometimes.
Why does your reflection resemble a puddle of vomit?
1 Like
Oh. See. This whole time I didn’t realize you were fixated on the journal aspect of the peer review process. What a joke. Do you think your asinine comment would have been any different in either case? Sorry. All apologies. Excuse me for saying journals. That’s a tight noose up your butthole isn’t it, Shelly? You could use a little root chakra therapy.
Expand please. I’m interested.
You’ll be waiting a long time. I don’t maintain that point of view.
“Some fairly some”? And you’re commenting on my reading comprehension skills? Learn how to form a sentence, Shelly.
Like I said. It’s an ironic take on the patriarchal history of the Scientific Community and how it took some 200 years for scientists to acknowledge the achievements of people like Madam Curie. I made that mistake on purpose. The jokes on you.
Why is there a broom stick stuck three feet up your rectum?
By and by? How do you know what it feels like to “kick a puppy”? You cruel Shelly?
This whole time you misrepresented what was said. As was pointed out to you by Nyarl, many many posts ago.
Your claim is entirely different in content and context to what I had said, now maybe your grasp of English really is that poor, but nevertheless I never remotely said what you had claimed.
FWIW, I’m pretty confident you deliberately caused this entirely unnecessary side show by misrepresenting what I said, to avoid addressing your appeal to authority fallacy about the teachings of Buddha.
Don’t make the same mistake now and fixate on one word, try and understand that your claim bore no resemblance to what I said.
Here’s a helpful tip for you, if a sentence ends in a question mark then it is not a claim. You took a question out of context and misrepresented it as an absolute claim about knowledge as if I had made it, which wasn’t remotely true. Your problem is that you lose the plot when anyone disagrees with you, turning cogent debate into a fractured and disjointed, he said she said slanging match. That obfuscates away from salient objections to your woo woo claims.
Not sure what else there is to say, I doubt your claim that those who suffer the most are most qualified to comment on suffering. I’ll try an example, you are in excruciating pain, you have no idea what’s wrong, you go to hospital and a doctor correctly diagnoses you, and treats you to cure the cause. It is rational to assume you knew more about your suffering than the doctor? You experienced the pain, but the doctor was able to use objective empirical data to find out why, and how to stop it.
Hmmm…
Well there you go, I couldn’t have asked for a better example of how you dishonestly evade a criticism of your claim with deflection. This time focusing exclusively on a typographical error from a phone with predictive text in order to indulge in petty point scoring. Now was your statement a typo? Do you not see how sad that is?
Ok ratty, if you say so. It’s clear you have something of a problem with criticism.
Re-read your post, your reaction though typical doesn’t address your poorly worded and irrelevant ad hominem to me, which suggested your own reflection resembled vomit.
And I apologize. Your comment “peer reviewed” (strictly no journals involved) is still irrelevant to the nature and experience of suffering
FWIW - I didn’t. It was a slight error of misreading and you have gone to great lengths to complain about it endlessly.
Now that we have it sorted out - tell me how the peer review process qualifies the Buddha’s suffering and eventual realization of its end?
Rhetorical. Your questions are rhetorical. We both know that the peer review process didn’t exist 2500 years ago. You’ve already implied that I cannot positively answer your question as soon as you’ve asked. Which puts me on the defensive - and, as I’ve pointed out leads me to say that there is no value to a peer review process with the Buddha - as far as your definition of “scientific peer review” goes.
If you want to know the facts, thousands of the Buddha’s disciples “verified” his teachings by reaching the same level of existential escape as their teacher.
Sure. The one who can cure the pain understands it better. “Physician heal thy self”. Jesus couldn’t practice what he preached. The Buddha could, in the other hand.
I put consciousness to rest. Where consciousness has been subdued, so too perception and feeling cease. Very simple
Oh dear, do I need to Google the words feel and like for you?
You said you could transcend your mind and body.
I suggest you look up the word transcend.
It’s really not that sad. I’m not sad. Don’t kid your self. I don’t take the things you say to heart and I judge my personal value on more than a heated debate with a Sheldon who likes to throw low blows.
I threw a low blow. Of course I knew it was a typographical error on a phone with predictive spelling. Still kind of ironic, no?
Do you want a standing eight count? Go on. Take as much time as you need.
Yeah. You kick Puppies Sheldon. And you “know how it feels” to do so. So take a step back. At this point I think we’re both a little engaged here saying stupid off topic things.
Let’s refocus. What do you want?
Oh dear. So you have kicked a puppy? Atrocious!
Suggestion taken.
Definition of transcend
1a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of
b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME
c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)
By putting an end to consciousness I “transcended” perception and feeling.
Still confused?
Good night, Shelly. I have a big day tomorrow. A laundry list of chores ready made by my wife. Marriage can be a trying thing. My genuine apologies you made the split. Life goes on, I assume?
You said you could transcend your mind. How do you know this if you “put an end to consciousness”? Still sounds like woo woo to me.
I think these two meditators managed to get their ass chakras in alignment with Aquarius and got to the 27th plateau of cosmic consciousness enlightenment!
I did mis-read … man - my bad!
Sneaky little rat wording 
… 
So, what was special about this particular 10,000 years before fire 
? And what about the 10,000 before that 10,000…was it “good” or “bad”?