ralis

The above is nothing but a lengthy ad hominem attack on anyone who questions authority. Further, to accuse one of lacking maturity for questioning religious authority is preposterous. To deny that the Dharma King Lama's are not authoritarian is equally preposterous. Prostrating before some dude with a special hat sitting on a throne has nothing to do with enlightenment. It is a known fact that the Tibetan peasantry were not allowed any formal education, but the monastics were supposedly well educated and kept the masses superstitious and ignorant. The same attitude prevails outside of Tibet.

The teachings are fine. Remove the authoritarianism, patriarchy, thrones, robes, secret teachings and other unnecessary exotic bullshit! I hope that is clear enough.

I want to add that Tibetan Buddhism or to be more precise, Lamaism, is a patriarchal i.e, top down religion. The venerated/worshiped Padmasambhava is responsible for destroying Shamanism i.e, Bon in ancient Tibet.

There are many misconceptions in regards to Tibetan Buddhism. It is important to remember that Tibet was a theocratic feudalistic culture. The teachings are still based on that authoritarian view. Most of the teachers with few exceptions sit on a throne with everyone below. That in itself should be a reminder of how things really are. Most of the Lama's that are teaching in the West do it for money which supports their monasteries. Donald Lopez clears up many mistaken ideas about Tibet. http://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Shangri--Tibetan-Buddhism-West/dp/0226493113/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405878413&sr=1-5&keywords=donald+lopez

You assume there will be a contraction. Conjecture no less. You are just citing out of the context of scientific research. Why not study Thomas Kunh's work to understand how science works. BTW, I don't base my entire existence on science. http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405785139&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+kuhn+the+structure+of+scientific+revolutions

The science behind the age of the universe is very close 13.798±0.037 billion years.

Not certain how real this is but......

Believing that hair is important to cultivation is just 'spiritual materialism'.

Instead of engaging in a reasonable discourse with Grandmaster P, you defer to a textual reference which is out of context. Buddhists have some need to be absolutely right while making others absolutely wrong with no room for reasonable discourse. The above quote is vague and open to myriad interpretations. You seem to be advocating any behavior without question when expressed from a Buddhist.

In my town there are a few real Buddhists. Most are engaged in behavior such as what is on this site. There are at least six Tibetan Buddhist centers which includes a Buddhist stupa, one Zen center, and several Theravadin centers. The board members which represent the Buddhist stupa center told Namkhai Norbu in 1989 that he can never return due to the fact that he stated that Samantabhadra is the primordial Buddha.

You are not willing to put forth actual numbers? What you stated could be any random number.

To clarify my position; the aspect of authoritarianism that pervades every Buddhist discussion is inappropriate and serves no one. Deference to the so called higher cause i.e, in this case absolute Buddhist truth, is a means to denigrate and abuse others. Combine that with treating 'emptiness' and 'no-self' as sacred artifacts in which one that incessantly uses such terms is not creatively expressing oneself, but is parroting a religious/legalistic point of view. The following quote by you was not well taken. Instead of discussing and expanding on said concepts, you accuse me for being contemptuous and projecting. That line of accusation has been used by Buddhist here for years. I am being objective which is the point of any discussion. Every Buddhist that I challenge on this posits the same old party line, with few exceptions.

I am finished discussing this with you. This is going nowhere.

Buddhists have been using the term 'hell' for some time so why not change it to a more suitable translation. Moreover, the translations given are poorly worded and are trapped in the context of another culture. E.g. the incessant parroting of 'emptiness' and 'no self' indicates a lack of critical thought processes to defend what one writes. The repetition of these phrases indicates to me the lack of direct experience. I am not in any way naive as to Buddhist teachings.

I just came across this Dharma Wheel thread in which many are showing great disrespect for Rachel Olds. Several have condemned her to hell. At least she put in the effort for almost a decade unlike most so called Buddhists. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=16417&start=40

How can you assert a system with no flaws? That creates an absolute defense where no one can have a rational discussion with you. Moreover, that puts you in the position of being absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong.

You are taking this OT with your incessant rant on Neo-advaita. Why not stay on topic.

Thank you. Why not proof read what you write the next time. That would be much appreciated for all who are participating in this thread.

I am not impressed with your patronizing/condescending rhetoric. I am no fool and stop treating me as such!

Why not explain yourself. Vague post.

I have been around Buddhism since the early 80's. I have studied it thoroughly and know that Buddhism is a belief system. I think there are millions of Buddhists in Asia that would disagree with your statement in regards to the Pali Canon.

It matters not as to how one relates, but that doesn't change the results of scientific investigation. The Buddhadharma is based on mythology and therefor is not absolute. No proof whatsoever. E.g. the Pali Canon in no way can be proven to contain the exact words of the Buddha.

I doubt you know and understand scientific investigation from your remarks. Furthermore, there are no absolutes in scientific investigation, only probabilities. Before you try to posit an argument from a position as to the one you posited, I suggest you read this book. http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405546849&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+kuhn

The first link contains the following which I object to. This idea of merit is no different than other religious beliefs in sin. The more sin in the world, the shorter the life span.

Of course my statement applies. I stated factual evidence as to the length of time the human species has evolved from primate species. Who are you to tell me it doesn't? How does your belief in religious absolutism and in this case Buddhism apply?