ralis

Yep! Karma is BS dogma. A form of crowd control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTjwJSE_qvA&list=FLQEUIs_2tRU4ir4250bakfQ

We are only discussing "debunking a creator" here. The other texts in question have only been referred to in the context of this discussion. I refrain to comment on those at this time.

I was referring to one with advanced degrees in religious studies with no formal training in systems theory but is using systems theory to write a book on Dharmic systems theory. I see far too many dilettantes crossing over into fields they know nothing about. As for the above, am I supposed to be impressed that an M.D. is a translator? I read his bio and he is studying Indo-Tibetan mind and health science which he is applying to various physical and mental problems in his practice. Because it is Tibetan medicine, is it beneficial? Are ancient teachings that date back to the Middle Ages of benefit? Are the teachings of the Buddha relevant to this age?

You cry 'double standards' to everyone here that posits a different point of view. Yet, you never explain yourself.

I looked at her bio and her Ph.d is in religious studies and as far as I can tell she has no training in science or math. I recommend Bateson over most of these writers.

Every response you post, is nothing more than cookie cutter, cut/paste, with no real discussion.

I believe you are referring to the blurring/breakdown of cause and effect on the quantum level. Under certain conditions, effects appear before the cause. Phenomena can also appear to be causeless at that level.

Read some of the old threads started by Vajrahridaya and you will see what several of us are referring to. I was heavily involved in those threads.

Vajraji would have made this thread even more interesting.

Why not elaborate in detail in your own words as opposed to appealing to authority.

I give Turtle shell much credit for really trying to explain his reasoning. This is an extremely difficult subject. Rongzom and Simple are doing nothing but badgering.

Ein-sof is discussed in the Kabbalah and that is a fact. The use of 'is' to make absolute assertions as to the nature of existence falls in the dichotomy of yes/no which leaves no room for discussion. This thread being fraught with such limitations.

I am saying the same thing in both instances.

Ein-sof is discussed in the Kabbalah which does not mean that the Kabbalah is the origin of Ein-sof. According to your logic, Buddhism is older and therefor superior. Dates mean nothing relative to the age of the universe. Buddhists or anyone else do not posses ownership as to what is the nature of existence.

Like I said in several posts, humans lack the capacity to fully understand. As you very well know, this dialectic has been taking place through the ages with no answer.

This has been totally derailed by the OP and his cohorts. If the thread displays reason at some point in time, I may have something to say.

You went from Judaism to Christian Trinity? What is your point?

That is the bottom line. Isn't it? The vast majority are conditioned in a certain way then react when hearing what is believed to be a more superior/profound belief system. Basic stimulus response psychology.

But your belief systems are profound?

The OP is in terms of "debunking a creator". Actually the title is not well phrased. I am participating by providing other points of view. Buddhists or anyone else for that matter, do not possess ownership of the nature of life.

I was referring to the Kabbalah not Judaism in general. Why not do a little reading/study as opposed to proceeding from incorrect conclusions.

This topic is nothing more than a controlling legalistic rant which is the underlying problem with the Buddhist idea that totality can be understood and controlled.

This discussion has been derailed by our resident Buddhists when I brought up Ein-sof which is in keeping with the OP. As far as I know, Ein-sof predates any religious doctrine or belief system. I have no problem with my inability to fully comprehend Ein-sof, totality or however one frames it. I believe fear drives the need to absolutely comprehend totality, as if such beliefs will reward one to exert control over the unknown.