ralis
-
Content count
13,827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Everything posted by ralis
-
Does this functioning include computer programming, solving environmental problems, justice and so forth? Solving hunger and poverty? Just to name a few mundane activities.
-
Just want to know if Coinbase.com should be tweaked by TaoBums
ralis replied to thelerner's topic in Forum and Tech Support
Coinbase is acting like a bug and slows downloading of this site. -
If all so called views are eliminated then how does one function?
-
The ending of all views etc. may be the basic view of Dzogchen/Buddhism. However, the language constructs are divisive. If you examine the semantic constructs of how you frame this debate, then you may see the divisiveness of what you are presenting. Your post above extensively uses 'isness' as a way to frame the debate. Isness=absolute. I suppose you didn't bother to read the E-Prime article. I rarely use 'is' in my posts. Usually when I am sloppy.
-
Rationalistic hubris? Addressed to whom? It seems to me that the apologists here are positing absolute constructs or points of view, that if challenged by so called rational arguments, such challenges are viewed as heretical. As I have stated on many occasions, semantic constructs that are based on rigid divisions of either/or, yes/no etc. divide and leave no alternative which creates two divisions of thought. Instead of choosing rational as opposed to subjective, which this argument of Dzogchen/Buddhism bases on, I propose being both rational and subjective at once thereby giving one many options. Being inclusive seems to me what Dzogchen teaches as opposed to divisiveness. The Wiki article explaining a brief of overview of E-Prime is meant as an intro. to different ways of communicating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
-
You assume that I or research scientists don't have knowledge as to the sun being a star and it's effects? That is authoritarian posturing on your part. As I have stated numerous times, you have some obsessive need to be absolutely right. No matter what I or anyone else states. You have stated many times that whatever I post, you will knock it down as being wrong. Have you posted on any other forums? If so include links here.
-
Your arguments are not scientific but assumptions which are not peer reviewed! When you make statements such as 'scientists have little understanding of the mechanics of the sun' or in your vernacular 'radiative physics', that lends no credibility to what you posit. What you consistently assume is that most research scientists are stupid and uneducated in proper scientific research. Furthermore, you position yourself as having a vaster intellect and having a far greater knowledge of AGW than the entire research community. Do you actually believe what you write?
-
Your arguments are not scientific in the least. As I have stated before, the denier assumptions are not based on the entire body of scientific work but on authoritarian nitpicking of a few points to distract and control the conversation. To side with 14 articles as compared to thousands is unreasonable and you know it. What does fascism have to do with it?
-
To treat Dzogchen or any other teaching as an absolute understanding of the cosmos is problematic.
-
These people have made their experience into a commodity and the Lama's don't? It seems to me that all of this is regards to subjective experience and the Lama hierarchy is capitalizing on it. Expensive teachings along with the appropriate paraphernalia and for the well heeled consumers, spending months in India, Nepal or Bhutan taking extensive empowerment's. Restricting teachings which makes such teachings scarce which is marketing at it's finest. Trungpa characterized this as 'spiritual materialism'. http://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Through-Spiritual-Materialism-Shambhala/dp/1590306392/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1363548417&sr=8-2&keywords=trungpa
-
You are off topic again. This thread is in regards to Dzogchen.
-
If you want to be a faith based religious ideologue fine but to confuse that with claiming infallibility/fallibility, will be challenged.
-
You are changing the subject at hand.
-
By stating that you are also stating they were infallible. You are trapped in an either/or dilemma. A problem with an absolute dichotomous world view.
-
You made a statement and I am challenging it. By positing an absolute statement then claiming it is faith based (blind faith) does not make your argument valid. Furthermore, you must defend what you stated. Saying Dudjom Rinpoche was infallible because you say so is absurd. You can't prove or disprove your premise.
-
What is your evidence of this?
-
I am not proposing equality but am in opposition to deifying Lamas who happen to be fallible humans. Furthermore, Donald Lopez would disagree with you about Lamaism which is just a mishmash of teachings from different cultures. http://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Shangri-La-Tibetan-Buddhism-West/dp/0226493113/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1363453747&sr=8-3&keywords=donald+lopez I am not some ignorant fool as you so characterize me but have taken teachings from Theravada to Dzogchen. Moreover, I am criticizing the shills who persistently apologize from within the system as opposed to thinking critically by asking questions. To question and challenge one's preconceived ideas is a sign of intelligence.
-
I don't appreciate the overt put down of Westerners as if as a group we are lesser than or heathens. Further, you imply that the Buddhist worldview preached by the Lama hierarchy is superior and therefor the Lamas are superior? The primitive view of needing a divine intercessor such as what you posit in the Lama tribal view is no different than the Papal view.
-
That is your opinion. Then live as you wish and stop preaching.
-
BTW, this is a discussion in regards to Dzogchen.
-
I have taken teachings since way back in the 80's and I know very well what the agenda is. That is why I left the Buddhist trip and studied Dzogchen. What is your point about the rules etc. being Indian? Those rules are still very much alive in the Tibetan tradition. End of discussion. As far as I am concerned you are off topic in this thread.
-
If you want to live a rigid monastic life then that is your right. There is and has been for centuries too much religious rigidity in this world. To imply that Buddhism is different, more divine and higher than all other belief systems is missing the point.
-
Just hide behind authoritarianism which is just religious dogma.
-
'Buddhist' is just another conceptual construct. The problem with you is making this just another exclusive club full of rules and authoritarianism. If I remember correctly you have been suspended from here on a number of occasions.
-
What is that supposed to mean?
