RongzomFan

There is no soul in Advaita either. Atman means 'identity', not soul.

Well now you are changing the subject from seeing pride in people's eyes to luck and karma. It is always lucky to meet a real master. That's standard Buddhism 101.

Taiwan is part of China. You might have some screwed up Buddhism there.

You can see something that specific in people's eyes?

Also consider Anuyoga completion stage instead of HYT completion stage. The deities are different, and its from the perspective of Dzogchen instead of Madhyamaka.

Are you talking about the Buddha Nature of the sutras (Tathagatagarbha Sutras) or tantras (Mahamudra)? You can't just say Buddha Nature without stating which one you are talking about...

Emptiness means there is no arising. Thus there is no arising-duration-cessation. "Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction." -Candrakirti "Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views." -Candrakirti

First off, Vedanta didn't exist yet. I'm not aware of Madhyamaka addressing Vedanta. Secondly, you don't take an adversarial position. You just extend their own argument. This is called consequentialism or prasangika.

bump

There is no philosophical position taken in Madhyamaka. This is pretty well known. Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since I have no position, I am not at fault at all." Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence, nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

If you read any Madhyamaka root text yourself, the emphasis is on nonarisal / illusion.

Gelugs focus only on the negation of inherent existence (svabhava). This is indeed part of Madhyamaka, but if you stop at that point, thats Gelug crypto-realism as Namdrol says http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4557&start=0#p46675 http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6423&start=120#p78294 http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6423&start=200#p79902

I'm not aware of a stronger anti-belief system than Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is like atheism on steroids, demolishing all the ancient Indian belief systems. Thats why Madhyamaka books need an appendix to describe all the ancient Indian religions.

right no, this inherent stuff is from Tsongkhapa.

I quit Dharma Wheel in protest over 1 member's promotion of Samael Aun Weor. See my last post: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=6111&start=100#p72298 You did keep saying that the Dalai Lama banned Tsongkhapa: http://thetaobums.com/topic/25953-breath-meditation-experience/page-4 "HH Dalai Lama is the 14'th Dalai Lama. He imposed the ban. Duh.. The HH Dalai Lama said that at one time he did go with Tsongkhapa's teachings but that since, he changed his mind."

bump

yeah sure. lol

For you? Absolutely.

Its hilarious how you troll every Buddhist thread Like here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/27623-paying-homage-to-guru-rinpoche/#entry416251

Seriously you have no fucking idea what you are talking about as usual. If I say "That mother has no son", that implies the existence of a daughter etc. A nonimplicative negation is a simple negation that implies nothing else.

you are not doing it right

These 2 statements show you have no idea what you are talking about.

Madhyamaka reasonings are called reasonings for a reason. Madhyamaka takes no philosophical position. Its a system of nonimplicative negation.