RongzomFan

Genotropin is made by Pfizer Humatrope is by Eli Lilly

Whatever I am done with this thread. I am still 100% confident in my A, B, C since I had previously fixed all errors in understanding. Peace.

Ok tell that to Geshe Tashi who, even though he is a Gelugpa, says things appear as mere labels or designations upon causes and conditions. This is in his book "Emptiness". You don't need to talk about 'lack of intrinsic existence', even though he later does of course, being a Gelugpa.

Ok tell that to old Namdrol on Esangha. Or Paul Williams who uses the exact phrase "conceptual construct" as a defining characteristic of Madhyamaka. Or myself who already cleared this shit up. I'm telling you the problem stemmed from using the word "exists" and not "appear" Somewhere else on Dharma Wheel, Namdrol praised my understanding of emptiness.

Some things Namdrol says are above people's heads. I know what he said on the Madhyamaka section of Esangha. How many times did he talk about mere labels and imputation? If you think Namdrol says an appearance is not a thoughtform, you are completely screwed.

Things don't exist as thoughtforms, they APPEAR as thoughtforms. Ok my bad. I learned from that.

I talked to Namdrol about this. The problem was that I used the word "exists" instead of "appears". Thats all.

You don't understand what Namdrol meant. Thats the fucking problem. I am Enochian on Dharma Wheel. I used the word "exists" when I should have used the word "appears."

I already fucking rebutted it. Thats not what emptiness means. I already told you what emptiness means.

You are right. All of the garbage of Thusness is the same as from the mouth of Jigme Lingpa or the Buddha. Do you know how ridiculous you are?

LOL I am reading it right now. Quote the sentence where he defines emptiness correctly. I'll wait.

He has not defined emptiness correctly...not even once. To say an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that thing is dependently originated. Emptiness generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs).

This is bullshit on so many levels. Should I just post the PM's from last year when I already refuted this?

I disagree that this is a source of Buddhism in any shape: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

You already have an account there yes?

I can ask in the open on Dharma Wheel. Except that would make ME look like the idiot. Why don't you ask Namdrol on Dharma Wheel about it?

Yes I am opining you slander the Dharma. Should I ask Namdrol about Thusness' seven stages?

Your opinion means nothing, since it is obvious you are also totally ignorant of Buddhism.

Yeah its you, who slanders the Dharma

I will NEVER agree that this Thusness asshole is a source of Buddha Dharma.

You and I well know that we talk about this every year on PM. I am well acquainted with Thusness' garbage crap. Do I need to post our PM's?