RongzomFan

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    4,693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by RongzomFan

  1. Superimposition of views on reality

    Here is a recent UK gang rape: http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/crime/teenagers-in-court-accused-of-gang-raping-young-girl-after-abducting-her-from-horse-fair-1-6401048 How come its not world wide news?
  2. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    Just ask him whether its paradoxical. You are on DW.
  3. Superimposition of views on reality

    Michael Comans says that Gaudapada is "identical to the understanding of Nagarjuna and other Mahayana Buddhists".
  4. Superimposition of views on reality

    Gaudapada stealing verses from Nagarjuna http://books.google.com/books?id=sx12hxoFVqwC&pg=PA88&dq=The+Method+of+Early+Advaita+Ved%C4%81nta+It+is+not+a+matter+for+dispute+whether&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wr8ZUZ7iGceR0QGHuID4Cw&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Method%20of%20Early%20Advaita%20Ved%C4%81nta%20It%20is%20not%20a%20matter%20for%20dispute%20whether&f=false Scroll through entire chapter
  5. Superimposition of views on reality

    Gaudapada has the same "principles and meanings" as Nagarjuna because he took them from Nagarjuna.
  6. Superimposition of views on reality

    Gaudapada took specific verses verbatim from Najarjuna.
  7. Superimposition of views on reality

    Advaita is the illegitimate bastard son of Nagarjuna.
  8. Superimposition of views on reality

    You don't believe in deities??!! http://thetaobums.com/topic/32153-mystical-buddhist-readings/
  9. Superimposition of views on reality

    Why no Hinduism? Ignore the gang rape stuff. 25% of American rapes are gang rapes. America has the highest gang rape and rape in the world.
  10. Superimposition of views on reality

    Half Camel / Half llama
  11. Superimposition of views on reality

    This seems in line with the various systems that I am hybridizing. ???????????????????
  12. Superimposition of views on reality

    Nagarjuna in ''MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states: "An existent does not arise from an existent; neither does an existent arise from a non-existent. A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent; neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky: "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 "the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated." -Candrakirti "Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddhaā€™s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things." -Candrakirti "Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world." -Candrakirti 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 ā€œexistence, nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,ā€ it is not possible to level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time." "I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. ā€œSo are you a realist then?ā€ I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. ā€œWhat sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?ā€ I propound dependent origination. ā€œWhat is the meaning of dependent origination?ā€ It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness." -Candrakirti Nagarjuna in MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states: "Not from themselves, not from something other, Not from both, and not without a cause- At any place and any time, All entities lack arising." Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika): "Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators]. CandrakÄ«rti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments: "If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it, Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames And everything could arise from everything, Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]." CandrakÄ«rti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other." Nagarjuna in ''MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states: "If an entity in itself does not exist, An entity other [than it] does not exist either." CandrakÄ«rti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]." Nagarjuna, in ''MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states: "If some nonarisen entity Existed somewhere, It might arise. However, since such does not exist, what would arise?" Nagarjuna, in ''MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states: "If something that lacks arising could arise, Just about anything could arise in this way."
  13. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    Anyway we all agree dependent origination is nonarising.
  14. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    The context of this quote was how to literally translate pratītyasamutpada, where someone suggested to translate it as paradox. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14929&start=420#p204909 Of course pratītyasamutpada doesn't translate to paradox.
  15. Am I a Taoist or a Zen Buddhist?

    I just noticed this is an old thread.
  16. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    I wasn't aware of this translation: http://www.tibetanclassics.org/html-assets/SixtyStanzas.pdf I only knew about this one: http://www.amazon.com/Nagarjunas-Yuktisastika-Candrakirtis-Commentary-Yuktisastikavrrti/dp/0975373420
  17. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    He says D.O. is not paradoxical in one post. But in many posts he says that conditioned is unconditioned, dependently arisen don't arise etc. etc. etc.
  18. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    Yes that's what I've been saying. I have many more quotes on this: Nagarjuna in ''MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states: "An existent does not arise from an existent; neither does an existent arise from a non-existent. A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent; neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky: "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 "the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated." -Candrakirti "Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddhaā€™s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things." -Candrakirti "Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world." -Candrakirti 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 ā€œexistence, nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,ā€ it is not possible to level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time." "I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. ā€œSo are you a realist then?ā€ I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. ā€œWhat sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?ā€ I propound dependent origination. ā€œWhat is the meaning of dependent origination?ā€ It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness." -Candrakirti Nagarjuna in MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states: "Not from themselves, not from something other, Not from both, and not without a cause- At any place and any time, All entities lack arising." Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika): "Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators]. CandrakÄ«rti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments: "If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it, Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames And everything could arise from everything, Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]." CandrakÄ«rti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other." Nagarjuna in ''MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states: "If an entity in itself does not exist, An entity other [than it] does not exist either." CandrakÄ«rti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]." Nagarjuna, in ''MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states: "If some nonarisen entity Existed somewhere, It might arise. However, since such does not exist, what would arise?" Nagarjuna, in ''MÅ«lamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states: "If something that lacks arising could arise, Just about anything could arise in this way."
  19. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    Nevermind. It seems Malcolm is contradicting himself then.
  20. Am I a Taoist or a Zen Buddhist?

    There is no Creator in Buddhism. But there are devas and Buddhas, which have previous lives as humans etc.
  21. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    Wrong. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=185946&hilit=Manjushri#p185946 No.
  22. Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

    "Dependent origination is exactly the meaning of non-arising" http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3667&p=32877&hilit=Manjushri#p32877 http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=185946&hilit=Manjushri#p185946