RongzomFan

Hypocrite.

Are you agnostic about ancient Greek or Egyptian creation cosmologies?

What aren't you open to ancient Greek cosmology and creation? Why are you so closed minded?

No, you are asking me to be open to all sorts of world-wide myths.

So I have to be open to every myth in the world? The ancient Greek cosmology and creation?

Why do I have to believe in this Western myth? I wasn't raised in Western religion.,

I am agnostic about elves, leprechauns, gnomes, unicorns etc.

Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier, has a recent blog post on this: Ergo God Maximally Enjoys Getting Gangbanged http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4932

If you are a follower of Advaita Vedanta, why are arguing for a Creator? You should be on my side.

Why is an Advaitin arguing for a Creator? There is no Creator in Advaita Vedanta.

Yes its easy. Take off your glasses. Put your hands against a white wall with a lot of sunlight. Look at your tips of your fingernails.

You posited it as a different possibility, when its not.

You do realize there is no Creator in Advaita Vedanta right? You do realize there is no Creation story in Hinduism right?

Berzin teaches Gelug perspective, which he admits.

That's just the Creator not changing. LMAO

If you are talking about evocation of deities, I just posted a video of ganapati homam in the Vedanta section with instructions.

This is a good summary of Buddhism. Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 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." 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 Buddha’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 “existence, nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” 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. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” 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 Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 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]. Candrakīrti, 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]." Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other." Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states: "If an entity in itself does not exist, An entity other [than it] does not exist either." Candrakīrti, 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 ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states: "If some nonarisen entity Existed somewhere, It might arise. However, since such does not exist, what would arise?" Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states: "If something that lacks arising could arise, Just about anything could arise in this way." Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.151., comments: "It is not asserted that a chariot is something other than its parts. It is not something that is not other, nor does it possess them. It does not exist in the parts, nor do the parts exist in it. It is neither their mere collection nor the shape—thus is the analogy."

Wow people have different perceptions. Tibetan_Ice always says I post too much stuff from books, and rainbowvein says I don't help people.

If you say so.

Buddhism isn't simple at all.

In Khecarividya of Adinatha by the same guy, James Mallinson, its says there is an opposite to amitra you have to spit out. Its a good thing I read the book before I learned kechari mudra.

Oxford scholar James Mallinson has a lot of stuff on this topic: http://www.khecari.com/styled/index.html

So you admit its not science?

I don't cite anything specific from Wikipedia. So don't call me a hypocrite.

Fuck karma? Yes fucking is karma. Karmamudra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmamudra