-
Content count
4,693 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Everything posted by RongzomFan
-
Google "kalam rebuttal"
-
Because a Creator has been rebutted a million times. Look at the rebuttals for Kalam cosmology.
-
Why the hell would they be "equally possible"? Watch the video I posted.
-
One has to show a Creator is possible:
-
Yes I am agnostic about gnomes, elves, fairies and unicorns. They are more possible than a Creator.
-
There is actual intelligence And then there is pseudo-intelligence like believing in Santa Claus or a Creator.
-
All the samyaksambuddhas I know were highly educated Dudjom Rinpoche Khenpo Ngawang Palzang Kunzang Dechen Lingpa But you are all now derailing my thread
-
Reference?
-
I agree that some intellectuals like Tsongkhapa are completely devoid of realization.
-
Namkhai Norbu's root guru was illiterate, but he was able to reveal sophisticated termas.
-
But illiterate doesn't mean uneducated.
-
I'll try to keep my insults to fictional characters like Allah, Count Chocula etc. than real persons.
-
By the way, when was basic Madhyamaka "high intellectual learning"? LMAO
-
That was before he was a buddhist. Thats the whole point.
-
Higher intellectual learning is correlated to faster realization. Milarepa was a highly educated Buddhist who studied under several lamas, including decades under Marpa.
-
corrected your statement
-
You are BUddha now?
-
Nagarjuna was reacting to crypto-realist Abhidharma, and thus elucidated the true meaning of Buddhadharma.
-
You are under the impression I care about what Shakyamuni taught. I don't.
-
Well atleast Buddhism is under supernatural protection. Hinduism just gets fucked: http://books.google.com/books?id=GKBV7QZ7BBQC&pg=PA34&dq=tantric+body+As+Dyczkowski+observes,+the+consolidation+of+Muslim+rule+in+north+India&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_M2kUqb2IobMsQSSwILgCA&ved=0CDAQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=tantric%20body%20As%20Dyczkowski%20observes%2C%20the%20consolidation%20of%20Muslim%20rule%20in%20north%20India&f=false
-
Ok, so I should just believe you? LMAO
-
I can give you a summary: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6185&start=220#p74244 First, if an appearance is an existent, can it arise from another existent? Or does it arise from a non-existent? As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms; and the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible. To address this, Nāḡrjuna writes: An existent does not arise from an existent; an existent does not arise from a non-existent; a non-existent does arise from an existent; a non-existent does not arise from a non-existent — where then can there be an instance of arising? If the arising of existents is not established, the arising of appearances is not established. If arising is not established, remaining is not established, and likewise, perishing is not established. If the three, arising, remaining and perishing, are not established, then there is no reason to accept the charge of annihilationism since I never suggested that there was an existent entity that could perish. All we are left with is empty appearances: they are not real because no existence, etc., can be ascertained regarding them; they are not unreal since they appear. All we can say about them is that they arise in dependence. N
-
Loppon Namdrol is never wrong. Even if he says stuff like dharmakaya is the only true refuge, I find the exact same thing in Dudjom Rinpoche's writings.
-
Muhammed himself ordered the genocide of the Banu Qurayza
-
bump for a response