RongzomFan

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    4,693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by RongzomFan

  1. Debunking a Creator

    Thats why you have to read all the quotes. They are called Madhyamaka reasonings for a reason. They have several steps.
  2. Debunking a Creator

    If you are quoting Namdrol, he says phenomena are completely equivalent to illusion. everything, including buddhahood, etc., is completely equivalent to an illusion; not "like an illusion", as some people in Mahāyāna with a poor understanding hedge -- completely equivalent. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=80#p58244 Some people, hearing that all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions freak out. Some people who hear that phenomena are empty, freak out. This is why it is a bohdhisattva downfall to teach emptiness to the immature. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=100#p58342
  3. Debunking a Creator

    Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states: "If an entity in itself does not exist, An entity other [than it] does not exist either."
  4. Debunking a Creator

    Vmarco had some good posts which demonstrated the Muslims started the whole thing. The media is slamming Buddhists, only because they mistakenly think Buddhists are pacifists.
  5. Debunking a Creator

    Muslims should stop raping Buddhist nuns. Simple.
  6. Debunking a Creator

    Wow. You own material admits to making "a slight enhancement".
  7. Debunking a Creator

    Where is my commentary here? 95% of it is direct quotes.
  8. Debunking a Creator

    Stick to your Street Fighter
  9. Debunking a Creator

    Says the guy who uses fake diagrams modified from the original textbooks. LMAO at you IB.
  10. Debunking a Creator

    No, we both just read the original Indian texts.
  11. Debunking a Creator

    Loppon Namdrol gets accused of being a nihilist all the time too. You guys are brainwashed by Tsongkhapa.
  12. Debunking a Creator

    Look at the refutations of Kalam cosmology.
  13. Debunking a Creator

    If there is nothing real, there is nothing a Creator could have created.
  14. Debunking a Creator

    Then you are beyond help. Gnomes, elves and leprechauns are more possible than a Creator.
  15. Debunking a Creator

    Thats a good endorsement, coming from you.
  16. Debunking a Creator

    The translator of this book has training in science. He is a Harvard educated medical doctor: http://www.amazon.com/Nagarjunas-Yuktisastika-Candrakirtis-Commentary-Yuktisastikavrrti/dp/0975373420
  17. Debunking a Creator

    Can we get back to the main line of reasoning? That everything is illusion? All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence. However its all illusion, like a dream. Phenomena don't arise in the first place. 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."
  18. Debunking a Creator

    Cause and effect is blurred also in Madhyamaka. http://books.google.com/books?id=rJ2qasKWbrYC&pg=PA122&dq=Madhyamaka+cause+and+effect+same+different&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LtikUsiOKtLJsQSyooDQBQ&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Madhyamaka%20cause%20and%20effect%20same%20different&f=false
  19. Debunking a Creator

    I'm sure its not.
  20. Debunking a Creator

    Atleast call it Nondirect Path. It doesn't even have direct introduction. Even the Bhagavad Gita (not Hare Krishna version) is way more profound than Nondirect Path.
  21. Debunking a Creator

    Maybe if I was a monk.
  22. Debunking a Creator

    Thats hilarious they think Ramana is superior. Ramana is absolute trash. Worthless.
  23. Debunking a Creator

    Where does Gatito address the origin OR nonorigin of Nondirect Path anywhere in this post?
  24. Debunking a Creator

    You are a weird guy, and I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
  25. Debunking a Creator

    Okay, what is the origin of Nondirect Path? Is this where you make universalist claims like Radhakrishnan? "... Indian nationalist leaders continued to operate within the categorical field generated by politicized religion [...] Extravagant claims were made on behalf of Oriental civilization. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's statement - "[t]he Vedanta is not a religion but religion itself in its "most universal and deepest significance" - is fairly typical." - Mazumda, Srucheta; Kaiwar, Vasant (2009), From Orientalism to Postcolonialism, Routledge