RongzomFan

How many times have we heard the Christian Trinity is beyond our understanding?

Its the typical view I heard in Church. Nothing profound.

And you are just promoting typical Abrahamic religion: "God in unknowable"

Monotheism is a late invention. And Kabbalah is an even later medieval invention.

So stop pretending to be a rationalist. Ein-sof is just god.

And do you feel Vedanta is the essence of all these teachings?

ANderson, you have a PM

FIne, I will just discriminate based on race, just like everyone else. Carry on.

I am saying I don't look in terms of race, only cranial shape. You brought up race.

Of course thats bullshit. I'm going by the latest understanding of human evolution.

Yeah thats typical theism. That God in unknowable. Thats in any church dude.

I go by cranial shape, not skin color or ethnicity. The forehead of Homo genus becomes more bulgy from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens.

Don't tell me this is the first time you are noticing SJ. A lot of Buddhist authors have obviously jewish names.

And Vedanta is the essence of all these teachings, correct?

Jewish leave Judaism in droves for Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Buddhist

I think you are projecting your own.

I thought you were some kind of rationalist?? Now you are Jewish?

And that ideology is what?

I believe in Allah the demiurge. I am Muslim.

I'm tired of your made up definitions like "Direct Path" an "defacto Buddhist".

LMAO, you are the guy who promotes this thing called Direct Path, really Nondirect Path.

Link to the verses above: Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna Chapter 21, verses 12-13 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

To understand everything is illusion, you only need Madhyamaka reasoning. Logic. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6185&sid=66bfdf5114f9a42b5804d855d6dac9e4&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. - Loppon Namdrol

My hamster had a boner. I don't think he was conserving semen.

Atleast call it Nondirect Path. It has no direct introduction.