RongzomFan

The hyperspecific topic of the paper has nothing to do with the author identifying 5 areas of colonial influence on Hinduism at the beginning of the paper, which include Advaita Vedanta and caste.

Female buddhas are the ultimate in Vajrayana. Research: Vajrayogini Vajravarahi Troma Nagmo Tara Ekajati etc. But still, its an academic fact that Hinduism is the most feminine religion in the entire history of the world. "Nowhere in the panorama of world religious traditions, from ancient times to the present, do we find such a strong presence of the feminine voice within the divinity as we do in the Hindu complex of religion." http://books.google.com/books?id=0z02cZe8PU8C&pg=PA441&lpg=PA441&dq=Nowhere+in+the+panorama+of+world+religious+traditions,+from+ancient+times+to+the+present,+do+we+find+such+a+strong+presence+of+the+feminine+voice+within+the+divinity+as+we+do+in+the+Hindu+complex+of+religion&source=bl&ots=NiNq-FnGuv&sig=nyZ0bOIkfulTNrxrFU-8JK487og&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RvonUoyWOtDD4AOy_4HYBA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Nowhere%20in%20the%20panorama%20of%20world%20religious%20traditions%2C%20from%20ancient%20times%20to%20the%20present%2C%20do%20we%20find%20such%20a%20strong%20presence%20of%20the%20feminine%20voice%20within%20the%20divinity%20as%20we%20do%20in%20the%20Hindu%20complex%20of%20religion&f=false

Are you talking about Buddhist emptiness? If so, here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky: 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 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 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."

He is talking to people who already have transmission. Does he really need to say transmission is step 1 in every post?

This is how it works: 1. You get transmission 2. You do rushan 3. You recognize ma bcos shes pa skad cig ma versus the conceptualizing mind 4. Then you can relax in that knowledge.

Believe what you wish.

No, just the opposite. "If you have not actually recognized the nature of the mind, just resting is just shamatha" If you have recognized the nature of the mind, resting in that knowledge is trekcho. If you have not recognized the nature of the mind, resting the mind is just shamatha.

Nope. Namdrol has said many times the only prerequisites are transmission and rushan. And read what he actually said.

It isn't rocket science. You only have 2 things: conceptualizing mind nowness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRp_dUo5K1c

Due to the amateurish thread in the Vedanta forum, I have created a factual thread regarding Vedanta. 1. From the textbook of Dr. Upinder Singh (daughter of prime minister and noted historian): "The earliest formal exposition of Advaita or non-dualistic Vedanta was put forward by Gaudapada in the 7th or 8th century in his Mandukyakarika, a verse commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad. Gaudapada was influenced by Madhyamika and Vijnanavada Buddhism." 2. If you want to see the verbatim verses Gaudapada took from Madhyamaka, you can read chapter 2 of The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta. 3. The Upanishads themselves were derived directly from Buddhism, even specifically Mahayana: Hajime Nakamura, Trevor Leggett. A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, Part 2. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2004 page 284-6 "As was pointed out in detail in the section titled Interpretation, many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it." "From the fact that many Buddhist terms are found in its explanation, it is clear that this view was established under the influence of the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Void." "Although Buddhistic influence can be seen in the Maitri-Upanishad, the particular terms and modes of expression of Mahayana Buddhism do not yet appear, whereas the influence of the Mahayana concept of Void can clearly be recognized in the Mandukya-Upanisad."

That Miami gang rape and murder was especially heinous. Even the judge cried.

ok

I follow tantras, not sutras.

I simply don't follow Hinayana. I don't see whats wrong with that position. Of course there are other Buddhas teaching the Buddhadharma. The Indian Mahasiddhas who founded Vajrayana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasiddha

How is that denouncing? I don't follow the teachings of Shakyamuni, which is Hinayana. Yet he is still a supreme nirmankaya, and earth is the Pure Land of Shakyamuni. But Shakyamuni also ate meat. He famously died of pork poisoning.

Any Indian topic ultimately turns to hating on India. Its a mathematical certainty. See "Breaking India".

Both partners need empowerments and instructions for karmamudra anyway. I don't have them. They are pretty hard to get.

Counter argument to what? Point to a Lankavatara Sutra book with universal mind. The onus is on you. What changed my mind on karmamudra: 1. The biography of Togden Shakya Sri 2. The thread on Dharma wheel asserting its superiority 3. The fact that karmamudra has been consistently revealed by the tertons 4. The fact that one organically sees deities in union in lhub grub practices, without it having been generated by the mind. 5. Sexual practice has been scrubbed out by Hindu sadhus in general, and I think Vajrayana should stay old school. 6. The fact that the protectors require tertons to take consorts before revealing earth termas: http://www.zangdokpalri.org/bio_excerpt2.pdf

He not a Buddhist, so I don't know why you are bringing him up. No, I used to be against karmamudra until quite recently.

Many reasons. Direct introduction, works with the body's channels etc No, I only became a fan of karmamudra quite recently. I always thought it was bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about

Of course. They are independent vehicles of Buddhadharma.

You don't think I'm familiar with this material? Buddhism has separate vehicles. Vajrayana vehicle is independent to Hinayana vehicle. Atiyoga is independent to Vajrayana. etc.

There is nothing about universal mind. And there is no reference, page number, book title.

You must be using some crazy translation.