RongzomFan

Not at all. Only on this forum do you non-practitioners say samatha is a traditional prerequisite.

bump

"Gampopa had perfected the view and the meditations of calm abiding and superior insight in the Madhyamaka context according to the Kadampa system when he came to Milarepa. When Gampopa offered his realization to him, Milarepa said, “As for the aspect of calm abiding in your practice, however good all of this may be, it does not go beyond being a cause for rebirth in the higher realms of samsara. As for the aspect practice of superior insight, all of this entails the danger of divergence into the four deviations from emptiness. It may well serve as a remedy for some portions of reification, such as clinging to real exis- tence. However, since it is not able to cut through the entirety of clinging to extremes, there is the danger that the whole complex of this excellent view and meditation itself could turn into cognitive obscurations. Hence, if one is fettered, there is no difference between being fettered by an iron chain and being fettered by a golden chain.” Later, Gampopa said about this, “If I had not met the great master Milarepa, I would have risked rebirth as a long-lived god.”"

Then you agree samatha is a fetter, as Milarepa is saying.

"there is no difference between being fettered by an iron chain and being fettered by a golden chain.” "

Criticism of samatha, from the Dzogchen perspective http://books.google.com/books?id=HWGkCQ7FYA4C&pg=PA74&dq=approaching+the+great+perfection+samatha&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6SMiUrTqApC2sQTPjYHADA&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=approaching%20the%20great%20perfection%20samatha&f=false

"Gampopa had perfected the view and the meditations of calm abiding and superior insight in the Madhyamaka context according to the Kadampa system when he came to Milarepa. When Gampopa offered his realization to him, Milarepa said, “As for the aspect of calm abiding in your practice, however good all of this may be, it does not go beyond being a cause for rebirth in the higher realms of samsara. As for the aspect practice of superior insight, all of this entails the danger of divergence into the four deviations from emptiness. It may well serve as a remedy for some portions of reification, such as clinging to real exis- tence. However, since it is not able to cut through the entirety of clinging to extremes, there is the danger that the whole complex of this excellent view and meditation itself could turn into cognitive obscurations. Hence, if one is fettered, there is no difference between being fettered by an iron chain and being fettered by a golden chain.” Later, Gampopa said about this, “If I had not met the great master Milarepa, I would have risked rebirth as a long-lived god.”" http://books.google.com/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC&pg=PA58&dq=Center+of+the+Sunlit+Sky+Gampopa+had+perfected+the+view+and+the+meditations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TYEIUebJKMqt0AGRsIHABA&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Center%20of%20the%20Sunlit%20Sky%20Gampopa%20had%20perfected%20the%20view%20and%20the%20meditations&f=true

You seem to be very young, and have little experience with real life, women, dating or what have you.

Evolutionary speaking, humans are not monogamous.

There is a dating website for people who want to have affairs: https://www.ashleymadison.com/

Who are you? The morality police?

terma

says a believer in Jesus Christ.

According to the others, women can't be lustful since they don't have all the testosterone floating around.

I'm more in line with normal society. People cheat, break up, remarry etc. all the time. The rest of you are living in some fantasy world.

BTW, Gelugpa material is meaningless to me.

Before even attempting to practice with a consort, both people must have the proper empowerments and instructions. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Milarepa's main practice was definitely Chakrasamvara and karmamudra. Pretty much every great Dzogchenpa had consorts and practiced karmamudra. You are really showing your ignorance here. Here is a story of KDL being told where to find his consort by a Dharma protector. http://www.zangdokpalri.org/bio_excerpt2.pdf

Buddha definitely addressed the issue of a Creator god. Research Mahabrahma.

Buddhist "deities" are merely sentient beings in the wheel of rebirth. Even the Buddhas have previous lives. And of course, no deity or Buddha is a Creator.

Because Vishnu and Shiva have previous lives, will die off and become reborn. "Even such mighty beings as Brahma, Indra, Ishvara and Vishnu, great sages, and Narayana are not exempt from death" - A Torch Lighting the Way to Freedom

whats curious

I don't know about him, but you are definitely a puritan.

Stick to the issues? Read thread title which includes the phrase "testosterone blockers"

I am, Are you supporting the use of testosterone blockers? Are you really telling me that?

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."