RongzomFan

Same book states how Gelugpas are messed up: "First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more or less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schools." http://books.google.com/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC&pg=PA17&dq=center+of+the+sunlit+sky+In+fact,+the+peculiar+Gelugpa+version+of+Madhyamaka&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Eo_lUf7_IMXe4AP614C4Ag&ved=0CDoQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=center%20of%20the%20sunlit%20sky%20In%20fact%2C%20the%20peculiar%20Gelugpa%20version%20of%20Madhyamaka&f=false

They learn all of sutra and tantra, but they keep them distinct. For example, note here that the Eight Karampa makes a distinction between the luminous mind in the tantras versus the sutras: http://books.google.com/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC&pg=PA61&dq=center+of+the+sunlit+sky+However,+the+luminous+wisdom+mind&hl=en#v=onepage&q=center%20of%20the%20sunlit%20sky%20However%2C%20the%20luminous%20wisdom%20mind&f=false

Its odd that you think its odd. Why do you think so?

The abuse is mixing sutra and tantra. Sakya Pandita makes fun of Gampopa for inventing something called "sutra Mahamudra".

Reference? HHDL is a Gelugpa. The Gelugpa school holds weird views in general, stemming from Tsongkhapa. See even a basic Tibetan history book such as Sam Van Schaik's. Reference?

How the Old Testament really came about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eeZ42UgZq8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9XK3DcQe9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-g5qbFdtTQ

shouldn't this be in the Buddhist section?

Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into being a tax avoider and a rebel. But Jesus says to pay the tax and obey. 15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any. Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They *said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He *said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. --------Matthew 22:15-22 "13 Then they *sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap Him in a statement. 14 They *came and said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? 15 Shall we pay or shall we not pay?” But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.” 16 They brought one. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” And they said to Him, “Caesar’s.” 17 And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him. -------Mark 12:13-17

That's not correct. I used to be an evangelical Christian actually.

Jesus explicitly said to obey the Roman government and pay their taxes: "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s" Mathey 22:21, Luke 20:20-26, Mark 12:13-17

I don't think chakras are Vedic. Chakras were first developed in Buddhist tantra and then subsequently adapted by Saiva tantra.

Vajrayana is a totally independent vehicle (or a set of vehicles). Why would you need to walk the eightfold path? You don't need any background in sutra at all. You can enter Vajrayana directly. People should be encouraged and applauded for seeking genuine Vajrayana. The problem is the opposite than what you outline, that is people bringing lower vehicle understanding into higher vehicles. Mahamudra, for example, is an independent system with unique terminology such as kun gzhi (alaya).

Since dependently originated phenomena never arise in the first place, everything is illusion. There is no arising, duration and cessation. "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 See the 8 examples of illusion.

Atheists trash every religious idea aggressively. Just ignore them. Ironically, atheism is just a realist (buddhist definition) philosophy just like Islam, Judaism etc.

That is an atheist website. Atheists are some of the stupidest and ignorant people around. Very few of them are smart like Richard Dawkins.

I don't believe in meditation. From the Vajrayana point of view, it is contrived and conceptual.

I just wanted to know the titles.

Vajrayana is my main interest as well.

If you have read a thousand books on Buddhist philosophy, something basic would be Madhyamaka. So I would like to hear which Madhyamaka books you have read.

I am Indian raised Hindu and am familiar with the academic controversies revealed in "Invading the Sacred" and "Breaking India".

Its good you understand the conceptualizing mind. That doesn't make you a Mahasiddha though.

You already judged me as ignorant. I just want to know why.

How am I ignorant? Lay it all out.

You see it that way. I'm just pointing out your ignorance.