RongzomFan

yeah I know what you are saying. I agree with you. Maybe not the spirituality part. I don't think girls dig Madhyamaka, even though all the Indian masters such as Atisa and Kamalashila held it to be the definitive sutric teaching.

yeah being an asshole ("alpha") is a plus.

People are with people in their same league.

yeah we all gotta do barbell squats, dips, pushups, pullups, military press. Western diets are so calorie laden.

I figured that since you have been fucking hot women.

People are with people in their same league.

"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." -Candrakīrti's ''Madhyamakāvatāra''

Who the hell cares about Vedanta? I'm talking about Vaishavism, Saivism, Shaktism as a whole. The tantric systems of these are the pinnacle, along with their philosophical foundation in Samkhya. Of course some people promote the vedantization and creation of a homogenized Hinduism/sanatana dharma, thus destroying these traditions. These terms are related : Christianity vedantization European orientalism homogenization

Dzogchen and Mahamudra are tantra dude.

Chokgyur Lingpa specifically revealed longde. And he was a Kagyu.

There are some pretty unambiguous statements in Wisdom Nectar by Dudjom Rinpoche. If you want me to PM them to you, let me know. Again, you are confusing view with practice. How would you know how to do dream yoga or dark retreat without more concepts? The 5 elements, eight examples of illusion etc. are important for the practice side, not the view side.

But then you have someone like Dudjom Rinpoche who says: "The eight lower levels have intellectually fabricated and contrived that which is changeless solely due to fleeting thoughts that never experience what truly is. They apply antidotes to and reject that which is not to be rejected. They refer to as flawed that in which there is nothing to be purified, with a mind that desires purification. They have created division with respect to that which cannot be obtained by their hopes and fears that it can be obtained elsewhere. And they have obscured wisdom, which is naturally present, by their efforts in respect to that which is free from effort and free from needing to be accomplished. Therefore, they have had no chance to make contact with genuine, ultimate reality as it is (rnal ma’i de kho na nyid)." - Wisdom Nectar, p30-31 Don't get me wrong. I always view Hinayana as a divine teaching. But its clear what Dudjom Rinpoche is saying.

Kagyu is a school, not a teaching. The question does not make sense. But look into Chokgyur Lingpa and Rinchen Terdzö.

Attracting women has to do with your looks. You can throw down some Vajrayana mantras and stuff, but good lucking getting instruction on that.

What about physical immortality? Living in the body for thousands of years? http://www.khecari.com/styled/index.html

In Buddhism, sentient beings are bundles of 5 aggregates (skandha). This is basic Buddhism 101.

Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka is not similar to Indian root texts nor other Tibetan schools. Just read the original Indian root texts.

Yes after Buddhism emerged it interacted with Brahmanical culture. Indeed Hinduism is a mix of Buddhism and Brahmanism.

"Buddhism, we are often told, was a reaction against Vedic Brahmanism.....I do not share this opinion." http://books.google.com/books?id=BaX58-E5-3MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Johannes+Bronkhorst&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gCGPUeW9O6rG0AGVqoGgAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw This is a top scholar. And the book dates to 2011.

"These remarks confirm our impression that Magadha-and by extension, Greater Magadha-was not part of the land which the Brahmins considered their own during the Vedic period and, we may add, right up to a time close to the beginning of the Common Era. We may see this as a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that Greater Magadha had a culture of its own which was different from the culture of the authors of the Vedic and early post-Vedic literature.....It was also the culture of those who founded, or joined, various religious movements, among which Buddhism, Jainsim, and Ajivikism are best known." http://books.google.com/books?id=4GNG5KuH73QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Johannes+Bronkhorst&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gCGPUeW9O6rG0AGVqoGgAw&ved=0CDoQuwUwAg

Buddhism and Jainism came out of the Sramana culture, not Brahmanism.

Indians already adopted western culture anyway. They listen to Rihanna and watch Oprah.

First off you don't wear bling as your daily wear. Secondly poverty is a different issue than patriarchy, isn't it?

Jewelry buying is independent than anything to do with weddings or marriage. Its possible the video didn't make this very clear. Women be buying jewelry their entire life.

You are right. I should just admit the truth. Indian men are patriarchal rapists who view women as subservient.