Simple_Jack

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/hypocrisy-of-tolerance_b_792239.html My experiments in proposing mutual respect have also involved liberal Muslims. Soon after Sept. 11, 2001, in a radio interview in Dallas, I explained why mutual respect among religions is better than tolerance. One caller, identified as a local Pakistani community leader, congratulated me and expressed complete agreement. For her benefit, I elaborated that in Hinduism we frequently worship images of the divine, may view the divine as feminine, and that we believe in reincarnation. I felt glad that she had agreed to respect all this, and I clarified that "mutual respect" merely means that I am respected for my faith, with no requirement for others to adopt or practice it. I wanted to make sure she knew what she had agreed to respect and wasn't merely being politically correct. The woman hung up.

As long as it submits to the authority of Allah, correct?

Bump.

What about Stephen Hawking and New Atheism cohorts? Please, don't attempt to dissociate "Direct Path Advaita" from the Vedas and Upanishads which spawned the Vedanta traditions.

Perhaps, you should admit to your logical fallacies and double standards by now??????

Which means this applies to gatito, ralis, adept, turtle shell, etc. by default.

We're discussing religion here, which mainstream physicalist science considers as superstitious nonsense. Likewise, against the assertions of the theists, for the necessity of a creator god in understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience.

Has anyone managed to debunk the meaninglessness of a creator god to Dharmic religions in understanding the perpetuation of afflictions? Hmmmm...........thought not

Blind belief is not a factor for accepting the tenets of Dharmic religions; Dharmic religions are predicated off of yoga of various kinds. What's needed is an unbiased examination practiced within the context of its own tradition. 'Capacity' in Buddhism, does not necessarily point towards the intellectual capacity of an individual, but a combination of conditional factors such as wisdom and merit accumulation, past-life connection to teachings, etc.; determining the readiness on the part of the individual to understand, accept, put the teachings into practice, the outcome of obstacles towards progress and the rate at which the individual progresses. Within Buddhism, there are also factors which determine the type of bodhi at which an individual aspires towards: such as the capacity for the bodhi of an arhat, pratekyabuddha and that of a samyaksambuddha which is arrived at through the bodhisattvayana.

Those standards also apply to Vajrayana which includes Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

Specifically, 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas.

Eh, I feel like killing time by posting in this thread. Gatito would be happy, since this keeps RongzomFan and me from posting in the other "enlightened parts of the forum", which is actually hypocritical.

Do you possess the wisdoms, kayas, omniscience of a buddha? These are the standards by which Mahayana Buddhists go by.

Unless you mean this as a metaphor for taking time off from TTB's: don't forget to consider putting time aside for meditation.

The simplified version according to Buddhism: Karma is volition and what proceeds from volition, state Buddha, Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu. Karma/rebirth, therefore come from the mind. One important Buddhist tenet is beginninglessness. There is no absolute beginning. All the diversity that we see in the universe is a result of all the individual actions of all sentient beings. The answer is that we (every sentient beings in the universe) all did by the force of our past actions which have no beginning. In fact, Buddhists accept certain kinds of infinite regression as a logical consequence of dependent origination, for example, the infinite regression of dependent causality. ~ Loppon Namdrol

I just assume you're an advocate of eternalism like most of the other posters on this forum. My accusations stem from what turtle shell posted here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=501751 which I contrasted with here http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502017.

If you espouse any form of eternalism than you are an advocate for the hypocrisy of an eternalist.

Yes, but based off of your previous statements in this thread, wouldn't this be from a biased position? Furthermore, what you are studying right now must submit to the authority of the former, by virtue of the inviolability of the position presented thus far. Therefore, the type of bias you are going to adhere to determines what type of hypocrite you become, since biases are an innate quality of the hypocrite. So, deciding upon upholding God as the alpha and omega or to upholding an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc. as untenable, decides the outcome of the hypocrisy. The hypocritical apologist subsumes other traditions into the authority of their own as expressions of their essence; such as the Vedantins on this forum who subsume all other traditions as the essence of their own [http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502904] or the followers of Abrahamic religions who subsume the worlds traditions under the authority of their respective Creator. Likewise, Buddhists subsume all other traditions as an expression of the buddha-vehicle, but with eternalist doctrines categorized as the "vehicle of gods and men"; thereby making it a type of hypocritical apologetics. This makes me a hypocrite: if I can admit it, you can too.

Because you are biased against doctrines which find it meaningless to posit a creator god in order to understand the perpetuation of afflicted experience; just as I'm biased against eternalist doctrines which posit an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc.

To be a hypocrite is to exclude the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran from the logical fallacies and double standards that have been presented by gatito, ralis, Brian, etc.

CT, just as Buddhists are biased against 'impossible ways of existing' and the eternalist doctrines which posit an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc.: eternalists are biased against anyone or any doctrine which are at odds with these parameters. Therefore, we are all hypocrites in some way. Say it along with me Brian, gatito, ralis, turtle shell, adept and everyone else: I'M A HYPOCRITE!!!

Gelug Mahamudra is derived from Tsongkhapa's formulation of conventional and ultimate truths. Prasangika and Svatantrika are Tibetan inventions.

According to the Gelugpas, emptiness is ascertainable as the object of a mental consciousness, up until the point of realization arrived from logic and analysis.

That line of thinking has everything to do with the position you asserted in that post [http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=501751]; which I contrasted with examples from Dharmic religions [http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502017].

To practice any Dharmic religion, you don't need belief in a creator god, which is irrelevant to understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience. My post to you contrasts that viewpoint of Dharmic religions to that of Western traditions.