gatito

I'm suprised that you're not yet playing your usual game of quoting me thaen editing my quote to change it something else. Despicable behaviour on your part

and your response:-

and your response:-

and your response:-

and your response:-

Fair enough My bad Apologies

No - the question should be the one that I want to ask. But to answer your question first: - Do what you want Now, answer my original question please.

Buddhism 101:- http://thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729 (thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729) will debunk that assertion

LOL Let's see how my Buddhism 101 pans out http://thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729 (thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729)

Thank you So do I

I'll represent my own understanding of Buddhism to the best of my knowledge and ability

OK I'm running Buddhism 101 in my PPF

Oh! So I'm not allowed to ask questions or to offer alternatives to your dogmatic, cut-paste version of Buddhism? Is that what your'e saying?

Buddhism 101 Course started started in my PPF, here: - http://thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729 (thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729)

Why don't you just post a bibliography instead of all this cutting and pasting? I'm not suprised that you're obsessed with suffering - the real question is why do you want to try to impose your suffering on everyone else?

As they seem unable to do this, I'll run Buddhism 101 (in my PPF ) within the next couple of weeks

Let's hope not

It's really easy to answer this: -

As I said :-

Another logical fallacy, here are a few things for you to consider:- Firstly, if everything is Self, that's already the case. Secondly, if, as you attempt to assert, Self don't exist, there would be nothing that could hop. Thirdly, I find the view from here infinitely preferable to the view from there . Fourthly, this Path is clearly not for you

RongzomFan chooses to employ "neoadvaitin" as a term of abuse. I've pointed his error out to him on several occasions but it doesn't accord with his predjuces, as he's also asserted that only Hindu priests are "advaitins" and that all others are "neoadvaitins". I've also posted this link: - http://www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/teachers.htm www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/teachers.htm) several times - for others - as RongzomFan is completely unable to grasp the fact that there are several different, albeit overlapping, camps Feel free to butt-in - it's nice to have an intelligent contribution

I think that it would be a pity if you left or got yourself banned under these circumstances - not only for you but also for the underlying ethos of this forum. It's only a tiny clique who are actively actively calling for "disciplinary action" against you; the vast majority of us seem to be more tolerant (or are familiar with the First Rule of TaoBums )

Irrelevant - even if I were a neoadvaitin Where you're going wrong here is in the assumption that the Self is singular when it is actually non-dual and all the apparent objects are also the Self. It is not completely wrong to say that All is Empty (although, ultimately, any statement about non-duality is wrong )

I'm finding it difficult to distinguish between stoner and stonee

Although, the difference would be in the method if it's truly a knowledge of the non-dual (as there cannot be two - or more - non-dualities)