I see people are still misleading each other on Buddhism

[RongzomFan]

I see people, including but not limited to xabir2005, promoting their stuff which they wrongly think is Buddhism.

 

These are the principles of Buddhism. Anything more or added is wrong.

 

 

a. Everything appears as mere thoughtforms (conceptual constructs) designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

 

b. By its very nature conceptual thought is dichotomizing, yet "reality" (or lack of it) is free from all extremes. This is shown by specific Madhyamaka analyses which you can research on your own.

 

c. There is a primordial freedom distinct from grasping your mind. Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times (past, present, future).

 

 

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

Wow, your reference to me is pretty random.

 

There is nothing that I said that is misleading.

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

There is nothing that I said that is misleading.

 

 

You still link to Thusness's Seven Stages, which is absolute nonsense.

 

You even did it a couple of says ago on a Buddhist forum, representing it as real Buddhism!

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5238&p=55655#p55655

 

 

P.S. I suggest you read my the bolded material above, and maybe you will finally get something into your head about real sunyata.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

You still link to Thusness's Seven Stages, which is absolute nonsense.

 

You even did it a couple of says ago on a Buddhist forum, representing it as real Buddhism!

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=5238&p=55655#p55655

 

 

P.S. I suggest you read my the bolded material above, and maybe you will finally get something into your head about real sunyata.

Thusness Seven Stages makes perfect sense to me.

 

"Everything appears as mere thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)" - actually, not all appearances are conceptual. There are conceptual (ideas, etc) and nonconceptual appearances (sense perceptions), all are equally empty. So emptiness isn't just about realizing the illusoriness of concepts, it is about realizing the illusion-like nature of all appearances be it conceptual or non-conceptual. At this point one realizes all appearances (conceptual and non-conceptual) to be empty, like a dream, like a mirage, like a magician's tricks, etc.

 

Otherwise, there is nothing much I disagree with your statements.

 

 

 

update:

 

(Namdrol)

 

...At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive refication of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[C T]

Feeling bored, Alwayson?

 

Btw, what is real Sunyata?

[RongzomFan]

Thusness Seven Stages makes perfect sense to me.

 

"Everything appears as mere thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)" - actually, not all appearances are conceptual. There are conceptual (ideas, etc) and nonconceptual appearances (sense perceptions), all are equally empty. So emptiness isn't just about realizing the illusoriness of concepts, it is about realizing the illusion-like nature of all appearances be it conceptual or non-conceptual. At this point one realizes all perceptions to be like a dream, like a mirage, like a magician's tricks, etc.

 

Otherwise, there is nothing much I disagree with your statements.

 

 

It is obvious you really have no clue what emptiness means in Buddhism.

 

To say an object is "empty" is merely to say that thing is dependently originated.

 

Don't turn people off to Buddhism with your wrong views.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

To say an object is "empty" is merely to say that thing is dependently originated.

Uhuh, and I never said otherwise.

 

 

(Namdrol)

 

...At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive refication of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

I talk to Namdrol with email, and I have read pretty much all his posts on Esangha and Dharma Wheel.

 

Furthermore I have actually read books on sunyata.

 

Do you need book recommendations?

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

I'm talk to Namdrol with email, and I have read pretty much all his posts on Esangha and Dharma Wheel.

 

Furthermore I have actually read books on sunyata.

 

Do you need book recommendations?

No need. I have no doubts about my realization.

[RongzomFan]

No need. I have no doubts about my realization.

 

 

I don't give a shit about your realization.

 

What does that have to do with teaching garbage Buddhism?

[xabir2005]

I don't give a shit about your realization.

 

What does that have to do with teaching garbage Buddhism?

Whatever you think.

[RongzomFan]

Whatever you think.

 

 

LOL

 

Thusness is not a buddhist teacher or scholar in any way.

 

Neither are you.

 

These are facts.

[xabir2005]

LOL

 

Thusness is not a buddhist teacher or scholar in any way.

 

Neither are you.

 

These are facts.

Oh yeah so what? Did I said otherwise? So you are a buddhist teacher and a scholar?

[RongzomFan]

Oh yeah so what? Did I said otherwise? So you are a buddhist teacher and a scholar?

 

 

You promote Thusness' "teachings" of emptiness as real Buddhist sunyata on your blog and internet forum posts.

 

Jesus Christ, you are so ignorant.

[xabir2005]

You promote Thusness' "teachings" of emptiness as real Buddhist sunyata on your blog and internet forum posts.

 

Jesus Christ, you are so ignorant.

Yes, I state that what Thusness writes is a true depiction of Buddhist sunyata.

 

You disagree, so be it.

[RongzomFan]

Neither you or Thusness have a clue about Buddhist sunyata, especially point C:

 

 

a. Everything appears as mere thoughtforms (conceptual constructs) designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

 

b. By its very nature conceptual thought is dichotomizing, yet "reality" (or lack of it) is free from all extremes. This is shown by specific Madhyamaka analyses which you can research on your own.

 

c. There is a primordial freedom distinct from grasping your mind. Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times (past, present, future).

[xabir2005]

I have already commented on your points - there is something missing.

 

As for C., obviously, realization of emptiness frees one from grasping to the three minds. This is standard prajnaparamita stuff, in Diamond Sutra (the past, present and future mind are ungraspable), etc, so it goes without being said.

 

Plus, Thusness Stage 6: "Emptiness will reveal that not only is there no ‘who’ in pristine awareness, there is no ‘where’ and ‘when’."

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[Pero]

Neither you or Thusness have a clue about Buddhist sunyata

That may or may not be true, but one thing is for sure, you still haven't changed one bit.

 

Xabir don't bother with this guy, I'm afraid that it's a complete waste of your time.

[RongzomFan]

That may or may not be true, but one thing is for sure, you still haven't changed one bit.

 

Xabir don't bother with this guy, I'm afraid that it's a complete waste of your time.

 

 

Congrats Xabir.

 

You fooled this poor college student into believing this garbage:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

I gotta ask.

 

Why Thusness?

 

There are a ton of people in the Advaita/neoZen/Nonduality community that spew all sorts of crap.

 

Why did you latch onto Thusness and his particular crap?

 

 

P.S. I have no problem with you preaching nonduality, just don't promote it as Buddhism.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

I gotta ask.

 

Why Thusness?

 

There are a ton of people in the Advaita/neoZen/Nonduality community that spew all sorts of crap.

 

Why did you latch onto Thusness and his particular crap?

 

 

P.S. I have no problem with you preaching nonduality, just don't promote it as Buddhism.

Thusness does not teach the view of substantial nonduality ala Advaita Vedanta.

 

Thusness talks about anatta, dependent origination/emptiness.

 

His map distinguishes the experiences he had gone through, from I AM to substantial non-dual (prior to realizing Buddhist view) to anatta and emptiness/dependent origination (stage 5 and 6).

 

Thusness's map is highly related to my own personal progress: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

Thusness talks about anatta, dependent origination/emptiness.

 

 

How can he teach something he does not understand at all?

 

Show me something even resembling this on your blog:

 

a. Everything appears as mere thoughtforms (conceptual constructs) designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

 

b. By its very nature conceptual thought is dichotomizing, yet "reality" (or lack of it) is free from all extremes. This is shown by specific Madhyamaka analyses which you can research on your own.

 

c. There is a primordial freedom distinct from grasping your mind. Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times (past, present, future).

 

 

I'll wait

[xabir2005]

How can he teach something he does not understand at all?

 

Show me something even resembling this on your blog:

 

a. Everything appears as mere thoughtforms (conceptual constructs) designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

 

b. By its very nature conceptual thought is dichotomizing, yet "reality" (or lack of it) is free from all extremes. This is shown by specific Madhyamaka analyses which you can research on your own.

 

c. There is a primordial freedom distinct from grasping your mind. Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times (past, present, future).

 

 

I'll wait

I don't see a need to compare his description to your incomplete explanation.

[RongzomFan]

My A, B, C can be confirmed in the following books:

 

Buddhist Thought by Paul Williams

Freedom from extremes: Gorampa's "Distinguishing the views"

Emptiness by Geshe Tashi Tsering (ignore the bad amazon review from the self admitted Christian gnostic who trashes every Madhyamaka book)

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson