I see people are still misleading each other on Buddhism

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Your A,B,C is still incomplete and does not cover other essential points. I haven't got to thoroughly read these yet, but you should check into Tsongkhapa's commentary on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika.

 

 

I noticed there is a time delay between you and me.

 

I just trashed Tsongkhapa above.

 

To read why Tsongkhapa is garbage read around page 50 in this link:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=l21zNNMhQB0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Freedom+from+extremes:+Gorampa's+"Distinguishing+the+views"&hl=en&ei=EV5qTp3a

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

Wrong.

 

This is the Gelupa view of Tsongkhapa.

 

Unfortunately, as noted by others, it has contaminated every bit of Buddhism.

 

Read second paragraph:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

The four extremes are negated not by Tsongkhapa alone but by all Madhyamika.

[RongzomFan]

Listen.

 

All buddhists agree that to say an object is "empty" is to say that thing is dependently orginated, even Tsongkhapa.

 

Ok?

 

Lets all agree on this and not promote the Gelugpa definition of emptiness ('lacking intrinsic existence').

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

They're all really just different way's to posit the teachings of the prajnaparamita sutras. What really matters is the realization, not all these disagreements on how to interpret the prajnaparamita sutras. Though this is why it's good to study the prajnaparamita in 8 thousand lines, and the "large" and "small" texts also.

 

 

You say that my A, B, C is incomplete.

 

I say that is non-secular and universal.

[xabir2005]

Listen.

 

All buddhists agree that to say an object is "empty" is to say that thing is dependently orginated, even Tsongkhapa.

 

Ok?

 

Lets all agree on this and not promote the Gelugpa definition of emptiness ('lacking intrinsic existence').

The negation of the four extremes (existence, non-existence, both, neither) is automatic through emptiness, and all Mahayana Buddhists agree. As for Theravadins the negation of the four extremes of selfhood is automatic through anatta. Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

The negation of the four extremes is automatic through emptiness, and all Mahayana Buddhists agree. As for Theravadins the negation of the four extremes of selfhood is automatic through anatta.

 

 

I don't know what any of this means.

 

But I phrased my A, B, C to be completely non-secular.

 

YES it is in the vein of Gorampa, but Gorampa's Madhyamaka is a neutral Madhyamaka, and is considered one of the definitive Madhyamakas.

 

Your idol Namdrol considers Gorampa to be the definitive Madhyamaka.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

through emptiness

 

Emptiness has 3 aspects.

 

What you think I picked my A, B, C out of my ass?

 

My A, B, C are the 3 aspects of emptiness.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Therein lies the problem. Otherwise, You would have seen that what he typed does not go against the teachings of Buddhism.

 

 

When Xabir promotes stuff like this as authentic Buddhism:

 

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

 

 

he has no credibility whatsoever.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

Emptiness has 3 aspects.

 

What you think I picked my A, B, C out of my ass?

 

My A, B, C are the 3 aspects of emptiness.

basically what you are talking about is not emptiness per se, but how conceptual constructs and view (i.e. a belief and assertion about reality in terms of existence or non-existence) project reality to conventions, like mistaking appearances like cataracs to be truly existing objects such as falling hairs, while in truth all appearances dependently originates and are empty of inherent existence.

 

e.g, when looking at a reflection in a mirror, to a cat or ignorant animal, the reflection is projected to be located inherently 'inside the mirror' as an independently existing being whom it can interact with

 

while we know that actually the reflection is a merely dependently originated appearance that cannot be pinned down as 'existing inside the mirror'

 

further, if it were the case that reflections exist inside the mirror, if we moved left and right, the reflection will have stayed static and not 'moved' along with our own movements. as such D.O. appearances are empty of inherent, locatable, fixed, independendent existence

 

similarly, the entire experiential universe, is just like 'reflections in a mirror' because everything dependently originates and are empty of an independent, locatable existence or characteristic.

 

or as Thusness gives an analogy about the red flower being red to humans, black to dogs, and others to others, characteristics being posited as inherent and located somewhere due to false cognition of independent existence is the source of our entire projected sense of a real self and a world.

 

through correct cognition of d.o. and emptiness, such views dissolve, and one views all appearances are being illusion-like

 

All that does not deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

When Xabir promotes stuff like this as authentic Buddhism:

 

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

 

 

he has no credibility whatsoever.

Oh, why?

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

While I myself have never used this site to further my own experience, from what I have read from that site: It does not go against what Buddhism teaches. In fact he posts alot of different teachings from all the various schools of Buddhism, including dzogchen and mahamudra. What he details about his experiences is usually backed by the teachings of the sutrayana, with various postings of teachings from Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and others.

 

 

Most of the blog is excellent.

 

Its the Thusness crap that is the problem.

 

Xabir promoted the Thusness crap as authentic Buddhism within the last 3 days.....on a buddhist forum no less.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

I have seen many Buddhist teachers and scholars who hold false views, many no different from eternalists.

 

And many hermit non-scholarly Buddhists who are truly realized.

 

So it's not like having a Ph.D in Buddhism is definitely going to help you get enlightened.

[xabir2005]

Most of the blog is excellent.

 

Its the Thusness crap that is the problem.

 

Xabir promoted the Thusness crap as authentic Buddhism within the last 3 days, on a buddhist forum no less.

What Thusness said has no contradictions at all - you simply project your own ideas on him.

[xabir2005]

[RongzomFan]

What Thusness said has no contradictions at all - you simply project your own ideas on him.

 

 

Seriously who is the Thusness fellow?

 

And why do you suck his dick?

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

Seriously who is the Thusness fellow?

 

And why do you suck his dick?

See - you are simply projecting your views on him, instead of reading his writings as it is.

 

Who cares about authorship when it's the contents that matters?

 

Even if Thusness is an invented fictional character (which is not the case), does that even matter at all?

 

Do you know that Mahayana sutras and Tantras don't necessarily originate from Buddha but from unknown authors?

[RongzomFan]

[xabir2005]

I read this several times.

 

What can I say?

 

You have no clue what buddhist emptiness is.

If you don't understand what I mean, then I'm afraid you don't have a clue what buddhist emptiness or dependent origination is.