I see people are still misleading each other on Buddhism

[Pero]

If it was long ago, then seriously what is your problem?

Yes I don't mind that you didn't remember me, but you see, I didn't confuse you with someone else.

 

I know xabir from Esangha believe it or not.

 

He can confirm.

I don't need any confirmation. I know you posted on E-Sangha. But when I mentioned this you denied posting on E-Sangha. You did that the first time you came here and recently on Dharmawheel.

 

 

You are psychotic. I think you are the same guy who threatened to stab me and throw me into a gutter. Why aren't you banned?

Because normal people understood I was not threatening you but making an example as someone noted then. You should really look at your own behavior though. Someone who constantly insults others, claims he understands Buddhism but others don't and are actually slandering the Dharma and diverting people from Buddhism and what not, calling me psychotic is high irony.

[RongzomFan]

 

Edited September 10, 2011 by Mal

[RongzomFan]

Because normal people understood I was not threatening you but making an example as someone noted then. You should really look at your own behavior though. Someone who constantly insults others, claims he understands Buddhism but others don't and are actually slandering the Dharma and diverting people from Buddhism and what not, calling me psychotic is high irony.

 

 

I dont accept Thusness' seven stages as Buddhism.

 

Obviously you do.

 

 

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

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

I don't need any confirmation. I know you posted on E-Sangha. But when I mentioned this you denied posting on E-Sangha. You did that the first time you came here and recently on Dharmawheel.

 

 

Prove it.

[Mal]

Always on lets keep it TTB specific thanks, as you brough up moderation- please recall.

 

it seems like you are processing some strong emotions right now about this forum and how you perceive yourself being treated here.

 

now you are calling out mods, members, saying the whole forum sucks.

 

i'm going to give you a 180 day break.

 

that's about half a year to disconnect, live your life, which you are saying TTB is currently not that important to anyway.

 

then, if you want, come back and see if you resonate with being a part of this community again, sans the antagonism.

 

peace,

sean

 

So if you are not just here to troll, welcome back. But if you want to troll it's just going to be another long holiday, I'm afraid

[RongzomFan]

Lets keep it TTB specific thanks, but since you brough up moderation please recall.

 

 

 

So if you are not just here to troll, welcome back.

 

 

 

I never threatened to kill someone.

 

Or harrass people online for several years.

 

 

P.S. I got banned for calling out this forum's bullshit. I stand by it.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[Mal]

a 2009 quote and a thread title like this ^ then that post

 

Sorry but it's back on a 180 day posting suspension for you

[Pero]

Prove it.

 

Sigh... Alwayson, please stop posting this around different forums, because you simply don't have a clue. Why don't you go post this kind of thing on E-sangha if you dare?

Thogal without a teacher and completed preliminaries is worthless, you might as well spend that time to watch TV. In fact, that would probably be much better.

actually none of that is true, but thanks for playing

I don't know what country you are in, but America is a free country

what is Esangha?

ROFL... Don't bullshit me, you posted there. And you posted this on Yogani's forum as well. You could've at least changed your nick if you wanted to pretend something.

No, thank you, you lost. Better luck next time maybe.

How about I do not post in your threads, you don't post in mine?

 

I think we can agree on that as common courtesy

Well I'm sorry but I don't agree. What is courteus is not lying and not spreading bad information. It's really not helpful to anyone.

And I don't care whether you post in my topics or not, so have at it if you want. (but I rarely make any anyway)

Anyway, he is right.

I think all the relevant posts on Dharmawheel have been deleted due to your complaints so I can't quote them. You deleted your own posts here too but how fortunate that I quoted some of them and that you can't delete those. But this is why I don't like people who delete their posts after a while. They have no accountability.

 

Edit: Right, I can't prove you didn't join E-Sangha after that, since it (conveniently) doesn't exist anymore. I have just my word for that. However you did say I was right...

Right, I didn't mention Taobums on Dharmawheel by name, I think I just mentioned other forums, but in any case you denied posting on E-Sangha and there there is no possible question whether it was before or after.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Pero

[Sunya]

[Pero]

I never threatened to kill someone.

 

[....Ok so, to repeat myself, if someone would try to stab you, would you just wait for him to do it? I imagine not. But why? If you think there is no dichotomy of good (not stabbed) and bad (stabbed)?]

So of course one should also try to avoid bad thoughts, and create positive ones. ...

This is just 100% wrong. ....

Such a shame. All these poor old masters, practiced virtue, mind trainings, purification, Bodhicitta etc. for nothing. It's too bad you weren't there to tell them that thoughts don't matter, they could've saved so much time on their way to enlightenment.

All thoughts are merely just "winds" in the body, with no inherent property. All thoughts are empty of essence (as is everything) and are 'freed through self-liberation'

Remember that when you'll be lying in the gutter with a stab wound in your abdomen.

 

Farewell.

By the way, are you threatening me?

I don't think this is a threat. He was saying its easy to say you are above relative dualism but harder to live it.

No. What Apepch said.

 

But it's not surprising you'd think that. You see only the words and not the meaning. Most of the time we can't see the meaning unless we are taught. If we take a piece here and a piece there every once in a while without having the whole picture we get nothing but confusion. And even if we know the whole picture, without a qualified teacher one can't practice Vajrayana. If one does so, it just remains at the level of fantasy and probably we'd be much better off just watching porn or something.

I'm stumped that you still think I was threatening you.

 

Or harrass people online for several years.

Huh, what's that you say? More lies?

[Pero]

a 2009 quote and a thread title like this ^ then that post

 

Sorry but it's back on a 180 day posting suspension for you

Well this is kind of a bummer.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

It wasn't a complete waste of a thread....I learned of another commentary on Madhyamaka.

 

It also has this gem of a post, which is the TTB post of the month in my opinion:

 

Seriously who is the Thusness fellow?

 

And why do you suck his dick?

 

And here's another instant classic:

 

You either accept xabir's guru, Thusness, as Longchenpa

 

Or you don't

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Ok tell that to Geshe Tashi who, even though he is a Gelugpa, says things appear as mere labels or designations upon causes and conditions.

 

 

This is in his book "Emptiness".

 

 

You don't need to talk about 'lack of intrinsic existence', even though he later does of course, being a Gelugpa.

No. Gelugpas are holders that all phenomena have two truths: relative and ultimate.

 

Relative truth is that things exist, but as mere imputation. Their ultimate truth is that all phenomena D.Os and are thus empty, therefore cannot be said to exist, not-exist, etc.

 

But it definitely has nothing to do with 'all appearances are labels'. It is that 'the relative truth of things are mere imputations'.

 

And anyway as far as I know, only the Gelugs admit the two truths, while the other traditions (correct me if I'm wrong) says that relative truth is not true and therefore there is only one truth, so it wouldn't be right even to say that 'things exist, but relatively'. ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/ )

 

Namdrol:

 

Relative truth is not true.

 

But even Nāgārjuna rejects the two truths:

 

"Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true,

what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

 

The ultimate truth of appearance goes beyond any conventional imputation, since imputation asserts existents, nonexistents, etc, whereas in reality phenomena are in nature free of the four extremes.

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005

[oldfat1]

No. Gelugpas are holders that all phenomena have two truths: relative and ultimate.

 

Relative truth is that things exist, but as mere imputation. Their ultimate truth is that all phenomena D.Os and are thus empty, therefore cannot be said to exist, not-exist, etc.

 

But it definitely has nothing to do with 'all appearances are labels'. It is that 'the relative truth of things are mere imputations'.

 

And anyway as far as I know, only the Gelugs admit the two truths, while the other traditions (correct me if I'm wrong) says that relative truth is not true and therefore there is only one truth, so it wouldn't be right even to say that 'things exist, but relatively'. ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/ )

 

Namdrol:

 

Relative truth is not true.

 

But even Nāgārjuna rejects the two truths:

 

"Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true,

what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

 

The ultimate truth of appearance goes beyond any conventional imputation, since imputation asserts existents, nonexistents, etc, whereas in reality phenomena are in nature free of the four extremes.

 

"He

Edited September 10, 2011 by oldfat1

[Sunya]

 

And anyway as far as I know, only the Gelugs admit the two truths, while the other traditions (correct me if I'm wrong) says that relative truth is not true and therefore there is only one truth, so it wouldn't be right even to say that 'things exist, but relatively'. ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/ )

 

 

This is a good article from the Kagyu pov on the two truths.

 

http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/cul/cul03.php

[xabir2005]

This is a good article from the Kagyu pov on the two truths.

 

http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/cul/cul03.php

Good article. Thanks.

[xabir2005]

Which is why I don't really see a conflict between Madhyamaka and Yogacara.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/view.htm

 

First let me explain that I am trained in this as a Gelug. Obviously

there is some interpretation. The lineages have some differing views

on Madhyamika as it is so important. Some think the views differ

greatly, some don't. I belong to the latter. I encourage with all my

heart that persons who are stimulated and feel benefited by this

series to study more.

 

Tsongkhapa felt that the cause of being bound to samsara was a

deeply rooted habit that grasped to the concept of inherent

existence. To exist inherently means to have a basis independent of

imputation. Tsongkhapa argued in essence, that all the tenet systems

below prasangika asserted such a basis either explicitly (i.e. they

said so and one can find it stated as such) or implicitly (it may be

hard to find the passage and there is a question about it but such a

conclusion might be drawn from other things). In the case of

Vaibhasika and Sautrantika it was the dharmas. In Yogacara, it was

paratantra and parinispanna or mind. The Madhyamikas argued that

there was no such basis ultimately at all. The Svatantrikas,

however, because they used syllogisms instead of consequences

implicitly asserted a type of independence on the conventional level

known as svalaksana or inherent characteristic.

 

This is extremely subtle. The argument is that if a syllogism is

used, there is an assumption that the two parties will see the first

mode the property of a subject in the same way, implying some sort

of independent existence. Seeing the property in the same way

demands recognizing that the property has at minimum some sort of

characteristic which is independent of the imputing mind. The use of

a consequence does not do this, but merely takes the assumption of

the opponent as a basis as opposed to making an assumption oneself.

Therefore the Prasangika do not have the fault of asserting iherent

existence/characteristic even conventionally.

 

Other scholars in Tibet hold that Tsongkhapa's differentiation is

incorrect since the Sautrantikas do not assert svalaksana ultimately

and only use it conventionally as a means to lead persons to the

truth and do not hold it as a view. They further argue that the

Indians did not view the Svatantrikas and Prasangikas in the way

Tsongkhapa did and rather seemed to agree that the difference was

pedagogical. They say svatantra is for converting non-buddhists,

prasanga for converting buddhists.

 

Tsongkhapa's point though, however the intent or history of the

issue, was that even grasping at something this subtle had to be

done away with. Tsongkhapa agreed with Chandra that inherent

existence didn't exist even conventionally. In the conventional

world people just use words and agree on things in an unanalytic way.

 

I say I am Jamyang. I don't say I am inherent Jamyang. By negating

inherent existence, one allows convention and there is no

incompatibility between samsara and nirvana, between form and

emptiness. Once inherent existence is negated then what is left is

just dependent arising. Then everything is pure. The negation of

inherent existence is intended as an arrow to shoot the root cause

of defilement. It cuts out the core of that which is grasped. things

appear then as mirage, a reflection, a plantain tree, a bubble etc.

a play of stainless mind and wind.

 

Sarva Mangalam

 

Precious Bodhicitta, where it is not arisen, may it arise.

Where is has arisen, may it not decline but grow ever fuller.

By the merit of this presentation, may all beings obtain the state of

Vajradhara. May the dharma take solid root in the West and may no

obstacles arise to its practice and flourishing.

 

 

p.s.

Yogācāra in Tibet

 

Yogācāra was transmitted to Tibet by Śāntarakṣita and later by Atiśa; it was thereafter integral to Tibetan Buddhism although the prevailing Geluk-dominated view held that it was less definitive than Mādhyamaka. Yogācāra terminology (but not view) is used by the Nyingmapa and its zenith, Dzogchen. Yogācāra also became central to East Asian Buddhism. The teachings of Yogācāra became the Chinese Wei Shi school of Buddhism.

 

Current debates among Tibetan schools between the shentong (empty of other) and rangtong (empty of self) views appear similar to earlier debates between Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka, but the issues and distinctions have evolved further. Though the later Tibetan views could be said to have evolved from the earlier Indian positions, the distinctions between the views became increasingly subtle, especially after Yogācāra incorporated the Mādhyamika view of the ultimate. Ju Mipham, the 19th century rime movement commenter, wrote in his commentary on Śāntarakṣita's synthesis, that the ultimate view in both schools is the same and each path also leads to the same ultimate state of abiding.[9]

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005

[Ambrose_Bierce]

I never threatened to kill someone.

 

Or harrass people online for several years.

 

 

P.S. I got banned for calling out this forum's bullshit. I stand by it.

 

 

a 2009 quote and a thread title like this ^ then that post

 

Sorry but it's back on a 180 day posting suspension for you

 

*Whistles*

 

Keep in mind what I say next is not my personal opinion:

 

I have found that occasionally in the verbal Buddhist community, TheTaoBums is actually looked on with albeit humorous jest.

 

If I were to say which individuals have said this it wouldnt do any good.

 

In future-spect, what I just said now will not help the community. Why do I say this? Because when peoples views and gossip are brought into the light it makes everyone nervous.

 

So then why would I make everyone nervous? Am I doing it to be selfish? No.

Am I doing it to show the disfavor the bums have with the Buddhist community in general? No.

 

So why did I say this?

 

My conclusion:

Forums are good for armchair hypothesis, for small pieces of information and idle talk. In general forums tend to be only as good as the experience of the people of the forum. If we have 100 people who just read a book on hardcore tao and are ready to preach then we face the problematique.

 

So, I am just saying take time out to do personal research. Maybe you wont be disgruntled about others views and in some respect we do need fun and joy in our lives to keep us balanced. Much less you wont be so concerned about x number of people being wrong on a forum that you might never really meet though they are still nice people.

 

Time for some me time.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Ambrose_Bierce

[C T]

*Whistles*

 

Keep in mind what I say next is not my personal opinion:

 

I have found that occasionally in the verbal Buddhist community, TheTaoBums is actually looked on with albeit humorous jest.

 

If I were to say which individuals have said this it wouldnt do any good.

 

In future-spect, what I just said now will not help the community. Why do I say this? Because when peoples views and gossip are brought into the light it makes everyone nervous.

 

So then why would I make everyone nervous? Am I doing it to be selfish? No.

Am I doing it to show the disfavor the bums have with the Buddhist community in general? No.

 

So why did I say this?

 

My conclusion:

Forums are good for armchair hypothesis, for small pieces of information and idle talk. In general forums tend to be only as good as the experience of the people of the forum. If we have 100 people who just read a book on hardcore tao and are ready to preach then we face the problematique.

 

So, I am just saying take time out to do personal research. Maybe you wont be disgruntled about others views and in some respect we do need fun and joy in our lives to keep us balanced. Much less you wont be so concerned about x number of people being wrong on a forum that you might never really meet though they are still nice people.

 

Time for some me time.

I liked you conclusion, but i find the 3rd party opinion cited above to be slanted. Can any on-line community ever be non-verbal i wonder... The day may come when we can all have virtual views into how each of us spend our days, and see what one another's practice routine is all about, but until that day dawns, its unavoidable that communication here remains on a verbal scale.

 

 

Hope you are enjoying your 'you' time!

[tulku]

I liked you conclusion, but i find the 3rd party opinion cited above to be slanted. Can any on-line community ever be non-verbal i wonder... The day may come when we can all have virtual views into how each of us spend our days, and see what one another's practice routine is all about, but until that day dawns, its unavoidable that communication here remains on a verbal scale.

 

 

Hope you are enjoying your 'you' time!

 

hey cowtao i didn't read the whole thread but is it true that you and alwayson had a past history in some other forum?

 

and that alwayson and peros had a past history in other forums as well?

 

sheesh.. this is like watching peeps replaying their antagonistic relationships over and over again in multiple lifetimes..

[C T]

hey cowtao i didn't read the whole thread but is it true that you and alwayson had a past history in some other forum?

 

Sorry to disappoint, Tulku, but there's no history in other forums between Alwayson and me.

 

This is the only forum i am active in.

[xabir2005]

Namdrol's reply to alwayson today is gold, basically reitering the exact same things I told him which he refused to listen because of his utter ignorance and unreasonable prejudice against Thusness.

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=5261

 

loled at "You mean even the physical? :jawdrop: "

 

like, didn't I already said?

 

 

 

"

There are two levels of realizing emptiness, the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena (that includes all material and mental phenomena)."

 

 

Precisely and unfortunately, alwayson doesn't understand this, so he doesn't see the accuracy of Thusness's stages (in particular, stage 5 and 6).

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I will say only this:

 

The mind is a delusion generator, not a window to the truth, and everything we percieve, experience, think, and otherwise think we know, must first be filtered through the mind/delusion generator.

 

 

In all fairness, we cannot know anything but what we percieve; our perceptions are not knowledge, but filtered experiences/delusions.

[xabir2005]

I will say only this:

 

The mind is a delusion generator, not a window to the truth, and everything we percieve, experience, think, and otherwise think we know, must first be filtered through the mind/delusion generator.

 

 

In all fairness, we cannot know anything but what we percieve; our perceptions are not knowledge, but filtered experiences/delusions.

Prior to labeling, there is just pure sense perception unfiltered by concepts.

 

But with non-conceptual appearances as basis, and ignorance as basis, we project our own assertions on them, and primarily the assertion of existents and nonexistents which causes grasping and suffering.

 

When you practice mindful awareness (see http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html ), you go prior concepts and begin to experience truth beyond filtered experiences or delusions. Then through practicing insight investigation or vipassana/vipashyana, realization of the twofold emptinesses can arise, which liberates your worldview of the existents of self and phenomena, ending all reification, attachments and suffering.

Edited September 10, 2011 by xabir2005