I see people are still misleading each other on Buddhism

[C T]

Alwayson,

 

Your view is the misleading one because, as pointed out by Xabir and SJ, its not complete. Not only is it incomplete, it borders on ridicule as your ABC constitutes only a fraction of the Madhyamaka gradual path to liberation. This means its only used as part of a greater sphere of philosophical assertions in that school to help those of middling intellect to recognize mind essence.

 

You ought to stop making bold claims as you have done here.

 

Shame on you for trying to undermine Xabir's and SJ's knowledge and experience. They are way ahead of you in terms of insight.

[RongzomFan]

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

 

 

You and I well know that we talk about this every year on PM.

 

I am well acquainted with Thusness' garbage crap.

 

Do I need to post our PM's?

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Shame on you for trying to undermine Xabir's and SJ's knowledge and experience. They are way ahead of you in terms of insight.

 

 

I will NEVER agree that this Thusness asshole is a source of Buddha Dharma.

[xabir2005]

I've always wanted to know what you thought on the Consciousness-Only school of Buddhism....How it cites that all phenomena are just consciousness; karmic energy that is interdependently originated into what we experience through the five skhandas...Basically "The three realms are only Mind, myriad phenomena are only consciousness."

I think that description is ok as long as it does not substantialize Mind - Mind too is empty.

 

I like what 3rd Karmapa said:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Karmapa%20Rangjung%20Dorje

 

All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever.

[C T]

. Fiesty aren't we?

Hmm... and feisty too! Ouch!

[xabir2005]

Woah, now everyone knows who the real asshole is.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Woah, now everyone knows who the real asshole is.

 

 

Yeah its you, who slanders the Dharma

[xabir2005]

Yeah its you, who slanders the Dharma

Whatever. It's up to others to opine.

[RongzomFan]

Woah woah woah...Please refrain from throwing around this "They are way ahead of you in terms of insight." If he wants to disagree, I say let him, but he better be able to back up the shit he says...Though anyone with a bit of experience or knowledge of Buddhism can know he's talking out of his ass.

 

 

Your opinion means nothing, since it is obvious you are also totally ignorant of Buddhism.

[RongzomFan]

Whatever. It's up to others to opine.

 

 

Yes I am opining you slander the Dharma.

 

Should I ask Namdrol about Thusness' seven stages?

[xabir2005]

Yes I am opining you slander the Dharma.

 

Should I ask Namdrol about Thusness' seven stages?

Up to you.

[C T]

Woah woah woah...Please refrain from throwing around this "They are way ahead of you in terms of insight." If he wants to disagree, I say let him, but he better be able to back up the shit he says...Though anyone with a bit of experience or knowledge of Buddhism can know he's talking out of his ass.

Throwing around? I thought for a whole of one full minute before pressing the 'send' button.

 

Its heavyweight, not easily flung about okay?

 

 

btw, i am not trying to stop his disagreements... I would not even call it that. Disagreements usually include substance.

[RongzomFan]

Up to you.

 

 

I can ask in the open on Dharma Wheel.

 

Except that would make ME look like the idiot.

 

Why don't you ask Namdrol on Dharma Wheel about it?

[xabir2005]

I can ask in the open on Dharma Wheel.

 

Except that would make ME look like the idiot.

 

Why don't you ask Namdrol on Dharma Wheel about it?

Not interested. You seem interested, so why not?

[RongzomFan]

Not interested. You seem interested, so why not?

 

 

You already have an account there yes?

[xabir2005]

You already have an account there yes?

Yes, I'm not going to ask him. If you are interested then its up to you.

[RongzomFan]

Disagreements usually include substance.

 

 

I disagree that this is a source of Buddhism in any shape:

 

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

[xabir2005]

I disagree that this is a source of Buddhism in any shape:

 

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

Just a clarification before you misrepresent anything: Stage 1 to 4 does not constitute Buddhist view, but Thusness's experience prior to realizing the Buddhist view. Stage 5 is anatta, Stage 6 is emptiness of dharmas/dependent origination.

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

I see what you mean. I've just bought his Luminous Heart: The Third Karmapa on Consciousness, Wisdom, and Buddha Nature and his commentary on Nagarjuna's Dharmadhatustava....Also a couple works by Mipham on buddha-nature and the ground of dzogchen. Interesting stuff, it does seem that the ground of dzogchen is closer to the teachings of buddha-nature/tathagatagarbha. Though I haven't really read them all the way through yet, so I can't fully elaborate yet. Of course though from what I have read: The second turning of prajnaparamita are of course not negated or anything, in fact combined togther.

Third turning stresses luminosity, second turning on emptiness. Luminosity and emptiness can't be separated so I do agree it should be seen as inseparable.

[RongzomFan]

Just a clarification before you misrepresent anything: Stage 1 to 4 does not constitute Buddhist view, but Thusness's experience prior to realizing the Buddhist view. Stage 5 is anatta, Stage 6 is emptiness of dharmas/dependent origination.

 

 

This is bullshit on so many levels.

 

Should I just post the PM's from last year when I already refuted this?