I see people are still misleading each other on Buddhism

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

This is bullshit on so many levels.

 

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

Anything. I don't recall it. Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[xabir2005]

Exactly. Which is why I don't really see a conflict between Madhyamaka and Yogacara. Have you read any of Maitreya's shastras? I also just bought these and haven't read through all of them yet, but they are great though. They emphasize/explain the gradual path towards buddhahood (which there is nothing wrong with of course.)

Not yet... will look into it when I'm free. Thanks for recommending.

[RongzomFan]

Anything. I don't recall it.

 

 

He has not defined emptiness correctly...not even once.

 

To say an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that thing is dependently originated. Emptiness generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs).

[xabir2005]

He has not defined emptiness correctly...not even once.

 

To say an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that thing is dependently originated. Emptiness generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs).

I think you're blind for not seeing how the principle of D.O. is so clearly stated out in Stage 6.

 

The view of inherent objects are conceptual constructs - Thusness have said this many times.

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

I think you're blind for not seeing how the principle of D.O. is so clearly stated out in Stage 6.

 

 

LOL

 

I am reading it right now.

 

Quote the sentence where he defines emptiness correctly.

 

I'll wait.

[xabir2005]

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

[xabir2005]

For reference, they are the:

Mahāyānasūtrālamkārakārikā

 

Dharmadharmatāvibhāga

 

Madhyāntavibhāgakārikā

 

Abhisamayalaṅkāra

 

Ratnagotravibhāga (Uttaratantra in Tibet.)

Thanks

[RongzomFan]

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

This isn't right.

 

At all.

 

This is just total nonsense.

And I think you're talking nonsense.

[doc benway]

Seriously who is the Thusness fellow?

 

And why do you suck his dick?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mod Team

 

Alwayson -

This post was inappropriate and unnecessary.

It violates our policy regarding respect and insults.

This is a warning to refrain from such behavior.

Please edit your post.

 

Mod Team Out

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[RongzomFan]

And I think you're talking nonsense.

 

 

 

You are right.

 

 

All of the garbage of Thusness is the same as from the mouth of Jigme Lingpa or the Buddha.

 

 

Do you know how ridiculous you are?

[xabir2005]

You are right.

 

 

All of the garbage of Thusness is the same as from the mouth of Jigme Lingpa or the Buddha.

 

 

Do you know how ridiculous you are?

See, you can't even form a proper rebuttal.

[RongzomFan]

See, you can't even form a proper rebuttal.

 

 

I already fucking rebutted it.

 

Thats not what emptiness means.

 

I already told you what emptiness means.

[xabir2005]

I already fucking rebutted it.

 

Thats not what emptiness means.

 

I already told you what emptiness means.

Oh yes you told me emptiness is dependent origination, and Thusness said emptiness is dependent origination.

[RongzomFan]

[xabir2005]

This

 

"To say an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that thing is dependently originated. Emptiness generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)."

 

 

 

does not resemble this

 

 

 

"Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence."

What dependently originates are empty. So with regards to your first sentence, it's the same.

 

As for "Emptiness generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)."

 

-

 

Not all appearances are conceptual constructs. Sense perceptions are as Namdrol said, non-conceptual. So sense perceptions are non-conceptual appearances. However the reification into 'things, selves, entities' is due to conceptual construct, so it is in this sense that 'all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)' - not that all appearances including non-conceptual sense perceptions are conceptual constructs.

 

Both conceptual and non-conceptual appearances are equally dependently originated and empty.

 

Namdrol:

 

Not in the sense that Enochian is using the word i.e. as designations.

 

A designation requires a concept, where as a naked sense perception is, by definition, non-conceptual.

 

........

 

 

All direct perceptions are non-conceptual whether one is awakened or not.

 

Looks like you didn't listen closely to Namdrol.

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

What dependently originates are empty. So with regards to your first sentence, it's the same.

 

As for "Emptiness generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)."

 

-

 

Not all appearances are conceptual constructs. Sense perceptions are as Namdrol said, non-conceptual. So sense perceptions are non-conceptual appearances. However the reification into 'things, selves, entities' is due to conceptual construct. Both conceptual and non-conceptual appearances are equally dependently originated and empty.

 

Namdrol:

 

Not in the sense that Enochian is using the word i.e. as designations.

 

A designation requires a concept, where as a naked sense perception is, by definition, non-conceptual.

 

........

 

 

All direct perceptions are non-conceptual whether one is awakened or not.

 

Looks like you didn't listen closely to Namdrol.

 

 

You don't understand what Namdrol meant. Thats the fucking problem.

 

I am Enochian on Dharma Wheel.

 

I used the word "exists" when I should have used the word "appears."

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

In fact now I see, Namdrol replied all your misconceptions before me. You didn't listen. Too bad.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4056&start=140

 

Enochian wrote:I can state the principles of of Gorampa's Madhyamaka without getting into negation.

 

a. Everything exists as thoughtforms merely designated upon causes and conditions.

 

 

Wrong. Gorampa rejects this point. Designations are made on the basis of appearances.

 

N

 

............

 

Enochian wrote:Doesn't appearance = thoughtform?

 

 

No, an appearance is a sense cognition.

 

...........

 

gregkavarnos wrote:Aren't sense cognitions ultimately thought forms since (sensory) sensations pass through their respective sense-mind before we can cognise the sensory cognition? (to put it extraordinarily clumsily)

:namaste:

 

 

Not in the sense that Enochian is using the word i.e. as designations.

 

A designation requires a concept, where as a naked sense perception is, by definition, non-conceptual.

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

You don't understand what Namdrol meant. Thats the fucking problem.

You're the one who don't understand what Namdrol meant. Thats the fucking problem.

[RongzomFan]

You're the one who don't understand what Namdrol meant. Thats the fucking problem.

 

 

I talked to Namdrol about this.

 

The problem was that I used the word "exists" instead of "appears".

 

Thats all.