I see people are still misleading each other on Buddhism

[RongzomFan]

Things don't exist as thoughtforms, they APPEAR as thoughtforms.

 

Ok my bad.

 

I learned from that.

[xabir2005]

No. He clearly said, appearance is not thoughtform, but a non-conceptual sense cognition. So it does not make sense to say everything 'appears' as thoughtforms.

 

You were saying designations are made (upon the basis of) causes and conditions.

 

He rejected and said designations are made on the basis of appearances, which he clarified, means a sense cognition, which he further clarifies, is a non-conceptual naked sense perception.

 

And he clarifies that the designation (which are made on the basis of non-conceptual, naked sense perception) requires a concept, i.e. they are conceptual.

 

He further clarifies that all direct perceptions (sense cognition, naked sense perceptions) are non-conceptual whether one is awakened or not.

 

Now, in conclusion we can make: not everything is conceptual, there are sense-cognitions/direct perceptions, which serve as the basis for conceptual designations. So we definitely have a naked sense perception before we define it or conceptualize it as 'it's a bird, it's a tree'. And that naked sense perception is what 'appearance' means. That 'it's a bird' is what 'designation' means.

Edited September 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

No. He clearly said, appearance is not thoughtform, but a non-conceptual sense cognition. So it does not make sense to say everything 'appears' as thoughtforms.

 

You were saying designations are made (upon the basis of) causes and conditions.

 

He rejected and said designations are made on the basis of appearances, which he clarified, means a sense cognition, which he further clarifies, is a non-conceptual naked sense perception.

 

And he clarifies that the designation (which are made on the basis of non-conceptual, naked sense perception) requires a concept, i.e. they are conceptual.

 

He further clarifies that all direct perceptions (sense cognition, naked sense perceptions) are non-conceptual whether one is awakened or not.

 

Now, in conclusion we can make: not everything is conceptual, there are sense-cognitions/direct perceptions, which serve as the basis for conceptual designations.

 

 

 

Some things Namdrol says are above people's heads.

 

I know what he said on the Madhyamaka section of Esangha.

 

How many times did he talk about mere labels and imputation?

 

If you think Namdrol says an appearance is not a thoughtform, you are completely screwed.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

Some things Namdrol says are above people's heads.

 

I know what he said on the Madhyamaka section of Esangha.

 

How many times did he talk about mere labels and imputation?

Conventional truths are mere imputations. Since conventional truths are not true, i.e. they are empty, therefore, appearances (sense cognitions) are in nature beyond imputations.

If you think Namdrol says an appearance is not a thoughtform, you are completely screwed.

Tell that to Namdrol.

 

Enochian wrote:Doesn't appearance = thoughtform?

 

Namdrol:

No, an appearance is a sense cognition.

[RongzomFan]

Ok tell that to old Namdrol on Esangha.

 

Or Paul Williams who uses the exact phrase "conceptual construct" as a defining characteristic of Madhyamaka.

 

Or myself who already cleared this shit up.

 

 

I'm telling you the problem stemmed from using the word "exists" and not "appear"

 

 

Somewhere else on Dharma Wheel, Namdrol praised my understanding of emptiness.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

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.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Whatever I am done with this thread.

 

I am still 100% confident in my A, B, C since I had previously fixed all errors in understanding.

 

 

Peace.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Mal]

Whatever I am done with this thread.

 

Peace.

 

Good to hear.

[Pero]

Wow I leave for 4 hours and there's nine pages already.

edit:

Failing to notice my own shortcomings,

Pretending to be spiritual, I am anything but.

Naturally skilled in negative emotions and karma,

Again and again good intentions arise, again and again they come to naught.

Guru think of me, regard me with compassion.

Bless me that I might see my own faults.

 

- From Calling the Guru from Afar by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye

Edited September 10, 2011 by Pero

[Dainin]

When I first saw the title of this thread earlier today, I thought to myself "I bet that there will be 150 responses by this time tomorrow." I really underestimated them, they will probably reach that number in less than 12 hours. Can you imagine how many there would be if Vajrahridya was around?

[C T]

***************

There were a lot of accusations and rejections ~ no discussion.

 

He's gone now, according to him. I think he simply showed up to vent his frustration at Xabir.

 

Bet he wont show for another little while.

(or maybe he will... either way, he's arrogant)

Edited September 10, 2011 by Apech
edited Pero's self edit quote

[RongzomFan]

Wow I leave for 4 hours and there's nine pages already. He's one lying arrogant little prick but he can sure get discussions going.

 

 

Lieing about what exactly?

[Pero]

There were a lot of accusations and rejections ~ no discussion.

Right, haha...

[RongzomFan]

There is not much to discuss.

 

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

 

Or you don't

 

 

I don't

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[C T]

There is not much to discuss.

 

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

 

Or you don't

 

 

I don't

Your thread title was misleading then.

[RongzomFan]

Your thread title was misleading then.

 

 

How so?

[Pero]

Lieing about what exactly?

 

Nothing at the moment. Enochian, Alwayson, posted here, on E-Sangha, Dharmawheel and AYP forums. But you accused me of slander on Dharmawheel when I mentioned this and denied everything. You did the same the first time you came here too, except later admitted that I was right.

[RongzomFan]

Nothing at the moment. Enochian, Alwayson, posted here, on E-Sangha, Dharmawheel and AYP forums. But you accused me of slander on Dharmawheel when I mentioned this and denied everything. You did the same the first time you came here too, except later admitted that I was right.

 

 

I don't know what you are trying to get at.

 

Yes I post on multiple forums, as does everyone else.

 

You were reprimanded by the mods on Dharma Wheel since you confuse me with someone else.

 

And you are slandering me here, as you did on Dharma Wheel.

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson

[C T]

How so?

You basically accused people here of being quacks (according to the thread title).

 

Instead of showing reasons to back up your accusation, you ranted at Xabir throughout for misinterpreting certain ideas you hold to be true, but not necessarily seen to be such by others. Maybe for this reason Pero said you presented notions that were not based on truthfulness.

Edited September 9, 2011 by CowTao

[Pero]

I don't know what you are trying to get at.

 

Yes I post on multiple forums, as does everyone else.

 

You were reprimanded by the mods on Dharma Wheel since you confuse me with someone else.

 

And you are slandering me here, as you did on Dharma Wheel.

 

No, I did not confuse you with someone else. When I said whatever I said it was precisely you whom I had in mind and no one else. If I say we talked long ago and you posted here and there and you say "no I didn't", when you actually did, that is a lie. If I then say you are lying then that is not slander but a statement of fact.

[Pero]

Instead of showing reasons to back up your accusation, you ranted at Xabir throughout for misinterpreting certain ideas you hold to be true, but not necessarily seen to be such by others. Maybe for this reason Pero said you presented notions that were not based on truthfulness.

Nah, that has got nothing to do with it.

[RongzomFan]

No, I did not confuse you with someone else. When I said whatever I said it was precisely you whom I had in mind and no one else. If I say we talked long ago and you posted here and there and you say "no I didn't", when you actually did, that is a lie. If I then say you are lying then that is not slander but a statement of fact.

 

 

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

 

I know xabir from Esangha believe it or not.

 

He can confirm.

 

I have talked to a lot of people.

 

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?

Edited September 9, 2011 by alwayson