Wirathu: The Face Of Buddhist Terrorism

[Tibetan_Ice]

TI, i read that link, i don't think its an accurate depiction of what Nagarjuna was saying, because it uses sunyata to refute "inherent existance" without also refuting the non-existance of reality and self, as Nagarjuna was very clear to do. I am also not sure if Nagarjuna used the phrase "inherent existance" of if that came later with Tsongkhapa's commentaries on madhyamaka, which have been wideless disputed and generally are not considered the be completely accurate. hahahah i would say check with alwayson, but your ego might get in the way of that. Look into it for yourself, like i said, many people are confused on the subject.

 

As i understand Nagarjuna, he never said that nothing exists and stopped there. There is more to it, and sunyata is about non-conceptuality and direct experience more than it is about how life doesn't exist and self isn't real.

 

I suggest reading Nagarjuna for yourself, instead of western scholars who are commenting on the commentaries of Nagarjuna. Regardless of the size of your typeface lol sunyata is not the view that nothing exists, or that the self doesn't exist independantly. That is anatta or anatman (pali/sanskrit).

 

If you feel any need to continue your trend of snide commentary and your aggressive stance towards those who disagree with you, be forewarned that no actual conversation with me (or anyone else with self-respect!) will ensue from such an approach lol

 

You said:

TI, i read that link, i don't think its an accurate depiction of what Nagarjuna was saying, because it uses sunyata to refute "inherent existance" without also refuting the non-existance of reality and self, as Nagarjuna was very clear to do.

 

Apparently you did not read the whole article. Or perhaps you missed this part:

 

At this point in the criticism we thus come to recognize that emptiness, sunyata, is not the ultimate truth. While this conditionedness and relativity of the self is its true nature in the conventional world, it is not its ultimate nature. Ultimately, the self is empty even of its conditionedness and relativity: it is ultimately empty of emptiness (sunyata-sunyata, as it is called). And since the conditionedness of the conditioned is ultimately conditioned, since the distinction between the conditioned and the unconditioned is itself conditioned, the conditioned is ultimately identical to the unconditioned reality.

Since criticism has revealed contradictions in clinging to both inherent existence and inherent non-existence, in the end we can neither absolutely assert nor absolutely deny the existence of the self.

 

Apparently you are unaware that sunyata and anatta are variations of the same theme? This has been discussed before.. You know, I arrived at that conclusion all on my own. But now that I research it, I'm finding agreement with other sources:

 

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=12608

 

This study was done also with the objective of clarifying certain widely presented views regarding Sunyata. One of them is that this doctrine was not known to early Buddhism, or in other words, not a doctrine taught by the Buddha. This view gained so much of popularity, that scholars of the caliber of Stcherbatsky, followed by T.R.V. Murti boldly claimed this to be an innovation of Acarya Nagarjuna. Murti even went into the extent of comparing Acarya Nagajuna’s teaching an Sunyata as a ‘Copernican revolution’ in Buddhist tought. Therefore, besides explaining Sunna as found in the Suttas, an attempt has been made in this thesis also to show that this doctrine was well known to early Buddhism.

 

Thus, two whole chapter of this has been denoted to examine use of Sunna and other related terms in the suttas and in Post – canonical Pali literature. By enumerating and explaining such usage it has been possible to establish that this Sunna idea is not unknown to either the Buddha or to the disciples. However, the study shows that the terms Sunna/Sunnata are not of common occurrence as the term Anatta. It also came to light that even the disciples, though they knew what Sunna/Sunnata meant were far more familiar with the Anatta doctrine.

 

An attempt was made to examine how Sunya/Sunyata came into prominence overshadowing Anatta doctrine. In the present researchers view it is the early Madhyamaka texts like “Astasahasrikaprjnaparamita” etc., that contributed to the early popularity of these terms as a religious technical term.

 

These early Mahayana texts were in response to the non-Mahayana Buddhist schools that upheld the existence of some sorts of metaphysical entity that lay as the essence in everything. Of these schools the most prominent was the Sarvastivada school, and this belonged to the Therevada (=Hinayana tradition). This school in its attempt to explain reality, put forward a novel view which said that there is a self—nature (Sva-bhava) in everything, and that this Svabhava exists in all three periods of time namely, past present and future. The earliest criticism against this and other substantialist and essentialist views was by Mahayanists. In counter-arguing this view these early Mahayana texts highlighted the emptiness, voidness (Sunyata) of everything. It is, however, Nagajuna that made this his central thesis in presenting the Madhyamaka philosophy of his.

 

In this book an attempt has been made to show that Anatta and Sunya/Sunyata are not two different concepts. The present researcher is in agreement with the view that these two concepts cover the same range in their philosophical application; and that the preference for this term Sunya/Sunyata over Anatta only a shift of emphasis. The present researcher attempted to establish this point, citing textual and circumstantial evidence.

In doing this it has been attempted to demonstrate that the Buddh, too, used the term Sunna, and that he did so, not to bring out a new perspective but to further emphasize the absence of a self or anything connected with the self as the noumenon behind the phenomenon. In support of this textual evidence has been cited. It has also been shown that “Anatta” as used in early Suttas, did not merely mean the absence of an individual soul, but meant also the absence of any entity in both compounded (Samkhata/Samskrta) elements as well as in uncompounded (Asamkhata, Asamskrta) elements, that is Nibbana. Thus, it has been clearly shown that anatta means “emptiness” of everything, including Nibbana (Nirnvana).

 

You know, I'm not really interested in becoming a Buddhist scholar. I'm more interested in practices and experiences.

 

You said:

If you feel any need to continue your trend of snide commentary and your aggressive stance towards those who disagree with you, be forewarned that no actual conversation with me (or anyone else with self-respect!) will ensue from such an approach lol

 

Actually, I am not interested in speaking with you (or Alwaysoff) for that matter. You two suffer from a specific disease. You both seek authority, the ultimate and best Buddhist scholastic ideologies according to your scholastic/historical standards. You both are incapable of thinking for yourselves and need to rely on brand-name, gold-sealed doctrines, which in my book make very little difference to practices or experiences. And by declaring that your interpretations and sources are the ultimate truth, you damage and belittle any teachings or writings that aren't the same source, but may well point to the same truth.

 

Really, who cares if the intellectual rationalization for sunyata or anatta is of one form or another. What good does it do to use logic as a justification for spiritual matters? Spiritualism is beyond logic and why people try to marry the two is beyond me.

 

Further, it seems that Buddhists are not happy unless they are arguing about something. It is not conducive to peaceful meditations, is it?

 

TI

[RongzomFan]

Actually, I am not interested in speaking with you (or Alwaysoff) for that matter. You two suffer from a specific disease. You both seek authority, the ultimate and best Buddhist scholastic ideologies according to your scholastic/historical standards.

 

Who is seeking authority? Read the Indian Madhyamaka translations for yourself.

[Tibetan_Ice]

I find Moderate's offensive,...I also find dishonesty offensive.

 

Sam Harris said, "Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of Judgment, he cannot possibly “respect” the beliefs of others

 

While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist."

 

In my opinion, faith-based, Moderate, Western media bias, especially that which is fueled by Saudi money, should be confronted,...forcefully.

 

Sam Harris wrote, “Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word God as though we knew what we were talking about. They do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the god of their fathers because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world—to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish—is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. However, we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price that we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.”

 

I personally like Bhutan's strategy of keeping it out the problems like are going on in Myanmar. Bhutan is tolerant of all religions but does not permit proselytizing. The constitution upholds freedom of belief (the delusion of one's choice). It does, however, recognize the importance of Bhutan’s Buddhist heritage to its cultural identity.

 

As for the allegation of inciting a religious war,...I feel I'm in good (and timely) company.

 

Shakyamuni Buddha predicted that a holy war would take place among humanity. Many say this war is near. A worldwide inner battle, and subsequent outer one, advancing an age of authentic spiritual consciousness. They say that the days of the Abrahamic meme-plex are numbered. Could the virus of Christianity and Islam be consigned to the back walls of museums in our generation?

 

The Kalachakra initiation is a confirmation, an affirmation and a pledge to support the Shambhala war and to participate in the co-creation of peace on earth—a genuine peace that will reveal Shambhala. This is not a symbolic war, but an inner spiritual battle that will project to the outer. The inner always projects to the outer, and the outer is always a mirror image of the inner. The initiation is a commitment of true compassion that arises from the vow to liberate all sentient beings from their attachment to sentience,....not tolerating beliefs and continuing suffering.

 

Vmarco,

You should be banned from this site for hate mongering and inciting to take up holy wars.

I don't know who Sam Harris is, I don't care and I don't want to know. Just another lost soul without a heart that is trying to instigate prejudice and violence.

 

Can't you think for your self?

 

You've quoted Buddha: " Shakyamuni Buddha predicted that a holy war would take place among humanity. " Well, that is nothing new. People have been killing others in the name of religion all throughout history. Big deal! I predict that wars will be never-ending on this planet, for a very long time. I've said nothing.

 

Ok. Let's do some thinking here VMarco for a change. If you kill off all the Muslims and Judeo-Christians, they will be reborn, would they not? And perhaps they might have a karmic axe to grind. Killing someone does nothing to alleviate any problem, other than get rid of them for the time being. Then, when you die, you too will be reborn, and perhaps you will have the karma that you will be killed, so that you know how it feels.

 

Perhaps you will be reborn as a Muslim, or Christian. Ever think of that? Don't think that you are beyond karma.

 

The truth of the matter is that you really have no understanding or idea of rules of death, karma and rebirth, yet you seem ready to spew your views and hatred out, like vomit, infecting and making this forum a disgusting place to be.

 

And I see you are still up to your Lao Tzu quotes.. Still haven't learned anything?

 

You quoted:

Lao Tzu said, "Do you think you can clear your mind by sitting constantly in silent meditation? This makes your mind narrow, not clear."

 

 

Well it's a good thing that Buddha never listened to Lao Tzu, isn't it?

 

I also have an answer to your famous quote about the "six" senses, and your preposterous idea that you can never be in the 'now'. Maybe the senses all act at the speed of electricity (neural synapse response time), but awareness is instantaneous and not limited to space or time. Every conscious being has awareness, therefore, every conscious being is already in the now and beyond their "six" senses. Awareness travels faster than the speed of light, in fact, it doesn't travel at all. It just is.

 

It isn't hard to do, Vmarco. It is called 'thinking for yourself'.

 

[Vmarco]

Vmarco,

You should be banned from this site for hate mongering and inciting to take up holy wars.

I don't know who Sam Harris is, I don't care and I don't want to know. Just another lost soul without a heart that is trying to instigate prejudice and violence.

 

 

It isn't hard to do, Vmarco. It is called 'thinking for yourself'.

 

 

Actually, all my posts are about uncovering the barriers built against the Heart. No Christian or Muslem have ever, or can ever uncovered their Heart,...it is impossible. Christianity, Islam, just as all beliefs, are barriers to Heart Consciousness. What you call hate,...that is, anything which threatens your belief system, is the love and compassion you obscure, to protect ego.

 

This is why the Kalachakra says that a Holy War must take place against the unholy beliefs, like Abrahamic constructs which veil Heart Consciousness.

 

As a person of compassion, I certainly empathize with your point of view.

 

"Most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion." --Lemuel K. Washburn

 

 

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson

 

 

"What would be the need for faith if it stood to reason?" Joseph Campbell

 

 

"I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam." - Gore Vidal

 

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters ...cannot be trusted in large ones either. ~Albert Einstein

 

Where knowledge ends, religion begins.-Benjamin Disraeli

 

"Faith" means the will to avoid knowing what is true. Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"When people say 'I have faith', what they really mean is 'I don't want to know the truth'." Nietzsche

 

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change" HH Dalai Lama

Edited July 1, 2013 by Vmarco

[Vmarco]

Vmarco,

 

Can't you think for your self?

 

Ok. Let's do some thinking here VMarco for a change. If you kill off all the Muslims and Judeo-Christians, they will be reborn, would they not?

Perhaps you will be reborn as a Muslim, or Christian. Ever think of that? Don't think that you are beyond karma.

 

 

It isn't hard to do, Vmarco. It is called 'thinking for yourself'.

 

 

You really need to get past the sophomoric way you look at things. I've never said I wanted to kill Muslims or Christians. I'm saying that truth will obliterate Islam and Christianity.

 

No matter how much you cling to your beliefs for your identity, you are not your beliefs.

[Songtsan]

Actually, all my posts are about uncovering the barriers built against the Heart. No Christian or Muslem have ever, or can ever uncovered their Heart,...it is impossible. Christianity, Islam, just as all beliefs, are barriers to Heart Consciousness. What you call hate,...that is, anything which threatens your belief system, is the love and compassion you obscure, to protect ego.

 

I'll have to disagree with you on this, as I am part Sufi...have you ever heard of Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan, or Hazrat Inayat Khan? - true heart warriors, and true Yogis, strong in shakti. please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inayat_Khan really quickly, and also see an image of Hazrat Inayat Khan and tell me you don't think he is a true yogi...Sufism is also considered to be unorthodox Islam, but sees all religions as rays of light from the one being...many Sheikhs are known to give shaktipat. During some of the Muslim incursions into India there was eventually much religious tolerance between Hinduism and Islam, and some sects formed which combined some of each - resulting in Sikhism. Satnam my friend.

[silent thunder]

Like spokes to the hub, all religions, thought forms and paths lead to the source.

[thetaoiseasy]

.

Edited March 24, 2014 by thetaoiseasy

[Songtsan]

what matters is not the label you give a religion, but what you do with that religion in each second of every day...if you are of whatever religion and you go around all day practicing a one-pointed focus on some object, will you not become enlightened?

[Jetsun]

 

That hatred had been further stoked by a leaflet signed by a group calling itself "Buddhists who feel helpless" and handed out a few weeks before. It suggested Muslims in Meikhtila were conspiring against Buddhists, assisted by money from Saudi Arabia, and holding shady meetings in mosques. It was addressed to the area's monks.

 

 

This is the main problem with Islam world wide at the moment, Saudi Arabia is funding a Wahabbi version of Islam across the globe which is an extreme and militaristic version of Islam aimed at conquering countries. In any country in the world now the Saudis will pay for a Mosque to be built, so of course most communities will accept that funding but that help comes with the condition that the Saudis put their own Immam in to preach their agenda. This happens in Europe and the UK too, many new Mosques have this condition attached to it with Immans who preach against the country they live in. The problem isnt with Islam it is with this Saudi funded extreme Islam, for example in northern Africa there used to be many Sufi dominated countries who were peaceful and live in harmony with other faiths, but now the whole of north Africa is riven with war and conflict due to this new brand of Islam. Its a cancer spreading worldwide and according to most scholars it isn't in line with the Koran at all it is a relatively new ideology.

[C T]

what matters is not the label you give a religion, but what you do with that religion in each second of every day...if you are of whatever religion and you go around all day practicing a one-pointed focus on some object, will you not become enlightened?

Nope.

 

Enlightenment is a trap.

 

Mind the step.

 

Dont trip over.

[Vmarco]

I'll have to disagree with you on this, as I am part Sufi...have you ever heard of Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan, or Hazrat Inayat Khan? - true heart warriors, and true Yogis, strong in shakti. please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inayat_Khan really quickly, and also see an image of Hazrat Inayat Khan and tell me you don't think he is a true yogi...Sufism is also considered to be unorthodox Islam, but sees all religions as rays of light from the one being...many Sheikhs are known to give shaktipat. During some of the Muslim incursions into India there was eventually much religious tolerance between Hinduism and Islam, and some sects formed which combined some of each - resulting in Sikhism. Satnam my friend.

 

Yes,...great mystics Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan, or Hazrat Inayat Khan, and other sufi's. I recall someone here recently quoted

Adyashanti as saying, "the mystical experience is the highest form of a "me" experience" Exactly correct. Mystics may be close to uncovering Heart Consciousness,...but then they get invested in their mystical experiences, and are really in no better shape than other fundamentalists.

 

Pay close attention here Songtsan,...Experience born of belief, can only be experienced through the condition of that belief.

 

Let's put it another way,...if you ever had a direct experience, you would not be part sufi. That does not imply that being part sufi is wrong,...the you that you think you are is where it believes it should be.

 

However, no one who clings to beliefs for their identity, even if "part belief," as your "part sufi" belief, can enter Heart Consciousness.

 

You cannot bring your conditions into the Unconditional.

 

V

[Vmarco]

Nope.

 

Enlightenment is a trap.

 

Mind the step.

 

Dont trip over.

 

I spent some time in London several weeks ago,...the saying there is "Mind the Gap" Must have heard that line a thousand times while there.

 

Anyway, I sort of agree, enlightenment is a trap. Don't feel one could ever uncover it, if one is seeking it. However, for some, seeking it has surely led some to see the ridiculousness of seeking it,...and when that occurs, all the seeking, all the hopes, all the dreams, are let go. Can you imagine,...letting go of all hope?

 

"the highest goal is being devoid of hope and fear" Tilopa.

[konchog uma]

You said:

 

 

Apparently you did not read the whole article. Or perhaps you missed this part:

 

 

 

Apparently you are unaware that sunyata and anatta are variations of the same theme? This has been discussed before.. You know, I arrived at that conclusion all on my own. But now that I research it, I'm finding agreement with other sources:

 

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=12608

 

 

 

You know, I'm not really interested in becoming a Buddhist scholar. I'm more interested in practices and experiences.

 

You said:

 

 

Actually, I am not interested in speaking with you (or Alwaysoff) for that matter. You two suffer from a specific disease. You both seek authority, the ultimate and best Buddhist scholastic ideologies according to your scholastic/historical standards. You both are incapable of thinking for yourselves and need to rely on brand-name, gold-sealed doctrines, which in my book make very little difference to practices or experiences. And by declaring that your interpretations and sources are the ultimate truth, you damage and belittle any teachings or writings that aren't the same source, but may well point to the same truth.

 

Really, who cares if the intellectual rationalization for sunyata or anatta is of one form or another. What good does it do to use logic as a justification for spiritual matters? Spiritualism is beyond logic and why people try to marry the two is beyond me.

 

Further, it seems that Buddhists are not happy unless they are arguing about something. It is not conducive to peaceful meditations, is it?

 

TI

 

hahahah the disease of wanting correct interpretations... you seem unafflicted, how nice

 

my "spiritualism" is beyond logic but not without it lol

 

glad you don't want to talk about it... your aggression says more about how your approach to spiritual practice is working out for you anyway

Edited July 1, 2013 by konchog uma

[silas]

Sufism is also considered to be unorthodox Islam, but sees all religions as rays of light from the one being...many Sheikhs are known to give shaktipat. During some of the Muslim incursions into India there was eventually much religious tolerance between Hinduism and Islam, and some sects formed which combined some of each - resulting in Sikhism. Satnam my friend.

 

Songtsan, this topic interests me. Sufism is a sect of Islam, which believes in a conscious God. If all religions are rays of light from that one being, how do Sufis explain extremely divergent beliefs and practices, some of which severely conflict and cause confusion and strife?

[Songtsan]

Songtsan, this topic interests me. Sufism is a sect of Islam, which believes in a conscious God. If all religions are rays of light from that one being, how do Sufis explain extremely divergent beliefs and practices, some of which severely conflict and cause confusion and strife?

 

I don't have a lot of time to respond at the moment, but I imagine they are talking ideals...and what Vmarco said in response to me above made a great point - that they are still essentially caught in ego games, identifying with limited constructs. I imagine though that they are trying to promote religious unity, in expressing their belief that all religions stem from the same source, so did not want to get involved in naysaying, etc. In seeking to shape the world to their ideals, perhaps they avoided some unpleasant truths, or perhaps not...I can't speak for every Sufi. I know that they are good people - they came up with the Dances of Universal Peace for one. It's certainly likely they are merely focusing on the positive and leaving the negatives for others to focus on. They do preach Islamic values, but they are also heavily involved with Christian, and other Eastern beliefs as well. One could do worse if one were to choose a more religious vs. spiritual sect.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Songtsan

[Simple_Jack]

As I was brain-washed by Tsongkhapa, Loppon Namdrol had to help me personally over many months with Madhyamaka. He said I was "greatly improved" and "almost perfect".

 

Then again, he was also trained in the Sakyapa system, so naturally he's going to be biased towards the Gelugpa view since that sect was especially antagonistic towards Tsongkhapa's interpretation of madhyamaka (being that he was previously trained from the Sakyapas before establishing his own view of madhyamaka).

 

I've definitely come across descriptions of emptiness that were similar to Tsongkhapa's descriptions in East Asian Buddhism (i.e. "empty of inherent existence"). So, I think that there would be no problem for someone to eventually have a non-conceptual realization of emptiness, if they were to be trained in that view.

 

 

Actually, I am not interested in speaking with you (or Alwaysoff) for that matter. You two suffer from a specific disease. You both seek authority, the ultimate and best Buddhist scholastic ideologies according to your scholastic/historical standards. You both are incapable of thinking for yourselves and need to rely on brand-name, gold-sealed doctrines, which in my book make very little difference to practices or experiences. And by declaring that your interpretations and sources are the ultimate truth, you damage and belittle any teachings or writings that aren't the same source, but may well point to the same truth.

 

Dude, shut up, that article you posted was crap anyways.

[Tibetan_Ice]

You really need to get past the sophomoric way you look at things. I've never said I wanted to kill Muslims or Christians. I'm saying that truth will obliterate Islam and Christianity.

 

No matter how much you cling to your beliefs for your identity, you are not your beliefs.

 

Vmarco,

Gee, you cut sentences out of my post, and strung them together like I had written them in that order.

 

I did not write the following:

 

 

Tibetan_Ice, on 30 Jun 2013 - 21:41, said:

Vmarco,

 

Can't you think for your self?

 

Ok. Let's do some thinking here VMarco for a change. If you kill off all the Muslims and Judeo-Christians, they will be reborn, would they not?

Perhaps you will be reborn as a Muslim, or Christian. Ever think of that? Don't think that you are beyond karma.

 

 

It isn't hard to do, Vmarco. It is called 'thinking for yourself'.

 

 

What I wrote was this:

 

 

Can't you think for your self?

 

You've quoted Buddha: " Shakyamuni Buddha predicted that a holy war would take place among humanity. " Well, that is nothing new. People have been killing others in the name of religion all throughout history. Big deal! I predict that wars will be never-ending on this planet, for a very long time. I've said nothing.

 

Ok. Let's do some thinking here VMarco for a change. If you kill off all the Muslims and Judeo-Christians, they will be reborn, would they not? And perhaps they might have a karmic axe to grind. Killing someone does nothing to alleviate any problem, other than get rid of them for the time being. Then, when you die, you too will be reborn, and perhaps you will have the karma that you will be killed, so that you know how it feels.

 

Perhaps you will be reborn as a Muslim, or Christian. Ever think of that? Don't think that you are beyond karma.

 

The truth of the matter is that you really have no understanding or idea of rules of death, karma and rebirth, yet you seem ready to spew your views and hatred out, like vomit, infecting and making this forum a disgusting place to be.

 

 

If you cut up text/sentences and then quote them without indicating to the reader that there are pieces missing, that is a form of deception. It is customary, in the English language, to put a "..." representing the missing text.

 

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

 

Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission" or "falling short") is a series of dots that usually indicate an intentional omission of a word, sentence or whole section from the original text being quoted, and though necessary for syntactical construction, is not necessary for comprehension.

 

 

There is no charge for the Lesson in English.

 

I never said that "YOU WANT TO KILL ALL MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS". My statement was a hypothetical case, as was indicated by the preceeding statement "Ok. Let's do some thinking here VMarco for a change." and the following "If you". However, you are kind of squirming here, aren't you? Is not someone whom instigates a religious war to obliterate all the Muslim and Christianity religions just as guilty as the perpetrators that carry out the act?

 

PS. Your anti-belief system is just another form of belief system.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[RongzomFan]

Then again, he was also trained in the Sakyapa system, so naturally he's going to be biased towards the Gelugpa view since that sect was especially antagonistic towards Tsongkhapa's interpretation of madhyamaka (being that he was previously trained from the Sakyapas before establishing his own view of madhyamaka).

 

Again you miss the main point.

 

The point is that Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka" is different. That's just facts and history. Not bias.

 

I've definitely come across descriptions of emptiness that were similar to Tsongkhapa's descriptions in East Asian Buddhism (i.e. "empty of inherent existence").

 

More likely the translation has been inadvertently influenced by Tsongkhapa.

Edited July 1, 2013 by alwayson

[Tibetan_Ice]

Actually, all my posts are about uncovering the barriers built against the Heart. No Christian or Muslem have ever, or can ever uncovered their Heart,...it is impossible. Christianity, Islam, just as all beliefs, are barriers to Heart Consciousness. What you call hate,...that is, anything which threatens your belief system, is the love and compassion you obscure, to protect ego.

...

 

Vmarco, you are deluded.

Christianity has its saints. St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.. To say that these people never uncovered their Heart is just totally deluded.

 

The levitating saint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila

 

If it were not for Christianity, I would have never met Jesus.

 

Do you know why most pictures of Jesus Christ show his bleeding heart with thorns? The sacred heart? You've probably never thought about it, being the mind-based quasi intellectual that you are.

 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=jesus+sacred+heart&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=98TRUfTtBJC8jAKU0IDwDg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1191&bih=802

 

To say that Rumi never uncovered his heart is just plain ignorant.

 

Here are some Rumi quotes:

link: http://love-whisperer.blogspot.ca/p/rumi-quotes.html

 

 

 

"The garden of the world has no limits

Except in your mind.

Its presence is more beautiful than the stars

With more clarity

Than the polished mirror of your heart."

...

"The light which shines in the eye is really the light of the heart."

...

"Come, seek, for search is the foundation of fortune: every success depends upon focusing the heart."

...

"The heart has its own language. The heart knows a hundred thousand ways to speak."

...

"Only from the heart can you touch the sky."

...

 

 

 

 

 

Mevlâna Jalâluddîn Rumi

 

Only Breath

 

Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu

Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion

or cultural system. I am not from the East

or the West, not out of the ocean or up

from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not

composed of elements at all. I do not exist,

am not an entity in this world or the next,

did not descend from Adam or Eve or any

origin story. My place is placeless, a trace

of the traceless. Neither body or soul.

I belong to the beloved, have seen the two

worlds as one and that one call to and know,

first, last, outer, inner, only that

breath breathing human being.

 

Edited July 1, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[Vmarco]

Vmarco, you are deluded.

Christianity has its saints. St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.. To say that these people never uncovered their Heart is just totally deluded.

 

 

If it were not for Christianity, I would have never met Jesus.

 

Do you know why most pictures of Jesus Christ show his bleeding heart with thorns? The sacred heart? You've probably never thought about it, being the mind-based quasi intellectual that you are.

 

 

To say that Rumi never uncovered his heart is just plain ignorant.

 

I fully understand,...believers put other believers on pedestals as having realized the great mystery, so to maintain the construct that belief will do great things.

 

One acception to your heros may have been Teresa of Avila.

 

Some say that St. Theresa of Avila, who wrote a number of books, broke through to the full realization. It is said that she totally stopped reading religious literature. Her whole adult life was spent constantly reading and writing about the Lord. Suddenly, she completely stopped it.

Did she realized her visions, her trances, everything was coming from her inner self. Her priest confessor, who had always heard her confessions, just could not get over why all of a sudden she stopped all religious reading...for that had been her passion in life.

Once a person breaks through the hoax of theism to realize there is no higher authority looking out for you, you miss the relationship you thought you had with God. The thought that reality is all there is can seem cold. It takes away the mystery and love that communication with God provided. Reality seems very cold at first.

So few finally break through to realize it's all a hoax. Many, many people live their whole life caught up living in a way they shouldn't be living, acting and doing things which go against themselves and their self interests.

It is extremely difficult to make the breakthrough. It is said to have taken St. Theresa fourteen years.

 

I haven't met Teresa of Avila, so I really can't comment,...but I can say this,...no one has ever brought their conditions into the Unconditional. As such, I truly empathize with you Jesus delusion,...all I can say is, only truth can set you free.

 

The prototype of a personified Christ was developed by Paul’s followers and aristocratic admirers from the Talmud stories of Yeshua Ben Stada, the locally notorious Yeshua [Jesus] the Notzri [Nazarite]. This Jesus, born in 7 BCE during a Jupiter–Saturn conjunction, had a stepfather known as Joseph and a mother named Mary. On the eve of Passover in 28 CE, he was convicted of sedition by Pontius Pilate and subsequently hanged. His hanging was not the planned means of death, but proceeded because those who were to stone him were late. Since the end of the day was near, which would have postponed his burial until after Passover, the soldiers allowed the alternative death by hanging. Following his death, his followers dubbed him the Passover Lamb.

 

A Nazarite or Notzri, meaning consecrated, was a Jew who took the ascetic vow described in Numbers 6:1–21. Among famous Nazarites was James the Just, whom the Ebionites revered as the legitimate apostolic successor of the Nazarites. Jesus the Nazarite (not of Nazareth or Galilee) is probably the same Jesus whose sayings were collected by Didymos Judas Thomas in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. This Gnostic or cardio-centric gospel of “secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke” appears to have been compiled in response to Paul’s new cerebro-centric religion. Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistles of Paul predate the canonical gospels by at least a generation. Neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Q source contained a crucifixion, the concept of Jesus dying for the sins of others; a resurrection; or a personified Christ. Thus they conveyed nothing that would support the divinity of Jesus, which later became one of the core beliefs of the new Christianity.

 

The story of present-day Christianity is part of a larger mythology. The evidence suggests that the actual principle of Christ grew out of Memphite philosophy—literally, the Krst, the anointed ones, like the Risen Horus/Apis. Then in the fifth century BCE, the word Christos, referring to an “awakened one,” crept into Greek subculture, and this word can be found in the works of classical writers, such as Aeschylus and Herodotus, the father of history.

 

In the third century BCE, through Ptolemy Soter, a lover of all things Egyptian, a bearded, long-haired Greek image was merged with Egypt’s mystical Krst philosophy. This image, Sarapis, would become Christendom’s representative portrait of their Jesus/Yeshua. If there was an historical Jesus/Yeshua as presented in the gospels, he would have had short hair and a close-cut beard, as was the custom of the Jews and the command of Paul. For example, 1 Cor. 11:14 suggests that long hair brings shame to a man. More similar to the Sarapis model was the link that Jesus/Yeshua was a Nazarite, like the Old Testament Samson. Members of the religious sect of Nazarites were said not to cut their hair. In addition to their unkempt hair, the Nazarites also vowed to abstain from the manufacture or consumption of intoxicating beverages and from contact with the sick or corpses. Jesus/Yeshua being a Nazarite does not harmonize well with certain fabricated gospel tales, such as the ritual consumption of wine and the raising of the sick and dead, which were woven into the canonized version of the myth. This reminds me of the fanciful story of Mason Weems, invented after the death of George Washington, about George Washington and the cherry tree. Weems fabricated this story to broaden the character of America’s first president and to make him seem more appealing.

 

V

Edited July 2, 2013 by Vmarco

[RongzomFan]

Columbia PhD in Ancient History, Richard Carrier, gives a good explanation of Christianity's origin.

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?filters=long&search_type=videos&search_query=richard+carrier

[Simple_Jack]

Again you miss the main point.

 

The point is that Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka" is different. That's just facts and history. Not bias.

 

It becomes sectarian bias when the other party concludes that Tsongkhapa's teachings are delusional.

 

More likely the translation has been inadvertently influenced by Tsongkhapa.

 

Which goes to show how widely Tsongkhapa's influence has spread.

[RongzomFan]

Which goes to show how widely Tsongkhapa's influence has spread.

 

Yes this is a documented academic fact. And its very unfortunate.

[Tibetan_Ice]

I fully understand,...believers put other believers on pedestals as having realized the great mystery, so to maintain the construct that belief will do great things.

 

One acception to your heros may have been Teresa of Avila.

 

 

I haven't met Teresa of Avila, so I really can't comment,...but I can say this,...no one has ever brought their conditions into the Unconditional. As such, I truly empathize with you Jesus delusion,...all I can say is, only truth can set you free.

 

The prototype of a personified Christ was developed by Paul’s followers and aristocratic admirers from the Talmud stories of Yeshua Ben Stada, the locally notorious Yeshua [Jesus] the Notzri [Nazarite]. This Jesus, born in 7 BCE during a Jupiter–Saturn conjunction, had a stepfather known as Joseph and a mother named Mary. On the eve of Passover in 28 CE, he was convicted of sedition by Pontius Pilate and subsequently hanged. His hanging was not the planned means of death, but proceeded because those who were to stone him were late. Since the end of the day was near, which would have postponed his burial until after Passover, the soldiers allowed the alternative death by hanging. Following his death, his followers dubbed him the Passover Lamb.

 

A Nazarite or Notzri, meaning consecrated, was a Jew who took the ascetic vow described in Numbers 6:1–21. Among famous Nazarites was James the Just, whom the Ebionites revered as the legitimate apostolic successor of the Nazarites. Jesus the Nazarite (not of Nazareth or Galilee) is probably the same Jesus whose sayings were collected by Didymos Judas Thomas in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. This Gnostic or cardio-centric gospel of “secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke” appears to have been compiled in response to Paul’s new cerebro-centric religion. Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistles of Paul predate the canonical gospels by at least a generation. Neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Q source contained a crucifixion, the concept of Jesus dying for the sins of others; a resurrection; or a personified Christ. Thus they conveyed nothing that would support the divinity of Jesus, which later became one of the core beliefs of the new Christianity.

 

The story of present-day Christianity is part of a larger mythology. The evidence suggests that the actual principle of Christ grew out of Memphite philosophy—literally, the Krst, the anointed ones, like the Risen Horus/Apis. Then in the fifth century BCE, the word Christos, referring to an “awakened one,” crept into Greek subculture, and this word can be found in the works of classical writers, such as Aeschylus and Herodotus, the father of history.

 

In the third century BCE, through Ptolemy Soter, a lover of all things Egyptian, a bearded, long-haired Greek image was merged with Egypt’s mystical Krst philosophy. This image, Sarapis, would become Christendom’s representative portrait of their Jesus/Yeshua. If there was an historical Jesus/Yeshua as presented in the gospels, he would have had short hair and a close-cut beard, as was the custom of the Jews and the command of Paul. For example, 1 Cor. 11:14 suggests that long hair brings shame to a man. More similar to the Sarapis model was the link that Jesus/Yeshua was a Nazarite, like the Old Testament Samson. Members of the religious sect of Nazarites were said not to cut their hair. In addition to their unkempt hair, the Nazarites also vowed to abstain from the manufacture or consumption of intoxicating beverages and from contact with the sick or corpses. Jesus/Yeshua being a Nazarite does not harmonize well with certain fabricated gospel tales, such as the ritual consumption of wine and the raising of the sick and dead, which were woven into the canonized version of the myth. This reminds me of the fanciful story of Mason Weems, invented after the death of George Washington, about George Washington and the cherry tree. Weems fabricated this story to broaden the character of America’s first president and to make him seem more appealing.

 

V

 

Vmarco,

Your ignorance is rather revealing. You claim to be enlightened yet you rely on historical texts and bottom of the garbage dump gurus (like Jed Mckenna, Osho) to prove your truth. Pandit.

 

If you wanted to know if other religions had any absolute truth in them, instead of relying on pandits and intellectual scholars, on conceptual arguments and books (that should probably be burned), why do you not find out for yourself? Why don't you simply access the fourth jhana or beyond and make the trip yourself?

 

You know why? Because you are a fraud. You need to instigate and incite holy derision, you need to poke your intellectual stick in the fire and then into other beings' eyes in order to get your satisfaction and prop yourself up.

 

Want to know if Jesus Christ exists? Go see for yourself. Just raise your right hand and sincerely invite him into your heart. He will appear to you. He is always there.

 

Why exactly did St Teresa quit her practices? Why don't you ask her yourself? Why do you insist on quoting others, most of whom didn't do much practice because they were too busy swelling their own egos and conceptual minds, and you hold that up to the rest of the world for a purpose you only know too well.

 

What has been written in history books is not accurate. Scholars build their historical interpretations based on other's interpretations. Mostly all history and scholarly interpretations are deceptive and invalid.

 

What's the matter? Can't hit any jhanas? How about samadhi? Any spiritual teachers visit you lately in the astral planes?

 

I think you quote so many varied and philosophically opposed sources because you don't understand the basics. And it is you who you are trying to convince yourself to drop the conceptual mind and discover the magic.

 

And you know, there what appears to be infinite universes and planes of existence. To base all your arguments and religious beliefs (yes you are so full of your own religion...) on one plane or planet's inhabitants and the historical garbage dump that they left behind is just simply stupid.

 

So prove it to us that you are qualified to look down your nose at the rest of the world and decide what is true and right for them. Show us a miracle or two. Go heal some lepers. Perhaps materialize a fish or two.. Tell us about your previous lives, or perhaps you could transport your body to go give Alwaysoff a good kick in the ass..

 

The proof of the pudding lies not in what you write, it lies in how you behave, in what you can do (especially for others).

 

TI