Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

Saying everything is illusory just means the way we are perceiving things is different from the way they actually are, which doesn't disprove a creator it just means we are mistaken in our perception of the nature of the universe.

 

If there is nothing real, there is nothing a Creator could have created.

[RongzomFan]

What's the reasoning behind this statement? lol

 

Look at the refutations of Kalam cosmology.

[Jetsun]

If there is nothing real, there is nothing a Creator could have created.

 

To say nothing exists is nihilism

 

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..." - Nagarjuna

[RongzomFan]

To say nothing exists is nihilism

 

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..." - Nagarjuna

 

Loppon Namdrol gets accused of being a nihilist all the time too.

 

You guys are brainwashed by Tsongkhapa.

[Jetsun]

Loppon Namdrol gets accused of being a nihilist all the time too.

 

You guys are brainwashed by Tsongkhapa.

 

Maybe he is a nihilist

[RongzomFan]

Maybe he is a nihilist

 

No, we both just read the original Indian texts.

[Simple_Jack]

Vaj was a person who claimed to have seen all 32 planes of existence in a vision.

 

If Vajrahridaya were to post in this thread, there would've been twice the amount of double standards and logical fallacies, made by the theists in this thread. On top of that, there would've probably been some personal attacks made against him due to his claims of attainments; none of us posting in this thread would've been able to relate to his claims, because for us, they belong to the realm of superstition aka. religious doctrine.

 

I think he was on the tier of the teachers, who posted on this forum regularly, such as Ya Mu, 5elementtao, Vajrasattva, etc.; with the exception that he's experienced all 8 rupa and arupajhana's. He would have been considered pretty accomplished, by the standards of any tradition, before and after his introduction to Buddhism.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Isimsiz Biri]

Thats a good endorsement, coming from you.

 

In fact, you are very far from understanding the true meaning of those texts. If Buddha heard your commentary, he would turn 360 degrees in his graveyard with dismay.

[Isimsiz Biri]

What's the reasoning behind this statement? lol

 

 

There is none.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Look at the refutations of Kalam cosmology.

 

Sure. You also know Kalam? God knows from which evil web site.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[RongzomFan]

In fact, you are very far from understanding the true meaning of those texts. If Buddha heard your commentary, he would turn 360 degrees in his graveyard with dismay.

 

Says the guy who uses fake diagrams modified from the original textbooks.

 

LMAO at you IB.

Edited December 9, 2013 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

Stick to your Street Fighter

 

[Isimsiz Biri]

Says the guy who uses fake diagrams modified from the original textbooks.

 

LMAO at you IB.

 

I never used fake diagrams. It is your evil lie.

[RongzomFan]

Where is my commentary here? 95% of it is direct quotes.

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence.

 

However its all illusion, like a dream. Phenomena don't arise in the first place.

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:
"An existent does not arise from an existent;
neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.
A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;
neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."
-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."
-Candrakirti

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."
-Candrakirti

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."
-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since
I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,
nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to
level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."
-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

[Isimsiz Biri]

RongzomFan and his Buddhist friends giving compassion of Buddha

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQ9Ka2aZoY

[Isimsiz Biri]

Where is my commentary here? 95% of it is direct quotes.

 

In your 5%

[RongzomFan]

I never used fake diagrams. It is your evil lie.

Wow. You own material admits to making "a slight enhancement".

 

Figure 14: Longitudinal section showing salinity (parts per thousand ‰) in an estuary. We can see here the partition (zone of separation) between the fresh and the salt water. (Introductory Oceanography, Thurman, p. 301, with a slight enhancement.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

Edited December 9, 2013 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

RongzomFan and his Buddhist friends giving compassion of Buddha

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQ9Ka2aZoY

 

Muslims should stop raping Buddhist nuns. Simple.

[Brian]

Got TIQM?

 

(Yeah, I know, I know. You can just ignore this post because I'm irrelevant in this thread -- Bigus Dickus said it was so...)

[Simple_Jack]

RongzomFan and his Buddhist friends giving compassion of Buddha

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQ9Ka2aZoY

 

You understand this could be seen as ironic, being that this is coming from an adherent of Islam, right? Recorded history, up to modern day events, are not on the side of demonstrating the compassion of Islam.

[RongzomFan]

Vmarco had some good posts which demonstrated the Muslims started the whole thing.

 

The media is slamming Buddhists, only because they mistakenly think Buddhists are pacifists.

[Jeff]

Where is my commentary here? 95% of it is direct quotes.

 

Again, do you have any facts or evidence to support your position? Quotes are just hearsay. In addition, each of the quotes you have chosen are just statements. None of them have any supporting evidence and seem to just assume that it is true.

 

Look at the below example...

 

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Candrakirti bases the position on the statement/assumption "because there is nothing other".

 

Finally, I am personally not taking a position one way or another. But, in all of your posts, you have provided no actual evidence to support your assumption.

[RongzomFan]

Candrakirti bases the position on the statement/assumption "because there is nothing other".

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

[adept]

RongzomFan and his Buddhist friends giving compassion of Buddha

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQ9Ka2aZoY

 

My God, that is absolutely disgusting.

[yabyum24]

Everything is completely illusory, since phenomena never arise in the first place.

 

This is a good summary of that reasoning:

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6185&start=220#p74244

Of course they do. They arise dependently. If nothing ever arose in the first place then...

 

...well just think about that.

 

Buddha compared phenomena to an illusion - he never said phenomena ARE an illusion. To state that is to step over the line into speculation and errant views. It's also some kind of variety of Hindu perspective (as I seem to recall).

 

As Namdrol himself says "All we can say about them is that they arise in dependence". Sounds about right.