Debunking a Creator

[Jeff]

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

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

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

 

Again, this statement does not support your position. It is a logic statement assuming "If an entity in itself does not exist". One has not proved that something does not exist yet. You are just assuming and jumping to the end with no supporting data for your assumption. Even theories have some level of supporting data.

 

(edit has -> have)

Edited December 9, 2013 by Jeff

[RongzomFan]

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.

 

 

If you are quoting Namdrol, he says phenomena are completely equivalent to illusion.

 

everything, including buddhahood, etc., is completely equivalent to an illusion; not "like an illusion", as some people in Mahāyāna with a poor understanding hedge -- completely equivalent.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=80#p58244

 

Some people, hearing that all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions freak out. Some people who hear that phenomena are empty, freak out. This is why it is a bohdhisattva downfall to teach emptiness to the immature.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=100#p58342

[RongzomFan]

Again, this statement does not support your position. It is a logic statement assuming "If an entity in itself does not exist". One has not proved that something does not exist yet. You are just assuming and jumping to the end with no supporting data for your assumption. Even theories have some level of supporting data.

 

(edit has -> have)

 

Thats why you have to read all the quotes.

 

They are called Madhyamaka reasonings for a reason. They have several steps.

[adept]

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.

 

Well, typical western media has demonized anything to do with Islam, making it public enemy no 1.

It's blatantly obvious when you investigate, that organized religions have been manipulated by 'the powers that be' throughout history to create conflict with one another. This enhances the agenda by the ruling elite to dominate and control world events such as the medieval crusades, recent financial collapse and 'staged terrorist attacks' such as 9/11.

Real Islam has nothing to do with such things as sharia law. These were later inventions by the political rulers of the time to keep the masses in check. People please do your own investigations and homework.

Islam is submission and a feeling of immense gratitude to a one and only God/Creator.

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

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

 

 

You changed the wording, from "modified" to "enhance", you evil liar.

[Jeff]

Thats why you have to read all the quotes.

 

They are called Madhyamaka reasonings for a reason. They have several steps.

 

OK, since it is your position... Start from the beginning. Let's hear it. We can analyze it step by step.

[Simple_Jack]

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.

 

Well, Buddha did extol the virtues of ahimsa, but even in the (Dharmaguptaka?) vinaya monks are allowed to defend themselves physically if need be. That whole issue is a complex stew of socio-economic and race/religious tensions. At the same time, I can see why the 969 movement would be worried about and could possibly be justified in their view of protecting their country from Islamification (by looking at the history of Indonesia or other parts of Southeast Asia).

Edited December 11, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

Well, typical western media has demonized anything to do with Islam, making it public enemy no 1.

It's blatantly obvious when you investigate, that organized religions have been manipulated by 'the powers that be' throughout history to create conflict with one another. This enhances the agenda by the ruling elite to dominate and control world events such as the medieval crusades, recent financial collapse and 'staged terrorist attacks' such as 9/11.

Real Islam has nothing to do with such things as sharia law. These were later inventions by the political rulers of the time to keep the masses in check. People please do your own investigations and homework.

Islam is submission and a feeling of immense gratitude to a one and only God/Creator.

 

Either way, recorded history is not on the side of demonstrating the compassion of Islam.

[RongzomFan]

 

If you are quoting Namdrol, he says phenomena are completely equivalent to illusion.

 

everything, including buddhahood, etc., is completely equivalent to an illusion; not "like an illusion", as some people in Mahāyāna with a poor understanding hedge -- completely equivalent.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=80#p58244

 

Some people, hearing that all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions freak out. Some people who hear that phenomena are empty, freak out. This is why it is a bohdhisattva downfall to teach emptiness to the immature.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=100#p58342

 

bump for a response

[yabyum24]

That's wrong on all counts. An illusion is like a rope coiled in the twilight. We see it as a snake but its basis cannot serve this function. A real snake could bite us.

 

Even a dry scholar-Buddhist, like Chadrakirti or Nagarjuna wouldn't argue with the fundamental difference between those two observations.

 

Saying that things 'exist', 'don't exist', 'both exist and don't exist', 'neither exist nor don't exist' is to fall into reification and objectification.

 

Such views are just 'that' - views. A thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views.

 

Enjoy them but please don't present that stuff as Buddha's words.

[RongzomFan]

Either way, recorded history is not on the side of demonstrating the compassion of Islam.

 

Muhammed himself ordered the genocide of the Banu Qurayza

[RongzomFan]

That's wrong on all counts.

 

 

Loppon Namdrol is never wrong. Even if he says stuff like dharmakaya is the only true refuge, I find the exact same thing in Dudjom Rinpoche's writings.

[Jeff]

OK, since it is your position... Start from the beginning. Let's hear it. We can analyze it step by step.

 

 

bump for a response

 

You seem to be avoiding the detailed analysis...

[RongzomFan]

You seem to be avoiding the detailed analysis...

 

I can give you a summary:

 

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

 

First, if an appearance is an existent, can it arise from another existent? Or does it arise from a non-existent? As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms; and the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible. To address this, Nāḡrjuna writes:

 

An existent does not arise from an existent;

an existent does not arise from a non-existent;

a non-existent does arise from an existent;

a non-existent does not arise from a non-existent —

where then can there be an instance of arising?

 

If the arising of existents is not established, the arising of appearances is not established. If arising is not established, remaining is not established, and likewise, perishing is not established. If the three, arising, remaining and perishing, are not established, then there is no reason to accept the charge of annihilationism since I never suggested that there was an existent entity that could perish.

 

All we are left with is empty appearances: they are not real because no existence, etc., can be ascertained regarding them; they are not unreal since they appear. All we can say about them is that they arise in dependence.

 

 

N

Edited December 9, 2013 by RongzomFan

[yabyum24]

Loppon Namdrol is never wrong. Even if he says stuff like dharmakaya is the only true refuge, I find the exact same thing in Dudjom Rinpoche's writings.

Okay, that's fine if you are happy to not think these things through for yourself. I can't make much headway with a 'believer'.

[RongzomFan]

Okay, that's fine if you are happy to not think these things through for yourself. I can't make much headway with a 'believer'.

 

Ok, so I should just believe you?

 

LMAO

[Simple_Jack]

Either way, recorded history is not on the side of demonstrating the compassion of Islam.

 

Looking at the example of India: many of its traditions were impacted severely negatively by the waves of Islamic invasions; which were responsible for wiping out Buddhism in its native country.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Looking at the example of India: many of its traditions were impacted severely by the waves of Islamic invasions; which were responsible for wiping out Buddhism in its native country.

 

Well atleast Buddhism is under supernatural protection.

 

 

Hinduism just gets fucked:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=GKBV7QZ7BBQC&pg=PA34&dq=tantric+body+As+Dyczkowski+observes,+the+consolidation+of+Muslim+rule+in+north+India&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_M2kUqb2IobMsQSSwILgCA&ved=0CDAQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=tantric%20body%20As%20Dyczkowski%20observes%2C%20the%20consolidation%20of%20Muslim%20rule%20in%20north%20India&f=false

[yabyum24]

Nāḡrjuna writes:

 

An existent does not arise from an existent;

an existent does not arise from a non-existent;

a non-existent does arise from an existent;

a non-existent does not arise from a non-existent —

where then can there be an instance of arising?

Nāḡrjuna was on his own trip. None of this stuff came from Buddha. Buddha dismissed people who approached him with such material. Nāḡrjuna was cooking this philosophical head-stuff up with his pals. It has absolutely nothing to do with real Buddhadharma. Every Mahayanist concedes that emptiness cannot be grasped by intellectual discursive material of this kind. It is at best a tool to loosen attachment. Do not mistake it for reality.

[RongzomFan]

Nāḡrjuna was on his own trip. None of this stuff came from Buddha. Buddha dismissed people who approached him with such material. Nāḡrjuna was cooking this philosophical head-stuff up with his pals. It has absolutely nothing to do with real Buddhadharma. Every Mahayanist concedes that emptiness cannot be grasped by intellectual discursive material of this kind. It is at best a tool to loosen attachment. Do not mistake it for reality.

 

You are under the impression I care about what Shakyamuni taught.

 

I don't.

[yabyum24]

Ok, so I should just believe you?

 

LMAO

Of course not. Think things through for yourself.

[yabyum24]

You are under the impression I care about what Shakyamuni taught.

 

I don't.

Okay so Buddha is wrong but Namdrol is never wrong. Thanks for putting me right on that.

[RongzomFan]

Nāḡrjuna was on his own trip. None of this stuff came from Buddha. Buddha dismissed people who approached him with such material. Nāḡrjuna was cooking this philosophical head-stuff up with his pals. It has absolutely nothing to do with real Buddhadharma. Every Mahayanist concedes that emptiness cannot be grasped by intellectual discursive material of this kind. It is at best a tool to loosen attachment. Do not mistake it for reality.

 

Nagarjuna was reacting to crypto-realist Abhidharma, and thus elucidated the true meaning of Buddhadharma.

[RongzomFan]

Okay so Buddha is wrong but Namdrol is never wrong. Thanks for putting me right on that.

 

You are BUddha now?

[yabyum24]

Have a good night babes!