Debunking a Creator

[Simple_Jack]

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.

 

From what I have read of Loppon/Acharya Namdrol: its clear he knows his stuff better than anybody in every forum he posts in.

 

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.

 

Madhyamaka was a reaction against the crypto-realism of the [sarvastivadin] abhidharma-kosha. Which is based off the Prajnaparamita Sutras (only Edward Conze has translated a significant portion of them, but there are problems with his translations).

[Jeff]

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:

...

 

Ok, I had hoped you would use your own words, but let's take a look at what you have copied above...

 

"As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms"

 

How is this statement logical without a predefined assumption? The author is assuming that the "arising of something existent" does not happen. One could easily define the existence of something from which everything arises and then the statement posted above is not correct.

 

Also, regarding the second part "the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible", modern physics has already shown that this is not a true or correct statement. I would suggest that you take a look at the recent work on Higg's fields.

[Simple_Jack]

Ok, I had hoped you would use your own words, but let's take a look at what you have copied above...

 

"As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms"

 

How is this statement logical without a predefined assumption? The author is assuming that the "arising of something existent" does not happen. One could easily define the existence of something from which everything arises and then the statement posted above is not correct.

 

Also, regarding the second part "the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible", modern physics has already shown that this is not a true or correct statement. I would suggest that you take a look at the recent work on Higg's fields.

 

So now we must define Nagarjuna's MMK within the framework of physicalist science? I thought this was a forum for "spirituality".

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

Muhammed himself ordered the genocide of the Banu Qurayza

 

Complete lie

[RongzomFan]

Complete history

 

corrected your statement

Edited December 9, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Jeff]

So now we must define Nagarjuna's MMK within the framework of physicalist science? I thought this was a forum for "spirituality".

 

A theory (based upon assumptions) was presented. I was just pointing out the both the logic problems and existing "provable" facts which are different than RongzamFan's position.

 

Do you have any evidence to support his position?

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

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

If you refer to recorded history, you will see that it is not on the side of demonstrating the compassion of Christianity and Buddhism too. Edited December 9, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[adept]

Loppon Namdrol is never wrong.

 

Going back to the days of e-sangha, namdrol frequently banned members who disagreed with his own biased views on Buddhism. He thought he was always correct. Reminds me of internet Buddhists everywhere.

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

corrected your statement

You are a professional liar.

[Simple_Jack]

A theory (based upon assumptions) was presented. I was just pointing out the both the logic problems and existing "provable" facts which are different than RongzamFan's position.

 

Do you have any evidence to support his position?

 

We're discussing religion here, which physicalist science currently lacks the means to quantify and considers in the realm of superstition.

[C T]

You are a professional liar.

this is against forum rules.

[Simple_Jack]

If you refer to recorded history, you will see that it is not on the side of demonstrating the compassion of Christianity and Buddhism too.

 

Christianity, certainly, but as far as I know: Buddhism is the only religion that had spread into most of the known world peacefully.

 

Going back to the days of e-sangha, namdrol frequently banned members who disagreed with his own biased views on Buddhism. He thought he was always correct. Reminds me of internet Buddhists everywhere.

 

And theists on this board delete and move topics from the General Forum into the pit and the Buddhist sub-forum. Not everyone can be perfect like Jesus.

[Isimsiz Biri]

this is against forum rules.

 

 

You should have made this comment for every insult of RongzomFan

[Jeff]

We're discussing religion here, which physicalist science currently lacks the means to quantify and considers in the realm of superstition.

 

We were discussion the logic of RongzamFan's position as quoted from Malcolm/Namdrol.

 

 

"As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms"

 

Do you find this statement to be logical without a predefined assumption? That there is no assumption that the "arising of something existent" does not happen? Why could one not easily define the existence of something from which everything arises and then the statement posted above is not correct?

[C T]

You should have made this comment for every insult of RongzomFan.

No, i made that comment based on your specific insult.

 

You claim to be a Sufi, and a Muslim, a man of peace, yet your words have more poison than a scorpion's tail.

 

You should confess your sins.

[adept]

And theists on this board delete and move topics from the General Forum into the pit and the Buddhist sub-forum. Not everyone can be perfect like Jesus.

 

Well I may be a (mono)theist but I don't have any control over forum mechanics.

[Simple_Jack]

We were discussion the logic of RongzamFan's position as quoted from Malcolm/Namdrol.

 

 

"As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms"

 

Do you find this statement to be logical without a predefined assumption? That there is no assumption that the "arising of something existent" does not happen? Why could one not easily define the existence of something from which everything arises and then the statement posted above is not correct?

 

There are conventional and ultimate levels to Nagarjuna's MMK. Madhyamika's do not assert or deny conventional appearances; ultimately conventional appearances are a product of deluded cognition.

[Jetsun]

From what I have read of Loppon/Acharya Namdrol: its clear he knows his stuff better than anybody in every forum he posts in.

 

Even if that's true all that might mean is a high level of intellectual learning, it doesn't mean he has any sort of depth of personal realisation. I have never met the guy he might be the next Buddha, but there are many intelligent scholars who can write well but it doesn't mean that the Dharma has penetrated any further than a tiny area of the frontal cortex.

[RongzomFan]

Even if that's true all that might mean is a high level of intellectual learning, it doesn't mean he has any sort of depth of personal realisation. I have never met the guy he might be the next Buddha, but there are many intelligent scholars who can write well but it doesn't mean that the Dharma has penetrated any further than a tiny area of the frontal cortex.

 

Higher intellectual learning is correlated to faster realization.

 

Milarepa was a highly educated Buddhist who studied under several lamas, including decades under Marpa.

[Jeff]

There are conventional and ultimate levels to Nagarjuna's MMK. Madhyamika's do not assert or deny conventional appearances; ultimately conventional appearances are a product of deluded cognition.

 

So, you do not "assert or deny" that things exist? Is that correct? Do you agree or disagree with RongzamFan's position of "First off, this universe is completely equivalent with illusion"?

[Simple_Jack]

Even if that's true all that might mean is a high level of intellectual learning, it doesn't mean he has any sort of depth of personal realisation. I have never met the guy he might be the next Buddha, but there are many intelligent scholars who can write well but it doesn't mean that the Dharma has penetrated any further than a tiny area of the frontal cortex.

 

Clearly you are biased towards Namdrol and missing the point. Regardless of his level of experience or lack of it, when it comes to Buddhist discourse, translation and meaning of Buddhist terminology, etc.: he clearly knows more than any other person, including some other translators, on any forum he posts in.

[adept]

Milarepa was a highly educated Buddhist who studied under several lamas, including decades under Marpa.

 

He was also a sorcerer and a murderer of innocent people. How very compassionate and Buddhist.

[RongzomFan]

He was also a sorcerer and a murderer of innocent people. How very compassionate and Buddhist.

 

That was before he was a buddhist.

 

Thats the whole point.

[RongzomFan]

By the way, when was basic Madhyamaka "high intellectual learning"?

 

LMAO

[Simple_Jack]

So, you do not "assert or deny" that things exist? Is that correct? Do you agree or disagree with RongzamFan's position of "First off, this universe is completely equivalent with illusion"?

 

That is arriving at the conclusion. Please, don't ask me to elaborate further on the MMK, because I lack the extensive reading and re-reading of Nagarjuna's MMK in order to confidently present it accurately. Leave that to RongzomFan, since he's more educated in this area than me.