Debunking a Creator

[Simple_Jack]

Okay, got it. To practice Buddhism you don't need belief in a creator. But this thread is about debunking a creator...

 

To practice any Dharmic religion, you don't need belief in a creator god, which is irrelevant to understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience. My post to you contrasts that viewpoint of Dharmic religions to that of Western traditions.

[Aetherous]

To practice any Dharmic religion, you don't need belief in a creator god, which is irrelevant to understanding the perpetuation of afflicted experience. My post to you contrasts that viewpoint of Dharmic religions to that of Western traditions.

 

That's cool, but do you understand how this is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of whether we can debunk a creator or not? Nothing personal, and you're right to some extent, but I'm not going to respond anymore, and didn't really in the first place, because this line of thinking has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

[Simple_Jack]

That's cool, but do you understand how this is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of whether we can debunk a creator or not? Nothing personal, and you're right to some extent, but I'm not going to respond anymore, and didn't really in the first place, because this line of thinking has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

 

That line of thinking has everything to do with the position you asserted in that post [http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=501751]; which I contrasted with examples from Dharmic religions [http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502017].

Edited December 9, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Aetherous]

One has to show a Creator is possible:

 

 

I watched the first 3/4 of the video and will address that.

 

They're incorrect in suggesting that "you're wrong" to say something unknown is possible. They take the position of: "I can't say that it's impossible" (because it is possible), "but you're wrong for saying that it's possible."

 

Obviously, if something is possible that doesn't mean your guess will be right. You could be wrong. That doesn't make saying "it's possible" wrong. This is the exact meaning of the word, possible.

 

Stating that it's possible (could be right or could be wrong) is absolutely true. Why? Because there could have actually been two other dice in that bag, which rolled an 18. It was absolutely possible...yet as we found out later, wrong, because there were 2 dice.

 

To say "it's not impossible" is always saying "it's possible". Literally.

 

(edited to add on later)

 

They are basically saying, "now that you see it wasn't right, you can't say that something absolutely wrong is still possible". If it's wrong it's no longer possible...which is true. But these people kind of suggest...since it's wrong and impossible now, it wasn't possible before...which is a false argument.

 

To counter that kind of idea...lets say we once again didn't know how many dice were in the bag. To have said in the case of 3 dice falling out and rolling an 18, "it might be wrong, therefore it's not possible"...would be absolutely proven wrong if that had actually happened. It could have happened and was totally possible. To have said that "it's wrong to say that it's possible" would have been proven false in the case of it being right.

 

Pretty simple. "It's possible" is always the absolutely true answer to something totally unknown.

 

Also, I don't see at all how this video made gnomes and stuff more possible than a Creator. That seems like just an emotionally based unsound argument to me.

 

(and...it was possibly a funny inside joke the Atheists in the video had, because rolling an 18 with 3 dice would be three 6s )

 

...

 

Google "kalam rebuttal"

Please give me one link that sums it up entirely, which is possible to read in a short amount of time. Otherwise, please sum it up here yourself.

Edited December 9, 2013 by turtle shell

[Simple_Jack]

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.

 

According to the Gelugpas, emptiness is ascertainable as the object of a mental consciousness, up until the point of realization arrived from logic and analysis.

[yabyum24]

 

Madhyamaka was a reaction against the crypto-realism of the [sarvastivadin] abhidharma-kosha.

This is indeed correct.

 

Some half-wits with nothing better to do set the ball rolling with speculation about an ultimate basis of reality (partless particles) and a lousy definition of emptiness to prop it all up.

 

I understand that someone felt they had to take them to task and ultimately, the Prasangikas did this. No problem, as long as we understand that it's one view versus another view.

 

But in engaging at that level, the Prasangika scholars were necessarily entering the arena of 'views' - we may contend that their views are more coherent than the lower schools but they are intellectual fabrications nonetheless and not any kind of direct insight.

 

Contrast all this with the teachings we have from Tilopa and Naropa. There is no comparison. They have nothing to do with such prattle.

 

Still, you must take what's right for you at the end of the day.

[RongzomFan]

There is no such thing as Prasangika.

[Simple_Jack]

This is indeed correct.

 

Some half-wits with nothing better to do set the ball rolling with speculation about an ultimate basis of reality (partless particles) and a lousy definition of emptiness to prop it all up.

 

I understand that someone felt they had to take them to task and ultimately, the Prasangikas did this. No problem, as long as we understand that it's one view versus another view.

 

But in engaging at that level, the Prasangika scholars were necessarily entering the arena of 'views' - we may contend that their views are more coherent than the lower schools but they are intellectual fabrications nonetheless and not any kind of direct insight.

 

Contrast all this with the teachings we have from Tilopa and Naropa. There is no comparison. They have nothing to do with such prattle.

 

Still, you must take what's right for you at the end of the day.

 

Gelug Mahamudra is derived from Tsongkhapa's formulation of conventional and ultimate truths. Prasangika and Svatantrika are Tibetan inventions.

[Tibetan_Ice]

To various internet "Buddhists" in this sub forum:

 

Francois Lepine tells us that Buddha did not say that the Gods do not exist. He says that Buddhists believed that the Gods had too much power so they proceeded to strip out the power of the Gods and put it into the 'self'.

 

 

On another note, if Lopon Numbdrole is so knowledgeable and such an authority, why did he get banned on DharmaWheel?

 

http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1038

 

Malcolm goes on to say:

 

Contrary to popular belief, I always maintained a very hands off approach to moderating forums.

And I never censored anyone.

 

 

Yet, Malcolm says in this post this:

 

http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1292&start=140

 

Your opinion, though wrong, has been noted.

More discussion or argument about this will be removed.

 

 

Well, such an intelligent, scholarly man, yet he can't distinguish between "censoring someone" and "removing posts".

Let's see, can you spell two-faced intellectual hypocrite?

 

 

Now let's looks at some more internet Buddhists as they devour their leader once again..

 

If CN Norbu is such an authoritative master, why does his book on the Marvelous Primordial State translate "Bodhicitta" as the "primordial state"?

 

http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1285

 

 

I have just had the wonderful good fortune to get my copy of The Marvelous Primordial State.

I never realised until I started studying it that "the primordial state" translates "bodhicitta" (byang chub sems). This is totally bizarre because bodhicitta/byang chub sems means "the mind of enlightenment" - it doesn't mean anything LIKE "the primordial state".

This is utterly bizarre to me....It causes various absurdities throughout the text, too, as in when the text explains the meaning of "byang" and "chub", when it is breaking down the meaning of the term* and suddenly the translators are forced to translate each term as "pure" and "total", respectively, thereby suddenly and clumsily being forced to eschew their erstwhile translation as "primordial"..!

The whole situation seems bizarre. Why not just translate the word as what it is, instead of dreaming up some arbitrary term that means nothing like the actual word? Madness (it seems to me).

 

 

And Vmarco is hate-monger.

 

And lastly, it's time for a saying I rather like... "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it".

 

Oink Oink..

 

LOL

 

 

God bless you all for I sure as hell don't.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[RongzomFan]

None of the devas or Buddhas are Creators.

 

They have previous lives as humans etc.

[Isimsiz Biri]

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.

Confession of sins is an artificial mechanism of Christianity. We do not have monasticsm in Islam.

 

Even you are a man of peace, if you are at a war, you fight. I did not insult RongzomFan as you claim, I mentioned the truths.

 

If you are sensitive about insults, first you must be objective. If you think you select a specific post that seems as an insult to you but you neglect many open insults in the same thread, nobody will respect you including myself.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

I'll try to keep my insults to fictional characters like Allah, Count Chocula etc. than real persons.

You can not insult God Almighty. You actually insult and humiliate your self, your own Nafs only.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[Anderson]

This universe with all its worlds and beings is eternal since it is primordial state itself.

Since this universe and the multitudes of phenomena never enter existence they therefore are unborn and in a state of perpetual timeless purity.

There is no coming and going , no karma and rebirth since this state is all there was, is and will be, the timeless primordial state.

 

God has no place in this.

[Isimsiz Biri]

This universe with all its worlds and beings is eternal since it is primordial state itself.

Since this universe and the multitudes of phenomena never enter existence they therefore are unborn and in a state of perpetual timeless purity.

There is no coming and going , no karma and rebirth since this state is all there was, is and will be, the timeless primordial state.

 

God has no place in this.

How do you verify that we are in primordial state. Please provide any proof that we never entered existence.

 

We exist. God Almighty has created us.

[rex]

I reckon people can debate until they're blue in the face and still not change anyone's perspective. Shouldn't differences be respected without compromising one's own faith or that of another?

 

Just got a mail shot advertising a book called Toward a True Kinship of Faiths which offers a way of peacful co-existence. From the synopsis:

 

All major religions confront the same perennial questions; each has distinct forms of expression. But this marvelous diversity of insight has the potential for inspiring dialogue that can enrich everyone's pursuit of wisdom. All faith traditions turn to compassion as a guiding principle for living a good life. It is the task of all people with an aspiration to spiritual perfection to affirm the fundamental value of compassion. In this way we can truly develop a deep recognition of the value of other faiths, and on that basis, we can cultivate genuine respect.

The Dalai Lama also explores where differences between religions can be genuinely appreciated - without serving as sources of conflict. The establishment of genuine harmony is NOT dependent upon accepting that all religions are fundamentally the same or that they lead to the same place. Many fear that recognizing the value of another faith is incompatible with having devotion to the truth of one's own. Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama profoundly shows how sincere believers can, with integrity, be puralists in relation to other religions without compromising commitment to the essence of the doctrinal teachings of their own faith.

Edited December 10, 2013 by rex

[C T]

Confession of sins is an artificial mechanism of Christianity. We do not have monasticsm in Islam.

 

Even you are a man of peace, if you are at a war, you fight. I did not insult RongzomFan as you claim, I mentioned the truths.

 

If you are sensitive about insults, first you must be objective. If you think you select a specific post that seems as an insult to you but you neglect many open insults in the same thread, nobody will respect you including myself.

I guess you are not in knowledge of Tawba then.

 

 

The meaning behind your words are as plain as day, yet you deny that they are full of poison. One does not require sensitivity to see the effects of poison when it is released.

 

Its words such as yours that perpetuate conflict among practitioners of various paths. Why are you contributing to this process? Do you not find it hypocritical then to speak about Nafs in others when you cannot even see the part you have assumed in this discussion?

 

Respect is earned, not something to look for. Please try to understand this. At this point, the post in question is completely disrespectful, not so much to the person it was directed, but to you personally. If you respect yourself, you will not trade insult with insult. This is called righteousness -- are you familiar with the workings of righteous behaviour? I am guessing it is part of your Islamic teachings, but then, having grown up in a Muslim country, its apparent to me that what people claim to follow and what they actually practice is 2 very different things.

[Isimsiz Biri]

I guess you are not in knowledge of Tawba then.

 

 

The meaning behind your words are as plain as day, yet you deny that they are full of poison. One does not require sensitivity to see the effects of poison when it is released.

 

Its words such as yours that perpetuate conflict among practitioners of various paths. Why are you contributing to this process? Do you not find it hypocritical then to speak about Nafs in others when you cannot even see the part you have assumed in this discussion?

 

Respect is earned, not something to look for. Please try to understand this. At this point, the post in question is completely disrespectful, not so much to the person it was directed, but to you personally. If you respect yourself, you will not trade insult with insult. This is called righteousness -- are you familiar with the workings of righteous behaviour? I am guessing it is part of your Islamic teachings, but then, having grown up in a Muslim country, its apparent to me that what people claim to follow and what they actually practice is 2 very different things.

You are not in a situation to teach me Tawba. I replied what you mentioned, it was not Tawba.

 

I do not need your respect. Express your respect to RongzomFan.

 

You think I am full of poison? Ignore me. Really.

 

This Crusader attacks on Islam just reminds me I am on the right path.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[C T]

You are not in a situation to teach me Tawba. I replied what you mentioned, it was not Tawba.

 

 

You said there is no such thing as confession is Islam, that its not a monastic tradition.

 

I mentioned Tawba, and you concluded that as an attempt to teach you about it, and that its all a crusade against Islam.

 

I am not against Islam. Some of my good doctor friends are Muslims, there are also Muslims in my employment, and none of them, as far as i can tell, are ignorant of good manners and self-respect.

[Stosh]

Even you are a man of peace, if you are at a war, you fight. I did not insult RongzomFan as you claim, I mentioned the truths.

Oh come on!

 

 

If you are sensitive about insults, first you must be objective. If you think you select a specific post that seems as an insult to you but you neglect many open insults in the same thread, nobody will respect you including myself.

Forcing of your hand is easy then.

[Isimsiz Biri]

You said there is no such thing as confession is Islam, that its not a monastic tradition.

 

I mentioned Tawba, and you concluded that as an attempt to teach you about it, and that its all a crusade against Islam.

 

I am not against Islam. Some of my good doctor friends are Muslims, there are also Muslims in my employment, and none of them, as far as i can tell, are ignorant of good manners and self-respect.

 

Pointless discussion. No further reply.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Oh come on!

 

Forcing of your hand is easy then.

Ignored due to absence of any points.

[gatito]

Ignored due to absence of any points.

 

The point is that it seems very easy to troll you

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

The point is that it seems very easy to troll you

:-)

[Stosh]

Ignored due to absence of any points.

This dismissed as error , due to your erroneous assessment of the thing you are ignoring.

"To move your enemy ,offer him something he cannot refuse."

Edited December 10, 2013 by Stosh

[Isimsiz Biri]

This dismissed as error , due to your erroneous assessment of the thing you are ignoring.

This time, ignored with bliss