Debunking a Creator

[gatito]

Just to pick up a couple of points: -

 

Brian didn't want me to continue this until a definite and conclusive answer to this thread was resolved or that I start a new topic.

 

 

Gatito, admit to your double standards:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502408

 

So you're reliant on faith!!!

 

I can't believe that

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502461

 

Yes, so are believing the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran are of divine origin.

 

Even Ramana Maharshi elaborated on savikalpa, nirvikalpa, nirvikalpa sahaja samadhi.

 

Firstly, I think that we've established that Bwian isn't relevant here

 

Secondly, I don't believe that "the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran are of divine origin".

 

Nor do I disbelieve that they are of divine origin.

 

I've also previously established this point as being entirely irrelevant

 

Gatitio follows "Direct Path" Advaita and Ramana Maharshi was the starting point for this.

 

Factually inaccurate

 

(Ramana may have coined the term "Direct Path" but that does not mean that these Direct Path teachings originated with Ramana and anyway, you seem to be attempting to employ your fallicy as an irrelevant ad hominem against me (and against Ramana)).

 

I'm as unimpressed by anyone who fails to recognise the Love, the Truth and the Beauty in Ramana as I am by anyone who fails to see the same thing in Rumi

[RongzomFan]

If Hinduism's tantric lineages survived you might have something much more like Tibetan Buddhism.

[RongzomFan]

I'm as unimpressed by anyone who fails to recognise the Love, the Truth and the Beauty in Ramana as I am by anyone who fails to see the same thing in Rumi

 

Im unimpressed by anyone who finds Ramana impressive.

[gatito]

Im unimpressed by anyone who finds Ramana impressive.

[RongzomFan]

Just to pick up a couple of points: -

 

 

Firstly, I think that we've established that Bwian isn't relevant here

 

Secondly, I don't believe that "the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran are of divine origin".

 

Nor do I disbelieve that they are of divine origin.

 

I've also previously established this point as being entirely irrelevant

 

 

Factually inaccurate

 

(Ramana may have coined the term "Direct Path" but that does not mean that these Direct Path teachings originated with Ramana and anyway, you seem to be attempting to employ your fallicy as an irrelevant ad hominem against me (and against Ramana)).

 

I'm as unimpressed by anyone who fails to recognise the Love, the Truth and the Beauty in Ramana as I am by anyone who fails to see the same thing in Rumi

 

Okay, what is the origin of Nondirect Path?

 

Is this where you make universalist claims like Radhakrishnan?

 

"... Indian nationalist leaders continued to operate within the categorical field generated by politicized religion [...] Extravagant claims were made on behalf of Oriental civilization. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's statement - "[t]he Vedanta is not a religion but religion itself in its "most universal and deepest significance" - is fairly typical." - Mazumda, Srucheta; Kaiwar, Vasant (2009), From Orientalism to Postcolonialism, Routledge

[gatito]

Okay, what is the origin of Nondirect Path?

 

Is this where you make universalist claims like Radhakrishnan?

 

"... Indian nationalist leaders continued to operate within the categorical field generated by politicized religion [...] Extravagant claims were made on behalf of Oriental civilization. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's statement - "[t]he Vedanta is not a religion but religion itself in its "most universal and deepest significance" - is fairly typical." - Mazumda, Srucheta; Kaiwar, Vasant (2009), From Orientalism to Postcolonialism, Routledge

 

To assert that the Direct Path has an origin or that it does not have an origin has been dealt with above

 

Try to keep up

 

(-10 )

[Simple_Jack]

Just to pick up a couple of points: -

 

 

Firstly, I think that we've established that Bwian isn't relevant here

 

Secondly, I don't believe that "the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran are of divine origin".

 

Nor do I disbelieve that they are of divine origin.

 

I've also previously established this point as being entirely irrelevant

 

 

Factually inaccurate

 

(Ramana may have coined the term "Direct Path" but that does not mean that these Direct Path teachings originated with Ramana and anyway, you seem to be attempting to employ your fallicy as an irrelevant ad hominem against me (and against Ramana)).

 

I'm as unimpressed by anyone who fails to recognise the Love, the Truth and the Beauty in Ramana as I am by anyone who fails to see the same thing in Rumi

 

Yes, just like your ad hominem's against me and RongzomFan

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502349

 

Good call - it keeps them away from the more enlightened parts of the forum

 

Let them burn themselves out here

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502368

 

I think that they imagine that they're "earning merit" (or something like that)

[RongzomFan]

To assert that the Direct Path has an origin or that it does not have an origin has been dealt with above

 

Try to keep up

 

(-10 )

 

You are a weird guy, and I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[gatito]

Yes, just like your ad hominem's against me and RongzomFan

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502349

 

Good call - it keeps them away from the more enlightened parts of the forum

 

Let them burn themselves out here

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502368

 

I think that they imagine that they're "earning merit" (or something like that)

 

No

 

Ad hominems against Ramana are an entirely different ball-game

[RongzomFan]

Just to pick up a couple of points: -

 

 

Firstly, I think that we've established that Bwian isn't relevant here

 

Secondly, I don't believe that "the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran are of divine origin".

 

Nor do I disbelieve that they are of divine origin.

 

I've also previously established this point as being entirely irrelevant

 

 

Factually inaccurate

 

(Ramana may have coined the term "Direct Path" but that does not mean that these Direct Path teachings originated with Ramana and anyway, you seem to be attempting to employ your fallicy as an irrelevant ad hominem against me (and against Ramana)).

 

I'm as unimpressed by anyone who fails to recognise the Love, the Truth and the Beauty in Ramana as I am by anyone who fails to see the same thing in Rumi

 

Where does Gatito address the origin OR nonorigin of Nondirect Path anywhere in this post?

Edited December 8, 2013 by RongzomFan

[gatito]

You are a weird guy, and I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

I agree that both these points are crystal clear.

[Simple_Jack]

No

 

Ad hominems against Ramana are an entirely different ball-game

 

Oh, so another double standard? Is the love, truth, beauty of Ramana and Rumi inherently superior to that of lowly scum like us?

Edited December 8, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Oh, so another double standard? Is the love, truth, beauty of Ramana and Rumi inherently superior to that of lowly scum like us?

 

Thats hilarious they think Ramana is superior.

 

Ramana is absolute trash. Worthless.

[Simple_Jack]

Where does Gatito address the origin OR nonorigin of Nondirect Path anywhere in this post?

 

He can't because there's no such thing as "Direct Path" Advaita apart from contemporaries who were influenced by Ramana Maharshi.

[Aetherous]

Thats hilarious they think Ramana is superior.

 

Ramana is absolute trash. Worthless.

 

Doesn't talking like this go against the conduct of a Buddhist?

[Simple_Jack]

Thats hilarious they think Ramana is superior.

 

Ramana is absolute trash. Worthless.

 

That's fine, as long as Gatito admits of his biased criticism and double standards made towards Buddhism.

[RongzomFan]

Doesn't talking like this go against the conduct of a Buddhist?

 

Maybe if I was a monk.

[ralis]

You keep restating these two assumptions -- you DO realize that they are just assumptions, right? That whole cause & effect thing is so 19th century. If I might borrow: RongzomFan, don't tell God what to do.

 

I believe you are referring to the blurring/breakdown of cause and effect on the quantum level. Under certain conditions, effects appear before the cause. Phenomena can also appear to be causeless at that level.

Edited December 8, 2013 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

He can't because there's no such thing as "Direct Path" Advaita apart from contemporaries who were influenced by Ramana Maharshi.

 

Atleast call it Nondirect Path.

 

It doesn't even have direct introduction.

 

Even the Bhagavad Gita (not Hare Krishna version) is way more profound than Nondirect Path.

Edited December 8, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Aetherous]

Maybe if I was a monk.

 

Not according to my understanding.

 

Anyway, I won't pursue this further since it's off topic and it's also kind of like pointing out your character, which isn't a very fruitful or friendly activity.

[RongzomFan]

Not according to my understanding.

 

 

I'm sure its not.

[gatito]

Oh, so another double standard? Is the love, truth, beauty of Ramana and Rumi inherently superior to that of lowly scum like us?

 

I think you're being a bit too harsh.on yourselves here.

 

I'd consider changing the wording if I were you

[Simple_Jack]

I think you're being a bit too harsh.on yourselves here.

 

I'd consider changing the wording if I were you

 

If I were you, I'd consider admitting to double standards.

[RongzomFan]

I believe you are referring to the blurring/breakdown of cause and effect on the quantum level. Under certain conditions, effects appear before the cause. Phenomena can also appear to be causeless at that level.

 

 

Cause and effect is blurred also in Madhyamaka.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=rJ2qasKWbrYC&pg=PA122&dq=Madhyamaka+cause+and+effect+same+different&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LtikUsiOKtLJsQSyooDQBQ&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Madhyamaka%20cause%20and%20effect%20same%20different&f=false

Edited December 8, 2013 by RongzomFan

[zerostao]

thanks for the responses simplejack and rongzomfan.

if someone will alert me when " a definite and conclusive answer to this thread was resolved"

does rigpa(knowledge) relate to rational thought?

if so, how?

bump

RF and simplejack often 'like' their own posts.

confidence is a good thing.