Jump to content


ralis

Member Since 01 Aug 2008
Online Last Active Today, 09:09 AM
***--

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

Today, 08:37 AM

Deluded cognition.

 

Anyone not buying your philosophy is deluded? Prove it!


In Topic: Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

Today, 08:35 AM

This discrepancy results from confusing provisional method with definitive view.

 

I am not confused whatsoever! Definitive is stating an absolute truth which I don't agree with. You in no way can prove a definitive view within the bounds of your logic except with circular logic.


In Topic: Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

Today, 08:27 AM

The problem with this statement is in ignoring that Buddhism arose from the shramana movement - ascetic pursuits which gave rise to 'Indian mysticism'.

 

 

What does 'my study of Buddhism' entail? Universals are abstractions and non-existents in buddhadharma.

 

Abstractions of what? What I mean by universal is the totality of all form and energy that is not in form. Indian mysticism did not arise in a vacuum, but was influenced by forces outside of India parts of what is now Eastern Europe. Sanskrit is Indo-European.


In Topic: Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

Today, 08:02 AM

From my study of Buddhism, there is a pretense of being universal which encompasses all phenomena, imagination and so forth, but in reality the parameters are carefully defined and reductionist. E.g. the monastic system, vows etc. Not very flexible.


In Topic: Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

Today, 07:57 AM

There are many similarities, but to emphasize the differences:

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Buddhist_logic


Qualifications of what is signified by the lexical signifier 'Logic' in the Dharmic context

Logic [Dharmic traditions] ≠ Logic [Classical logic]

‘Indian Logic’ should not be understood as logic in the sense of ‘Aristotelian syllogism’ (Greek or Classical Logic) or ‘modern predicate calculus’ (modern Western Logic), but as anumāna-theory, a system in its own right.[8] ‘Indian Logic’ was influenced by the study of grammar, whereas Greek or Classical Logic which principally informed modern Western Logic was influenced by the study of mathematics.[9]

 

You can read more in these links:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana

 

http://www.rigpawiki...p?title=Pramana

 

Grammar can be culturally biased, whereas mathematics are not. I stand by my statement which was based on studying this period. When persons or writers of texts are rigidly defining their philosophical beliefs such as what Buddhism is replete with, then my statement stands.