PN....I remain with point. You state the term sanga has a traditional and scriptual basia....I don't claim error in that and explain how in this context the term sanga or samgha are not appropriate. You do not counter my counter but only restate claim....that is not a viable defense of point.
You claim a personal basis for my contention.....that really is irrelevent, I personally could care less about any term and do not consider myself necessarily buddhist. What I do personally care about is the idea a poster may claim authority of buddhist view over another as the putting of this thread in the general mahayana area(yes I am well aware of Vajrayana) and claiming authority attest.
These statements to my opinion are homophobically based. I have no intention to refute or qestion any ones personal belief but as one is claiming authority and this is posted in a general area I will refute on a logical basis. I expounded at length and with much time and effort on another of this posters threads and found such summarily deleted despite very many participants in the discussion. So I hazard such will happen again... nevertheless such authority over others opinions on such cannot stand unchallenged.
No argument by PN or any other has passed logical scrutiny to allow this thread to be considered a viable statement in its present context. So thusly challenge stated....not found refuted(PN's comments)...I proceed. This authority does not exist if fact I claim now a equal authority; not based on scripture, sutra nor jakata tale but on logic. Suchly is based my spiritual which is no lesser than that here presented though statements and context claim such as greater.
Many children are committing suicide on the basis of homophobia currently in the us. On this basis and as mentioned I proceed, thought perhaps with not the best nor most effective of displayal with this argument, I a mere layperson of little understanding will take this challenge and proceed ....homophobia is logically contraindicated....and see where it will take me.
To furthur identify I personally, since the personal is invariably introduced in the western inferior method of debate...have no dog in this fight. I formally was hetrosexual but claim no homosexual nor hetrosexual bias as both are irrelevent, and neither has logical basis. I in fact will first introduce such statement into discussion....this thing of homo or hetro has no basis...not a whit.
Participate who will....I will defeat you.
These statements are untrue and and logical basis claimed is faulted...."People who are born with both sex's (hermaphrodite) are not eligible
People who are born sexless are not eligible
Additionally any confusion regarding sexual orientation. Gay'ism, Lesbian'ism, Bi-sexual'ism, Sexual Mutilation / Transgender'ism/ Transexual'ism should be cleared up beforehand."
It is said...
"Likewise,since it is a group of fingers,
The hand itself is not a single entity.
And so it is with fingers, made of joints;
And joints themselves consist of many parts.
These parts themselves will break down into atoms,
And atoms will divide according to direction.
These fragments, too will also fall to nothing.
Thus atoms are like empty space--they have no real existence.
All form, therefore is like a dream,
And who will be attached to it, who thus investigates?
The body in this way, has no existence;
What is male, therefore, and what is female?"
What then is the object of desire, this object so entranced?. Is it finger breast procreation organ so involved, is it mind it is perception of finger breast procreation organ so involved.... Yes, I claim the latter.
It is mind only that one is having sex with, and no other.
Show me a finger, show me a breast, show me a procreation organ, noncomposite.
And then that found... show me how such cannot be part of me who perceives such things.
How indeed I may not be parted and part indeed be found that is part of all that is here consdiered.
How may I then see feel touch or hear this thing and then claim this thing not I?
On what basis then do I claim singularity?
And thusly can claim seperate identity and thing found not in myself but in other?
And then this thing on basis then arbitrarily based state...
this other thing this samgha.....it must not contain this or that.
On what is claim such claim made?
Is samgha then not as samgha is a person made?
And if person made is composite made on what basis then is compostie of person made not samgha made?
To what extent will we then follow this thing....will actions then be basis or thought or form?
Will then all who are of differing form or opinion or belief on such basis then be found to be noninclusive?
And then if such is done on what basis is thought or forrm or opinion found to be in this manner...exactly alike?
Are my thought my feeling then as are yours or anothers.
On basis then of similiarity we then do determine samgha
On what basis then is such founded?
Is such basis valid then in this world of parted form or constituancy which but reflects in parted nature if form and body all.
On what basis then is this samgha on specific preference in this matter considered in this fashion?
And if monk or nun so considered...is it not true of sexual interest there is none?.
On what basis then this determination if monk or nun then claimed intend?
Do monk and nun then find object of desire present and real and able to incite desire by themeselves and of themselves?.Then what object this will so by itself inspire such things? Never do I find a object in this realm though called desire, a object that in itself can so provide such things.
No I find quite surely one thing....it is mind itself that desires and none other. It is mind itself that sees what it sees in itself not other.
So show me these things these obejects from which desire arises in this realm of all desire....I fail to find them.
Show me a nonparted person.
Show me a nonparted perception>
Show me this sanga of similiarity exact nature found.
Show me this sanga of exact similiar form found
Show me this sanga of exact similiar thought found
Show me all these things....and your claims I will find true.
Tilll then they are homophobia and nothing more....I await your reply.
I have already established basis for challenge to the initial poster on statement of authority and reject any claim of authority in this matter yet presented and considered by other as viable. It is not...proven in the context of this board and this discussion forum. That is proven.... no viable counter has been presented by logical rule as evidenced by the prior discussion and lack of viable counter.
I reject on the general basis now stated.... the consideration of samgha or sanha as being any rule of physical characteristic nor prior preference stated in the matter of sex.
The initial claim of untruth and basis in logical fault is present and elaborated upon.I await counter.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.