dharmagoat wrote:He doesn't, his disciples do.tatpurusa wrote:by the way, does anyone know how he does this?
Everyone loves a Lama.
What a bunch of idiots.
dharmagoat wrote:He doesn't, his disciples do.tatpurusa wrote:by the way, does anyone know how he does this?
Everyone loves a Lama.
He's a LAAAMaaa...for real... The Late HH Penor Rinpoche authorized him to teach, and told his fully ordained monks and nuns that he can teach them because he has less faults then they do... something like that... along those lines... not that he's a TRUUUULKUUUU.tatpurusa wrote:Yeah, that's what I think too. I would just like to know if there is someone more familiar with this lama and his organisation.
In one of these videos he calls Penor Rinpoche his root guru.
This the only type of miracle that means anything, where someone grows in a spiritual direction. Anything else is just theatre to help us open our minds up from our normal rigid closed mindedness. The Madhyamaka tries to open our minds, but we remain convinced that the way our unawareness sees things is the way they actually are. .I took the five precepts from him, including the vow to not drink. This was important for me, because I was in the habit of getting dangerously intoxicated on a regular basis, and pretty drunk every day otherwise, and had not been able to find an effective way to stop. Immediately after that (taking precepts), I completely lost any and all desire to drink. Even when I was given some alcohol since then, the taste was not something I craved. Naturally, one could argue that this is all my own doing and there is no way to dispute it. Either way, the effect is miraculous even if the cause isn't.
weenid wrote:The premise behind this thread of "scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow body" needs to be questioned.
If metaphysical phenomena like rainbow bodies need science to validate it, it is just mere scientific materialism. That will mean we have already first assumed the primacy of science over metaphysical phenomenon, that everything should and can be examined by peer reviewed data and repeatable trials, if not they cannot be real or true.
Khenpo Sodargye explained abou the defects of science and he briefly touched on the rainbow body here :
http://www.khenposodargye.org/2016/02/c ... n-science/
For instance, on May 19, 1980, in New England, USA, the sky suddenly became noticeably darker around 10 a.m. and these shrouded skies lasted the entire day.
It would take several decades—and several more smoke-induced “dark days”—before the forest fire theory won wide acceptance. It was finally confirmed in 2007, after researchers from the University of Missouri discovered signs of a massive, centuries-old wildfire in the Algonquin Highlands of southern Ontario. “Fire scars” in the rings of the affected trees allowed the team to date the blaze to the spring of 1780. After studying weather reports from the period, they concluded that low barometric pressure and heavy winds had most likely carried smoke into the upper atmosphere and over the Northeast, blotting out the sun. Evidence shows that a similar phenomenon also occurred in 1881, when the haze from fires in Ontario and Michigan reduced sunlight in New England by as much as 90 percent.
If by science you simply means an area of knowledge, then I can agree.weenid wrote:To answer the question whether there's scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow body, a good counter question that Khenpo Sodargye might pose is (in the first place) whether or not Buddhism needs validation from science since it is a science in its own right.
Which definition of "metaphysics" are you using here and how do you connect it to what Buddha said?weenid wrote:The premise behind this thread of "scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow body" needs to be questioned.
If metaphysical phenomena like rainbow bodies need science to validate it, it is just mere scientific materialism. That will mean we have already first assumed the primacy of science over metaphysical phenomenon, that everything should and can be examined by peer reviewed data and repeatable trials, if not they cannot be real or true.