buddhist hinduism?

[Josef]

Read Emptiness by Gesh Tashi Tsering.

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy, so I am pretty sure what I have written is correct.

Not everyone agrees with Geshe Tashi's interpretation.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Read Emptiness by Gesh Tashi Tsering.

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy, so I am pretty sure what I have written is correct.

I bow to Geshe Tashi Tsering.

However if you are speaking of "thoughtforms" which "exist" this sounds like Cittamatra analysis. IMHO consciousness, let alone "thoughtforms", can't be "designated" upon causes and conditions at all since it doesn't "exist" to begin with - nor not exist; i.e. the Prasangika analysis is the best here since it makes no assertions in that regard. Therefore it's the best view for meditation.

[Malcolm]

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy...

Then there is no hope for you at all. Madhyamaka is not to followed, it is to be used to pacify proliferations, including the one called "Madhyamaka".

[Enochian]

Read Emptiness by Gesh Tashi Tsering.

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy, so I am pretty sure what I have written is correct.

Not everyone agrees with Geshe Tashi's interpretation.

Ok read "The Middle Way" by the Dalai Lama.

Truth be told, the first time I read Geshe Tashi's book was like 3 days in a book store.

[Enochian]

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy...

Then there is no hope for you at all. Madhyamaka is not to followed, it is to be used to pacify proliferations, including the one called "Madhyamaka".

Of course Madhyamaka is simply a mass of discursive thought and intellectual concepts. Thats obvious.

But so is Dzogchen with its endless mirror analogies, and intellectual concepts such as kadag, inseperability etc.

I have yet to see someone tell it like it is, like I do in my signature.

[Josef]

Read Emptiness by Gesh Tashi Tsering.

I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy, so I am pretty sure what I have written is correct.

Not everyone agrees with Geshe Tashi's interpretation.

Ok read "The Middle Way" by the Dalai Lama.

Truth be told, the first time I read Geshe Tashi's book was like 3 days in a book store.

I was at the teachings HHDL gave that later became The Middle Way.
I remember them quite well.

[Malcolm]

But so is Dzogchen with its endless mirror analogies, and intellectual concepts such as kadag, inseperability etc.

That's not Dzogchen.

[Enochian]

But so is Dzogchen with its endless mirror analogies, and intellectual concepts such as kadag, inseperability etc.

That's not Dzogchen.

Ok I have to take your word for it, since I am not a Dzogchen practitioner.

[Malcolm]

But so is Dzogchen with its endless mirror analogies, and intellectual concepts such as kadag, inseperability etc.

That's not Dzogchen.

Ok I have to take your word for it, since I am not a Dzogchen practitioner.

The difference is that Dzogchen is experiential while Mahdyamaka is analytical.

[Enochian]

The difference is that Dzogchen is experiential while Mahdyamaka is analytical.

I think thats understood. I simply like Mahdyamaka philosophy. I can't help it. Its so fraking awesome.

[Josef]

The difference is that Dzogchen is experiential while Mahdyamaka is analytical.

I think thats understood. I simply like Mahdyamaka philosophy. I can't help it. Its so fraking awesome.

You should read Freedom From Extremes by Gorampa.
Thats my favorite Madhyamaka book.

[Enochian]

The difference is that Dzogchen is experiential while Mahdyamaka is analytical.

I think thats understood. I simply like Mahdyamaka philosophy. I can't help it. Its so fraking awesome.

You should read Freedom From Extremes by Gorampa.
Thats my favorite Madhyamaka book.

Is there more to Madhyamaka than what I said previously?:

Everything exists as thoughtforms (appearances) merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, the Buddhas, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

[conebeckham]

Of course Madhyamaka is simply a mass of discursive thought and intellectual concepts. Thats obvious.

But so is Dzogchen with its endless mirror analogies, and intellectual concepts such as kadag, inseperability etc.

I have yet to see someone tell it like it is, like I do in my signature.

You may be mistaking the path for the result. Or, rather, the instructions for the reality.

Madhyamaka is not simply "a mass of discursive thought," nor is Dzokchen "a bunch of concepts."
Madhyamaka, Dzokchen, and Mahamudra are all the same thing, the same reality, which is beyond linguistic expression, eh?

[Enochian]

Madhyamaka, Dzokchen, and Mahamudra are all the same thing, the same reality, which is beyond linguistic expression, eh?

Based on his written works, Bon Loppon Tenzin Namdak strongly disagrees with that.

But I appreciate the main thrust of what you said.

[Josef]

I think thats understood. I simply like Mahdyamaka philosophy. I can't help it. Its so fraking awesome.

You should read Freedom From Extremes by Gorampa.
Thats my favorite Madhyamaka book.[/quote]

Is there more to Madhyamaka than what I said previously?:

Everything exists as thoughtforms (appearances) merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, the Buddhas, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.[/quote]


There is less. I find this presentation clunky a a bit problematic.
Gorampa addresses this issue in Freedom from Extremes.

[gregkavarnos]

You may be mistaking the path for the result. Or, rather, the instructions for the reality.

Madhyamaka is not simply "a mass of discursive thought," nor is Dzokchen "a bunch of concepts."
Madhyamaka, Dzokchen, and Mahamudra are all the same thing, the same reality, which is beyond linguistic expression, eh?

Smart ass!

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Is there more to Madhyamaka than what I said previously?:

Everything exists as thoughtforms (appearances) merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, the Buddhas, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

It still sounds like Chittamatra. Higher views assert that genuine reality is emptiness like space or is free from complexity and beyond all thought and expression.

[Enochian]

Is there more to Madhyamaka than what I said previously?:

Everything exists as thoughtforms (appearances) merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, the Buddhas, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

It still sounds like Chittamatra. Higher views assert that genuine reality is emptiness like space or is free from complexity and beyond all thought and expression.

how about this?

Everything exists as labels merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, the Buddhas, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Sounds good. How about this:

Whereas apparent reality is whatever ordinary people believe truly exists, genuine reality is free from complexity and beyond all thought and expression.

Unknowable by analogy; peace;
Not of the fabric of fabrications;
Nonconceptual; free of distinctions -
These are the characteristics of the precise nature.

Nagarjuna, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

[Pema Rigdzin]

I have yet to see someone tell it like it is, like I do in my signature.

This is because you haven't yet received Dzogchen transmission and you've read very few Dzogchen texts. The explanations about the mirror and kadag and lhundrub and their inseparability are skillful means to bring about understanding and possibly trigger insight, but they are not meditated upon. So from that point of view they are not the main point. Instead, one relaxes with an utter lack of modification or fabrication or placement or objectification of any kind; though even these words can be misleading because there can be a great resemblance between rigpa and the state of non-conceptual quiescence, even though in reality there is the most profound difference between the two. This is of course why the guru is indispensable: first in terms of helping one recognize one's primordial state and then guiding one so one can stay on course and not fall into deviations that can be difficult to apprehend.