The pdf/ebook file available in the first link is a trojan of one type or another. My computer refused to download it. Maybe you should refuse to associate with DCB III?Brian wrote:Does anyone have any information/insight into this person and group? I've found only a few notes online about the controversial nature of him, with little details. They seem to have a lot of money, seeing as they purchased two old churches here in San Francisco and transformed them quite beautifully.
I have read to be weary of anyone claiming to be a "living Buddha".
Here is a link to some info on him: http://www.highestbuddhistmasters.org/e ... glish.html and http://www.zhaxizhuoma.net/INTRODUCTION/DCBIII.html
Thank you in advance.
conebeckham wrote:I'd agree with Astus, but read this:
http://www.zhaxizhuoma.net/INTRODUCTION ... palas.html
and tell me if you think it's authentic Dharma.
Brian wrote:All of this brings us to another, yet connected subject. I have heard about so-called "monks" who are actually Chinese communist agents in disguise. I do not know much about this issue or its purpose. What i DO know is that the Dorje Chang Buddha III has a lot of money, has purchased very old expensive churches here in San Francisco, has had governmental agencies recognize his 'efforts' and attend grand openings. This seems all very strange to me - could he be part of this Chinese "conspiracy" ? Anyone have any insight into this? I recall once seeing a picture of Chinese troops being handed Buddhists gowns.
gregkavarnos wrote:Ooooh boy this thread is sliding dangerously into the realm of conspiracy and paranoia!
All conspiracy theories and paranoia have a basis in a smidgen of reality, they become paranoid when the claims are not backed by hard evidence. What is the evidence that DCIII (theoretically a fraud, again no hard evidence) is being backed by the Chinese government? The fact that he has money and is Chinese? Well, really, that's just not enough evidence now is it?
Sometimes I get the feeling that you think that you are talking to a dribbling moron.
This is true to an extent but the nuances are so subtle as to really render them virtually indistinguishable.Adamantine wrote:Saying something is theoretically *plausible*, and claiming it is *true* are entirely different things. I said it was plausible. Only if I was claiming it were actually so would I ever need hard evidence. I made no such claim.
I agree, there are definitely precedents, for me though it is enough that the DCIII site tried to infest my computer with a Trojan for me to conclude that, I personally, want nothing to do with them.It is plausible, because as in the examples mentioned above there is a precedent for this type of behavior by the Chinese Government.
gregkavarnos wrote:This is true to an extent but the nuances are so subtle as to really render them virtually indistinguishable.Adamantine wrote:Saying something is theoretically *plausible*, and claiming it is *true* are entirely different things. I said it was plausible. Only if I was claiming it were actually so would I ever need hard evidence. I made no such claim.
1. (of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable
* - a plausible explanation
* - it seems plausible that one of two things may happen
1. An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt
* - he was dogged by the claim that he had CIA links
* - history belies statesmen's claims to be in charge of events
gregkavarnos wrote:Sometimes I get the feeling that you think that you are talking to a dribbling moron.