ChNN on Jesus?

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
smcj
Posts: 7017
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by smcj » Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:57 am

21 century version:
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

adj. Of worldwide scope or applicability; universal.
adj. Of or relating to the worldwide Christian church.
adj. Concerned with establishing or promoting unity among churches or religions.
http://www.wordnik.com/words/ecumenical
Last edited by smcj on Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

joy&peace
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by joy&peace » Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:58 am

Very good. They smoked google right out of the water..
Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate bodhi svaha

climb-up
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:10 am

smcj wrote:
The fact that ChNN has said that anyone can come to him and receive Dzogchen teachings has inadvertently lead to a kind of false ecumenicalism on the part of some people who really seem to have neglected important parts of their training in Dharma.
So Dzogchen is beyond all causes and conditions--unless there is an ecumenical element.

Got it.
Oh man, you beat me to it.
As I opened up my browser I was thinking of all the wonderful lessons I have learned through this discussion, such as the above and:
  • -When other religions say that they are the only way, they are wrong/misguided/fundamentalist/rigid ...but Buddhism is the only way.
    - Buddhas are beyond all limitations, but are only Buddhas if they act and are recognized in certain ways
    - on the path the Buddhahood beyond limitations, there are very strict limitations on what is appropriate to be interested in
    - While your teacher is more important than the Buddha, if they say something that contradicts your view it should be immediately dismissed as a
    clearly disingenuous ploy to appease their many followers.
    - Anyone disagreeing, or even questioning or wondering, clearly has wrong view. If some of these people are respected teachers either
    conveniently ignore that, or see above.
It's been pretty amazing.

joy&peace
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by joy&peace » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:22 am

Dear climb-up,


He is not telling you what you should do -- he is sharing his view -- belief or conviction -- of what is important.

Especially he's not telling you what to do -- but sharing what is important -- Dharma and Buddha.

And it was done with and in good faith.
Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate bodhi svaha

krodha
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by krodha » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:36 am

climb-up wrote:Oh man, you beat me to it.
As I opened up my browser I was thinking of all the wonderful lessons I have learned through this discussion, such as the above and:

When other religions say that they are the only way, they are wrong/misguided/fundamentalist/rigid ...but Buddhism is the only way.
This list is misrepresenting the intentions of the points you are addressing, but then again you've been taking this entire thread very personally since the beginning.

The buddhadharma is "the only way" to actualize liberation as defined in the buddhadharma. If you want liberation as defined in the sanatanadharma or some other tirthika system, you must practice those dharmas. You will not actualize liberation as defined in the buddhadharma through practicing Samkhya yoga, for example. That is the context in which the buddhadharma is "the only way."
climb-up wrote:Buddhas are beyond all limitations, but are only Buddhas if they act and are recognized in certain ways
Buddhas are free from limitations because they have completely exhausted all affliction.

This does not mean any saint or sage is a Buddha.
climb-up wrote:on the path the Buddhahood beyond limitations, there are very strict limitations on what is appropriate to be interested in
Be interested in whatever you like. But it is important to know what should be adopted and abandoned on the path. Right view is crucial.
climb-up wrote:While your teacher is more important than the Buddha, if they say something that contradicts your view it should be immediately dismissed as a clearly disingenuous ploy to appease their many followers.
In some contexts, as was clarified when this came up.
climb-up wrote:Anyone disagreeing, or even questioning or wondering, clearly has wrong view.
Wrong view is wrong view as defined in the sūtras and tantras. If your view aligns with the definition of wrong view that is provided as a guideline in these teachings, then yes, it is considered wrong view, meaning it is not conducive to awakening and the path in general.
climb-up wrote:If some of these people are respected teachers either conveniently ignore that, or see above.
Respect is earned through diplomacy, not tyranny. An egalitarian approach to religion is a beneficial attitude to adopt for any prominent teacher, especially if they want to introduce people to the buddhadharma.
climb-up wrote:It's been pretty amazing.
It seems this discussion has gotten under your skin. It's okay to like Jesus, but you should be strong in your affinity and conviction... and not let the opinions of others affect you so much.

climb-up
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:38 am

joy&peace wrote:Dear climb-up,


He is not telling you what you should do -- he is sharing his view -- belief or conviction -- of what is important.

Especially he's not telling you what to do -- but sharing what is important -- Dharma and Buddha.

And it was done with and in good faith.
:anjali:
And in my own, incredibly witty and hilarious way, I am pointing out some issues I have with some of what he says.
Malcolm has, as always, made many wonderful points and clarifications. He has also been rude, dismissive and (in my humble opinion) very rigid and dogmatic.
I have no problem with his point of view, I have some issues with his style.
I assume it is being presented in good faith. I also assume that (most) fundamentalists deliver their hellfire rhetoric in good faith.

climb-up
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:52 am

krodha wrote:
climb-up wrote:Oh man, you beat me to it.
As I opened up my browser I was thinking of all the wonderful lessons I have learned through this discussion, such as the above and:

When other religions say that they are the only way, they are wrong/misguided/fundamentalist/rigid ...but Buddhism is the only way.
This list is misrepresenting the intentions of the points you are addressing, but then again you've been taking this entire thread very personally since the beginning.
To be clear, I genuinely am taking nothing here personally.
I assume my incredible wit (that's a self-depricating joke) doesn't translate into my typing.
I am genuinely sorry if you feel that I am taking this personally, I'm primarily having an interesting conversation and trying to silly.
The buddhadharma is "the only way" to actualize liberation as defined in the buddhadharma. If you want liberation as defined in the sanatanadharma or some other tirthika system, you must practice those dharmas. You will not actualize liberation as defined in the buddhadharma through practicing Samkhya yoga, for example. That is the context in which the buddhadharma is "the only way."[/quote[
I have some question about this, but I understand and respect it.
climb-up wrote:Buddhas are beyond all limitations, but are only Buddhas if they act and are recognized in certain ways
Buddhas are free from limitations because they have completely exhausted all affliction.
This does not mean any saint or sage is a Buddha.
I think that's a false dualism.
Just because any saint or sage is not a Buddha, doesn't mean that no saitn or sage could be a Buddha.
(not making an argument either way here, just pointing out there are more than two possibilities)
climb-up wrote:on the path the Buddhahood beyond limitations, there are very strict limitations on what is appropriate to be interested in
Be interested in whatever you like. But it is important to know what should be adopted and abandoned on the path. Right view is crucial.
Remember that my statement was directly in response saying that it was not appropriate for a follower of the dharma to have specific interests. ""Be interested in whatever you want" is (IMO) great advice, but contradicts the post I responding to and commenting on.
climb-up wrote:While your teacher is more important than the Buddha, if they say something that contradicts your view it should be immediately dismissed as a clearly disingenuous ploy to appease their many followers.
In some contexts, as was clarified when this came up.
It was clarified in that you and others explained their POV.
I still question this since, while it is potentially true,it also potentially a way to rationalize away something that conflicts with your worldview or that you just don't like.
climb-up wrote:Anyone disagreeing, or even questioning or wondering, clearly has wrong view.
Wrong view is wrong view as defined in the sūtras and tantras. If your view aligns with the definition of wrong view that is provided as a guideline in these teachings, then yes, it is considered wrong view, meaning it is not conducive to awakening and the path in general.
Yes. However, I am responding to what (IMO) is a carefree labelling as "wrong view" of things that might be disagreed with.
climb-up wrote:If some of these people are respected teachers either conveniently ignore that, or see above.
Respect is earned through diplomacy, not tyranny. An egalitarian approach to religion is a beneficial attitude to adopt for any prominent teacher, especially if they want to introduce people to the buddhadharma.
Again, I do (really!) see you point. I understand it and respect it.
I also find it a slippery slope to say, "well, my teacher always says xyz publicly, but that is different from my understanding, so I will plug that into a logical construct and decide that they must just be saying that."
climb-up wrote:It's been pretty amazing.
It seems this discussion has gotten under your skin. It's okay to like Jesus, but you should be strong in your affinity and conviction... and not let the opinions of others affect you so much.
Again, I am truly sorry if I am coming across as angry or upset.
I agree 100% about not letting others sway me in my opinion (which, to be fair, I have not at any time expressed on this thread), but it is exactly this not-being-swayed that is giving me the space to make what are supposed to be my incredibly funny comments.
If I was particularly swayed by the statements I was questioning I would say nothing, stop posting and hope that people forgot I ever asked.

Jyotish
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:54 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Jyotish » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:10 am

climb-up wrote:
Contact the Dalai Lama and ChNN, maybe Tich Naht Hahn while you're at it (not totally sure of his view), and explain there total ignorance of Buddhism.
Once you have done that let me know how it went and how you put them in their place. :tongue:
Your posts only show why buddha dharma is difficult to understand and from an outsiders perspective buddhism or perhaps even the Buddha is a fundamentalist. I can sympathize. I wish I was skillful and realized to know how to clear such confusions.

Dalai lama and ChNN know what they are doing. Do you wonder why they also hold and teach the precise views of buddha dharma that Malcolm mentioned? And that all the Buddhist teachers from zen to theravada to vajrayana starting from the Buddha himself taught these views (in relation to other non Buddhist paths and teachers; obviously theravada don't believe in bodhisattva) although obviously what their absolute perception really is is beyond me and is supposed to be cultivated based on these right views that are being repeated here and are taught for last 2500 years.
[btw this is my understanding as I'm no where near being officially authorized Buddhist teacher]
Too sad westerners project their anti religiosity and anti fundamentalism too hard. Perhaps now that buddhism has some strong roots in the world there will bepeople like lama Jampa who will outrightly assert the authentic Buddhist views without having to be diplomatic.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by dzogchungpa » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:12 am

climb-up wrote:Again, I am truly sorry if I am coming across as angry or upset.
You aren't coming across as angry or upset at all. The learned and accomplished "Dzogchenpas" of DW get kind of agitated when anyone disagrees with Malcolm and often engage in projection as a coping mechanism.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

climb-up
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:33 am

Jyotish wrote:
climb-up wrote:
Contact the Dalai Lama and ChNN, maybe Tich Naht Hahn while you're at it (not totally sure of his view), and explain there total ignorance of Buddhism.
Once you have done that let me know how it went and how you put them in their place. :tongue:
Your posts only show why buddha dharma is difficult to understand and from an outsiders perspective buddhism or perhaps even the Buddha is a fundamentalist. I can sympathize. I wish I was skillful and realized to know how to clear such confusions.

Dalai lama and ChNN know what they are doing. Do you wonder why they also hold and teach the precise views of buddha dharma that Malcolm mentioned?
Do they both hold precisely the same view of Buddhadharma as each other, and as Malcolm? (that's a genuine question).
In regards to the point of view of the topic at hand, they do not share Malcolm's.
And that all the Buddhist teachers from zen to theravada to vajrayana starting from the Buddha himself taught these views (in relation to other non Buddhist paths and teachers; obviously theravada don't believe in bodhisattva) although obviously what their absolute perception really is is beyond me and is supposed to be cultivated based on these right views that are being repeated here and are taught for last 2500 years.
Generally speaking, I think because it's true. Although, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that all Buddhist teachers have taught precisely the same view for the past 2500 years, and especially not in regard to non-Buddhist paths.
dzogchungpa wrote:
climb-up wrote:Again, I am truly sorry if I am coming across as angry or upset.
You aren't coming across as angry or upset at all. The learned and accomplished "Dzogchenpas" of DW get kind of agitated when anyone disagrees with Malcolm and often engage in projection as a coping mechanism.
Thanks. I didn't think I was, that actually really threw me off! :smile:

Malcolm
Posts: 31719
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:33 am

climb-up wrote:[
Generally speaking, I think because it's true. Although, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that all Buddhist teachers have taught precisely the same view for the past 2500 years, and especially not in regard to non-Buddhist paths.
The view of all teachers of Buddhadharma is dependent origination. The view of all teachers of Buddhadharma is that there is no liberation outside the Buddha's Dharmavinaya since only Buddhadharma teaches dependent origination.

M

Jyotish
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:54 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Jyotish » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:35 am

@climb-up.
The main consensus among Buddhist teachers as I understand being that only the Buddha dharma can lead to liberation as shown by the Buddha. Clearly you think this is a fundamentalist position as you wrote earlier. It makes sense why one would think it is fundamentalist.

As to whether Jesus is enlightened or not, "God" knows. God also knows what dalai lama meant when he used the word "enlightened". Thankfully dalai lama teaches a dharmic path too apart from some occasional mysterious public comments. Hopefully not so sure Buddhists trying to find rigpa in Bible will listen to dalai lama s gelug teachings instead of media comments.

BTW mahayanists unequivocally assert not even Arhats are close to buddha or fully enlightened and here we are trying to find possibility of some weird teaching and teacher being enlightened.

krodha
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by krodha » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:02 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
climb-up wrote:Again, I am truly sorry if I am coming across as angry or upset.
this You aren't coming across as angry or upset at all.
I caught some hints of salt.
dzogchungpa wrote:The learned and accomplished "Dzogchenpas" of DW get kind of agitated when anyone disagrees with Malcolm and often engage in projection as a coping mechanism.
And more salt.

User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by PeterC » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:15 am

climb-up wrote:
joy&peace wrote:Dear climb-up,


He is not telling you what you should do -- he is sharing his view -- belief or conviction -- of what is important.

Especially he's not telling you what to do -- but sharing what is important -- Dharma and Buddha.

And it was done with and in good faith.
:anjali:
And in my own, incredibly witty and hilarious way, I am pointing out some issues I have with some of what he says.
Malcolm has, as always, made many wonderful points and clarifications. He has also been rude, dismissive and (in my humble opinion) very rigid and dogmatic.
I have no problem with his point of view, I have some issues with his style.
I assume it is being presented in good faith. I also assume that (most) fundamentalists deliver their hellfire rhetoric in good faith.

I'm not sure Malcolm has been rude or dismissive, just factual and concise. But to infer that his position, which many others here would share, is erroneous because it is rigid or dogmatic is something you should reconsider. There are points in the Buddhadharma and indeed in any religion which do not offer latitude for interpretation. The teachings of Jesus clearly conflict with multiple such points. Do the math.

Multiple people have pointed out to you that there are perfectly good reasons why TNH, HHDL and CNN would say vaguely positive things about Jesus, from which you should not infer that he was an arya Bodhisattva whose teachings will lead to liberation.

This may sound dogmatic but to quote my very first dharma teacher on this - "if we start picking and choosing what we like in the dharma based on our own predilections, and incorporating bits of other belief systems because we like how they sound, then we're not practising the dharma, we are just engaging in ego-gratifying nonsense".

smcj
Posts: 7017
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by smcj » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:25 am

This may sound dogmatic but to quote my very first dharma teacher on this - "if we start picking and choosing what we like in the dharma based on our own predilections, and incorporating bits of other belief systems because we like how they sound, then we're not practising the dharma, we are just engaging in ego-gratifying nonsense".
It may surprise a casual reader of this thread, but I am in agreement with this. My positive take on Christianity is not an effort to import it into Dharma, but quite the opposite, to caution against negative ideas and feelings about Christianity from being imported into Dharma. Faith, devotion, morality, the afterlife and altruism have a place in both religions.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

climb-up
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:40 am

PeterC wrote:
climb-up wrote:
joy&peace wrote:Dear climb-up,


He is not telling you what you should do -- he is sharing his view -- belief or conviction -- of what is important.

Especially he's not telling you what to do -- but sharing what is important -- Dharma and Buddha.

And it was done with and in good faith.
:anjali:
And in my own, incredibly witty and hilarious way, I am pointing out some issues I have with some of what he says.
Malcolm has, as always, made many wonderful points and clarifications. He has also been rude, dismissive and (in my humble opinion) very rigid and dogmatic.
I have no problem with his point of view, I have some issues with his style.
I assume it is being presented in good faith. I also assume that (most) fundamentalists deliver their hellfire rhetoric in good faith.

I'm not sure Malcolm has been rude or dismissive, just factual and concise. But to infer that his position, which many others here would share, is erroneous because it is rigid or dogmatic is something you should reconsider. There are points in the Buddhadharma and indeed in any religion which do not offer latitude for interpretation. The teachings of Jesus clearly conflict with multiple such points. Do the math.

Multiple people have pointed out to you that there are perfectly good reasons why TNH, HHDL and CNN would say vaguely positive things about Jesus, from which you should not infer that he was an arya Bodhisattva whose teachings will lead to liberation.

This may sound dogmatic but to quote my very first dharma teacher on this - "if we start picking and choosing what we like in the dharma based on our own predilections, and incorporating bits of other belief systems because we like how they sound, then we're not practising the dharma, we are just engaging in ego-gratifying nonsense".
Just to be clear, I did not at any point infer that his position was erroneous at all, wether because it is rigid or dogmatic or for any other reason. In regards to Jesus' enlightenment, or lack thereof, I don't have any way of pointing to the "truth" of the matter, and neither (IMO) does anyone. I have repeatedly said that I have no problem with Malcolm, or anyone else not thinking Jesus was enlightened; I even literally said in the post of mine that you quoted.

As for "do the math." I am not offended or upset, but I find that to be dismissive and simplistic.

I find the second two paragraphs of your post interesting. The last paragraph warns about picking and choosing, but the first gives a rationalization for doing that (or at least, for picking and choosing what to take seriously from a Lama: who is the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha). My problem with the "perfectly good reasons" why teachers might, for example, say a being is enlightened when they are not is that it is not an argument, it is only a logical possibility. It is basic logic that an argument can logical valid and still unsound if it rests upon a faulty premise.
Giving a logical reason for why something might be true does not make it true. Yet I have several time now been referred back to these explanations as if everything has been 100% explained. I understand the argument, it may be true, but to treat it as anyone who questions it just wasn't paying attention and didn't see the explanations in the first place is (IMO) unfair.

climb-up
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:57 am

Jyotish wrote:@climb-up.
The main consensus among Buddhist teachers as I understand being that only the Buddha dharma can lead to liberation as shown by the Buddha. Clearly you think this is a fundamentalist position as you wrote earlier. It makes sense why one would think it is fundamentalist.

As to whether Jesus is enlightened or not, "God" knows.
Good one! :smile:

climb-up
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:15 am

krodha wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
climb-up wrote:Again, I am truly sorry if I am coming across as angry or upset.
this You aren't coming across as angry or upset at all.
I caught some hints of salt.
If there is anything that I think we can all agree on; it's that salt is delicious!

Seriously though, I haven't been upset.
I'm not upset now either, but this thread is seeming a bit pointless.
Here's what I have truly learned:
  • ChNN and several other important teachers have said they consider Jesus to be an enlightened being and/or Bodhisatva
    There has been a logical reason presented as to why these teacher may be lying about that, or at least misrepresenting their point of view
    • This logical reason may or may nor be valid and it is up to us individually to decide wether we choose to believe these teachers are telling the truth
    There are many who strongly believe that Jesus was not in any way enlightened whatsoever
    There are many who believe that entertaining the possibility means that you have no understanding of the dharma
    • These people then, presumably all accept the second point; that the teachers mentioned above are not being honest

    There are many who believe that you absolutely cannot be liberated without being Buddhist
I'm pretty sure that is it.
I don't see this discussion progressing anymore.
I have a problem with the last two points mentioned above, but I have no way of knowing the "truth" of the situation. As soon as I am fully enlightened and omniscient I will come back and post my findings; till then I am happy that we can all practice Buddhadharma and "enjoy the View."
:anjali:

Thank you all who have presented their perspectives with good intentions.
I suspect that there are far fewer differences between us than there might seem on-line (or not, ...who knows!), but if I'm so far off that I'm headed for some lower realms then I'll hope that any karmic connections I may have built with you will guide me towards the right view :buddha1:
:consoling:

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by dzogchungpa » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:37 am

climb-up wrote:
krodha wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:You aren't coming across as angry or upset at all.
I caught some hints of salt.
If there is anything that I think we can all agree on; it's that salt is delicious!
salt.jpg
salt.jpg (61.8 KiB) Viewed 904 times
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

smcj
Posts: 7017
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by smcj » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:49 am

Via Dzogchungpa's signature:
Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody.
Chögyal Namkhai Norbu
Well, either he is disingenuous, ill informed, or open minded. Given how open minded he is in general, I think that's the answer. Maybe open mindedness has something to do with his Dzogchen practice.

Like I said before, his teachings are the ultimate Refuge for those that are attached to their anti-Christian, anti-religious attitudes, yet he isn't supporting their negativity. So people either have to open their minds and let go of their negative attachments, or else they have to rationalize what he says away.

Tough choice.
Last edited by smcj on Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests