Another Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche

[Malcolm]

BTW Shiva is an emanation of chenrezig.

In your opinion.

The rest of the conversation is quite predictable.

Everything we believe is based on our own opinions merely because we decided that something was true.

Via the Guhyasamaja tantra.

You decided to accept the Guhyasamaja is a source of authority. That was a decision you made, and that decision is nothing more than a personal opinion. You really cannot escape the consequence that you accept this as an authority based on your personal opinion, and nothing more. All chains of authority lead back to personal bias.

[Sonam Wangchug]

I guess I should have been more specific, Who are we to judge the enlightened vision of the 16th gyalwang karmapa.

You are because you judged. Your acceptance of this recognition is based in your attachment to the idea that the 16th Karmapa was omniscient. There is absolutely no authority behind your acceptance other than that you believe it, that you decided it was true. No one else decided for you it was true, you decided it was true based on your own conceptual mind.

When Buddhist grow up, they realize that there is no higher authority than their own personal opinion. Even their deference to their gurus is based solely on their own personal opinion.

So is it that you do not accept the existence of any beings who are omniscient or have the kind of wisdom that can clearly identify nirmanakayas in the last century, or that you yourself do not believe the 16th karmapa possessed such wisdom? Or both.

[Sonam Wangchug]

In your opinion.

The rest of the conversation is quite predictable.

Everything we believe is based on our own opinions merely because we decided that something was true.

Via the Guhyasamaja tantra.

You decided to accept the Guhyasamaja is a source of authority. That was a decision you made, and that decision is nothing more than a personal opinion. You really cannot escape the consequence that you accept this as an authority based on your personal opinion.

It's called refuge.

[Malcolm]

Via the Guhyasamaja tantra.

You decided to accept the Guhyasamaja is a source of authority. That was a decision you made, and that decision is nothing more than a personal opinion. You really cannot escape the consequence that you accept this as an authority based on your personal opinion.

It's called refuge.

Which you decided to accept based on your own personal opinion and needs.

[Pero]

When Buddhist grow up, they realize that there is no higher authority than their own personal opinion. Even their deference to their gurus is based solely on their own personal opinion.

[Sonam Wangchug]

You decided to accept the Guhyasamaja is a source of authority. That was a decision you made, and that decision is nothing more than a personal opinion. You really cannot escape the consequence that you accept this as an authority based on your personal opinion.

It's called refuge.

Which you decided to accept based on your own personal opinion and needs.

Thank god.

[Malcolm]

It's called refuge.

Which you decided to accept based on your own personal opinion and needs.

Thank god.

Good one. Still doesn't mean you are able to escape the trap of everything you believe being nothing more than your personal opinion.

[Virgo]

It's called refuge.

Which one in the Three Jewels or in everlasting God?

Kevin

[Sonam Wangchug]

You are because you judged. Your acceptance of this recognition is based in your attachment to the idea that the 16th Karmapa was omniscient. There is absolutely no authority behind your acceptance other than that you believe it, that you decided it was true. No one else decided for you it was true, you decided it was true based on your own conceptual mind.

When Buddhist grow up, they realize that there is no higher authority than their own personal opinion. Even their deference to their gurus is based solely on their own personal opinion.

the 16th Karmapa's omniscience is demonstrably true.

So you are saying that the 16th Karmapa's omniscience is demonstrably try in the same way that it is demonstrably true that two groups of two pebbles added together makes four pebbles and never five?

You are saying that it is demonstrably true the same way evolution can be mathematically proven?

You are saying is demonstrably true in the same way that gravitation is demonstrably true?

How is the 16th Karmapa's omniscience demonstrably true? Really, I am all ears.

Do you even have to ask?

I'm guessing you haven't spent that much time with the Kamtsang.

[Pero]

I guess I should have been more specific, Who are we to judge the enlightened vision of the 16th gyalwang karmapa.

You are because you judged. Your acceptance of this recognition is based in your attachment to the idea that the 16th Karmapa was omniscient. There is absolutely no authority behind your acceptance other than that you believe it, that you decided it was true. No one else decided for you it was true, you decided it was true based on your own conceptual mind.

When Buddhist grow up, they realize that there is no higher authority than their own personal opinion. Even their deference to their gurus is based solely on their own personal opinion.

So is it that you do not accept the existence of any beings who are omniscient or have the kind of wisdom that can clearly identify nirmanakayas in the last century, or that you yourself do not believe the 16th karmapa possessed such wisdom? Or both.

I think Malcolm's point is that whether or not he accepts that, in the end, it'll still be only his opinion.

[Malcolm]

the 16th Karmapa's omniscience is demonstrably true.

So you are saying that the 16th Karmapa's omniscience is demonstrably try in the same way that it is demonstrably true that two groups of two pebbles added together makes four pebbles and never five?

You are saying that it is demonstrably true the same way evolution can be mathematically proven?

You are saying is demonstrably true in the same way that gravitation is demonstrably true?

How is the 16th Karmapa's omniscience demonstrably true? Really, I am all ears.

Do you even have to ask?

I'm guessing you haven't spent that much time with the Kamtsang.

Anecdotal tales do not constitute proof.

[Malcolm]

I guess I should have been more specific, Who are we to judge the enlightened vision of the 16th gyalwang karmapa.

You are because you judged. Your acceptance of this recognition is based in your attachment to the idea that the 16th Karmapa was omniscient. There is absolutely no authority behind your acceptance other than that you believe it, that you decided it was true. No one else decided for you it was true, you decided it was true based on your own conceptual mind.

When Buddhist grow up, they realize that there is no higher authority than their own personal opinion. Even their deference to their gurus is based solely on their own personal opinion.

So is it that you do not accept the existence of any beings who are omniscient or have the kind of wisdom that can clearly identify nirmanakayas in the last century, or that you yourself do not believe the 16th karmapa possessed such wisdom? Or both.

Let's suppose I accept that there are such beings. Even so, as an intellectually honest person, at the end of the day I still will have to admit that it is all just based on my personal opinion, and that there are no substance to such beliefs beyond my opinion that they are true and not false.

[Sonam Wangchug]

So you are saying that the 16th Karmapa's omniscience is demonstrably try in the same way that it is demonstrably true that two groups of two pebbles added together makes four pebbles and never five?

You are saying that it is demonstrably true the same way evolution can be mathematically proven?

You are saying is demonstrably true in the same way that gravitation is demonstrably true?

How is the 16th Karmapa's omniscience demonstrably true? Really, I am all ears.

Do you even have to ask?

I'm guessing you haven't spent that much time with the Kamtsang.

Anecdotal tales do not constitute proof.

To be redundant, in your opinion.

Well, my teachers aren't liars, nor deluded, but you can feel free to think they are.

I would gather even many of your own teachers greatly respect The Karmapa, I hope it rubs off.

It's like HH the 14th dalai lama mentioned once when talking about his friend who is a master of the Taklung kagyu. He was saying how this master described a very impressive vision to him which would be hard to believe for others perhaps, but he said that he is indeed a very honest person who does not lie in any way, and so there is no fault in believing him.

The stories I am talking about are from very reliable and trustworthy sources, people who are honest, and in some cases literally slept in the bedroom of the 16th karmapa, but feel free to believe your own doubt, over those who were there.

[Sonam Wangchug]

So you are saying that the 16th Karmapa's omniscience is demonstrably try in the same way that it is demonstrably true that two groups of two pebbles added together makes four pebbles and never five?

You are saying that it is demonstrably true the same way evolution can be mathematically proven?

You are saying is demonstrably true in the same way that gravitation is demonstrably true?

How is the 16th Karmapa's omniscience demonstrably true? Really, I am all ears.

Do you even have to ask?

I'm guessing you haven't spent that much time with the Kamtsang.

Anecdotal tales do not constitute proof.

So do you believe that Chogyal namkhai norbu rinpoche's teacher went into rainbow body?

You weren't there.

I certainly wouldn't fault you for believing Rinpoche as a credible source, do you think I should?

[Malcolm]

Do you even have to ask?

I'm guessing you haven't spent that much time with the Kamtsang.

Anecdotal tales do not constitute proof.

So do you believe that Chogyal namkhai norbu rinpoche's teacher went into rainbow body?

You weren't there.

I certainly wouldn't fault you for believing Rinpoche as a credible source, do you think I should?

It makes me happy to think that Chanchub Dorje may have manifested rainbow body, but I certainly do not know it to be a fact. I am not the kind of person who insists to others of such phenomena, "This is true since my teacher said it happened." I don't even insist on such things to myself, but then I am, admittedly a terrible student, and a worse Buddhist. I do however try to practice Buddhadharma as best I can.

[Sonam Wangchug]

Anecdotal tales do not constitute proof.

So do you believe that Chogyal namkhai norbu rinpoche's teacher went into rainbow body?

You weren't there.

I certainly wouldn't fault you for believing Rinpoche as a credible source, do you think I should?

It makes me happy to think that Chanchub Dorje may have manifested rainbow body, but I certainly do not know it to be a fact. I am not the kind of person who insists to others of such phenomena, "This is true since my teacher said it happened." I am also a terrible student.

Fair enough.

But do you believe it, and why? Is it not because you trust in your teacher, and is that not in fact a virtue instead of a hindrance.

[Malcolm]

So do you believe that Chogyal namkhai norbu rinpoche's teacher went into rainbow body?

You weren't there.

I certainly wouldn't fault you for believing Rinpoche as a credible source, do you think I should?

It makes me happy to think that Chanchub Dorje may have manifested rainbow body, but I certainly do not know it to be a fact. I am not the kind of person who insists to others of such phenomena, "This is true since my teacher said it happened." I am also a terrible student.

Fair enough.

But do you believe it, and why? Is it not because you trust in your teacher, and is that not in fact a virtue instead of a hindrance.

I don't know that it is true, and I don't know that it is false. I trust my teacher anyway, not because I heard that his teacher experienced the small body of light, but because he opened the door of Atiyoga to me. I am not, by nature, what is known as a faith-follower. I am really arrogant, so I imagine I am more of a Dharma follower.

[Sonam Wangchug]

It makes me happy to think that Chanchub Dorje may have manifested rainbow body, but I certainly do not know it to be a fact. I am not the kind of person who insists to others of such phenomena, "This is true since my teacher said it happened." I am also a terrible student.

Fair enough.

But do you believe it, and why? Is it not because you trust in your teacher, and is that not in fact a virtue instead of a hindrance.

I don't know that it is true, and I don't know that it is false. I trust my teacher anyway, not because I heard that his teacher experienced the small body of light, but because he opened the door of Atiyoga to me. I am not, by nature, what is known as a faith-follower. I am really arrogant, so I imagine I am more of a Dharma follower.

If memory serves, you even said that Rinpoche had two teachers who went into rainbow body,(it wasn't presented in any kind of doubtful, could have been, I believe it to be so kind of light) and that there is no other living master which the same can be said of ( with all due respect not accurate) so pardon me, because you are having quite a different tone today, so I am getting adjusted here.

In any case, Faith is the basis of all good qualities, and the ripening of faith is unchanging faith. But I doubt providing quotes will do any good here.

In any case, thanks for sharing your perspective and honesty, I am not saying that sarcastically. Whether you are a "faith-follower" or not, I do feel the sense of faith you have in your teachers, and trust, when you talk about them, and I appreciate that.

[Malcolm]

Fair enough.

But do you believe it, and why? Is it not because you trust in your teacher, and is that not in fact a virtue instead of a hindrance.

I don't know that it is true, and I don't know that it is false. I trust my teacher anyway, not because I heard that his teacher experienced the small body of light, but because he opened the door of Atiyoga to me. I am not, by nature, what is known as a faith-follower. I am really arrogant, so I imagine I am more of a Dharma follower.

If memory serves, you even said that Rinpoche had two teachers who went into rainbow body,(it wasn't presented in any kind of doubtful, could have been, I believe it to be so kind of light) and that there is no other living master which the same can be said of ( with all due respect not accurate) so pardon me, because you are having quite a different tone today, so I am getting adjusted here.

As was speaking of the qualities of my teacher's lineage, which you appreciate. I never claimed that I had personal knowledge of those two events. Not even ChNN has personal knowledge of those events, as he recounted them second and third hand.

In any case, Faith is the basis of all good qualities, and the ripening of faith is unchanging faith. But I doubt providing quotes will do any good here.

I understand faith according to its basic definition provided by the Kośa: "śraddha (dad pa) is a mental factor that brings clarity to the mind." I don't have much use for faith beyond that. I do respect other's faith, but not when they use it as an argument in a discussion.

In any case, thanks for sharing your perspective and honesty, I am not saying that sarcastically. Whether you are a "faith-follower" or not, I do feel the sense of faith you have in your teachers, and trust, when you talk about them, and I appreciate that.

I have nothing but a sense of overwhelming gratitude to my teachers.

[Pero]

I understand faith according to its basic definition provided by the Kośa: "śraddha (dad pa) is a mental factor that brings clarity to the mind."

Is there any further clarification on that?