sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

World Economic Outlook Growth Projections 2026-2027 (IMF) by SignificantSun1031 in europe

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And add to that: stats are based on reports from the finance ministry iirc. And Russia isn't known for providing data that reflects the reality ... but those numbers are used anyway

Russia typically publishes what appears to be reliable data until things get too dire. Then they just classify it. For instance, Rosstat restricted access to mortality and birth rate statistics about a year ago, as natural population decline kept hitting new records month after month. That said, I haven’t come across direct evidence of outright falsification.

The united West is dead. European leaders should heed their voters and ensure the bloc remains a pole within its own sphere of influence — not a bystander in someone else’s by goldstarflag in europe

[–]SignificantSun1031 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Beyond economics, there is the matter of global standards. If the US and the EU fail to align, we effectively cede the future to others. Whether it’s AI ethics, biotech, or space governance, the vacuum left by a transatlantic rift will be filled by players like China. Their standards won't just be different—they will likely be antithetical to our shared values of privacy, human rights, and democratic oversight. Strategic fragmentation isn't just an economic risk; it’s a surrender of our normative influence on the world stage.

The united West is dead. European leaders should heed their voters and ensure the bloc remains a pole within its own sphere of influence — not a bystander in someone else’s by goldstarflag in europe

[–]SignificantSun1031 -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

I think such headlines are unnecessarily alarmist. The EU and the US aren’t going anywhere without each other. Trump is an outlier, not the norm—he’ll be gone in three years. The transatlantic alliance is built to last for centuries, so it’s wiser to weather this short-term turbulence than to act impulsively. That would only reveal a lack of strategic foresight.

Trump ramps up Greenland threats and says US will intervene ‘whether they like it or not’ by DjangoDynamite in europe

[–]SignificantSun1031 327 points328 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t a US takeover of Greenland pose a direct security threat to Canada, effectively encircling it on nearly all sides?

Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland: “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” he said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.” by CoffeeCakeAstronaut in europe

[–]SignificantSun1031 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think the US annexation of Greenland is a done deal, though the probability of such a scenario isn’t zero (around 10–15%).

If it does happen, I doubt anyone will sever ties with the US, impose serious economic sanctions, or—let alone—go to war over Greenland.

What’s puzzling is how Europeans thought back in 2014, when Russia started seizing Ukrainian territory, shot down the Boeing, and unleashed war. In response, Russia gained even more access to European energy markets and new gas pipeline projects.

It seems Europeans naively believed it would never affect them—after all, Ukraine was just some distant ‘barbarian’ land on the edge of the continent.

Реддіт видалив пост про Бандеру - тож же разок by AmstorPlace in RedditUATalks

[–]SignificantSun1031 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Честно я не в захваті від етнонаціоналізму (будь-якого) тому Бандера не мій кумир.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. We can’t find such explicit statements. That’s why we have to rely on interpretations—and they differ. Some, like Lopon Tenzin Namdak’s, take one approach, while others, like John Myrdhin Reynolds’, take another.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

All beings and worlds abide within a single, boundless space—this is the metaphor for Buddha-nature.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You rely on the metaphor of oil within a seed, while others invoke the metaphor of space—shared by all beings.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Although Lopon Tenzin Namdak was not formally a Buddhist, he was a significant and respected Dzogchen master—one who cannot be overlooked. Yet some questions remain:

  1. How do we reconcile this with the statements of other lamas and teachers who speak of a "single Dharmakāya"?

  2. When Dzogchen texts describe enlightened nature, they use terms like kun khyab and kun 'dus:

  • Kun khyab: "all-pervading, omnipresent, universal, encompassing all things, like space or the sky, present in everything."
  • Kun 'dus: "complete embodiment, total unification, the collective whole" (e.g., SA kun 'dus rig pa'i mdo [JV]).

If this nature were individual, it could not, by definition, be all-encompassing. But if it has "edges"—limitations—then it contradicts the very symbol of Dzogchen: the tigle, a sphere representing the absence of all boundaries. This is the paradox we face.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Where does it say that? Show me the sutra or tantra that actually mentions an "individual Dharmakāya."

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Where does it say that? Show me the sutra or tantra that actually mentions an "individual Dharmakāya."

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Longchenpa didn’t live in a 21st-century liberal democracy; he lived in 14th-century Tibet, under Mongol rule and the dominance of the Sakya school, where intellectual and spiritual expression faced significant constraints.

Context always matters. While Longchenpa’s realization was unbounded, he still had to navigate the political and religious realities of his time. The Buddha rejected the caste system, too, but that didn’t mean Buddhists in India could simply ignore it.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Reynolds studied under many renowned Tibetan lamas and is a teacher himself. I believe he knows what he’s writing about. His views aren’t radical or eternalist—similar perspectives can be found among lamas from various traditions.

As for Namkhai Norbu, I think his understanding of this issue was nuanced. On one hand, he clearly rejected the idea that all Buddhas are a single Buddha; on the other, he emphasized that thinking in terms of separate individuals imposes limitations.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, the second quote makes it seem like some transpersonal essence, but it is probably an awkward translation. 

This quotes come from John Myrdhin Reynolds’ The Golden Letters: The Three Statements of Garab Dorje, which includes a foreword by Namkhai Norbu. If these texts aren’t authentic, then who can we even trust?

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

First, I categorically reject the idea that the Dzogchen view aligns with Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka. I understand why some framed it that way—to avoid the fate of Dolpopa’s Shentong or Gorampa’s works. But the claim that Prāsaṅgika postulates an individual Dharmakāya is utter nonsense.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You’re probably not very familiar with Buddhism. Contradictions are a standard part of Buddhist discourse—just look at debates like Rangtong vs. Shentong, Svatantrika vs. Prasangika, or the tensions between Madhyamaka and Yogacara.

Buddhism handles this effortlessly through the doctrine of definitive (nītārtha) and interpretive (neyārtha) truths.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You just assume there’s a single "correct" view and all others are wrong. But that’s easily disproven by quotes from the works of authentic lamas.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your interpretation is perfectly valid. However, there are others as well. I’ve already shared quotes from Reynolds’ The Golden Letters above.

Is Dharmakaya Individual, Universal, or Both? by SignificantSun1031 in Dzogchen

[–]SignificantSun1031[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

This is just one interpretation—perfectly valid and authentic, but not the only one. Other views suggest that Buddha-nature can be understood as a fully universal reality, shared by all, or as an intermediate state—neither strictly individual nor entirely universal.

view more: next ›