asunthatneversets

Right, as I said; "no inherency to be found anywhere".

Same with the buddhadharma, as there is no inherency to be found anywhere, an absolute or universal is an impossibility.

There is no problem with using is or is-not conventionally.

Not at all, because I am not advocating for the existence or non-existence of an ontological universe or reality. What I am saying is not even remotely close to what ralis is proposing.

The timeline is irrelevant. The absolute you are asserting is the existence of a universe which formed whenever it formed. Obviously depends what you consider "reasonable" to be, and therefore a "reasonable person" would undoubtably also be defined as one who accords with what you deem to be reasonable. Clearly you champion physical materialism, ergo what you consider to be reasonable is far from what I consider to be reasonable. Rendering the idea of "nonsense" to be a solely subjective notion, no doubt.

I understand quite well what I wrote. Either way, you also made an absolute statement (the universe is 14 billion years old), though it appears your confirmation biases lead you to confidently advocate for a double standard in that respect (as you are calling me out for the very thing you are likewise guilty of - though it is only something to be guilty of according to your own opinion held as some sort of falsely objective standard). Science theorizes that the universe is 14 billion years old and believes it can substantiate that claim with what it considers to be factual evidence. The buddhadharma's assertion that the universe is a misnomer and its apparent validity is merely a byproduct of afflictive patterns of reification and ignorance can also be proven through applying the methods of the dharma.

Zoom already cited one, the fact he failed to understand it properly and misinterpreted the text due to filtering it through his own presuppositions is not my fault.

That is the view of modern science, predicated on physicalist materialism. It is not the view of the Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna. And if anything you are the one who just asserted an absolute/isness from a human point of view.

Not sure what claim you are referring to. The fact that the "methods" offered in the first few posts in this thread are personal fabrications is quite obvious.

Your approach isn't a Dzogchen method at all because you literally fabricated it. You made it up. Apart from that, the premise for your so-called "method" is embellished conjecture and cannot be compared to the teachings you are citing. Nor should anyone interpret the excerpt above as a confirmation of anything. The only thing confirmed is that you have the misguided audacity to think your made-up methods are legitimate in the context of Dzogpachenpo in any way whatsoever.

For Dzogchen there is a conventional (objective) reality, which is valid in its nominal application, however ultimately there is no inherent objective reality (nor any sort of reality).

No, you stated two opinions which are highly inaccurate and demonstrate your general incompetence. In fact this entire thread is a demonstration of your incompetence, everything you've written is embellished fabrication, and anyone with any sense about them will disregard all of it in its entirety. Inaccurate opinion #1: Your guru [Lopon Tenzin Namdak] seems rather like a scholar to me instead of being an accomplished practitioner. Inaccurate opinion #2: His [Jax's] statements are very clear and with one word: brilliant and speak of deep insight into the subject of Dzogchen.

I only cited claims you made... and you couldn't sound more ignorant right now.

Yes, Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak is a mere scholar, while Jax is "brilliant and speak(s) of deep insight into the subject of Dzogchen". Keep digging yourself that hole buddy.

Yes, fanatical Buddhists see others outside their purview as large gang-banging rodents from Argentina.

Yes

No, just made a remark that upon revisiting I decided to delete because there is no point in engaging with you maras.

.

Incubated Rudra.

I do like the loaded rhetoric of power in this last sentence though: "I will expect", a demanding tone coming from a place of assumed superiority, identical to the very characteristics you project onto the paternalistic figures you actively reject. Interesting subtle irony in that subconscious projection of the shadow, I would say it speaks to your personal issues with teachers, power and/or authority in general. The attempt to substantiate your narratives as rational and valid by citing your IQ score and then presenting that purported information as substantiative proof of being a "critical intelligent person" is also priceless.

My teachers (without a doubt) have far better things to do than coming onto this forum, much less trying to convince you out of your fabrications. The problem is that you obviously do not know very much about Dzogchen, and you continually demonstrate this in your statements and assertions. You are clearly uneducated regarding the system and therefore have no idea what you're talking about. It seems you simply fabricate whatever you feel fits to your liking when it comes to these teachings. The irony is that you act as if you're really interested in the teaching, even going as far as to state that you are interested in rainbow body, yet you mock what those who have attained that liberation like they are fools, declaring that the principles they live(d) by are illogical, ignorant, deluded and weak-minded. That doesn't sound like someone who is really interested in the subjects you claim intrigue you. Most people, when they take an interest in something and/or aspire to a certain standard of achievement themselves, will look to those who have accomplished said achievements for advice or pointers, and this is true for anything. Yet apparently you already know better than they do, and even go as far as to laugh at their instructions and insights, which comes off as quite irrational.

Given the fact that words on a screen are unable to convey social cues in the same way a personal interaction would, your statement that 'mentally normal people' would be able to identify sarcasm in what you wrote is hardly an accurate assertion. Most people online, at least in the forums I am used to frequenting, aren't as disingenuous as you are in that respect. In fact, come to think of it I haven't really come across a personality like yours (on dharma forums), ever, so congratulations you are a somewhat of a pioneer in that department.

Pulling the belief card is a slippery, slippery slope.

No my friend, you are still waiting because you are too lazy to pick up any Dzogchen or Vajrayāna book that exists and read it without your biases clouding your ability to grok the fact that a teacher is an integral and indispensable aspect of these teachings (and any and every book on the subject will state that). I literally have countless quotations to substantiate my position, you on the other hand, have zero. That high horse you rode in on is a mule, and is ugly as sin... feel free to vacate the premises at any time.