asunthatneversets

An intelligent person with a clear mind would be able to clearly understand how upāya works in the context of the buddhadharma, and how conventional methodologies and views are applied to one's experience in order to create a fertile ground for progress. Even in the most basic relative sense one should be able to understand the purpose of such reasoning and how its application serves to maintain the integrity of the teaching and transmission. Whether you choose to disagree with these principles is of course your opinion you are entitled to, however to cast blanket aspersions such as the reasoning your are opposed to being "completely absurd" is no doubt going to a far extreme in the spectrum of possible viewpoints. It is unarguably quite asinine to assert that these measures are put in place solely for the purposes of maintaining a divisive monopoly in a scheme to secure control and personal power. Such conclusions are clearly indicative of your own opinions and feelings rather than anything else. One of the foremost issues with your position on this, as mentioned above, is the fact that you unfortunately appear to have a steep poverty in comprehending how a conventional model or praxis functions. Which means you are falling victim to an inherent view where you cannot separate a loose functional method from your perceptions of rigid inherency. Meaning; rather than seeing the lama for what he or she is, you are overwhelmed by your own projections and in fact see an existent figure which should be either accepted or rejected based on certain characteristics and properties that individual is truly endowed with (rather than seeing such contentions as an arbitrary set of criteria stemming from yourself). Not only that, but you take this expression of incompetency and indiscriminately cast that shadow over the whole of gurus as a collective target, which is again, clearly an exhibition of your own neuroses rather than something inherent to the system or the teachers. Your notion of a "healthy mind" is without a doubt another example of a clearly biased view, as you demonstrate that a healthy mind is one that mirrors your own beliefs, one that doesn't is therefore deemed "unhealthy". A self-serving statement from you which is meant to breed some confidence in yourself rather than to speak accurately of others. This lack of confidence on your part is most likely also why you are choosing to use loaded terms such as "absurd", "disturbing", "brainwashed", "cult-mentality" etc., terms which evoke strong reaction and make it seem as if your position is credible rather than being the bigoted fabrication it is. I have explained why one cannot receive transmission from a book or from a recorded video, if you choose disagree that is perfectly fine, however that does not mean your conclusion destroys the credibility of the information you are disagreeing with. It simply means you disagree. Your scattered vitriolic rhetoric used in the bulk of your response appears to have created some false confidence as you approached your last paragraph, where you proceed to spout your loaded remarks in an excessive display of inordinate frequency. Again, wrought with presuppositions and self-affirming conclusions which present your own biases as a sane and undeluded point of view. Even going as far as to state that those who subscribe to the view you disagree with possess a diminished mental capacity due to restrictive artificial blockages (again paying homage to your own position as a superior and 'unblocked' point of view). Followed by another projective statement of conviction that your own conclusions are proof that a divergent view compromises ones chances of awakening to the point that they are rendered an impossibility. A conclusion based on your own misguided logic (which is touted as accurately substantiated by your anti-paternal leanings) that a rejection of teachers shows some sort of maturity, rather than being the knee-jerk epitome of immaturity it indicates. At any rate, your post is little more than a display of your own irrationalities and a wonderful demonstration of the type of attitude which ushers one to the darkest heart of delusion. May you overcome these shortcomings quickly so that you can benefit others instead of hindering yourself.

All experiences are valid, my point was that there can be many types of experiences however there is only one nature of mind. Whether your own experiences were validated by what Norbu Rinpoche said or not is really your own business. It is not my business, and nor does it concern me, just as my path does not concern you. I obviously did not even begin to consider comparing whatever experience you had, however long ago, that I have no knowledge of, to anything I have experienced... that would be idiotic.

There are various forms of awakening experience, many experiences one can have, but there is only one (valid expression of) awakening in the context of these teachings. Either way, if you had a peak experience then that was simply a peak experience. Without pursuing that insight in a structured way (in order to nurture it into full buddhahood) it merely becomes a story to reminisce about.

It is not a statement of my belief, this is what the system says. Whether you choose to believe that or not is on you, but it is stated very clearly. Transmission must come from a living interaction where the wisdom holder is intending to introduce you to your nature, and you are likewise intending to receive that introduction. Obviously a book is incapable of an interaction of that nature. As a book does not have body, speech or mind, it is not a sentient being much less a buddha. It does not have a body to serve as a nexus or matrix for tathatā, and therefore cannot transmit that living knowledge.

There certainly were practitioners of the instantaneous capacity, however they were simply ripe for realization so that when they came into contact with the guru they received full realization on the spot. They are called chig-car-bas, and according to the Dalai Lama there hasn't been one for centuries. Most practitioners are those of gradual capacity, called thod-rgal-bas. The slowest practitioner being a rim-gyis-pa. In all three cases an interaction with a qualified teacher [a Vidyādhara, Bodhisattva or Buddha] is always what induces realization or recognition.

No the introduction has to come from a living interaction, it cannot come from a book. The teacher must intend to transmit his/her knowledge and you as the student must intend to receive it in the same instance. "Today some people are saying: 'The Dzogchen teaching doesn't need a teacher or transmission, you can learn it in a book and you can apply it'. This is really a very wrong view. Nowadays in Western countries this kind of tradition or school is being developed but you shouldn't follow it. If you want to really follow Dzogchen teaching, that is the wrong direction. Garab Dorje received the transmission from Sambhogakāya Vajrasattva who is connected with Dharmakāya Samantabhadra, and from Garab Dorje until today we have the transmission without interruption. If there is no transmission you cannot enter into real knowledge, it is impossible. That is why here... it is saying that you can really have that knowledge only if you are connected with the three transmissions. The three transmissions are just like a current. For example if you have a lamp and you want to light it up you must connect it with a current, otherwise there will be no light. We are living in dualistic vision: one is one, two is two, three is three, white is white, black is black. So we are living with these concepts, we have no capacity to go beyond them, we do not know what it means to go beyond. But our real condition is beyond this, beyond numbers, beyond distance, beyond time. To believe you can get this knowledge just by reading books is a fantasy." -- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

That is how the current cycle of Dzogchen was laid out by Guru Garab Dorje; the first of his three testaments is direct introduction from a qualified teacher. Second is to familiarize with that knowledge, and the third is to continue in that knowledge. These three statements are the basis, path and result of Dzogchen. Without a basis there can be no path, without a path there can be no result. So the intimate instructions from a qualified teacher are an integral and indispensable aspect of Dzogchen and Vajrayāna in general.

There is definitely a need for the teacher to analyze if the student is training right and progressing on their path, that is the point of the teacher-student relationship. The student cannot do that on their own. I'm sure many students come to false conclusions that they have recognized the natural state... however the actual 'natural state' is an animal that does not need confirmation is the only point I was making. Just like you wouldn't need someone to confirm that you had water thrown in your face... recognition of the nature of mind is a species of insight that is fully experiential and is endowed with an unshakeable certainty. Which is why it is referred to as a 'beacon of certainty' or a 'torch of certainty'. If one has even a shadow of doubt as to whether they have recognized the nature of mind, then they have not recognized the nature of mind. Valid knowledge of one's nature ensues from a doubtless epiphany tantamount to the feeling of waking up from a dream. That being said, there are surely many students who have not had that insight yet deceive themselves into believing they have indeed recognized their nature, for whatever reason. Some methods of direct introduction (i.e. pointing out instruction) involve explanation... an explanation would be an oral transmission. There is also symbolic and mind transmission. In any case it never has to do with supernatural or energetic hocus pocus.

Norbu Rinpoche does the webcasts which are strictly concerning direct introduction three or four times a year. There is no speech or explanation during those webcasts, they are done via mantra and another type of method. His webcasts are not broadcasted via skype but through another free service which can handle larger broadcasts. You would certainly be able to email Norbu Rinpoche if you were not present at the retreat (you would be able to ask questions at the retreat). In the bay area where I'm from, Norbu Rinpoche has a community center in Berkeley and explanation etc. is provided by senior students at the center prior to introduction webcasts. I'd imagine it is the same at all of the Dzogchen Community centers [lings and gars]. The number of people listening to those webcasts varies, but usually between 1,000 and 3,000.

I'm not sure how other teachers do it, but Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has tailored his method of direct introduction so that it can be effective through his webcasts. He of course recommends that one should try to receive introduction in person if possible, but via webcast works just fine. A valid recognition of your nature isn't the type of thing the teacher would really have to analyze or confirm for you, as that species of insight is quite unmistakeable. Most aspirants will not recognize their nature (in the sense of 'the natural state') during direct introduction but will instead identify a provisional form of rigpa which is a suitable basis for practice. A monastic lifestyle may not even be appropriate depending on the type of teaching one is involved with. As a side note: in the wake of the cultural revolution the majority of active monasteries in that region are now located in the countries which border Tibet; such as Nepal, Bhutan, India etc.

The point is to work with your circumstances and do the best you can. Some teachers nowadays offer teaching via webcast and correspondence via email for those who are interested yet cannot be near their teacher. While that is not the most ideal situation, it is far better than no connection (with a teacher) at all and is perfectly suitable for someone who wishes to practice the teachings in an appropriate way. Attending retreats with teachers is of course even better. The most ideal situation is to have a teacher one can regularly interact with in person. At any rate, I am not quite sure what a western 'outdoor' student is.

The point I'm making is that to practice Vajrayāna or Dzogpachenpo you need a living teacher from whom you receive instruction... so actively rejecting teachers (due to projecting one's own issues with parental or authority figures onto them) is going to be a problematic attitude to uphold.

Sounds like immaturity to me. Well, you guru bashers don't fall into any category with Vajrayāna or Dzogpachenpo. In fact you aren't even on the map to begin with. All you're doing is deluding yourself. As mentioned above, capacity in the form of interest is of primary importance, however interest without intimate instructions from a qualified guru is like treading water with a paddle in your hand and no boat to be found anywhere. A sign of maturity is the ability to exercise some humility and rely on intimate instructions from a qualified teacher.. not making boastful and prideful assertions and casting aspersions at teachers, lineage and tradition... that is immaturity of the utmost degree. Hopefully you'll figure that out at some point.

There are a few different types of 'capacities', or perhaps different facets of one's capacity, per Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. Rinpoche discussed capacity in depth during one of his recent retreats. Diligence is one aspect of capacity, intelligence is another, and there are others. However Rinpoche said the most vital aspect is capacity as interest, if you have that fundamental interest in the teachings that is the most important thing. For instance, someone with zero capacity could have the teachings expounded directly to them and they would have no interest whatsoever. Rinpoche also made it a point to mention that capacity isn't a fixed or set thing. But is malleable and therefore subject to increase for those with keen interest. If you study and practice your capacity can be refined just like anything else. Intelligence helps but isn't everything... interest, diligence, practice, etc., are what make or break a practitioner. Which is why it is said that even simple cow herders with no education whatsoever can apply the intimate instructions and attain realization.

Buddhist logic does not accord with Aristotelianism... if we are forced to compare Buddhist logic to Greek or Roman philosophy/thought, then the Pyrrhonian skeptic movement associated with the Greek luminary Sextus Empiricus (post-Axial Age: 160 - 210 CE) would be the most fitting equivalent. Pyrrhonism was very critical of the Aristotelian philosophical thought you are referencing.

I think in Jax's eyes he believes he is pointing towards the emptiness of self, however his interpretation of what the emptiness of self constitutes (and the way he presents the notion) is quite different from how Dzogchen or the Buddhadharma points it out. Jax merely points to the clarity of mind, the knower which lies prior to thought, and he then says that "you" as an individual are just a thought which passes by the knower... and that one's true identity is that of the knower, which is rigpa etc. That is Advaita Vedanta. It may also be a provisional step in the system of Dzogchen, but it is very, very far from the actuality of the definitive view of Dzogchen. So while his pointer may pass as okay in the eyes of neo-Advaita type views, it is a very basic and provisional pointer according to Dzogchen which hardly even begins to approach the definitive nature of mind or the emptiness of self.

"Definitive" meaning definitive in the context of the system, not an absolute truth... there are no absolute truths in Buddhism. Even the Four Noble Truths is merely a prescriptive methodology which self-deconstructs itself in the end.

And what SJ mentioned; there really are no universals when it comes down to it.

This discrepancy results from confusing provisional method with definitive view.

Most of yours are as well, which is probably why you have a subconscious vendetta against authority. I just did in the previous post where I compared and contrasted the view of Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and Jax in order to address Jax's unwarranted aspersions. Surely. Have you? Yes, 'pathology' is a medical term, and you are the only one who has evoked that term thus far. As for your disdain for what are considered deviations and inaccuracies in the eyes of Buddhism, I'm not sure what to tell you. The system is a system because it works and has principles which define it, if you throw those principles out the window and allow for any type of view you desire then the system ceases to be a system... which would defeat the purpose of having a system, no doubt. Again, your issues with these principles are symptoms and reflections of your own issues with tradition, structure, authority and it seems Buddhism in general.

If you see it that way. Okay. His view is quite good when it comes to traditions like Advaita Vedanta, though more precisely neo interpretations of Advaita. His view of Dzogchen, while complete with many bells and whistles in when it comes to terminology etc., is lacking. But you come across as one who would think he is saying something profound. I've made no claims about realizations, my friend.

Ditto.

The biggest issue is that this statement from Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is presented as a ploy so that Jax can then tout that he himself has 100% success rate with pointing out rigpa to his students. Yet the pertinent factor that goes unmentioned is that Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is talking about the definitive rigpa which ensues as a result of recognizing the definitive nature of mind. Jax on the other hand is talking about provisional 'rigpa' as the mere clarity of mind. Which means Jax's pompous testament to the failure of traditional lineages and the failure of the traditional methods of lamas, is complete bullsh*t. Any fool can point out the clarity of mind, however that isn't what Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and other lamas are calling "rigpa". What those Rinpoches are calling rigpa and what Jax thinks rigpa is, are two different things. Meaning; when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche states that very few people recognize rigpa, he is correct, and that is not a testament to the failure of the teachings in any way. Jax thinks neutral indeterminate awareness is rigpa, therefore of course it is going to baffle him when he misinterprets Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche as saying it is difficult to recognize neutral clarity (when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is saying nothing of the sort).

The voice of the degenerate age, perhaps.

Well, your first error is giving credence to anything Jax has to say.