Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
Rudra wrote:There seems to be a belief that by refining one's intellectual understanding of Dzogchen terminology that one can build a stairway to Rigpa through conceptual grasping.
Rudra wrote:Vigorous Dzogchen debate is encouraged and taught in the Bon tradition.
Debate is just conceptual grasping itself.
3. Accounts will not be deleted upon request / One account per member
Sometimes if people are not happy with their experience at a forum and wish to leave, they ask to have their account deleted, along with all their posts. Member accounts will not be deleted upon request, but they can be deactivated. The member's posts will not be deleted upon request because this would mess up the continuity of any threads in which they were involved in, and therefore cause inconvenience to other members. Members may only have one account. Additionally the creation of an account commonly known as a "sock puppet" account (and/or an account where the true [IP address] identity has been concealed in some fashion for the purpose of deceit) will result in an immediate permanent ban.
I am a yogi first, so I speak from experiential insight and clarity
Tara wrote:Jax/Shenpen/Rudra
Please read the Terms of Service. It clearly states the following:3. Accounts will not be deleted upon request / One account per member
Sometimes if people are not happy with their experience at a forum and wish to leave, they ask to have their account deleted, along with all their posts. Member accounts will not be deleted upon request, but they can be deactivated. The member's posts will not be deleted upon request because this would mess up the continuity of any threads in which they were involved in, and therefore cause inconvenience to other members. Members may only have one account. Additionally the creation of an account commonly known as a "sock puppet" account (and/or an account where the true [IP address] identity has been concealed in some fashion for the purpose of deceit) will result in an immediate permanent ban.
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3591
Tara, I have only had one account "jax". Then I was banned. Then I created a new account because I couldn't post... See? I have no problem according with all the rules.
You are no different to anyone else in this respect and therefore there is no option other than to ban you again and this action has nothing to do with censorship it is about abiding by the rules of Dharma Wheel.
Regards,
Jacks wrote:Tara wrote:Jax/Shenpen/Rudra
Please read the Terms of Service. It clearly states the following:3. Accounts will not be deleted upon request / One account per member
Sometimes if people are not happy with their experience at a forum and wish to leave, they ask to have their account deleted, along with all their posts. Member accounts will not be deleted upon request, but they can be deactivated. The member's posts will not be deleted upon request because this would mess up the continuity of any threads in which they were involved in, and therefore cause inconvenience to other members. Members may only have one account. Additionally the creation of an account commonly known as a "sock puppet" account (and/or an account where the true [IP address] identity has been concealed in some fashion for the purpose of deceit) will result in an immediate permanent ban.
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3591
I have only ever had one account... What are you talking about? This the Taliban abuse of power I am talking about ... Perfect example!
Tara, I have only had one account "jax". Then I was banned. Then I created a new account because I couldn't post... See? I have no problem according with all the rules.
You are no different to anyone else in this respect and therefore there is no option other than to ban you again and this action has nothing to do with censorship it is about abiding by the rules of Dharma Wheel.
Regards,
Jinzang wrote:Debate is just conceptual grasping itself.
Then spending time on forums is a waste, yes?

Jacks wrote:Debate has the function of bringing out unsupported notions that cant survive the light of day. More importantly, great debate can be lots of fun!
Jinzang wrote:I am a yogi first, so I speak from experiential insight and clarity
Might want to work on your humility.
It's not boasting... It's just how it is... Is that not acceptle?
Jinzang wrote:It's not boasting... It's just how it is... Is that not acceptle?
In Tibetan Buddhism it's considered quite unseemly for a practitioner to claim to be enlightened. Ask any lama, even a great one, if they are enlightened and they will say, "I am just an ordinary monk." Your tradition may be different. I know that in Sanbo Kyodan they used to make a great fuss over practitioners who had gotten kensho. If your ideas express the clarity and insight that comes from rigpa, there is no need to say so, it should be obvious. And if not, trying to bolster your argument by saying so is rather feeble.
Namdrol wrote:Jacks wrote:Debate has the function of bringing out unsupported notions that cant survive the light of day. More importantly, great debate can be lots of fun!
Well for example, your notion that Dzogchen is an affirming negation turns out to be completely unsupported by the primary texts of the system. But that does not require debate, that merely requires reading the texts themselves.
In general, we find that in many Dzogchen texts the twin terms dgag and sgrub are used -- dgag means to refute, sgrub means to prove. The essence of debate is refutation and proof, rejecting one point of view and accepting another point of view. But in reality, as Rongzom Chozang points out, the state of Dzogchen is beyond both refutation and proof. This is why I continue to insist that it is waste of time to debate about Dzogchen.
Namdrol wrote:Jacks wrote:Debate has the function of bringing out unsupported notions that cant survive the light of day. More importantly, great debate can be lots of fun!
Well for example, your notion that Dzogchen is an affirming negation turns out to be completely unsupported by the primary texts of the system. But that does not require debate, that merely requires reading the texts themselves.
In general, we find that in many Dzogchen texts the twin terms dgag and sgrub are used -- dgag means to refute, sgrub means to prove. The essence of debate is refutation and proof, rejecting on point of view and accepting another point of view. But in reality, as Rongzom Chozang points out, the state of Dzogchen is beyond both refutation and proof. This is why I continue to insist that it is waste of time to debate about Dzogchen.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests