Dharma Wheel on Dharma Wheel....

[gad rgyangs]

Fine, evade the question if you must.

sorry, was there a question?

Yes, put a little more politely I think it is; gad rgyangs, since you obviously don't practice Dzogchen why do you post exclusively in the Dzogchen forum? What is your tradition and who are you're teachers?

/magnus

OMG you couldn't write this stuff if you tried, no one would believe it. the comedy, the comedy!

[Pema Rigdzin]

what if you're a closed-minded petty intolerant self righteous fundamentalist and you practice dzogchen, what are you reborn as then?

So lemme get this straight... You engage us not in some neutral space where a multiplicity of views are espoused--but instead come directly to our specifically Dzogchen forum--and try to convince us that our beliefs, experience, and/or knowledge are wrong, and our vehement disagreement with you on this point makes us the "closed-minded, petty, intolerant, self-righteous, fundamentalists"? How does that work?

What's with the adversarial "us vs. them" rhetoric Pema? How does that work???

Jnana, if you think I'm the one with adversarial, "us vs them" rhetoric, then you've simply not been paying attention or you're being disingenuous.

[Pema Rigdzin]

But FWIW, I often get a funny vibe from this Dzogchen sub-forum too.

Yeah, me too. Just when I'm enjoying conversing productively with others practicing the same path that I am, things get interrupted by trolls whose only desire is to challenge the assertions of that path's teachings and otherwise sow discord.

[Jnana]

Jnana, if you think I'm the one with adversarial, "us vs them" rhetoric, then you've simply not been paying attention or you're being disingenuous.

Fair enough -- I haven't been following the shenanigans of the past few days all that closely. But I think we can do better to challenge discordant opinions than to try to stake out our own private ground here (or anywhere for that matter).

[Sönam]

he likes Dzogchen to be separated from what he calls "the causal vehicles"....

on that point ... and only on that point, one must considere that it's a possibility

Sönam

[AlexanderS]

What is egohood? Some state of evil of no return?

[Pema Rigdzin]

Fair enough -- I haven't been following the shenanigans of the past few days all that closely. But I think we can do better to challenge discordant opinions than to try to stake out our own private ground here (or anywhere for that matter).

The point of my comment wasn't to stake out any ground but merely to point out that gad rgyangs had it backwards: he was accusing those of us in this forum who practice Dzogchen of being closed-minded, intolerant, and self-righteous simply for maintaining our conviction in points of Dzogchen doctrine when he would rather have preferred we acquiesce to his heterodox views. So it was in fact he who was intolerant and self-righteous--he chose of his own free will to frequent a forum on Dzogchen and insist to its participators that if they don't bend to his opinions then they are closed-minded, intolerant, self-righteous people merely clinging to their "pet system," and whatever else he said at various times.

[gregkavarnos]

Fair enough -- I haven't been following the shenanigans of the past few days all that closely. But I think we can do better to challenge discordant opinions than to try to stake out our own private ground here (or anywhere for that matter).

Let's not forget that these are open and public forums and that means that we have to be open to questioning, debate and discussion with people that agree, diasagree and/or have no idea. See it as yet another opportunity to practice tolerance and patience. I am sure that everybody here has said their fair share of ignorant BS in the past so why do they expect others not to throw it around as well? You cannot (and should not) expect everybody to agree with everything you say. I think the mods have dealt quite well with a variety of individuals that come here merely to stir trouble. If you believe that somebody falls into this category then instead of continuously engaging them you can just report them and ignore them.

In the meantime, instead of arguing over whose sand pit this is why don't you try and help out people like this:

What is egohood? Some state of evil of no return?

that are actually honestly interested in answers and are getting ignored rather than continue the personal bickering?

[heart]

sorry, was there a question?

Yes, put a little more politely I think it is; gad rgyangs, since you obviously don't practice Dzogchen why do you post exclusively in the Dzogchen forum? What is your tradition and who are you're teachers?

/magnus

OMG you couldn't write this stuff if you tried, no one would believe it. the comedy, the comedy!

Please enlighten me, what is it you consider a comedy?

/magnus

[Malcolm]

I think the mods have dealt quite well with a variety of individuals that come here merely to stir trouble.

I doubt that Jax has come here for the purpose of causing trouble. I dont agree with how he discusses the teachings and his point of view seems perennialist -- he does not strike me as a "troublemaker" per se.

N

[Jinzang]

What is egohood? Some state of evil of no return?

The way the story ends is that Vajrakilaya incarnates to defeat Rudra and liberates him. So, yes, there is hope, even for egohood.

[Fa Dao]

Jacks,
I agree with Namdrol and do not think you are trying to be a troublemaker either. Nor do I doubt your obvious years of experience with all of this. Lastly I do not doubt your sincerity in wanting to try and help others with your understanding garnered from the experiences you have had. However, and I could be wrong, wouldnt be the first time, I am getting a strong whiff of "I" in all of your postings. Im just saying, something you might want to contemplate.

[Dechen Norbu]

This being a public space about a particular set of topics, there is the need that the administration implement rules for the benefit of us all. Beyond common netiquette, we have a ToS that each and every person must agree with before using the board.
It's very easy to let a forum turn into a conglomerate of threads filled with hogwash, superficiality, trivialities and all that stuff that only slightly remember Buddhadharma. If people come to a forum about Buddhadharma, they have certain expectations, the first being that what they'll find is related with Buddhadharma, not the wild propagation of everyone's pet fantasy about his personal Dharma.

A lot of people struggle to accept authority and I understand that. Nobody likes to be pushed around or see others being pushed around. We try to avoid that, but as you all we too have flaws. We are bound to make mistakes. We're no better than you in any way. Mods just have a role to play here, for free and sometimes without a simple word of appreciation.

We're mostly adults who know how to behave. Unfortunately there are always the few who don't and don't understand that their freedom ends when it starts stepping other people's toes. Sadly there's no way around it. For a public forum to work properly, rules are needed. Are there downsides to it? Of course. Not everyone agrees with the level of tightness/ looseness of moderation among other things.
Still, this forum is pretty much able to stay focused and the interaction between members is kept fluid and polite. People disagree with each other many times without violating the rules. Debate can be healthy.

However, I firmly believe we also have the obligating to protect newcomers- especially- from known frauds like Jax and others. If some people who stand for them could see the conduct of these fellows behind the scenes, especially when they get the boot, their benignity about their behavior would be swiftly smashed. Many times we deal with clearly unbalanced blokes that have the potential to harm the more inexperienced. We usually don't allow people like him to come here and try to propagate their distorted views about crucial matters, listening to no one, not allowing space for contradiction and risking misguiding others who may yet not be able to distinguish between gold and fool's gold just because they still didn't have the time to know how.

This topic too is just a piece of time wasted. Please stop bickering among each other. You can be civil among yourselves. I bet outside the virtual world you would be much more pleasant and careful. Mostly everyone involved in this thread is a good member, a nice person and are very much appreciated by us all.

I'll put this thread to rest now, if you don't mind. If anyone has suggestions, please feel free to make them as there's a space for such in this board.


Best wishes.

[Mr. G]

how is it that we--and not you--are the "closed-minded, petty, intolerant, self-righteous, fundamentalists"?

As a fairly casual visitor to the forums, I think such a characterization is actually not too far-off base as far as some of the posts here go.

reg,

Can you address specific posts/threads/moderation acts that you are referring to? We are all obviously open to improving this forum.

[Sönam]

I know everything is interrelated, but ... I've never seen so many spleets for the same thread (same discussion) ... as I'm basically not an intellectual and of course because I forget what was the discussion about, I throw in the towel


Sönam

[Mr. G]

Yeah, no big deal. It's better to not draw conclusions from the clique on an internet sub-forum. But FWIW, I often get a funny vibe from this Dzogchen sub-forum too.

But I think we can do better to challenge discordant opinions than to try to stake out our own private ground here (or anywhere for that matter)

What specifically Jnana? I think if you're referring to there not being an open forum for debate, we try to moderate to the best of our abilities. It can be a tough balance between deciding whether a member is being disruptive/trollish, or sincerely attempting their best to communicate their thoughts in what they think is in a coherent way. It's also a fine line when one has to moderate a forum and see a complete sh!t show in a discussion where it's a free-for-all, and putting every thread on lockdown. But as you know, we are open to suggestions.

[Mr. G]

I think the mods have dealt quite well with a variety of individuals that come here merely to stir trouble.

I doubt that Jax has come here for the purpose of causing trouble. I dont agree with how he discusses the teachings and his point of view seems perennialist -- he does not strike me as a "troublemaker" per se.

N

Namdrol, are you saying you think he should not have been banned? If so, do you have suggestions on how to best objectively qualify in the future whether a member should, or should not be banned? To me, his claims of accomplishing the result of gtum mo, lack of respect towards his own Dzogchen teachers, repeatedly openly discussing the specifics of inner practices involving channels, gazing, etc., and bizarre statements blending advaita, Dzogchen an Gnostic teachings had me label him as a disruptive troll. Was I too quick to act? Is there better criteria to be used in the future?

[gregkavarnos]

I doubt that Jax has come here for the purpose of causing trouble. I dont agree with how he discusses the teachings and his point of view seems perennialist -- he does not strike me as a "troublemaker" per se.

I was talking about how mods have dealt with trouble makers in general not Jax in particular. Personally I do not believe he came here to cause trouble but his manner of communicating his ideas apparently rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. But then again, so does mine!

[Sönam]

I think Jax had an agenda ...

[Malcolm]

I think the mods have dealt quite well with a variety of individuals that come here merely to stir trouble.

I doubt that Jax has come here for the purpose of causing trouble. I dont agree with how he discusses the teachings and his point of view seems perennialist -- he does not strike me as a "troublemaker" per se.

N

Namdrol, are you saying you think he should not have been banned? If so, do you have suggestions on how to best objectively qualify in the future whether a member should, or should not be banned? To me, his claims of accomplishing the result of gtum mo, lack of respect towards his own Dzogchen teachers, repeatedly openly discussing the specifics of inner practices involving channels, gazing, etc., and bizarre statements blending advaita, Dzogchen an Gnostic teachings had me label him as a disruptive troll. Was I too quick to act? Is there better criteria to be used in the future?

I am not going to second guess the admin's decisions.

However, what he said regarding Gnostic blah blah blah has been said by John Reynolds.

As far as lack of respect of his teachers goes, that is his problem, not ours.

As far as talking about the specifics of thögal openly, this is not the correct way -- but it was corrected.

We have many people who say strange things here. It is to be expected. I think the main thing that bothered people was that he does not care about lineage and that he has some odd ideas about transmission.

So, whether you choose to readmit him or not, I think that most of what you outline above is not really something we ought to ban people for.

Most of us here understand the right way. We also do not want a repeat of E-Sangha.

N