Jax's Dzogchen

[Jax]

Mumonkan Center ...

We offer a range of activities to enable our visitors to explore their inner world, their relationships to themselves, each other and the world at large.

We offer a selection of workshops, retreats and seminars. It could be a Dzogchen meditation retreat, a shiatsu weekend, a lecture on Quantum Consciousness or Satsang. Alternatively it could be a leather workshop, basket making, bread, wine or cheese making.

Sönam

Mumonkan hosted a retreat I gave in Spain. I have not and had no affiliation with them. However, they were super in how they managed the retreat.

[Jax]

asunthatneversets:

"Nothing is experienced, and there is no "awareness" perceiving experience. And pure primordial being is not an accurate definition or description of dharmakāya."

If that were true than you must be a potato...

Yes, semantics... perhaps you prefer: "experience is self-aware"

[Sönam]

Congratulations ... http://www.wayoflight.net/Testimonials.php

and with that I certainly better understand ... http://www.wayoflight.net/Teachings.php

Hope everything goes fine for you, and thank you to have tried ...

Sönam

[CapNCrunch]

This dogpile on Jax isn't helpful. While I share the apparent reservation about Jax if he is indeed the same Jackson Peterson I've noticed around the web (I didn't assume, in another thread I asked and i'm awaiting an answer) I'm much more interested in an actual refutation of what he's saying - not ad hominem attacks.

I'm NOT defending Jax - He can do that himself. I hope he does, so that understanding ensues - but for example, what do the experienced Dzogchenpas say about these assertions of Jax's??

This is wonderful! However you keep speaking from the perspective that there are some entities called individual beings. You haven't realized that we are not a "person" that has experiences, but rather the "person" is an experience arising in impersonal consciousness or Awareness. You are that changeless Dharmakaya Nature in which identities arise and dissolve like any other thought-construction. This is fully realized if one seriously engages in the dialectics of Madhyamaka. It also becomes self-clear when vipassana ripens into mahavipassana, where subject and object are both known to be non-dual. Actually the Buddha makes this all clear in the story of Bahiya, which I assume you are quite familiar. It's all right there. There is no suffering self, there only seems to be.

Breaking it down so that *I* may understand...

1) "You haven't realized that we are not a "person" that has experiences, but rather the "person" is an experience arising in impersonal consciousness or Awareness"

Is this true from the Dzogchen POV?

2) Same question : "You are that changeless Dharmakaya Nature in which identities arise and dissolve like any other thought-construction."

From the Dzogchen POV, how does the idea of being an individual at the center of one's own universe, while not falling into a solipsistic view as warned by Longchenpa when he talks about the magician and his illusions in distinguishing between the Dzogchen view of Mind & Appearances and differentiates from Mind only School etc. - stack up against statement's number 1 and 2??

Maybe for many of you, you don't have doubt and your understanding is clear enough that you can simply mock a guy like Jax - but for me, it's important to understand *where* he is wrong, if you're asserting he is.

Please help. Sincerely.

CapNCrunch

2)

[Sönam]

how then I've also found that ... http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=18171

Ok, will not go further ...

Sönam

[Sönam]

a very last one, because this one is great ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Way-of-Light/

Ok, good night, it's late in France
Sönam

[Mr. G]

a very last one, because this one is great ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Way-of-Light/

We will explore the teachings on the realization of the Divine Light as in ancient Christian, Sufi,Jewish Mysticism,Taoism, Buddhism,Dzogchen, Bon and any other authentic "Light" teachings.

[Sönam]

maybe it's time to moderate your self ...

Sönam

[Dronma]

The top secret product that can lead you to Enlightenment in this very life time!
You take a LARGE bowl in one hand (optionally, imagine it as a Kapala) and your mixer machine in the other (optionally, imagine it as a Vajra).
Put in the Kapala the following ingredients in the quantities you prefer:
Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Zen, Advaita, Christianity, Sufism, Judaism, Mysticism, Taoism and whatever else you have handy...
Mix them up powerfully with your Vajra and then serve with a flavour of Dalai Lama on the top!

This is the famous "Jax cooking recipe for instant Enlightenment"!!!!!!!
Results GUARANTEED! *

* At least, it is what the chef is claiming...

[asunthatneversets]

asunthatneversets:

"Nothing is experienced, and there is no "awareness" perceiving experience. And pure primordial being is not an accurate definition or description of dharmakāya."

If that were true than you must be a potato...

Yes, semantics... perhaps you prefer: "experience is self-aware"

Within self-emergent primordial gnosis,
there are no objects to be experienced,
There is nothing which has previously passed away,
Nor anything which will subsequently emerge,
Nor anything at all which currently appears.

There is no karma,
There are no latent karmic propensities,
There is no dimmed awareness,
There is no mind,
There is no psyche,
There is no insight,
There is no cyclic existence,
And there is no transcendence of misery -
It is not the case that even awareness itself exists. 

There is nothing whatsoever which manifests within primordial gnosis.

- excerpt from The Tantra Of The Wordless Secret


I'm a potato.

[saltspring]

I agree with Capn C. All the silly smilies make many of the posters seem foolish. Jax could be wrong on every point he makes, but he still comes out looking more mature than most posting against him.

[Dronma]

I agree with Capn C. All the silly smilies make many of the posters seem foolish. Jax could be wrong on every point he makes, but he still comes out looking more mature than most posting against him.

Dear saltspring, we are doing the secret practice "Liberation through HA HA HA" here.
If you have not the transmission for participating, please do not interfere....

[Jax]

Cap'N, we'll let the others pile on... But to give some insight to one of your questions: You are not a being in the center of your mandala or personal universe. You are center-less and borderless. A "center" does arise in consciousness (sem), a projection of mind, ego. Its a false center and is in a dualistic relationship with its dimension. Thigle Chenpo or Great Hyper-Sphere, contains the Totality... it is centerless and borderless. That is your Nature. Your most essential nature is the Dharmakaya, like centerless space, aware empty space. But this Emptiness is Luminous. That vividly alive luminosity is all phenomena. In this sense you are everything, and in fact in the non-dual state the experience is one of recognizing that you are all and everything. That's known as Oneness or the Non-Dual State. In Quantum Physics we have the concept of a Unified Field including all possible existents. You are that Unified Field that is permeated with what I call Quantum Intelligence, and is that field. Like the ocean and its waves... Kadag and Lhundrub. All manifestation is self-aware waves of Awareness. Knowing this is Gnosis or Rigpa. You will come to know this too!

[Mariusz]

1) "You haven't realized that we are not a "person" that has experiences, but rather the "person" is an experience arising in impersonal consciousness or Awareness"

Is this true from the Dzogchen POV?

2) Same question : "You are that changeless Dharmakaya Nature in which identities arise and dissolve like any other thought-construction."

From the Dzogchen POV, how does the idea of being an individual at the center of one's own universe, while not falling into a solipsistic view as warned by Longchenpa when he talks about the magician and his illusions in distinguishing between the Dzogchen view of Mind & Appearances and differentiates from Mind only School etc. - stack up against statement's number 1 and 2??

Just taking my notes from Longchen Rabjam, Tulku Thondup: "The Practice of Dzogchen", Snow Lion Publications, 2002, ISBN 1559391790, the terminology of Practice of Dzogchen according to Innermost Essence (Wylie. sNying thig) is:
The terminology of Dzogchen differs from Cittamatra because the primordial purity (Wyl. Ka-dak) of the Basis (Wyl. Gzhi) and the spontaneous accomplishment (Wyl. Lhun-Grub) of the Appearances of the Basis (Wyl. Gzhi-sNang) transcend the Mind (Wyl. Sems) and its mental events including the duality between the apprehender and the apprehended. The Mind (Wyl. Sems) is associated only with the Eight Consciousnesses, which according to Cittamatra are the allbasic consciousness (Alaya Vijnana), the direct consciousness and the six consciousnesses of senses. According to terminology of Dzogchen this Mind (Wyl. Sems) arises only during the last third Unenlightenment (Wyl. Ma-Rig-pa) which took place only after not spontaneously accomplishing (Wyl. Lhun-Grub) the Appearances of the Basis (Wyl. Gzhi-sNang) because of the second Unenlightenment (Wyl. Ma-Rig-pa) and only after not recognizing the primordial purity (Wyl. Ka-dak) because of the first Unenlightenment (Wyl. Ma-Rig-pa).

One should consider also what is Yogacara without interpretation as this "Mind only School". Here you use the valid/logic cognition:
IN PRAISE OF DHARMADHĀTU; ithaca, new york; Nāgārjuna and the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje; Translated and introduced by Karl Brunnhölzl, p.103:
Likewise, once the adventitious stains—or, more personally speaking, we as sentient
beings—have dissolved, it is a moot question whether “our” dharmadhātu (or
buddha nature) and “all the rest” of the dharmadhātu (or the buddha natures
of all Buddhas) are the same or different, since what is called a sentient being
is nothing but the very mistakenness that makes up such a distinction.

[Dronma]

Norbu was my root Guru. I don't agree with all his of priorities. Sorry, that's my free choice.

Since nobody here asked you if you agree or not with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, why do you feel the need to declare publicly your objections about his teachings, the dance of Vajra, Dzogchen Community, Santi Maha Sangha etc. etc. etc. ?
So, if your motivation is not to degrade Rinpoche and the work of his whole life... then what is it???
Enlighten us?
Fishing disciples?
What?

[Lotus_Bitch]

This dogpile on Jax isn't helpful. While I share the apparent reservation about Jax if he is indeed the same Jackson Peterson I've noticed around the web (I didn't assume, in another thread I asked and i'm awaiting an answer) I'm much more interested in an actual refutation of what he's saying - not ad hominem attacks.

I'm NOT defending Jax - He can do that himself. I hope he does, so that understanding ensues - but for example, what do the experienced Dzogchenpas say about these assertions of Jax's??

This is wonderful! However you keep speaking from the perspective that there are some entities called individual beings. You haven't realized that we are not a "person" that has experiences, but rather the "person" is an experience arising in impersonal consciousness or Awareness. You are that changeless Dharmakaya Nature in which identities arise and dissolve like any other thought-construction. This is fully realized if one seriously engages in the dialectics of Madhyamaka. It also becomes self-clear when vipassana ripens into mahavipassana, where subject and object are both known to be non-dual. Actually the Buddha makes this all clear in the story of Bahiya, which I assume you are quite familiar. It's all right there. There is no suffering self, there only seems to be.

Breaking it down so that *I* may understand...

1) "You haven't realized that we are not a "person" that has experiences, but rather the "person" is an experience arising in impersonal consciousness or Awareness"

Is this true from the Dzogchen POV?

2) Same question : "You are that changeless Dharmakaya Nature in which identities arise and dissolve like any other thought-construction."

From the Dzogchen POV, how does the idea of being an individual at the center of one's own universe, while not falling into a solipsistic view as warned by Longchenpa when he talks about the magician and his illusions in distinguishing between the Dzogchen view of Mind & Appearances and differentiates from Mind only School etc. - stack up against statement's number 1 and 2??

Maybe for many of you, you don't have doubt and your understanding is clear enough that you can simply mock a guy like Jax - but for me, it's important to understand *where* he is wrong, if you're asserting he is.

Please help. Sincerely.

CapNCrunch

2)

I'm not a Dzogchenpa, but I do know enough of the Buddhas teachings to know that what he says is not in accord with right view of Buddhism.

Jax's posts are actually no different to Advaita Vedanta, when he asserts that experiences arise and dissolve into "Awareness." This is the experience of the Atman-Brahman of Advaita Vedanta. This is not the realization of anatta (no-self) in Buddhism.

From the Bahiya Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html:

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

With the realization of anatta: There is only action, with no inherent "actor" separate from the action. In seeing, no seer; in hearing, no hearer; in thinking, no thinker, etc. There is no longer the reification of a subjective self that is independent, eternal, or unchanging in relation to objects. Therefore, it is realized that from the beginning, there was never a separate subject for there to be a "union" of objects (as related to the experience of the Atman-Brahman or non-dual "awareness": Where there is a notion of a "unification" of subject/object) With the realization of anatta, there is no longer a notion of a "mirror" (or "awareness") that is "reflecting."

[gad rgyangs]

Jax's posts are actually no different to Advaita Vedanta, when he asserts that experiences arise and dissolve into "Awareness." This is the experience of the Atman-Brahman of Advaita Vedanta. This is not the realization of anatta (no-self) in Buddhism.

well it depends what you are meaning by or translating by "awareness". If it is being used as a translation for rigpa, then, yes, I'm afraid it is the Dzoghchen view. It is clear from the texts that the terms rigpa, ye shes (wisdom), and basis/ground (gzhi), are equivalent*, and they are also our real nature (Norbu sez). There is a long recent thread about whether ignorance (ma rig pa) is part of the display of the ground (gzhi snang) and it turns out it is. Every phenomena is the display of the basis. period. there is the basis, and there are appearances of the basis. thats it. thats all she wrote. the fat lady sang. end of story. the basis/yeshes/rigpa/your-real-nature is not a thing, it is the ground beyond being and non-being (ka dag) which, due to its innate energy (thugs rje), manifests the display (lhun grub). That display includes all phenomena of samsara and nirvana (it sez everyfreakinwhere in the texts) "It does not exist as anything at all, yet can arise as anything at all" (Longchenpa). So, experiences arise and dissolve into rigpa/yeshes/basis/yourrealnature, because everything arises and dissolves into rigpa. yes, this is the dzogchen view, like it or not. if thats what advaita sez too (and i don't know enough about it to say), then, guess what: they are talking about the same thing. (oh no! quick! call the spanish inquisition!). you can't just bring all the baggage of the causal vehicles to dzogchen, you will miss it completely. even madhyamaka needed to become "great madhyamaka" in Dudjom Rinpoche's Big Red Book, because Dzogchen goes beyond madhyamaka.

*rig pa gcig pu chos rnams kun gyi gzhi/ (rigpa alone is the ground of all phenomena)
rang byung ye shes rtsa ba gcig tu bstan/ (self arising wisdom is the single root, it is taught)
-Longchenpa, gnas lugs mdzod pg49 of translation

[xabir]

I'm not a Dzogchenpa, but I do know enough of the Buddhas teachings to know that what he says is not in accord with right view of Buddhism.

Jax's posts are actually no different to Advaita Vedanta, when he asserts that experiences arise and dissolve into "Awareness." This is the experience of the Atman-Brahman of Advaita Vedanta. This is not the realization of anatta (no-self) in Buddhism.

From the Bahiya Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html:

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

With the realization of anatta: There is only action, with no inherent "actor" separate from the action. In seeing, no seer; in hearing, no hearer; in thinking, no thinker, etc. There is no longer the reification of a subjective self that is independent, eternal, or unchanging in relation to objects. Therefore, it is realized that from the beginning, there was never a separate subject for there to be a "union" of objects (as related to the experience of the Atman-Brahman or non-dual "awareness": Where there is a notion of a "unification" of subject/object) With the realization of anatta, there is no longer a notion of a "mirror" (or "awareness") that is "reflecting."

What is you said is true... and I don't mean disrespect.

Session Start: Wednesday, April 22, 2009

(5:28 PM) AEN: hi
(5:29 PM) AEN: btw i was searching about jax in e-sangha and found they were suggesting that he is not an authorised teacher of dzogchen
Someone asked Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche:

"A person called Jackson Peterson (ejackpete@aol.com), has a group called DzogchenPractice on Yahoo Groups. He claim to have permission from you to teach Semde,is this true?
He also claim to be able to give direct introduction by means of e-mail. For me this seem highly unlikely, could you please comment on this?"

I then received the following answer:

"Dear Magnus,

Thanks for your info. I'll inform him that he is going
wrong direction.

With many Tashu Delegs NN.

(5:31 PM) Thusness: I was going to ask about that....coz i saw his dzogchen website
and obviously it is not about dzogchen
coz the understanding of emptiness isn't there
(5:31 PM) AEN: oic..

(5:34 PM) AEN: jax say in dzogchen its not important to deal with karmic tendencies: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DzogchenP ... ssage/9248
(5:35 PM) AEN: btw u tink mikael shld search for someone who is a qualified teacher in dzogchen?
(5:35 PM) Thusness: i got to go now.
(5:35 PM) AEN: ok
(5:35 PM) Thusness: i think michael can learn from him something
(5:35 PM) AEN: icic..
(5:35 PM) Thusness: there are certain things that are not taught in dzogchen too.
(5:36 PM) Thusness: which obviously he has accessed to.
(5:36 PM) AEN: what are they
(5:37 PM) Thusness: anyway at present stage, till at least stage 4, he should have a lot to contribute

(7:23 PM) Thusness: back~
(7:25 PM) AEN: oic.. adam west said: "As we progress, we will see further evidence of the primacy and continuity of awareness when we sleep. When we awaken, we will be conscious 24 hours a day. Awareness sees us sleep; sees us snore; sees the dream states; sees the dreamless state. This is because the phenomena of ‘you’ takes place in awareness."

(7:28 PM) Thusness: Not bad.
(7:28 PM) Thusness: Adam and Jax are more towards Advaita

[xabir]

well it depends what you are meaning by or translating by "awareness". If it is being used as a translation for rigpa, then, yes, I'm afraid it is the Dzoghchen view. It is clear from the texts that the terms rigpa, ye shes (wisdom), and basis/ground (gzhi), are equivalent*, and they are also our real nature (Norbu sez). There is a long recent thread about whether ignorance (ma rig pa) is part of the display of the ground (gzhi snang) and it turns out it is. Every phenomena is the display of the basis. period. there is the basis, and there are appearances of the basis. thats it. thats all she wrote. the fat lady sang. end of story. the basis/yeshes/rigpa/your-real-nature is not a thing, it is the ground beyond being and non-being (ka dag) which, due to its innate energy (thugs rje), manifests the display (lhun grub). That display includes all phenomena of samsara and nirvana (it sez everyfreakinwhere in the texts) "It does not exist as anything at all, yet can arise as anything at all" (Longchenpa). So, experiences arise and dissolve into rigpa/yeshes/basis/yourrealnature, because everything arises and dissolves into rigpa. yes, this is the dzogchen view, like it or not. if thats what advaita sez too (and i don't know enough about it to say), then, guess what: they are talking about the same thing. (oh no! quick! call the spanish inquisition!). you can't just bring all the baggage of the causal vehicles to dzogchen, you will miss it completely. even madhyamaka needed to become "great madhyamaka" in Dudjom Rinpoche's Big Red Book, because Dzogchen goes beyond madhyamaka.

*rig pa gcig pu chos rnams kun gyi gzhi/ (rigpa alone is the ground of all phenomena)
rang byung ye shes rtsa ba gcig tu bstan/ (self arising wisdom is the single root, it is taught)
-Longchenpa, gnas lugs mdzod pg49 of translation

The difference is that Advaita can realize the one taste of luminosity in everything (subsuming everything as 'Awareness' or 'expressions of Awareness'), but the one taste of Mahamudra and Dzogchen is the one taste of the inseperability of luminosity and emptiness and not just the luminous clarity aspect reified into a substantial essence/Absolute/Brahman.

In other words, as 3rd Karmapa points out, “All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind. Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever.”


2005:

[22:07] <Thusness> what buddha taught is about emptiness
[22:07] <Thusness> not the 'self' luminosity.
[22:08] <Thusness> coz there is already so much being written in the hindu vedas.

....

[19:25] <Thusness> buddha did not come to tell only about the luminosity aspect of pure awareness.
[19:25] <Thusness> this has already been expressed in vedas.
[19:25] <Thusness> but it becomes Self.
[19:25] <Thusness> the ultimate controller
[19:26] <Thusness> the deathless
[19:26] <Thusness> the supreme..etc
[19:26] <Thusness> this is the problem.
[19:26] <Thusness> this is not the ultimate nature of Pure Awareness.
[19:27] <Thusness> for full enlightenment to take place, experience the clarity and emptiness. That's all.

[gad rgyangs]

The difference is that Advaita can realize the one taste of luminosity in everything (subsuming everything as 'Awareness' or 'expressions of Awareness'), but the one taste of Mahamudra and Dzogchen is the one taste of the inseperability of luminosity and emptiness and not just the luminous clarity aspect reified into a substantial essence/Absolute/Brahman.

so why are ppl accusing Jax of being a crypto-vedantin? i'm sure he would agree with the above.

PS whats with the chat logs? am i missing something?