Jax's Dzogchen

[Josef]

I think its become clear that our friend Jax is in violation of those pesky ToS at this point.

He is clearly disruptive (ToS 2), so much so that the mods had to move his posts in to a consolidated thread.

I consider all of his posts to be spam (ToS 6), even though he isnt posting links he is definitely aggressively advertising.

Also, it might be time to add , Posing as a Teacher with no Credentials to do so to the ToS. Frankly, I can think of few things worse to do on a Buddhist forum than pretend to be what you are not in the way that he does.

Continuing the discussion with him just feeds his trip and is probably doing even more harm to him.

[xabir]

How Anatta leads to the freedom from extreme views of eternalist (self/tathagata/etc exists unchangingly) and nihilism (self/tathagata/etc stops existing after death):

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... -self.html

...Here, the Buddha clarifies:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."...

And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above:

As Chandrakirti states:

"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."

And Padmasambhava states:

"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.

As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."

And Nagarjuna states:

“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?”

Notice that the Buddha said that you cannot find the self of the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas (aggregations): there is no Tathagata to be pinned down as a form-based or a formless Truth or Reality. This means that the so called 'self' actually cannot be found, located or pinned down as a reality just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently (independently, unchangingly) existing (apart or within the conglomerate of everchanging phenomena such as clouds, lightning, wind, rain, etc) - the label 'self' is merely a convention for mind, which is a process of self-luminous (having the quality of luminous clarity, knowing, cognizance) but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'self' can be found within nor apart from them.

And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we say assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions.

...

[Norwegian]

In a sense, posting spam links to luxury handbags is less of an offense than it is to distort the Dharma, something that should be considered on a forum such as this.

All of this is only depressing really.

[Josef]

All of this is only depressing really.

I definitely got a chuckle out of this.
Completely agree.

[gregkavarnos]

Let's not get carried away people. Posters are free to express their view and dissent with teachers (theirs and others). Jax has provided some textual/canonical support for his view and when asked who his teachers are supplied a list (even if some then accused him of name-dropping, damned if you do...).

Prove his view wrong or point out the inconsistencies in his arguments if you feel thay are mistaken.

I don't think it is correct to ban somebody just because you do not agree with their view.

If what he is espousing is neo-advaita then show why it is. If it is a-dharmic then prove it through providing Dharmic references. And how is he spamming advertising? Somebody else pointed out/brought up his true identity and pointed people towards his sites and posts on other forums.

Let's tone down the lynch mob mentality a tone or two people. Let's look at our own minds for a second.

[alpha]

Let's not get carried away people. Posters are free to express their view and dissent with teachers (theirs and others). Jax has provided some textual/canonical support for his view and when asked who his teachers are supplied a list (even if some then accused him of name-dropping, damned if you do...).

Prove his view wrong or point out the inconsistencies in his arguments if you feel thay are mistaken.

I don't think it is correct to ban somebody just because you do not agree with their view.

If what he is espousing is neo-advaita then show why it is. If it is a-dharmic then prove it through providing Dharmic references. And how is he spamming advertising? Somebody else pointed out/brought up his true identity and pointed people towards his sites and posts on other forums.

Let's tone down the lynch mob mentality a tone or two people. Let's look at our own minds for a second.

I totally agree.

I wonder what Namdrol makes of all this.Just curious.

[Virgo]

Let's not get carried away people. Posters are free to express their view

Not in our postmodern relativistic culture, obviously.

[Tara]

Let's not get carried away people. Posters are free to express their view and dissent with teachers (theirs and others). Jax has provided some textual/canonical support for his view and when asked who his teachers are supplied a list (even if some then accused him of name-dropping, damned if you do...).

Prove his view wrong or point out the inconsistencies in his arguments if you feel thay are mistaken.

I don't think it is correct to ban somebody just because you do not agree with their view.

If what he is espousing is neo-advaita then show why it is. If it is a-dharmic then prove it through providing Dharmic references. And how is he spamming advertising? Somebody else pointed out/brought up his true identity and pointed people towards his sites and posts on other forums.

Let's tone down the lynch mob mentality a tone or two people. Let's look at our own minds for a second.

Reminder to members

... If you find anything objectionable, let the admin or mods know using the Report Post function and we'll look into it. ...

from section #1 of the Terms of Service

Regards,

[Jikan]

Let's not get carried away people. Posters are free to express their view

Not in our postmodern relativistic culture, obviously.

Define your terms. Relativism means that all positions are equally valid because no absolutes are admissible, yet you're claiming relativism is somehow an absolute?

[Virgo]

Let's not get carried away people. Posters are free to express their view

Not in our postmodern relativistic culture, obviously.

Define your terms. Relativism means that all positions are equally valid because no absolutes are admissible, yet you're claiming relativism is somehow an absolute?

When on earth did I claim that Jikan?

Kevin

[Anders]

Let's not get carried away people. Posters are free to express their view and dissent with teachers (theirs and others). Jax has provided some textual/canonical support for his view and when asked who his teachers are supplied a list (even if some then accused him of name-dropping, damned if you do...).

Prove his view wrong or point out the inconsistencies in his arguments if you feel thay are mistaken.

I don't think it is correct to ban somebody just because you do not agree with their view.

If what he is espousing is neo-advaita then show why it is. If it is a-dharmic then prove it through providing Dharmic references. And how is he spamming advertising? Somebody else pointed out/brought up his true identity and pointed people towards his sites and posts on other forums.

Let's tone down the lynch mob mentality a tone or two people. Let's look at our own minds for a second.

Nice one, Greg.

[asunthatneversets]

Mr. potato head,

Quoting texts like a parrot without direct experience have caused your feathers to be colored by the extremes of nihilism. That text was designed to smash the conceptual frameworks of the minds efforts at reification. This is the same purpose of the Prajnaparamita Sutras. I will call you by your new name: Mr. Parrot Potato Head.

I assume this is directed towards me. Your compensation for your own insecurity, projected as an authority of some type has imputed the notion of me proposing a nihilistic view so you can maintain an image of yourself. My view is in no way nihilistic, but I certainly believe the view you expound is more akin to advaita(as do others), contrary to your self appointed expertise on dzogchen you ignorantly propagate. It is unfortunate the wall you have built up around yourself to hide this insecurity won't allow you to listen to others and/or take constructive criticism/critique.

[mzaur]

What's with the lynch mob? Is this how a Buddha would act? You're only perpetuating your karmic tendencies by acting with attachment and aversion. I agree with Xabir that Jax's realization is of One Mind and lacks insight of non-inherency, but the lack of respectful discourse on here is a bit appalling.

[asunthatneversets]

What's with the lynch mob? Is this how a Buddha would act? You're only perpetuating your karmic tendencies by acting with attachment and aversion. I agree with Xabir that Jax's realization is of One Mind and lacks insight of non-inherency, but the lack of respectful discourse on here is a bit appalling.

Aren't you doing the same with your aversion to the lynch mob? The moment any interaction takes place attachment and aversion are automatically there.

But yes I agree with you I suppose we could all conduct ourselves in a better manner, you are right.

[gad rgyangs]

everybodys itching to string jax up because hes using slightly different terminology to point to the ineffable ground? seriously?

[Mr. G]

everybodys itching to string jax up because hes using slightly different terminology to point to the ineffable ground? seriously?

It's more so that he's a self appointed Dzogchen/Advaita teacher who criticizes other teachers with no good reason. Real Dzogchen master's just don't do that. Namkhai Norbu, Kunang Dechen Lingpa, etc, didn't bad mouth each other - they just didn't sink to that level - it's unthinkable because it's so silly and absurd. Why would a real Dzogchen teacher feel the need to do so?

And let's not get carried away and decisively state that what Jax states is the equivalent to what is being pointed out in Dzogchen....or even Advaita as he hasn't shown any substance for his statements. This is also not withstanding some of his crude personal remarks regarding other members which further buries his so called "realization" even deeper in the hole. Just because I can copy and paste Dzogchen texts here doesn't say anything about my understanding of Dzogchen, or lack thereof. However, it's the typical schtick one sees on internet forums where just because we can throw around quotes from Longchenpa or Nisargadatta Maharaj, people think that actually means something.

[Virgo]

It's more so that he's a self appointed Dzogchen/Advaita teacher who criticizes other teachers with no good reason.

So people should call him out on that in their posts. Address it with substance.

Kevin

[Mr. G]

It's more so that he's a self appointed Dzogchen/Advaita teacher who criticizes other teachers with no good reason.

So people should call him out on that in their posts. Address it with substance.

Kevin

People have been. But if a wall won't listen it doesn't matter how much shouting you do.

[gregkavarnos]

So hang a poster on it or paint it a different colour!

[Jax]

Thoroughly enjoyed this thread. The one's exhibiting the greatest vitriol are those whose personal experience is the most shallow, depending only on teachings and books. Please debate any of my positions, I am completely open to that sort of dialectic, but please bring more to the table than quotes from others mouths and pens. Speak from integrity, the integrity that comes from knowing from personal experiential insight. I can sit with yogis of many traditions and find common ground. We see from the same eye. The seeing is not based on a conceptual view. Quoting Hinayana views doesn't help. The absence of self doesn't nullify the reality of Samantabhadra and the Kunje Gyalpo, the changeless nature. Samantabhadra is embodying as ordinary self in order to play in the sport of Buddhas. This is known in Gnosis. The self is the Dharmakaya without the least separation. Perhaps many have not studied the Uttara Tantra, known as the "Changeless Nature" Dzogchen is much closer to non-dual Shaivism than many suspect. Dzogchen is not Buddhist. Especially not Bon Dzogchen. The Bon had to kiss-ass to the Buddhists in order not to be completely banned, hence the Buddhist-like interpolations. The dissolution of the skandhas is only the dissolution of a projection of mind. Who is the projector when the dream of self, constructed of the five skanndhas is no more? Who is this Kunje Gyalpo that manifests a mandala of tsal and rolpa? Is it not the Dharmakaya King? Dzogchen is NOT the view of Madhyamaka, as Dzogchen is a "confirming negation" the confirmation is the Being of Rigpa. Dzogchen was criticized by the Sarma schools for this reason and was criticized as not even being Buddhist. They were right, Dzogchen is not "Buddhist". The effort to attack me personally is only due to the inability to argue against my polemics effectively. But there are several here that have some pretty strong personality issues going on... Or so it seems. Let's call the Dharma police and get Jax banned, then we can settle back and just remain in our bubbles of self-righteousness until the next Jax comes along... yea!