Jax's Dzogchen

[Jax]

Padma there is no transmission from one to another. It's an illusion. The Wisdom is already you, within you. Nothing is needed from "outside". You are already perfect.

[Dronma]

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.

I agree with Mr. G..
Moreover, I thank the moderators for opening this new tread and removing the whole trash in here.
Whoever likes to communicate with Jax and his blooming recipe can come and post in his personal thread. What an honour!

Then an answer to the people who called us "lynch mob". I was also in that category, that's why I am replying.
When I read Jax's first post here 3 days ago, I was quite sure that something was wrong with this guy.
Following the posts one after the other, that intuition was stronger and stronger.
At the end, the truth was worst than what I had first imagined.
Sometimes, compassion can take strange forms.
The difference in between aversion and wrathful activity lies in the secret motivation of a person.
Surely, my motivation was not to harm him. And my semi-wrathful little activity did not harm him at all...
In the contrary, I feel that Mr Jackson Peterson had the very good karma to meet here a few people who had the intention to wake him up from his powerful illusion.

Good luck, Mr Jackson.
May you purify all your delusions and obtain the Total Liberation before me!

[Lotus_Bitch]

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

No, it's not just because he's "using slightly different terminology to point to the ineffable ground." It's the way he's describing his version of rigpa which is the problem. The way he is describing it, is really no different than the experience of the Atman-Brahman of Advaita Vedanta.

I'm suggesting to you from one person to another and not like I'm trying to talk down to you or anything: You should not only study, but experience for yourself why Shakyamuni Buddha taught No-Self in contrast to the Self of Hinduism. You should really look into the Vedas and and the writings of Sri Adi Sankaracharya and the modern Vedantists like Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Sri Ramana Maharshi. There you should compare and contrast the meaning of Brahman with the teachings of Buddhism. Of course these texts will also help you to experientially understand the "I AM" phase and the experience of Non-Dual Awareness/One Mind/Brahman.

You shouldn't look down on Hinayana either, just because you're studying Dzogchen. Hinayana is the 'base' for understanding the higher teachings of Buddhism. Without the complete understanding of why Buddha taught Right View: You won't be able to clearly distinguish what is what and understand why dependent origination is 'the viewless view.'

[Dronma]

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

Exactly!


PS. To Mr Jackson Peterson: You use a lot the word Gnosis which is Greek, and obviously you do not understand the meaning.
Many modern Tibetanologist scholars do the same mistake. Maybe because it sounds exotic to their ears and the rest of the people do not understand a thing!
I am born Greek and I have studied for many years ancient Greek language too.
So, Gnosis = knowledge - mental knowledge - external knowledge.
Sophia = wisdom - inner wisdom.
OK?

[Jax]

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

Exactly!


PS. To Mr Jackson Peterson: You use a lot the word Gnosis which is Greek, and obviously you do not understand the meaning.
Many modern Tibetanologist scholars do the same mistake. Maybe because it sounds exotic to their ears and the rest of the people do not understand a thing!
I am born Greek and I have studied for many years ancient Greek language too.
So, Gnosis = knowledge - mental knowledge - external knowledge.
Sophia = wisdom - inner wisdom.
OK?

Dear Dronma,

I am glad you are Greek... and you also understand the meaning of Nous... right? There is common usage in English for Gnosis, it implies a mystical revelation. It is directly related to Theosis in process. Dzogchen is a type of "theosis" where the divinity is the Dharmakaya. In Tibetan the concept is conveyed by the term "rulog" or reversing into the Basis. But thanks for the information... we just don't use "Sophia" in English.

[asunthatneversets]

Padma there is no transmission from one to another. It's an illusion. The Wisdom is already you, within you. Nothing is needed from "outside". You are already perfect.

Though it is ultimately illusory, the transmission is the pointing out and the subsequent discovery of this innate aspect. So sometimes a push is needed from the "outside". Telling someone they are already perfect can again be misinterpreted as advocating complete non-action. Granted the action is ultimately illusory, but it's only illusory from the vantage point of the natural state. Non-action is also the route, but done skillfully. The natural state is not causally attained in any way or by anyone, yet the path must be walked, otherwise one remains in delusion which causes suffering, no matter how illusory it is, it appears real.

[gregkavarnos]

I am glad you are Greek... and you also understand the meaning of Nous... right? There is common usage in English for Gnosis, it implies a mystical revelation. It is directly related to Theosis in process. Dzogchen is a type of "theosis" where the divinity is the Dharmakaya. In Tibetan the concept is conveyed by the term "rulog" or reversing into the Basis. But thanks for the information... we just don't use "Sophia" in English.

Nous is just conceptualisng mind. Theosis means "to make divine". Well, actually, "to make into God'. Sophia is used constantly in "English": theosophy, philosophy, sophistry, etc...

Dzogchen is not theosis because Dzogchen is not about making anything into anything.

PS I am also Greek

[Mr. G]

k... and you also understand the meaning of Nous... right? There is common usage in English for Gnosis, it implies a mystical revelation. It is directly related to Theosis in process. Dzogchen is a type of "theosis" where the divinity is the Dharmakaya. In Tibetan the concept is conveyed by the term "rulog" or reversing into the Basis. But thanks for the information... we just don't use "Sophia" in English.

By knowledge, we mean that you know what is being discussed. No need to gum up the works with fancy words like gnosis. In the beginning you need to acquire intellectual data. Then you need to apply it. This is all part of "rigpa".

If you say that rigpa is only a "gnosis" than this makes things more complicated --it means in order to have that knowledge you must already be awakened. But this is not the case. Rigpa is the knowledge you have that allows you to wake up. Rigpa is a complicated word in Dzogchen texts, and has different meanings in different contexts, but generally it just means knowledge, which in English is the antonym of ignorance (ma rig pa). Conceptual knowledge is inlcuded under the general definition of vidyā, this is a poorly understood point.

N

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4310&p=70012#p50804

[Dronma]

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

Exactly!


PS. To Mr Jackson Peterson: You use a lot the word Gnosis which is Greek, and obviously you do not understand the meaning.
Many modern Tibetanologist scholars do the same mistake. Maybe because it sounds exotic to their ears and the rest of the people do not understand a thing!
I am born Greek and I have studied for many years ancient Greek language too.
So, Gnosis = knowledge - mental knowledge - external knowledge.
Sophia = wisdom - inner wisdom.
OK?

Dear Dronma,

I am glad you are Greek... and you also understand the meaning of Nous... right? There is common usage in English for Gnosis, it implies a mystical revelation. It is directly related to Theosis in process. Dzogchen is a type of "theosis" where the divinity is the Dharmakaya. In Tibetan the concept is conveyed by the term "rulog" or reversing into the Basis. But thanks for the information... we just don't use "Sophia" in English.

Well, Nous = Mind.
About Gnosis, it is exactly what I am saying. It is used by English scholars in a wrong way!
Greek language is still alive and we still use all these words - like gnosis, nous, sophia, theosis - with the same meaning like our ancestors were using them. You should not consider that English scholars are free to give different meanings to our language. Right?
In no way the Gnosis has the meaning of Nous or of mystical revelation or of theosis.
Different words and totally different meanings!
All this mix up contributes in more spiritual and mental confusion!
As for your approach to Dzogchen, I already told you that I disagree.
If Dzogchen was leading to Theosis, then it was enough for me to follow my native religions: Christianity or the 12 Gods and Godesses who are still alive!

[Mr. G]

Padma there is no transmission from one to another. It's an illusion. The Wisdom is already you, within you. Nothing is needed from "outside". You are already perfect.

Why are you so attached in persistently writing about everything from the resultant POV? Direct introduction/empowerment is necessary and there isn't a living Dzogchen master alive that believes otherwise.

[Mr. G]

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.

And yet you are so quick in quoting Longchenpa out of context. How do you not see the humor in your own writings?

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.

Do you experience neck pain with such a large ego? And to have the audacity to call others self-righteous? You openly (and laughably) state that ChNNR does not teach Dzogchen the most optimal way and criticize him and his teaching methods with no grounds. You indirectly claim the resultant attainment of gtum mo and nirvikalpa samadhi and proceed to lecture people on your soapbox. Members have done their research on you - No Dzogchen teacher has given you permission to teach (which you also admit). Another difference between you, Bentinho Massaro, and a real Dzogchen teacher? Students form around the teachers and help build up a Sangha. They don't need to have slickly designed websites that are Search Engine Optimized and are Social Media friendly with Twitter and Facebook fan walls to attract students - the students are already there for a real teacher to help in building things from the ground up. You are at best deluded, and at worst a charlatan.

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!

Your short stay here was amusing and was a great warning to those new to learning authentic Dzogchen. Thank you for this lesson.