Jax wrote:Mental constructions cannot be said to exist or not exist as they are beyond both extremes.
Mr. G wrote:Jax wrote:You moron, I explained it in exact detail. Ok, ok... You are a bit slow, I get it.
Couldn't even keep it under control after being given a second chance, huh? ::sigh::
CapNCrunch wrote:*Please* don't just summarily nuke Jax again. People have said things to him that were less than kind too. At the very least, if that is being considered, please keep these threads around and viewable *somewhere* so they can be a learning experience.
Anders Honore wrote:CapNCrunch wrote:*Please* don't just summarily nuke Jax again. People have said things to him that were less than kind too. At the very least, if that is being considered, please keep these threads around and viewable *somewhere* so they can be a learning experience.
The worrying thing is that he read like a caricature of narcissistic enlightened personality disorder.
He grandstands and postures about his own realisation, comments on the lacking realisation of his co-posters, constantly wants to steer debates in directions of his personal preference, is oblivious and unrepentant of the impact of his own behaviour and thinks himself the equal, if not superior of past and present masters of great repute.
Checklists have been written in mock humour of this kind of behaviour and Jax is actually living out the parody here. It's the stuff you would expect from a new-ish practitioner who has had a glimpse of realisation and thinks he is king of the world. Ie, just plain immature. The stuff he talks about is about as profound as you would expect from someone with a minor but onesided glimpse of rigpa and emptiness. Except he allegedly has many years of experience and has set himself up as a teacher instead which makes it sad.
What I would expect from a teacher of genuine and mature realisation is a desire to fulfil the wishes and needs of practitioners instead of harping on about his own realisation and turning topics into what he thinks is relevant to himself. There is just way to much Jax™ in his posts for him not to be full of shit. And it's worrying that he is feeding JaxDharma to other people who think they have a qualified teacher.
Jax wrote: it would be more precise to say the only true refuge is one's own indestructible and changeless Nature as the Dharmakaya.
Jax wrote:We find a slightly different rendering in the Pali Mahāparinibbāna Sutta where it says:
"Therefore, Ānanda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. (Tr. vipassana.com)
Tasmātihānanda, attadīpā viharatha attasaranā anaññasaranā, dhammadīpā dhammasaranā anaññasaranā.
How does this injunction from the Buddha square with Vajrayana in general?
Checklists have been written in mock humour of this kind of behaviour and Jax is actually living out the parody here
Sönam wrote:Because Zen is sutra a teaching, therefore leading to sunyata, I would not comment ... we are in the Dzogchen Forum.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Jax wrote: it would be more precise to say the only true refuge is one's own indestructible and changeless Nature as the Dharmakaya.
No, it would not be more precise.
Dharmakaya is not a "thing", indestructibe, changeless, or otherwise.
It is the true nature of what we would call "things", the appearance of phenomena.
You could say that one takes refuge in the infinite aspect of mind, rather than in limited appearances.
That would be a little bit more precise.
But we are not statues.
"one's own indestructible and changeless Nature" would essentially be atma (self).
Calling any notion of a permanenet self "Dharmakaya" doesn't change that.
This is the opposite of what the Buddha taught.
One might rephrase "Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves" as "rely on your own efforts"
but that does not exclude finding a teacher, and practicing what has been shown to work
-- by one's own efforts.
mzaur wrote:Sönam wrote:Because Zen is sutra a teaching, therefore leading to sunyata, I would not comment ... we are in the Dzogchen Forum.
Isn't sunyata the goal of Dzogchen? What is higher than the realization of sunyata? I thought that Rigpa = knowledge of sunyata. When Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche talks about our true nature, primordial nature, etc, I always think he is talking about sunyata -- I know that there is also the luminosity aspect to it too, but what's stopping Zen practitioners from realizing that also?
Zen methods are nowadays very developed; and since many methods from different sources have been integrated with them, they no longer exist exactly as they did in ancient times. Nevertheless, even if they have been altered over time, they are still based on the Sutra teachings. This is why, in Zen, it is believed that the main point of practice is to get into the state of shunyata, or voidness, and to remain in it. That is what meditation is considered to be in Zen.
The state of emptiness is just an experience, and there are many kinds of meditation experiences that are not contemplation. Some people say that between two thoughts there is an empty space, and that is the state of contemplation. They believe that contemplation just means extending this empty space between thoughts. Some people write and think this way, and consider that to be the teaching of the Buddha; however, that is not the teaching of the Buddha at all. Being in the state of emptiness means that we are simply having a particular experience. Thinking that everything is empty, and being in that state, is only an experience of emptiness, but it is still very far from being in the state of contemplation.
Real contemplation means being in our real condition, which includes not only emptiness, but also movement. If we have no capacity for integrating or being in that movement, we are very far from our real condition.
mzaur wrote: but what's stopping Zen practitioners from realizing that also?
Sönam wrote:To pure sunyata, sitting on a cushion, as taught in the sutras, is missing the movement. Here is an extract of the Dzogchen Teachings by ChNN, about it ...
heart wrote:I always found it quite confusing that ChNNR seems to equate shamata and emptiness.
Dechen Norbu wrote:Really Magnus? I never noticed that...
I never understood him to see shamatha as the experience of emptiness.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Tanaduk and 12 guests