goldisheavy

Is walking a siddhi then? I think "psychic power" is a better translation. Accomplishment is too wide and too unspecific. Isn't this the very thing that cannot be taught? If yes, how were they able to demonstrate this realization to you? Sorry, can you give me more? A lot more, if you don't mind.

"Siddhi" is just a useless jargon word. Let's use English, please. Now in English we say "psychic power" instead of siddhi. That way everyone can understand what we're talking about. So common siddhis means common psychic powers. And uncommon siddhis means uncommon psychic powers. You have stated that your teachers have each demonstrated both kinds of psychic power to you. I am asking you to please describe what specifically have you experienced with some of the teachers you mention and how that relates to them being your teachers? Nope. OK, so what is wrong with how I am saying it?

What are those psychic powers? Which psychic powers have they demonstrated to you? Now, if I understand you correctly this time, a teacher is someone who can overpower or subvert your ordinary expectations of phenomenal reality. Did I get this right?

Nope. In that case your previous answer "Because in their presence life is bliss" is inadequate. So can you please answer my question adequately? Why do you consider the long list of the people you mentioned to be your teachers?

Interesting. So you consider people you are exceptionally comfortable with to be your teachers? Am I right? Oh, cool. Because it wasn't obvious from how you first put it. And this is where you are wrong. You trust my appearance on some level because you respond to it. You may not trust some of the implications I would like you to trust, but to say you don't trust me in any way, shape or form is definitely wrong. You respond to my basic energy. So you do trust me. This is one of my many teachings for you, my son.

Very good! So how were you able to determine that your teachers are realized beings, whereas I am a joker on the internet? Never mind that one can be a realized being and a joker on the internet at the same time. Quit being defensive. What you are protecting is not worth protecting, trust me. Just answer my questions.

I am also teaching you. Am I your teacher? If you answer "no" then teaching is not a sufficient condition and your answer is not a good one. I asked if you thought the difference between what you are doing and what I am doing is substantial or ornamental. I prefer an honest and straightforward "no comment" to how you avoided the question. Then please reconcile the idea that Dzogchen cannot be taught with your idea of having a whole list of Dzogchen teachers.

Why are these people your teachers? Do you think there is a substantial difference between what you are doing and what I am doing? Or is the difference merely ornamental? Then "having a teacher" amounts to lip service.

They're probably people who have more than one body.

Hence the word "maybe" in what I said. Please do, if you don't mind. Who? OK, so for you one word of Dzogchen may not be enough, is what you're saying? So you are wrong when you imply Dzogchen frowns on analysis. In fact more than one Dzogchen tantra invites analysis from their readers.

And maybe you even believe that you don't. OK, in addition to telling me what your teachers say, can you tell me why they say whatever they say? Who is the teacher? Under the right conditions anything is enough, do you agree? Say what? What an ad-hoc mix of unrelated qualities. Do you know that many Dzogchen tantras are in and of themselves forms of analysis?

Sticking your tongue out is what you've been doing the whole time. In which post have you actually outlined your point of view in any detail? Saying something like "no, it isn't" is not what any sane person would understand as "debating."

No matter how hard I fart, all I can smell here is your humility.

Just what I expect from someone who is clinging to humility.

I'll stay. But thank you for asking.

Like a fart in a small bathtub full of water. Just terrible.

I give you 50%. The teaching doesn't have a fixed form either.

Your arrogance doesn't bother me. If I stop bothering with you it's not because you upset me so, but because I need to do something else for a time.

Let me fix it for you: Dzogchen is not a belief system lineage. It is the end of systems lineages. You like? Oh, don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical question.

Finally you say something intelligent. Thank you.

I don't see the difference. You're still arrogant no matter what you do. Toot or no toot, you're arrogant.

Thank you.

Nothing of value will be lost if you start tooting your own horn. Nobody cares. Go ahead and toot your horn out.

I respect ChNN, but not as a guru. I respect ChNN as one of the first individuals that I am aware of who has opened up Dzogchen teachings to a wider audience in the West. Let me point out where I disagree with the statement above. Firstly the beings we ordinarily consider "human" are at their core not actually human. Therefore all human beings, even the very ignorant ones, have a hidden side to them which can become manifest under appropriate conditions. This is true from 1st person and 3rd person perspectives. In other words, how you regard your own identity and limitations is not something set in stone, but is subject to change depending on let's say the commitments you maintain most deeply. Similarly, if anyone were to use the full power of one's own point of view, it would be possible to look at an ignorant person and elicit speech and behaviors that would be identical to those of fully realized Buddhas. This is possible because what we consider "a human being" is not a thing in its own right. It's just a suggestive appearance in the mind which appears to have stable properties only due to the stability of our own related commitments. Now let's take the case where the person appears to be receiving help from outside of oneself. How will such help be recognized as indeed helpful? Clearly the teacher cannot summarily install his or her own sensibilities into the student. When a student looks for a teacher, on what basis are the teachers discriminated and recognized? Clearly whatever those basis are, they have nothing to do with the teachers themselves. They must be internal to the student.

Historicity provides a false sense of certainty.