ralis

Authoritarianism and authority are two different terms. I have used the former in my posts as opposed to the latter. In terms of systems, there are closed and open systems. Buddhism falls into the former. Perhaps you may dispute that, but all the posts made by Buddhists such as yourself rigidly define Buddhism in black and white terms. Is Buddhism any different in logical format than any other philosophy? I seriously doubt you could prove that. Why? All philosophical belief systems and todays world religions all arose from the philosophical thought that arose from the Axial Age, the period from 800 B.C. through 200 B.C. The main driving force was Aristotle. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

Your post is replete with authoritarianism. You never compare and contrast the differences in beliefs between Jax and yourself. Have you ever deeply considered what you write and the implications thereof? What is disturbing to me, are the so called errors of solipsism, nihilism and so forth are termed pathologies by Buddhists. Pathology is a medical term and hardly has any basis in fact as a so called spiritual diagnostic tool.

What kind of an answer is that?

The following are implied regarding your statement: The lineage teachings are perfect and without error. All translated texts are free of cultural bias and errors in translation. The teacher is perfect and without error. The capacity of the student falls into several categories from the highest ability to the lowest based on karma and other means beyond one's control. Therefor, if the student fails, said student is solely to blame. No reasonable person will accept that sort of reasoning.

Therefor, anything Jax states is an error? Why not back off the fallacious reasoning and have a real discussion. Being obstinate in regards to your belief that you are absolutely right and all others, except ones that share your legalistic tribal beliefs, are wrong, helps no one.

I haven't forgotten your questions, but will answer later.

The main problem I see with the Dzogchen teachings or any of the other Tibetan Lamaist teachings is that the texts are written in a disjointed and contradictory manner. This applies to most of the texts. What I observed during my first retreat with Norbu was that many of Norbu's students were absolutely lost and looking for Norbu to parent them. Over the years I got to know quite a few of them and nothing changed in regards to looking for a parent in him. That combined with a grandiose sense of entitlement to the teachings was not pleasant to be around. I recently read that Kennard Lipman who was one of Norbu's translators left the scene and went back to Judaism. Here is his story. Kennard was someone who was not interested in discussing the teachings with me, but was in a hurry to be somewhere else. http://reformjudaismmag.net/03summer/buddhist.shtml

You said it, I didn't.

You admonish persons to start thinking for themselves, but claim there is a hidden cabal responsible for the world's ills. Disjointed thinking.

Come on now. Do you expect me or anyone in their right mind to accept that without question.

Orchestrated by who or whom?

'World spirit', 'divine providence', 'the higher cause' or however one has a need to label it, has been an excuse for the worst atrocities in history. Furthermore, to project reasoning faculties onto this objectified entity, as being responsible for bringing freedom to all at some future date, is preposterous. Why? Is this any different from the religious view of some glorified afterlife? To project human problems onto this so called 'higher cause', is shirking responsibility.

You give a very detailed account of your experience here. http://thetaobums.com/topic/27540-some-recent-insights/#entry415964

The latest from 'The Intercept'. 'The Secret Govt. Rulebook For Labeling You A Terrorist'. It matters not who the President is, the military industrial complex has been growing since Eisenhower warned of the threat. Any excuse is used to expand its powers. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/

It worked well for me. Seems you are generalizing.

I have spoken out against authoritarianism which is dangerous in religion as well as politics. If you are not well versed on the problems of, I recommend this book. It is a free pdf without copyright. There is a difference between authority and authoritarianism. Moreover, organizations can be useful, but are fraught with problems http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

The implication is that by hanging out with a prospective teacher one can carefully observe and ask questions, which could take years. Very impractical. I practiced 'guru yoga' for several years after the first retreat with Norbu and realized that the true guru was internal to myself.

Because your guru said so? As for myself, I don't require or want a parent guru and can think for myself regardless of whatever is written admonishing such behavior.

I don't have a confirmation bias and you are proceeding from an incorrect conclusion as if you know how I will respond, you don't. So stop the accusatory nature of your posts. You refuse to answer valid questions in regards to your own experience, which leads me to believe that you just read books. Is my assumption correct? To be clear, this response is in regards to who or what qualifies the Tantras in previous posts.

This is the main problem with the armchair Buddhists. Nothing is well explained from their own experience. Very unfortunate.

I think it is a valid question. Your non-answer doesn't qualify. Actually, you are evasive when it comes to persons challenging your belief systems and answering direct questions. To repeat, I have known about Dzogchen for well over 30 years and have had many teachings, beginning in 1989 with Norbu. I have heard all the explanations and none suffice.

He is serious and I would also appreciate an answer to this and my unanswered questions.

The OP ZOOM may not know what vidyā is so why not elaborate from your own practice?

Would you elaborate on extraordinary cognition?

Please define and expand on the implications you are referring to?