Apech

A bit long winded but thanks anyway.

Watch your diet it could get explosive. Unless you want to be Rocketman.

Also by looking into deep space they can view the light which has taken billions of years to reach us and therefore portrays the galaxies as they were billions of years ago. If they compare galaxy cluster density then to now they can calculate expansion.

Yes this is the state of the board.

Did you quickly get abreast of the problem?

Are you equating Consciousness with Atman?

The question was more - have you proved your point - and the '?' indicated uncertainty. The equating of Creator and Consciousness (a word which is used in many ways but here for the universal non-dual) is a little suspect I think. Even in theist systems the creator is relegated to demiurge and not equated to the godhead. However - it is an impossible argument to place Buddhist views against theist or other views as they start from a different premise. In practically every cosmology the function of Creator properly defined is completely valid and cannot be debunked in the context it is used. 'Creator' has meaning in relation to 'Creation' and the 'Created'. If any one of these is refuted then it has no meaning.

QED?

I didn't know this and am relieved to hear it. ... but sometimes when you feel under siege and you find the lies hard to kill you have to go out for justice.

Who was then? was it me? mind you if you say it was I won't agree.

No because the historical period is something like 3000 BC to now which is after the time I am speaking about. But all traditions point to a pre-historical golden age and so I feel confident in what I am saying.

Religious/spiritual texts borrow from worldly images ... such as Christ the 'King', the 'Lord' and so on which is language from our feudal past. If however you look at the function ... such as kingship ... that is perhaps a person who stands for the highest principles or who exercise 'divine will' and so on ... you can see why the imagery is used. Indeed in medieval Europe a subject was said the 'love his king (or lord)' which meant something like taking that which the monarch embodied as the highest. In Christian mysticism you are in effect joining the lineage of Christ the King and accepting him as the true master and your Lord. Oddly this lineage extends back beyond the historical Jesus as the sacrificial or wounded king. It is not however master/slave but more like king and loving followers.

Yes I have heard that said. I have no idea if it is true in a historical sense but of course the term Dzogchen cannot exist before the Tibetan language. My own researches into Ancient Egypt and so on have led me to the firm conclusion that ever since there were modern humans (i.e. about 250,000 years or so) there has been enquiry of this sort (into the primordial nature of our being) and that far from there being a progression of improvement in doing this we are getting worse. In fact all the codification into different systems Taoist, Buddhist etc. is done in the face of growing difficulty in accessing our true nature. A long time ago there would have been many masters available to us and they would be able to point easily to that which we seek. Nowadays because our minds are so confused and soaked in materiality it is a lot harder. Its very easy to see for instance that the Egyptians codified things at times of stress - social and economic collapse and so on - so there was a sense that this knowledge is going to be lost so we had better set it down and protect it or we will forget for ever. I think Buddhism ( and I am referring mainly to mahayana) because of the profundity of the View is spectacularly successful at adaptation - so the idea of absorbing pre-Buddhist shamanic practices to create the Dzogchen school is wholly believable. Maybe I have been lucky in finding inspiring teachers with the existing Kagyu and Sakhya lineages - presumably I have some connection to them - maybe others don't have this - I certainly don't recognise the way in which Jax has characterised them as having little to offer.

I don't know ... maybe spontaneously realised or something like that. When I say true lineage perhaps I should have said existing lineage or something similar. It could be argued that Buddha had no lineage. Also if in the unlikely event that I were to pursue a Jax like approach I think I might point out that when I use terms like Dzogchen and so on this does not imply that I am teaching Buddhist or Bon Dzogchen. After all why use Tibetan terms at all. Why not say I teach a Great Perfection or similar?

Yes thriving spiritually with teachers who fully understand the path and able to transmit and give empowerments. They are not 'museum pieces' they are living traditions.

You have something of a point I suppose, in that someone could be authorised to teach like Mr. Seagal because of cash donations and not through demonstrating proper understanding and realisation. I note also that you do not accept any model involving rules. But it was not so much rules that I was thinking of but more a kind of respect. If you gain realisation as a result of transmission then it is out of respect for the teacher who was kind enough to give you the transmission which as a seed gave rise to the realisation that you, having explained the nature of your insight, request authority to teach. But you say Norbu has said that you can teach Samde. But you do not seem to consider yourself to be teaching his lineage teachings but that you are teaching on the basis of your own insight. I have no problem with anyone teaching anything they want to anyone who cares to listen. People can decide for themselves on the basis of what they hear and understand whether to practice what is taught or no. If you use a term like Dzogchen then I think it is important to be explicit about where you are coming from and why you are using that term - and that you are not teaching from within a true lineage.

I'm sorry but this is complete rubbish. I don't know about webcasts ... but the lineages I am connected to are thriving.

I wasn't asking about transmission I was asking what your authority to teach Dzongchen is. Transmission is not the same. Its pretty clear that you have not received the teaching authorisation - so my comments above stand as far as I can see.

Yes! Yes he is because everything in the Bible is completely literally true. 100%.

Max! Long time no see.

I think maybe if you are going to call something Dzogchen then really you should have an authorisation from a Dzogchen lineage to teach it. It would be perfectly ok with me if someone recieved Dzogchen transmission then feeling that they had grasped the meaning and gained realisation of 'whatever' ... then went on to teach 'whatever' if that's what you feel you want to do. But if it is not actually authorised then I think you should come up with your own name for it. Otherwise its very confusing for the audience to decide what it is they are being presented with. And I don't buy this idea that because Dzogchen is beyond conceptualisation then how can you say it has anything to do with specific Tibetan lineages. I would compare that to being a Catholic but calling yourself a Taoist and when challenged saying 'the Tao is beyond words so how can you say I am not a Taoist'. I suspect that Dzogchen through the activities of great masters like Namkhai Norbu and so on has become very popular and exciting. So its good for business to attach the term to whatever you are doing. Rather like the word Shaman is added to many practices on dubious grounds just to sex up the commodity offered for sale. If you are teaching something called Dzogchen then show us your authority to do so.

The first time I read that I thought you said you had a pet rhino. Imagine taking that for a walk round the park.

added for the feminists: A woman's like cactus and cactus can hurt 'Cause she's just a tight-waisted winky-eyed flirt She'll soon have your land and your pride and your gold And bury you deep long before you grow old A four legged friend, a four legged friend He'll never let you down He's honest and faithful right up to the end That wonderful one-two-three-four legged friend

Its going to trample on that guy doing Tai Chi!

Better to chase them up and down with a frying pan or similar and then trip over onto the ironing board so that your face because ironing board shaped. Or have I been watching too many Tom and Jerry cartoons.