asunthatneversets

I've been interacting with Jackson on and off in forums for some years now, I'm familiar with his view. And you are definitely missing the point I'm referring to if you think the fact that the unenumerated view is free of the mind's concepts and projections, means it is okay to throw a correct enumerated view into the wind and adopt any relative view one wants to. That is an incorrect and problematic position.

No reason to. There is a difference between the unenumerated view and the enumerated view. You're sort of missing that point. The Dzogchen tantras themselves are packed with polemical rhetoric in order to set themselves apart from non-Buddhist views.

From the standpoint of the actual, definitive nature Dzogchen is pointing to, yes really anything can be used to support one's familiarization and integration with that knowledge, for that nature is not a view or an intellectual understanding but is a direct experiential recognition (and is therefore 'non-sectarian' in that sense, like the taste of sugar is). However the freedom to implement any and everything as a support first depends on a direct and experiential knowledge of that wisdom.

This is taking such statements out of context as claims of absolute truth which pertain to an objective reality (as an accurate interpretation or account of said reality). Obviously this is not what Buddhism upholds. Again, the aspects of conventional and ultimate views would be important to properly understand the type of statements you are referring to. In the context of the conventional model, as a working system or method, yes the Buddhist view is one view, and divergent views are antonymous. Ultimately however, the conventional model Buddhism employs "harms itself" as it is said, which means it deconstructs itself and therefore cannot be called a claim of absolute truth.

I merely said there are notable aspects of his view which are inaccurate and misleading when presented as "Dzogchen". These other conclusions you are drawing are taking my statements in an unnecessary direction.

Yes but the eternalist views that are being referenced by the term tīrthika are those views which posit an unconditioned, independent and (therefore) eternal existent... this is an extreme view in the eyes of the buddhadharma. The way the Buddhist treatment of one's nature is presented is quite different. That nature is free from extremes, it is the lack of inherency in what delusion mistakes to be truly existent. Sort of like mistaking a reflection to be something truly real which has been created, endures in time and is subject to destruction... the fact that the reflection is actually just a reflection (and has only ever been a reflection) is never corrupted by the ignorance which sees it otherwise. Even if one ignorantly asserts that the reflection is actually an object with true existence, the fact that it is truly a reflection is still always the case, because it is only delusion which asserts the existence of an object or entity. In that way we can say the actual 'nature' of that mistaken object is always 'there', or is permanent, because the alleged object is simply a figment of ignorance. So the nature that the buddhadharma is pointing to is epistemic, whereas the nature that eternalist doctrines are pointing to is ontological. The difference is very important.

Tīrthika is defined as a non-buddhist, but more specifically an eternalist... "...such as the Cārvāka assertion of annihilation, the assertion of our own Vaibhaśikas that the conditioned and the unconditioned are mutually exclusive, the Sāṃkhya assertion that all things are the same in the original nature as the three gunas, and also the Tīrthikas who advocate permanence..." - Bodhisattvacaryāvatāravivṛttipañjikā

Yes well we are discussing his view, and I used that term to characterize his view which closely resembles the principles championed by Non-Buddhist systems.

Being that there are many people who I agree with, my objection to certain views has nothing to do with the need for me to be correct and everyone else incorrect. I actually never said I was 'absolutely correct', I also never said he is 'absolutely incorrect', but there are definitely things I disagree with in his view more often than not. For someone who doesn't like unfounded statements replete with inferred assumptions, you sure are making some, but that is alright.

Right, but I mean how does this demonstrate a self-referential feedback loop as a mechanism of self regulation? I mean, if a school hired a track and field coach and the individual who showed up started teaching the kids baseball, everyone would naturally agree that he isn't teaching track and field. That wouldn't be a self-referential feedback loop, it would just be an accurate observation. Of course the situation where a tīrthika teaching is being paraded as Dzogchen is a bit more subtle, but it is the same principle.

Can you give a specific example?

Disagreeing with you isn't being a troll, but I'm sure it can feel that way. I'm not sure what accusation you are referring to. Good practice for building patience, ralis! Well, definitely wasn't trying to cover anything up. The fly comment wasn't exactly something to worry about in my opinion. I'm saying, the fact that you consider Jackson Peterson to be some sort of authority or expert on the subject says a lot about your own knowledge of the subject.

He unfortunately is caught in a neo-nondual view where he takes the clarity (cognizance) of mind to be the definitive view of dzogchen. The fact that you are beguiled by his show says a lot though.

Jackson teaches neo-advaita in dzogchen drag... I'd stay far, far away.

I also compared myself to a fly, in not being able to resist comparing you to a fly in your keen interest in the book which compared students to flies.

That was a good one though, I couldn't resist... sort of like, hmm... a fly to dung.

Like a fly to dung, ralis cannot resist this book which uses the same metaphor.

Well, you tried steve. As they say; you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.

Well I stand by my statement, and you're welcome to your opinion. What that opinion is founded upon I have no idea, but there is clearly no point in attempting to dissuade you from your fabrications and fantasies.

You are unfortunately misinformed and incorrect. Tummo is also completely unrelated to anything we are discussing.

You seem to have a fairly rigid idea of what tregchö constitutes or represents. At any rate, saying preliminaries lead to no attainment is like saying the foundation of a house doesn't lead to the construction of a house... you can of course try to build a house with no foundation, but you can probably understand why that would be a bad idea.

That site seems perfect for the ralis point of view.

On the contrary, conventions are still allowed to be conventions and serve the purposes they always have. Likewise appearances are still appearances. The only difference in the realized person is the presence of a valid cognition, whereas the unrealized person's cognition is afflicted. So conventions and appearances are still just as they were, the only difference in the realized individual is that they are known correctly. No need for them to fall by the wayside, that sounds like a recipe for a nice mix of nihilism and essentialism all wrapped up together. As for the cultural conventions, they too are just conventions. It's one thing if ralis wants to run around swinging at mirages with a stick, but don't hold it against others when they don't care to join in. Not sure what teachings you're going to but any that I've ever attended involved the possibility to ask questions afterwards, whether privately or in a collective setting.

Not me, my current time here began when I signed up last year, or earlier this year, whenever that was.

I'm not saying don't question authority, it is good to question authority. I grew up questioning authority and being a little punk rock kid. I'm also not saying that questioning religious authority is a sign of immaturity, I am saying that the inability to relate to the conventions as being mere conventions is a sign that one is still seeing those conventions as inherently real. One is still giving them power because one cannot truly reject something, meaning; one cannot hold to a position of rejection, unless one is seeing something inherent which requires rejection. The robes and thrones, bells and whistles, are just cultural conventions. Do some people get caught up in that game? Yes. Do some people who partake in the game, wearing the robes and sitting on thrones get caught up in that game? Definitely. However the difference with genuinely realized teachers who are wearing those robes is that they see through the game, they understand it is just a show. That isn't to say there aren't some who grasp at authority, identify with it and abuse those positions. That certainly occurs, a lot, and will happen anytime hierarchical structures are set in place. We see this throughout history and in the world today... but that is simply one possible outcome. The authentically realized vidyādharas, bodhisattvas and Buddhas who are playing the game by wearing those robes are realized individuals, they are not abusing power. Sentient beings who are put in ruling positions are the ones who end up abusing power, and of course there are cases where (allegedly realized) teachers have been involved in scandals, but that is a very small percentage and really speaks to the fact that just because you throw a robe and a crown on a lama, doesn't mean they are authentic or genuine. But this is why those who are interested in these teachings must exercise discrimination with teachers... and the teachings themselves state this. For example Padmasambhava said; Having an unexamined teacher is like jumping into an abyss; Having an unexamined student is like drinking poison. And the tantras define a "genuine teacher", listing various characteristics they should have, which are followed with this statement: One with the complete set of these qualities is said to be necessary. If, on the other hand, he is merely an effigy of whom it is said "This one is a wonderful source of miracles," "This one holds an unsurpassable rank," and "This one is a sacred object of worship and harmony with worldly people," then he is not [a genuine teacher]. also saying: The unexamined master is a demon of a master So it is partly one's own responsibility to weed out charlatans and power hungry individuals wearing robes, even in the context of Buddhism. And in that sense we need to separate kings, rulers or fools (who don robes and sit on thrones) and authentically realized vidyādharas, bodhisattvas and Buddhas who are teaching the buddhadharma or Bön, the two are not the same. You appear to be lumping anyone and everyone who wears robes into the same pool, however that is not the case when it comes to the vast majority of truly realized masters. I also never said prostrating before someone sitting on a throne with a special hat has anything to do with liberation. Though if that is your teacher, and they are simply playing that role in accordance with their culture, why not show them respect and reverence and understand that they are merely upholding certain cultural conventions? Who cares? Again, the Tibetan peasants and the monastics is getting into the usual power plays that go on whenever hierarchy is introduced... but that does not mean that all lamas are abusing power. It does not mean that we must outright reject everyone who wears a robe or sits on a throne in the context of Buddhism. If you want to do that, that is your choice and by all means reject them all, but again, this is akin to saying all dogs are dangerous due to the fact that a small percentage are. Or that all apples are rotten because a small few may be.