asunthatneversets

And you revel in the thought of me believing every word without question because the prospect serves to confirm your own fabricated projections of who I am and how I conduct myself in my personal practice and relationships with the buddhadharma. Quite sad.

In other words, a healthy level of scrutiny is always good, but there is a difference between (i) scrutiny, and (ii) vicious criticism steeped in ulterior motives and ignorance. I never exhibited the second, and was lucky enough to have a mentor who allowed and helped me to do the first in a constructive way. At this point scrutiny is no longer needed.

His quest for understanding the teachings is noble, though misguided and flawed due to various wrong views he upholds. As for my 'little regard' for his so-called intelligent remarks... I have no regard at all, much less 'a little'.

Some semblance of damage control.

My root guru is one of the foremost Dzogchen masters of the past century.

Yes, unfortunately as soon as your attitude became clear I chose to refrain from giving arguments or citing sources that you could investigate to further your deprecation of these teachings.

My case in point that he has no idea what he is talking about.

I will not discuss this type of information with individuals like Zoom, or even you. Zoom misconstrues the teachings and has no respect for them, and you flat out have zero respect for them, so there is no way I would discuss any information related to anything remotely close to that described in the OP with either of you.

My case in point.

Garab Dorje was only the first in this present cycle, there were human practitioners who lived before him.

The only thing implied by your post is that you don't know what you're talking about, yet enjoy pretending like you do.

And they would be wise to take heed.

The teachings originate from the Sambhogakāya, however there are also instances where they are taught by Nirmanakāyas.

At any rate, I just hope others who read this board know better than to take anything you have to say seriously, and I hope they understand you have no idea what you're talking about. As long as that message is out there loud and clear on this thread then at least people (who might've mistaken your advice or information as something worthwhile) will now have a chance to disregard it, as they should.

And Dudjom Lingpa isn't describing wind disorders.

There is no Dzogchen practice without a guru.

http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/

That wasn't a yes or no question. What does subjectivity have to do with this? Not more objective, and I don't think ralis and I were even discussing Dzogchen, you and I were though. Ralis just came out of left field with a complaint about something that was said. I'm not even sure what you're talking about so I can't really comment. I know I certainly don't demand people agree with me. I could care less if people agree with me or not, I just don't like seeing inaccurate or fabricated information paraded as being in line with a system that is quite clear about its view. I have no idea what ralis thinks or knows about anything related to Dzogchen, the little he has shared about his experience with the meditations wasn't all that convincing but I didn't say anything. Hmm, I'd never seek a position of authority or attempt to teach so I'm not sure what chair you're referencing. No idea what you're talking about. Human? You have some strange notions of Dzogchen. Well, being that Dzogpachenpo isn't Sūtrayāna I won't be renouncing anything anytime soon. But have fun with that.

"I have a problem with that", well, obviously. You have a problem with anything that you perceive as a correct statement in contrast to an incorrect position, unless those proclaiming the accurate position mirror your own sentiments. When your own views are mirrored then you are quite happy playing the role of an authoritative position on how things should or shouldn't be. You actually play that role most every time you post in opposition of something. Acting as if you are standing up against authority or authoritarianism, yet all the while expressing a view that you deem to be reasonable or accurate, thus acting as precisely that which you appear to be rejecting. Anytime I advocate for anything that remotely resembles a 'correct position' you are going to have an issue. Why is that? Because you extrapolate and project notions of authority and authoritarianism wherever you perceive someone suggesting there is a right view that accords with a defined system. You see no value in a defined system, you misinterpret an appeal to a correct view as identifying with a belief system or merely taking what paternal figures say at face value... which goes back to misconceptions of what Buddhism is or entails as a methodology. There is an intricate web of causal presuppositions and projections that originating from you which are all derived from fundamental errors in understanding. You don't investigate these errors but take them to be "the way it is" and so you end up spewing your projections all over everything that becomes a target due to your mistaken understandings and/or other underlying issues with authority. At any rate, the buddhadharma is not a theology, it is an empirical method to actualize tangible and lived epistemic insights through radical shifts in non-conceptual perception. So that is mistake number one on your part; the misunderstanding that we are discussing a belief system like the majority of religions, we are not. What we are discussing are systems which if followed correctly will produce experiential realizations completely divorced from conceptuality or belief. And that means there are correct ways to actualize those insights and incorrect views which will prevent that wisdom from flowering. It is not a damn game where we can promote a feel-good laissez-faire attitude that all views are equal and we can make up whatever crap we want, slap a label on it and its good to go. There is such thing as "right view" [samyag-dṛṣṭi], and that right view is applied so that it eventually collapses itself and is abandoned in the end (due to liberation having been actualized). Therefore right view is incredibly pertinent and indispensable. Which is why Śākyamuni says in the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra: "If even my correct teachings are to be abandoned, how much more incorrect teachings?" The correct conventional view leads to the correct ultimate view, which exhausts all views; conventional and ultimate. You are fixated on ideas of "right" views as opposed to "wrong" views because (in addition to various other underlying issues with the aforementioned principles such as authority and so on) you don't understand Buddhism. From the same sūtra: "Subhuti, do not maintain that the Buddha has this thought: 'I have spoken spiritual truths.' Do not think that way. Why? If someone says the Buddha has spoken spiritual truths, he slanders the Buddha due to his inability to understand what the Buddha teaches. Subhuti, as to speaking truth, no truth can be spoken. Therefore it is called 'speaking truth'."

What everyone posts here is their own opinion, but that does not mean all opinions are accurate. Someone may have the opinion that the safest way to drive a car is to go as fast as you can at all times... even in residential neighborhoods or by schools when children are present... that is their opinion and they are entitled to it, however that does not mean it is a good idea or an accurate assertion.

goldisheavy you're again doing a lot of conjectured speculation on the part of Dzogchen and you have people like zoom who don't know any better but to think you're giving them solid information. Not sure why you do this. I mean it's all good to have your own opinions and theories but why bring Dzogchen into it? Why make up stuff on behalf of the system? You can just say "this is what I think is true, it isn't related to Dzogchen but I enjoy Dzogchen" and there'd be no issue. Instead however you're presenting your half-baked theories as Atiyoga and people actually believe you, this is very reckless. At any rate, the buddhadharma and Dzogchen included have said that one individual cannot influence another individual in the way you are suggesting. Because otherwise realized individuals would have awakened everyone via that method by now and there wild be no point to the teachings.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I suspect you're attempting to be clever and evoke an ultimate perspective in hopes of invalidating whatever I'm saying, which is a weak move if that is what you're resorting to. What it comes down to is you have some wild ideas about these systems and think your notions are accurate, so when I have no idea what you're talking about because it is practically nonsense you interpret this as me not getting what you're saying or evading answering questions... because god forbid the deficiency is on your side rather than anyone else's. So we end up with these bizarre impasses where you accuse me of whatever it is you're projecting onto me in order to maintain (and convince yourself of) some pale of validity in relation to your own views.

I have no idea what I would or wouldn't be fabricating. If you care to elaborate instead of asking a blanketed question as to whether I'm fabricating I'd be happy to answer. I specfically cited what I am asserting to be fabrication, providing context... as it stands now your question has no context and therefore makes no sense.

Those statements are fabrications which are not related to Dzogchen. If they are your own opinion that is fine, but parading them as accurate interpretations or representations of Atiyoga is to promote fabrication.

Everything you have written here is your own fabricated embellishment and has nothing to do with the system(s) you are attempting to associate it with. These statements are ridiculous to be quite honest, and it is sad you are trying to promote (or even suggest) this as Atiyoga or anything resembling Atiyoga.