asunthatneversets

Are you twelve years old?

Making ad populum arguments doesn't mean they are legitimate Zoom, (and here's an ad hominem from me) it just means there might be a few more fools who tow the same ignorant party line as you. A small group of people in an echo chamber micro-climate who pat each other on the back is hardly a sign that the halfwitted rhetoric they are spewing is reasonable or correct. It simply means you have a few individuals here with paternalistic authority issues and matching opinions who post with greater frequency than others. I'd get off that high horse buddy.

Yeah not really Zoom, funny how you keep presenting your vapid remarks like you're speaking for the collective viewpoint of the entire tao bums Buddhist sub-forum, as if that is even something to tout or boast about. Seriously deluded.

Weird.

Yeah, it is sad.

I take it you've never recognized your nature, if you had you would understand what the condition of these individuals is like, and would then also understand that they are nothing like "every other dude". But can't fault you for that. However you can be faulted for making assertions based on unfounded and biased conjecture, which is precisely what your statement is.

Coming from someone who exhibits extreme rejection of the system and considers their point of view to be rational.

Unbiased historical references? I don't think that is even possible. When it comes to historical references the only thing you can do is choose between biases.

I'm certainly not excusing the behavior. The point I'm making is that saying Buddhism is to blame is like saying seafood in general is to blame for a certain chef at a certain restaurant being incompetent when cooking shellfish and causing people who went to his specific restaurant (and ate said shellfish) to become sick.

Obviously.

Those issues are human issues which arise any and everywhere humans gather, live together in large groups, create power structures etc. it has nothing to do with the buddhadharma.

What are you talking about? I have no qualms with being judgmental towards inaccurate views.

As for your quotes (Tibetan_Ice), they are fully in line with the system and do not say anything which contradicts what I'm saying.

Again, if you want to practice the system of Dzogchen, then you need a guru. Your nature doesn't need a guru, your nature is originally pure and naturally perfected... you as the individual need a guru to practice the system of Dzogpachenpo. (i) Direct introduction from a qualified teacher, (ii) familiarization with that knowledge, (iii) continue in that knowledge. Basis, path, result. That is the system of Dzogchen.

Right, the actual practice is resting in unfabricated dharmatā, free from extremes. Subject and object do not combine, subject and object are misnomers and misconceptions which arise as a result of delusion, when delusion is dispelled you see correctly.

People all over the world have for centuries had random peak glimpses of their nature, that isn't the point. The point is that you are intending to practice Dzogchen as the system to support your path towards liberation. You effectively begin practicing Dzogchen after you have received direct introduction from a qualified lama, and are not practicing prior to that, nor in the absence of that. You must receive introduction from a qualified teacher who is connected to an unbroken lineage. You can practice Sūtrayāna and eventually recognize your nature as well, your nature is simply the view of buddhahood. However if you want to practice Vajrayāna you need transmission, and cannot practice Vajrayāna without transmission. That is how Vajrayāna works. It is not that difficult to understand. So no you cannot practice Dzogchen on your own without transmission from a teacher. Why this is so controversial I have no idea.

Have you read any books on Dzogchen or Vajrayāna? Or received any teachings whatsoever? Pick up any book on Dzogchen and you can find any number of statements regarding the importance of receiving direct introduction from a living master, guru yoga etc. If you can't find one you are either blind, incredibly afflicted by your own confirmation biases or are in a fog of denial.

I can assure you I am not mindlessly repeating empty claims devoid of any reason. I can also assure you that I am not a deluded brain-washed blind believer living in a dream world. I can also assure you that I could care less whether you take me seriously, nor what you think in general, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

If applying any practice in the context of upāya to lead one to realization is blind faith, then everything is blind faith. Your provisional path will be based on trust and faith until you actualize genuine insights, whereafter you will no longer need any type of faith due to the fact that you know your nature. If the initial confidence and faith required to begin the path is your gripe, then by all means don't ever start and spend your time doing whatever other pointless, relative activities you enjoy. I'm not talking about the lama hierarchy. I was talking about the relationship with a qualified teacher in the context of Vajrayāna. If you don't like that aspect of Vajrayāna, then you aren't practicing Vajrayāna, so it really doesn't matter either way. No point talking about it. Me coming off preachy and judgmental is like the pot calling the kettle black. Apart from that you aren't understanding what I'm saying regarding accepting the guru for what they are. In Vajrayāna, you initially rely on the outer guru who introduces you to your nature whereupon you either recognize that nature or you do not. If you do not, then the guru gives you instructions on how to recognize your nature and so on. Once your recognize your nature, then you know the inner guru, and rely on that. The specific judgmental terms I used illustrated what is considered to be the proper view of the system, versus the unfounded statements Zoom is making which have no factual basis or relation to the teaching whatsoever and are nothing more than his own fabrications. This has nothing to do with my "world view", we are discussing Dzogchen and Vajrayāna. I'm not an academic, nor did I study Buddhism in college, and I'm not sure if dilettante is an applicable term in this context.

You cannot practice Dzogchen without a living transmission from a qualified guru... no guru, no Dzogchen, plain and simple. If you want to delude yourself, read some books and think you're practicing Dzogchen by all means do so... but you will not be.

Nah, just went for a run.

On the contrary, what we have established is that you, like all sentient beings, had a seed placed in your hand the day you were born. Some sentient beings do not have the wherewithal to recognize that they posses this seed and inborn potential. Yet others do... those who do recognize this potentiality are very fortunate, and have an important choice to make when it comes to planting that seed and caring for it so it sprouts and blooms into a beautiful flower. If you want to bury your seed in dry, infertile soil and water it with urine that is your own choice, and tragically the situation will work itself out.

If you want to learn from books then by all means do ZOOM, I have no vested interest in your path.

It is interesting, this audacity. To think that one can simply encounter a tradition which has existed for centuries with unbroken lineages and an effective, methodological system crafted by realized individuals... and sit there critiquing it and boasting that one knows better. The level of arrogance is incredible.

Again, what is "logical" is being defined as that which accords with your own opinion and confirmation biases. You also do not understand what it means to have a conventional methodology and how conventions lack inherency. I'm not sure this is a bridgeable chasm for you either way, given your venomous predelictions.