Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[MooNiNite]

<<<<"_" >>>>

[ralis]

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

[idiot_stimpy]

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.

 

I love the Dzogchen texts, but maybe I like them as I'm a disjointed person.

[Jeff]

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

 

 

Thanks for sharing the article. It was very interesting. Do you think the understanding of "how it works" has been lost? Or, do you think that it is an attempt to not let people get caught up in the details?

 

Also, what are your personal thoughts on Norbu as a teacher/guru?

 

Best,

Jeff

[wangchungman]

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

 

I've been a spiritual tourist for a while. I have been to Dondrubling in Berkeley, CA. I found the folks to be pretty mainstream. Not the friendliest bunch. But I didn't notice any babies either. Many seemed eager to share and help me work on Yantra Yoga. I don't think, Ralis, you can generalize so broadly. My limited understanding of the texts is they are disjointed because you are supposed to rely on a teacher. That might be a something of a turnoff to some people. But I have never encountered anything serious that could be learned well by self-study, except for the rare genius I suppose. In my emails with Namkhai Norbu some years ago, he's friendly and a man of few words. He must have thousands of students by now so there are surely people of all kinds. The Lipman thing isn't so discouraging. He's Jewish by family heritage. It's normal for someone to keep that, especially a tradition as old as Judaism. It doesn't mean there is something wrong with Buddhism or "Lamaism" as you say. Kabbala also cannot be learned without transmissions from a teacher. Also there are many Lamas who are highly respected and have students who are teachers. In the Bay Area there is Gyatrul Rinpoche's group in Alameda. In the North Bay, there is Chagdud Tulku's people. And in Berkeley there is also Tarthang Tulku's people. As a side, intense devotion to the teacher is what is supposed to help a person get enlightened. I would think this is a highly personal subject. It doesn't seem fair to look down on someone for this reason. I believe Buddhism prescribes various avenues to enlightenment. One is devotion. Another is direct insight. I believe the idea in Buddhism is that there are so many different personalities out there, so because of his great compassion and intelligence, Buddha found thousands of ways to teach. It could be this one is not your cup of tea. But it is someone else's, and there is one for you too if you wanted that.

Edited July 29, 2014 by wangchungman

[ralis]

Thanks for sharing the article. It was very interesting. Do you think the understanding of "how it works" has been lost? Or, do you think that it is an attempt to not let people get caught up in the details? Also, what are your personal thoughts on Norbu as a teacher/guru? Best, Jeff

 

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

[asunthatneversets]

I knew that I was right with my estimation of the situation right from the beginning!

According to Jax, Tenzin Wangyal confirms the initial thesis I made in this thread!

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=87932#p87932

 

Strange, considering all the intellectual debate from these guys about their realizations, when in fact they didn't even realize Rigpa despite having direct transmission from their guru!

Well, your first error is giving credence to anything Jax has to say.

[asunthatneversets]

Jax seems to be the voice of reason, I like that guy:

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=88103#p88103

The voice of the degenerate age, perhaps.

[silent thunder]

Not really...

 

"If, with the intention of identifying and teaching higher and lower views, other precepts are deprecated, this is not transgression, but greatly increases merit."

- Commentary on The 14 Root Downfalls | rtsa ltung bcu bzhi

seems like this is exactly what Grandmaster P was doing, but then as Ralis said... this quote is so short and out of context... it's hard to pin it down to anything beyond subjective interpretation.

[asunthatneversets]

I knew that I was right with my estimation of the situation right from the beginning!

According to Jax, Tenzin Wangyal confirms the initial thesis I made in this thread!

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=87932#p87932

 

Strange, considering all the intellectual debate from these guys about their realizations, when in fact they didn't even realize Rigpa despite having direct transmission from their guru!

The biggest issue is that this statement from Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is presented as a ploy so that Jax can then tout that he himself has 100% success rate with pointing out rigpa to his students.

 

Yet the pertinent factor that goes unmentioned is that Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is talking about the definitive rigpa which ensues as a result of recognizing the definitive nature of mind. Jax on the other hand is talking about provisional 'rigpa' as the mere clarity of mind.

 

Which means Jax's pompous testament to the failure of traditional lineages and the failure of the traditional methods of lamas, is complete bullsh*t.

 

Any fool can point out the clarity of mind, however that isn't what Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and other lamas are calling "rigpa". What those Rinpoches are calling rigpa and what Jax thinks rigpa is, are two different things.

 

Meaning; when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche states that very few people recognize rigpa, he is correct, and that is not a testament to the failure of the teachings in any way.

 

Jax thinks neutral indeterminate awareness is rigpa, therefore of course it is going to baffle him when he misinterprets Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche as saying it is difficult to recognize neutral clarity (when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is saying nothing of the sort).

[ralis]

Well, your first error is giving credence to anything Jax has to say.

 

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.

[doc benway]

The biggest issue is that this statement from Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is presented as a ploy so that Jax can then tout that he himself has 100% success rate with pointing out rigpa to his students.

 

Yet the pertinent factor that goes unmentioned is that Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is talking about the definitive rigpa which ensues as a result of recognizing the definitive nature of mind. Jax on the other hand is talking about provisional 'rigpa' as the mere clarity of mind.

 

Which means Jax's pompous testament to the failure of traditional lineages and the failure of the traditional methods of lamas, is complete bullsh*t.

 

Any fool can point out the clarity of mind, however that isn't what Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and other lamas are calling "rigpa". What those Rinpoches are calling rigpa and what Jax thinks rigpa is, are two different things.

 

Meaning; when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche states that very few people recognize rigpa, he is correct, and that is not a testament to the failure of the teachings in any way.

 

Jax thinks neutral indeterminate awareness is rigpa, therefore of course it is going to baffle him when he misinterprets Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche as saying it is difficult to recognize neutral clarity (when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is saying nothing of the sort).

 

... changed my mind.... nothing of value to add to this discussion

 

Enjoy

Edited July 29, 2014 by steve

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[ralis]

 

 

Meaning; when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche states that very few people recognize rigpa, he is correct, and that is not a testament to the failure of the teachings in any way.

 

 

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.

Edited July 29, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

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.

Ditto.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[ralis]

Ditto.

 

What kind of an answer is that?

[asunthatneversets]

This is a personal attack.

If you see it that way.

 

Btw, I spent the entire day reading Jax' essays and anwers to the questions of his students which Jax posted freely for all to read on his website.

Okay.

 

His statements are very clear and with one word: brilliant and speak of deep insight into the subject of Dzogchen.

His view is quite good when it comes to traditions like Advaita Vedanta, though more precisely neo interpretations of Advaita. His view of Dzogchen, while complete with many bells and whistles in when it comes to terminology etc., is lacking. But you come across as one who would think he is saying something profound.

 

I can't say the same about your statements as well as about the emotional experiences and mental halluzinations / misinterpretations which you posted on thetaobums which you falsely interpret as realizations due to your practice...

I've made no claims about realizations, my friend.

[ralis]

If you see it that way.

 

 

Okay.

 

 

His view is quite good when it comes to traditions like Advaita Vedanta, though more precisely neo interpretations of Advaita. His view of Dzogchen, while complete with many bells and whistles in when it comes to terminology etc., is lacking. But you come across as one who would think he is saying something profound.

 

 

I've made no claims about realizations, my friend.

 

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.

Edited July 29, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

Your post is replete with authoritarianism.

Most of yours are as well, which is probably why you have a subconscious vendetta against authority.

 

You never compare and contrast the differences in beliefs between Jax and yourself.

I just did in the previous post where I compared and contrasted the view of Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and Jax in order to address Jax's unwarranted aspersions.

 

Have you ever deeply considered what you write and the implications thereof?

Surely. Have you?

 

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.

Yes, 'pathology' is a medical term, and you are the only one who has evoked that term thus far.

 

As for your disdain for what are considered deviations and inaccuracies in the eyes of Buddhism, I'm not sure what to tell you. The system is a system because it works and has principles which define it, if you throw those principles out the window and allow for any type of view you desire then the system ceases to be a system... which would defeat the purpose of having a system, no doubt.

 

Again, your issues with these principles are symptoms and reflections of your own issues with tradition, structure, authority and it seems Buddhism in general.

[Anderson]

 

 

His view is quite good when it comes to traditions like Advaita Vedanta, though more precisely neo interpretations of Advaita. His view of Dzogchen, while complete with many bells and whistles in when it comes to terminology etc., is lacking. But you come across as one who would think he is saying something profound.

 

 

 

Kyle,

 

What would you think is the fault in his presentation here ?

Becasue i've heard other teachers speak in these terms as well.

[Jeff]

Sorry, to jump in here, but I have had many discussions with Jackson and participated in one of his FB groups. The difference between the two positions is most easily described in more classical Buddhist terms. What Jackson describes is noticing "consciousness" or the beginning of realizing "emptiness of self". He then declare it "Rigpa" and hence being done. But, the "state" he is describing is one of the local body-mind and has not yet realized emptiness of ultimate reality. The difference is one of thinking you are swimming in the ocean, when you are really only in the local swimming pool.

 

 

This is why primordial traditions (like Dzogchen) are guru based. It is nearly impossible to move to the ocean with out the radiant "light" of a realized master to help one expand beyond the local "bubble".

 

(Edit - iPad format issue)

Edited July 30, 2014 by Jeff

[Simple_Jack]

 

The biggest issue is that this statement from Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is presented as a ploy so that Jax can then tout that he himself has 100% success rate with pointing out rigpa to his students.

 

Yet the pertinent factor that goes unmentioned is that Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is talking about the definitive rigpa which ensues as a result of recognizing the definitive nature of mind. Jax on the other hand is talking about provisional 'rigpa' as the mere clarity of mind.

 

Which means Jax's pompous testament to the failure of traditional lineages and the failure of the traditional methods of lamas, is complete bullsh*t.

 

Any fool can point out the clarity of mind, however that isn't what Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and other lamas are calling "rigpa". What those Rinpoches are calling rigpa and what Jax thinks rigpa is, are two different things.

 

Meaning; when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche states that very few people recognize rigpa, he is correct, and that is not a testament to the failure of the teachings in any way.

 

Jax thinks neutral indeterminate awareness is rigpa, therefore of course it is going to baffle him when he misinterprets Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche as saying it is difficult to recognize neutral clarity (when Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is saying nothing of the sort).

 

 

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.

 

Capacity depends on personal interest and diligence -- nothing more.

 

...it is based solely on your karmic connection with the teachings. If you have that, then you have capacity -- whether it is high, low or medium capacity depends solely on your efforts and interests.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

[ralis]

Most of yours are as well, which is probably why you have a subconscious vendetta against authority.

 

 

I just did in the previous post where I compared and contrasted the view of Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and Jax in order to address Jax's unwarranted aspersions.

 

 

Surely. Have you?

 

 

Yes, 'pathology' is a medical term, and you are the only one who has evoked that term thus far.

 

As for your disdain for what are considered deviations and inaccuracies in the eyes of Buddhism, I'm not sure what to tell you. The system is a system because it works and has principles which define it, if you throw those principles out the window and allow for any type of view you desire then the system ceases to be a system... which would defeat the purpose of having a system, no doubt.

 

Again, your issues with these principles are symptoms and reflections of your own issues with tradition, structure, authority and it seems Buddhism in general.

 

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/

 

 

Each of the “things supposed” is a premise (protasis) of the argument, and what “results of necessity” is the conclusion (sumperasma).

The core of this definition is the notion of “resulting of necessity” (ex anankês sumbainein). This corresponds to a modern notion of logical consequence: X results of necessity from Y and Z if it would be impossible for X to be false when Y and Z are true. We could therefore take this to be a general definition of “valid argument”.