MooNiNite Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) Which book? Alexandra David Neal. I think its her Magic and Mystery in Tibet i'v read a few... but that quote always stuck with me. Lower conscious beings tend to not only be in large groups but also misguided. Perhaps because they don't seek the truth wholeheartedly. Edited July 22, 2014 by MooNiNite 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 22, 2014 Stop the harassment! That was a good one though, I couldn't resist... sort of like, hmm... a fly to dung. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 That was a good one though, I couldn't resist... sort of like, hmm... a fly to dung. You are comparing me to a fly. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 22, 2014 You are comparing me to a fly. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MooNiNite Posted July 22, 2014 i wonder if they are real students. or if real students find real teachers 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) . Edited July 22, 2014 by Simple_Jack Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) i wonder if they are real students. or if real students find real teachers Good call. These Buddhabum Dzogchen boosters talk a good talk but as far as 'walking the walk' IMO any teacher worth his salt would just laugh at their silly posturings on here. Copying and pasting 'proof' text is just sad. Who are they aiming to convince? My guess is "Them-self". Edited July 22, 2014 by GrandmasterP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) Perhaps that is a euphemism for one's functional utilization of unified awareness without discriminating thought? Recognizing unfabricated presence vs the conceptualizing mind is just day 1 of Dzogchen and one is not officially a Dzogchenpa at this point. Edited July 22, 2014 by Simple_Jack Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BaguaKicksAss Posted July 22, 2014 OK I've read 10 pages of this thread, and I'm not *any* closer to rainbow body... Hmph. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 OK I've read 10 pages of this thread, and I'm not *any* closer to rainbow body... Hmph. Here is a place to start. He is very clear and practical. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jackson+peterson+dzogchen 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 22, 2014 Here is a place to start. He is very clear and practical. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jackson+peterson+dzogchen Jackson teaches neo-advaita in dzogchen drag... I'd stay far, far away. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 Jackson teaches neo-advaita in dzogchen drag... I'd stay far, far away. I think Jackson has been around this a lot longer and is much more knowledgeable than most. Perhaps longer than you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 22, 2014 I think Jackson has been around this a lot longer and is much more knowledgeable than most. Perhaps longer than you. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 He unfortunately is caught in a neo-nondual view where he takes the clarity (cognizance) of mind to be the definitive view of dzogchen. You come on here with nothing to add and are being a troll. Furthermore, if you make an accusation be prepared to back it up with facts. Your comments towards me are becoming annoying. The fly analogy was not well taken. Moreover, you tried to cover up the fly comment by comparing yourself to a fly. Explain the following. The fact that you are beguiled by his show says a lot though. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) 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. The above implies that you are somehow fortunate and he is not? In what way is he unfortunate? I would also add that you and several other Buddhists are obviously using a double bind technique on anyone who disagrees, whereby all responses are incorrect. FYI, I have read Gregory Bateson on this subject and am well read on propaganda and rhetoric. Why not drop the pretense and discuss the subject at hand. Edited July 22, 2014 by ralis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 22, 2014 You come on here with nothing to add and are being a troll. Disagreeing with you isn't being a troll, but I'm sure it can feel that way. Furthermore, if you make an accusation be prepared to back it up with facts. I'm not sure what accusation you are referring to. Your comments towards me are becoming annoying. Good practice for building patience, ralis! The fly analogy was not well taken. Moreover, you tried to cover up the fly comment by comparing yourself to a fly. Well, definitely wasn't trying to cover anything up. The fly comment wasn't exactly something to worry about in my opinion. Explain the following. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 Disagreeing with you isn't being a troll, but I'm sure it can feel that way. You disagree to disagree from an authoritarian position. >I'm not sure what accusation you are referring to. The fly for starters which has myriad implications. Good practice for building patience, ralis! Your statement implies that I need more patience and somehow you have set yourself above me as being a teacher? 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. That is an unfounded statement replete with inferred assumptions. You don't know me personally and therefor have no facts to proceed from an incorrect conclusion regarding any knowledge of Dzogchen teachings that I may or may not possess. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) What I see here is, the Buddhists here have set up a self referential feedback loop as a mechanism of self regulation, so that an immediacy of being absolutely correct is obtained. Edited July 22, 2014 by ralis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 22, 2014 What I see here is, the Buddhists here have set up a self referential feedback loop as a mechanism of self regulation, so that an immediacy of being absolutely correct is obtained. Can you give a specific example? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) Can you give a specific example? http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/page-11#entry564924 That is just one example of many. There is always a top down relationship with Buddhists in regards to others on here. Why is that? Edited July 22, 2014 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 22, 2014 http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/page-11#entry564924 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BaguaKicksAss Posted July 22, 2014 Er, I was just trying to make a light hearted joke about no really specific practical techniques posted...oops... didn't mean it to spur further debate . Anyways, I figure with each teacher, each student can figure out if the teachings mesh with them or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted July 22, 2014 OK I've read 10 pages of this thread, and I'm not *any* closer to rainbow body... Hmph. Perhaps you've already got one and just haven't noticed? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) 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. By using the term 'tīrthika' you are accusing Jackson of being a heretic. Again, you are making the claim of being absolutely correct and he is absolutely incorrect. The need to be correct and make everyone else wrong is the self-referential feed back loop. I can't make it any simpler than that. Think for yourself and stop making others do it for you. Edited July 22, 2014 by ralis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asunthatneversets Posted July 22, 2014 By using the term 'tīrthika' you are accusing Jackson of being a heretic. Again, you are making the claim of being absolutely correct and he is absolutely incorrect. The need to be correct and make everyone else wrong is the self-referential feed back loop. I can't make it any simpler than that. Think for yourself and stop making others do it for you. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
