Gatito hid his topic of Jax's book

[Tibetan_Ice]

I guess he didn't like what I had discovered.

 

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

 

From Jax's book The Natural Bliss of Being...

 

The other thing I noticed about Peterson's rendition of the term "rigpa" was discovered by accident. Again, from the same book, Peterson quotes Ponlop Rinpoche:

Dzogchen master Ponlop Rinpoche taught:

 

“Our mind is primordially in the state of Rigpa (Knowing Awareness). Whatever state of mind we go through, whether it is a very heavy experience of ignorance or a very outrageous emotion of anger, we have never moved from the state of Rigpa. Our mind has always been in the state of Rigpa, but we don’t realize it all the time.”

 

 

Since there was no reference (footnote indicating he source of the quote) I did a search and found the text. Here it is, from

https://www.amazon.com/Penetrating-Wisdom-Samantabhadra-Dzogchen-Ponlop/dp/1590304160

 

Our mind is primordially in the state of rigpa. Whatever state of mind we go through, whether it is a very heavy experience of ignorance or a very outrageous emotion of anger, we have never moved from the state of rigpa. Our mind has always been in the state of rigpa, but we don’t realize it all the time.

 

 

 

The first thing I noticed is that there is no "(Knowing Awarenss)" text in Ponlop's original text.

 

Peterson has added his own text to the author's original text thus deceiving the reader to believe that Ponlop is saying that rigpa is "knowing awareness".

 

Again, I found the exact same text on the net and there there is no (Knowing Awarenss)" text at the end of the sentence "Our mind is primordially in the state of rigpa. "

 

See:

 

http://www.dailyom.com/library/000/003/000003464.html

 

 

 

Again, Ponlop never wrote the bolded text in his original source:

 

"Our mind is primordially in the state of Rigpa (Knowing Awareness). "

 

At this point I can only conclude that Peterson misrepresents quotes from original authors and adds his own edits into those quotes. Big loss of credibility here.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Tibetan_Ice

[Jeff]

I don't believe the hiding of threads should be allowed, particularly in an open forum section.

 

In any area but the personal practice forums, the posts should belong to the individual members who posted them and to the community at large.

[Apech]

I don't believe the hiding of threads should be allowed, particularly in an open forum section.

 

In any area but the personal practice forums, the posts should belong to the individual members who posted them and to the community at large.

 

 

Gatito is very naughty.

[gatito]

I guess he didn't like what I had discovered.

<snip>

 

Wrong guess.

 

Would you like to know the correct reason (which I discussed with Jax by PM)?

 

[gatito]

I don't believe the hiding of threads should be allowed, particularly in an open forum section.

 

In any area but the personal practice forums, the posts should belong to the individual members who posted them and to the community at large.

 

It's the only thing that makes this forum usable...

 

I love the ability to moderate my own threads appropriately (in line with the founding principles of course).

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Wrong guess.

 

Would you like to know the correct reason (which I discussed with Jax by PM)?

 

Sure, I'll bite.. Do tell...

[gatito]

Sure, I'll bite.. Do tell...

 

You'll find my moderation policy here.

[Tibetan_Ice]

You'll find my moderation policy here.

I didn't really expect a straight answer from you so nothing was lost.

[gatito]

I didn't really expect a straight answer from you so nothing was lost.

 

I thought that was clear enough for most people.

 

Perhaps this is clearer?

[Tibetan_Ice]

I thought that was clear enough for most people.

 

Perhaps this is clearer?

Let me refresh your memory. You were reading Jackson's book and had nothing but praise for it. You were not finished reading the whole book and had mentioned that once you had finished it you would report back with your assessment.

 

Instead, you deleted your thread.

 

It appears from your latest responses that you deleted the thread simply because you could. Or perhaps you decided that you had violated your own moderation policy?

 

I had hoped that you could have overcome your passive aggressive attitude towards Buddhism, finished off the book and then explained to us the difference between Jaxchen and Dzogchen but instead we are left standing in a cloud of evasiveness.

 

What is Jaxchen you ask?

 

From http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=23396

 

Wayfarer wrote:

This passage resonates with me:

 

the great danger is when you just leave naked knowing as an intellectual understanding, that “In Dzogchen there is no thing to meditate upon. There is no thing to view. There is nothing to carry out as an action.” That becomes a nihilistic concept and is completely detrimental to progress, because the final point of the teaching is conceptlessness, being beyond intellectual thinking. Yet, what has happened is that you have created an intellectual idea of Dzogchen and hold on to that idea very tightly. This is a major mistake but it can happen. So, it is very important to bring the instruction into personal experience through the oral guidance of a teacher. Otherwise, simply to have the idea: I am meditating on Dzogchen, is to completely miss the point.

 

 

Krodha wrote:

 

The definition of Jaxchen.

 

Wayfarer wrote:

 

That's an interesting word, would you care to elaborate?

 

 

Krodha wrote:

 

Some so-called "teachers" out there like Jax teach their students to relate to Dzogchen in the very manner that is being criticized by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche.

 

Some people jokingly refer to his teachings as "Jaxchen" because he surely isn't teaching Dzogchen.

 

 

[Apech]

This thread is jejune.

[Tibetan_Ice]

This thread is jejune.

Simple things amuse simple minds.

 

If you are not amused then you have some work to be done.

[gatito]

Let me refresh your memory. You were reading Jackson's book and had nothing but praise for it. You were not finished reading the whole book and had mentioned that once you had finished it you would report back with your assessment.

 

Yes. I'd started reading Jax's book and I thought that it might be both interesting and useful, although I'd only read about the first forty pages (from what I recall).

 

Instead, you deleted your thread.

 

That's incorrect, I deleted all my posts and then I hid the remainder of the thread.

 

It appears from your latest responses that you deleted the thread simply because you could. Or perhaps you decided that you had violated your own moderation policy?

 

You're certainly at liberty to jump to those conclusions, however, they're factually incorrect (and the detailed reason is a private matter between me and Jax).

 

I had hoped that you could have overcome your passive aggressive attitude towards Buddhism, finished off the book and then explained to us the difference between Jaxchen and Dzogchen but instead we are left standing in a cloud of evasiveness.

 

My attitude to Buddhism is that it's potentially extremely useful, which is reflected in the fact that I'm a (Zen/Ch'an) Buddhist.

 

However, I find the variety of Buddhism that you embrace much less useful and, as almost everyone here is aware, it is the cause of considerable contention and causes major problems for the administration and moderation of TTBs, as well as for those of us who seek to attempt to use these fora appropriately...

 

However, as I'm sure most people here also realise, I don't approach Buddhism from your perspective so, if you want to me to compare and contrast what you call Jaxchen with some other variety of Buddhism, I'm simply not interested.

 

In fact, to be blunt, that sort of thing bores me shitless...

 

What is Jaxchen you ask?

 

Yes. That's exactly what I was hoping to ascertain from Jax himself, as he's obviously infinitely more qualified than anyone else to answer that question...

 

When I pick-up Jax's book again, and if I have any questions about the content, I'll simply PM Jax with those queries.

 

Clearly, it was a mistake to start that thread and I can only apologise for any inconvenience to anyone who was interested in having an appropriately moderated conversation with Jax (including Jax himself).

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well,, thanks for the straight answers (finally).

 

You might enjoy this movie. I know I did..

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Tibetan_Ice

[doc benway]

However, I find the variety of Buddhism that you embrace much less useful and, as almost everyone here is aware, it is the cause of considerable contention and causes major problems for the administration and moderation of TTBs, as well as for those of us who seek to attempt to use these fora appropriately...

 

I've got to disagree with you here.

The causes of contention and problems with administration and moderation is not any variety of Buddhism, it is the people who like to argue about it. 

[gatito]

I've got to disagree with you here.

 

 

QED...

 

[doc benway]

Nice try

[gatito]

Nice try

 

Thanks Steve!

 

However, it seems that you prefer your own efforts in this thread?

 

I don't think it will change.

If you moderate more strictly, it will waste more mod time and just lead to accusations of censorship.

If not, it will just continue like it has, gradually changing faces from time to time.

Most of the participants don't seem to be interested in trying to express Buddhist values in their social interaction.

They're too attached to expressing their intellectual positions and ideas, this is a very common pitfall in Buddhist circles.

It's quite an ironic display of conceptual and intellectual attachment much of the time.

Anyone truly interested in Buddhism would focus more on how they relate to the other participants and less on the content.

Content is valuable, but secondary to conduct, in my highly biased opinion.

Sorry if I've offended anyone but it's pretty nauseating to watch - I can't stomach it much lately.

 

So how come the Buddhism section gets so much worse than the other sections? Anyone have any ideas?? Why does it become worse off than Taoism? Taoism must have just as much to argue about, hell we never did figure out exactly what qi is, or where the dantien was .

Interesting how that seems to play out here...

 

 

So if I understand you correctly, it's not Buddhism but the Buddhists that's the root of the problem?

 

However, if that's the case then clearly the brand of Buddhism that they're espousing doesn't work...

 

How do you think that their Buddhism could be improved?

 

You say here that It doesn't have to be about accepting any dogmas.

 

I don't disagree with any of the points being made.

I'd like to add that meditation does not have to be all about endurance and pain.

It also doesn't have to be about accepting any dogmas.

In fact, it should be about connecting directly with the inner truth that makes dogma irrelevant and transparent.

 

On the other hand, when we have some experience of deep inner connection we see the truth hiding within dogma.

When we gain experience and confidence in our practice, we may choose to challenge ourselves with tests of endurance.

I've never experienced a Vipassana retreat but I'm not a big fan of the militaristic approach to meditation.

There are lots of other, gentler options.

Good luck Chi Boy

 

Do you think that getting rid of all the obscuring dogma and focusing solely on practice that actually ends suffering would be better?

[doc benway]

 

Thanks Steve!

 

However, it seems that you prefer your own efforts in this thread?

 

 

So if I understand you correctly, it's not Buddhism but the Buddhists that's the root of the problem?

 

Not Buddhism and not Buddhists - it's people who are too attached to ideas and to their ego. They could be Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheist, agnostic, it doesn't much matter. 

 

However, if that's the case then clearly the brand of Buddhism that they're espousing doesn't work...

 

Not a valid conclusion at all. We are looking at a handful of people who like to spend a substantial amount of their time arguing philosophy in anonymous internet forums. Many of the most argumentative folks have admitted that they have no personal relationship with a teacher or sangha. This small sub group cannot be extrapolated to be representative of the practice of any particular "brand" of Buddhism, IMO.

 

How do you think that their Buddhism could be improved?

 

I wouldn't presume to claim to know a way to improve Buddhism. I do think people interested in Buddhist practice would do better to study with an experienced teacher until they are independent in skillful methods of study and practice. 

 

You say here that It doesn't have to be about accepting any dogmas.

 

 

Do you think that getting rid of all the obscuring dogma and focusing solely on practice that actually ends suffering would be better?

 

I think that getting rid of all obscurations would be better, in whatever way they manifest for us as individuals. There is nothing inherently dogmatic or obscuring about the Dharma. We are invited to take what works for us and leave the rest. We are asked to examine it critically and objectively and see if it works, for ourselves. I do not advocate a dogmatic approach, although I acknowledge that there are those that do. That approach is not for me but it may be effective for some at specific points in their lives.

 

To the extent that Dharma is supportive and guides us closer to the truth it is a blessing. To the extent it is creating attachment, conflict, and obstruction to progress, it is an obstacle and should be let go. Different people have different needs. Some benefit more from intellectual study and debate, some benefit more from practice. Most masters would say that both are necessary. I personally think the practice is far more important but that may simply be because I fall into the latter group. Skillful debate is also very healthy and effective but, unfortunately, the type of argument that you are referring to and that leads to moderator intervention is not skillful debate.

 

QED back at ya, brother!

[gatito]

 

 

Thanks Steve!

 

However, it seems that you prefer your own efforts in this thread?

 

 

So if I understand you correctly, it's not Buddhism but the Buddhists that's the root of the problem?

 

Not Buddhism and not Buddhists - it's people who are too attached to ideas and to their ego. They could be Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheist, agnostic, it doesn't much matter. 

 

However, if that's the case then clearly the brand of Buddhism that they're espousing doesn't work...

 

Not a valid conclusion at all. We are looking at a handful of people who like to spend a substantial amount of their time arguing philosophy in anonymous internet forums. Many of the most argumentative folks have admitted that they have no personal relationship with a teacher or sangha. This small sub group cannot be extrapolated to be representative of the practice of any particular "brand" of Buddhism, IMO.

 

How do you think that their Buddhism could be improved?

 

I wouldn't presume to claim to know a way to improve Buddhism. I do think people interested in Buddhist practice would do better to study with an experienced teacher until they are independent in skillful methods of study and practice. 

 

You say here that It doesn't have to be about accepting any dogmas.

 

 

Do you think that getting rid of all the obscuring dogma and focusing solely on practice that actually ends suffering would be better?

 

I think that getting rid of all obscurations would be better, in whatever way they manifest for us as individuals. There is nothing inherently dogmatic or obscuring about the Dharma. We are invited to take what works for us and leave the rest. We are asked to examine it critically and objectively and see if it works, for ourselves. I do not advocate a dogmatic approach, although I acknowledge that there are those that do. That approach is not for me but it may be effective for some at specific points in their lives.

 

To the extent that Dharma is supportive and guides us closer to the truth it is a blessing. To the extent it is creating attachment, conflict, and obstruction to progress, it is an obstacle and should be let go. Different people have different needs. Some benefit more from intellectual study and debate, some benefit more from practice. Most masters would say that both are necessary. I personally think the practice is far more important but that may simply be because I fall into the latter group. Skillful debate is also very healthy and effective but, unfortunately, the type of argument that you are referring to and that leads to moderator intervention is not skillful debate.

 

QED back at ya, brother!

 

 

I see...

 

You imagine that you're in some some sort of debating competition and that you're demonstrating consummate skill...

[doc benway]

I see...

 

You imagine that you're in some some sort of debating competition and that you're demonstrating consummate skill...

 

I was simply answering your questions. 

I'll stop now.

Good luck in your practice.

[gatito]

I was simply answering your questions. 

I'll stop now.

Good luck in your practice.

 

I appreciate the sentiment Steve, however, in my view, any practice that's dependent on luck wouldn't be viable.

 

I'd choose only practice that's entirely evidence-based, guaranteed to end suffering and reproducible by anyone/everyone.

Edited November 9, 2016 by gatito

[Michael Sternbach]

I appreciate the sentiment Steve, however, in my view, any practice that's dependent on luck wouldn't be viable.

 

I'd choose only practice that's entirely evidence-based, guaranteed to end suffering and reproducible by anyone/everyone.

 

[Wayfarer]

Is there two "Wayfarers" at DB as I don't remember writing those comments???

[Kar3n]

Is there two "Wayfarers" at DB as I don't remember writing those comments???

You are the only one one TDB. The quoted text was from a member on dharmawheel, who has the screen name Wayfarer.

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=23396