..................
Soh wrote to Mr. J: as John Tan also said before, and also reiterated by many (including Malcolm, Dalai Lama, etc) who went through similar phases... there is distinct phase - realizing Awareness [although Malcolm does not use this term in the same way] or the unfabricated clarity aspect of rigpa, and realizing emptiness are distinct realizations. Even longchenpa and other dzogchen masters would point out that realizing emptiness only happens in thodgal practice at the third vision.
John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:
“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).
First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They are the same.
However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.
Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.
The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.
As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both are equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they are the same (imo).”
Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." -
Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Bookor as kyle dixon reiterated malcolm with regards to trekchod:
Kyle Dixon:
https://www.reddit.com/user/krodhaYes, the actual state of trekchö is the nonconceptual equipoise of a yogic direct perception of emptiness. Emptiness cannot be known by unawakened people, but clarity can be known. The nominal trekchö we practice until we realize emptiness works with the clarity aspect [gsal cha]. The nominal “little” trekchö is also called “the yoga of the view.”
Malcolm:
“The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in trekchöd is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.”
“Actually, what one is resting is empty clarity. However, below the path of seeing, the emptiness of that clarity is a conceptual inference. However, when meditating, we just rest in the clarity aspect without engaging in concepts like "this is empty." We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.”
......................
level 1Namkhai
Norbu Rinpoche explains very succinctly what is the state if rigpa:
“Whatever arises in the mind, the awareness of that, the presence of
that state of whatever arises is itself rigpa. This is not a concept,
but it's a direct experience, that kind of presence or awareness. It's
beyond any concept. One continues to remain beyond concept and one
continuously finds oneself in this knowingness, or presence. This is the
essence of all that we speak of in the Upadesha teachings”
1
level 2That
is the initial form of rigpa yes, not the “definitive” type though. The
definitive form is synonymous with prajñā [tib. shes rab].
To unpack further:
Norbu Rinpoche, who is my own root teacher, in the quote above is discussing rig pa in the context of gnas gyu rig gsum or the trio of knowing, stillness of thought and movement of thought. Rigpa in that context is defined as gnas gyu shes pa
or the “knowing of stillness and movement.” In his own writing Norbu
Rinpoche is quite clear that this initial form of rigpa is simply the
clarity or cognizance of one’s own mind, thus it is termed “rig pa”
because it is a species of shes pa or knowing.
This
species of rigpa is an acceptable form of rigpa that one can recognize
and use as a foundation for one's practice, however it is not yet the
awakened form of rigpa which is accompanied by ye shes [skt. jñana].
This preliminary expression of rigpa, as the mere clarity of mind is a
coarse expression of rigpa appearing as the consciousness [vijñāna]
skandha, called by Vimalamitra; ”The vidyā that apprehends characteristics.” Vimalamitra defines this rigpa as ”the
vidyā [rig pa] that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere
personal names, which is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing
awareness defiled by many cognitions.” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls this modality of rigpa: ”rigpa mistaken as illusory mind”, and also refers to it by the name Vimalamitra gave it, which is again: ”the vidyā that apprehends characteristics.”
Jean-Luc Achard defines this species of rigpa as “unripened” or “immature” rigpa [tib. ma smin pa'i rig pa].
Tsoknyi
Rinpoche is quite clear that we should not conflate this preliminary
form of rigpa for the definitive and awakened expression of rigpa:
This
early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind]
or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same
meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing
[self-originated] awareness [rang byung rig pa].
His father, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said the same:
In
the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and
noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing.
Self-existing [self-originated] awareness is also called rigpa. The word
is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these
two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.
3
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/4ilyvx/what_is_the_experience_of_rigpa_in_dzogchen/
level 1I do not mean is translation as knowledge; I mean it's deeper meaning as an experience in Dzogchen
It
is a direct and visceral knowledge of the nature of mind [tib. sems
nyid]. But it is also something like the fundamental essence of our
knowledge, or the mind's capacity to know, and has other implications in
that sense.
From what I gather it is not equivalent to the direct perception of emptiness.
Emptiness
[stong pa nyid] is one aspect of the nature of mind, the other is
clarity [gsal ba], which is the cognizant or noetic capacity of mind. So
in this sense the nature of mind is defined as the inseparability of
clarity and emptiness [stong gsal dbyer med]. When the nature of mind is
recognized, and we have a direct, experiential knowledge [rig pa] of
that nature, then we are knowing the nature of the mind as non-dual
clarity and emptiness.
But one can have the direct perception of emptiness from the standpoint of rigpa.
The
realization of emptiness which occurs at the first bhumi (the path of
seeing in Mahayana) is called the "full measure" or "full culmination"
of rigpa [rig pa tshad phebs]. This is when one's knowledge of his/her
nature is complete.
Is rigpa buddhahood in which relative and ultimate realities are seen simultaneously?
Rig
pa has various modalities and expressions, ranging from a relative
knowledge to the omniscience that is attained at the time of the result.
But it is not equivalent to buddhahood in and of itself. Buddhahood is
the result, that occurs once the twin obscurations (afflictive and
cognitive) are exhausted. But yes recognition of one's nature is also
defined as knowing the union of the two truths.
7
level 2Thank
you, krodha. So, rigpa is not necessarily a non-dual experience in that
there is a dissolution of self as there is in the direct perception of
emptiness? But, there is a union of clarity and emptiness, which i've
also heard as luminosity and space.
How
is "full measure" or "full culmination" realized permanently? Or can it
be? One has that experience and enters the first bhumi and then works
to habituate the mind to what it has seen. But must one repeatedly
dissolve the self and continue to have these direct perceptions of
emptiness until it has fully imbued the relative mind so to speak?
1
level 3So, rigpa is not necessarily a non-dual experience
Rigpa
does entail knowledge that phenomena are non-dual, which in the context
of the buddhadharma means that phenomena are free from the dual
extremes of existence and non-existence.
in that there is a dissolution of self
Recognition
of the nature of mind implies a realization of selflessness. The self
is an inferential construct that is imputed onto the clarity of mind
when said clarity is mistakenly reified as a substantial, subjective
point of reference (abiding in relation to allegedly external objects).
Realizing that the clarity of mind is empty means we recognize that
there is no foundation for a self, as there never truly has been.
as there is in the direct perception of emptiness?
Yes, non-dual emptiness and clarity, or non-dual emptiness and appearance, both are essentially synonymous.
How is "full measure" or "full culmination" realized permanently?
By way of a total exhaustion of the ignorance and obscurations that prevent the nature of mind from being apparent at all times.
One has that experience and enters the first bhumi and then works to habituate the mind to what it has seen.
In a sense, yes. Although getting to that point is quite rare.
But
must one repeatedly dissolve the self and continue to have these direct
perceptions of emptiness until it has fully imbued the relative mind so
to speak?
One
continues to fluctuate between equipoise [mnyam bzhag] and
post-equipoise [rjes thob] until they are fully merged. It does not
involve dissolving the self so much, as there is no self to dissolve in
the first place. Rather it simply involves continually resting in a
direct knowledge [rig pa] of the nature of mind [sems nyid] as much as
possible. Although latent habitual tendencies will make it difficult to
maintain that equipoise and will cause one to lapse back into relative
dualistic mind. The point of the path [lam] is to exhaust those latent
traces that obstruct one's nature, so that eventually one never
regresses from that knowledge ever again, which is the result ['bras
bu], i.e., buddhahood.
1
level 4Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Very clear explanation for such a difficult topic.
1
..........
..........
...........
Kyle Dixon:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dzogchen/comments/ovfx7q/to_dzogchen_is_there_any_difference_between/level 1Back to the question... In some systems and schools of meditation, emptiness is seen as something that is "done": you actively focus on the empty space between thoughts and try to rest there for as long as possible. I was wondering if, in Dzogchen, there is a difference between the described above and "resting in the nature of the mind", or if the latter is a different thing.
Yes there is a difference. The former, cultivating the space between thoughts is called stillness or nepa in Tibetan, gnas pa in the Wylie transliteration. Cultivating stillness is good practice, it is śamatha meditation, but in Dzogchen we must also integrate movement, and there are methods to accomplish that.
The knower of stillness and movement of thought is called the characteristic of mind, it is sometimes nominally referred to as the nature of mind, but it is just an “example gnosis” which is used in practice so that the aspirant can realize true gnosis.
True insight into the nature of mind however occurs in awakening to actual gnosis, the non-arisen luminosity of mind, and is the same as realizing there is no self, or no external objects as well, but it has to do with realizing emptiness [śūnyatā]. That insight is an actual cognitive shift where the inner subjective background collapses and/or external objects are realized to be false.
6
....................
level 1
krodha
·
3m
·
edited 3m
I wanted to be sure I have some of u/krodha’s teachings right
Not my teachings. I am not a teacher. But what the tantras and luminaries of the past along with what contemporary teachers have said.
He says when we have recognition, it’s not an actual recognition but a “artificial” nature of mind the Guru introduces us to.
Initial recognition is of vidyā, but it is just an unripened modality of vidyā. Then later when emptiness is realized the dharmatā or nature of mind is truly known.
When teachers say you are resting in the nature of mind prior to realizing emptiness, they just mean nominally.
Seems clear— if you do this simple practice, you will recognize the natural state, and then one can familiarize with that by returning to it in the face of conditioned consciousness.
Right, you employ that view and it will lead to jñāna.
So how can we reconcile u/krodha’s statement... ”Only āryas can actually rest in the natural state” From countless instructions, scriptures, and teachers who instruct to rest in the natural state?
Even Mipham in your citation says awakening “will naturally arise” as a result of engaging in the view he initially describes. That is how it works.
So if we received the instructions from an authentic teacher, to rest in the natural state, how can we reconcile someone on Reddit, who speaks like a teacher and gives their statements the same authority, telling us it’s not right?
You just apparently aren’t that knowledgeable about the nuances involved in these teachings. The actual meaning of really differentiating some of these modalities in the way they are expressed. I’m sorry the information I share challenges your ideas.
And when we repeat the ancient instructions of resting in the natural state, so easy and fruitful, we are accused of claiming to be a Buddha.
I said you personally, conflate the ālaya with dharmakāya, gsal ba with zang thal etc. I stand by that assessment.
So the premise set forth here is that anyone who says they’re resting in the natural state are claiming to be Buddhas— it really seems to be problematic considering so many dzogchen instructions tell to rest in the natural state and familiarize with it after recognition.
Again there is the nominal “natural state” we employ in beginners dhyāna that is used to access samādhi, etc., and then there is the genuine natural state. Which as I wrote before: “Natural state” is gnas lugs which actually means “reality.” The reality of what? Of mind and phenomena. It means seeing the way things really are [gshis kyi gnas lugs], phenomena as they really are [chos kyi dbyings] because you have realized emptiness [stong pa nyid].
This means the natural state you continually refer to is just a nominal natural state, referred to as such as a pleasantry.
Incidentally, the confusion you are having about these distinctions is the very reason why snying thig Dzogchen began to institute the twin base model. The (i) ālaya or kun gzhi which is the mind and then (ii) the gzhi which also incidentally is defined as “the reality [gnas lugs] to be realized [rtogs pa].” The initial recognition [ngo shes] of what is pointed out by the teacher is not yet “realization” [rtogs pa]. That recognition must be matured through practice, and then realization [rtogs pa] of the “reality” [gnas lugs: the real meaning of “natural state”] and eventually liberation [sgrol ba] will occur.
My statements on all this are just to help ensure that no one is mistaking the ālaya for dharmakāya, the actual natural state, because like Jigme Lingpa said, doing so will mean you are like a blind man wandering in the desert.
7
level 2
[deleted]
·
3m
When teachers say you are resting in the nature of mind prior to realizing emptiness, they just mean nominally.
Ok this might be the core of our disagreement. Can you show some sources that talk about “nature of mind” in all these teachings is just a provisional or just a name for some..thing, as you seem to be saying?
Because Mipham seems clear in saying the “real” natural state is what’s recognized and strengthened with familiarization.
I said you personally, conflate the ālaya with dharmakāya, gsal ba with zang thal etc. I stand by that assessment.
Right, you’ve proclaimed this insight into my mind, can you paste the text here that backs it up?
Again there is the nominal “natural state” we employ in beginners dhyāna that is used to access samādhi, etc.
Can you show me a source that says the nature of mind pointed out by a guru is “nominal”?
1
User avatar
level 3
krodha
·
3m
·
edited 3m
Ok this might be the core of our disagreement. Can you show some sources that talk about “nature of mind” in all these teachings is just a provisional or just a name for some..thing, as you seem to be saying?
Khenpo Ngachung’s thögal tri is a main text that discusses this, I will try to get a citation.
Can you show me a source that says the nature of mind pointed out by a guru is “nominal”?
The teacher only points out unripened vidyā, unless you are very ripe for realization. If you are “ripe” from accomplishment in previous lives then you may become realized just through direct introduction. Most of us just recognize vidyā and then ripen our vidyā until we realize emptiness.
4
level 4
[deleted]
·
3m
Ok we’ve been through this before— and you never cited a definitive, explicit teaching to back what you’re saying.
Secondly, if what you’re saying is really truth, it would be repeated across many masters and teachings— like the instruction of resting in the natural state.
1
User avatar
level 5
krodha
·
3m
·
edited 3m
Secondly, if what you’re saying is really truth, it would be repeated across many masters and teachings— like the instruction of resting in the natural state.
In the actual natural state objects no longer appear to be external. Objects don’t appear at all, just non-arisen appearance which is experientially ascertained to be the display of your own vidyā. Sems and sems byung are both arrested and the luminosity of your nature, zangtal, becomes the prevailing modality of consciousness.
That state is massively different in expression when compared to our relative condition.
It just seems to me that you are asserting that our relative condition, with functioning mind [sems] and mental factors [sems byung] which perceive objects is the natural state, but it is not the natural state, it is avidyā.
Thus, when a beginners trekchö practice is referred to as being in the “natural state” it is just a nominal natural state, not the actual awakened natural state.
9
-----------------------------------------------------
Update, 2023: Adding some quotes:
Kyle Dixon
Admin
Yes “I AM” as it is understood in AtR is the first step in Dzogchen practice, and then insight is refined from there.
Kyle Dixon
Admin
Chris Pedersen if you have any of ChNN’s Longsal texts, there are a couple instances where he makes it quite explicit that “instant presence” is synonymous with what we would understand I AM to be in this AtR model. Instant presence is like an unripened form of rig pa in that way, used as a support for all practices, but not yet refined through insight.
-------
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Chris Pedersen
I wasn't having ChNN particularly in mind, but really, all Dzogchen teachers I've seen and come across lead students to I AM. (not necessarily as a final stage)
But yes, ChNN is included. It isn't even controversial. Kyle Dixon would agree with me, in fact, he told me himself that Malcolm Smith points to I AM as initial rigpa and is the said instant presence.
There's an important aspect to the guru yoga taught by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu which brings out the aspect of I AMness or Pure Presence.
I wrote previously, quoting a text from ChNN:
"...We sound another A and from that moment we are no longer working with visualization, thinking, or judging, but are only being in that presence. In particular, we notice who is doing this visualization, who is being in this white A at the center of the gakhyil. We are not looking at something in a dualistic way; we are being in that state, and that is instant presence and our real condition."
-- this is a self-enquiry instruction pointing to the same realization, exactly the same, even if you do not want to call it by those name.
ChNN pointing out the I AM (note that I am not suggesting that I AM is the limit of his insight):
5/12/2012 6:29 AM: Soh Wei Yu: "If you are in the state of instant presence, and compare this sensation with the experience of emptiness, or clarity, or in a different way you compare one with another, you discover that presence is unique, that it always remains the same. But before we are able to be in the state of presence, experiences are all different. So that is the meaning of tsed la pheb:
5/12/2012 6:30 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Maturing: you discover really that the state of instant presence or rigpa is unique. In our lives everything is an experience, and there are not only three experiences."
5/12/2012 8:54 AM: John: What does he meant by not only three experiences
5/12/2012 9:43 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Emptiness (in the gap between thoughts that is emptiness but there is nonetheless someone noticing that, a presence, sounds like I AM), clarity (like movement, manifestation) and sensation (sensation of pleasure incl sexual contact)
5/12/2012 9:45 AM: Soh Wei Yu: He said
5/12/2012 9:47 AM: Soh Wei Yu: "...when we are dissolving everything into emptiness, in that moment we are discovering instant presence because we are not only lost in emptiness, there is also someone noticing that, there is a presence. So this is called instant presence. And you can also have this instant presence with the experience of clarity and with the experience of sensation, even with a strong sensation like sexual contact. Of course, at this moment you can feel a very strong sensation of pleasure and maybe you are generally distracted by it, but
?5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: If you are a good practitioner you also notice the instant presence. That is, you are not only enjoying the strong sensation but at the same time
5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: you are in instant presence.
5/12/2012 9:48 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Then followed by the ""If you are in the state of instant presence, and compare this sensation with the experience of emptiness... Etc
.....
ChNN also said before,
"Ranxin minis means one does not simply remain in the condition of the experience, but uses the experience as a method to find oneself in the state of contemplation. In these experiences there is a presence. It is not as if one has fainted or lost consciousness. There is somebody who remains in it. There is no difference whatsoever whether this presence is found in the experience of the person who is smiling or in the experience of the person who is frightened, even though the experiences are completely different. Minis does not mean that two things are united, or that we think that they are the same. If we just say that the nature of those things is not real, thus they are the same, then it will remain as a mental construction. But if one goes through the diverse experiences and hence finds that the true state of presence has no difference, then the real state of nacog is one, and the presence is called rigba (rig.pa.) If we say different experiences are not equal, this is what we mean.
"Whether it is calm, movement, or any one of hundreds of experiences, the important thing is to know the difference between experience and presence. When we know what is meant by rigba, we ought to know how to integrate with all these aspects in our presence."
"So, ugly or beautiful, positive or negative conditions, heavens or hells or transmigration do not in any way affect the underlying nature of the consciousness that is the state of the mirror itself." "that which is noticing thoughts and that which is noticing no thoughts, that which notices both conditions is Rigpa"
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
And I can refer to you that Malcolm Smith post pointing to the distinction between initial rigpa as I AMness and subsequent emptiness realisation, if you guys are in the Zangthal forum.
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
As for some excerpts from other Dzogchen teachers besides ChNN pointing to I AMness:
Tenzin Wangyal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNK7g5xZu7wSogyal Rinpoche: “Sometimes when I meditate, I don't use any particular method. I just allow my mind to rest, and find, especially when I am inspired, that I can bring my mind home and relax very quickly. I sit quietly and rest in the nature of mind; I don't question or doubt whether I am in the "cor-rect" state or not. There is no effort, only rich understanding, wakefulness, and unshakable certainty. When I am in the nature of mind, the ordinary mind is no longer there. There is no need to sustain or confirm a sense of being: I simply am. A fundamental trust is present. There is nothing in par-ticular to do… …If meditation is simply to continue the flow of Rigpa after the introduction, how do we know when it is Rigpa and when it is not? I asked Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche this ques-tion, and he replied with his characteristic simplicity: "If you are in an unaltered state, it is Rigpa." If we are not contriving or manipulating the mind in any way, but simply resting in an unaltered state of pure and pristine awareness, then that is Rigpa. If there is any contriving on our part or any kind of manipulating or grasping, it is not. Rigpa is a state in which there is no longer any doubt; there is not really a mind to doubt: You see directly. If you are in this state, a complete, natural certainty and confidence surge up with the Rigpa itself, and that is how you know.”
Lopon Tenzin Namdak: "To clarify the Dzogchen view: "We are just what we are, the Natural State which is like a mirror. It is clear and empty, and yet it reflects everything, all possible existences and all possible lifetimes. But it never changes and it does not depend on anything else."
etc etc.. too many to list but you get the hang of it
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top contributor
Also, the direct introduction of Dzogchen also can lead to I AM realization. For example, Tinh Panh realised the I AM during Malcolm Smith's direct introduction. He kinda thanked me for introducing him to Malcolm as I was kind of an influence for leading him to Malcolm Smith.
Those who don't get it yet can do self-introduction practices like rushan and semzins.
Kyle Dixon also said,
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/09/the-degrees-of-rigpa.html
badge icon
"I’ve never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct introduction. Plenty who recognized rigpa kechigma though.
I don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung who state emptiness isn’t actually known until third vision and so on. You may presume otherwise and in that case we can agree to disagree."
- Kyle Dixon
-------------
Someone asked:
Hello everyone!🤗
I'm having difficulties understanding an apparently simple thing that being Rigpa as a corresponding definition to AtR stages. It pretty much feels like the "I am" stage I'm in but I wanted to ask because I have the feeling I'm missing something.
I've read the post "Clarification on the Term "Rigpa" written on AtR...but still a little unsure and confused.
Thank you 🙏🏻
Soh replied:
"It pretty much feels like the "I am" stage"
You can't say that because there are modalities. Kyle Dixon listed 5 types of rigpas for example.
Krodha/Kyle Dixon shared before:
It would only be a recognition [ngo shes] regarding preliminary insight into the triune division of knowing, stillness and movement [gnas gyu rig gsum]. This would be vidyā qua mental factor as instant presence [skad cig ma yi rig pa] in the context of being the "observer of stillness and movement" [gnas gyu shes pa], described above as the “unchanging background” against which the “shifting experience(s)” of stillness [gnas pa] and movement [gyu ba] occur.
This means the above is discussing unripened vidyā [ma smin pa'i rig pa]. This modality of vidyā must be ripened by prajñā of realization, as Longchenpa states in the Tshig don mdzod:
"de yang gzhi nas ’phags pa’i rig pa sa bon lta bu grol ’khrul gang byed ma nges pas ma smin pa’i rig pa zhes bya ste/ /sangs rgyas su smin par byed pa ni rtogs pa’i shes rab kyis byas te
Furthermore, since the vidyā [rig pa] that arises from the basis is like a seed, uncertain to produce either liberation or delusion, it is called “unripened vidyā”: that which will mature it into full buddhahood is the prajñā of realization."
Regardless of not yet being “realization” [rtogs pa], the above described recognition is indeed the view that we implement as a foundation for practice, but that view is the ground floor so to speak, it must be cultivated, and must mature and ripen.
...
Khenpo Jikphun’s commentary on that section reads:
"You have the basis [gzhi] of the natural state. That state has a knowledge [rig pa] which, owing to the dynamism of the state (which is not static), flashes out of the basis. The mode [tshul] in which it arises or flashes [‘phags pa] out of the basis is uncertain [ma nges pa] since the nature of this mode will vary according to realization (and non-realization). Therefore this state of vidyā [rig pa] is styled as “unripened” [ma smin pa] because it has not yet been “brought to maturity” through the prajñā or sublime knowledge that realises its very nature. In case one does not recognize the nature of the epiphany (sounds, rays and lights) of the basis, one enters the mode [tshul] of ignorance [ma rig pa] and one errs into delusion [‘khrul pa]. If one recognizes the nature of this epiphany (sounds, rays and lights as being our own natural manifestations [rang snang]), then one enters the mode of vidyā [rig pa] and that of liberation [grol ba]. This is why uncertainty [ma nges pa] is associated with the notion of unripened vidyā [ma smin pa'i rig pa]. When that vidyā is clearly experienced for what it is, then there is no uncertainty anymore."
If we have merely recognized the background knowing capacity of the mind we have recognized clarity [gsal ba]. We are not yet “realized” however in the sense that we haven’t realized the nature of phenomena, or the definitive nature of mind which is not realized until third vision per Khenpo Ngachung et al.
I define a “realized” person as someone who has a knowledge of the nature of mind and phenomena. The definitive “realized” expression of vidyā is actually a jñāna that experientially sees the way things really are for oneself, hence pratyātma vid in the context of so so rang gyi rig pa'i ye shes [pratyatmyavedanajñāna] as you’re familiar with... a personality intuited jñāna.
There is no gnosis [jñāna] yet present in unripened vidyā. It is innate to vidyā but not yet expressed as an active modality of cognition because rtsal has not been recognized as self-display [rang snang]. Rather it is externalized and concretized as objective phenomena, persons, places, things, the five elements. As long as there is still a bifurcation of internal and external dbyings, the individual is not yet technically “realized.”
If you want to call recognition of instant presence “realization” I suppose you can, but the trifecta of recognition [ngo shes], realization [rtogs pa] and liberation [grol ba] is instituted for a reason.
...
An unchanging background against which shifting experiences occur is the initial view. It is not a matured view. There is no unchanging background or shifting experience in truly realized equipoise.
...
That is the initial form of rigpa yes, not the “definitive” type though. The definitive form is synonymous with prajñā [tib. shes rab].
To unpack further:
Norbu Rinpoche, who is my own root teacher, in the quote above is discussing rig pa in the context of gnas gyu rig gsum or the trio of knowing, stillness of thought and movement of thought. Rigpa in that context is defined as gnas gyu shes pa or the “knowing of stillness and movement.” In his own writing Norbu Rinpoche is quite clear that this initial form of rigpa is simply the clarity or cognizance of one’s own mind, thus it is termed “rig pa” because it is a species of shes pa or knowing.
This species of rigpa is an acceptable form of rigpa that one can recognize and use as a foundation for one's practice, however it is not yet the awakened form of rigpa which is accompanied by ye shes [skt. jñana]. This preliminary expression of rigpa, as the mere clarity of mind is a coarse expression of rigpa appearing as the consciousness [vijñāna] skandha, called by Vimalamitra; ”The vidyā that apprehends characteristics.” Vimalamitra defines this rigpa as ”the vidyā [rig pa] that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names, which is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls this modality of rigpa: ”rigpa mistaken as illusory mind”, and also refers to it by the name Vimalamitra gave it, which is again: ”the vidyā that apprehends characteristics.”
Jean-Luc Achard defines this species of rigpa as “unripened” or “immature” rigpa [tib. ma smin pa'i rig pa].
Tsoknyi Rinpoche is quite clear that we should not conflate this preliminary form of rigpa for the definitive and awakened expression of rigpa:
This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing [self-originated] awareness [rang byung rig pa].
His father, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said the same:
In the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing [self-originated] awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.
Upvote
4
Downvote
Reply
reply
Award
0 awards
Share
Share
------------
Cao Khánhif im not mistaken then in Dzogchen, a practitioner is guided through realizing rigpa - Knowing at different visions. The first visions would be similar to the I Am - which i think is similar to "Pure Awareness" and then the later visions continue on with refinement to see that Pure Awareness as also empty / dependently originated.
Soh Wei YuIf you are talking about thodgal visions, there are specific visions (as in seen visually) involved so it is more complicated than that. You will have to learn and study under a Dzogchen master to understand if you are interested.
Soh Wei YuYes. Recognition of clarity is involved in the visions, but the four visions unfold with specific visual visions involved and are exhausted.
The path of thodgal is different from mere trekcho, for example
Posts
