Posts
Also see: Acarya Malcolm on Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta
Based on post by Acarya Malcolm in Dharmawheel, reposted in Zangthal forum.
This is an edited version of Malcolm’s posts from 2011 on that topic.
Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?
Recognizing rigpa means one is a practitioner. Realizing emptiness means one is an awakened person (ārya).
The recognition of rigpa is not equal to entering the path of seeing on the first bhūmi. The path of seeing is reached the moment one’s understanding of emptiness ceases to be an intellectual construct and becomes a valid direct perception.[1] To put it another way, when a person ceases to reify phenomena in terms of the four extremes, that is the direct perception of emptiness. Until that point, one’s ‘emptiness’ remains an intellectual sequence of negations, accurate perhaps, but conceptual nevertheless. Realizing emptiness here in Dzogchen has the same meaning as realizing emptiness in any other Mahāyāna school.
The recognition of rigpa is a recognition of clarity. It is simply, the knowledge (rig pa) about one’s state as a working basis for practice. That recognition of rigpa (knowledge of the basis) does not require realization of emptiness as a prerequisite and can’t. If it did, no one who was not an ārya on the bhūmis could practice Dzogchen. So a proper understanding is required, but not the realization of emptiness. So this recognition, not being the same as the realization of emptiness of the path of seeing, is an example-wisdom only.
The realization of emptiness is also not a requirement for the basic requirement of trekchö, i.e. stable placement in a momentary unfabricated consciousness (ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma). Only a proper understanding of emptiness is required.
That understanding of emptiness, while necessary, is not at all the same thing as realizing emptiness. The experience of emptiness is experiencing a consciousness (shes pa) free of concepts, often referred to as recognizing the gap between two thoughts. If you follow the teaching of Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, terming this experience ‘Dharmakāya’ is a mistake. It is just an impermanent experience.
In terms of thögal and the four visions, one will not reach the third vision for as long as one continues to reify phenomena. This is the principal reason emphasis is placed on the basis of trekchö rather than the path of thögal in modern Dzogchen practice. If you are a first bhūmi bodhisattva and so on, then the four visions in Dzogchen will be very, very rapid. However, since there is no guarantee that one will realize emptiness merely through practicing trekchö, for this reason, practices such as tummo, etc. are also recommended.
[1] See the abhisamayālamkara for more details.
....
Mr. J isn’t very familiar with the nuances of “rigpa” as a principle
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
There are various modalities
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
I’m not sure why he thinks Dzogchen is related to gzhan stong
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Madhyamaka is inferior as a methodology but not inferior in terms of view
👍
1
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Rigpa kechigma is a mental factor. It is just the knowing faculty of a mind.
👍
1
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Mind [sems] is not rigpa but rigpa is the fundamental instantiation of a mind and when sems is the dominant condition, the knowing quality of the mind is a modality of rigpa, albeit an unripened and deluded expression, but it is rigpa nevertheless
👍
1
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Mr. J thinks rigpa is a monolithic principle like the purusa of Vedanta
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
It is much more nuanced than that though
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Köppl’s idea that Dzogchen promotes a positive ontology is really nonsense
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
And then Mr. J just spins back into negating imputation alone
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
Per usual
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
But that is Mr. Jchen for you
Kyle
sent
about an hour ago
He just reifies awareness as a monolithic unchanging nature and marginalizes everything else
krodha = kyle dixonlevel 6krodha1 point ·8 days ago· edited 8 days ago"If the nature of mind is realized"There is a spectrum of aspects that can be recognized and realized, from vidyā [rig pa] to the nature of mind [sems nyid], the two are not technically synonymous, and so on. Then, within that we must differentiate ngo shes, to recognize; and rtogs pa, to realize, and then liberation [grol ba]. Recognition of sems nyid is not the realization of sems nyid, just as the initial vidyā in the form of a mental factor as rig pa skad cig ma, what Norbu Rinpoche called “instant presence” is not qualitatively the same as the definitive expression of vidyā that knows the essence [snying po] of mind.Therefore this topic really is not so cut and dry."That's why people translate the first vision the way they do.. "manifest intrinsic reality" -- (from Dzogchen by His Holiness the Dalai Lama) on the first vision. "the direct experience of dharmata" -- (from A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro) The direct experience of dharmata doesn't exclude emptiness."Yes, well, this topic is also quite interesting. The use of chos nyid in the first vision as chos nyid mngon gsum “the direct perception of dharmatā” is actually a different use of dharmatā than sūtrayāna. Here, when we see chos nyid it indicates rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs (རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས), "confirming vidyā in a direct perception." Therefore in the case of the first vision, we are not referring to dharmatā as emptiness, but rather dharmatā is a term being used to indicate the appearances of rig pa that are ascertained in a direct perception [pratyaksa].The total realization of emptiness does not then occur until the third vision, which is called “the full measure of vidyā” because at that time, upon realizing emptiness and non-arising, our knowledge [vidyā] of phenomena is complete, and has reached its “full measure.”level 7Comment deleted by user8 days agolevel 8krodha1 point ·8 days agoWho is your teacher? You should ask for clarification on this matter.level 9Comment deleted by user8 days agolevel 10krodha2 points ·8 days agoFor example you separate vidya from the nature of mindYes, as did my root teacher, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu.The issue is that vidyā is subject to affliction, whereas the nature of mind, the basis, is not. If we say the basis and vidyā are one and the same, then we are saying vidyā is always perfected and there would be no reason for the Dzogchen path at all, which as Longchenpa states is the process of purifying vāyu and vidyā.It is a subtle but important distinction. Generally vidyā would belong to the lhun grub aspect of the basis, the nature [rang bzhin], but the basis is the trio of essence, nature and compassion.Continue this threadlevel 10krodha1 point ·8 days agoMaybe good to ask always teachers but I've myself been given permission to teach.Then you should absolutely go seek clarification on this issue because you run the risk of confusing others.To me, your conclusions have fallacies and terminology isn't lining up.This is Khenpo Namdrol’s definition, perhaps reach out to him, Sangye Khandro or Lama Chönam for clarification. This is ABSOLUTELY the correct “conclusion” because they just aided my own teacher in the publication of the Dzogchen tantra, the Yige Medpa which is the definitive explanatory tantra on the first vision.Continue this threadlevel 8krodha0 points ·8 days agoAlso the latter section on the direct perception of dharmatā is quite cut and dry, and if you aren’t clear on this point then you will encounter problems in your practice, so again please seek clarification from your teacher.level 2krodha4 points ·9 days agoThe realization of emptiness takes place at the third vision.level 3zhonnu0 points ·9 days agoThe way emptiness is understood in sutra is different from what constitutes emptiness in thogal. As far as i am aware when people talk about the first bhumi like the OP does they talk about the understanding that sutra practitioners have. No questions were asked about thogal.level 4krodha3 points ·9 days agoThe way emptiness is understood in sutra is different from what constitutes emptiness in thogalEmptiness as a principle and realization, is identical in either case. They are both referring to the same emptiness [śūnyatā]. There is no difference in sūtra, tantra or Dzogchen on this point, only a difference in methodology.level 5Comment deleted by user8 days agolevel 6krodha1 point ·8 days agoDzogchen aligns with the Svātantrika view.level 7Comment deleted by user8 days agolevel 8krodha2 points ·8 days agosutrayana versions of emptiness can be different from dzogchen. That was the point.They are the same. This is why the Dzogchen view in terms of kadag trekchö is often compared to Nāgārjuna’s prasanga Madhyamaka.For example, Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje [Chatral Rinpoche's heart disciple] states:The Madhyamika consider the Prasangik as the perfect Rangtong view. The Dzogchen trekcho view as Kadag (primordially pure view) and the Prasangik view is the same. The emptiness is the same, there is no difference... It is important to understand that the words primordially pure [kadag] is the Dzogchen terminology for the Prasangic Emptiness. [The ancient Nyingmapa Masters like Long Chenpa, Jigme Lingpa, Mipham, were] Prasangikas [Thalgyurpas]... the Prasangika Madhyamika sunyata [tongpanyid] and the Dzogchen sunyata are exactly the same. There is no difference. One hundred percent [the] same.level 9Comment deleted by user8 days agolevel 10krodha1 point ·8 days agoThe Vaibhasika didn't subscribe to Madhyamaka, they asserted existent things.Yes, they are a realist school.Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje didn’t mention Vaibhasika though- Reply
- 20m
- Reply
- 14m
- Edited
- Reply
- 13m
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 Book
or as kyle dixon reiterated malcolm with regards to trekchod:
Kyle Dixon:
https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha
Yes, 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.”
Namkhai 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”
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.
I 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.
Thank 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?
So, 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.
Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Very clear explanation for such a difficult topic.
..........
Acarya Malcolm Smith:
According to Khenpo Ngachung, the paths and stages don't really map to Dzogchen, but you can explain things that way:
Visions 1 & 2, below the path of seeing.
Vision 3; path of seeing and path of cultivation (bhumis 1-7)
vision 4; end of path of cultivation and path of no more learning (stages 8 to 16).
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dzogchen/comments/ovfx7q/to_dzogchen_is_there_any_difference_between/
Back 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.
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
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=rNK7g5xZu7w
Sogyal 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
Note by Soh: please do not DIY Dzogchen as that will be extremely misleading, but rather find good teachers (e.g. Acarya Malcolm) in that tradition. You can watch this YouTube video (highly recommended) for an introduction to Acarya Malcolm’s Dzogchen teachings that was recommended by Sim Pern Chong on the AtR group: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/09/talk-on-buddhahood-in-this-life.html . Also, some of Malcolm’s writings can be found here https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html . To practice Dzogchen, empowerment, direct introduction and guidance from a qualified Dzogchen teacher is necessary, and it is certainly not to be mistaken as lazing around without practice nor the nihilism of neo-Advaita. Case in point: https://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2015/08/ground-path-fruition_13.html
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
Tögal
In Dzogchen, tögal (Tibetan: ཐོད་རྒལ་, Wylie: thod rgal) literally means "crossing the peak."[1] It is sometimes translated as 'leapover,' 'direct crossing,' or 'direct transcendence.'[2][3][4] Tögal is also called "the practice of vision,"[5] or "the practice of the Clear Light" (od-gsal).[5]
Definition[edit]
| Part of a series on |
| Tibetan Buddhism |
|---|
 |
Vimalamitra's Great Commentary, defines tögal as "the practice of the direct perception of pristine consciousness" which is for "the diligent who gradually attain buddhahood through meditation."[1] Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche glosses the term as "to proceed directly to the goal without having to go through intermediate steps."[6] Jigme Lingpa follows Longchenpa in seeing the visionary practice of tögal as the highest level of meditation practice.[4] Tögal is also called "the practice of vision",[5] or "the practice of the Clear Light (od-gsal)".[5]
Practice[edit]
Tögal is practiced in a completely dark setting or through sky gazing.[7] The practices engage the subtle body of psychic channels, winds and drops (rtsa rlung thig le).[8] These practices aim at generating a spontaneous flow of luminous, rainbow-colored images (such as thigles or circles of rainbow light) that gradually expand in extent and complexity.[9] The meditator uses these to recognize his mind's nature. According to Hatchell, these visionary yogic techniques:
Four visions[edit]
The practice of tögal entails progressing through the "Four Visions" (snang ba bzhi), which are:[11][12][13]
- "The Absolute Nature Becoming Manifest" or "The Vision of Awareness' Immediacy" - This refers to initial visions of lights in the visual field, such as circles called thigle, and "linked chains of spots".
- "The Experience of Increasing Appearances" or "The Vision of the Intensification of Experience" - According to Hatchell, in this stage "visionary experience becomes more intense. The number, shape, and size of the appearances increase, and they begin to assemble together in simple configurations."[14]
- "Awareness Reaching its Greatest Magnitude" or "The Vision of Awareness' Optimization" - Hatchell writes that "at this stage, the abstract lights begin to organize themselves, ultimately taking shape as a mandala of 100 peaceful and wrathful deities."[14]
- "The Exhaustion of Phenomena in Dharmata" or "The Vision of Exhaustion within Reality" - In this final vision, appearances dissolve back into the expanse and fade away.
See also[edit]
Trekchö
In Dzogchen, trekchö (khregs chod) means "(spontaneous) cutting of tension" or "cutting through solidity."[1][2] The practice of trekchö reflects the earliest developments of Dzogchen, with its admonition against practice.[3][a] In this practice one first identifies, and then sustains recognition of, one's own innately pure, empty awareness.[5][6] The main trekchö instructions in the Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo state "This instant freshness, unspoiled by the thoughts of the three times; You directly see in actuality by letting be in naturalness."[7]
Definition[edit]
| Part of a series on |
| Tibetan Buddhism |
|---|
|
According to Malcolm Smith, trekchö can also be interpreted as meaning "an undone bundle", "like a hay bale with the twine." In Vimalamitra's Great Commentary, trekchö is defined as "the system of buddhahood through immediate liberation as a directly perceived realization that is not connected to appearances," and states that this is "the superior intimate instruction for the lazy who attain buddhahood instantly without meditation practice."[8]
Practice[edit]
Students receive pointing-out instruction (sems khrid, ngos sprod) in which a teacher introduces the student to the nature of his or her mind.[3] According to Tsoknyi Rinpoche, these instructions are received after the preliminary practices, though there's also a tradition to give them before the preliminary practices.[9] Tsoknyi Rinpoche states, "As for my own personal experience, when I underwent the ngondro training, I had already received some Dzogchen instructions. The awakened state of rigpa had been pointed out, and I had a lukewarm certainty about what it was. But the ngondro helped me progress.[9]
Jigme Lingpa divides the trekchö practice into ordinary and extraordinary instructions.[10] The ordinary section comprises the rejection of the "all is mind – mind is empty" approach, which is a conceptual establishment of emptiness.[10] Jigme Lingpa's extraordinary instructions give the instructions on the breakthrough proper, which consist of the setting out of the view (lta ba), the doubts and errors that may occur in practice, and some general instructions thematized as "the four ways of being at leisure" (cog bzhag), which are "a set of brief instructions on the spheres of view (lta ba), meditation (sgom pa), activity (spyod pa), and result ('bras bu)" according to van Schaik."[11]
The Seminal Heart tradition in general considers that pointing out instructions should be kept secret until the moment the lama reveals it to the student. In the Yeshe Lama, Jigme Lingpa gives the following passage as an introduction to the nature of mind:
Regarding the "four cog bzhags", in the Yeshe Lama, these four ways of "freely resting" or "easily letting be" are described by Jigme Lingpa as follows:
The "setting out of the view" tries to point the reader toward a direct recognition of rigpa, insisting upon the immanence of rigpa, and dismissive of meditation and effort).[11] Insight leads to nyamshag, "being present in the state of clarity and emptiness".[14] To practice trekchö meditation, Jigme Lingpa states one sits cross legged with eyes open.[11]
His instructions on trekchö begin by stating that one must "settle in the present moment of gnosis [rigpa], without spreading out or gathering in." Rigpa is defined as that knowledge where "the extremes of existence and nonexistence are unaccomplished."[11]
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M12.162 7.338c.176.123.338.245.338.674 0 .43-.229.604-.474.725a.73.73 0 01.089.546c-.077.344-.392.611-.672.69.121.194.159.385.015.62-.185.295-.346.407-1.058.407H7.5c-.988 0-1.5-.546-1.5-1V7.665c0-1.23 1.467-2.275 1.467-3.13L7.361 3.47c-.005-.065.008-.224.058-.27.08-.079.301-.2.635-.2.218 0 .363.041.534.123.581.277.732.978.732 1.542 0 .271-.414 1.083-.47 1.364 0 0 .867-.192 1.879-.199 1.061-.006 1.749.19 1.749.842 0 .261-.219.523-.316.666zM3.6 7h.8a.6.6 0 01.6.6v3.8a.6.6 0 01-.6.6h-.8a.6.6 0 01-.6-.6V7.6a.6.6 0 01.6-.6z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
