Someone commented to me that Dzogchen Trekcho is similar to TWIM (Tranquil Wisdom Insight Meditation).

I replied:

Im not familiar with twim. Does twim lead to realizing radiance / I AM and then anatta? btw did you see this before:

If not its just common shamatha and nothing to do with trekcho cos you cant even begin to practice trekcho without rigpa or realizing radiance first

Excerpts from

Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 2:02 am

Longchenpa quotes this opinion of Kumarāja in chapter ten of his commentary on the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu:

"As it is said, "Here some confused ones, who are not knowledgable in the tantras, make random comments and cling to words literally, think these four cog bzhag are the method of equipoise of thogal. They are not connected with the dharma, and they do not understand the application of the practice at all. They literally apply the words of the Blossoming Lotus Commentary of the Tantra Without Syllables, applying them one-sidely. However, [the four cog bzhag] are to be applied in general. The Precious Appearance Handbook applies them to all."

The root of either trekcho and thogal is knowing how to nakedly expose this pellucid rigpa. If one does not know this, no matter what one applies is of no benefit. Since such a "trekcho" is lost in trivial methods of mental fixation through being mixed with the path of all confused great meditators, it will not transcend samsara and with respect to "thogal," one will deviate into the form realm due to clinging to entities and signs. Thus, it is very important here to recognize genuine, naked consciousness (zang ka rjen pa'i shes pa). It is not sufficient to merely recognize this, but one must constantly maintain this."

Longchenpa then goes onto describe the methods of equipoise, beginning with the cog bzhag of the ocean, and so on.



Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:41 pm

The term prajñā is used in various ways in Dzogchen. Trekcho is not an analytical prajñā, but it is a prajñā. For example, the Blazing Lamp Commentary states:

Therefore, in the present, wisdom arises the moment mere consciousness is without reification of thought.

Longchenpa writes in the Lama Yangthig trekcho manual:

In that state of momentary natural equipoise, dharmakāya is the reality of the pristine consciousness of vidyā in which thoughts have ceased.

And we know that on his deathbed, when people had doubts, he directed them to consult Lama Yangthig.



"When one is distracted, yes, of course there is a subject-object bifurcation. Further, in Dzogchen teachings, we do not negate outer objects, etc., since it is not a yogacāra system [see Longchenpa'a commentary on the Treasury of Dharmadhātu for further clarification on this point].

Rigpa in this context however is just knowledge of one's own state. When we are in a moment of instant presence, or trekcho's rigpa, then no, there is no subject-object dichotomy. We are resting in the knowledge of our own state. This is called "knowledge of the essence." It is important to understand that this is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object, as in yogacāra. It is just resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis (so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes)."

"When we are in a moment of instant present, there are still the appearances of the six senses. We do not reject outer objects—they still appear to us—but we understand that our perception of them (rtsal) is just our own state (byang chub sems, the essence), separate from the apparent objects themselves (rolpa). This is what is means to say, "When we are in a moment of instant presence, or trekcho's rigpa, then no, there is no subject-object dichotomy." In other words we do not reify our perception into subject and object. That does not mean that there are no objects for rig pa.

Again, this is clearly explained by Longchnepa in the commentary of the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu, beginning in chapter eight. Why don't you read it and then get back to me?

Dzogchen is not Advaita. In fact, Dzogchen tantras explicitly reject nondualism and Advaita"


"Of course there is. You've been taught incorrectly. Otherwise you would be like a piece of wood, unable to move, talk, drive, and all of these things one can do in a state of instant presence. One is operating in a state of direct perception without reification. Longchenpa explains in the Lama Yangthig that the point of direct perception discussed by Dharmakīrti, etc., is basically the same point as trekcho. This is also how Chogyal Namkhai Norbu taught me, You remind me of the passage in the Chos dbyings mdzod about conceited oxen of Ati"


trekcho is similar to zen etc (also malcolm said dogen's descriptions in zen are closest to dzogchen and is similar to dzogchen rigpa), except the former is based on direct introduction


“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.”


"As for your first question. There are of course other differences, but the they are mainly technical, not practical. Dzogchen has a more extensive explanation of the basis, and differentiates between the basis (gzhi), and the mind that apprehends the basis (kun gzhi). In Mahāmudra this distinction is not made. However, the essential difference between Dzogchen and other systems is thögal. Otherwise, Mahāmudra, Lamdre, Trekchö and so on all have the same main point, equipoise in a moment of unfabricated consciousness aka tha mal gyi shes pa."


"Trekchö actually means one understands the meaning of Dzogchen directly."


Update: someone sent me this comment by Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:

Rigpa is conditioned? - Dharma Wheel

Re: Rigpa is conditioned?

Post by Malcolm » 

Luren wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 8:37 am
Delson that Rigpa is a conditioned state...
Well, this just shows he is not very familiar with Dzogchen teachings.

There are all kinds of rig pas. The use of the term rig pa here, as Jigme Lingpa states:

"In the sutras of the Mahāyāna there are three kinds of knowledge (vidyā, rig pa), the knowledge of the deva eye, the knowledge of past existences, and the knowledge of the exhaustion of taints, which are knowledges called "cognitions (shes pa)." The dharmatā of vidyā that is beyond eight consciousness...exists as the pristine consciousness of the natural great perfection...the essence of that view is the truth of the āryas, the pristine consciousness each one knows for themselves (so so rang rig pa'i ye shes) that is free from grasping subjects and objects."

If he is asserting that the path of seeing is conditioned, it means he does not even understand Buddhism.

0 Responses