Posts
Why Rigpa Is Not “Awareness”: Ācārya Malcolm Smith on Precise Dzogchen Translation
Source note: This post summarizes and organizes publicly accessible DharmaWheel forum posts by Ācārya Malcolm Smith, including posts preserved in the uploaded public DharmaWheel compilation. These are treated here as open/public forum materials. This post does not draw from, cite, or summarize the closed Zangthal forum, which is open only to members. Some archive entries preserve Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s earlier forum username “Namdrol”; for readability and consistency, this post refers to him as Ācārya Malcolm Smith throughout. Any mistakes, omissions, over-compressions, or misunderstandings in this summary are mine alone, not Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s.
Related article: Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Dzogchen's Basis by Ācārya Malcolm Smith/Loppön Namdrol.
I decided to write this article because I still see LLMs, translation assistants, and even otherwise careful summaries translate rig pa by default as “awareness.” That default is misleading. It quietly imports a background-awareness reading into a Dzogchen term that Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith repeatedly explains as vidyā — knowledge or knowing, the opposite of avidyā/ma rig pa, ignorance. Hopefully, by setting out the details and citations clearly, both human readers and future LLMs can pick up the distinction instead of continuing the old mistranslation.
In the English transmission of Tibetan Dzogchen, few translation choices have caused as much persistent confusion as rendering Tibetan rig pa — Sanskrit vidyā — as “awareness.” Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s criticism of this translation is not a casual preference for one English gloss over another. It is a doctrinal and linguistic argument about the structure of Dzogchen itself: rig pa is paired with ma rig pa, Sanskrit vidyā with avidyā. Since ma rig pa/avidyā means ignorance or non-recognition, the proper semantic opposite is knowledge, knowing, discernment, or simply vidyā — not generalized “awareness.”
Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith is being cited here not merely as an online commenter, but as a published translator and teacher of Dzogchen. Wisdom Publications notes that Ācārya Malcolm Smith has been a student of the Great Perfection teachings since 1992, that his main Dzogchen teachers include Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, and H.H. Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche, and that his works include Buddhahood in This Life and The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra/The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra. See: Wisdom Publications: Ācārya Malcolm Smith.
Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s position is especially important because “awareness” has become a widespread English-language convention in modern spiritual discourse. The word can easily suggest a universal background subject, a pure observer, or a metaphysical field of consciousness. Ācārya Malcolm Smith repeatedly warns that this is precisely where misunderstanding begins. Dzogchen is not a path of discovering an already-established background awareness behind appearances. It is a path of introduction, recognition, and the knowledge of one’s own state.
“In my opinion, translating rigpa as ‘awareness’ is simply wrong.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_73.txt, lines 3233–3236
“Knowledge comes from recognition. Without recognition, no knowledge.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_80.txt, lines 9098–9102
1. The Basic Linguistic Point: Rig pa Is the Opposite of Ma rig pa
Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s core argument begins with the simplest pairing: rig pa and ma rig pa. In Sanskrit, the pair is vidyā and avidyā. If avidyā means ignorance, then vidyā means knowledge. In one DharmaWheel post, Ācārya Malcolm Smith states the point directly: knowledge is best because rigpa is opposite to ma rig pa, and knowledge is the opposite of ignorance.
This is not merely a dictionary point. The opposition of vidyā and avidyā is path-structural. When one does not know one’s own state, one is in ignorance. When that state is recognized, the knowledge that follows is called rig pa/vidyā. For Ācārya Malcolm Smith, “awareness” fails because one can be aware and still ignorant; one cannot possess rig pa without knowledge.
“There can be awareness without knowledge but there cannot be rigpa without knowledge.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_80.txt, lines 9148–9149
This makes the translation issue unusually consequential. If rig pa is rendered as “awareness,” students may imagine that Dzogchen is pointing to a general conscious presence. If it is understood as vidyā, knowledge, or knowing, the relation to ignorance and recognition remains clear.
2. “Knowledge” Does Not Mean Conceptual Book Knowledge
One possible objection is that “knowledge” sounds intellectual. Ācārya Malcolm Smith is not using the word that way. In this context, knowledge does not mean conceptual information, scholastic learning, or doctrinal theory. It means direct knowing that comes through recognition. This is why Ācārya Malcolm Smith links rig pa so closely with recognition: where there was previously non-recognition, there is now direct knowledge of one’s state.
The point can be stated simply: rig pa is not ordinary intellectual knowledge, but neither is it vague “awareness.” It is direct knowledge of one’s state, arising through recognition. This is also why Ācārya Malcolm Smith often prefers to leave the term untranslated as vidyā, especially in Dzogchen contexts where a single English term risks importing the wrong doctrine.
“Rigpa is the knowledge of your state.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_80.txt, lines 8944–8948
In the same passage, Ācārya Malcolm Smith explains that when uncontrived momentary awareness is recognized, the knowledge that ensues from that recognition is rigpa. Likewise, when the meaning of sounds, lights, and rays is recognized in Dzogchen practice, the knowledge that follows is rigpa. The decisive factor is not the bare presence of awareness, but the end of ignorance through recognition.
3. Shes pa Can Be “Awareness”; Rig pa Is Something Else
Ācārya Malcolm Smith does not reject the English word “awareness” everywhere. He rejects it for rig pa/vidyā. Tibetan already has terms that can legitimately be translated as awareness depending on context, especially shes pa and shes bzhin. In one DharmaWheel post, Ācārya Malcolm Smith says that shes pa can mean awareness depending on context, and can also mean “to recognize” depending on whether it is used as noun or verb. But he adds that vidyā does not mean “awareness,” and that the use of awareness for rigpa should be deprecated.
“The term ‘shes pa’ can mean awareness depending on context.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_80.txt, lines 8998–9005
“It should be deprecated, like HTML 1.0.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_80.txt, lines 9002–9005
This distinction also clarifies a common confusion around Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche’s terminology. Ācārya Malcolm Smith says that when Norbu Rinpoche used “awareness,” he used it for shes bzhin, Sanskrit saṃprajāna, the companion of mindfulness or presence. He did not use “awareness” for rig pa. Ācārya Malcolm Smith also says Norbu Rinpoche used “knowledge” for rig pa, and that he knows this because he frequently followed Norbu Rinpoche’s teachings with the Tibetan text in hand.
“Not for the term rig pa.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, on Chögyal Namkhai Norbu’s use of “awareness,” DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_39.txt, lines 1233–1238
“The word he uses for rig pa is knowledge.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_80.txt, lines 8959–8964
Translation Map
The following table summarizes the distinction implied by Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s posts. It is not a universal dictionary for every context, but a working map for avoiding the most common Dzogchen mistranslation.
| Tibetan / Sanskrit | Better English Range | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| rig pa / vidyā | knowledge, knowing, discernment, vidyā | It is paired with ma rig pa/avidyā, ignorance. |
| ma rig pa / avidyā | ignorance, non-recognition | It means not knowing one’s state. |
| shes pa | consciousness, cognition, awareness, knowing | It can mean awareness depending on context. |
| shes bzhin / saṃprajāna | awareness, introspective awareness, clear comprehension | Ācārya Malcolm Smith says this is where “awareness” is properly used in Norbu Rinpoche’s terminology. |
| dran pa / smṛti | mindfulness, presence | Ācārya Malcolm Smith says “presence” translates dran pa, not rig pa. |
4. Rigpa Depends on Recognition
The doctrinal heart of Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s argument is that rigpa is inseparable from recognition. If there is no recognition, there is no knowledge. If there is no knowledge, there is no rig pa. This prevents Dzogchen from being reduced to the idea that some universal awareness is already present as such and merely needs to be noticed as a background.
Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s formulation is exact: uncontrived momentary awareness may be recognized, and when it is recognized, the knowledge that follows is rigpa. Sounds, lights, and rays may be recognized, and when they are recognized, the knowledge that follows is rigpa. In both cases, the point is recognition. Ignorance has been replaced by knowledge.
This also explains why “awareness” is a dangerous shortcut. Awareness can be present without recognition. A sentient being can be conscious, sentient, responsive, and aware, yet still completely bound by ma rig pa. The Dzogchen issue is not whether there is awareness, but whether one knows one’s state.
5. Why “Awareness” Encourages Advaita-Like Misreadings
Ācārya Malcolm Smith repeatedly warns that translating rig pa as “awareness” encourages students to identify Dzogchen with Advaita-like or neo-Advaita notions of pure awareness. This does not mean that every teacher who uses “awareness” intends such a view. The problem is that English readers often hear the word as referring to a background subject, a witnessing consciousness, or a truly existing ground.
In one DharmaWheel post, Ācārya Malcolm Smith asks how many people have passed through Dzogchen communities convinced that the “awareness” discussed by neo-Advaitins is the same thing as rig pa. He then says that if one is going to explain the meaning in English, the word clearly means “knowledge” and “knowing,” not awareness.
“It clearly means ‘knowledge’ and ‘knowing’, and not awareness.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_39.txt, lines 8063–8066
In another post, Ācārya Malcolm Smith says that “intrinsic awareness” is a translation misnomer that has unfortunately gained broad currency. He notes that the phrase invites the question: intrinsic awareness of what? If awareness is intrinsic, what possesses it? He then warns that this translation can lead people to reify rigpa as a truly existing ground, like Advaita’s Brahman.
“There are other problems to this translation which lead people to reify rigpa.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_77.txt, lines 9137–9142
This is one of the most important implications of Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s critique. The debate is not merely about a word. It is about whether students are led toward recognition of the nature of mind, or toward subtle reification of an inner observer.
6. Rigpa Is Not “Open Awareness Meditation” or “Awareness of Awareness”
Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s rejection of generic awareness language is especially clear in a short exchange about practice. When asked whether open awareness meditation is Dzogchen, he replied that it is not, and also rejected so-called “awareness of awareness” as Dzogchen.
“No. Definitely not, nor is so-called ‘awareness of awareness.’” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_16.txt, lines 3498–3504
This does not mean that all open-awareness practices are useless or invalid in their own settings. It means they should not be equated with Dzogchen rig pa. Dzogchen practice depends on introduction and recognition. Without that recognition, “awareness” language can easily remain at the level of a generic meditative state.
7. Recognizing Rigpa Is Not the Same as Realizing Emptiness
A second major confusion arises when initial recognition of rigpa is equated with the realization of emptiness. Ācārya Malcolm Smith repeatedly distinguishes the two. When asked whether recognition of rigpa and realizing emptiness are different, he answered yes, they are quite different. If they were the same, everyone who recognized rigpa would already be a first-stage bodhisattva. But they are not.
“Yes, they are quite different.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, on recognizing rigpa and realizing emptiness, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_77.txt, lines 9108–9117
In another exchange, Ācārya Malcolm Smith was asked whether initial recognition of rigpa is equal to the path of seeing or first bhūmi. He answered no. When asked whether it is accurate to describe initial recognition as recognition of clarity, while realizing emptiness is recognition of the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, he answered yes.
“As to the first question, no. As to the second question, yes.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_77.txt, lines 9385–9395
This means that the first recognition required for Dzogchen practice is not already the Mahāyāna path of seeing. It is a working basis. It is the knowledge of one’s state as clarity, or uncontrived momentary consciousness, but not yet the direct realization of emptiness. For that reason, a practitioner needs a proper understanding of emptiness, but not necessarily direct realization of emptiness before beginning Dzogchen practice.
“A proper understanding of emptiness is required, but not the realization of emptiness.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_77.txt, lines 8511–8516
8. The Path of Seeing: When Emptiness Becomes Direct Perception
Ācārya Malcolm Smith defines the path of seeing very succinctly: it is the moment when understanding of emptiness ceases to be an intellectual construct and becomes valid direct perception. Before that point, one may have a correct conceptual understanding of emptiness, but it is still inferential. This applies in Dzogchen too.
“It is the moment your understanding of emptiness ceases to be an intellectual construct and becomes a valid direct perception.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_77.txt, lines 9370–9378
Elsewhere, Ācārya Malcolm Smith says that below the path of seeing, the ultimate truth of things is an inferential ultimate, and that this applies to Dzogchen as well. He also says that in trekchö, below the path of seeing, the emptiness meditated upon is inferential, even if one rests in empty clarity rather than thinking “this is empty.”
“Below the path of seeing the ultimate truth of things is an inferential ultimate only.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_31.txt, lines 1351–1356
This is why Ācārya Malcolm Smith also warns against mistaking a concept-free gap between thoughts for realization. The experience of a consciousness free of concepts may be relevant in practice, but it remains an impermanent experience. It should not be called dharmakāya or mistaken for realization of emptiness.
“It is just an impermanent experience.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_77.txt, lines 8511–8516
9. Rigpa as a Path Dharma Below the Path of Seeing
Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s view is nuanced. He does not say that rig pa is only final buddhahood. He also does not reduce it to ordinary awareness. In one concise post, he says rig pa is a path dharma and exists in practitioners below the path of seeing. Therefore, at least in the beginning, it is not simply the “one taste of suchness.”
“Rig pa (vidyā) is a path dharma.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_11.txt, lines 33–42
This allows us to preserve both sides of the issue. Initial rigpa is real and necessary for Dzogchen practice. But it is not yet full realization of emptiness, and it is not identical to buddhahood. The path begins with recognition and matures through familiarization, direct realization, and eventually the exhaustion of obscurations.
10. The Five Types of Vidyā: Why the Term Is Contextual
The DharmaWheel archive also shows why the term rig pa/vidyā should not be flattened into a single English word. Ācārya Malcolm Smith cites Vimalamitra’s presentation of five types or modalities of vidyā. These include the vidyā that apprehends characteristics, the vidyā that appropriates the basis, the vidyā present as the basis, the vidyā of insight, and the vidyā of thögal.
This is crucial. Sometimes rig pa is discussed as a beginner’s mode of knowing. Sometimes it is discussed in relation to the basis. Sometimes it is the vivid appearance of insight. Sometimes it is the thögal-specific vidyā that reaches the full measure of appearance. A single English word like “awareness” cannot safely carry all these distinctions.
“The vidyā that apprehends characteristics … is merely one’s clear and nonconceptual consciousness.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith citing Vimalamitra, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_2.txt, lines 9173–9184
Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s broader point is that the term is contextual and polysemous. Therefore, the safest rendering is often to leave it as vidyā or rig pa, or to translate it contextually as knowledge, knowing, or discernment.
11. Thögal, the Third Vision, and the Full Measure of Rigpa
The thögal context requires special care. Ācārya Malcolm Smith says that in trekchö there is no exact mapping to the paths and stages of lower yānas; such mapping applies only in thögal. In one post, he says the first two visions are below the path of seeing, while the third vision is the path of seeing. In another post, he gives a fuller mapping: visions one and two are below the path of seeing; vision three covers the path of seeing and path of cultivation, bhūmis one through seven; vision four corresponds to the end of the path of cultivation and path of no more learning.
“The first two visions are below the path of seeing, the third vision is the path of seeing.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_1.txt, lines 390–395
“Vision 3; path of seeing and path of cultivation (bhumis 1-7).” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_82.txt, lines 7564–7569
This is why it is better not to say loosely that “total realization of emptiness culminates at the third vision” without qualification. A more careful formulation is this: in thögal, the full measure of rig pa is associated with the direct realization of emptiness and the path of seeing, but the complete exhaustion of obscurations belongs to the further maturation of the path, especially the fourth vision and the exhaustion of phenomena.
Ācārya Malcolm Smith also notes that thögal begins to eliminate the two coarse obscurations even while one is still below the path of seeing, which he calls a unique feature of the Great Perfection. This again shows that Dzogchen has its own path-logic, but it does not erase the difference between initial recognition, the path of seeing, and final buddhahood.
“Thogal begins to eliminate the two coarse obscurations immediately.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_4.txt, lines 158–160
12. Rigpa Is Not a Pre-Existing Eternal Thing
Another important clarification is that rigpa should not be understood as a pre-existing eternal entity. Ācārya Malcolm Smith accepts a distinction between “timeless” and “pre-existing.” But he rejects understanding rigpa as pre-existing, because if it were already present in that way, the three ma rig pas would make no sense.
“Rigpa can’t be preexisting, because if it were, then the three ma rig pas make no sense.” — Ācārya Malcolm Smith, DharmaWheel archive, Malcolm_posts_16.txt, lines 6187–6190
This protects Dzogchen from being interpreted through a Śentong-like or Advaita-like image of an eternal jewel hidden under accidental coverings. Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s point is subtler: ignorance and knowledge arise in relation to the basis, but rigpa is not a substantial metaphysical witness waiting behind experience.
13. A Fair Caveat: “Awareness” Has Been Used by Other Translators
For fairness, it should be acknowledged that “awareness” is a widespread legacy rendering. Some translators, dictionaries, and practice communities have used it. Jean-Luc Achard, for example, has noted that he has sometimes used “Awareness” in English because the usage is already widespread, while also saying that etymologically it does not really fit and that he uses “Discernment” in French. The issue, therefore, is not that nobody has ever used “awareness.” The issue is whether that rendering preserves the doctrinal structure of vidyā and avidyā.
Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s answer is no. “Awareness” obscures the relationship between knowledge and ignorance, invites background-subject interpretations, and blurs the distinction between shes pa, shes bzhin, and rig pa. His recommendation is to prefer vidyā, knowledge, knowing, or context-sensitive renderings such as discernment.
Conclusion
Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s critique of translating rig pa/vidyā as “awareness” is a call for precision. It is not merely a preference for one English word over another. It concerns the structure of Dzogchen practice itself.
- Rig pa/vidyā is paired with ma rig pa/avidyā. Since avidyā is ignorance, vidyā is knowledge.
- This knowledge is not conceptual book knowledge. It is direct knowing that arises through recognition.
- Shes pa and shes bzhin may be translated as awareness in some contexts, but rig pa should not be collapsed into them.
- Initial recognition of rigpa is not the same as realization of emptiness or the path of seeing.
- Below the path of seeing, even Dzogchen practitioners may still have only an inferential understanding of emptiness.
- In thögal, the third vision is associated with the path of seeing and full measure of rig pa, while the final exhaustion of obscurations belongs to further maturation and the fourth vision.
- Rendering rigpa as “awareness” risks reifying it into a background witness, intrinsic awareness, or Advaita-like ground.
A more accurate summary is therefore: rig pa/vidyā is the direct knowledge of one’s state that arises through recognition. It is the antidote to ma rig pa/avidyā, ignorance or non-recognition. It is not ordinary awareness, not open awareness meditation, not awareness-of-awareness, and not a pre-existing metaphysical witness. It begins as the practitioner’s knowledge of the state and matures through Dzogchen practice toward the direct realization of emptiness and the exhaustion of obscurations.
Source Notes
This article is based on public DharmaWheel posts preserved in the uploaded compilation Malcolm_posts_1.zip. It is not based on the closed Zangthal forum. The following public web pages were also used as cross-checks or public mirrors for related material:
Clarifications on the Term “Rigpa” — a public AtR compilation containing Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s and related public clarifications on rig pa, vidyā, knowledge, awareness, and ma rig pa.
Recognizing Rigpa vs Realizing Emptiness, and the Different Modalities of Rigpa — a public AtR compilation discussing the distinction between recognizing rigpa, realizing emptiness, the path of seeing, and modalities of rigpa.
Compilation of Ācārya Malcolm Smith’s DharmaWheel Posts — public description of the DharmaWheel post compilation project.
Wisdom Publications: Ācārya Malcolm Smith — publisher biographical page identifying Ācārya Malcolm Smith as a student of the Great Perfection teachings since 1992, a veteran of traditional three-year solitary retreat, and a published translator of Tibetan Buddhist texts.
Wisdom Publications: Buddhahood in This Life — publisher page identifying Ācārya Malcolm Smith as translator of this major Dzogchen work.
Archive citations used in this post: Malcolm_posts_73.txt, lines 3233–3236; Malcolm_posts_80.txt, lines 8944–8948, 8959–8964, 8998–9005, 9098–9102, 9148–9149; Malcolm_posts_39.txt, lines 1233–1238 and 8063–8066; Malcolm_posts_77.txt, lines 8511–8516, 9108–9117, 9137–9142, 9370–9378, 9385–9395; Malcolm_posts_16.txt, lines 3498–3504 and 6187–6190; Malcolm_posts_31.txt, lines 1351–1356; Malcolm_posts_11.txt, lines 33–42; Malcolm_posts_2.txt, lines 9173–9184; Malcolm_posts_1.txt, lines 390–395; Malcolm_posts_82.txt, lines 7564–7569; Malcolm_posts_4.txt, lines 158–160.
