Posts
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.
Discussion on Rigpa Modalities
Mr. J isn’t very familiar with the nuances of “rigpa” as a principle. There are various modalities. I’m not sure why he thinks Dzogchen is related to gzhan stong.
Madhyamaka is inferior as a methodology but not inferior in terms of view. Rigpa kechigma is a mental factor. It is just the knowing faculty of a mind. 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.
Mr. J thinks rigpa is a monolithic principle like the purusa of Vedanta. It is much more nuanced than that though. Köppl’s idea that Dzogchen promotes a positive ontology is really nonsense. And then Mr. J just spins back into negating imputation alone. Per usual. But that is Mr. Jchen for you. He just reifies awareness as a monolithic unchanging nature and marginalizes everything else.
Rigpa kechigma is the initial unripened vidya or rigpa.
https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/
krodha = kyle dixon
"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.”
Who is your teacher? You should ask for clarification on this matter... Yes, 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... 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. Also 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.
The realization of emptiness takes place at the third vision.
The 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.
Emptiness 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.
Dzogchen aligns with the Svātantrika view... 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.
Further Clarifications on Rigpa vs Emptiness
More Kyle postings:
"We had some confusion over the words recognition and realization but I'm not talking about a full realization of emptiness in the first vision. I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now."
You still are not understanding what chos nyid means in chos nyid mgon sum it has nothing to do with emptiness. But I’ve explained this and you aren’t interested in listening, and that is okay for you, but your lack of clarity on this topic is concerning for others you may teach.
Initial recognition of emptiness, unless the practitioner is very ripe, occurs at the third vision and then the third and fourth visions are the spectrum of integration with emptiness, hence the process of exhausting phenomena. Up until that time “emptiness” is rhetorical, indicating the clear and spacious nature of our knowing clarity [gsal rig]. Your Tulku Urgyen citations are not talking about the first vision. They are discussing the ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma or “moment of unfabricated consciousness” that is pointed out, which is the initial form of rig pa we use for practice, and specifically the practice of trekchö.
"We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality, up until the third vision, “emptiness” is obscured and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness is not truly known until the third vision, again per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc., not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind. This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā."
"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
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 Book
Or as kyle dixon reiterated malcolm with regards to trekchod:
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.”
“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.”
Reddit Discussions: What is the experience of Rigpa?
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.
Q&A on Emptiness and Direct Perception
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.
"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.
Is there a difference between resting in space vs the nature of mind?
"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.
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... 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.
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... Can you show me a source that says the nature of mind pointed out by a guru is “nominal”?
Khenpo Ngachung’s thögal tri is a main text that discusses this, I will try to get a citation. 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.
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.
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.
Update, 2023: Adding some quotes:
Yes “I AM” as it is understood in AtR is the first step in Dzogchen practice, and then insight is refined from there.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
"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
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 🙏🏻
"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.
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.
If 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.
If 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.
i was just regurgitating what you shared about Malcolm’s teaching
Yes. 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
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%B6gal
thank you 🙏
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).
Update, 2025:
Nafis shared with me a nice quote from Kyle Dixon/Krodha that is relevant to this article:
“Krodha/Kyle Dixon:
According to Malcolm, who spends most of his time translating atiyoga, different modalities of rigpa will be discussed even from line to line in the tantras. It is difficult to say if there is one primary type that is being discussed "most of the time." But this is again, why a teacher is important, as you well know.
For example, ordinary sentient beings function through the vidyā that apprehends characteristics and the vidyā that apprehends or appropriates the basis, these would, to my knowledge, align with "knowing (vidyā) as a factor of consciousness" mentioned in the second list.
Rigpa for unrealized practitioners on a day to day basis is just the knowing capacity enveloped in the vijñāna skandha, just dualistic consciousness. That is essentially where we start.
There is another context where after direct introduction, depending on the type of direct introduction, we can work with the vidyā of insight from the first list, and that type of rigpa is associated with appearances, it would also be associated with "the knowledge of the essence (snying po) that permeates all that is free from ignorance, unobscured by the obscurations of ignorance" mentioned in the second list, however only because the appearances are non-karmic in nature.
Truly accessing "the knowledge of the essence (snying po) that permeates all that is free from ignorance, unobscured by the obscurations of ignorance" as a prevailing expression of how consciousness operates in the sense of being cognizance expressed as jñāna, does not really happen until the practitioner awakens and reaches the path of seeing. But, we can also access pure vision below the path of seeing in atiyoga, so these points are subtle and should be understood carefully.” - https://www.reddit.com/r/Dzogchen/comments/1ii2kx7/comment/mb6ls07/
Note by Soh: please do not DIY Dzogchen as that will be extremely misleading, but rather find good teachers (e.g. Acarya Malcolm Smith) 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
Recent Q&A: Rigpa and Mipham's Position (From Reddit)
Hlo so I wanted clarification on a few things and I hope you can resolve some questions I have been struggling with about rigpa
1. Does the emptiness applied universally on all including on rigpa , does the emptiness of rigpa same as the emptiness of the table or the emptiness of a rock or does the status of rigpa ontologically a bit distinct
Emptiness is applied universally, nothing is exempt, not even rigpa.
2. Is rigpa just phenomenal state which refers to the unobstructed presence that is already there when we stop cateorising things and view things through those filters and rigpa is the natural revealing of the already present reality. Is it just that phenomenonological state without any ontological privilege.
Rig pa has a handful of modalities, and as a consequence it is characterized in a few different ways depending on context. There is sometimes a misconception that rigpa is a monolithic thing, and it is in certain ways, but also since it has multiple expressions depending on context, rigpa is polysemantic. The definition you are inquiring about here is one expression of rigpa, but rigpa is not limited to that expression.
3. Many times it seems like the rigpa is slipping into more than just phenomenonological state and something that has a distinct status kinda like the buddha nature in shentong and the brahman in Advaita how it is beyond life and death , the clear light illuminating , unconditioned.
Really if you understand the meaning of emptiness and luminosity, all things are innately beyond life and death and are unconditioned by nature. Thus this wouldn't be something exclusive to rigpa, all phenomena are fundamentally in a state of total purity in that way. Rigpa is not a substantial or reductive essence like brahman in Advaita Vedanta. Again, the universal application of emptiness precludes any compatibility with something like brahman.
4. Is rigpa different than them by being just a phenomenal state that is present naturally and is revealed but still is empty , in the sense how to avoid slipping into idealism through the description of rigpa , does it just refers to being present in conventional reality .
Rigpa can refer to something as simple as working with our cognizance in conventional reality, but it can also mean something more transcendent in expression. These differences will correspond to the practitioner's degree of insight, more or less.
5. Does rigpa refers to just the self manifest nature of cognition , and how does rigpa avoids candrakirti critique about self cognitive awareness. Candrakirti argues in the Madhyamakavatara that awareness cannot cognize itself the way a sword cannot cut itself. Does rigpa as self-manifesting awareness fall under that critique or does it operate differently, and if differently how?
Rigpa would conform to that critique. One expression of rigpa is just our everyday cognizance, and that cognizance cannot cognize itself and so on. There has been a misconception about rigpa that it does somehow involve "awareness of awareness" or some sort of self-reflexive cognition turning back on itself, or something odd like that, but that is not accurate. That said there are elements of rigpa that can be cognized, where rigpa is in essence, knowing itself in certain ways, but not in the sense of the "awareness of awareness" idea.
Rig pa has a handful of modalities, and as a consequence it is characterized in a few different ways depending on context.
Which interpretation do you find the most consistent with sunyata while also preserving the kind of luminousity that rigpa points to. Is it just the shift in everyday cognition but not something transcendent. Which interpretation do you find most satisfying.
I think maybe I am misunderstanding what luminousity means so I might need some clearance on that.
knowing itself in certain ways, but not in the sense of the "awareness of awareness" idea.
Then what would be it's structure , because knowing itself kinda involves a subject object duality , or is it self luminous by its very nature like the diganaga and dharamkirti. I don't see how there is a third way where knowing itself doesn't happen in this manner
"Which interpretation do you find the most consistent with sunyata while also preserving the kind of luminousity that rigpa points to."
This isn't a matter of interpretation, but instead understanding how rigpa expresses itself in relation to certain conditions. Think of rigpa as something like a medium that undergoes phase transitions - like water and ice. The essence of that medium is always originally pure and naturally perfected, but it may express itself in different ways depending on the conditions it encounters.
The The Three Kāyas Tantra from the Ka dag rang shar says:
Amazing! Mere clear rig pa (vidyā), this mere intermediate realization, it is not a buddha, is not a sentient being, neutral, dependent on both conditions. For example, it is like a stainless crystal ball, which can produce fire or water through the condition of the sun or the moon. Likewise, rig pa, the essence of the mind, arises as the suffering of saṃsāra or the bliss of nirvāṇa through conditions.
In terms of the expression of rigpa that is most consistent with emptiness (śūnyatā), this would be (i) the dharmatā of rigpa that is always present as the true nature of rigpa, and then (ii) in terms of the path, it would be the gnosis (jñāna) that has realized emptiness.
In the Vima snying thig Vimalamitra lists five different modalities of rigpa, and elsewhere he lists another six. He concludes the presentation by ensuring that we understand that these are various expressions of a single rigpa, many ways that your own rigpa expresses itself.
Starting with the first five, Ācārya Malcolm writes:
There are five types of vidyā described by Vimalamitra in the Vima snying thig i.e. 1) the vidyā that apprehends characteristics; 2) the vidyā that apprehends or appropriates the basis; 3) the vidyā that is present as the basis; 4) the vidyā of insight; and 5) the vidyā of thögal.
1) The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one's mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.
2) The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis creates all cognitions when present in one's body, present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions], is called “unripened vidyā”.
3) The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial pristine consciousnesses. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality is present as the essence of omniscient pristine consciousness. Further, that pristine consciousness is present as a subtle pristine consciousness. If that pristine consciousness did not exist, there would be no liberation from emptiness. Further, there would be no liberation from the inert. However, if vidyā exists as pristine consciousness, it would be no different than the realist's nirmanakāya.
4) The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the essence of the self-apparent thigle”. As there are many unmixed appearances, the Teacher stated: “Everything arose from non-arising, showing the great miraculous display in every way.”
5) The vidyā of thögal is the absence of increase or decrease in experience having reached the full measure of appearance through practice. Having completed all the signs and qualities, also they are not established by their own nature. When self-manifesting as omniscient pristine consciousness, it [the vidyā of thögal] is called “abandoning phenomena”, “the exhaustion of phenomena”, “beyond phenomena”, “liberated from phenomena”, and “no arising even in mere arising”.
Here, in terms of emptiness (śūnyatā), number 3 and number 5 are expressions of rigpa that correlate to emptiness, in terms of emptiness being the nature of rigpa, and in terms of rigpa realizing emptiness.
As for the latter set of 6, Vimalamitra says:
Furthermore, based on the power of repelling the armies of saṃsāra, vidyā (rig pa) is 1) the knowledge (vidyā) of names designated by words, 2) helpful, worldly knowledge such as healing, arts and crafts, and so on, 3) the five sciences (rig pa gnas lnga) of the treatises and so on, 4) knowing (vidyā) as a factor of consciousness, 5) sharp and dull worldly knowledge and so on, and 6) the knowledge of the essence (snying po) that permeates all that is free from ignorance, unobscured by the obscurations of ignorance and so on.
Rig pa therefore runs the gamut in terms of modalities of “knowledge,” ranging from worldly intellectual knowledge, to the awakened and transcendent knowledge (gnosis) of a Buddha.
The main takeaway of all these modalities is simply understanding that "rig pa" is not a monolithic nature, there isn't a single way that rigpa is. There are definitive and provisional expressions of rigpa.
When it is asserted that rigpa is "only nondual" or "only an awakened transcendent state," then this is misleading. Rigpa also has diminished and relative expressions, and those relative expressions are what we use for practice as beginners. In time those relative expressions evolve, but if we state that rigpa is only this transcendent nature, then it creates an inaccessible barrier which is unjustified and unnecessary.
"Then what would be its structure , because knowing itself kinda involves a subject object duality , or is it self luminous by its very nature like the diganaga and dharamkirti. I don't see how there is a third way where knowing itself doesn't happen in this manner"
Rigpa is just "knowledge" in its various expressions. Rig pa (vidyā) is in essence, the capacity of consciousness to “know” and how that knowledge exhibits itself in both its apparent and expressive capacities.
The “spectrum” of modalities typically addresses rigpa in terms of (i) what it is capable of knowing, and (ii) how rigpa displays itself in its apparent, expressive capacity. Both of these aspects intertwine.
Excerpt from Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
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]
See also: Luminous mind
Practice
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:
[...] are based on the idea that pure awareness is locked away in the body’s core, localized at the heart. A set of luminous energy channels then run from the heart to the eyes, acting as pathways through which awareness can travel and exit the body. Based on special yogic techniques, awareness can be induced to emerge from the eyes and light up into visionary appearances. This provides an opportunity for recognition: for the yogi to realize that the visionary appearances “out there” are none other than presencings of an internal awareness, and thus to undo the basic error of ignorance.[10]
Four visions
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
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
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
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:
Kye! Do not contrive or elaborate the awareness of this very moment. Allow it to be just as it is. This is not established as existing, not existing, or having a direction. It does not discern between emptiness and appearances and does not have the characteristics of nihilism and eternalism. Within this state where nothing exists, it is unnecessary to exert effort through view or meditation. The great primordial liberation is not like being released from bondage. It is natural radiance uncontrived by the intellect, wisdom unsullied by concepts. The nature of phenomena, not tainted by the view and meditation, is evenness without placement and post-evenness without premeditation. It is clarity without characteristics and vastness not lost to uniformity. Although all sentient beings have never been separate from their own indwelling wisdom even for an instant, by failing to recognize this, it becomes like a natural flow of water solidifying into ice. With the inner grasping mind as the root cause and outer objective clinging as the contributing circumstance, beings wander in samsara indefinitely. Now, with the guru's oral instructions, at the moment of encountering awareness-without any mental constructions-rest in the way things truly are, without wavering from or meditating on anything. This fully reveals the core wisdom intent of the primordial Buddha Kuntuzangpo.[12]
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:
(a) Placement in the mountainlike view: After realizing the true nature-free of thoughts-as it is, remain in the naturally clear, great awareness that is not subject to mental efforts, grasping, or the usage of intentional meditation antidotes [against concepts].
(b) Oceanlike meditation: Sit in the lotus posture. Look at space in a state of openness. Avoid grasping at the perceptions of the six consciousnesses. Clear your cognition like the ocean free of waves.
(c) Skill in activities: Abruptly relax your three doors of body, speech, and mind. Break free of the cocoon of view and meditation. Just maintain your clear, naked wisdom naturally.
(d) Unconditional result: Let the five mental objects remain naturally as they are. Then natural clarity arises vividly within you.[13]
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]
See also
