asunthatneversets

Interestingly, terms such as 'recognition', 'discovery', 'introduction', and so on are attempts to translate a certain Tibetan phrase which Malcolm has referenced elsewhere; "The phrase is 'ngo rang thog du sprad' which means more like 'a direct self-encounter with [one's] state [lit. face]'." So again, semantics... wrapped in translation.

Recognize whatever you want to call it; your nature, your state, sound light and rays, the nature of mind, mind-essence, the basis, dharmatā, primordial wisdom, there are many names. Since it is the nature of your own mind and cognizance, if your own condition in that respect is unfamiliar to you, then you my friend have far bigger problems to worry about.

Recognition. Discovery. Semantics.

I'm definitely not saying the opposite, you're just assuming that because wisdom is free from extremes this means that it cannot be recognized. It sort of goes without saying that all conventional descriptions are attempts to conceptualize the non-conceptual. Even a description of the taste of chocolate is ultimately not the non-conceptual taste. There are countless dharma texts, sūtras and tantras which are all describing and explaining wisdom to the best of their ability. Buddhas are buddhas because they have a complete knowledge of wisdom, sentient beings are sentient beings because they are completely ignorant of wisdom. It's an underlying theme found throughout the buddhadharma.

A veridical cognition of one's nature is not a fixated view, in fact it is quite the opposite being that it ensues from a definitive collapse of the fabricated reference point of mind. It is not an inferential view by any means, but rather is precisely the effortless and definitive view [lta ba] of uncontrived equipoise [mnyam bzhag] i.e. contemplation [skt. samādhi, tib. ting nge dzin]. Yes, well since there has ultimately never been a self at any point in time, nothing has ever arisen in a self, much less dharmakāya. Technically there's no one to witness any process. The illusion of a self is nothing more than a byproduct of karmic patterning and ignorance. And since the reference point of mind which is misconstrued as an abiding entity is absent in the definitive view, clarity is no longer mistaken as belonging to an entity. The lack of 'someone' is a redundant point, the 'someone' has always only been a conventional designation attributed to the intricate interweaving of afflicted processes. The process or view "takes on an energy of its own" after a certain level of stabilization has occurred. But initially it is not stable and therefore must be practiced by means of continually resting in the view. The path of Dzogchen is never involved with improving one's nature, which is originally pure and self-perfected. The basis, path and result are merely a conventional way to describe the process of recognizing that nature [basis], and then degrees of stability in one's knowledge [rig pa] of that nature [path] and finally the complete exhaustion of karmic contamination [result]. Dharmakāya is the result. No one has suggested that wisdom is cultivated nor that ignorance is eradicated. The notion of one's nature arising from effort is also nothing that has been suggested at any time in this discussion. One's nature cannot be cultivated or produced, it is primordial and therefore can only be recognized and familiarized with. I would say this is taking my comment out of context, but of you'd like to believe I'm ruffled by your self-proclaimed radical view, you are more than welcome to. I'm addressing your points because there are things I disagree with, just as you are addressing mine because there are things you disagree with. This is fairly straightforward stuff when it comes to human interaction on any platform. What I asserted was "ridiculous" was your movement to surpass the principle of wisdom based on conjectured information regarding levels of realization such as buddhahood and/or rainbow body etc. Which is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

Having interacted with many of the individuals who replied on that thread for some years now I can vouch for the fact that they are level headed and reasonable people. It is quite rare to see them advise to be cautious about a teacher, so I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they have good reason for saying what they said. Did you try inquiring further via private message?

Interestingly, the dzogchen tantras say precisely the same thing (per Malcolm): "Prajñā is the realizer and the cause of the realization is vidyā." - rig pa rang shar

Welcome to the internet.

Not returning to the rounds of rebirth would be total liberation i.e. the highest wisdom. You as the conventional self. It goes without saying that all conventions are merely inferential and do not point to anything inherently real. Hence we can say that John Doe or Mary Smith attains liberation, or the highest wisdom, or recognizes their nature etc., and understand that such a statement does not suggest that anyone is truly doing such things. Right, ultimately the individual is empty. Conventionally, the individual does many things. Buddha, in this instance was pointing towards the ultimate truth, but in the absolute sense, grasping at ultimate truth and negating conventional processes (especially the basis, path and result) is called nihilism. Something to be avoided. The thoughts are not the issue, but how those thoughts are related to. Just as an afflictive relationship with concepts such as 'one' or 'many' can undoubtably be counterproductive, grasping at the non-existence of such notions is equally binding. Better to simply understand that all conventional designations are inferential and lack inherent existence, because then there is freedom to implement language freely without erring into nihilism. Ultimately there is 'no such thing' as anything, yet processes unfold and appearances manifest. This goes without saying, yet if this principle is grasped at then the ultimate is identified with by mind, which causes a negation of the system, specifically; the basis, path and result. This is called allowing the view to overtake the conduct, which is an error that the system warns against. On the flip side there is such a thing as allowing the conduct to overtake the view, so there must be a balance, and right view is the corner stone of that balance. Every designation is conventional, even the idea that there is no such thing as X. Clinging to a notion of that nature is simply grasping at an opposite dualistic extreme. The buddhadharma is very skillful in its ability to traverse such contradictions by implementing conventional and ultimate principles. Even though Dzogchen does not give credence to the two truths, it still undoubtably implements conventions, and so the same principle applies. In actuality, even Madhyamaka does not give credence to the two truths, but agrees with Dzogchen that there is only one truth, which is awakened wisdom. So there is no need to reject conventions, especially when you would have to use conventions to make the rejection. Again, here you are giving credence to wisdom, while simultaneously attempting to marginalize it. The view is that of primordial wisdom, or more specifically, one's knowledge of primordial wisdom, that is itself the great perfection. Well this is not what the system says. Nowhere will you find rhetoric which states in the wake of recognition the principles of ignorance, wisdom, vidyā and avidyā are suddenly extraneous and dispensable. In fact, you are again attempting to marginalize wisdom, while simultaneously giving credence to it. You even go as far as to offer the very definition of wisdom ("where all is seen to be already perfected since beginningless time") which is given in the rig pa rang shar, while then denigrating it in the next sentence. Dualistic clinging is not possible from the standpoint of vidyā, so your assertion that the vidyā-avidyā dichotomy is a frivolous byproduct of clinging is an inaccurate statement. Vidyā is the definitive view, which serves as the path and result, it is directly resting in uncontrived wisdom i.e. the natural state. From the perspective of vidyā there is no differentiation between itself and avidyā, however since recognition of one's nature only dispels avidyā, and does not resolve the proliferation of karmic propensities, the view must be maintained unerringly, otherwise there is indeed danger of regressing back into avidyā. As elucidated by Jigme Lingpa here: "However if he has not perfected his skill in the wisdom that shines out in vipaśyanā [meaning the definitive view of the natural state], then, being enveloped in the ālaya as before, that lamp of luminosity will be extinguished and no longer present." Will respond to the rest soon.

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu on aiming at the space between thoughts: "Also, some teachers explain we have the experience of emptiness [gnas pa] between one thought and the next thought. Particularly if you are practicing shine [zhi gnas] and becoming familiar with it, you can remain for a long time without thought. Then a thought arises. In general there is always and empty space between thoughts. That is the same as the experience of emptiness [gnas pa], that condition is emptiness [stillness, non-thought], and many people say 'The space between thoughts represents dharmakāya. That's why you do shine. You make that space larger and larger; if you make that dimension without thoughts larger then you are in dharmakāya and you can attain realization'. That is a wrong teaching, it really means dancing on the books of teachings without having any experience of real practice. That is not instant presence [skt. vidyā, tib. rig pa]. If you are not in instant presence there is no possibility of realization. If you make that kind of emptiness larger and larger, maybe after your death it will make the cause for obtaining the dimension of samsara called no form [formless realm], a part of the deva realm. This is a higher state of the devas, they live for thousands of years without having any form. That's the fruit of that kind of practice, but when it finishes they go to hell, because all their merits are consumed. So that is samsara, not realization. You must not go in that direction." Side note: what Norbu Rinpoche refers to as "emptiness" is non-thought, or stillness of mind (as opposed to the movement of thought). So in general, when you read "emptiness" from Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, he is referencing the relative stillness of mind, rather than emptiness [skt. śūnyatā, tib. stong pa nyid], (dharmakāya) as it is usually used in buddhist texts.

What do you think wisdom is? I ask because your statements do not make sense, you seem to be advocating for the nullification of ignorance and wisdom (due to the fact that they are illusory - which everything is, but that does not make them arbitrary), yet at the same time you advocate for rigpa, which is a direct knowledge of the wisdom you seem to be rejecting. It is very strange, and leads me to conclude that you don't really understand what wisdom implies. I'm also not sure what the bodhisattva ideal has to do with this in any way (apart from of course being a vital aspect of the path). This is another assertion which does not make sense at all, and is out of left field to be honest. When you are ignorant of something, you lack knowledge of it, when you have knowledge of something, you are no longer ignorant of it. It is a very simple principle. Why you are having difficulty with it I'm not sure. By asserting that wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes] (i.e. the basis [skt. sthāna, tib. gzhi] i.e. the three wisdoms [ka dag, lhun grub and thugs rje] i.e. the three kāyas) is a form of subtle clinging, you have successfully misunderstood Dzogpa Chenpo altogether. Parinirvana can have a few meanings, one being the death of a realized being (the dissolution of their elements). However in the sense you are attempting to discuss parinirvana; it simply means one has reached the highest wisdom [uttarajñāna], which comes after the exhaustion of dharmatā, something you no doubt lack knowledge of, for that is rainbow body. Ergo, why you are choosing to preemptively talk of "going beyond" wisdom is ridiculous, to say the least.

I'm not sure if your citation above is from The Cycle of Day and Night or from Collected Talks Vol. III, but either way you omitted the sections where he discusses mother dharmatā [chos nyid ma]. ChNN is very clear to separate ordinary mindfulness [dran pa] from rigpa. How does that description compare to my dharmatā a.k.a. wisdom or the dimension of emptiness of all phenomena which one can have knowledge of? Well, if you didn't cherry pick a single quote regarding dharmatā from Norbu Rinpoche and actually sought to discover what he says about it in depth, you might find that my summation is not very different from his, here are a few more quotes from him: "The certainty that all samsara and nirvana are the energy manifestation of the space of dharmatā is the prajñā of the utterly pure space, thus thoroughly understand that its realization is the wisdom of rigpa!" "Having experienced non-thought contemplation in the primordial pure emptiness dimension of the essence, the nature of instant rigpa is established as the manifest dharmatā" "The emptiness that has no function is not the same as the total emptiness of our real nature, the dharmatā or dharmakāya. This emptiness can have infinite manifestations." "You see, each individual has infinite potentiality, in that the state of the individual is also the center of the universe. For example, I have in my state infinite potentiality, and that potentiality is the center of the universe, but it means that for me, not for you. You are another individual, you have infinite potentiality and yours for you is also the center of the universe. Yet being the center of the universe is not for egotistical and selfish feelings, or a feeling of being more important than others. Rather it refers to what is the real potentiality of each individual, that is the real meaning of dharmatā. Generally people have no knowledge of dharmatā." Norbu Rinpoche citing Longchenpa: "Regarding the ultimate dimension and wisdom of the fruit that is total self-liberation beyond action, the ultimate dimension, that does not abide in samsara or in nirvana, is single, indefinable and beyond striving. When empty wisdom arises in it, beyond the limits of view and meditation, one understands the sameness of all phenomena of happiness and suffering: this is called 'the ultimate dimension and wisdom of dharmatā beyond action'." Rinpoche talks about recognition all the time, discovery, understanding our nature directly and experientially. His entire teaching revolves around recognizing our nature and he discusses it every single retreat he does. You have selective hearing if you assert otherwise.

Wisdom is surely known when pure prajñā appears. The knowledge of wisdom is called vidyā [rig pa], and it is a non-conceptual and fully experiential species of discernment that the entire praxis of Atiyoga is centered on. You seem to be suggesting that the difference between ignorance and wisdom is one that is vague, to the degree that the possibility of discerning one from the other is either (i) not possible, or (ii) that if it is possible it is truly more a case of fabricated wishful thinking rooted in intellectual confirmation biases. However such assertions are the true fabrications, which are quite inaccurate and misleading in my opinion. It is true that karmic proliferation is the sustenance of ignorance, but that does not mean it indefinitely prevents the recognition of wisdom. Wisdom is simply the dharmatā of mind, it is always latently present because the mind, being a mere byproduct of ignorance and karmic formation, is a conditioned dharmin. All dharmins have a dharmatā because all allegedly conditioned things, faculties, states etc., are abstractive fabrications which in truth lack inherency. Body, voice and mind are no exceptions. Dharmatā is unconditioned by definition, and therefore is not conditioned by karmic propensities. Propensities can only obscure dharmatā due to the confusion they create and maintain. Fundamentally, everything is no such thing, yet that is why conventional processes can occur and have application in our experiences. There's fundamentally no such thing as going to the store to buy groceries, yet a trip to the store to purchase food apparently occurs. The conventional occurrence includes all of the implications a given process would suggest, such as purpose, causes, results and so on. The same goes for bodhi or awakening. The fact that liberation is merely a conventional result to an equally conventional process does not mean no apparent liberation occurs. It in fact does, but why? Because bodhi is simply a cessation, just as the extinguishing of a flame is a cessation. What is it that ceases? Cause for the further arising of afflictive processes, which means liberation is the cessation of cause for the further proliferation of ignorance. Right, but this does not negate the conventional validity of nirvāna, just as it does not negate the conventional validity of samsara, or anything else for that matter. In the conventional format when ignorance ceases, wisdom remains. Even if you wanted to go the extra steps to explain that wisdom is technically and ultimately a convention, if you include wisdom in that relative dichotomy, the cessation of that dichotomy and the knowledge which ensues as a result of that cessation would still be wisdom. Also, the cessation of ignorance can very well be a temporary lapse depending on the condition of the individual. In the case of a lapse or temporary collapse of ignorance, the mind would not extinguish but would simply collapse temporarily. A full exhaustion of ignorance occurs at the time of buddhahood because the karmic propensities are exhausted i.e. the cause for the arising of affliction is exhausted. The so-called conventional self does not truly have associated tendencies, but rather is itself those tendencies. Same with mind; mind does not posses tendencies, but instead is precisely afflictive tendencies and propensities. The terms 'self' and 'mind' are simply conventional labels which are ascribed to these patterns. The absence of ignorance is uncontrived equipoise by definition due to the cessation of grasping. Vidyā implies subtle non-grasping because the reference point of mind [sems] has collapsed as a result of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid]. In the context of a path such as Dzogchen, a contrived equipoise is not equipoise [mnyam bzhag]. Overall though if one is unable to discern with certainty (certainty being an innate attribute of a definitive recognition event), then vidyā is not present and the view is still inferential. In essence (meaning; ultimately) anything you can compare is neither the same nor different, but you're again missing the point that recognition of the emptiness of something means wisdom is implied. The valid cognition, free of knowledge obscurations which is cognizing the non-arising of phenomena, is wisdom [tib. ye shes, skt. jñāna]. You are mixing up conventional and ultimate, which is causing you to negate too much and err into nihilism. Vidyā and avidyā do not lack inherency because there is no inherent "human form to experience" them, they lack inherency because inherency is impossible and is in actuality nothing more than a misconception of afflicted minds. That is why emptiness can be realized, if inherency were real then it would be impossible to realize emptiness. But, because all dharmas are empty by nature, inherency is merely a figment of ignorance which results from non-recognition of said empty nature [dharmatā]. Vidyā and avidyā's lack of inherency does not negate their conventional validity, if you assert that their conventional application is negated (by the fact that they lack inherency) then this is nihilism and is grasping at the ultimate, which is just delusion. No, the reason they cannot ultimately lack existence is because they are empty, as was established above. What is empty is free from extremes. The part about the "transiency and ephemeral nature of both existence and non-existence occurring simultaneously" doesn't really make sense, nor would it be relevant if it did. Existence and non-existence are misunderstandings which appear concomitantly with the misperception of conditioned phenomena. Existence, non-existence, both and neither are realized to be erroneous notions upon recognizing the non-arising (or unconditioned nature) of so-called conditioned dharmins. Well luckily for us, forming notions on an ultimate level is nothing we have to worry about, so there's total freedom to form and implement whatever notions we want. That goes for any and everything, and therefore goes without saying. There is no "beyond both". Dzogchen applies to you. Your nature is primordially pure [ka dag] and is therefore neither compromised by avidyā nor improved by vidyā, but you aren't that nature. All you can do is have knowledge [vidyā] of that nature, or be ignorant [avidyā] of it. One basis, two paths, two results (suffering, or the cessation thereof).

Aside from the fact that the way you went about inputting your commentary into the fabric of this quote is bad form, the fact that the entire quote is meticulously describing the difference between rigpa and marigpa while you attempt to marginalize the two (in the quote itself - which contradicts your assertions), is rather ridiculous.

Sems is conventionally the mind of an entity. CT's point is rather redundant that a conventional X cannot inherently belong to another conventional X. Since there's no such thing as inherency, such an assertion is akin to proclaiming the sky is blue... obviously. Haven't had a chance to respond to his last post but will do so ASAP, there are quite a few things to address.

There is no sameness of confusion and wisdom. As Samantabhadra states, paraphrased; though my paths are countless in number, they can be summed up into two: vidyā and avidyā. What that statement is conveying is that there is a single basis and two paths. If you are ignorant of the basis, which is simply your nature, then you wander in samsara as a sentient being. If on the other hand you recognize your nature, then that is the path of liberation and wisdom. Confusion and wisdom are never the same though. It may be true that from the perspective of vidyā, confusion dawns as wisdom, but that does not mean confusion is wisdom. It simply means vidyā is able to accurately cognize appearances which were once cognized afflictively. "The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained." -- Longchenpa

Yes mahāyoga (generation stage) does differ from what is considered atiyoga proper. Both are good and neither is better than the other, it is whatever works for the practitioner.

Ah I didn't realize you were describing mahāyoga practices. Five seconds is an approximate example, could be one second, could be twenty, or it may not appear at all during a practice session. It may flash forth later in the day during other activities. It is anything but uniform.

If you are integrating with confusion then rigpa is not present. Rigpa does come and go. That is the meaning of the path. The path is divided into equipoise and post-equipoise precisely due to fluctuation between mind and wisdom. "Vidyā [rig pa] as it is explained on the path is still accompanied by impure influences of subtle energy and mind, leading to the distorted states of ordinary mind [sems] and mental events. Because one's recognition of vidyā is thus contaminated and burdened, one can truly rest in vidyā only from time to time." - Jigme Lingpa

This is nothing the system ever says. If rigpa was always whatever state you are in at anytime, then the teachings would be extraneous and unnecessary. Vimalamitra was actually very clear when he said samsara cannot come from vidyā [rig pa], ergo vidyā is not manifesting in the midst of confusion. The only thing which manifests in the midst of confusion is confusion itself i. e. mind.

It is not short spurts of focus then rest and repeat. The "short spurts" are flashes of prajñā, which have nothing to do with focusing. Equipoise is resting in the view, when that view comes forth due to collapse of mind, in most cases it simply happens spontaneously. Masters usually say that since the real meditation is the view, you may sit for over an hour and only end up meditating for five seconds. Why five seconds? Because that is as long as the instance of vidyā [rig pa] may last for a beginner. Those five seconds end up being equipoise, and then post equipoise is essentially anything other than the view. Since equipoise involves no focus or effort, post equipoise is where the focusing or effort generally occurs.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche: "The glimpse of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid] that in the beginning lasted only for a few seconds gradually becomes half a minute, then a minute, then half an hour, then hours, until eventually it is uninterrupted throughout the whole day. You need that kind of training. I mention this because, if [you believe] the goal of the main training is to construct a state in which thoughts have subsided and which feels very clear and quiet, that is still a training in which a particular state is deliberately kept. Such a state is the outcome of a mental effort, a pursuit. Therefore it is neither the ultimate nor the original natural state. The naked essence of mind [sems nyid] is not known in śamatha, because the mind is occupied with abiding in stillness; it (mind essence) remains unseen. All one is doing is simply not following the movement of thought. But being deluded by thought movement is not the only delusion; one can also be deluded by abiding in quietude. The preoccupation with being clam blocks recognition of self-existing wakefulness and also blocks the knowing of the three kāyas of the awakened state. This calm is simply one of no thought, of the attention subsiding in itself while still not knowing itself."

That quote is partly misleading, because the Madhyamaka emptiness is the proper view of emptiness for Dzogchen as well. It is just the paths which differ. So that statement is correct when it says "Dzogchen Nature is not connected with expectations, conceptual understanding or comparisons", however this is just addressing the application of the path, the nature of the path. The view is identical though, which is why many masters attest that Madhyamaka scholars such as Nāgārjuna express the proper view of the essence [ngo bo] in Dzogchen in an intellectual sense. The difference being that Dzogchen does not implement intellectual analysis in the same way, but rather seeks to point out that definitive dharmatā from the very beginning. So the view is the same, the praxis is different.

Interestingly, the quotes from Vimalamitra above are actually a commentary on that excerpt. Here's Malcolm's rendition of that section too: Hey, hey, apparent yet non existent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway. -- The Unwritten Tantra

Well, there's two sides to that story, and of course the Old's are going to attest they have completed the practice. The other side of the story is that they did not complete all levels. They deluded themselves into believing they did, disagreed with their teacher, Lama Drimed Norbu, heart student of Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche, when he clarified for them that they had only reached the second vision, and they then proceeded to leave and publish a book. So believe what you'd like, but as for myself, placing bets on the validity of a controversial account, in the context of a practice which requires perfect conduct, is not a gamble I would ever want to take. Such a transmission is far too rare and valuable to squander on wishful thinking.