Resting the mind in its natural state

[RongzomFan]

they translated rigpa as knowing and marigpa as unknowing

[konchog uma]

Some teachers emphasize shine/lhakthong, some don't. There are multiple ways within the gradual and non-gradual approaches to recognize and rest the mind in the natural state. Until one has achieved the natural state, and manifests the fruits of this (instead of, for example, starting off their posts with insults) they don't really have any business telling anyone else how to practice their practice imo.

[Simple_Jack]

 

So, one of Tibet's formost scholars has told us that the realization of Dzogchen is the union of the clearly defined and elaborated terms: "Shamatha and Vipashyana."

 

The training for those that have recognized what the guru has introduced is continuing in the state of rigpa (which is the union of samatha and vipashyana), which shouldn't be conflated with the preliminary practices that Allan Wallace teaches; the latter of which is for those who have not recognized what they have been introduced to by a guru.

[Simple_Jack]

The training for those that have recognized what the guru has introduced is continuing in the state of rigpa (which is the inseparability of samatha and vipashyana), which shouldn't be conflated with the preliminary practices that Allan Wallace teaches; the latter of which is for those who have not recognized what they have been introduced to by a guru.

[RongzomFan]

The above material is saying that shamatha and vipashyana are automatically included in the natural state.

 

 

"Attaining this stability, in which the shamatha of primordially abiding in the natural state and the vipashyana of natural luminosity are basically indivisible, is the dawn of self-existing wakefulness, the realization of dzogchen"

[Tibetan_Ice]

they translated rigpa as knowing and marigpa as unknowing

 

Hey Alwaysoff,

Do you recall in this other thread that you said that rigpa was 'knowledge'?

 

This is what you said:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26115-further-discussion/?p=462811

Rigpa definitely means knowledge. Even in Madhyamaka texts (See Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty), rigpa is knowledge. Rigpa is just Tibetan for knowledge.

 

With reference to Dzogchen practice, how do you rest and stabilize in knowledge? Knowledge is a noun. It is like saying you should rest and stabilize in chair.

 

It makes much more sense to say "rest and stabilize in knowing'. And, when it comes to practice, it is highly effective and just might be the key, the best interpretation for people with English as their first language. Knowledge is a noun. Knowing is a verb.

 

Knowledge is a stored belief or conglomerate of beliefs which must be accessed from the conceptual mind. It must be recalled and grasped. Knowing, on the other hand, is what Mipham is telling us we have to stabilize in.

 

This makes perfect sense to me, because, as per Saraha's instruction, one should drop the subject and drop the object.

 

The glorious Saraha said:

Completely abandoning the thinker and what is thought of, Remain like a thought-free child.

 

When you abandon the thinker and what is thought of, what remains? Just the Knowing.

 

Then, you stabilize in just the Knowing.

 

So if you criticize one of the foremost Tibetan Scholars for using terminlogy which is far more accurate for practitioners whose primary language is English, I guess that speaks volumes.

 

 

The above material is saying that shamatha and vipashyana are automatically included in the natural state.

 

 

"Attaining this stability, in which the shamatha of primordially abiding in the natural state and the vipashyana of natural luminosity are basically indivisible, is the dawn of self-existing wakefulness, the realization of dzogchen"

 

Hey Alwaysoff,

the dharmakaya and the sambhogakaya are basically indivisable.

 

TI

 

The training for those that have recognized what the guru has introduced is continuing in the state of rigpa (which is the union of samatha and vipashyana), which shouldn't be conflated with the preliminary practices that Allan Wallace teaches; the latter of which is for those who have not recognized what they have been introduced to by a guru.

 

To me, this statement indicates that you have no interest in Alan Wallace, have never read any of his books or listened to any of his podcasts and your main interest is just to denigrate other teachers which to you don't seem authentic.

 

Any reader would have understood what Alan himself has written in his books, and any listener would have understood Alan when he said that the main item that drew him into Buddhism was a book on Dzogchen.

 

This is what Alan wrote himself in "The Attention Revolution":

Following this retreat, I spent six years pursuing a doctorate in religious studies at Stanford University, where I wrote my dissertation on shamatha. Concurrently, I received extensive instruction in the Dzogchen (Great Perfection) and Mahamudra (Great Seal) traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, which provide theories and practices for exploring the nature of consciousness. After my comprehensive exams, I took a leave of absence from academia to practice shamatha for five months in the high desert, this time employing a Dzogchen approach. I considered this my “lab work” to complement my academic investigation. After graduating from Stanford, I taught for four years in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and beginning in the autumn of 2001, I devoted another six months to shamatha practice in the same high desert region.

 

...

 

Beginning with the fifth stage, I recommend a method called settling the mind in its natural state. In this technique, you direct your attention to mental experiences, all the events—thoughts, mental images, and emotions—that arise in the domain of the mind. This method is drawn from the Dzogchen, or “Great Perfection” lineage, but is found in other Buddhist traditions as well.

 

...

 

The Dzogchen and Mahamudra traditions, most strongly associated with the Nyingma and Kagyü orders of Tibetan Buddhism, respectively, view the pristine awareness as a perfectly enlightened state of consciousness that is already present, but obscured by mental afflictions and other obscurations. Since all the qualities of primordial consciousness, or buddha-nature, are believed to be implicit in ordinary human consciousness, the exceptional degrees of attentional stability are also considered innate to the nature of awareness itself. Ultimately, those qualities don’t need to be developed; they are waiting to be discovered, and the above practice is precisely designed to do just that.

 

The Geluk and Sakya orders of Tibetan Buddhism generally regard the buddha-nature as our potential for achieving enlightenment, but the mind must be developed in various ways in order to achieve the immeasurable qualities of wisdom, compassion, and creativity of a buddha. Likewise, the Geluk and Sakya orders most commonly emphasize shamatha techniques aimed at developing stability and vividness by focusing the mind on “signs,” or meditation objects.

 

Wallace Ph.D., B. Alan (2006-04-10). The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind: v.ution . Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

 

Therefore, I do not see how anyone, after reading that book, would conflate what Alan Wallace teaches on Dzogchen practices with 'preliminary practices for those who didn't get what their guru pointed out.' You make is sound like only the flunkies need to pay attention to Alan Wallace..

 

 

Some teachers emphasize shine/lhakthong, some don't. There are multiple ways within the gradual and non-gradual approaches to recognize and rest the mind in the natural state. Until one has achieved the natural state, and manifests the fruits of this (instead of, for example, starting off their posts with insults) they don't really have any business telling anyone else how to practice their practice imo.

 

There are good teachers and there are bad teachers.

 

One who relies on teachers is taking a risk, that they just may have a 'bad' teacher.

 

Until one has achieved the natural state, and manifests the fruits of this, one has no way to tell if the teacher is a good one or a bad one, let alone pass judgement on whether a practice will be effective for any individual. As Alan Wallace says at the end of the Shamatha retreat 2012, unless you have gained psychic abilities, you will not be able to help others in their practices.

 

Oh, I'm kind of getting sick of the ankle biting. If you have something to say, say it. At no time have I ever told anyone in this thread how to practice their practice. If I did, please show me. If not, then you are once again stretching things.

 

What makes you think that someone who has acheived the natural state and manifested the fruits of this (your words) would not insult anyone? You, admirer of Chogyam Trungpa.. author of "Crazy Wisdom".. "Some of his teaching methods and actions were the topic of controversy during his lifetime and afterwards."

 

[Apech]

Hey Alwaysoff,

Do you recall in this other thread that you said that rigpa was 'knowledge'?

 

This is what you said:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26115-further-discussion/?p=462811

 

....

 

We dealt with this before .... rigpa = vidhya = knowledge as contrasted to avidhya = ignorance (as basis for samara).

[Seeker of Wisdom]

No need to debate. Instead, just wait a few years and see which side has actually got anywhere (not that there's really anything to achieve) in their practice.

[C T]

One could say 'rigpa' is knowledge which ensues from an evened mind, which is devoid of conceptual thoughts and free of remainder. A continuum of clarity, is how i see it. It is 'knowing' without being caught by subtle distractions. Thats the theory, the easy part. A lifetime of practice to gain stability is the more prudent option.

[Apech]

One could say 'rigpa' is knowledge which ensues from an evened mind, which is devoid of conceptual thoughts and free of remainder. A continuum of clarity, is how i see it. It is 'knowing' without being caught by subtle distractions. Thats the theory, the easy part. A lifetime of practice to gain stability is the more prudent option.

 

 

evened or awakened???

 

If we take seriously the 12 steps of dependent origination which start with avidhya = ignorance then the whole of samara depends on our confusion/ignorance. If this is replaced by vidhya (knowledge) then the samsara falls away ... or perhaps we see it for what it truly is and then does the mind have to be even or devoid of thoughts or in any condition ....DISCUSS

[C T]

On the matter of Chogyam Trungpa, here's something i read the other day...

 

Now, sometimes, people point to Trungpa Rinpoche and say, "Well, he smoked cigarettes, so why can't i smoke cigarettes?" Trungpa Rinpoche was a fully-realized mahasiddha who absorbed poisons for the benefit of others. If you are legitimately in his league, then i suppose it does not really matter if you smoke or not. However, if you are not in his league, then leave it alone, won't you?"

 

The writer continues -

 

I should probably also mention that if you smoke tobacco, marijuana, or opium, it will be impossible to reach and rescue you once you are in the intermediate stage. Perhaps we might qualify that by saying that although it will be possible to reach you, because of your smoking habits, you will not be able to gain any benefit. There are experiences in the perceived bardo which are devoid of any color --- these are proximate to rather hellish appearances -- and tobacco use in particular makes these appearances rather formidable.

 

You tell people these things, and they say, "Oh well... i smoke." But it is just stupid nonsense.

 

 

 

Now, this moment, we could allow the natural state to rest our minds.

 

and don't smoke.

 

 

(sorry, off tyopiuc)

[C T]

evened or awakened???

 

If we take seriously the 12 steps of dependent origination which start with avidhya = ignorance then the whole of samara depends on our confusion/ignorance. If this is replaced by vidhya (knowledge) then the samsara falls away ... or perhaps we see it for what it truly is and then does the mind have to be even or devoid of thoughts or in any condition ....DISCUSS

Do you think awakening removes one from the link of dependent origination?

 

As i am aware, it does not.

 

Perhaps future ignorance will not arise, but past ignorances will still have to be worked through. Those who complete the process of removing all traces of past (conditionings) in their lifetime attain rainbow-body, but because this is such a rare thing nowadays, the bodhisattva ideal comes to the fore, so that people can still have something worthwhile to underscore and give meaning to their path.

 

Hence, i think doing the work (practice) would be akin to a conscious duty of retracing the 12 links from the last to the first, whereas for others this turnaround does not happen, until at some point, something happens which ripens (a need for) vidya.

 

Again, its all theory. In actuality, its quite easy to slip and get distracted all the time. We (actually, its me, not we) think we have mastered much, but thats just us fooling ourselves most of the time.

[Apech]

Do you think awakening removes one from the link of dependent origination?

 

As i am aware, it does not.

 

Perhaps future ignorance will not arise, but past ignorances will still have to be worked through. Those who complete the process of removing all traces of past (conditionings) in their lifetime attain rainbow-body, but because this is such a rare thing nowadays, the bodhisattva ideal comes to the fore, so that people can still have something worthwhile to underscore and give meaning to their path.

 

Hence, i think doing the work (practice) would be akin to a conscious duty of retracing the 12 links from the last to the first, whereas for others this turnaround does not happen, until at some point, something happens which ripens (a need for) vidya.

 

Again, its all theory. In actuality, its quite easy to slip and get distracted all the time. We (actually, its me, not we) think we have mastered much, but thats just us fooling ourselves most of the time.

 

I think in awakening you see things as they really are. Phenomena as empty, samsara as empty, nirvana as empty ... if ignorance is destroyed at the root then there is no need for calmness, even-ness, or insight practice.

[doc benway]

I think in awakening you see things as they really are. Phenomena as empty, samsara as empty, nirvana as empty ... if ignorance is destroyed at the root then there is no need for calmness, even-ness, or insight practice.

It seems that in this post you are making a goal out of awakening and looking at it as an end game...

Phenomenon are empty, samsara and nirvana are empty...

And yet we still live in the world, we still get distracted, we are human.

The path goes on for our lifetime - there is always room for calmness, even-ness, and insight.

[RongzomFan]

So if you criticize one of the foremost Tibetan Scholars for using terminlogy which is far more accurate for practitioners whose primary language is English, I guess that speaks volumes.

 

Knowing and unknowing is quite fine with me.

[Apech]

It seems that in this post you are making a goal out of awakening and looking at it as an end game...

Phenomenon are empty, samsara and nirvana are empty...

And yet we still live in the world, we still get distracted, we are human.

The path goes on for our lifetime - there is always room for calmness, even-ness, and insight.

 

relatively speaking awakening is a goal and if you want to call it an endgame you can ... it may be a goal that ceases to be a goal when you get there ... this bit "And yet we still live in the world, we still get distracted, we are human. The path goes on for our lifetime " I have no idea what you mean ... the words seem to make sense but where is the meaning?

Edited September 7, 2013 by Apech

[RongzomFan]

evened or awakened???

 

If we take seriously the 12 steps of dependent origination which start with avidhya = ignorance then the whole of samara depends on our confusion/ignorance. If this is replaced by vidhya (knowledge) then the samsara falls away ... or perhaps we see it for what it truly is and then does the mind have to be even or devoid of thoughts or in any condition ....DISCUSS

 

This goes back to the menngagde definition of the basis (gzhi).

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/search.php?keywords=basis+lights&terms=all&author=Malcolm&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

 

Unfortunately there is very little published on this.

Edited September 7, 2013 by alwayson

[monktastic]

I attended a one week shamatha retreat with Alan in 2006. At the time, he was insistent that the attainment of the first dhyana (or at least access to it, at the level described in the visuddhimagga) was essential for all higher practices, Dzogchen included.

 

In the Fall 2012 Dzogchen (I think) retreat he made a point regarding a question I had long been curious about: why do Tsoknyi Rinpoche and other masters not emphasize this attainment? His answer was simply that he doesn't really know why, and thinks it's strange that they would deviate from the teachings of Tsongkhapa (who, though a Gelugpa, was said to have realized Dzogchen), Dudjom Lingpa, etc.

 

He basically said: let time be the test regarding which of these methods works (first attaining full shamatha, versus having a pointing out and/or practicing vipashyana per Mahamudra or trekcho before having attained it).

 

And if it's not clear, the use of the word "shamatha" is quite different in general Mahayana vs Dzogchen (in the latter, it refers to the stability aspect of the natural state -- and again, not the "natural state" which Alan talks about in this method, which is of course prior to the view of Dzogchen).

[doc benway]

relatively speaking awakening is a goal and if you want to call it an endgame you can ... it may be a goal that ceases to be a goal when you get there ... this bit "And yet we still live in the world, we still get distracted, we are human. The path goes on for our lifetime " I have no idea what you mean ... the words seem to make sense but where is the meaning?

 

I'm having trouble knowing how to respond here.

Can you name anyone that, in your mind, has awakened?

Don't mean to put you on the spot and it's not a rhetorical question.

[Jetsun]

Tsoknyi Rinpoche says that other teachers should have more "guts" and introduce rigpa sooner without as many preliminaries, (when he talks about guts he means having your winds settled below the navel) my interpretation of his reason is that he thinks they rely more on tradition rather than what works or is essential, so it is about skillful means. Obviously if it works it is better because then you cut out a lot of unnecessary practice, the Dharma should be alive and a living changing way so even if preliminaries were important at one point it doesn't mean that they are as important now, so referencing a few hundred year old text or teacher is not necessarily the best way to proceed, the teacher has to decide for themselves. Alan Wallace had the time and dedication to spend many years working through the whole traditional training, yet most others do not, so it is difficult to replicate his level of training without taking many years out from your day to day life. I don't know if Tsoknyi Rinpoche is correct but I like his spirit and I hope to one day get some teachings from him.

[Creation]

I attended a one week shamatha retreat with Alan in 2006. At the time, he was insistent that the attainment of the first dhyana (or at least access to it, at the level described in the visuddhimagga) was essential for all higher practices, Dzogchen included.

I remember Alan Wallace citing the Visuddhimagga saying that if you can't stay in first dhyana for 24 hours you haven't really attained it. What do you mean "access to it"?

[Apech]

I'm having trouble knowing how to respond here.

Can you name anyone that, in your mind, has awakened?

Don't mean to put you on the spot and it's not a rhetorical question.

 

 

Sure I have met such ... and historically I would say the Buddha of course, Marpa, Milarepa, Dusum Khyenpa ... is it your position that there is no such thing as inner realisation, awakening, enlightenment ... or whatever you want to call it?

[doc benway]

Sure I have met such ... and historically I would say the Buddha of course, Marpa, Milarepa, Dusum Khyenpa ... is it your position that there is no such thing as inner realisation, awakening, enlightenment ... or whatever you want to call it?

No, not at all...

Sorry, I meant someone currently alive or recently deceased...

[Apech]

No, not at all...

Sorry, I meant someone currently alive or recently deceased...

 

Yes as I said I have.

[doc benway]

No, not at all...

Sorry, I meant someone currently alive or recently deceased...

I just re-read your post and I see that you said yes "I have met such" - so my point is, have those people stopped practicing?

Have they stopped looking for even deeper insight or for ways of manifesting that perfect knowing through their actions? Are they perfect humans without any flaw or occasional stumble?

I don't think so... I won't speak to legendary and historical folks but those we can touch and see.

They're still human. They've awakened and see the true nature of things and they still practice, they are still developing, and stabilizing and finding deeper ways to manifest the truths they've glimpsed until maybe one day they can manifest that truth in every waking moment and every breath. That's my meaning.