Prajna is 3-fold

[Simple_Jack]

Basically, it appears that on this occasion, Ringu Tulku has been made out to look foolish by him saying they are not two separate things.

 

No, it doesn't make him look foolish, think of the simile by Buddha of a person with jaundice of the eye.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

Jean-Luc Achard also says that an intellectual understanding of the teachings [bsam rig] is important, and that it is considered one type of rigpa (among 14 others) according to the Bön.

 

This is an excerpt, of a reply from JLA that was posted on DW, explaining 3 of those types of rigpa. It's part of a larger post explaining Bon Dzogchen practice:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=7390&start=0

 

"Hi Jean Luc, in every text to talk about rigpa, there is the presence .There's the presence in "present time" (not to think about the future or past). The presence it is "transformed" automatically into rigpa? In Other words, if we must maintain the presence to be in rigpa? I've heard that we have many type of rigpa. It's true? Can you tell me more about this? Why we have many type of rigpa?

It's a subject that we've been discussing quite a lot in other Yahoo lists. I personally think that "Presence" is the worst word ever to use in order to translate Rigpa. Presence is a sensation, so it belongs to the aggregate of sensations. It, of course, involves consciousnesses (both sensory and mental) and that's precisely where the problem lies. Rigpa is beyond sensations and consciousnesses. It does not depend on these. It is the knowledge of the natural state. What does that mean really ? It means that the Natural State has two qualities : Emptiness and Clarity. Emptiness means absence of inherent existence and Clarity means that this state is self‐discerning ("it knows itself by itself", as Lopon often puts it). In other words, the Clarity of the natural state corresponds to what Rigpa is. This Rigpa is that through which one knows the natural state (when being introduced to it by the master) and that through which our natural state knows itself (just like a lamp illuminates both itself and what is around). And how does it knows itself since it's not a mental consciousness? It precisely discerns (rig) itself from the ordinary mind (sems), from consciousness (rnam‐shes), intellect (blo), intelligence (blo gros), mental (yid), etc. So when you are in the state of Rigpa, you clearly discerns (rig) what pertains to Mind (sems‐nyid, the ultimate nature of Mind) from what pertains to ordinary, conditioned mind (sems). In Thogel context, Rigpa corresponds to the fourth Lamp — the Lamp of the Self‐Arisen Sublime Knowledge (shes‐rab rang‐byung gi sgron ma) — which is, precisely, the Sublime (rab) Knowledge (shes) corresponding to the state of Trekchö. In all of this, there is a very active and dynamic aspect of total Discernment (rig‐pa) or real Knowledge (shes rab) of the natural state, not a mere state of sensing a presence (of what by the way?).

The use of Presence apparently came up about 15 years ago (in printed material, it must have been there orally sometime before, I actually don't know) in the context of the Dzogchen Community from some "translator" (known for indulging quite a lot in the use of smoking illegal substances and in mixing the teachings with other non‐Buddhist/Bon traditions) who put this essentially "New Age" concept into the brain of the masters. The success of the word is actually tragic: people identify inner sensations of quietness and pervasiveness as a state of Presence which they think is Rigpa. This is really far from what Rigpa is.

There exists 15 forms or modalities of Rigpa (which we may discuss in another post, right now I lack time to enter details), but basically when explaining what it is in Bon, we use mainly these three modalities :

1. Khyab‐rig (All‐Pervasive Discernment) which is the same as the Sugatagarbha, the potential for Buddhahood (it is nothing else, just this potential). What it pervades is the heart of all beings; in other words, all beings have this Pervasive Discernment which embraces each being endowed with a mind;

2. bSam‐rig (Knowing Discernment) which is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you Knowing Discernment is developed);

3. Ye‐rig (Primordial Discernment) which is, precisely, the Rigpa that is referred to in Dzogchen texts. There exists three modalities indicating whether or not you are in this state : an outer one, an inner one and an intermediate one. According to the outer one, you know (you realize, you discern) that the outer manifestations are really non‐substantial (you realize their absence of tangible reality). According to the inner one, you are in the experience of Mind itself (sems‐nyid) and you realize it as being devoid of self (bdag‐med). In other words, you discerns your real nature as being empty of a conditioned self. Then according to the intermediate one, all discursive thoughts arise as Wisdoms. It does not mean that thoughts disappear; on the contrary they continue to arise but they are left as they are and we do not follow after them. At that time they simply arise but are seen as empty. Still their potential for arising is there and since it is not tainted by ego‐grasping, then this potential manifests its enlightened side which is that of Wisdoms. In other words, thoughts arise as Wisdoms. They are exactly the same as before, exactly and precisely the same as before, with the cosmic exception that there is no grasping at them anymore.

All this comes from the teachings of Shardza Rinpoche and the oral instructions associated with the Trekchö section of the Kuzang Nyingthik."

[C T]

Hi SJ,

 

Pardon a question... in the above explanation re: outer, inner and intermediate... shouldn't that be 'innermost' rather than 'intermediate'? Unless there is room for such a term to be utilized which i may not have seen before, it is my understanding according to the commentaries that the right term is 'innermost' or 'secret'.

[Simple_Jack]

Loppon Malcolm clarified the role of intellectual learning in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen & Mahamudra on the DW forum:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&p=208783#p208783

 

All Buddhists teachings have three prajñās: the prajñā of hearing, when one listens to the teachings and understands them intellectually; the prajñā of reflection, when one integrates what one has understood; and the prajñā of meditation, where the meaning one has gathered through hearing and reflection is brought to realization.

 

To claim that we are not meant to intellectually understand the path does not correspond with my education and training. The Tantra of the Union of the Sun and Moon states:

 

• Prajñā is three-fold: the prajñā of hearing severs external reification; the prajñā of reflection severs internal reification; and the prajñā of meditation severs secret reification.

 

Vimalamitra states:

 

• The characteristics of prajñā:

  The characteristic of the prajñā of hearing is a great quantity listening and understanding words without interpolation.

  The characteristic of reflection is investigating the words and meanings of the mind, and giving explanations.

  The characteristic of meditation is distancing oneself from afflictions through meditation.

 

We should pay respect to intellectual learning, not dismiss it....

 

There are two kinds of prajñā, contaminated, and pure. The former exists in common practitioners, the latter in realized practitioners.

 

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=247111#p247111

 

It is really simple — you find an awakened teacher, you respectfully ask for teachings. You apply them. If you have extra time in your life, then you also study a lot. If you don't, you mainly focus on practice.

 

But Dharma is not something that is "worked out" — it is essentially a tradition grounded in hearing. You cannot learn Dharma from books. It must be heard. Then you apply it. This is the only proper way to approach the Dharma.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=247115#p247115

 

Again, those of us who are in the Dharma must emphasize to interested newcomers the essential import of engaging in the three prajñās of hearing, reflection and cultivation. There is no prajñā identified as "reading".

 

In order to hear the Dharma one must go to a qualified kalayānamitra [lit. good friend], a virtuous mentor, and begin the process of hearing the Dharma.

 

As I stated above, Dharma is a Aural Lineage. The Aural, or Hearing lineage, is much more important, relatively speaking, than the texts. The texts must be understood on the basis of the hearing the Dharma taught by a qualified teacher. Without that essential act of hearing the Dharma taught by a living, qualified teacher, one's understanding of the Dharma is sure to be bent askew right from the start.

 

Once we decide to rely on a qualified mentor, then we will be able to know when our own or other's understanding of the Dharma is correct or incorrect.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

[asunthatneversets]

Hi SJ,

 

Pardon a question... in the above explanation re: outer, inner and intermediate... shouldn't that be 'innermost' rather than 'intermediate'? Unless there is room for such a term to be utilized which i may not have seen before, it is my understanding according to the commentaries that the right term is 'innermost' or 'secret'.

Though Jean-Luc writes in English very well it isn't his first language, so you're probably right it should be 'innermost' or something to that effect.