The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

[Simple_Jack]

My only point of disagreement with your post is the following - I would qualify the above statement by replacing "leads to" with "may lead to." I don't think it is a given. It's very difficult to know what leads to the spontaneous experience of "non-conceptual realization" whether big or small. Maybe it's our karma and the activities in this incarnation have very little to do with it. I am aware of many instances of this in folks who have had no formal training of the "right view" and no meditative experience. On the other hand, I do have confidence that the Buddhist methods (and others) are more likely to take us there than many other activities we may engage in.

 

You need concepts in order carry out and explain the parameters for practice. I don't buy into the notion of 'enlightenment' as being a black and white affair: there are degrees to which an individual is no longer deluded about their nature and I think that most instances of people's experiences with or without formal training and meditation do not genuinely correspond to that of say the realization of anatta; not to take away from these life changing experiences, but I don't think its very common to come across an individual, who has genuinely realized anatta or emptiness in comparison to the crop of neo-Advaitans out there giving satsangs....each of us has our biases though.

 

Edit - Serendipitously, after finishing this post, I opened the book I'm currently reading, Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings, and encountered this quote from Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche by way of John Reynolds - "The capacity of the Natural State to be aware intrinsically is called Rigpa and that Rigpa is not thought (rnam-rtog)."

 

Which is why there's a distinction between namtog and nangwa: the latter by definition corresponds to an individual who is resting in the knowledge (rigpa/vidya) of their natural state; thoughts continue to arise, but they don't become concepts.

 

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html

 

...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.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[doc benway]

You need concepts in order carry out and explain the parameters for practice. I don't buy into the notion of 'enlightenment' as being a black and white affair: there are degrees to which an individual is no longer deluded about their nature

I agree with you there…

 

 

and I think that most instances of people's experiences with or without formal training and meditation do not genuinely correspond to that of say the realization of anatta; not to take away from these life changing experiences, but I don't think its very common to come across an individual, who has genuinely realized anatta or emptiness in comparison to the crop of neo-Advaitans out there giving satsangs....each of us has our biases though.

 

I'm not as certain about this point… I think it's very difficult to know what someone else has or has not realized. In fact, I think it's difficult to know what one's own experience means, hence, the importance of the guru. That said, I do think one can get clues from how a person speaks, acts, leads their life, and interacts with others. And even from the sparkle in their eyes. And even folks with a deep realization of sunyata and rigpa can fail to integrate it adequately and revert or decay into sin, ignorance, and depravity. To me, one's speech and behavior tells more than their lineage, dress, and title.

[Simple_Jack]

I'm not as certain about this point… I think it's very difficult to know what someone else has or has not realized. In fact, I think it's difficult to know what one's own experience means, hence, the importance of the guru.

 

Experiences and insights are highly subjective, but I think its possible between individuals to gauge the other's realization if they have gone through it themselves, otherwise teachers or lineage gurus wouldn't themselves be able to gauge the progress of their disciples. The sutras (e.g. Shurangama Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, etc.), Chan, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen, each have their own rankings or describe general signposts for the purpose of gauging one's progress on the path; so whoever put it down to writing must not have thought it impossible to do so.

 

That said, I do think one can get clues from how a person speaks, acts, leads their life, and interacts with others. And even from the sparkle in their eyes. And even folks with a deep realization of sunyata and rigpa can fail to integrate it adequately and revert or decay into sin, ignorance, and depravity. To me, one's speech and behavior tells more than their lineage, dress, and title.

 

I agree for the most part, but the bold is a totally emotions based way of indicating someone's realization. Anyways, in Mahayana, the only actual stage of awakening is buddhahood, there are no exceptions to this.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I also take issue with translating rigpa as knowledge. In the sense that knowledge refers to awareness or familiarity gained through experience, then yes - that aspect is applicable. We've been through this before and I won't debate it much but I think knowing, for example, is a much better English word if we want to point to that which is beyond words and concepts than is the word knowledge. Knowledge in English generally refers to a facts, information, or experience stored within the dualistic mind. Knowledge is finite. Knowing at least implies activity and does not imply boundaries. I do follow Jean Luc's argument and acknowledge his criticism of the use of the word presence and yet I think reducing rigpa to the word knowledge is even more misleading to uninitiated and inexperienced native English speakers than using a word like knowing or awareness.

 

I prefer to use the translation of 'rigpa' as 'knowledge', because translating 'rigpa' as 'awareness' gives a sense of a substantial entity or an abiding 'Consciousness/Awareness' along the lines of neo-advaita, though translating it as 'knowing' is acceptable, IMO. Of course, some translators still choose to translate 'rigpa' as 'awareness', and since this way of translating it is ingrained in the mind's of Westerners: JLA chooses 'awareness' when doing translations. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche sometimes chooses to translate rigpa as 'knowledge' or 'instant presence'; he translates 'dran pa' i.e. 'mindfulness' as 'presence'.

[doc benway]

I prefer to use the translation of 'rigpa' as 'knowledge', because translating 'rigpa' as 'awareness' gives a sense of a substantial entity or an abiding 'Consciousness/Awareness' along the lines of neo-advaita, though translating it as 'knowing' is acceptable, IMO. Of course, some translators still choose to translate 'rigpa' as 'awareness', and since this way of translating it is ingrained in the mind's of Westerners: JLA chooses 'awareness' when doing translations. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche sometimes chooses to translate rigpa as 'knowledge' or 'instant presence'; he translates 'dran pa' i.e. 'mindfulness' as 'presence'.

 

Not only does translating rigpa as knowledge give a sense of a "substantial entity" in possession of such knowledge but it also implies thought, as knowledge is a quantity of thought, not to mention a boundary or a limitation because knowledge is finite. That said, it really doesn't make any difference to me how we define or translate it. What counts is that we learn to recognize it and train to abide in it….

[Apech]

Not only does translating rigpa as knowledge give a sense of a "substantial entity" in possession of such knowledge but it also implies thought, as knowledge is a quantity of thought, not to mention a boundary or a limitation because knowledge is finite. That said, it really doesn't make any difference to me how we define or translate it. What counts is that we learn to recognize it and train to abide in it….

 

 

Rigpa = vidhya which is the opposite of avidhya = ignorance. So I suppose you could translate rigpa as non-ignorance.

 

I think the context of this is the first 'step' in the chain of dependent origination ... which gives rise to suffering based on not seeing things as they really are.

[Simple_Jack]

Not only does translating rigpa as knowledge give a sense of a "substantial entity" in possession of such knowledge but it also implies thought, as knowledge is a quantity of thought, not to mention a boundary or a limitation because knowledge is finite. That said, it really doesn't make any difference to me how we define or translate it. What counts is that we learn to recognize it and train to abide in it….

 

'Rigpa' just means the 'knowledge' of one's actual state, but I can understand why you would take issue with this translation. It won't make much of a difference to our generations how the usage of terms such as "awareness", "non-duality", etc.. are ending up being used in buddhadharma, because the association of these concepts are already ingrained in our mind's. In a few decades this may change as people learn how to more accurately translate and convey these lexicons in our language. it's a natural progression, much like how China first used the lexicon of their native philosophies to translate Buddhist sutras into Chinese, which they later changed, when they started developing a specialized form of Chinese Buddhist lexicon to more accurately convey the meaning from the source materials.

[Simple_Jack]

Not only does translating rigpa as knowledge give a sense of a "substantial entity" in possession of such knowledge but it also implies thought, as knowledge is a quantity of thought, not to mention a boundary or a limitation because knowledge is finite. That said, it really doesn't make any difference to me how we define or translate it. What counts is that we learn to recognize it and train to abide in it….

'Rigpa' just means the 'knowledge' of one's actual state, but I can understand why you would take issue with this translation. It won't make much of a difference to our generations how the usage of terms such as "awareness", "non-duality", etc.. are ending up being used in buddhadharma, because the association of these concepts are already ingrained in our mind's. In a few decades this may change as people learn how to more accurately translate and convey these lexicons in our language. it's a natural progression, much like how China first used the lexicon of their native philosophies to translate Buddhist sutras into Chinese, which they later changed, when they started developing a specialized form of Chinese Buddhist lexicon to more accurately convey the meaning from the source materials.

 

These same issues came up on dharmawheel from time to time, Malcolm, as a translator himself, said this a about 3 years ago:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4238&hilit=Dravidian&start=20

 

kalden yungdrung wrote: But I cannot help it that many Geshelas, Khenpos, Lopons, Rinpoches etc. maintain the meaning of Awareness when in the Natural State as a word to express Rigpa.

 

Malcolm wrote: Sure, they do. They are not native English speakers. Not their fault. They do the best they can. The reason every one in the bonpo world uses awareness is mainly due to John Reynolds.

 

But now more and more people are moving away from that translation, in the Buddhist world at any rate.

 

The bon world is much smaller, and therefore, it will be more resistant to change. Also fewer western translators.

[doc benway]

These same issues came up on dharmawheel from time to time, Malcolm, as a translator himself, said this a about 3 years ago:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4238&hilit=Dravidian&start=20

 

kalden yungdrung wrote: But I cannot help it that many Geshelas, Khenpos, Lopons, Rinpoches etc. maintain the meaning of Awareness when in the Natural State as a word to express Rigpa.

 

Malcolm wrote: Sure, they do. They are not native English speakers. Not their fault. They do the best they can. The reason every one in the bonpo world uses awareness is mainly due to John Reynolds.

 

But now more and more people are moving away from that translation, in the Buddhist world at any rate.

 

The bon world is much smaller, and therefore, it will be more resistant to change. Also fewer western translators.

 

He also said this -

"Adriano Clemente has stopped translating it altogether, which I approve of."

Like dharma, for example, some words are probably best working their way into our vocabulary without being attached to a widely accepted English translation. This allows us to ponder the various possible translations and interpretation and dig a bit deeper on our own, thus fleshing out and enhancing our understanding rather than simply accepting, or worse yet, "believing" a particular English translation to be "best."

 

That said, I am more comfortable expanding the definition to "knowledge of one's actual state" as you did above. To expand on your earlier definition - instantaneous knowing of one's actual state - points to rigpa in my mind. I think it's important to distinguish between knowledge as something stored in the dualistic mind from the knowing or even "knowledge of one's actual state" that is occurring in a spontaneous and instantaneous fashion. And we could go on with this ad nauseum.

 

I simply appreciate the fact that over the past few weeks its been possible to have a conversation on Buddhist and Dzogchen topics without rapid deterioration into argument, derision, and insult.

Quite refreshing - I appreciate the ability to communicate here in a civil and respectful manner.

Cheers

[asunthatneversets]

To paraphrase something Malcolm said before; "you can have awareness without knowledge, but you cannot have rigpa without knowledge."

 

'Awareness' is an unsuitable translation for rigpa. The opposite of rigpa is 'ma rig pa', and marigpa is ignorance, specifically ignorance of your nature. Hence rig pa would be the opposite of ignorance, which is knowledge, specifically; knowledge of your nature.

 

The proper Tibetan term for 'awareness' is actually 'shes pa', which is simply a neutral registering cognizance. Most every sentient being is aware, and so all sentient beings have awareness in one form or another. Very few sentient beings have rigpa though, as very few beings have knowledge of their nature.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Here is another perspective from Bon:

 

Three Kinds of Rigpa

 

There are three different kinds of awareness (rig pa): pervading awareness (chab rig); consciousness or moving-mind awareness (bsam rig); and primordial awareness (ye rig). Pervading awareness (chab rig) is inseparable from the kunzhi base and is omnipresent in all material existence. Moving-mind awareness is the son rigpa found only in the mind of sentient beings, in whom distraction can interrupt the continuity of awareness. When we are distracted, we cannot remain in the state of contemplation. Primordial awareness is the mother rigpa, the awareness that is always present whether we practice or not. This is the awareness that the moving-mind awareness is trying to comprehend. We should not think, however, that since pervading awareness is omnipresent and since primordial awareness is ever-present, there is no need to practice. It is the innate but unknown individual awareness that we need to encounter and develop and that the master introduces once we discover it in ourselves.

 

It is possible for moving-mind awareness to understand primordial awareness because of the inseparability of mother and son and because the ever-present, self-existing, primordial awareness is not something the moving-mind awareness creates but simply discovers.

 

Tenzin Wangyal. Wonders Of The Natural Mind: The Essense Of Dzogchen In The Native Bon Tradition Of Tibet (Kindle Locations 1273-1280). Kindle Edition.

 

...

 

The Experience of the Mother in Meditation

 

We can have a direct experience of the inseparability of mother and son in our own practice. If we observe the origin of thoughts during meditation, we can see that they arise and dissolve in the natural base of the mind. If we are aware that they come from emptiness and leave them be, thoughts go away and we abide in the state of contemplation in which the emptiness that remains becomes clearer. That emptiness is the kunzhi and the clarity is rigpa, the clear awareness of emptiness in the state of contemplation. Their inseparability is the unity of emptiness and clear awareness in the natural state, just as the rays of sunlight are the energy that is the manifestation of the inseparability of the sun and the sky. Emptiness without clarity would be like sleeping. When we sleep, we are not present, but in practice we must maintain presence in the state. This has to be clarified in our practice. We must not try to have rigpa present in the kunzhi; we must be present in the inseparable state of kunzhi and rigpa in our contemplation. In the state of contemplation, we can realize the inseparability of kunzhi and rigpa, of emptiness and clarity, in which mother and son are happy to be reunited. In this reunion we feel a particular kind of joy. Now we have completed the stage of limited practice sessions and reach the stage where there is no separation between practice and non-practice. It is in reference to this stage that the Dzogchen teachings say that the best meditation is nonmeditation, meditation not fabricated by the mind's purposefulness. The final realization of wisdom, when rigpa is recognized as the manifestation of the energy of the kunzhi, is like the son returning to his mother's lap.

 

Tenzin Wangyal. Wonders Of The Natural Mind: The Essense Of Dzogchen In The Native Bon Tradition Of Tibet (Kindle Locations 1247-1257). Kindle Edition.

 

 

[asunthatneversets]

Here is another perspective from Bon:

 

 

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche has received criticism from Lopön Tenzin Namdak for stating that khyab rig pervades material existence. According to Lopön, khyab rig is merely the sugatagarbha which pervades the heart of sentient beings (dharmakāya encased in affliction), and so khyab rig is only a potentiality, as mentioned on the previous page in the excerpt from Jean-Luc Achard.

 

Other than that though the above perspective is no different than any other interpretation. Except for referring to the gzhi as 'kunzhi' has the potential to be confusing.

[gatito]

<Snip>

 

 

[Simple_Jack]

He also said this -

"Adriano Clemente has stopped translating it altogether, which I approve of."

Like dharma, for example, some words are probably best working their way into our vocabulary without being attached to a widely accepted English translation. This allows us to ponder the various possible translations and interpretation and dig a bit deeper on our own, thus fleshing out and enhancing our understanding rather than simply accepting, or worse yet, "believing" a particular English translation to be "best."

 

Buddhadharma, has only widely entered the Western ethos a little over a century ago, so it's going to be a continual process of acclimation.

 

That said, I am more comfortable expanding the definition to "knowledge of one's actual state" as you did above.

 

This is just derived from how ChNN teaches Dzogchen. The same goes for Malcolm's posts on dharmawheel and vajracakra forums.

[doc benway]

To paraphrase something Malcolm said before; "you can have awareness without knowledge, but you cannot have rigpa without knowledge."

 

I guess the question I would pose in response is, can you have knowledge without thought?

 

Because rigpa is not a consequence of nor can it be apprehended by thought.

For me, knowledge is too tied to concepts like information and thought to be a satisfactory, stand-alone translation.

I guess it's a matter of exactly what aspect of the word knowledge we are referring to, how it is being defined and used.

 

That said, I do get Malcom's rationale for preferring knowledge over presence and awareness, I'm just not sure I agree that it's really better, all things considered.

 

Many of the native Tibetan speakers are MUCH less hung up about which English words they are using and the Bönpo often use multiple English words in the same paragraph when referring to rigpa.

 

I think we need to get over it…. especially me.

[asunthatneversets]

 

I guess the question I would pose in response is, can you have knowledge without thought?

 

Because rigpa is not a consequence of nor can it be apprehended by thought.

For me, knowledge is too tied to concepts like information and thought to be a satisfactory, stand-alone translation.

I guess it's a matter of exactly what aspect of the word knowledge we are referring to, how it is being defined and used.

 

That said, I do get Malcom's rationale for preferring knowledge over presence and awareness, I'm just not sure I agree that it's really better, all things considered.

 

Many of the native Tibetan speakers are MUCH less hung up about which English words they are using and the Bönpo often use multiple English words in the same paragraph when referring to rigpa.

 

I think we need to get over it. especially me.

Rigpa is knowledge of primordial wisdom [ye shes]. Prior to recognizing wisdom there is no knowledge of it.

 

This goes for anything. The taste of chocolate perhaps; prior to tasting chocolate for the first time you have no knowledge of its taste. After tasting it you then know what it tastes like.

 

Rigpa is like that. Prior to recognizing your nature you have no knowledge of it. After recognition you have no doubts about your nature because you know it.

 

Awareness is just an awake presence, my cat has awareness.

[Tibetan_Ice]

I am totally dumbfounded by the level of understanding of all the scholars on this thread. And I'm happy I am a practitioner and not so hell bent on redefining the subtlest nuances of meaning of the the term 'rigpa', to the point where it is no longer understandable and has lost it's value to the practitioner. Rigpa is not knowledge. Like Steve says, the term knowledge implies thoughts and some form of involvement by the conceptual mind. You can't practice knowledge. You apply knowledge in practice.

 

Rigpa is not, as Malcolm describes: "you can have awareness without knowledge, but you cannot have rigpa without knowledge."

What rubbish. Once a person understands that rigpa is actually samadhi, one can clearly see that rigpa is attainable even without knowing the scholarly definition of the term, and without fostering some esoteric view in one's conceptual mind.

 

That's what I appreciate about Tenzin Wangyal. He can speak my language. He cuts through and gives you an understanding of the concepts behind the pratice. And, in doing so, he has greatly increased my understanding of most Hindu, Tibetan and western practices. They are starting to look more and more the same to me all the time. Now, Zhine looks to me to be quite similar to Patanjali's last three limbs of yoga.

 

This is from Tenzin Wangyal's latest podcast (today): (I typed this myself from the broadcast so excuse my transposition errors. Also, the elipsis (...) indicates parts that I cut out. I am focusing just on his explanation of ultimate Zhine and his use of the term "rigpa".

 

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ligmincha#/recorded/44710095

 

Calming Your Mind with Meditation - Tenzin Wangyal - Mar 9, 2014

...

 

Ultimate calm abiding is when the calm abiding is, through the calm abiding, when one begins to experience the nature of mind.
That is like the ultimate zhine.

 

So basically a simple way to look at that would be, when we are doing the zhine, there is always a sense of subject and object which is always there.

 

Bee.. like a bee sucking the nectar on the flower and the sense of bee is always there... That is a duality.

...

As long as that sense of duality is there there is no inside there, there is no experiences of nature of mind there is no experiences of rigpa, is not there.

 

When calm abiding goes so deep, and it kind of melts the sense of subject and object, it goes beyond the sense of duality and there is no sense of self, basically, but then, still there is a sense of awareness, it's witnessing the experience and surrounding and everything. That primordial awareness it's there. So that primordial awareness is kind of introduced through that ultimate calm abiding, ultimate zhine practice and its no longer a zhine practice because no longer there is a sense of subject and object, and that has kind of transcended itself, transformed itself into this ultimate experience of non-dual single awareness, single total sense of awareness. So that is like a, that experience is like a, in Dzogchen teaching, then when people experience that they say that they are experiencing the nature of mind, they are experiencing rigpa but that was introduced through the calm abiding practice. So that is really like a, in a Dzogchen teaching, that is one of the main reasons why you need to do the calm abiding practice to introduce that, it is not just to relaxation response.. etc.

 

 

They are experiencing rigpa, introduced through the calm abiding practice!

 

Hmm.. "melts the sense of subject and object". Where do find that? Only a practitioner would know. It occurs when you are practicing concentrative meditation, like focusing on an object, the breath or any of the many objects of meditation (with much concentration, at first, then less and less... ).

 

Any dedicated practitioner would realize the experience and the method: The experience is: "everything else except the object (the visual form, breath etc) and the subject (you) fades away. The object get brighter, crisper and clearer. You experience a form of bliss and awe at the detail and brightness. Then, you are bathed in bright light and you are gone.. Gee, that sounds like samadhi to me. Experienced that many times. That, is the primordial awareness! That is rigpa! No mystery there, is there?

 

What Tenzin Wangyal has said tells me now that many of the ideas that have been presented on this forum lack understanding and are not based in practical experience. For example, Tenzin Wangyal is saying that you first experience the natural state by practicing Zhine. This is contrary to all those posters whom have said, 'first you get the transmission' then you practice. "You need the transmission first". etc..

 

Then, to those posters who have said that calm abiding, shamatha, or Zhine has nothing to with Dzogchen, I say, what a pile of rubbish. It is great news to me to know that "primordial awareness, rigpa" can be realized by the ultimate Zhine. Imagine that!

 

Futher, if you watch Tenzin Wangyal's podcast, he explains the three levels of concentration that a practitioner must go through in order to realize rigpa. He also displays the tibetan letter "A" and tells you how to practice, by gazing.

 

And, another concept.. of course you realize no self, because when the subject and object dissolve away, there is no more subject. But what remains is the part that joined the two in the first place. Rigpa. Primordial Awareness. That is what remains. That is the breaking on through to the other side. It is achievable, and quite frankly, is not that hard once you apply determination, effort and some level of skill.

 

So, what I would say to the 'scholars' on this forum is this: instead of trying to establish the ultimate translation of the illusive Tibetan terminology, which apparently nobody can truly translate anyway in a form that is understood in the English language, gain your understanding through practicing. Don't be a Pandit, be a practitioner. Scholarly endeavors may be fun and interesting, but they won't get you enlightened, or even bring you to samadhi or rigpa. You have to practice in order to attain that. Then, when you understand the practices, the experiences behind them, not only will you be able to interpret illusive Tibetan terminoloogy by the experiences that they produce (or not), but you will flourish forth with new understanding and you will realize that conceptualization and counting the number of fairies that can dance on the head of a pin is a big waste of time.

 

TI

[Simple_Jack]

@ steve

 

It's not just Malcolm's preference per se, but how ChNN himself translates and teaches Dzogchen concepts. ChNN translates 'rigpa' either as 'knowledge' or 'instant presence'; 'dran pa' as 'mindfulness' or 'presence'.

[asunthatneversets]

Either way, pointing out instructions are first and foremost.

 

It is possible to get into a non-dual state through śamatha, but that doesn't mean it is knowledge of dharmatā.

 

The definitive rigpa of Dzogchen is known via recognition of the nature of mind [sems nyid] and does not occur any other way. Calm abiding śamatha is a helpful prerequisite, but śamatha alone divorced of insight into mind-essence will never reveal rang byung rig pa.

 

You are of course allowed to be presumptuous and act as if you're clearing the air for a bunch of intellectuals who do not practice and have no experience of Atiyoga, however just because you convince yourself and others of such ideas does not mean they are true.

 

That being said, rigpa as 'knowledge' does not imply concepts, nor does it imply the intellect. As I said above, once you taste chocolate you then have knowledge of it. Whereas before you lacked knowledge (you were ignorant), you are now no longer ignorant because you know the taste first hand from direcf experience. Rigpa is exactly like that.

 

So you are absolutely misunderstanding what 'knowledge' implies, and one would have to be a fool to think that anyone suggested rigpa was scholarly knowledge or something known by the conceptual mind. Nothing of the sort was ever suggested.

 

Rigpa is not sāmadhi. Sāmadhi [ting nge dzin] is the natural state, which ensues from recognition of the nature of mind. When that nature is recognized, then mind has collapsed and wisdom remains. The capacity which knows wisdom, and can effectively discern mind from wisdom, is rigpa. Plain and simple.

 

For rigpa to arise from śamatha one must achieve released śamatha, which renders the abiding reference point of mind as empty. Rigpa ensues from that recognition, which equivalent to recognizing the nature of mind.

Edited March 10, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[themiddleway]

Either way, pointing out instructions are first and foremost.

 

It is possible to get into a non-dual state through śamatha, but that doesn't mean it is knowledge of dharmatā.

 

The definitive rigpa of Dzogchen is known via recognition of the nature of mind [sems nyid] and does not occur any other way. Calm abiding śamatha is a helpful prerequisite, but śamatha alone divorced of insight into mind-essence will never reveal rang byung rig pa.

 

You are of course allowed to be presumptuous and act as if you're clearing the air for a bunch of intellectuals who do not practice and have no experience of Atiyoga, however just because you convince yourself and others of such ideas does not mean they are true.

 

That being said, rigpa as 'knowledge' does not imply concepts, nor does it imply the intellect. As I said above, once you taste chocolate you then have knowledge of it. Whereas before you lacked knowledge (you were ignorant), you are now no longer ignorant because you know the taste first hand from direcf experience. Rigpa is exactly like that.

 

So you are absolutely misunderstanding what 'knowledge' implies, and one would have to be a fool to think that anyone suggested rigpa was scholarly knowledge or something known by the conceptual mind. Nothing of the sort was ever suggested.

 

Rigpa is not sāmadhi. Sāmadhi [ting nge dzin] is the natural state, which ensues from recognition of the nature of mind. When that nature is recognized, then mind has collapsed and wisdom remains. The capacity which knows wisdom, and can effectively discern mind from wisdom, is rigpa. Plain and simple.

 

For rigpa to arise from śamatha one must achieve released śamatha, which renders the abiding reference point of mind as empty. Rigpa ensues from that recognition, which equivalent to recognizing the nature of mind.

 

That was excellent, thank you.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

That being said, rigpa as 'knowledge' does not imply concepts, nor does it imply the intellect. As I said above, once you taste chocolate you then have knowledge of it. Whereas before you lacked knowledge (you were ignorant), you are now no longer ignorant because you know the taste first hand from direcf experience. Rigpa is exactly like that.

 

First off, please give me an example of awareness without knowledge. Since awareness is self cognizant, it always knows it self. Self knowledge is knowledge nonetheless. Secondly, after tasting chocolate, all you have is the memory of the sweet taste, the memory of the consistency, the memory of the aroma, and you probably have no memory of the bitterness because it was masked by the sweetener. Knowledge is just a composite of memories, conceptual by nature and definitely constructed by the intellect.

Knowledge is not intrinsic to rigpa because we experience rigpa many times while falling asleep or in the bardo and yet we retain no memories ( knowledge ) of it.

Primordial awareness does not rely on the six senses for its knowledge. It does not need to put chocolate in its mouth to gain insight, the insight manifests spontaneously.

[asunthatneversets]

 

First off, please give me an example of awareness without knowledge. Since awareness is self cognizant, it always knows it self. Self knowledge is knowledge nonetheless. Secondly, after tasting chocolate, all you have is the memory of the sweet taste, the memory of the consistency, the memory of the aroma, and you probably have no memory of the bitterness because it was masked by the sweetener. Knowledge is just a composite of memories, conceptual by nature and definitely constructed by the intellect.

Knowledge is not intrinsic to rigpa because we experience rigpa many times while falling asleep or in the bardo and yet we retain no memories ( knowledge ) of it.

Primordial awareness does not rely on the six senses for its knowledge. It does not need to put chocolate in its mouth to gain insight, the insight manifests spontaneously.

Awareness without knowledge is quite a simple concept. All sentient beings are aware, awake, cognizant, and so on. Only rare beings have knowledge of dharmatā. You can have awareness while being ignorant of dharmatā, but you cannot have rigpa in the ignorance of dharmatā.

 

The memory of a taste being a composite of memories and so on is not the point, and is reading too far into this.

 

This is the point: If after having tasted chocolate, someone attempts to tell you that the taste of an apple is chocolate, you would immediately disagree. Why is that? Because you know what chocolate tastes like, and you can therefore effectively discern the taste of an apple from the taste of chocolate.

 

That knowledge is not conceptual, it is experiential, based on direct experience.

 

Rigpa is a wisdom, which is the result of recognizing dharmatā. Rigpa can discern its wisdom [ye shes] from afflicted mind [sems].

 

In the absence of that discernment there is no way to differentiate mind from wisdom, and so rigpa, beguiled by delusion, becomes ignorance [ma rig pa], and is expressed as the mere clarity of mind.

 

'Primordial awareness', which is a bad translation of ye shes [primordial wisdom], does not rely on objects for its knowledge because primordial wisdom knows the non-arising [dharmatā] of objects [dharmins], that knowledge is rigpa [vidyā].

 

The insight of rigpa does not occur spontaneously, it arises due to recognizing one's nature, recognizing the nature of mind.

 

Your charge that primordial wisdom does not rely on the senses and therefore would not need to taste chocolate is a wild misconstruing of the metaphor. Whether you're doing that consciously in an attempt to discredit the example of tasting chocolate, or whether you simply are not grasping this notion and that misconstruing is out of confusion, I'm not sure. Either way though your assertion makes no sense.

 

Further, your charge that knowledge is not intrinsic to rigpa because we experience rigpa many times while falling asleep is nothing that the system of Dzogchen says. The teachings speak of experiencing the clear light while falling asleep and the natural light, but it never ever says we experience rigpa while falling asleep. This misunderstanding sheds a great deal of light on why you have aversion to understanding rigpa as knowledge though. So this disagreement is starting to make sense more as we go along.

[themiddleway]

I think a little bit of interlectual toing and froing should be tolerated, after all we are dealing with an experience uncommon in the West. Another example is the word ´chi´. If Taoists want to debate the finer points about what that word means are they over intellectualizing aswell?

People who have invested time in Eastern traditions are justifiably cautious about meanings being appropriated and diluted by New Age crap. Have you been to a bookshop and looked for shammanic books? Next could be ´Drum your way the Rigpa´ but I digress.

Terms like awareness and knowledge have to be unpacked,contexualized and compared to experience. At this juncture in the assimilation of Dharma in the west it´s not just intellectualizing, its a responsibility to the transmission

Awareness is not a free floating object ,it is always aware of something.As an apparatus of experience it is a conditioned arising. Awareness could be misconstrued as an object to merge with, a seductive idea for someone conditioned by the mores of a Christian society, a la Eckhart Tolle.

 

Knowledge denotes an experience more precise, defenitive and exclusionary. Either you have it or you don´t. The mind collapses or is swallowed buy the recognition experience Yes its beyond words but some descriptors are more skillful.

[C T]

I have heard of 3rd Vision of Thogal being translated as The Full Measure of Awareness, or, Perfection of Awareness (rig pa tshad phebs, a googleable term should anyone be interested). Haven't yet come across it being translated as 'Full measure of knowledge'. Maybe its there in the matrix somewhere, but quite unlikely.

 

Even Jean Luc translates it in its proper context, as above.

Edited March 10, 2014 by C T

[doc benway]

Rigpa is knowledge of primordial wisdom [ye shes]. Prior to recognizing wisdom there is no knowledge of it.

 

This goes for anything. The taste of chocolate perhaps; prior to tasting chocolate for the first time you have no knowledge of its taste. After tasting it you then know what it tastes like.

 

Rigpa is like that. Prior to recognizing your nature you have no knowledge of it. After recognition you have no doubts about your nature because you know it.

 

Awareness is just an awake presence, my cat has awareness.

 

But you didn't address my question.

Rigpa is completely independent of thought, is knowledge?

 

And yes, I agree fully. The above definition is quite different than reducing Rigpa to simply "knowledge."

Furthermore, I would qualify that particular usage of "knowledge" as that which is gained through direct experience or contact, in distinction to an intellectual construction based on information, which is another very common implication of knowledge.

 

Dammit, I just can't stop!

 

Edit to say - and after looking back at one of your earlier quotes you already addressed the usage of knowledge. Nice posts, BTW.

Edited March 10, 2014 by steve