What is wisdom in Dzogchen ?

[Tibetan_Ice]

I don't see SJ 'attacking' shamatha at all. Thats such a strong word to use. Can discussion take place minus the prickly word-play please? We are here to exchange ideas and concepts... there is no gain to speak defensively or offensively.

We have had the anti-shamatha discussion here before. I would rather read about how each tradition interprets the word differently but maintains he underlining meaning and principle, rather than dogmatically define shamatha as some kind of stupefied state that is to be shunned. Shows ignorance and lack of intelligence.

[C T]

We have had the anti-shamatha discussion here before. I would rather read about how each tradition interprets the word differently but maintains he underlining meaning and principle, rather than dogmatically define shamatha as some kind of stupefied state that is to be shunned. Shows ignorance and lack of intelligence.

Fair enough.

 

And i agree that shamatha and vipassana are both essential through all the stages of mind training.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Do you think that that was necessary in the context of transmitting nature of mind from master to student?

Well, yes. It is easy to show somebody all pervasive rigpa. Just tell them to listen and notice how they hear far away sounds effortlessly. It is also easy to show moving rigpa by showing that attention can be directed willfully. But it is much harder, if not impossible to make someone realize the pool of awareness that resides in the heart.

 

Which rigpa do you think is being pointed out from master to student? It is very hard to split them apart because, if you examine closely, he three rigpas are separate, but at the same time inextricably bound.

[Simple_Jack]

In Vajrayana, the span of undistracted awareness, or pervasive awareness absent of conceptuality, is also known as 'resting in the View'.

 

Here, when we say non-conceptual, we do not mean a mind in which there is an absence of thought.

 

When consciousness is freed from signs and characteristics, this is called the realization of emptiness. An non-conceptual mind may still indeed be trapped by signs and characteristics.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Now we have three words to work with as we explore this topic: rigpa, expression, and play, which all relate to whether the expression of rigpa is obstructed or unobstructed. We have said that if the expression of rigpa is obstructed, then not grasping at anything cannot be the perfectly pure view. Alternatively, if the expression of rigpa is unobstructed, then not grasping at anything becomes the perfectly pure view. In this case, play can be recognized or experienced as wisdom itself and one can abide in a nonconceptual moment of perfect purity, or the uncontrived view.

 

The String of Pearls Tantra [<----- Dzogchen Tantra, tr. by Malcolm]:

 

As such, the three realms are

the five aggregates, the five sense organs,

the five limbs, the five functional organs,

the five objects, the five afflictions,

the five thoughts, the five minds, the five concepts,

the apprehended objects and apprehending subjects established as samsara [… ]

Caught in the aggregates, sense gates and the sense elements,

the apprehended object and apprehending subject,

samara itself persists for a long while.

One is placed in the dungeon of name and matter

in the castle of the three realms,

tortured with the barbs of ignorance and so on,

oppressed by the thick darkness of samsara,

attached to the salty taste of desire,

bound by the neck with the noose of confusion,

burned with the hot fire of hatred,

head covered with pride,

setting a rendezvous with the mistress of jealousy,

surrounded by the army of enmity...

tied by the neck with the noose of subject and object, [29b]

stuck in the mud of successive traces

and handcuffed with the ripening of karma.

Having been joined with the ripening of karma,

one takes bodies good and bad,

one after another like a water wheel,

born into each individual class.

Having crossed at the ford of self-grasping,

one sinks into the ocean of suffering

and one is caught by the heart on the hook of the three lowers realms.

One is bound by oneself; the afflictions are the enemy.

The body of a hell being appears as fire or water.

Pretas are frightened and intimidated.

There is a fog-like appearance for animals.

The aggregates, sense gates and sense elements

of humans appear as the five elements,

and also happiness, suffering and indifference.

They appear as armor and weapons to asuras

and desirable qualities for devas.

Such dualistic appearances,

for example, are like a quickly moving wheel

spinning continuously for a long while.

As such, diverse appearances

are like seeing a snake from a rope;

that [rope] is not [a snake] but is apprehended as a [snake];

forming as both the outer universe and inhabitants.

If that is investigated, it is a rope.

The universe and inhabitants have always been empty,

the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33010-nondual-in-buddhadharma/?p=554159

 

"Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.

 

Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state....

 

"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.

 

"Non-duality" is trivial in general because it is just an intellectual trip.

 

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

 

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

We have had the anti-shamatha discussion here before. I would rather read about how each tradition interprets the word differently but maintains he underlining meaning and principle, rather than dogmatically define shamatha as some kind of stupefied state that is to be shunned. Shows ignorance and lack of intelligence.

 

I'm not villainizing shamatha, simply stating how its viewed in buddhadharma, its meaning is the same across each tradition, and it must be joined with vipashyana in order to engender insight.

[C T]

Well, yes. It is easy to show somebody all pervasive rigpa. Just tell them to listen and notice how they hear far away sounds effortlessly. It is also easy to show moving rigpa by showing that attention can be directed willfully. But it is much harder, if not impossible to make someone realize the pool of awareness that resides in the heart.

 

Which rigpa do you think is being pointed out from master to student? It is very hard to split them apart because, if you examine closely, he three rigpas are separate, but at the same time inextricably bound.

Since they are inextricably bound, there is no need for the master to further elaborate with words during the ceremony.

 

Those who are still groping around with a conceptual understanding are usually not ready for transmission.

[Simple_Jack]

In regards to shamatha, what changes is the emphasis, and in the case of Zen and Vajrayana, its role in one's practice.

[C T]

Here, when we say non-conceptual, we do not mean a mind in which there is an absence of thought.

 

When consciousness is freed from signs and characteristics, this is called the realization of emptiness. An non-conceptual mind may still indeed be trapped by signs and characteristics.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

The idea is not to rest on the laurels of reaching non-conceptuality.

[asunthatneversets]

Well, yes. It is easy to show somebody all pervasive rigpa. Just tell them to listen and notice how they hear far away sounds effortlessly. It is also easy to show moving rigpa by showing that attention can be directed willfully. But it is much harder, if not impossible to make someone realize the pool of awareness that resides in the heart.

 

Which rigpa do you think is being pointed out from master to student? It is very hard to split them apart because, if you examine closely, he three rigpas are separate, but at the same time inextricably bound.

 

Neither of those definitions have anything to do with the two modalities of rigpa you are referencing. Effortlessly hearing far away sounds has nothing to do with khyab rig, and willfully directing attention has nothing to do with bsam rig.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Neither of those definitions have anything to do with the two modalities of rigpa you are referencing. Effortlessly hearing far away sounds has nothing to do with khyab rig, and willfully directing attention has nothing to do with bsam rig.

Well thank you for the quotes and the justification for your point of view.

 

http://khyungmkhar.blogspot.ca/2012/06/khyab-rig-pervading-knowledge-and-its.html

 

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DzogchenCourses/conversations/topics/1031

Edited July 6, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[asunthatneversets]

Well thank you for the quotes and the justification for your point of view.

 

http://khyungmkhar.blogspot.ca/2012/06/khyab-rig-pervading-knowledge-and-its.html

 

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DzogchenCourses/conversations/topics/1031

 

Yes, hopefully Jean-Luc's insight on this principle clarifies khyab rig for you, as it is the sugatagarbha which abides as the latent potential for awakening within sentient beings, and is not related to hearing far away sounds in any way.

[doc benway]

Well thank you for the quotes and the justification for your point of view.

 

http://khyungmkhar.blogspot.ca/2012/06/khyab-rig-pervading-knowledge-and-its.html

 

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DzogchenCourses/conversations/topics/1031

I think M. Achard is way off in his remarks.

He seems to delight in his criticism.

Granted, I'm admittedly biased...

 

He makes a number of assumptions that are gratuitous and completely misses TWR's point in my opinion.

TWR is not trying to endow "objects" with "a Rigpa" but is rather alluding to the inseparability of objects and awareness.

If clarity and space are, in fact, inseparable and all visions are their display, then material existence is not 'other than' pervading rigpa, but is rather inseparable from it - thig le nyag gcig.

Furthermore, Lopon Tenzin Namdak has stated basically the same thing in print:

"The basic nature pervades all existence equally - rocks, trees, anything."

[Tibetan_Ice]

I think M. Achard is way off in his remarks.

He seems to delight in his criticism.

Granted, I'm admittedly biased...

 

He makes a number of assumptions that are gratuitous and completely misses TWR's point in my opinion.

TWR is not trying to endow "objects" with "a Rigpa" but is rather alluding to the inseparability of objects and awareness.

If clarity and space are, in fact, inseparable and all visions are their display, then material existence is not 'other than' pervading rigpa, but is rather inseparable from it - thig le nyag gcig.

Furthermore, Lopon Tenzin Namdak has stated basically the same thing in print:

"The basic nature pervades all existence equally - rocks, trees, anything."

I agree.

[asunthatneversets]

I think M. Achard is way off in his remarks.

He seems to delight in his criticism.

Granted, I'm admittedly biased...

Jean-Luc's insight is on point, and he is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.

 

He makes a number of assumptions that are gratuitous and completely misses TWR's point in my opinion.

TWR is not trying to endow "objects" with "a Rigpa" but is rather alluding to the inseparability of objects and awareness.

This is equivalent to Advaita Vedanta or any other tīrthika non-dual view. A common error in interpretation when it comes to Dzogchen. It is a view that the Dzogchen tantras try very hard to distance themselves from.

 

If clarity and space are, in fact, inseparable and all visions are their display, then material existence is not 'other than' pervading rigpa, but is rather inseparable from it - thig le nyag gcig.

Khyab rig (what you are calling 'pervading rigpa') is the sugatagarbha, it is a potentiality which must be actualized through recognition. Hence; the inborn and latent rigpa which pervades the hearts of sentient beings. It does not pervade material existence like awareness pervades materiality in Vedanta. When Lopon Rinpoche mentions the 'nature' pervading objects, he is addressing their respective dharmatās.

 

The notion of a singular field which pervades everything is precisely the misconception that Jean-Luc and Lopon Tenzin Namdak are refuting.

 

Furthermore, Lopon Tenzin Namdak has stated basically the same thing in print:

"The basic nature pervades all existence equally - rocks, trees, anything."

Yes, but you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'nature' here and this mistake is actually addressed specifically by Lopon Tenzin Namdak. He states that misunderstanding 'nature' in this way goes directly against the Dzogchen view, breaking the Dzogchen dam tsigs of gcig pu and phyal ba.

 

Lopon Rinpoche addressing gcig pu:

 

"...it explains in the text that this Nature equally encompasses everything from Dharmakaya right down to the hells. This means that the qualities or characteristics of Nature are the same, but the Nature itself is not the same at all. (So the misinterpretation is that) without knowing and distinguishing between these two, (you think that) there is one thing which pervades everything from Dharmakaya down to the hells. That is mistaken. It says many things here. Vedanta has this idea, too. It is the characteristics which are the same... If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen.

 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one'

pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."

Edited July 7, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[idiot_stimpy]

The Vajrayana master bestows onto the student a taste of what non-conceptual, pervasive awareness is --....

 

But is it necessary to achieve enlightenment?

 

 

Is enlightenment conditioned upon a Vajrayana master giving the student a taste of non-conceptual, pervasive awareness?

[asunthatneversets]

But is it necessary to achieve enlightenment?

 

Is enlightenment conditioned upon a Vajrayana master giving the student a taste of non-conceptual, pervasive awareness?

'Pervasive awareness' is just a term being thrown around today that stems from a translation of the Tibetan term 'khyab rig'. Khyab rig is the sugatagarbha or tathāgatagarbha, which is the dharmakāya encased in affliction, abiding as a latent potentiality.

 

So it can't be pointed out. It is simply a given that sentient beings are sugatagarbha, because all sentient beings possess buddhanature. Though whether that nature is recognized and divested of obscuration is a different story.

 

What is pointed out during direct introduction can vary depending on the individual.

 

The Vajrayāna path requires pointing out instruction, or intimate instructions, and liberation which is brought about via those means would be the end of those means (and therefore require intimate instruction).

 

But liberation in general, actualized through any other vehicle in the buddhadharma does not require intimate instruction (though it is of course advised one seeks the support of a living teacher or mentor).

[Tibetan_Ice]

Jean-Luc's insight is on point, and he is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.

 

 

This is equivalent to Advaita Vedanta or any other tīrthika non-dual view. A common error in interpretation when it comes to Dzogchen. It is a view that the Dzogchen tantras try very hard to distance themselves from.

 

 

Khyab rig (what you are calling 'pervading rigpa') is the sugatagarbha, it is a potentiality which must be actualized through recognition. Hence; the inborn and latent rigpa which pervades the hearts of sentient beings. It does not pervade material existence like awareness pervades materiality in Vedanta. When Lopon Rinpoche mentions the 'nature' pervading objects, he is addressing their respective dharmatās.

 

The notion of a singular field which pervades everything is precisely the misconception that Jean-Luc and Lopon Tenzin Namdak are refuting.

 

 

Yes, but you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'nature' here and this mistake is actually addressed specifically by Lopon Tenzin Namdak. He states that misunderstanding 'nature' in this way goes directly against the Dzogchen view, breaking the Dzogchen dam tsigs of gcig pu and phyal ba.

 

Lopon Rinpoche addressing gcig pu:

 

"...it explains in the text that this Nature equally encompasses everything from Dharmakaya right down to the hells. This means that the qualities or characteristics of Nature are the same, but the Nature itself is not the same at all. (So the misinterpretation is that) without knowing and distinguishing between these two, (you think that) there is one thing which pervades everything from Dharmakaya down to the hells. That is mistaken. It says many things here. Vedanta has this idea, too. It is the characteristics which are the same... If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen.

 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one'

pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that each sentient being has their own darmakaya. Sugatagharba is just another word for dharmakaya.

You are saying that "all pervasive" means it pervades only the individual's being.

You are saying that each individual has heir own private hell, nirvana, creation of the planes, and there is nothing that pervades all sentient beings.

You are saying that there is no "one" in Tibetan Dzogchen?

How then can we read other peoples' minds?

Is there no omnipresence in Dzogchen?

How can you know somebody else's past lives?

The dharmakaya has partitions? And these partitions can't be breached?

Is it that there is not one mind, but that lies in the definition of mind? Isn't all pervasive rigpa beyond mind? Mind is not rigpa, for mind dissolves back into rigpa. Are we talking about or mistaking two different things here?

All pervasive, to me is the reason why we can read others' minds, why we can heal others' bodies, how we can perform siddhis and influence others. Is there then no common ground?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[C T]

'Pervasive awareness' is just a term being thrown around today that stems from a translation of the Tibetan term 'khyab rig'. Khyab rig is the sugatagarbha or tathāgatagarbha, which is the dharmakāya encased in affliction, abiding as a latent potentiality.

 

So it can't be pointed out. It is simply a given that sentient beings are sugatagarbha, because all sentient beings possess buddhanature. Though whether that nature is recognized and divested of obscuration is a different story.

 

What is pointed out during direct introduction can vary depending on the individual.

 

The Vajrayāna path requires pointing out instruction, or intimate instructions, and liberation which is brought about via those means would be the end of those means (and therefore require intimate instruction).

 

But liberation in general, actualized through any other vehicle in the buddhadharma does not require intimate instruction (though it is of course advised one seeks the support of a living teacher or mentor).

Thats all just scholarly bs.

[Anderson]

Jean-Luc's insight is on point, and he is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.

 

 

This is equivalent to Advaita Vedanta or any other tīrthika non-dual view. A common error in interpretation when it comes to Dzogchen. It is a view that the Dzogchen tantras try very hard to distance themselves from.

 

 

Khyab rig (what you are calling 'pervading rigpa') is the sugatagarbha, it is a potentiality which must be actualized through recognition. Hence; the inborn and latent rigpa which pervades the hearts of sentient beings. It does not pervade material existence like awareness pervades materiality in Vedanta. When Lopon Rinpoche mentions the 'nature' pervading objects, he is addressing their respective dharmatās.

 

The notion of a singular field which pervades everything is precisely the misconception that Jean-Luc and Lopon Tenzin Namdak are refuting.

 

 

Yes, but you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'nature' here and this mistake is actually addressed specifically by Lopon Tenzin Namdak. He states that misunderstanding 'nature' in this way goes directly against the Dzogchen view, breaking the Dzogchen dam tsigs of gcig pu and phyal ba.

 

Lopon Rinpoche addressing gcig pu:

 

"...it explains in the text that this Nature equally encompasses everything from Dharmakaya right down to the hells. This means that the qualities or characteristics of Nature are the same, but the Nature itself is not the same at all. (So the misinterpretation is that) without knowing and distinguishing between these two, (you think that) there is one thing which pervades everything from Dharmakaya down to the hells. That is mistaken. It says many things here. Vedanta has this idea, too. It is the characteristics which are the same... If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen.

 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one'

pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."

 

 

I am the essence of all phenomena; nothing exists that is

not my essence. The teachers of the three dimensions are

my essence. The Buddhas of the three times are my

essence. The Bodhisattvas are my essence. The four

types of yogins are my essence. The three worlds, of

desire, of form, and without form, too, are my

manifestation. The five great elements are my essence.

The six classes of beings are my essence. Everything

inanimate is my essence. Everything that lives is my

essence. All the habitats and the beings living therein are

my essence. Nothing exists that is not my essence

because I am the universal root: there is nothing that is

not contained in me. The unborn, the wonder of birth,

and the manifestation of energy are the three aspects of

the three teachers: this is their condition.

The question is whether the inanimate phenomena possess an individual dharmata .

[doc benway]

Jean-Luc's insight is on point, and he is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.

 

 

This is equivalent to Advaita Vedanta or any other tīrthika non-dual view. A common error in interpretation when it comes to Dzogchen. It is a view that the Dzogchen tantras try very hard to distance themselves from.

Is it your understanding that objects and awareness are distinct and separate?

 

 

 

Khyab rig (what you are calling 'pervading rigpa') is the sugatagarbha, it is a potentiality which must be actualized through recognition. Hence; the inborn and latent rigpa which pervades the hearts of sentient beings. It does not pervade material existence like awareness pervades materiality in Vedanta. When Lopon Rinpoche mentions the 'nature' pervading objects, he is addressing their respective dharmatās.

Is it your position that the dharmata and sugatagarbha are distinct and separate?

 

 

The notion of a singular field which pervades everything is precisely the misconception that Jean-Luc and Lopon Tenzin Namdak are refuting.

 

Please explain thig le nyag gcig.

[GrandmasterP]

 

Seems to me that it depends on which Dzogchen interpreter one favours as to the message that's transmitted.

Polysyllabics aside if one of your Dzogchen boosters is saying that there's some sort of compartmentalisation going on and that 'this here' is distinct and separate from 'that there' then , with respect that dude is pulling our malas.

Edited July 7, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[doc benway]

 

I am the essence of all phenomena; nothing exists that is

not my essence. The teachers of the three dimensions are

my essence. The Buddhas of the three times are my

essence. The Bodhisattvas are my essence. The four

types of yogins are my essence. The three worlds, of

desire, of form, and without form, too, are my

manifestation. The five great elements are my essence.

The six classes of beings are my essence. Everything

inanimate is my essence. Everything that lives is my

essence. All the habitats and the beings living therein are

my essence. Nothing exists that is not my essence

because I am the universal root: there is nothing that is

not contained in me. The unborn, the wonder of birth,

and the manifestation of energy are the three aspects of

the three teachers: this is their condition.

The question is whether the inanimate phenomena possess an individual dharmata .

 

can you share the source of that quote Anderson?

[GrandmasterP]

can you share the source of that quote Anderson?

 

There ya go...

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ecQA_h8z5KMC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=%22my+essence.+Nothing+exists+that+is+not+my+essence+because+I+am+the+universal+root:+there+is+nothing+that+is+not+contained+in+me.+The+unborn,+the+wonder+of+birth,+%22&source=bl&ots=7gXp25VsJM&sig=TP7t4FdT7O45KLAgj9366sO2wWo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bo66U7y9OuqN7QbJ-4GIBQ&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22my%20essence.%20Nothing%20exists%20that%20is%20not%20my%20essence%20because%20I%20am%20the%20universal%20root%3A%20there%20is%20nothing%20that%20is%20not%20contained%20in%20me.%20The%20unborn%2C%20the%20wonder%20of%20birth%2C%20%22&f=false

[Anderson]

can you share the source of that quote Anderson?

 

oh, there is plenty of that in Kunjed Gyalpo-The supreme source

 

Pure and total consciousness is not subject to quantity and cannot

be depicted in any way. However, for the phenomena

created by consciousness, multiplicity arises. What is

created by consciousness? From the natural condition of

consciousness are created the animate and inanimate

world, Buddhas and sentient beings. In this way there

appears the manifestation of the five elements, of the six

classes of beings, and of the two types of emanations of

the dimension of form [sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya]

that act for their benefit. All of this manifests from the

nature of consciousness as multiplicity. [...]

The root of all phenomena is pure and total

consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature.

All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and

words express only my meaning. From the very

beginning, the pure dimensions, the wisdoms and

qualities of the Buddhas, the karmic inclinations and

bodies of beings, all the things that exist in the animate

and inanimate universe, are the nature of pure and total

consciousness.

[gatito]

Now watch someone attempt to assert that the Kunjed Gyalpo has been mistranslated or that you can't understand it without the reinterpretation of the Buddhist priesthood

[doc benway]

Thanks Anderson and GMP.