Is rigpa really that simple?

[ralis]

Local mind is just a simplified descriptor for what you would call... "Of course it is obscured in almost everyone, but is not recognized."

 

Where is the quote from? To distinguish between local and nonlocal in your narrative is an error. The question becomes; where does local end and nonlocal begin?

[Jeff]

Where is the quote from? To distinguish between local and nonlocal in your narrative is an error. The question becomes; where does local end and nonlocal begin?

 

 

That quote is from you earlier in this thread.  That is why I used it.

[ralis]

That quote is from you earlier in this thread.  That is why I used it.

 

I post so much I don't recall that particular quote. Why not link it.

[Jeff]

I post so much I don't recall that particular quote. Why not link it.

 

 

Why?  If anyone cares they can find it a couple of pages back. 

[ralis]

Why?  If anyone cares they can find it a couple of pages back. 

 

I always link to a quote so that others don't need to run around looking for it.

[ralis]

Local mind is just a simplified descriptor for what you would call... "Of course it is obscured in almost everyone, but is not recognized."

 

My question is; did I write that or was it in a quote?

[ralis]

I found it.

[ralis]

@Jeff,

 

Even if you put quote marks around a statement, doesn't mean that everyone recognizes the source. Further, if you need instruction on proper notation/quotes, I am certain someone here will oblige.

[Jeff]

I always link to a quote so that others don't need to run around looking for it.

 

I tend to remember my own posts.  Especially when it has been only a day or so.  

 

Also, it was not really an important point. I just thought it would be helpful with responding to you in your own terms (words).

[ilumairen]

Of course it is obscured in almost everyone, but is not recognized. Obscured is not what you believe it is.

Post #84

[ralis]

I tend to remember my own posts.  Especially when it has been only a day or so.  

 

Also, it was not really an important point. I just thought it would be helpful with responding to you in your own terms (words).

 

Honestly, it wasn't clear as to who stated the quote in mention. You stated "what you would call" which in general is how most persons state that as a generalization. Or, "one would call" would be the correct way of stating.

Edited June 28, 2016 by ralis

[Tibetan_Ice]

Wow! That's what I call a serious misconception of rigpa!

I hope that no one new reads and believes this or tries to learn from this.

But you criticize Jax for his teachings, lol...

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions based on your intellectual understanding and experiences, as I am entitled to mine.

Don't take anyone's word for anything, find out for yourself!

[Tibetan_Ice]

When Tibetan_Ice believes that rigpa is "blissful" etc.,

then he confuses the experience with what experiences it.

Answer me this... Why do you think they call the samboghakaya the "enjoyment body of great bliss"?

[Tibetan_Ice]

From Ponlop Rinpoche's book called "Penetrating Wisdom - the Aspiration of Samantrabhadra":

(Bolding is mine)

Q: Why is all this taught as being so simple, when doing it turns out to be so difficult?

 

R: Look at the many stories of the Mahasiddhas. They didn’t get it the first time. They didn’t get it the second time. There were many times that they didn’t get it. For example, when Naropa received teachings from Tilopa, he didn’t click into it right away. It took some time. Finally, Tilopa got fed up. He took off his sandal and, with his full strength, hit Naropa on the forehead. Naropa almost went uncon- scious. At that point, he got it. The method is simple whether it takes a long time or a short time.

 

The practice is simple. It is as simple as the teachings on emptiness. But why has it become so complex? Why is Madhyamaka so irritatingly complex? It’s because our conceptions are that complex. It’s because the things that need to be transcended are so complex. Therefore, the Madhyamaka, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra teachings may appear to be complex because of what we need to reject.

 

It is our approach that is making the teaching complex, the teaching itself is not. Madhyamaka is very simple and straightforward: it just says shunyata. Dzogchen is straightforward and simple: it just says rigpa. If you realize rigpa, then you are buddha. If you don’t realize rigpa, then you are a confused sentient being. That’s Dzogchen.

 

Mahamudra says the same thing. If you realize ordinary mind, thamal gyi shepa, you are a buddha. If you don’t realize ordinary mind, you are a confused samsaric being. To realize it, we have to cut through this net of conceptual hang-ups. For that, we need the complex Madhyamaka logic. If it doesn’t work, then we have Mahamudra meditation. And if it still doesn’t work, then there are the Dzogchen teachings.

 

[RigdzinTrinley]

I would take this to mean something more like "oh, i see now !" as in "oh, i understand now !".

Because this type of seeing is done by the mind .

as you like - just meant to say that the tibetan word also has a connotation of seeing and perceiving - that's why I said "another twist" of the word that might be good to keep in mind, I did not say rigpa = seeing that is why I put the "seeing" in brackets in the quote of Khen Rinpoche.

 

if you want to cherrypick more we can do that together

 

but I only have a certain amount of time for that...

[Tibetan_Ice]

Although rigpa is very often translated as knowledge i would say that we need to unpack this .

Well to me knowledge means that we are confronted with a reality , we know it and the most important of all we understand it.

So here i would use knowledge with understanding interchangebly .

In that sense rigpa is understanding of the reality of primordial state.This is explained in a bit more detail by Namkhai Norbu in one of his Longsal termas on the subject of the state of Ati.

Unfortunatelly quite often practitioners see rigpa in a limited way talking about it in terms of location, gradation, coming out of the eye or the heart, small rigpa , big rigpa...etc....and the only thing this approach does is to create a type of quantitative dzogchen..

So i would say that rigpa is ultimately understanding of your own state .

In the moment before your mind has time to grasp what a sense consciousness is relaying lies a fresh moment or flash of rigpa. With practice, a little bodhicitta and mindfulness you can make those moments stretch out and last longer and longer.

Bit by bit, a gradual approach, you will succeed.

[Wells]

.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Wells

[Tibetan_Ice]

You use the word "grasping" in every second sentence.

Well, you grasp when you are in an emotional state of mind,

for example when you enjoy bliss!

I would think about that.

Rigpa knows without the conceptual mind, prior to mind.

Emotions are part of the conceptual mind. Treat them like thoughts with much more energy in them.

You can determine that when emotions dissolve back into rigpa.

There is relative bliss, emotions, bodhicitta and then there are the absolute counterparts.

Guess which ones I am talking about..

Think about that...or rather, don't think about that at all..

[Wells]

.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Wells

[Tibetan_Ice]

I don't see you adressing the thesis in what you quoted from me.

(Or I have a translation problem.)

Sorry, I don't understand your statement. What thesis? Please clarify...

[doc benway]

Where is the quote from? To distinguish between local and nonlocal in your narrative is an error. The question becomes; where does local end and nonlocal begin?

 

Local ends and nonlocal begins with rang ngo rang rig - self recognition.

Edited June 29, 2016 by steve

[ralis]

Local ends and nonlocal begins with rang ngo rang rig - self recognition.

 

My point is there is no beginning or end. If there were, there would be clear boundaries, but those boundaries appear to not exist.

[Jeff]

My point is there is no beginning or end. If there were, there would be clear boundaries, but those boundaries appear to not exist.

All boundaries are relative, but such is noticed in as Norbu describes in the relative integration of ones body (local) energy with outside (universal) energy. At a practical level, it is about "being" (or being with) broader aspects of percieved reality. Like going from being a character in a video game, to learning the cheat codes, to realizing it is just a game, to then being the game itself.

 

The Dharmakaya is bubble that supports the game. The sambhogkaya is the fun stuff (percieved reality) inside the game. The Nirmankaya is the (knowing) player of the game.