James Low & Simply Being

[Astus]

There is no term or concept in Dzogchen as being "re-enlightened". Does not exist and does not make sense.

Nevertheless, the above authors did use it with the same meaning in a Dzogchen context. If it is not a traditional term it might be a new one.

Tulku Urgyen's "Repeating the Words of the Buddha" has a whole chapter entitled "Re-enlightenment".

At the second movement, the delusions are dispelled and the (perfection) of primordial wisdom develops. That is the development of the basis (itself) as the result (of enlightenment). It is called the re-enlightenment (or self-liberation) through the realization of the essence, the primordial Buddhahood.
(Longchen Rabjam: The Practice of Dzogchen, p. 207)

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said, "The confusion that arose in ... the path can be cleared away. When we remove the temporary stains from primordially awakened rigpa, we become re-enlightened instead of primordially enlightened. This is accomplished by following the oral instructions of a fully qualified master."
(Nyoshul Khenpo: Natural Great Perfection, p. 71)

We should train in the state of rigpa that is originally pure. Although the essence is primordially enlightened, the yogi has to be re-enlightened. We have fallen into delusion. Attaining stability in non-delusion is called re-enlightenment.
(Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche: As It Is, vol. 2, p. 67)

[Malcolm]

There is no term or concept in Dzogchen as being "re-enlightened". Does not exist and does not make sense.

Nevertheless, the above authors did use it with the same meaning in a Dzogchen context. If it is not a traditional term it might be a new one.

Tulku Urgyen's "Repeating the Words of the Buddha" has a whole chapter entitled "Re-enlightenment".

At the second movement, the delusions are dispelled and the (perfection) of primordial wisdom develops. That is the development of the basis (itself) as the result (of enlightenment). It is called the re-enlightenment (or self-liberation) through the realization of the essence, the primordial Buddhahood.
(Longchen Rabjam: The Practice of Dzogchen, p. 207)

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said, "The confusion that arose in ... the path can be cleared away. When we remove the temporary stains from primordially awakened rigpa, we become re-enlightened instead of primordially enlightened. This is accomplished by following the oral instructions of a fully qualified master."
(Nyoshul Khenpo: Natural Great Perfection, p. 71)

We should train in the state of rigpa that is originally pure. Although the essence is primordially enlightened, the yogi has to be re-enlightened. We have fallen into delusion. Attaining stability in non-delusion is called re-enlightenment.
(Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche: As It Is, vol. 2, p. 67)

First of all, Tulku Urgyen never spoke English in his life.

When translators translate things in this way, they cause decades of confusion.

There is no such thing as "re-enlightenment", not in Dzogchen, and not in any other Buddhist school.

N

[Vajrahridaya]

First of all, Tulku Urgyen never spoke English in his life.

When translators translate things in this way, they cause decades of confusion.

There is no such thing as "re-enlightenment", not in Dzogchen, and not in any other Buddhist school.

N

Yes, I would think that more of a Subjective Monistic assertion, with the idea that we are inherently one with a supreme enlightened being of all beings that birthed us and everything else at the beginning of this cosmic eon. This would not be in cahoots with Buddhist cosmology. Of course, alot of translators from "whatever" into English seem to make this general assumption, leading to a clouded translation of the originally Eastern traditions.

[heart]

I can understand your confusion Astus. One of the translators of the above books, Erik Pema Kunzang, is a friend of mine. I think he use the term re-enlighten as a poetic expression of the fact that we already have this nature, it isn't necessary to create it. For sure he knows that we were not first enlightened and then lost it, as the expression might seem to indicate. From the beginning we are not obscured but the nature is neither known nor not known. Then when the ground displays arise from the ground and only Samanthabadra recognized his own nature and was liberated while we fell in to delusion. Anyway you managed to defend James Low's honor well.

/magnus

[Sönam]

when digging hard, one may see a re-nonenlightenment ...

Sönam

[Astus]

Magnus,

As the quotes themselves explain, "re-enlightenment" is meant within the context of Samantabhadra as the primordially enlightened buddha and the teaching of original wakefulness. Nobody said that it implies we were all once buddhas then became ordinary beings even if the explanation is given again and again how one keeps straying from buddha-mind every moment.

[Sönam]

...
the context of Samantabhadra as the primordially enlightened buddha and the teaching of original wakefulness.
...

do not even understand what this context has to do with re-enlightenment ?

S.

[heart]

Magnus,

As the quotes themselves explain, "re-enlightenment" is meant within the context of Samantabhadra as the primordially enlightened buddha and the teaching of original wakefulness. Nobody said that it implies we were all once buddhas then became ordinary beings even if the explanation is given again and again how one keeps straying from buddha-mind every moment.

If you didn't misunderstand the meaning I must have misunderstood the argument.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

Magnus,

As the quotes themselves explain, "re-enlightenment" is meant within the context of Samantabhadra as the primordially enlightened buddha and the teaching of original wakefulness. Nobody said that it implies we were all once buddhas then became ordinary beings even if the explanation is given again and again how one keeps straying from buddha-mind every moment.

Even Samantabhadra first possessed ignorance. Re-enlightenment is an impossibility.

[Yontan]

It might be helpful to explain the term "ignorance."
There is a not recognizing, separate from and anterior to a mistaken grasping.

[Malcolm]

It might be helpful to explain the term "ignorance."
There is a not recognizing, separate from and anterior to a mistaken grasping.

The nature of innate ignorance and imputing ignorance is the same. They are both absence of knowledge.

N

[booker]

Even Samantabhadra first possessed ignorance.

Hello Lopon

How do you relate to what you just said the following from ChNNR (in "Dzogchen Teachings"):

Generally speaking, it is explained that one who is in the state of instant presence from the beginning and is never distracted has knowledge or understanding. Thatat primordial understanding is called Samantabhadra, which is the symbol of the Ati Buddha—the primordial Buddha that since the beginning has never been conditioned by dualistic vision. If we don’t have this knowledge or understanding, there is no way we can realize or get into that state

[Malcolm]

Even Samantabhadra first possessed ignorance.

Hello Lopon

How do you relate to what you just said the following from ChNNR (in "Dzogchen Teachings"):

Generally speaking, it is explained that one who is in the state of instant presence from the beginning and is never distracted has knowledge or understanding. Thatat primordial understanding is called Samantabhadra, which is the symbol of the Ati Buddha—the primordial Buddha that since the beginning has never been conditioned by dualistic vision. If we don’t have this knowledge or understanding, there is no way we can realize or get into that state

Dualistic vision arises from the second ignorance, the imputing ignorance; not from the first ignorance, innate ignorance.

N

[kalden yungdrung]

Magnus,

As the quotes themselves explain, "re-enlightenment" is meant within the context of Samantabhadra as the primordially enlightened buddha and the teaching of original wakefulness. Nobody said that it implies we were all once buddhas then became ordinary beings even if the explanation is given again and again how one keeps straying from buddha-mind every moment.

Tashi delek,

According your statement, the mind is the factor with which we deal here i guess. When meant the first mind, or not karmic based mind we can speak about a mind which became dualistic "one time" what Kuntu Zangpo never did. So i guess that our Primordial State must be that of Kuntu Zangpo, but with deviations etc. which results in our illusionary ego mind body.

Regarding "one time", that does not exist because mind is unborn, will not die. So what is time here and where is the so called beginning?

Therefore i am convinced that this Natural State has to be recognised "always" by knowing and further must be experienced with non dual awareness.


Best wishes
KY

[booker]

Dualistic vision arises from the second ignorance, the imputing ignorance; not from the first ignorance, innate ignorance.

That would mean the primordial understanding has the innate ignorance. Right? Which is quite a contradiction. Since Samantabhadra is "the one who is in the state of instant presence from the beginning and is never distracted" how can it ever had any ignorance in the first place?

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek,

Thought that Rigpa would cover Ma Rigpa.
But a being with Ma Rigpa does not see or is aware of Rigpa.

So i guess that the promordial Wisdom / Yeshe is "fixed" connected to the person with Ma Rigpa or Rigpa not knowing.


Best wishes
KY

[Malcolm]

Dualistic vision arises from the second ignorance, the imputing ignorance; not from the first ignorance, innate ignorance.

That would mean the primordial understanding has the innate ignorance. Right? Which is quite a contradiction. Since Samantabhadra is "the one who is in the state of instant presence from the beginning and is never distracted" how can it ever had any ignorance in the first place?

In order to understand this, you need to study the process of Samantabhadra's liberation. When you do so, you will discover than Samantabhadra was not always liberated. Then you will understand that Samantabhadra possessed innate ignorance, but not imputing ignorance. Innate ignorance is simply unknowing. Imputing ignorance causes dualistic vision.

N

[kalden yungdrung]

Namdrol wrote:
Then you will understand that Samantabhadra possessed innate ignorance,

Tashi delek,

- Could you please explain to me out of what does this innate ignorance exist?
- Also what did caused "innate ignorance" to Adi Dzogchen Buddha Samantabhadra / Kuntu Zangpo, in case of ?


Best wishes
KY

[Sönam]

The question should be put the other way around ...

How could Samantbhadra knew innately dualistic vision (therefore liberation) in the first place?

Sönam

[kalden yungdrung]

The question should be put the other way around ...

How could Samantbhadra knew innately dualistic vision (therefore liberation) in the first place?

Sönam

Tashi delek,

I guess he was in a non dualistic way aware of all.
Or to mention/suggestion, Rigpa covers Ma Rigpa.

Best wishes
KY