James Low & Simply Being

[booker]

If Rigpa is encompassing everything it can also be aware of illusion.
If Rigpa is everything it can also be illusion.
If Rigpa is everything it can also be dualistic etc.

Are you sure of this? I think there is a great deal in the teachings where one suppose to have a clear understanding what is Rigpa and what is the ordinary moving mind, and reach the point of no doubt about it. If Rigpa can be dualistic and illusion then it's not Rigpa, it's Marigpa, right?

How it did happen in the time without time? This is finally not so important, more important is the way back home.

Agree

[Malcolm]

Hm I think the problem is how is that Primordial Wisdom is obscured in the first place (what gives a rise to sentient beings like us).

may by not (re) cognizing ... that's why there is innate ignorance.

Sönam

Yes, but I guess this boils down to the fact, that since it's a self-aware wisdom, how come the ignorance could possibly happen.

Well, there is one really good reason -- there is no such thing as a "self-aware wisdom" -- it's a translation botch.

so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye she is the translation of a common term in Mahāyāna Buddhism namely, "pratyatmyavedanajñāna" which means "personally (pratyatmya) intuited (vedana) gnosis (jñāna)" or in simpler terms "wisdom that one knows personally", wisdom that one personally experiences, and so on.

Therefore, contradiction solved.

N

[booker]

Cheers Namdrol

[kalden yungdrung]

If Rigpa is encompassing everything it can also be aware of illusion.
If Rigpa is everything it can also be illusion.
If Rigpa is everything it can also be dualistic etc.

Are you sure of this? I think there is a great deal in the teachings where one suppose to have a clear understanding what is Rigpa and what is the ordinary moving mind, and reach the point of no doubt about it. If Rigpa can be dualistic and illusion then it's not Rigpa, it's Marigpa, right?
{quote]


Tashi delek,

EVERYTHING comes out of the Natural State
Abides for a while
and dissolves back into the Natural State

Furhter is this (can this be ) explained as:
Ma (Mother), Bu (Son) and Tsal (Energy)

In Nyingma:
Ngo (essence)
Rang bzhin (Nature)
rThugs rje (Energy


Mutsog Marro
KY

[booker]

Hold on a minute

Natural State unrecognised is a base for Samsara.
Natural State recognised is a base for Nirvana.

Right?

If Rigpa can be also dualistic and ilussion it would be also a base for Samsara, but it's not. Right? Marigpa is a base of Samsara, and is never a base of Nirvana. And Rigpa is never base of Samsara, is only for Nirvana. So Rigpa can not be dualistic and illusion. Margipa is.

Right?

[Malcolm]

Hold on a minute

Natural State unrecognised is a base for Samsara.
Natural State recognised is a base for Nirvana.

Right?

If Rigpa can be also dualistic and ilussion it would be also a base for Samsara, but it's not. Right? Marigpa is a base of Samsara, and is never a base of Nirvana. And Rigpa is never base of Samsara, is only for Nirvana. So Rigpa can not be dualistic and illusion. Margipa is.

Right?

Natural state is not rigpa. Rigpa is one's knowledge, or recognition, of the natural state.

[kalden yungdrung]

Hold on a minute

Natural State unrecognised is a base for Samsara.
Natural State recognised is a base for Nirvana.

Right?


KY wrote:
Samsara and Nirvana are not two or dualistic seen in the Natural State
The base of everything is the Mother / Ma together with Bu and Tsal
Nirvana is only a name to indicate that there is something more than Samsara



If Rigpa can be also dualistic and ilussion it would be also a base for Samsara, but it's not. Right? Marigpa is a base of Samsara, and is never a base of Nirvana. And Rigpa is never base of Samsara, is only for Nirvana. So Rigpa can not be dualistic and illusion. Margipa is.

Right?


KY wrote:
Everything is clear and pure and not dualistic of origen. The dualism is a mistake / error. So the ünseen"source is always Rigpa but covered by Ma rigpa.
So Rigpa covers Ma rigpa but the one in Ma rigpa does not see/ is aware of Rigpa whereas all is Rigpa. Further are Samsara and Nirvana one and not two.
Rigpa or the Mother is that where all comes out and like Namdrol did explained, when i am right the Rigpa has inside a not-recognizing factor which is inherent present because the base has all there is. I hope to have understood the meaning of Namdrol and i can agree to that because it is also a part of Bon Dzogchen.

[booker]

Hold on a minute

Natural State unrecognised is a base for Samsara.
Natural State recognised is a base for Nirvana.

Right?

If Rigpa can be also dualistic and ilussion it would be also a base for Samsara, but it's not. Right? Marigpa is a base of Samsara, and is never a base of Nirvana. And Rigpa is never base of Samsara, is only for Nirvana. So Rigpa can not be dualistic and illusion. Margipa is.

Right?

Natural state is not rigpa. Rigpa is one's knowledge, or recognition, of the natural state.

Yes.

So there can't be one has Rigpa which is dualistic and illusion, right? Otherwise this doesn't make any sense.

To rephrase:

Natural State unrecognised is Ma rigpa and is a base for Samsara.
Natural State recognised is Rigpa and is a base for Nirvana.

And can't be otherwise, right?

Or do I get that wrong?

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Conventionally you're right. But ultimately in rigpa there's no rigpa or marigpa, just emptiness=display.

[Malcolm]

Hold on a minute

Natural State unrecognised is a base for Samsara.
Natural State recognised is a base for Nirvana.

Right?

If Rigpa can be also dualistic and ilussion it would be also a base for Samsara, but it's not. Right? Marigpa is a base of Samsara, and is never a base of Nirvana. And Rigpa is never base of Samsara, is only for Nirvana. So Rigpa can not be dualistic and illusion. Margipa is.

Right?

Natural state is not rigpa. Rigpa is one's knowledge, or recognition, of the natural state.

Yes.

So there can't be one has Rigpa which is dualistic and illusion, right? Otherwise this doesn't make any sense.

To rephrase:

Natural State unrecognised is Ma rigpa and is a base for Samsara.
Natural State recognised is Rigpa and is a base for Nirvana.

And can't be otherwise, right?

Or do I get that wrong?

How about: the recognition of the natural state is rigpa, the basis for nirvana -- just a slight tweak.

[Astus]

Natural state is not rigpa. Rigpa is one's knowledge, or recognition, of the natural state.

That makes sense.
There is a problem then with the use of the word.

[Martijn]

...

[Malcolm]

How can remembrance be forgotten? by Atmananda Krishna Menon
Every thought merges into Consciousness and remains not as thought, but as Consciousness, pure. So your searching in that Consciousness for the resurrection of any thought, merged therein, is in vain. It can only result in your first forgetting your real nature of pure Consciousness, and in the subsequent creation of an entirely new thought, as though experienced some time earlier.

[

This is Advaita, not Dzogchen.

[booker]

Natural State recognised is Rigpa and is a base for Nirvana.

How about: the recognition of the natural state is rigpa, the basis for nirvana -- just a slight tweak.

No prob.

Is there a difference in meaning of these two statements?

[Pema Rigdzin]

Natural State recognised is Rigpa and is a base for Nirvana.

How about: the recognition of the natural state is rigpa, the basis for nirvana -- just a slight tweak.

No prob.

Is there a difference in meaning of these two statements?

Yes, although it's subtle and easy to miss. Your statement technically is saying that the natural state, having been correctly recognized, is rigpa, whereas Namdrol's is more precisely saying that it is actually the recognition or knowledge itself which is referred to as rigpa.

[Clarence]

[
Yes, although it's subtle and easy to miss. Your statement technically is saying that the natural state, having been correctly recognized, is rigpa, whereas Namdrol's is more precisely saying that it is actually the recognition or knowledge itself which is referred to as rigpa.

At the moment of recognition, is there a difference between the two?

[Malcolm]

[
Yes, although it's subtle and easy to miss. Your statement technically is saying that the natural state, having been correctly recognized, is rigpa, whereas Namdrol's is more precisely saying that it is actually the recognition or knowledge itself which is referred to as rigpa.

At the moment of recognition, is there a difference between the two?

Yes. Mostly because you can become distracted, and that is ignorance.

[Clarence]

Yes. Mostly because you can become distracted, and that is ignorance.

I think I start to understand. I am quite the same as some others here. When I look, nothing is found. Resting in that, thoughts come up. Then it is gone, until I remember.

[Malcolm]

Yes. Mostly because you can become distracted, and that is ignorance.

I think I start to understand. I am quite the same as some others here. When I look, nothing is found. Resting in that, thoughts come up. Then it is gone, until I remember.

Rigpa is something that one slowly develops over time, until one has complete confidence in the meaning of the teachings.

The term rigpa is used in different ways in Dzogchen teachings, so one has to be very specific. It does not have univerally applied meaning like "consciousness" for example. This is because Rig is both a noun and a verb in Tibetan, depending on the word ending.

N

[Clarence]

Rigpa is something that one slowly develops over time, until one has complete confidence in the meaning of the teachings.

The term rigpa is used in different ways in Dzogchen teachings, so one has to be very specific. It does not have univerally applied meaning like "consciousness" for example. This is because Rig is both a noun and a verb in Tibetan, depending on the word ending.

N

Aha, I see. That actually makes sense if Rigpa is the knowledge of the recognition of the Natural State. You can develop knowledge. Even with thoughts racing, one can remain in the knowledge. Do I understand that right?

This is where MM and DC make a difference between Rigpa and the Natural State.

Thanks once again, C