Ego-less Mind

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek,

Some great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the point of view that:

- The egoless Mind has an identity.
The Dalai Lama does fully agree to this point of view.

- Other great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the position that the Rigpa does not have a concept of self.

What do you think?


Best wishes
KY

[heart]

Tashi delek,

Some great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the point of view that:

- The egoless Mind has an identity.
The Dalai Lama does fully agree to this point of view.

- Other great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the position that the Rigpa does not have a concept of self.

What do you think?


Best wishes
KY

I think you have to provide some quotes for your statements Kalden.

/magnus

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek Heart,

Maybe this is more understandable, indeed a very interesting topic in Dzogchen.

For some DC Masters does there exist an identity called an ignorant ego the ego of all day and the Wisdom ego.
Both are aware of a cerain identity and maybe called self. In Wisdom aspect Rangrig Yeshe.

Further:
In the description of Rigpa or egoless Awareness, some takes the position that the egoless mind has an identity, or self concept.

The other party:
Take the position that Rigpa 108% sure , does not have s concept of a self


Hope this helps

Mutsog Marro
KY

[heart]

Tashi delek Heart,

Maybe this is more understandable, indeed a very interesting topic in Dzogchen.

For some DC Masters does there exist an identity called an ignorant ego the ego of all day and the Wisdom ego.
Both are aware of a cerain identity and maybe called self. In Wisdom aspect Rangrig Yeshe.

Further:
In the description of Rigpa or egoless Awareness, some takes the position that the egoless mind has an identity, or self concept.

The other party:
Take the position that Rigpa 108% sure , does not have s concept of a self


Hope this helps


Mutsog Marro
KY

No it don't help, provide quotes please.

/magnus

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek Heart,

Sorry there is for me no more explanation possible.
I can "understand" it but am aware that it is too difficult maybe for me too explain these "2 identities".

A last try:

Rigpa is self aware
Ignorant ego does not see / is not aware of Rigpa
Rigpa seems to be ignorant ego at the same time but that does not count for ignorant ego.


The final question was:
Egoless mind = Rigpa = egoless Awareness can have an identity or not?

Hope this helps

Best wishes
KY

[heart]

Tashi delek Heart,

Sorry there is for me no more explanation possible.
I can "understand" it but am aware that it is too difficult maybe for me too explain these "2 identities".

A last try:

Rigpa is self aware
Ignorant ego does not see / is not awre of Rigpa
Rigpa seems to be ignorant ego at the same time.

Hope this helps

Best wishes
KY

To provide quotes mean that you should provide the original sources for your statements, not your own opinions.

/magnus

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek Heart,

Sorry there is for me no more explanation possible.
I can "understand" it but am aware that it is too difficult maybe for me too explain these "2 identities".

A last try:

Rigpa is self aware
Ignorant ego does not see / is not awre of Rigpa
Rigpa seems to be ignorant ego at the same time.

Hope this helps

Best wishes
KY

To provide quotes mean that you should provide the original sources for your statements, not your own opinions.

/magnus

\
Tashi delek,

These are specific point of views in Dzogchen philosophy also mine which i like to compare if possibel.
We could also discuss the 16 forms of emptiness....

Best wishes
KY

[username]

Tashi delek,

Some great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the point of view that:

- The egoless Mind has an identity.
The Dalai Lama does fully agree to this point of view.

- Other great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the position that the Rigpa does not have a concept of self.

What do you think?


Best wishes
KY

You are right and both positions are right too. Just different levels and different ponit of views, interesting topic. Namdrol can probably write a small book on this. Ask him nicely. I am beginning to like the way your mind works with thinking about your questions (except ones like how can I enslave a demon etc.). It is good to contemplate things like you do and even better to ask questions. Some responses to a minority of your questions can be found in Kongtrul's Treasury series of books translated so far, not sure if this is there too. As Chagdud used to say: Keep going!

[Pero]

To provide quotes mean that you should provide the original sources for your statements, not your own opinions.

/magnus

\
Tashi delek,

These are specific point of views in Dzogchen philosophy also mine which i like to compare if possibel.
We could also discuss the 16 forms of emptiness....

Best wishes
KY

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek,

Some great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the point of view that:

- The egoless Mind has an identity.
The Dalai Lama does fully agree to this point of view.

- Other great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the position that the Rigpa does not have a concept of self.

What do you think?


Best wishes
KY

Tashi delek,

Was only asking what do you think about it?

Best wishes
KY
You are right and both positions are right too. Just different levels and different ponit of views, interesting topic. Namdrol can probably write a small book on this. Ask him nicely. I am beginning to like the way your mind works with thinking about your questions (except ones like how can I enslave a demon etc.). It is good to contemplate things like you do and even better to ask questions. Some responses to a minority of your questions can be found in Kongtrul's Treasury series of books translated so far, not sure if this is there too. As Chagdud used to say: Keep going!

[username]

I can write a few lines probably full of mistakes. Lets hope Namdrol responds. If he doesn't I will give my imperfect erroneous little understanding. I am also hoping to learn more. Frankly I read very few threads and the only long posts I read are his.

[kalden yungdrung]

I can write a few lines probably full of mistakes. Lets hope Namdrol responds. If he doesn't I will give my imperfect erroneous little understanding. I am also hoping to learn more. Frankly I read very few threads and the only long posts I read are his.

Tashi delek,

Every mistake is welcome , i/we can learn of that, for sure.
Besides that there are two positions and one can adhere to one or both maybe, that is the core of the question?


Best wishes
KY

[username]

That is right. The way I see it, could be wrong, is that a fully enlightened being does have a functioning identity of some sort within dependent arising level of circumstances as well as sambhogakaya levels. Consider a major dharmakaya deity. S/he has certain functions and specialties that are a result of various things, aspirations while was previously on the path, or changes such as the way Tara emerged from Chenresig, etc. Now a fully enlightened deity does not really exist yet functions in certain manners and situations at the two lower kayas, when invoked or needed by sentient beings and/or practitioners or until cosmos dissolves active in certain buddhafileds anyway (ultimate highest buddhafields are non-existent too in essence) or remaining in impure worlds in certain ways. Other times they arise out of the dharmakaya and then dissolve back. Consider Amitabha's aspirations while he was on the path and how it is now. Also lesser enlightened beings on the high bhumis do keep characteristics due to aspirations, needs, karmic connections to buddha familiers or types of situations, etc. all to serve beings more and more. Not least because they are not fully enlightened. So it is believed that they do not become blanked out as some who are frozen in emptiness for eons and could even fall though those have characteristics for sure as they are not fully enlightened anyway. However ultimately such great beings, from high bhumis to fully enlightened deities, are really realized in truly knowing kadak/lhundrub and that they themselves, not just their minds or characteristics, do not exist. This is the ultimate true view. Of course in that ultimate final true view, you and I do not exist either. So both positions are correct from different POVs. Anyway as I say I am probably totally wrong on this.

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek Username,

Yes i can follow that when someone becomes a Buddha, i for instance, do not become/"have" that State.
But what happenes when one is in that State according Dzogchen? There is no dualism possible.....

So here we deal with a temporal self with thoughts or not.
There is also something as a State without thoughts and this is Rigpa and here is no concept of a self , in my opinion

Forgot to mention that Rigpa covers all in this case also the mind of illusion, but latter mentioned cannot be aware of that State (NS), that is called Ma Rigpa when i understood it well.

Some tell that they were one......

Best wishes
KY

[username]

Hi KY,
Just had to eat. Before starting I like to say I hope I understood you well. It is best to write simple and short sentences so we don't misunderstand each other. Also there are two other aspects which I will not bring into discussion as it might complicate things.

Yes i can follow that when someone becomes a Buddha, i for instance, do not become/"have" that State.
But what happenes when one is in that State according Dzogchen? There is no dualism possible.....

So I assume here you are mainly concerned with the practitioner, someone like yourself, not deities or very high bhumi beings. I hope I understand what you mean by this part. Also I am trying to answer for you mainly from what I have read of you in the past. So this answer is mainly for you not generally. There is no dualism. Dualism only appears in our karmic vision as a false illusion arising from circumstances in the limited dimension of time and space and causalities. A good understanding of rolpa clears this but lets keep it simple. Take a cup, if you can only look at it from the top or bottom then it seems completely different if we didn't know it. Or the old philosophical example of the child who grew up chained in a cave and all he saw was shadows on the wall and thought that is the whole of reality. Or the story of the elephant being taken to a town for the first time at night and the people who only touched him in the dark had different tales. One said he is like a snake (trunk) another that he is like a column (his leg) another like a whale (his body) etc. So the dualism we are trapped in and which is all we know as ignorants is not the true full reality. There is no duality. Ultimately one has to realize the levels of dbang, rolpa and tsal for this but to start off I think it is best if you first ask your teacher for a description of lhundrub suited to your thinking. He knows you better and probably knows what triggers work better on you. Basically if one manages to be in rigpa (special knowing) of dharmakaya fully and totally, then one realizes our limited dimension is a projection on various levels and at the base true primordial level it is not in essence existent. At the gross level, it is just an ornmaent, like a little foam on top of a vast deep ocean but really that is not quite correct either, it is just how it appears. It is a limited clarity-only aspect of it. Like sun rays in the sky which do not alter the space. Your body takes up some space in your room but your room also takes up the whole of that space (including your body's space) in the house. So they are different levels but subsets of each other. Your body's space is a subset of the room space. Different levels and different points of views but the same space. In the same way the tri-kayas are non-dual too. Just appear different from different eyes of different types of beings. Those infinite karmic visions do not change the tri-kayas ultimate true state. When you are in the state, fully, then that is realized.

So here we deal with a temporal self with thoughts or not.

Again at the gross level a self appears but it is not there. It has no border if you put it under a microscope, empty space inside atoms and particles too, within time which is relative and fake and even space which is slightly more valid is ultimately false too. Plus all the other deconstructions that Nagarjuna and others make. There really is nothing there as a separate self or object or even time or even space and as you go into higher levels this becomes more and more true. There is the ultimate truth, not the subjective flasehoods of many within illusory fake dimensions. Also see my last paragraph below.

There is also something as a State without thoughts and this is Rigpa and here is no concept of a self , in my opinion

Not necessarily, you could be in an empty state of being without clarity. This is the main fault with Chaan/Zen and certain Tibetan practitioners who died but not really and were in a frozen state for many years or decades. There is a procedure for bringing them back to life briefly and do a phowa. Some formless beings also stay like that for eons, arahats is a slighlty different case. So not all thoughtlessness is rigpa. Not to mention hedewa. Rigpa is actually the wrong word on its own and a more correct phrase should be rigpa of kadak and lhundrub non-dual.

Forgot to mention that Rigpa covers all in this case also the mind of illusion, but latter mentioned cannot be aware of that State (NS), that is called Ma Rigpa when i understood it well.

Yes the second part is true but when you are in perfect rigpa of kadak/lhundrub, then you effortlessly span the lower gross dimensions (our world as it appears to most) simultaneously and spontaneously and effortlessly. This is what we call integration. It starts with Semde/essence Mahamudra and for a rainbow body can be deveolped in Longde or the more comprehensive Mengagde. The worldly dimension becomes second nature while the rigpa of primordial state stays king. Like a baby who at first has to think about walking but when he grows up he just walks. A perfect rigzin is in dharmakaya mainly and his being here is like you walking when you don't even think about how to walk as it unfolds naturally. Multiple levels again with ease.

Finally I generalized somewhat as I kept out a couple of aspects as mentioned initially to keep things simple. I hope I understood your points/questions correctly and don't take anything I said seriously as it is all probably wrong.
All the best.

[kalden yungdrung]

Hi KY,
Just had to eat. Before starting I like to say I hope I understood you well. It is best to write simple and short sentences so we don't misunderstand each other. Also there are two other aspects which I will not bring into discussion as it might complicate things.

KY wrote:
Yes i can follow that when someone becomes a Buddha, i for instance, do not become/"have" that State. But what happenes when one is in that State according Dzogchen? There is no dualism possible.....

Username wrote:
So I assume here you are mainly concerned with the practitioner, someone like yourself, not deities or very high bhumi beings. I hope I understand what you mean by this part.
KY
Yes I see here the practitioner like you and me who does realise something and is not attaining something.

But username tell me please which of the 2 positions do you adhere , one , both or no and why?
So we are going slowly off the topic and that is not a good case. It is not the meaning to go in details too much about other related topics.

Best wishes
KY


Username wrote:
Also I am trying to answer for you mainly from what I have read of you in the past. So this answer is mainly for you not generally. There is no dualism.
KY
There is dualism for the Mind of ego or the ignorant ego


Username wrote:
Dualism only appears in our karmic vision as a false illusion arising from circumstances in the limited dimension of time and space and causalities. A good understanding of rolpa clears this but lets keep it simple. Take a cup, if you can only look at it from the top or bottom then it seems completely different if we didn't know it.
KY:
In our karmic vision illusion seems to be real. One makes real what is not and what is real one makes illusion of that.
All we do with the mind of karma is reasoned (thoughts) by the dualistic mind according Dzogchen and represents dualism or illusions. This is a normal happening in our daily life, based on thoughts etc. It is good to have + thoughts. Further the misconception in dualism would be that the objects are outside and there is the watcher or the subject.


Username wrote:
So the dualism we are trapped in and which is all we know as ignorants is not the true full reality. There is no duality.
KY:
There is duality in the mind of karma and that mind call some the ignorant ego.

Username wrote:
Ultimately one has to realize the levels of dbang, rolpa and tsal for this but to start off I think it is best if you first ask your teacher for a description of lhundrub suited to your thinking. He knows you better and probably knows what triggers work better on you.
KY:
There are first the general Dzogchen teachings devided for me in:
Kordo Rushen with the sem dzins / Trekchod and Thodgal where is explained:
Emptiness according Dzogchen view, Tsal, Gzhi, Lamps, lights and sounds with all kind of examples and methods like Tsalung Trulkor, special Dzogchen Yoga etc.
Also a good way of practice is according Longde / Semsde and Mengagde

Username wrote:
Basically if one manages to be in rigpa (special knowing) of dharmakaya fully and totally, then one realizes our limited dimension is a projection on various levels and at the base true primordial level it is not in essence existent.
KY:
To be in the NS is not to be aware of realising limited things. There are no limits etc in this state.
Limited things are based on dualisms and in the NS does not exist dualisms

Username wrote:
At the gross level, it is just an ornament, like a little foam on top of a vast deep ocean but really that is not quite correct either, it is just how it appears. It is a limited clarity-only aspect of it. Like sun rays in the sky which do not alter the space. Your body takes up some space in your room but your room also takes up the whole of that space (including your body's space) in the house. So they are different levels but subsets of each other. Your body's space is a subset of the room space.
KY:
Regarding space and space there is no difference. When I break down a house then the inner space of the house is equal to the outer space. What will be different is that Rigpa has more for us namely:
Clearness, Lights, sounds, radiance and Tsal. So basic is here the emptiness which counts for both entities. And out of this emptiness / empty state is all/ everything is emerging like thoughts, good and bad etc.


Username wrote:
Different levels and different points of views but the same space. In the same way the tri-kayas are non-dual too. Just appear different from different eyes of different types of beings. Those infinite karmic visions do not change the tri-kayas ultimate true state. When you are in the state, fully, then that is realized.
KY:
When in the NS one does realises first there is no dualism you “know” this by the Yeshe which is self emergent. We own also the 3 Kayas at the moment and by one kaya one can get enlightened.

KY wrote:
So here we deal with a temporal self with thoughts or not.

Username wrote:
Again at the gross level a self appears but it is not there. It has no border if you put it under a microscope, empty space inside atoms and particles too, within time which is relative and fake and even space which is slightly more valid is ultimately false too. Plus all the other deconstructions that Nagarjuna and others make.
KY:
In so far a self based on misconception is a body which is illusion, temporal, dualistic, composed, is born and dies. The mind is misunderstood and there is the creation of ego which is ignorant about the Sugatagarbha. So the body of illusion is there we have it and that is the working base to get enlightened. So the illusionary body is a very precious case, isn’t it?

Username wrote:
There really is nothing there as a separate self or object or even time or even space and as you go into higher levels this becomes more and more true. There is the ultimate truth, not the subjective flasehoods of many within illusory fake dimensions. Also see my last paragraph below.
KY:
There is a separate self or ego which is there for some since an endless time. This is already for some a frozen reality. We mostly deal here with this mentality when we are busy in Dharma with helping. This is the working base, this temporal illusionary body with its happiness and suffering

KY wrote:
There is also something as a State without thoughts and this is Rigpa and here is no concept of a self , in my opinion

Username wrote:
Not necessarily, you could be in an empty state of being without clarity. This is the main fault with Chaan/Zen and certain Tibetan practitioners who died but not really and were in a frozen state for many years or decades. There is a procedure for bringing them back to life briefly and do a phowa. Some formless beings also stay like that for eons, arahats is a slighlty different case. So not all thoughtlessness is rigpa. Not to mention hedewa. Rigpa is actually the wrong word on its own and a more correct phrase should be rigpa of kadak and lhundrub non-dual.
KY:
Rigpa does encompass also the thoughts. Rigpa does encompass everything. A state without thoughts not based on clearity and emptiness is not good whereas one calls this Zen or not.
Further do thoughts not obstruct a Dzogchenpa when he is in the NS. But if the Zen meditation would be a blank state like discussed in the Samye debate, I do not know because I am not a Zen follower.

Forgot to mention that Rigpa covers all in this case also the mind of illusion, but latter mentioned cannot be aware of that State (NS), that is called Ma Rigpa when i understood it well.

Username wrote:
Yes the second part is true but when you are in perfect rigpa of kadak/lhundrub, then you effortlessly span the lower gross dimensions (our world as it appears to most) simultaneously and spontaneously and effortlessly. This is what we call integration.
It starts with Semde/essence Mahamudra and for a rainbow body can be deveolped in Longde or the more comprehensive Mengagde. The worldly dimension becomes second nature while the rigpa of primordial state stays king. Like a baby who at first has to think about walking but when he grows up he just walks.
KY:
The second part is true so what is the first part and why seems this not to be true?
It starts with the emptiness aspect in Trekchod and is sublimated in Thodgal by the lamps where there is Yermed of emptiness and clearity. This is according my practice. The worldly dimensions come, stay and dissolve in the Nature like they always do. Everything is arising, staying for a while and goes back to the Nature. So everything is encompassed by Rigpa = Nature

[username]

Hi KY,
I am busy for quite some time but later today I will reply in 3 major aspects to your post.
Meanwhile have a good day.

[Paul]

Tashi delek,

Some great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the point of view that:

- The egoless Mind has an identity.
The Dalai Lama does fully agree to this point of view.

- Other great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the position that the Rigpa does not have a concept of self.

What do you think?


Best wishes
KY

Here is a teaching from Tsoknyi Rinpoche on the matter:

http://www.pundarika.org/news/?p=1429#more-1429
http://www.pundarika.org/news/?p=1431#more-1431

This explains that there is more than one thing that can be thought of as a 'self', and it only the refied forms of self that are problematic. In Rigpa, there is only the mere experience of experience, but with marigpa this continual display of experience is attributed to a self. This is not possible in rigpa, since rigpa is the wisdom that realises egolessness - but there is still a coherent flow of experience.

[kalden yungdrung]

Hayagriva wrote:
This explains that there is more than one thing that can be thought of as a 'self', and it only the refied forms of self that are problematic. In Rigpa, there is only the mere experience of experience, but with marigpa this continual display of experience is attributed to a self. This is not possible in rigpa, since rigpa is the wisdom that realises egolessness - but there is still a coherent flow of experience.

Tashi delek,

Thanks for your replies and usefull links.

In case you did understood your reply, for what position (see top of the page) would you chose, one, two (both) or none?
Maybe you could give your motivation, why you did chose for that specific answer....

So to come here with quotes that is wonderfull but the personal view / statement, is also very important.


Mutsog Marro
KY

[Paul]

Hayagriva wrote:
This explains that there is more than one thing that can be thought of as a 'self', and it only the refied forms of self that are problematic. In Rigpa, there is only the mere experience of experience, but with marigpa this continual display of experience is attributed to a self. This is not possible in rigpa, since rigpa is the wisdom that realises egolessness - but there is still a coherent flow of experience.

Tashi delek,

Thansk for your replies and usefull links.

In case you did understood your reply, for what position (see top of the page) would you chose, one, two (both) or none?
Maybe you could give your motivation, why you did chose for that specific answer....

So to come here with quotes that is wonderfull but the personal view / statement, is also very important.


Mutsog Marro
KY

I would say that the two positions are the two sides of the same coin, so both are good explanations that compliment one another, especially if a person has a tendency to cling a bit to either clarity or emptiness

One is not more true than the other, but I suppose they're the unity of the two truths or emptiness and clarity etc.