Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

[alwayson]

recognizing rigpa and realizing emptiness are different.

N

What is the difference?

[Malcolm]

recognizing rigpa and realizing emptiness are different.

N

What is the difference?

The first means you are a practitioner; the second means you are an awakened person.

[alwayson]

Recognizing Rigpa is not awakening then?

[sangyey]

Is it that you use rigpa to view emptiness which brings Buddhahood faster than if using gross mind to view emptiness?

[kalden yungdrung]

recognizing rigpa and realizing emptiness are different.

N

What is the difference?

Tashi delek,

- Could to be in the Natural State the same as "recognizing" Rigpa ?
- Realizing emptiness is that a state which already done in the Trekchod ?

Best wishes

Mutsog Marro
KY

[kalden yungdrung]

Is it that you use rigpa to view emptiness which brings Buddhahood faster than if using gross mind to view emptiness?

Tashi delek,

Thought that Rigpa / Natural State, is already a State of Awareness where the emptiness aspect Tong Cha is inseparable connected to the Clearness aspect.

The pratcice of Dzogchen is i.m.o. the fastest way to reach enlightenment or Rainbow Body.

A Gross mind which views emptiness does that mostly in an eventual nhilistic view etc. and cannot approche emptiness like teached.


Best wishes

Mutsog Marro
KY

[xabir]

No, the reason is that one does not need to realize emptiness in order to properly practice tregchö, emptiness may remain an inference. But one must have experience of this unconditioned clarity in order to practice tregchö. Eventually, if you practice tregchö long enough you will realize emptiness because that insight will automatically arise within your meditation, and this is predicated on understanding the view of original purity .

N

- http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 7&start=20

Having the experience of this unconditioned clarity is the 'recognition of rigpa' as I understand it, as distinct from the realization of emptiness.

[alwayson]

Then emptiness must be the insight into appearances.

That would make sense that it is sort of separate.

[Malcolm]

Then emptiness must be the insight into appearances.

That would make sense that it is sort of separate.

Yes, appearances as defined by all of one's experience.

[alwayson]

You mean even the physical?

Usually appearances just refers to the designation of conceptual constructs

[Malcolm]

You mean even the physical?

Usually appearances just refers to the designation of conceptual constructs

Appearances are both conceptual and non-conceptual.

N

[alwayson]

Then are there two levels of realizing emptiness?

One for conceptual appearances?

And one for actual physical matter?

[Malcolm]

Then are there two levels of realizing emptiness?

One for conceptual appearances?

And one for actual physical matter?

There are two levels of realizing emptiness, the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena (that includes all material and mental phenomena).

[White Lotus]

emptinerss is the foundation of all things, however awareness is the point within the circle. it is not empty, it resides within emptiness. rigpa (from my shallow understanding) is awareness of your natural state and is actually energy. so... emptiness, awarness (clarity) and energy. no need to see emptiness.

i would disappoint you if i told you to take refuge in emptiness alone, emptiness is the foundation (Dharmakaya), but one also needs to become aware of awareness (so easy - nirmanokaya) and of energy (sambogkaya/bliss body). my superficial understanding of rigpa is that it is your natural state and is the radiating energy body.

i had to actually stop practicing contemplation on my natural state the other day because the energy of presence just got too intense. that appears to have been an early experience.

inspite of all this... does rigpa require anything other than resting in your natural state. no, and yet it produces much fruit. i would suggest that you cannot attain rigpa as a ''realization'' unless you get empowerments from beings such as Padmasambhava or Siddharta Buddha. which is easy... just ask for them.

best wishes, Tom.

[Malcolm]

...however awareness is the point within the circle. it is not empty, it resides within emptiness.

rigpa is also empty.

[Malcolm]

no need to see emptiness.

You are just deluding yourself further.

You should actually study Dzogchen, learn from qualified masters for some number of years and practice it rather than belaboring others with poorly digested intellectual snippets from a febrile imagination.

In other words, you should be asking questions, not providing answers.

N

[xabir]

emptinerss is the foundation of all things, however awareness is the point within the circle. it is not empty, it resides within emptiness.

rigpa too is empty of any inherent existence.

Also I think you have to be careful what you mean by 'foundation of all things'.

Greg Goode:

Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

....

Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18.

Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essence. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty.

It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

• Emptiness is not a substance
• Emptiness is not a substratum or background
• Emptiness is not light
• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
• Emptiness is not the Absolute
• Emptiness does not exist on its own
• Objects do not consist of emptiness
• Objects do not arise from emptiness
• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

Source: Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

[alwayson]

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Namdrol,

Is this a good link or is it garbage?

[Malcolm]

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Namdrol,

Is this a good link or is it garbage?

Better to rely on traditional sources.

[alwayson]

Namdrol,

My understanding from your previous comments going back many years, is that you realize material emptiness on the third vision.

But this guy named "Thusness" has dedicated followers who claim he has already realized material emptiness:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ience.html


For a couple of years now, I tried to repeatedley explain to them that material emptiness is a very high realization......but cult mentality overran reason.


So is it possible for this typical New Age style pseudoBuddhist guru, "Thusness," to have realized material emptiness (aka third vision / eighth bhumi) and is on the way to rainbow body?