No-self and Rigpa

[Jax]

How does the quote from the Buddha below relate to Dzogchen and Rigpa?

Dukkham eva hi, na koci dukkhito,
kaarako na, kiriyaa va vijjati,
atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa,
maggam atthi, gamako na vijjati

Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.

- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90

[Mariusz]

Perhaps it is from the Buddhist Vaibhashika school which asserts partless particles, which are truly existent and permanent (rtag dngos), so ultimately there is no the "owner" who suffers and so on.

How does the quote from the Buddha below relate to Dzogchen and Rigpa?

Dukkham eva hi, na koci dukkhito,
kaarako na, kiriyaa va vijjati,
atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa,
maggam atthi, gamako na vijjati

Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.

- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90

[Sally Gross]

How does the quote from the Buddha below relate to Dzogchen and Rigpa?

Dukkham eva hi, na koci dukkhito,
kaarako na, kiriyaa va vijjati,
atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa,
maggam atthi, gamako na vijjati

Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.

- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90

The source of the quote is Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, a standard Theravadin work. Although Buddhaghosa seems to be quoting an extant trandition, I'm not sure that the source has been identified. It is a saying I like and which I've used in signatures for years, long before I took up Dzogchen practice, a very recent development. In Dharma, my background is Theravadin. When I joined this forum, I ported the saying over from earlier signatures, and since I have become active in the Dzogchen Sub-Forum, the quotation is there as well.

As to whether and how the quote relates to Dzogchen and Rikpa, you are likely to have had a connection with Dzogchen and Rikpa for longer than I have and are probably in a better position to judge whether there is a connection and, if so, what it is. What I can say at best is that, to use a Quaker term of art, the quotation has long spoken to my condition.

I hope that this rather idiosyncratic explanation is helpful.

Best wishes

Sally

[heart]

How does the quote from the Buddha below relate to Dzogchen and Rigpa?

Dukkham eva hi, na koci dukkhito,
kaarako na, kiriyaa va vijjati,
atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa,
maggam atthi, gamako na vijjati

Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.

- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90

It is in perfect harmony with Dzogchen. In rigpa there is certainly no doer, or sufferer, nor anyone attaining anything.

/magnus

[xabir]

Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness

Padmasambhava:

"Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present."

"The mind is just that which is thinking:
And yet, although you have searched (for the thinker), how can you say that you do not find him?
With respect to this, nowhere does there exist the one who is the cause of (mental) activity.
And yet, since activity exists, how can you say that such activity does not arise?"

"And with regard to this, the observer and the process of observing are not two different things.
When you look and observe, seeking the one who is looking and observing,
since you search for this observer and do not find him,
At that time your view is exhausted and overthrown.
Thus, even though it is the end of your view, this is the beginning with respect to yourself."

"When you look for the meditator who is meditating or not meditating,
since you have searched for this meditator and have not found him anywhere,
at that time your meditation is exhausted and overthrown.
Thus, even though it is the end of your meditation, this is the beginning with respect to yourself."

etc etc

[asunthatneversets]

I enjoy this one; Xabir turned me onto it actually ^^^

The Buddha speaking to Bahiya, after Bahiya had insisted multiple times that he expound his quintessential view:

In the seen, there is only the seen,
In the heard, there is only the heard,
In the sensed, there is only the sensed,
In the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here(subject);
This Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
In the seen, only the seen,
In the heard, only the heard,
In the sensed, only the sensed,
In the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there(object),
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that you are therefore
located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.

[bjf77]

Perhaps, the mirror? The difference between the mind and the nature of mind.

[Jax]

I agree with all the posts. These quotes from Karma Lingpa, the Bahiya story and the thread topic are wonderful pointers especially when the mind gets caught up in notions of "levels of attainment" and "someone" who could attain them. It is that same non-findable someone that seeks blessings, accumulations of virtue and methods of practice. All this is Known in one flash of self-arising Rigpa, a Knowing that is Known by no one. In such a case who is there who could become "enlightened"? How amazing! It is not that there is someone who has experiences, but rather that "someone" is itself just an experience Known by no one! Ah La La Ho!

[Dronma]

The Duality is manifesting externally as the separation of the self and the other.
The Duality is manifesting internally as the separation of the self and own's action.
When both separations cease, the separation between internal and external disappears.

PS. I do not agree with the negation of "no one", since any negation encloses the analogous affirmation of "someone".
Let's go beyond any negation and affirmation...

[asunthatneversets]

The Duality is manifesting externally as the separation of the self and the other.
The Duality is manifesting internally as the separation of the self and own's action.
When both separations cease, the separation between internal and external disappears.

PS. I do not agree with the negation of "no one", since any negation encloses the analogous affirmation of "someone".
Let's go beyond any negation and affirmation...

Though "no one" is an affirming negation, to reject this convention based on the inescapable fact that it naturally suggests(and creates) it's opposite counterpart is no different than accepting it. The negation of (and desire to go beyond) acceptance and rejection is itself a subtle rebirth of the acceptance and rejection dichotomy. Rejecting the convention and accepting what is postited to be other-than-conventional(which is itself a convention). The "going beyond" is contained within the seeming duality of acceptance and rejection itself, for the duality is an illusion. There is nothing to accept or reject, and that includes the act of acceptance and/or rejection itself (and also the futile desire to go beyond them).

The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection, attachment and aversion, are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional concept of "no-self" as long as it's understood to be just that. The very self it(concept of no-self) negates arises from (and is sustained by) the very act of accepting/rejecting which is perpetually reborn as long as experience is dominated and swept away by the plague of delusion the initial(no-self) concept attempts to reveal. So you're right to be weary of this notion, however while you're correct in stating that only the "self" would dualistically accept/reject the self/no-self, it must also be taken into account that likewise only the "self" would accept/reject the acceptance/rejection of the self/no-self. It becomes an inescapable downward spiral(hence the endless cycle of samsara, the shoreless ocean of suffering). This is why skillful means and right view are so imperative. The more one struggles to escape, the tighter samsara's noose becomes around ones throat. But at the same time utter non-action is the same death sentence. There's no going beyond acceptance and rejection, it was empty from the start, the unestablished cannot go beyond that which is likewise primordially unestablished. There was never two to begin with.

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found. - Nagarjuna

[alpha]

Can someone say what does it mean when rinpoche says that only resting in rigpa will not bring much progress?

[Dronma]

The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection, attachment and aversion, are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional concept of "no-self" as long as it's understood to be just that. The very self it(concept of no-self) negates arises from (and is sustained by) the very act of accepting/rejecting which is perpetually reborn as long as experience is dominated and swept away by the plague of delusion the initial(no-self) concept attempts to reveal. So you're right to be weary of this notion, however while you're correct in stating that only the "self" would dualistically accept/reject the self/no-self, it must also be taken into account that likewise only the "self" would accept/reject the acceptance/rejection of the self/no-self. It becomes an inescapable downward spiral(hence the endless cycle of samsara, the shoreless ocean of suffering). This is why skillful means and right view are so imperative. The more one struggles to escape, the tighter samsara's noose becomes around ones throat. But at the same time utter non-action is the same death sentence. There's no going beyond acceptance and rejection, it was empty from the start, the unestablished cannot go beyond that which is likewise primordially unestablished. There was never two to begin with.

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found. - Nagarjuna

Well said!
However I was talking about the linguistic expression, and not about the essential meaning which is beyond words anyway.
Even the terms "emptiness" or "voidness" are not really accurate for expressing śūnyatā or stong-pa nyid.
I feel that they are incomplete and maybe misleading.
Although in between "emptiness" and "voidness", I prefer the latter.
I have the same doubt with the Greek versions of those 2 words. They are not accurate either.

[Jax]

Alpha, "resting in/as Rigpa" is the fruit inwhich we continue. Further progress is meaningless as the Awareness State of the Dharmakaya is our Ground of Being. However, simply resting in a state of mental clarity is not Rigpa, as there is still notion of their being a "someone" who is resting. Did Norbu really say what you quoted? It makes no sense to me. Sometimes he speaks of the need to "integrate" with various experiences after recognition. But even then, when one is as Rigpa, everything is Known to already be fully integrated from the very beginning. There is only one level of without the least trace of "progression". Your impersonal cognitive Self- Knowing that is fully present while reading these words, is exactly that which knows no progress or regression.

[Malcolm]

The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection, attachment and aversion, are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional concept of "no-self" as long as it's understood to be just that. The very self it(concept of no-self) negates arises from (and is sustained by) the very act of accepting/rejecting which is perpetually reborn as long as experience is dominated and swept away by the plague of delusion the initial(no-self) concept attempts to reveal. So you're right to be weary of this notion, however while you're correct in stating that only the "self" would dualistically accept/reject the self/no-self, it must also be taken into account that likewise only the "self" would accept/reject the acceptance/rejection of the self/no-self. It becomes an inescapable downward spiral(hence the endless cycle of samsara, the shoreless ocean of suffering). This is why skillful means and right view are so imperative. The more one struggles to escape, the tighter samsara's noose becomes around ones throat. But at the same time utter non-action is the same death sentence. There's no going beyond acceptance and rejection, it was empty from the start, the unestablished cannot go beyond that which is likewise primordially unestablished. There was never two to begin with.

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found. - Nagarjuna

Well said!
However I was talking about the linguistic expression, and not about the essential meaning which is beyond words anyway.
Even the terms "emptiness" or "voidness" are not really accurate for expressing śūnyatā or stong-pa nyid.
I feel that they are incomplete and maybe misleading.
Although in between "emptiness" and "voidness", I prefer the latter.
I have the same doubt with the Greek versions of those 2 words. They are not accurate either.

śūnyatā is a term in Indian mathematics which means 0.

N

[Dronma]

Can someone say what does it mean when rinpoche says that only resting in rigpa will not bring much progress?

Probably, you mean what Rinpoche said during the last retreat. At least, it was during that retreat that I understood what he was talking about...
Well, he said that Rigpa is not itself the Primordial State. Rigpa is the instant presence through which we discover our real nature = Primordial State = Ultimate Bodhicitta.

[Dronma]

śūnyatā is a term in Indian mathematics which means 0.

N

Sure, there is no doubt about that. But zero can manifest only zero, according to mathematics.
So, "this" which is manifesting everything and it is full of potentialities cannot be zero!

[Malcolm]

śūnyatā is a term in Indian mathematics which means 0.

N

Sure, there is no doubt about that. But zero can manifest only zero, according to mathematics.
So, "this" which is manifesting everything and it is full of potentialities cannot be zero!

Yes, actually it can.

[Dronma]

śūnyatā is a term in Indian mathematics which means 0.

N

Sure, there is no doubt about that. But zero can manifest only zero, according to mathematics.
So, "this" which is manifesting everything and it is full of potentialities cannot be zero!

Yes, actually it can.

How can nothing manifest something?

[Malcolm]

How can nothing manifest something?

It doesn't. The Dzogchen view is that everything is completely equivalent with an illusion.

"“Hey, hey, apparent yet non existent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, discriminating knowledge does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”
-- The Unwritten Tantra

[gad rgyangs]

something exists, or we would't be having this conversation.