rigpa != presence ?

Discussion of the fifth religious tradition of Tibet.

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

rigpa != presence ?

Postby arsent » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:54 pm

Whant to share and discuss few some interesting thoughts about recognition of rigpa from Jean Luc Achard - translator of the Bon texts and teachings:

Hi Jean Luc, in every text to talk about rigpa, there is the presence .There's the presence in "present time" (not to think about the future or past). The presence it is "transformed" automatically into rigpa? In Other words, if we must maintain the presence to be in rigpa? I've heard that we have many type of rigpa. It's true? Can you tell me more about this? Why we have many type of rigpa?
It's a subject that we've been discussing quite a lot in other Yahoo lists. I personally think that "Presence" is the worst word ever to use in order to translate Rigpa. Presence is a sensation, so it belongs to the aggregate of sensations. It, of course, involves consciousnesses (both sensory and mental) and that's precisely where the problem lies. Rigpa is beyond sensations and consciousnesses. It does not depend on these. It is the knowledge of the natural state. What does that mean really ? It means that the Natural State has two qualities : Emptiness and Clarity. Emptiness means absence of inherent existence and Clarity means that this state is self‐discerning ("it knows itself by itself", as Lopon often puts it). In other words, the Clarity of the natural state corresponds to what Rigpa is. This Rigpa is that through which one knows the natural state (when being introduced to it by the master) and that through which our natural state knows itself (just like a lamp illuminates both itself and what is around). And how does it knows itself since it's not a mental consciousness? It precisely discerns (rig) itself from the ordinary mind (sems), from consciousness (rnam‐shes), intellect (blo), intelligence (blo gros), mental (yid), etc. So when you are in the state of Rigpa, you clearly discerns (rig) what pertains to Mind (sems‐nyid, the ultimate nature of Mind) from what pertains to ordinary, conditioned mind (sems). In Thogel context, Rigpa corresponds to the fourth Lamp — the Lamp of the Self‐Arisen Sublime Knowledge (shes‐rab rang‐byung gi sgron ma) — which is, precisely, the Sublime (rab) Knowledge (shes) corresponding to the state of Trekchö. In all of this, there is a very active and dynamic aspect of total Discernment (rig‐pa) or real Knowledge (shes rab) of the natural state, not a mere state of sensing a presence (of what by the way?).
The use of Presence apparently came up about 15 years ago (in printed material, it must have been there orally sometime before, I actually don't know) in the context of the Dzogchen Community from some "translator" (known for indulging quite a lot in the use of smoking illegal substances and in mixing the teachings with other non‐Buddhist/Bon traditions) who put this essentially "New Age" concept into the brain of the masters. The success of the word is actually tragic: people identify inner sensations of quietness and pervasiveness as a state of Presence which they think is Rigpa. This is really far from what Rigpa is.
There exists 15 forms or modalities of Rigpa (which we may discuss in another post, right now I lack time to enter details), but basically when explaining what it is in Bon, we use mainly these three modalities :
1. Khyab‐rig (All‐Pervasive Discernment) which is the same as the Sugatagarbha, the potential for Buddhahood (it is nothing else, just this potential). What it pervades is the heart of all beings; in other words, all beings have this Pervasive Discernment which embraces each being endowed with a mind;
2. bSam‐rig (Knowing Discernment) which is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you Knowing Discernment is developed);
3. Ye‐rig (Primordial Discernment) which is, precisely, the Rigpa that is referred to in Dzogchen texts. There exists three modalities indicating whether or not you are in this state : an outer one, an inner one and an intermediate one. According to the outer one, you know (you realize, you discern) that the outer manifestations are really non‐substantial (you realize their absence of tangible reality). According to the inner one, you are in the experience of Mind itself (sems‐nyid) and you realize it as being devoid of self (bdag‐med). In other words, you discerns your real nature as being empty of a conditioned self. Then according to the intermediate one, all discursive thoughts arise as Wisdoms. It does not mean that thoughts disappear; on the contrary they continue to arise but they are left as they are and we do not follow after them. At that time they simply arise but are seen as empty. Still their potential for arising is there and since it is not tainted by ego‐grasping, then this potential manifests its enlightened side which is that of Wisdoms. In other words, thoughts arise as Wisdoms. They are exactly the same as before, exactly and precisely the same as before, with the cosmic exception that there is no grasping at them anymore.
All this comes from the teachings of Shardza Rinpoche and the oral instructions associated with the Trekchö section of the Kuzang Nyingthik.

What are the correct ways to do Semdzin correctly?
The best way is to perform them during a specific retreat. In this manner, distractions are less likely to disrupt the flow of concentration. The idea is really to focus (concentrate, hold, master, the verb is 'dzin pa in Tibetan) the mind so that its ordinary flow of discursiveness is severed.

What are the errors commons of Semdzin but also Trekchö?
Well there are not specific errors in the practice of Semdzins. Applying the precepts in a wrong way by not understanding how to perform a Semdzin might certainly be an error. In my opinion, the main mistake that people do is to stop the practice before obtaining proper signs. This is the mistake nearly everyone does. For this reason, performing the Semdzins in retreat is important (you take a vow when you start a retreat, not to stop before such and such a date and if the date leaves you a sufficient or reasonable time to reach signs, then it's perfect).
For Trekchö, the mistake is certainly to try to integrate the experience in daily life right from the beginning.

How ever many Westerners fail to enter the rigpa? What's wrong on they?
Well I don't know if they fail, it's actually pretty easy to enter the experience of Rigpa but more difficult to cultivate it without artifice, outside of a retreat context. Most of the westerners I know do not do any retreat. They go to teachings when a lama is there and they call it a retreat. This is not like this that things have to be done. In particular with Dzogchen teachings. I've received a lot of teachings in Tibet and none of the masters ever said a word about integration into daily working life. This is something that a few Tibetan masters have made for the West. Traditionally, when you receive a Dzogchen teaching, you then go into retreat and generate some experience. This takes months at best. Then you come back to the master and relate your experience. Then you get further details on more advanced practice, etc., and you go to another retreat. So not doing any "real" retreat is probably a drawback that affects most people. For instance, the retreat of Trekchö in the Kunzang Nyinghtik (it's the same for those who follow the Yeshe Lama for instance) does not last less than 18 continuous months in a traditional context.
Another point that is related is misunderstanding some key point in Trekchö. For instance, all our masters repeat that once you have entered the state of Trekchö, then you must not do anything. And you consequently have people not doing anything for years! They just remain like that, glued in a state of total blankness, using vague words like "presence" to describe the actual fogginess of their experience. Actually, what texts say is that you don't do anything at first, not continually. "At first' means that it's simply the threshold of Trekchö practice. What you actually have to do is once you don't doubt anymore regarding the actual "flavour" of this state, then you have to cultivate it with artifice during specific sessions (that's the purpose of the 18 months mentioned above) after which you are quasi‐certain to reach a non‐regressive stability in this state. Most of the time, this stability is reached quite earlier during the retreat. It's actually easier to succeed in this during a retreat than during the daily working life when you have all the distractions of your ordinary social life. So during the retreat, at a certain stage, you train in integration. There are four things to integrate : 1. the activities of the 3 doors, 2. the activities of the six associations of consciousnesses, 3. specific intellectual activities of the mind, and 4. the variety of circumstances that life puts on your path. So the "doing nothing" is really something for beginners in Trekchö. Most people I know mistake it for the real practice. That's the worst mistake to make because one is never going to make any progress if one goes on like this.

Can you explain the 4 things to integrate in detail?
These techniques come in the teachings of the Conduct (spyod‐pa) in Trekchö context. The fact that it is a Conduct and not a behaviour, is demonstrated by the way the practice is actually done. It definitely has an ethical and religious approach to it. First you do a complete session of the preliminaries starting with the first and second of the three Excellences (which means it’s clearly in an ethical and religious
context; the 1st excellence is the development of Bodhicitta and the second the state of Emptiness or state of Guru‐Yoga, the third is the dedication which comes at the end of the practice). Then, remaining in the state of the Guru‐Yoga, you do your standard sky gazing practice of Trekchö. Then comes integration.
It is a little too long to enter the details of the actual practice, but I will give it a try with a very general presentation. The aim of the first practice of integration is to integrate to our virtuous Conduct (dge spyod, explicitly designated like this in the text) all the pure and impure activities of the three doors. Basically this means that one enters a state of equipoise (lit. “access to equality”, mnyam‐bzhag, which means accessing the condition of equality of the natural state) and then one has to mix it with the state of subsequent attainment (rjes thob, the post‐meditation period). So for instance, in order to integrate the activities of the body, you are going to try to remain in the experience of the natural state, quit your posture and perform circumambulations, prostrations, yantras, etc. This is the integration of the pure activities of the body. Then you got the neutral activities such as walking, sitting, eating, etc., including preparing your food. Then you train in the impure activities of the body, like raising wrath and becoming berserk, delighting in distractions (trying to raise distractions intentionally to see if your experience of the state is affected or not by it), etc.
In other words, you “test” your capacity to remain in the natural state in any condition.
You do the same with the pure, neutral and impure activities of the speech and the mind.
Then you train with the six associations of consciousnesses (outer objects + intermediate sense organ + inner sense consciousness).
Then you go on with the hordes of various conceptions that arise in the continuum on a more or less continuous basis.
Then, with the integration of the “multiple” (sna‐tshogs), namely the variety of circumstances that are likely to arise, you have three Conducts : 1. a secret Conduct for practitioners of lower capacities, 2. an ascetic secret Conduct for those of medium capacities, and 3. the impartial Conduct of the Perfect Victorious Ones for highly advanced practitioners.
All the instructions are taught when you reach chapter VI of the Chaktri in the Zhangzhung Nyengyü training.

So which translation for rigpa do you like?
Well, so far in English I haven't found anything I’m really crazy about. In the English translations i do i use Awareness because it's practically impossible to change the usage now. But, as we've discussed elsewhere, etymologically (the high‐German gewhar from which Awareness is derived) does not really fit with the context. In French I use another word. I use "Discernment" because it fits with the simplest definition of Rigpa found in the ZZNG where it is said that Rigpa discerns (rig) or distinguishes (phyed)
the pure (dag = Mind, the nature of mind) from the impure (ma‐dag = mind, the conditioned mind). In this discerning aspect (rig‐cha), there is no duality, simply the ever‐pure, lucid, vivid and fresh knowledge of the natural state. In such a state, the arising of thoughts is not a problem at all, on the contrary they may be more than welcome, especially for investigating the meaning of the teachings, spreading them, etc.

I always thought it's better not to translate rigpa, because this way there can't be as many concepts arising as to what it is.
In pure theory of translation (the famed Georges Mounin's theories), this is a mistake. When you don't have a word in the target language that fits with the original word in the source language, then the solution is to choose a word that comes the closest to the definition of the original word and then apply to it a semantic field that corresponds exactly to the original definition. That's what the Tibetans have done when they used "Rigpa" for the knowledge of the natural state. Rigpa/Discernment is the word/translation and "the knowledge of the natural state" is its definition. Then you have the semantic field with all that is related to the original word. The word you chose must also function in all the contexts that you see the original word in, in the original texts. Rigpa works also as a verb, so you have to be able to conjugate your choice. In an extreme sense, you can choose any word you like, provided it's close enough to the basic meaning of the original and you simply have to give it a special semantic field to work out fine. In standard Tibetan, Rigpa does not have the meaning it has in Dzogchen. This means that the Tibetans have rendered its semantic field "sensible" in order to encompass the meaning they wanted to give it in a Dzogchen context.

Yeah, for me I think the biggest obstacle can be confusing it for objectless shamatha. Is there any specific way in Bon for discerning the difference?
Well, in Dzogchen cycles such as the Chaktri, shamatha is used as a means to discover the nature of the mind, but in a special way. It is used in order to create a state in which the continuous identification with the inner discourse (which describes to itself what it is actually doing) has been severed or suspended, in order to enable the investigation of the nature of mind. The aim in shamatha is to induce a state of inner calm and peace in which thoughts are eventually discarded (in the 9th stage). In Rigpa, the presence or absence of thoughts is not a problem. If the Rigpai Tselwang has been given at the proper time and from a qualified master, then doubts regarding the nature of Rigpa should be easily cleared away. All that it takes then is time to intensify this experience, and then to stabilize it. That's the purpose of the Path.

When I try to suspend the continuum inner discourse, there is an empty state (it doesn't last for a long period) and a new inner discourse comes into my mind. I try to observe this new one and
there is another empty state. If I observe my present thoughts (observing, not judging) without going in the future or the past, and when my mind is empty, is a bad training for discovered the rigpa? Thanks
It does not really look like a bad training to me but you have a finer, better, easier method. In the ZZNG (but also in other Bon Dzogchen cycles), you first start by creating an inner condition of quietness and calm through fixation on a white A. This is the Shamatha aspect. With this practice, you create a kind of condition in which no thoughts are allowed to arise (it's actually easier than it looks and it just takes a little time to succeed). Of course, this does not last very long (at best a few minutes, really at best). Then, within that state, you allow a thought to arise or instead of allowing it, you just wait for a thought to arise spontaneously. As soon as it arises you look directly at it, which means you try to "turn" the mind back on itself, as if to see the thought arising. When you do this, you (the observer) and the thought (the observed) both vanish instantaneously (because they are the same thing) and you suddenly find yourself in a state of total, pure, limpid, vivid, fresh knowledge. It is a "knowledge" in the best sense of the word: it discerns (rig) itself and it also discerns the further thoughts and emotions that are likely to arise then (it's one of the reasons why "presence" is completely out of context in Dzogchen). What has happened is that you have shifted from a point of reference in which you were identified to the thoughts in a continuous ego‐grasping/dualistic mode, to a point of reference (it's actually not a point nor a reference but language limits the description...) which is the real nature of the mind. When doing so very carefully, you'll see that it's very, very, very easy to recognize this state. One sign that indicates a correct recognition is an indescribable "feeling" that one already knows that state. During the direct introduction, the master explains all this in more details and you get explanations on the real meaning of Emptiness and Clarity, but the actual procedure you have to follow after that is basically that described above.
I'm not breaking any seal of secrecy here, it's written in zillions of Dzogchen texts without any restriction to sincerely interested practitioners. There are also further aspects in the direct introduction that, this time, should be reserved for the occasion when the master gives it. In particular, in Thogel context, you have a set of 21 special introductions which are really important things. I'm not sure we can discuss these here. It's better if a master explains them to you when it's time for it.
User avatar
arsent
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:30 am

Good read thanks for posting!
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Sönam » Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:23 pm

This text of Jean-Luc has already been discussed, his position is quite "extrem" as is the personnage ... I already had a disussion with Jean-Luc and we defere strongly on the approach.

Just to understand that expressing his position that way : "The use of Presence apparently came up about 15 years ago (in printed material, it must have been there orally sometime before, I actually don't know) in the context of the Dzogchen Community from some "translator" (known for indulging quite a lot in the use of smoking illegal substances and in mixing the teachings with other non‐Buddhist/Bon traditions) who put this essentially "New Age" concept into the brain of the masters. " allows to understand who is this character. Not to forget that Namkhai Norbu itself has choose to translate rigpa by "presence".

Also I recognize that he has brought quite a lot in translating important texts (sometime with a much ecessive personnal view, creating new words ... fyi he translates dakini by "celestial ballerina"). So if ever they would be different school in Dzogchen (which is not the case), ChNN would be at one end, and JLA at the other end. For exemple, ChNN considere that except Gourou Yoga, all others practices are secondary practices used depending on circumstances and limitations, JLA consideres that the practitioner engaged in the Dzogchen path should follow a cursus with 9 types of retreats ... and so on.

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
Sönam
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby SayNoToJax » Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:26 pm

Instant of unfabricated presence is the basis of trekcho.

But rigpa=knowledge

In a Dzogchen context, knowledge of one's nature.
SayNoToJax
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:47 pm

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby arsent » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:52 pm

Thanks for your coments guys!
User avatar
arsent
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Jax » Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:43 pm

Sonam, regarding JL we concur completely. Thanks for posting the "other side". I have had many "heated" discussions with JL in the past for almost the exact same reasons. He said once to one my groups: "Dzogchen is not meant for people who live normal lives, work etc., it is meant only for those willing to be within a retreat setting..." What a joke!
Jax
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:13 am

Maybe he just meant that Dzogchen is for meant those who at least have the means to complete the Rushen practices, and that after the Rushens are completed correctly, no more retreat setting is necessary.

If one Receives the Direct Introduction, but isn't even sure if they 'got it', then how could they have Knowledge of the Natural State without the means to complete the Rushen practices?

Maybe some get it right away, but probably not very many.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:05 am

Sönam wrote:Not to forget that Namkhai Norbu itself has choose to translate rigpa by "presence".




ChNN sometimes translates it as instant presence, sometimes as knowledge. In fact, Vimalamitra defines fives kinds of vidyā.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby heart » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:30 am

Jax wrote:Sonam, regarding JL we concur completely. Thanks for posting the "other side". I have had many "heated" discussions with JL in the past for almost the exact same reasons. He said once to one my groups: "Dzogchen is not meant for people who live normal lives, work etc., it is meant only for those willing to be within a retreat setting..." What a joke!


This should be a wake up call for you Sönam :smile:

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 2935
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Sönam » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:08 am

heart wrote:
Jax wrote:Sonam, regarding JL we concur completely. Thanks for posting the "other side". I have had many "heated" discussions with JL in the past for almost the exact same reasons. He said once to one my groups: "Dzogchen is not meant for people who live normal lives, work etc., it is meant only for those willing to be within a retreat setting..." What a joke!


This should be a wake up call for you Sönam :smile:

/magnus


I know, many try to wake me up ... but I'm so obscure, too! :rolling:

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
Sönam
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Sönam » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:13 am

Namdrol wrote:
Sönam wrote:Not to forget that Namkhai Norbu itself has choose to translate rigpa by "presence".




ChNN sometimes translates it as instant presence, sometimes as knowledge. In fact, Vimalamitra defines fives kinds of vidyā.

N


Is there not a notion of knowledge in being present? ... instant presence is a knowledge, is'nt it?

But that becomes already too intellectual for me :thinking:

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
Sönam
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:28 am

Sönam wrote:
Is there not a notion of knowledge in being present? ... instant presence is a knowledge, is'nt it?



Yes, it is.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby dorje e gabbana » Thu May 24, 2012 9:06 pm

The use of Presence apparently came up about 15 years ago (in printed material, it must have been there orally sometime before, I actually don't know) in the context of the Dzogchen Community from some "translator" (known for indulging quite a lot in the use of smoking illegal substances and in mixing the teachings with other non‐Buddhist/Bon traditions) who put this essentially "New Age" concept into the brain of the masters. The success of the word is actually tragic: people identify inner sensations of quietness and pervasiveness as a state of Presence which they think is Rigpa. This is really far from what Rigpa is.


I totally agree with you. I personally know that translator very well and I confirm that in the early 80's there were many people who were seriously intoxicated most of time in Merigar-Italy......as in many other dharma centres around the world. CNNR himself was quite angry with his guys for that stuff....
I also agree with the conclusion about the tragic equation Rigpa= Presence and I take the chance to mention that

About 40 yrs ago (in the 70's) CNNR stated in a teaching in Sardinia (Italy) Locality Lucumoni, that according to Trek-chod view (he was referring to Longchen Nyingthig ) rigpa IS NOT Presence, but something beyond it, because Presence is still linked to a mind, a subtle mind that is not the base or nature of mind, neither rigpa. He clearly stated the presence is the first step to reach rigpa but is not rigpa.
I read it in the very rare trascription of that retreat and I was very surprised to apprehend it comparing it with his definition of Rigpa as "instant presence" he used from the 80's on.
In the 90's he often simplified the concept of Instant presence referring to rigpa and guru yoga to enter in the rigpa state as Presence. Then he said that presence could be considered rigpa in a further simplification.

CNNR got probably used to indicate rigpa as the state of presence after meeting the Gurdjef followers in Conway Comunity. They gave him their own centre recognizing him as the master they were looking for many yrs who was the natural link with the gurdjef simple teachings about presence, they were used to adopt in their studies. That is my thought because CNNR did not use the word presence as synonymous with rigpa before meeting the Conway's guys.
CNNR started to use very often the equation rigpa=presence, may be because he thought it was a more understandable definition for western disciples, even though in the 70's it was very clear about the fact that Rigpa is not Presence.

Coming back to the 3 rigpa, I'd like to observe that in the 21 seals Tenzin Wangyel teachings in Germany of 1992-93, Tenzin pointed out as bSam‐rig can be translated as consciousness-awarness, that through continuos practice can experience ye rig, the ultimate rigpa or naked rigpa. bSam‐rig would not only be "the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings " as indicated in the first post of this 3d, but the kind of provisional rigpa experienced by the practitioner during his path. The goal is to realize the final ye-rig as the fruit of trek chod and todgal practice, because real Rigpa (ye rig) is completely beyond any kinf of consciousness that is sitll a subtle form of mind and not the nature of mind.
This was the position of Tenzin Wangyel about the 3 rigpas in 1993 even though nowdays it seems he doesn't like to speak about this specific subject anymore becasue that teaching caused him many issues with his masters and Bonpo scholars.

So I would say we could translate Rigpa as "self awarness" instead of knowledge or instant presence. I think Lopon Tenzin Namdak uses this translation :smile:
dorje e gabbana
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:54 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 24, 2012 11:16 pm

Sönam wrote:Not to forget that Namkhai Norbu itself has choose to translate rigpa by "presence".
Sönam


Sonam: ChNN translates dran pa i.e. mindfulness as presence. rig pa is translated as instant presence.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 24, 2012 11:20 pm

CNNR got probably used to indicate rigpa as the state of presence after meeting the Gurdjef followers in Conway Comunity. They gave him their own centre recognizing him as the master they were looking for many yrs who was the natural link with the gurdjef simple teachings about presence, they were used to adopt in their studies. That is my thought because CNNR did not use the word presence as synonymous with rigpa before meeting the Conway's guys.

CNNR started to use very often the equation rigpa=presence, may be because he thought it was a more understandable definition for western disciples, even though in the 70's it was very clear about the fact that Rigpa is not Presence.


As I said, ChNN does not equate rigpa with presence. That is mindfulness.

He calls rigpa instant presence because in tregchö the essence is ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma i.e. a moment of unfabricated awareness. ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma is not mind, it is beyond mind, thoughts and concepts.

BTW, welcome back Dorje Pizza
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby dorje e gabbana » Thu May 24, 2012 11:47 pm

He calls rigpa instant presence because in tregchö the essence is ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma i.e. a moment of unfabricated awareness. ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma is not mind, it is beyond mind, thoughts and concepts.

Yes but as I explained in the 70's he pointed out that whatever kind of presence (instant presence or presence) was not rigpa. Than he changed as he changed many other things
Malcolm, how long have you been known CNNR? :smile:
In any case I am just dorje e gabbana and nobody else.
Last edited by dorje e gabbana on Fri May 25, 2012 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
dorje e gabbana
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:54 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Malcolm » Fri May 25, 2012 12:01 am

dorje e gabbana wrote:
He calls rigpa instant presence because in tregchö the essence is ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma i.e. a moment of unfabricated awareness. ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma is not mind, it is beyond mind, thoughts and concepts.

Yes but as I explained in the 70's he pointed out that whatever kind of presence (instant presence or presence) was not rigpa. Than he changed as he changed many other things
How long have you been known CNNR? :smile:
In any case I am just dorje e gabbana and nobody else.


Since 1992. Now, CHNN is very clear presence = mindfulness; instant presence = rigpa.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby dorje e gabbana » Fri May 25, 2012 12:12 am

Perfect. But I wasn't speaking about what he said from the 90's on. What you say , Malcolm, is very well known by everybody who followed CNNR throughout the years.

Instead I was speaking about what he tought in the 70's and I tried to figure out why he changed his definition of rigpa :reading:
dorje e gabbana
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:54 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby Malcolm » Fri May 25, 2012 12:21 am

dorje e gabbana wrote:Perfect. But I wasn't speaking about what he said from the 90's on. What you say , Malcolm, is very well known by everybody who followed CNNR throughout the years.

Instead I was speaking about what he tought in the 70's and I tried to figure out why he changed his definition of rigpa :reading:



I explained, it is the difference between dran shes and shes rig i.e. aware mindfulness and knowing awareness.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: rigpa != presence ?

Postby kalden yungdrung » Fri May 25, 2012 3:28 pm

Tashi delek,

Self-awareness that is the translation for Rang Rig and Rigpa with Awareness, maintained in Bon.

If that would be knowledge or George in another Tradition that could be but is here inside Bon not relevant.
We kept this translation , self- awareness, in Bon since a long time and the Bon Dzogchen Masters did not changed that at all.
There is untill now no reason to change that, even if the Master ChNN did do so, that is for Bonpos no reason to follow.

It is not up to us to condition the other party like Malcolm did wrote somewhere else:

Yes -- but it is not our job to condition people. Mostly, we have been pushing back because people are strongly trying to condition us. The truth is that we just need to ignore people who disagree with us about what our teacher says. We are committed to his teachings, they are not -- so their opinion is pretty irrelevant.

Should we also ignore here ? Maybe or maybe not?

Rermarkable was that the Master Namkai Norbu Rinpoche did state in the days of J.Reynolds / Vajranatha, that Rigpa would be awareness, but like Dorje Pizza told he did changed many times something within Dzogchen. The reason why is very unclear and if we would be interested to know the reason why, i guess one should better ask ChNN himself, then instead of George. :D


Mutsog Marro
KY
THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNED
IF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGE
HE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MAN
WHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Next

Return to Bön

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests

>