Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:27 am

Malcolm wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:...all this seems, well... really, unbelievably, like completely... pointless and lacking any essence. So sorry for the attitude.



The suffering of samsara is horrible.

Actually understanding what the term "rig pa" means is important for those who wish to end their suffering, since all Dharma paths, both Hindu and Buddhist, define the cause of suffering as ignorance (avidyā, ma rig pa) and the cause of liberation as knowledge (vidyā, rig pa).

Understanding the distinction between Mahāmudra and Dzogchen is important for those who wish to follow one path versus the other, for whatever their personal reasons may be. For others the distinction may not be important.

M
Okay I am not going to argue with that, but you don't think we need to put things into some kind of perspective?

Today I was reading about a six year old Chinese child that was abducted and had their eyes removed so that they could steal the cornea and sell them on the organs market. The eyes, which were plucked out of the childs head, were found near the place where the child was found, covered in blood.

On Thursday (tomorrow) the US and its croneys will launch a three day bombardment of Syria in order to depose a brutal dictator accused of using chemical weapons on his subjects (sounds familiar?). Boat loads of Syrian refugees, escaping via Turkey, land on the shores of the island where I live every day. Not all of them make it to shore (alive). This influx of refugees is adding more fuel to the fire of the already tense social situation here in Greece (having absorbed countless Afghan, Kurdish, Pakistani, Iraqi and Bangladeshi refugees already). This is leading to an increase in support for the Neo-Nazi party which currently has 6% of the seats in parliament (polls predict they will take around 14-18% at the next elections).

So, while I can understand that Clarence (for example, I am not trying to pick on you Clarence, ie it is nothing personal) may be upset (suffering) because my view does not accord with theirs, and while I can understand that some people may feel that the difference between rigpa and sems nyid is of vital importance to their liberation. Well... In the grand scheme of things...

May the suffering of all sentient beings be irrevocably ended! May all beings experience the bliss of enlightenment here and now!
OM MANI PEME HUNG
:namaste:

PS Sorry for the interruption people, back to the regular program.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9988
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby Clarence » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:01 am

gregkavarnos wrote:Okay I am not going to argue with that, but you don't think we need to put things into some kind of perspective?

Not in this thread we don't. Then we need to put the whole forum in perspective and our lives as well.

Today I was reading about a six year old Chinese child that was abducted and had their eyes removed so that they could steal the cornea and sell them on the organs market. The eyes, which were plucked out of the childs head, were found near the place where the child was found, covered in blood.

I would re-read that story. It wasn't about selling the corneas. His eyes were found with the corneas still on them. Horrible nonetheless but totally off-topic and you know it. You just came on this thread, in the Dzogchen forum, which you don't practice, to derail it and troll. Don't worry I reported this post and many others. I suggest other members who are bothered by your behavior to do the same.

So, while I can understand that Clarence (for example, I am not trying to pick on you Clarence, ie it is nothing personal) may be upset (suffering) because my view does not accord with theirs, and while I can understand that some people may feel that the difference between rigpa and sems nyid is of vital importance to their liberation. Well... In the grand scheme of things...

Oh, I am upset but mostly because I am absolutely dumbfounded that you get such a long leash and that you refuse to see that your own behavior on this forum is far from pleasant. You were a lot better behaved on VC.

PS Sorry for the interruption people, back to the regular program.

Yes, I would suggest that if and when you have something constructive to contribute to either this topic or to topics related to Dzogchen in general you do so but otherwise it would be better for the forum if you stay in the Kagyu sub fora.
Clarence
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby Clarence » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:05 am

Malcolm wrote:
Clarence wrote:Malcolm,

Would you mind explaining the difference?

THanks, C


Rigpa, vidya, is the recognition of the basis of the individual.


And how is it different from Sems Nyid?
Clarence
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:14 am

Clarence wrote:Not in this thread we don't. Then we need to put the whole forum in perspective and our lives as well.
Now, we wouldn't want to do that now would we? :smile:
I would re-read that story. It wasn't about selling the corneas. His eyes were found with the corneas still on them. Horrible nonetheless but totally off-topic and you know it. You just came on this thread, in the Dzogchen forum, which you don't practice, to derail it and troll. Don't worry I reported this post and many others. I suggest other members who are bothered by your behavior to do the same.
I do believe you completely missed the point behind my example. Maybe I was not clear? It was about putting our suffering into perspective. About not focusing on our tiny, insignificant and essentially non-existent self. It was about relevance.
You were a lot better behaved on VC.
And look where that got me! :tongue:
Yes, I would suggest that if and when you have something constructive to contribute to either this topic or to topics related to Dzogchen in general you do so but otherwise it would be better for the forum if you stay in the Kagyu sub fora.
1. I do believe I added something constructive, irregardless if you did not consider it as constructive or not. 2. What you, and many others here, tend to forget is that I am a vajra brother too. I have also received empowerments, teachings, etc... from ChNN. So it seems that I also belong to the shareholders of the "monopoly on views regarding Dzogchen" group too. Damn!
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9988
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby michaelb » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:45 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:I do believe I added something constructive

You really didn't.
michaelb
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby heart » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:07 pm

Malcolm wrote:
heart wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Rig pa is not the nature of the mind.


:smile: really, how come ChNNR says so every single retreat?

/magnus


He makes a clear distinction rig pa and the nature of the mind, actually.


I certainly never heard him do that distinction, nor have I ever heard anyone else do it except for you Malcolm.

/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: 3122
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:48 pm

gregkavarnos wrote: In the grand scheme of things...


In the grand scheme of things there is almost nothing one can do to stem the suffering of others in samsara. Not even Buddha can remove the suffering of others. However, one can remove one's own suffering. And for this reason these sorts of conversations, in the grand scheme of things, are critically important.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:50 pm

heart wrote:
I certainly never heard him do that distinction, nor have I ever heard anyone else do it except for you Malcolm.

/magnus


You need to listen more carefully then to what ChNN says, or listen to more retreats.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby anjali » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:55 pm

Clarence wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Clarence wrote:Malcolm,

Would you mind explaining the difference?

THanks, C


Rigpa, vidya, is the recognition of the basis of the individual.


And how is it different from Sems Nyid?


Well, Tony Duff, who is a stickler for making clear distinctions, offers these definitions of rigpa and sems nyid.

Mindness, Skt. chittata, Tib. sems nyid. Mindness is a specific term of the tantras. It is one of the many terms meaning the essence of mind or the nature of mind. It conveys the sense of "what mind is at it's very core." It has sometimes been translated as "mind itself" but that is a misunderstanding of the Tibetan word "nyid". The term does not mean "that thing mind" where mind refers to dualistic mind. Rather, it means the very core of dualistic mind, what mind is at root, without all of the dualistic baggage.

Mindness is a path term. It refers to exactly the same thing as "actuality" or "actuality of mind" which is a ground term but does so from the practitioner's perspective. It conveys the sense to a practitioner that he might still have baggage of dualistic mind that has not been purified yet but there is a core to that mind that he can work with.


Rigpa, Tib rig pa : This is the singularly most import term in the whole of Great Completion and Mahamudra. In particular, it is the key word of all words in the Great Completion system of the Thorough Cut. Rigpa literally means to know in the sense of "I see!" It is used at all levels of meaning from the coarsest everyday sense of knowing something to the deepest sense of knowing something as presented in the system of Thorough Cut. The system of Thorough Cut uses this term in a very special sense, though it still retains its basic meaning of "to know". To translate it as "awareness" which is common practice these days is a poor practice; there are many kinds of awareness but there is only one rigpa and besides, rigpa is substantially more than just awareness. Since this is such an important term and since it lacks an equivalent in English, I choose not to translate it. However, it will be helpful in reading the text to understanding the meaning just given.

This is the term used to indicate enlightened mind as experienced by the practitioner on the path of these practices. The term itself specifically refers to the dynamic knowing quality of the mind. It absolutely does not mean a simple registering, as implied by the word "awareness" which unfortunately is often used to translate this term. There is no word in English that exactly matches it, though the idea of "seeing" or "insight on the spot" is very close. Proof of this is found in the fact that the original Sanskrit term "vidya" is actually the root of all words in English that start with "vid" and mean "to see", for example, "video", "vision", and so on. ... Note that rigpa has boh noun and verb forms.
anjali
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:05 pm

Malcolm wrote:In the grand scheme of things there is almost nothing one can do to stem the suffering of others in samsara. Not even Buddha can remove the suffering of others. However, one can remove one's own suffering. And for this reason these sorts of conversations, in the grand scheme of things, are critically important.
I agree to an extent, but have two points of contention: 1. We should not overestimate our personal suffering. 2. We can help alleviate others suffering, especially if it is "directly" caused by us.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9988
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby heart » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:09 pm

Malcolm wrote:
heart wrote:
I certainly never heard him do that distinction, nor have I ever heard anyone else do it except for you Malcolm.

/magnus


You need to listen more carefully then to what ChNN says, or listen to more retreats.


I do listen very carefully.

/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: 3122
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind

Postby treehuggingoctopus » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:23 pm

From the last webcast: rigpa doesn't mean the natural state, it means our being in that state. As clear as it gets.
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind

Postby heart » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:30 pm

treehuggingoctopus wrote:From the last webcast: rigpa doesn't mean the natural state, it means our being in that state. As clear as it gets.


I find it quite difficult to see how you can recognize the natural state without being in that state. You think the natural state it is an object of mind?

/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: 3122
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind

Postby anjali » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:36 pm

treehuggingoctopus wrote:From the last webcast: rigpa doesn't mean the natural state, it means our being in that state. As clear as it gets.


It's implied, but we should probably add one clarifying term: "rigpa doesn't mean the natural state, it means our being in that state knowingly."

From Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, "Our minds are empty and cognizant but suffused with ignorance; we do not know. For a true yogi, the path of the buddhas is indivisible empty cognizance suffused with awareness."
anjali
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind

Postby Jikan » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:40 pm

In ChNN's diction, "rigpa" is "instant presence": the recognition of the nature of mind. "being in it."

the nature of mind (sems nyid) is something like a latent capacity that is unrecognized, right? so the difference between the two is being in on the secret, getting it, recognizing it? which is to say, it's a kind of knowledge?

I get this confused from time to time; if I'm still upside-down on this, I do hope someone will set me right.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5522
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind

Postby heart » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:45 pm

Jikan wrote:In ChNN's diction, "rigpa" is "instant presence": the recognition of the nature of mind. "being in it."

the nature of mind (sems nyid) is something like a latent capacity that is unrecognized, right? so the difference between the two is being in on the secret, getting it, recognizing it? which is to say, it's a kind of knowledge?

I get this confused from time to time; if I'm still upside-down on this, I do hope someone will set me right.


The nature of mind and the natural state are the same, so recognizing the nature of mind and rigpa is the same.

/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: 3122
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Rigpa vs. Nature of Mind

Postby Malcolm » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:01 pm

heart wrote:
Jikan wrote:In ChNN's diction, "rigpa" is "instant presence": the recognition of the nature of mind. "being in it."

the nature of mind (sems nyid) is something like a latent capacity that is unrecognized, right? so the difference between the two is being in on the secret, getting it, recognizing it? which is to say, it's a kind of knowledge?

I get this confused from time to time; if I'm still upside-down on this, I do hope someone will set me right.


The nature of mind and the natural state are the same, so recognizing the nature of mind and rigpa is the same.

/magnus



Yes, rig pa can be called "recognizing the nature the mind". You always have "the nature of mind".

Of course, there are Dzogchen teachings which criticize this approach however, because it is held that buddhahood cannot be found in the mind.

So calling rig pa "the recognition of the nature of the mind" is quite provisional.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby dzogchungpa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:23 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Clarence wrote:Malcolm,

Would you mind explaining the difference?

THanks, C


Rigpa, vidya, is the recognition of the basis of the individual.

So basically it's atma vidya, no?
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:42 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Clarence wrote:Malcolm,

Would you mind explaining the difference?

THanks, C


Rigpa, vidya, is the recognition of the basis of the individual.

So basically it's atma vidya, no?



Atmya sthana vidyā
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Jes Bertelsen?

Postby dzogchungpa » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:07 pm

Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Rigpa, vidya, is the recognition of the basis of the individual.

So basically it's atma vidya, no?

Atmya sthana vidyā

What is that in Tibetan? Is 'atmya' like an adjectival or genitive form of 'atma"?
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Norwegian and 12 guests

>