No-self and Rigpa

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:36 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
You can either emphasize the ineffability of the base, or talk around it forever (which is a lot of fun actually), but either way the first thing is recognizing it. ChNNR seems to be campaigning for an adjustment of Dzogchen terminology, where "rigpa" is no longer to be used also as a synonym for the base itself (as it often is in the old texts) but is to be reserved for our knowledge of the base.


There is no campaign, he is right. Rigpa, among other things, is exactly the knowledge of the display of the basis as one's own display, and ignorance is ignorance of that.

What does this knowledge "look like"? It can not be conceptual, otherwise just reading sentences like the quote above would be rigpa.


There are five types of vidyā described by Vimalamitra in the Vima Snying thig i.e. 1) the vidyā that apprehends characteristics; 2)the vidyā that apprehends or appropriates the basis; 3) the vidyā that is present as the basis; 4) the vidyā of insight; and 5) the vidyā of thögal.

1) The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.

2) The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions], is called “unripened vidyā”.

3) The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality is present as the essence of omniscient wisdom. Further, that primordial wisdom is present as a subtle primordial wisdom. If that primordial wisdom did not exist, there would be no liberation from emptiness. Further, there would be no liberation from the inert. However, if vidyā exists as primordial wisdom, it would be no different than the realist’s nirmanakāya.

4) The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the essence of the self-apparent thigle”. As there are many unmixed appearances, the Teacher stated:
    Everything arose from non-arising,
    showing the great miraculous display in every way.

5) The vidyā of thögal is the absence of increase or decrease in experience having reached the full measure of appearance through practice. Having completed all the signs and qualities, also they are not established by their own nature. When self-manifesting as omniscient wisdom, it [the vidyā of thögal] is called “abandoning phenomena”, “the exhaustion of phenomena”, “beyond phenomena”, “liberated from phenomena”, and “no arising even in mere arising”.


So the issue really is complex and there are many different ways or angles from which to discuss vidyā or rigpa.


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: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:14 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:something exists, or we would't be having this conversation.
The fact that you are having a conversation is evidence that nothing exists.
one needs to "take a step back" from the display, to notice that there is a display in the first place.
You have to exit stage left in order to know you are an actor in a play?
maybe its better to say that noticing "the irreducible presence of the here and now where we find ourselves" is a doorway through which we can first glimpse the basis.
And this "irreducible presence of the here and now" is something other than emptiness?
:namaste:
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7873
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Jax » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:45 pm

Xabir, what you wrote is very interesting but Nagarjuna was not totally comfortable with the view of the Abidharma as it colored the Buddhist view of his day. Consciousness in Abidharma is strictly "sem" or afflicted karmic mind that arises dependently. This consciousness is not Rigpa Awareness or the unchanging cognitive Knowing of the Dharmakaya. The vision you describe is the more nihilistic nirvana of Abidharma theory. Dzogchen, especially thogal and Yangti offers the view of the Thigle Chenpo and Thigle Nyak Chik, Great Hyper Sphere and Unique Singularity. Beyond the skandha of consciousness you have the qualities of omniscience, clarvoyance and telepathy etc. All of which pertain to Buddha Mind, realized after the "collapse" of skandhic "consciousness". It's beyond, beyond at the other shore, the other shore that is always fully present right here in every moment as the only cognitive Presence in and as all experience.
Jax
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby xabir » Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:26 pm

Jax wrote:Xabir, what you wrote is very interesting but Nagarjuna was not totally comfortable with the view of the Abidharma as it colored the Buddhist view of his day. Consciousness in Abidharma is strictly "sem" or afflicted karmic mind that arises dependently. This consciousness is not Rigpa Awareness or the unchanging cognitive Knowing of the Dharmakaya. The vision you describe is the more nihilistic nirvana of Abidharma theory. Dzogchen, especially thogal and Yangti offers the view of the Thigle Chenpo and Thigle Nyak Chik, Great Hyper Sphere and Unique Singularity. Beyond the skandha of consciousness you have the qualities of omniscience, clarvoyance and telepathy etc. All of which pertain to Buddha Mind, realized after the "collapse" of skandhic "consciousness". It's beyond, beyond at the other shore, the other shore that is always fully present right here in every moment as the only cognitive Presence in and as all experience.

Pardon my very limited understanding on this... may others correct me if I am wrong too.

In post-Yogacara teaching, consciousness is understood as dualistic vision, to be distinguished from Wisdom which is non-dualistic. But in Pali suttas, the original teachings of the Buddha, no such division was being taught - so there is no talk about converting consciousness into wisdom - consciousness is simply these six types of cognizance that arises whether you are awakened... except that for the awakened and liberated, there is cognizance/consciousness without taints or ignorance, while for the unawakened there is the instant of cognizance/consciousness quickly followed by the taints, the craving, attachment, and identification with 'I, me, mine'. In other words it is not the 'cognizance/consciousness' that is the problem, it is the taints, the ignorance, the grasping that is the problem.

For post-Yogacara teachings, consciousness is understood to be dualistic vision, so consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. In Dzogchen, I think it is not too different in this respect, as Namdrol once said: Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway. ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ndent.html )

It is not that there is a wisdom that exists outside the aggregates of experience, but rather it is that the aggregates of experience being experienced wrongly is dualistic vision of consciousness, experienced correctly in their actual state is simply the radiance of Rigpa. But there is not some super-transcendent 'Rigpa' outside phenomena (in their actual state).
Last edited by xabir on Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
xabir
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:37 pm

xabir wrote:
Jax wrote:Xabir, what you wrote is very interesting but Nagarjuna was not totally comfortable with the view of the Abidharma as it colored the Buddhist view of his day. Consciousness in Abidharma is strictly "sem" or afflicted karmic mind that arises dependently. This consciousness is not Rigpa Awareness or the unchanging cognitive Knowing of the Dharmakaya. The vision you describe is the more nihilistic nirvana of Abidharma theory. Dzogchen, especially thogal and Yangti offers the view of the Thigle Chenpo and Thigle Nyak Chik, Great Hyper Sphere and Unique Singularity. Beyond the skandha of consciousness you have the qualities of omniscience, clarvoyance and telepathy etc. All of which pertain to Buddha Mind, realized after the "collapse" of skandhic "consciousness". It's beyond, beyond at the other shore, the other shore that is always fully present right here in every moment as the only cognitive Presence in and as all experience.

Pardon my very limited understanding on this... may others correct me if I am wrong too.

In post-Yogacara teaching, consciousness is understood as dualistic vision, to be distinguished from Wisdom which is non-dualistic. But in Pali suttas, the original teachings of the Buddha, no such division was being taught - so there is no talk about converting consciousness into wisdom - consciousness is simply these six types of cognizance that arises whether you are awakened... except that for the awakened and liberated, there is cognizance/consciousness without taints or ignorance, while for the unawakened there is the instant of cognizance/consciousness quickly followed by the taints, the craving, attachment, and identification with 'I, me, mine'. In other words it is not the 'cognizance/consciousness' that is the problem, it is the taints, the ignorance, the grasping that is the problem.

For post-Yogacara teachings, consciousness is understood to be dualistic vision, so consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. In Dzogchen, I think it is not too different in this respect, as Namdrol once said: Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.



Longchenpa also discuss the meditation of Dzogchen in the following way:


Just as reflections arise in limpid water, the eyes and clairvoyances will arise from limpid vidyā. Moreover, one should practice by leaving the unobstructed sense faculties in their own limpidity. Since the main organ, the eyes, are limpid, vidyā is limpid, because the eyes are the gate of the personal experience of wisdom. Otherwise, just as the appearances of reflections do not condition the water, [35/b] likewise, even though all outer appearances arise as a brilliant vision, since one’s awareness does become lost among such appearances, it is said “they are not established in vidyā”. The sense of this is also demonstrated in the Pramanaviniṣcaya:
    Having included everything in the mind,
    since there is no movement from this inner nature,
    the form [seen by] the eye arises
    from the power of that intellect of sight.


This passage from the Pramanaviniṣcaya, while obscure, is in fact a description of what we call pratyakṣa, direct perception or personal experience as mentioned above. So, in fact you are correct, the key point of meditation in Dzogchen is simply to let all sense objects meet their respective sense organs, as Longchenpa says "likewise, even though all outer appearances arise as a brilliant vision, since one’s awareness does become lost among such appearances, it is said “they are not established in vidyā”."
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: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:24 pm

Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
You can either emphasize the ineffability of the base, or talk around it forever (which is a lot of fun actually), but either way the first thing is recognizing it. ChNNR seems to be campaigning for an adjustment of Dzogchen terminology, where "rigpa" is no longer to be used also as a synonym for the base itself (as it often is in the old texts) but is to be reserved for our knowledge of the base.


There is no campaign, he is right. Rigpa, among other things, is exactly the knowledge of the display of the basis as one's own display, and ignorance is ignorance of that.


yes, as you say, "among other things" but in the last retreat webcast he seemed to be pretty clearly saying rigpa is not your real nature, it is your knowledge of your real nature (or words to that effect). whereas, as in the vimaningthig you posted:

3) The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms.


rigpa/vidya* is being used as a synonym for the basis, our real nature.

-------------------------
* why use the sanskrit term when there are no sanskrit dzogchen texts, and probably never were? the tibetan term suffices, methinks.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Jax » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:30 pm

However, it is only the energetic arising consciousness as " effulgent rigpa", that gets lost, not the "Ground Rigpa". These being the "son light" and "mother light" respectively.

There an unchanging Ground (Zhi), that never steps outside of it's nature and is primordially motionless in which all appearances apparently arise and dissolve spontaneously. This is the changeless, All-Knowing Nature that is primordially perfect, timelessly free of all distortion. Again, it's what is reading these words and what is the knowing of the thoughts about these words and is these words, like waves upon the ocean.
Jax
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:35 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:The fact that you are having a conversation is evidence that nothing exists.


i think you're confusing emptiness with nihilism.

And this "irreducible presence of the here and now" is something other than emptiness?


not not-empty, but also not merely empty. the term "emptiness" simply points to the absence of something, in this case svabhava/own-being. madhyamaka is a therapeutic, not a view. Dzoghchen is a view. the tension between these two has been going on for centuries, despite Dzogchen's attempts to pledge allegiance to prsangika madhyamaka as understood in Tibet through Chandrakirti. Tsongkhapa was not a Dzogchenpa. Some people even argue he was not a Madhyamika(!), but he definitely was not a Dzogchenpa.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:39 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:i think you're confusing emptiness with nihilism.
Uuuuuummmm... No? Like I got over that phase about 15 years ago?
...the term "emptiness" simply points to the absence of something...
Linguistically, yes (and no once it's been explained to you). Practically though? Anything but!
:namaste:
"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
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7873
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:26 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
yes, as you say, "among other things" but in the last retreat webcast he seemed to be pretty clearly saying rigpa is not your real nature, it is your knowledge of your real nature (or words to that effect). whereas, as in the vimaningthig you posted:

3) The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms.


rigpa/vidya* is being used as a synonym for the basis, our real nature.


Yes, that is correct. And the word is used both ways in Dzogchen texts. But what ChNN is emphasizing is the one basis, two paths, two results approach of the dgongs pa zang thal. I.e. he is presenting vidyā in its aspect as the experience of path (from among the trio of the vidyā of the basis, mentioned above; the path and the result) which is clearly discussed in those teachings.


-------------------------
* why use the sanskrit term when there are no sanskrit dzogchen texts, and probably never were? the tibetan term suffices, methinks.


Because the word vidyā is the term used in titles such as the rig pa rang shar tantra, etc., and because the term vidyā has cognates in English through Latin and is connected with seeing and vision. And finally,mostly, because I prefer to use Sanskrit terms such as vidyā, dharmadhātu, prajñā, dharmakāya, etc.
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: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Jax » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:32 pm

Gad, Dzogchen is certainly not a "view". The "view" of Dzogchen is always only Rigpa, not the conceptual descriptions regarding it.
Jax
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby xabir » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:47 pm

Jax wrote:However, it is only the energetic arising consciousness as " effulgent rigpa", that gets lost, not the "Ground Rigpa". These being the "son light" and "mother light" respectively.

There an unchanging Ground (Zhi), that never steps outside of it's nature and is primordially motionless in which all appearances apparently arise and dissolve spontaneously. This is the changeless, All-Knowing Nature that is primordially perfect, timelessly free of all distortion. Again, it's what is reading these words and what is the knowing of the thoughts about these words and is these words, like waves upon the ocean.
I don't know how Dzogchen explains this (Namdrol will be a better person at commenting on Dzogchen terms than myself), but I do not see some truly existing unchanging ground behind changing phenomena. Phenomena only appears to move if there is a self linking and coordinating phenomena, and a contrast between an unmoved observer and moving objects, if experienced without an observer-observed dichotomy, transience is experienced as whole and complete in a single moment of manifestation without movement, and are also disjoint and self-releasing. As Ch'an Patriarch Hui-Neng and Zen Master Dogen puts it: Impermanence is Buddha-Nature. There is also no "what is observing the words", just the process of observing without an observer. As Thich Nhat Hanh said ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XeCW-b41_E ) - sitting is, no sitter, breathing is, no breather... just as rain happens without a rainer. Absolutely no agent. As far as I know there is also no question of "effulgent rigpa" getting lost... getting lost means ma-rigpa.

On an unrelated note, Nagarjuna also writes something about the six consciousness being Dharmadhatu:

38. When eye and form assume their right relation,
Appearances appear without a blur.
Since these neither arise nor cease,
They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise.

39. When sound and ear assume their right relation,
A consciousness free of thought occurs.
These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics,
But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually.

etc - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... sness.html
xabir
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:09 pm

Jax wrote:Gad, Dzogchen is certainly not a "view". The "view" of Dzogchen is always only Rigpa, not the conceptual descriptions regarding it.


sure it is. "Dzogchen" is a conceptual system that uses words to talk about that which is basically beyond concepts. the state of dzogchen is not a view, but the system is a view. the dzogchen view is that there is the basis, with its nature, essence and "energy"' etc. theres a creation story about the arising of the gzhi snang, recognition and non recognition, etc etc.. if thats not a view, i don't know what is. The characteristic of a view is its production by the mind. The base is fundamentally beyond the grasp of the intellect, yet it is described by the Dzoghchen view as a pointer.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby kalden yungdrung » Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:21 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Jax wrote:Gad, Dzogchen is certainly not a "view". The "view" of Dzogchen is always only Rigpa, not the conceptual descriptions regarding it.


sure it is. "Dzogchen" is a conceptual system that uses words to talk about that which is basically beyond concepts. the state of dzogchen is not a view, but the system is a view. the dzogchen view is that there is the basis, with its nature, essence and "energy"' etc. theres a creation story about the arising of the gzhi snang, recognition and non recognition, etc etc.. if thats not a view, i don't know what is. The characteristic of a view is its production by the mind. The base is fundamentally beyond the grasp of the intellect, yet it is described by the Dzoghchen view as a pointer.



Tashi delek,

Maybe would be good to see one side as the view regarding:

the Rigpa of knowledge -( Egocentric Mind?)
and
the Rigpa of Awareness, -(Non-egocentric Mind?)

last mentioned more in the sense of the "experiencing" of that "knowledge".

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

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby wisdomfire » Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:16 am

if experienced without an observer-observed dichotomy, transience is experienced as whole and complete in a single moment of manifestation without movement, and are also disjoint and self-releasing.


Can you break this up and explain it further? How is transience whole and complete? Also, 'disjoint and self-releasing'?
wisdomfire
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:58 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby xabir » Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:43 am

wisdomfire wrote:
if experienced without an observer-observed dichotomy, transience is experienced as whole and complete in a single moment of manifestation without movement, and are also disjoint and self-releasing.


Can you break this up and explain it further? How is transience whole and complete? Also, 'disjoint and self-releasing'?
Movement is perceived when it is falsely perceived that there is some unchanging self-entity that links two moments together.

For example as a bystanding observer on the roadside, it appears that a car quickly moves through your field of vision. So it appears that you, as an observer, observed an object moving across. What if however, you are on a vehicle moving at the same speed as the other vehicle, do you perceive movement of another vehicle? No. Why? Because the observer is now at the same speed as the observed object, and movement only occurs as a contrast between the unmoving subject and a moved object.

But what if there is no observer at all (which is what we realised to have been always the case in the insight into anatta - the observer being merely a constructed illusion) - with no reference point, is there movement? No. Because movement requires a dualistic contrast, and without a perceiving subject, perceptions have no reference point to compare with. In fact there is no 'perceived object' either - there is just disjoint, unsupported, self-releasing images that has no link to each other. Without a self and an object, only unsupported and disjoint images, each manifestation being complete and whole in itself with no dualistic contrast, transience reveals itself to be non-moving. You don't say "You" walked from Point A to Point Z. Because there is no 'You' there to link or observe movement. Instead, Point A is Point A, Point B is point B, and so on... Z is Z, whole and complete in itself. Each moment, ever fresh, whole, complete, and leaving no trace the next moment. Therefore disjoint and self-releasing.
xabir
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby mzaur » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:00 am

Jax wrote:There an unchanging Ground (Zhi), that never steps outside of it's nature and is primordially motionless in which all appearances apparently arise and dissolve spontaneously. This is the changeless, All-Knowing Nature that is primordially perfect, timelessly free of all distortion. Again, it's what is reading these words and what is the knowing of the thoughts about these words and is these words, like waves upon the ocean.


With respect, what you describe as the Base is too colored by the Hindu view/experience. Buddhism, and especially Dzogchen, has a different view and goal. The experience/stage of a formless Self separate from phenomena is caused by attachment, an inability to let go of the idea of there being a grand cosmic Source. This is not Rigpa because the Emptiness (non-inherency) aspect is missing. The mind, due to the deep rooted belief in inherent awareness/Self, creates the experience of a changeless container from which phenomena arise and dissolve. Due to this, it's not a direct, non-conceptual experience. For that to be so, the concept of inherent awareness has to be emptied out.

In Crystal and Way of Light, p97, Rinpoche writes:

"The aspect of the Base that is referred to as the Essence is its fundamental voidness. Practically speaking, this means that for example if one looks into one's own mind, any thought that arises can be seen to be void in the three times, past, present, and future. That is to say, if one looks for a place from which the thought came, one finds nothing; and if one looks for a place from which the thought goes, one finds nothing -- voidness. It is not that there is some void that could be said to be some sort of thing or place itself, but rather that all phenomena, whether mental events or apparently external actual objects, no matter how solid they may seem, are in fact essentially void, impermanent, only temporarily existing, and all things can be seen to be made up of other things, in turn made up of other things, and so on. From the enormously large to the infinitely small, and everywhere in between, everything that can be seen to exist can be seen to be void."
User avatar
mzaur
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby muni » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:50 am

I think my rigpa is improving by reading here. I begin to understand; talking of a picture of Hawai, the right quality and the right words and colors for the description will bring me to Hawai! How great as I have no rotten coin to go there!

Dzogchen is the highest... but the highest branch is not the apprehended mind-worldly tree, through such tree we easely solidify/sustain our dreams.

Write all on water, what word will be the best?

Conceptual intellectual Dzogchen, many many warnings are given in history! Books! Karmic destiny need a master.

What is wrong with Tibetan buddhist discussion forum? What's wrong with the other teachings in which disussion is sharpening mind....just to say, life is impermanent..
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Sönam » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:14 am

The difference can be clearly seen ... there is those who discuss, with or without appropriates words, there is those who answer to discussion ...

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: 1862
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Jax » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:37 am

We are running into the limitations of language in the attempt to discuss what is non-dual by nature. There absolutely is no separate observer from that which is observed. I am trying to express in language the nature of our Beingness, not so easy! There is no background Awareness separate from the arisings. The arisings are self-luminous Awareness. The nature of Being is boundless transparency, like an infinite hologram in which the totality is Knowingly Itself. The Absolute is appearing as the relative without the least separation. The experience of the relative is the form of the Absolute. The form is exactly emptiness and the emptiness is exactly form. This is a living experiential Knowing (yeshe), not a mere philosophical axiom. The experiential Knowing is that you are everything, in perfect oneness, yet free of any concept of "oneness". Awareness or Being (dharmakaya) has no form of it's own other than our immediate experience. That being so, all experiences are equally the forms that the Dharmakaya is assuming in each moment. Hence all experience is already perfection. So we leave all experience as is, without the least effort to correct, change or improve our moment to moment experiences. We don't even try to dissolve our sense of "self", or avoid "distraction" as nothing can obstruct this fully present Knowing within and as all experience. The sense of personal selfhood is just a harmless experience. The sense of being distracted or confused are both likewise just harmless experiences, as are ALL experiences.
Jax
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

>