No-self and Rigpa

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Malcolm » Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:48 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Anders Honore wrote:I think it's a vajrayana thing to reduce Madhyamika to a mere dialiectic tool. It certainly isn't so in its east-asian incarnation and I think neither was it so in its Indian incarnation.
In the Kagyu tradition Nagarjuna is one of the Mahasiddha, thus quite clearly a philosopher AND a great practitioner.
:namaste:



I don't think we can seriously consider the Nāgārjuna who lived in the 2nd century CE and authored the Madhyamaka corpus to be the same person who was a disciple of Saraha in the eighth century and authored the Pañcakrama and other Vajrayāna texts. You are free to disagree of course, but I don't beleive in the existence of 600 year old human beings.
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: 11934
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:04 pm

Nagarjuna was known as a Alchemist, and one of the Siddhis of Alchemy is the "Elixir of Long Life".

Is living for over 600 years any more far-fetched than other Siddhis described in Buddhist writings?

Or are the descriptions of the phenomena (or Noumena) of Siddhis only allegorical/metaphorical?
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Malcolm » Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:09 pm

Lhug-Pa wrote:Nagarjuna was known as a Alchemist, and one of the Siddhis of Alchemy is the "Elixir of Long Life".

Is living for over 600 years any more far-fetched than other Siddhis described in Buddhist writings?

Or are the descriptions of the phenomena (or Noumena) of Siddhis only allegorical/metaphorical?


It is clearly a case of mistaken identity.
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: 11934
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Mariusz » Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:31 pm

Namdrol wrote: You are free to disagree of course, but I don't beleive in the existence of 600 year old human beings.
Li_Ching-Yuen :smile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Malcolm » Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:50 pm

Mariusz wrote:
Namdrol wrote: You are free to disagree of course, but I don't beleive in the existence of 600 year old human beings.
Li_Ching-Yuen :smile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen


And this is proof of what?
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: 11934
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Mariusz » Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:59 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote:
Namdrol wrote: You are free to disagree of course, but I don't beleive in the existence of 600 year old human beings.
Li_Ching-Yuen :smile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen


And this is proof of what?
It was not proof, so is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani. :smile:
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:03 pm

Namdrol wrote:I don't think we can seriously consider the Nāgārjuna who lived in the 2nd century CE and authored the Madhyamaka corpus to be the same person who was a disciple of Saraha in the eighth century and authored the Pañcakrama and other Vajrayāna texts. You are free to disagree of course, but I don't beleive in the existence of 600 year old human beings.
In reference to the "original" Nagarjuna:
Able to defeat all-comers in debate he grew arrogant and, composing his own doctrines, he founded his own school ... At this point a mahanaga took pity on him and invited him into his subteranean library of sutras that the Buddha Shakyamuni had entrusted to the nagas for Nagarjuna himself. He mastered them all in ninety days, but discovering a further inexhaustible store he realised that experiential realisation of the sutras contents was required rather than greater breadth of learning...
From Masters of Mahamura by Keith Dowman.

Regardless of all this though, are you saying that Madhyamaka philosophy is somehow divorced from praxis? How so?
:namaste:
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 9514
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Jax » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:05 pm

Wow! What amazing sharings of profound erudition! However, perhaps being a bit of a contrarian, I might suggest that there is no need for a Dzogchenpa to accurately understand in a precise way any of these philosophical details. The common ground for Dzogchen and Madhyamaka is the experiential wisdom of nirvikalpam samadhi. Through applying the Madhyamaka dialectic a non-analytical "samadhi" results, nirvikalpa samadhi. This is a non-dual state, the realization of "kadag". It's a condition of utter transparency. It's vividness is lhundrup. The "vividness" is an alert Knowingess of it's condition. If you realize kadag, lhundrup is automatically there, no further study or practice is necessary as they are inseparable from the beginning. Lhundrup is not some unique quality that only Dzogchenpas can know. The "luminosity" is fully mentioned in Hinayana and Mahayana sutra. We should perhaps discuss methods to come to nirvikalpam samadhi, or concept-free Knowingness. It is only in nirvikalpa samadhi that we may access the fully liberating non-conceptual yeshe or Wisdom. There is no need to know anything about all these conceptual details for realization. Liberation is not an "understanding", but rather is non-dual samadhi or ting'e dzin. Newbies maybe overwhelmed by all of these discussions "about" rigpa, but one is only ever introduced to one's natural state, through samadhi, no matter how it's "triggered". I very much appreciated Xabir's experiential sharing. Knowing the origins or definitions of the base intellectually brings one no closer to samadhi or ting'e dzin. However, as a personal note, I do enjoy the scholarly discussions greatly, yet I know a precise intellectual understanding regarding Dzogchen has nothing to do with non-conceptual self-knowing or yeshe. The one doesn't lead to the other...
Jax
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:11 pm

Well let me attest to the fact that an "understanding" of Madhyamaka philosphy can come about as a consequence of experiences. ie that Madhyamaka philosophy is merely a method to explain non-dual experience in dualistic terms. I imagine the same applies to Dzogchen theory. Very much a inescapable chicken and egg situation for beings that require conceptualisation in order to communicate.
: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
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9514
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Dronma » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:14 pm

Sönam wrote:" ... The Sutra teaching has never recognized rigpa as explained in the Dzogchen teaching. Why? In Sutra the most important view is that of Nagarjuna, as expressed in Madhyamika philosophy. Sakya Pandita (1182–1251) said that no point of view surpasses Nagarjuna’s, because Nagarjuna established the view beyond concepts. If another philosophical position is considered more important than his, that position is necessarily a fixed concept. What does it mean that Nagarjuna’s explanation “reached beyond concepts”? With great intelligence he employed logic to reach beyond itself, which is the final goal in Madhyamika. Intellect can go no further.
The Dzogchen knowledge is neither an analysis nor an intellectual path. A Dzogchen teacher introduces methods that you use to have meditative experiences. Through these experiences you discover the real sense of Dzogchen. People who adhere to the ideas of Sutra do not accept that process. In the real sense this is not negative, because Sutra always aims for the understanding or knowledge of shunyata.
How can you reach realization if you are not going to have experiences? Madhyamika explains with the four “beyond concepts,” which are that something neither exists, nor does not exist, nor both exists and does not exist, nor is beyond both existing and not existing together. These are the four possibilities. What remains? Nothing. Although you are working only in an intellectual way, this can be considered the ultimate conclusion in Madhyamika. As an analytical method, this is also correct for Dzogchen. Nagarjuna’s reasoning is supreme. If you distinguish, however, between the use of a logical system and a method that functions with experience through which you discover your nature, you will see that these methods are radically different. This is why Madhyamika, which is a philosophical system, negates the existence of the Base completely. In Dzogchen, the Base does not mean a concrete object or concept, but rather our real condition. Introduced to your natural state, you become one with that knowledge. That is the meaning of introduction."


ChNN

What is explained here is that, by an intellectual process, the consequence of Madhyamika is shunyata. But the Base in Dzogchen is not only sunyata but an aspect of our real condition, that is it includes also energy/movement ...

"The Base has three aspects: Essence, Nature, and Energy. Its Essence is emptiness; its Nature is clarity; and its Energy is without interruption."




Sönam



Je t'aime, Sönam! :heart:

And coming back to the etymology of stong pa nyid, which is translated semi-successfully as "emptiness", I submit the quote that is given by Jim Valby in THL:
stong pa nyid =
sunyata, *, openness, void, nothingness, pure transcendence, open dimension of being, nothing-as-such with respect to ngo bo, indeterminate relational form of the act of being aware that may become terminated by any object, presence in utter freedom from concretization, a symbol used in instructing others, nothing exists really, aryadeva says med 'gag, asanga says aesthetic continuum with all possibilities, 1 of rnam thar gsum, 1 of sgo gsum, vacuity, non-existence, unreality, illusory nature of all things.


Dedicated to all intellectuals of the 3 times.... :reading: :mrgreen:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Anders » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:19 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Well let me attest to the fact that an "understanding" of Madhyamaka philosphy can come about as a consequence of experiences. ie that Madhyamaka philosophy is merely a method to explain non-dual experience in dualistic terms. I imagine the same applies to Dzogchen theory. Very much a inescapable chicken and egg situation for beings that require conceptualisation in order to communicate.
:namaste:


Not to mention that Madhyamika is by no means limited to dialectics. There is a clear and concise method of practise extrapolated from this view of emptiness that doesn't involve sitting around making logical deductions.

If you said 'Madhyamika is a philosophical system' to Sanlun adherents, you'd get laughed out of town. It is the opposite. A fundamentally pragmatic approach that does away with philosophical speculation and excessive analytics.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Lhug-Pa » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:34 pm

The point is likely that since Madhyamaka is in itself Sutrayana, for most it would take a very long time (as in eons) to reach the non-conceptual fruition of the Madhyamaka view (that is through Sutrayana methods).

Nagarjuna most likely knew Vajrayana methods (as Buddha Shakyamuni is said to have) but did not openly reveal the fact (which I'm quite sure Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche would agree with).
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Sönam » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:39 pm

Anders Honore wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Well let me attest to the fact that an "understanding" of Madhyamaka philosphy can come about as a consequence of experiences. ie that Madhyamaka philosophy is merely a method to explain non-dual experience in dualistic terms. I imagine the same applies to Dzogchen theory. Very much a inescapable chicken and egg situation for beings that require conceptualisation in order to communicate.
:namaste:


Not to mention that Madhyamika is by no means limited to dialectics. There is a clear and concise method of practise extrapolated from this view of emptiness that doesn't involve sitting around making logical deductions.

If you said 'Madhyamika is a philosophical system' to Sanlun adherents, you'd get laughed out of town. It is the opposite. A fundamentally pragmatic approach that does away with philosophical speculation and excessive analytics.


No one says it's limited by dialectic, and certainly madhyamika may directely lead to a realization. What is said is that madhyamika leads to shunyata, and shunyata only like all sutra oriented teachings. The result is the blank after all analytical examinations have been unsuccessfully covered. It is far away from the result of the direct introduction of Dzogchen which is not only that blank (shunyata) but also clarity and energy.

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 -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1971
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby asunthatneversets » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:42 pm

Jax wrote:Wow! What amazing sharings of profound erudition! However, perhaps being a bit of a contrarian, I might suggest that there is no need for a Dzogchenpa to accurately understand in a precise way any of these philosophical details. The common ground for Dzogchen and Madhyamaka is the experiential wisdom of nirvikalpam samadhi. Through applying the Madhyamaka dialectic a non-analytical "samadhi" results, nirvikalpa samadhi. This is a non-dual state, the realization of "kadag". It's a condition of utter transparency. It's vividness is lhundrup. The "vividness" is an alert Knowingess of it's condition. If you realize kadag, lhundrup is automatically there, no further study or practice is necessary as they are inseparable from the beginning. Lhundrup is not some unique quality that only Dzogchenpas can know. The "luminosity" is fully mentioned in Hinayana and Mahayana sutra. We should perhaps discuss methods to come to nirvikalpam samadhi, or concept-free Knowingness. It is only in nirvikalpa samadhi that we may access the fully liberating non-conceptual yeshe or Wisdom. There is no need to know anything about all these conceptual details for realization. Liberation is not an "understanding", but rather is non-dual samadhi or ting'e dzin. Newbies maybe overwhelmed by all of these discussions "about" rigpa, but one is only ever introduced to one's natural state, through samadhi, no matter how it's "triggered". I very much appreciated Xabir's experiential sharing. Knowing the origins or definitions of the base intellectually brings one no closer to samadhi or ting'e dzin. However, as a personal note, I do enjoy the scholarly discussions greatly, yet I know a precise intellectual understanding regarding Dzogchen has nothing to do with non-conceptual self-knowing or yeshe. The one doesn't lead to the other...


Good to see you back Jax, things seem to be going better this time around, you seem to be choosing your words better which isn't giving off such an advaita-esque feel to your insight. I agree that there isn't an essential need "to know anything about all these conceptual details for realization" as you said, but for some it may be helpful and necessary. It's easy to get lost in wrong view and misunderstanding which can veil and obscure Dzogchen. For instance(as stated earlier in this thread) it is important to know the difference between the natural state and kun gzhi, failure to make this distinction is suicide in this teaching.

I'd also argue that non-conceptual knowingness isn't an essential prerequisite to accessing the natural state, it can be helpful, but one does need to understand that in becoming attached to the actual experience of non-conceptual knowingness (or hope for non-conceptual knowingness) that very non-conceptual knowingness becomes an object in and of itself, and thus dualistic view(mistaken as wisdom) supersedes and obstructs the natural state if one lacks discrimination. Nirvikalpa samādhi is also a temporary state, one reaches this "summit" of nirvikalpa samādhi and then "regresses", it's actually a pseudo attainment(in the face of the natural state) and can be dangerous if one over-identifies with it instead of using it as a tool to access the natural state.

Even the Advaitin Shri Atmananda Krishna Menon downplayed nirvikalpa samadhi:

"Some yogins hold that you can experience the Absolute only by going into the nirvikalpa state. If this is so, it is not the highest; since it limits the Absolute to a state, however broad.
Therefore, in order to reach the natural state, which is the highest, you have also to transcend this last taint, namely the misunderstanding that you can experience the Absolute only through nirvikalpa samādhi."


And then he even goes as far as to claim that the nirvikalpa state is artificial:

"The pioneers of the traditional (cosmological) jnyāna path understood and interpreted the spontaneous state of deep sleep as the seat of causal ignorance. It was with a view to avoid or remove this ignorance by human effort that the nirvikalpa samādhi was invented. They succeeded in their goal only partially; because when they came out of the samādhi state, the shroud of ignorance engrossed them once again. So a permanent solution had to be sought again."

And mind you this is a teacher of Advaita... so I'd say that in Dzogchen this temporary state of nirvikalpa samādhi is even less appropriate. In Dzogchen the non-conceptual knowingness can tragically become an 'object' just like the nirvikalpa state(as said above), this is why the duality of stillness and movement must be seen as a fallacy, otherwise it can become a block,

Mipham elucidates this predicament;

"When you rest your attention in naturalness without thinking anything whatsoever and maintain constant mindfulness in that state, you may experience a vacant and blank state of mind which is neutral and indifferent. If no vipashyana of decisive knowing is present, this is exactly what the masters call 'ignorance'. It is also called 'undecided' from the point of being unable to express any means of identification, such as 'It is like this!' or 'This is it!' Being unable to say what you are remaining in or thinking of, this state is labelled 'ordinary indifference'. But actually, it is just an ordinary and nonspecific abiding in the state of the all-ground.

Although nonconceptual wakefulness has to be developed through this method of resting meditation, to lack the wisdom that sees your own nature is not the main part of meditation practice. This is what the 'Aspiration of Samantabhadra' says:

'The vacant state of not thinking anything
Is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion.' ......."

- Mipham Rinpoche
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:38 pm

Sönam wrote:No one says it's limited by dialectic, and certainly madhyamika may directely lead to a realization. What is said is that madhyamika leads to shunyata, and shunyata only like all sutra oriented teachings. The result is the blank after all analytical examinations have been unsuccessfully covered. It is far away from the result of the direct introduction of Dzogchen which is not only that blank (shunyata) but also clarity and energy.
Yes, you stated this earlier, and I am sorry that I didn't respond earlier so you didn't have to repeat yourself. Are you sure that the experience of sunyata is so blank? My extraordinairly meager experience of it is anything but a feeling of blankness, initially yes, but then (for me) there is an incredible surge of what you refer to as clarity and energy; like a pulsating living quality, but without a specific source. Are you saying that this is not a characteristic of sunyata but of something else? Isn't that kind of like adding layers instead of stripping them back?
: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
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9514
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Paul » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:44 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:I am not contesting anything, that is your projection. I am trying to understand the difference between the Madhyamaka view rearding sunyata and the Dzogchen view regarding the Basis


You may be interested in this:

http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=17134

While studying Rongzom’s works, one quickly notices his out— spoken critique of the Madhyamaka, which is evidence of his preference for the esoteric view. Many Tibetan philosophers have treated the Madhyamaka as the perfect view in both the Sütra and Mantra contexts, and among modern Nyingma scholars the issue of the superior view is often downplayed in general discourse. One may thus be surprised to witness Rongzom argue vehemently for an esoteric view that clearly is elevated above the Madhyainaka.
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Sönam » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:59 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Sönam wrote:No one says it's limited by dialectic, and certainly madhyamika may directely lead to a realization. What is said is that madhyamika leads to shunyata, and shunyata only like all sutra oriented teachings. The result is the blank after all analytical examinations have been unsuccessfully covered. It is far away from the result of the direct introduction of Dzogchen which is not only that blank (shunyata) but also clarity and energy.
Yes, you stated this earlier, and I am sorry that I didn't respond earlier so you didn't have to repeat yourself. Are you sure that the experience of sunyata is so blank? My extraordinairly meager experience of it is anything but a feeling of blankness, initially yes, but then (for me) there is an incredible surge of what you refer to as clarity and energy; like a pulsating living quality, but without a specific source. Are you saying that this is not a characteristic of sunyata but of something else? Isn't that kind of like adding layers instead of stripping them back?
:namaste:


We cannot speak of personnal experiences on a forum, it brings us nowhere, so I have no idea of the quality of your experience ... certainly there is a possibility that shunyata could be not so blank, and joy may feel the experience ... but if shunyata is filled with energy/movement, than it's no more shunyata. Could it be possible that the "incredible surge of what I refer to as clarity and energy; like a pulsating living quality, but without a specific source" would be a subtle intellectual process following shunyata?

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 -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1971
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Anders » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:25 pm

Sönam wrote:No one says it's limited by dialectic, and certainly madhyamika may directely lead to a realization. What is said is that madhyamika leads to shunyata, and shunyata only like all sutra oriented teachings. The result is the blank after all analytical examinations have been unsuccessfully covered. It is far away from the result of the direct introduction of Dzogchen which is not only that blank (shunyata) but also clarity and energy.

Sönam


I think that is doing a bit of disservice to Madhyamika. 'Sutra schools' don't interpret emptiness in such a onesided manner as (some?) Vajrayanists seems to interpret emptiness [of the sutra variety. I'm sure tantric emptiness is plenty profound].

In east-asian mahayana, the unfolding of emptiness as positive manifestation and phenomenal clarity is made more explicit in east-asian models like Tiantai's Three Truths (provisional, empty and the middle) but this also makes clear that this is also the intended meaning of Madhyamika that it merely being drawn out more explicitly. I think a reading of Madhyamika without a view to interpreting it as fitting into a scheme where you have a different system to serve the function of 'highest teaching' will show that the emptiness of Madhyamika is not just [blank]. Hell, the totally standard reading of the heart sutra in sino-mahayana emphasises just this.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby Jax » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:27 pm

Thank you Sun...

The unchanging nature of the Dharmakaya is nirvikalpum, this Knowing is the result of Madhyamaka as well as Chan or Zen practice. The Ground is always in a non-conceptual condition, like a mirror that remains empty regardless of the volume of reflections appearing in it.
Tulku Urgyen makes the point again and again "that that there cannot be any thoughts or conceptualizing in Rigpa". If there were thoughts and conceptualizing then that would be a state of "sem" and marigpa. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Rigpa and sem are mutually exclusive. However, there is a blank state of sem, but that has nothing to do with the brilliant emptiness of self-shining Rigpa. From this "self-shining" arises a consciousness that does not know it's own nature, sem. It's a perfectly spontaneously, natural evolution of tsal and rolpa, like moss that grows on trees. It's like our identity we have when dreaming at night. It is that dreamed entity that cycles in samsara. It can't exist in nirvikalpam samadhi. The "Natural State" is not a "state" that is nirvikalpam, the Dharmakaya or Rigpa is intrinsically nirvikalpam. You can't create and maintain "thoughtlessness" or the very effort is itself is thought in action.( And THAT would be a temporary state.) Vikalpa and togpa arise as it's display, like our dreamed identity. However the non-dual Knowing Wisdom of Rigpa is absent when dualistic mind or vikalpa is functioning. But it is crucially important to realize that being
as Rigpa, one can express conceptually from perfect clarity , such as Longchenpa. But in such a case,intellect, sem or vikalpa are not the basis from which those expressions are
arising. Rigpa can speak in the conceptual language of dualism or otherwise there could not be any sutras or tantras that have the power to enlighten. Rigpa or the Dharmakaya must always be completely empty by nature or there wouldn't be enough room for it to contain "everything". To be grounded in Rigpa us to be grounded in the non-dual condition of thought free awareness, in which the rupakayas of the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya self-liberate upon the arising. The Ground Awareness is present during the absence of thought as well as during thought, but when sem is active the "Self-Knowing" is absent. Hence Rigpa is only Known in the absence of sem (nirvikalpum samadhi)and thought is the programming language of sem. I hope I have communicated clearly enough...
Jax
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: No-self and Rigpa

Postby asunthatneversets » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:44 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:I am not contesting anything, that is your projection. I am trying to understand the difference between the Madhyamaka view rearding sunyata and the Dzogchen view regarding the Basis....


Took this from the "Differences Between Dzogpa Chenpo And Madhyamaka" section in "The Practice Of Dzogchen" by Longchen Rabjam (Translated and annotated by Tulku Thondup)

Madhyamaka, having distinguished the appearances and emptiness separately, emphasizes the concept of emptiness. Dzogpa Chenpo, having distinguished the Intrinsic Awareness, the pure and natural state of mind, from mind, realizes and perfects the Intrinsic Awareness directly and nakedly. Thereby it realizes the truth of the whole universe free from discrimination and extremes. Longchen Rabjam explains:

"Most of the methods of comprehending (analyzing) the freedom from extremes (mTha'-Bral), and so on, of Natural Great Perfection are similar to Prasangika Madhyamaka. However, Madhyamaka regards the emptiness as the important thing. (Dzogpa Chenpo), relying on the primordially pure and naked Intrinsic Awareness which is just non-existent and unceasing, comprehends it (the Intrinsic Awareness) and all the phenomena arisen from it as free from extremes like space."

Jigmed Tenpa'i Nyima summarizes in the following lines:

"In Choying Dzod (Ch'os-dBying mDzod), etc., there is praise for the (view of) Prasangika Madhyamaka philosophy. Thus (Dzogpa Chenpo) follows Prasangika in regard to (defining) the limits of the object-of-negation (dGag-Bya'i mTshams-'Dzin). However, (Prasangika), having distinguished the appearances and emptiness separately, apprehends the emptiness of non-affirming (Med-dGag) negation, calling it the distinction of the appearances and emptiness or the exclusion of emptiness. It is a method of maintaining (meditation and view) by concepts. It also asserts that if one first distinguishes (the view) by concepts and gains experience (of it) through meditation, then it will become as it is said: "with the fruition of bliss, clarity and no-concept mind." In any case, Dzogpa Chenpo tradition uses the intrinsic awareness as the path, or it maintains only the intrinsic awareness. It does not employ concepts since concepts are mind, and it meditates (on intrinsic awareness after) distinguishing the mind and intrinsic awareness separately."

Although in pure Dzogpa Chenpo one doesn't train on admitting the energy into the central channel, the training is more effective and direct than the trainings given in the tantras. Dorje Wangchog Gyepa Tsal explains:

"Those who have attachment to the path of skillful means (Thabs-Lam) think, 'No matter how good the path of Dzogpa Chenpo is, since it doesn't rely on the method of admitting the energy into the central channel, it's (realization) is not higher than an experience of (the meaning taught in) Madhyamaka.' This kind of wrong judgement arises (due to) lack of understanding of the essential points. The (sole) purpose of admitting the energy into the central channel is (as a means) to arouse the primordial wisdom (which is realized directly in Dzogpa Chenpo)."
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 16 guests

>