Josef wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:26 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:51 am
I'm asking what sems "becomes" when there is recognition. It's a Dzogchen specific question. I mean in Tantra we say that the purified aggregates becomes the wisdoms etc., I am wondering if this applies to sems at all, or if the correct answer in Dzogchen terms is that sems is "pure from the beginning".
TUR (and other Dzogchen masters) would talk about the 5 wisdoms in a Dzogchen context. In some Semde texts, sems is said to "become" ( = be "apprehended" as) Dharmakaya when sems nyid gets seen for what it is. Malcolm would know, and I am not sure, but it seems to me that in Upadesha sems is principally used in contradistinction with sems nyid, in the context of rushens/semdzins. Normally the framework would be different and more nuanced, as in there-are-the-three-kinds-of-energy story.
The distinction between sems and sems nyid is only relevant to establishing the recognition of sems nyid. There is no difference between sems and sems nyid.
But these two sentences contradict each other. The difference between sems and sems nyid is a heuristic tool -- and sure, it is a concept, and in the end the two notions refer to the "knowing" in our mindstream in the broadest sense of the word. All the same, in the framework of rushens, etc., there *is* a difference between them, which is actually kind of self-obvious, isn't it?
Regarding the debate between Josef and Magnus, I am fairly sure I have heard both versions of the story from my teachers. TUR and his sons present it exactly the way Magnus would have it. For instance, Tsoknyi Rinpoche in Fearless Simplicity
defines sems as "dualistic thinking mind" (66), and explains:
We need to distinguish between two aspects: dualistic mind, sem in Tibetan, and mind essence. According to the Dzogchen teachings, the view is mind essence free of conceptual attitude. The view is not dualistic mind. Dualistic mind is when the attention gets caught up in a perceived object and fails to recognize its own nature.... [Sems] is the state of mind that gets caught up with, stuck to, or absorbed in perceived objects-all the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and textures, all the plans and the memories. First, an instance of attention gets caught up in an instance of perceiving an object. This is followed by a second instance of getting caught up in what is perceived, and then a third one, a fourth one, and so on. Completely losing track of oneself, being lost in the experience that is called sem.... In short, the problem is being caught up in sem, in dualistic mind. (115, 118).
I think that there really are different explanations here, just as there are differences in how exactly rigpa is defined from an experiential perspective.