sems and rigpa

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by LastLegend »

futerko wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:39 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:25 am
futerko wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:15 am

...and, believing that you are somehow existing outside of time - you will start to accumulate barnacles!
At the risk of this turning too abstract to be useful:

My inclination is that outside of time isn't really 'existing' (or not existing for that matter), that's the whole thing, time is a characteristic of cyclic existence, or sems if we prefer, but not of enlightenment/the nature of mind.

Hence the quotation from ChNN from the book you were interested in,

If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner;
If you are attached to samsara, you have no renunciation;
If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta;
If there is grasping, you do not have the view.

To establish confidence in the view is a huge step, but not the whole story - one must then integrate.
To Josef,

That sounds like renunciation no? If so, then renunciation is not putting on robes and shaving heads.
Make personal vows.

End of the day: I don’t know.
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by Josef »

LastLegend wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:54 pm
futerko wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:39 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:25 am

At the risk of this turning too abstract to be useful:

My inclination is that outside of time isn't really 'existing' (or not existing for that matter), that's the whole thing, time is a characteristic of cyclic existence, or sems if we prefer, but not of enlightenment/the nature of mind.

Hence the quotation from ChNN from the book you were interested in,

If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner;
If you are attached to samsara, you have no renunciation;
If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta;
If there is grasping, you do not have the view.

To establish confidence in the view is a huge step, but not the whole story - one must then integrate.
To Josef,

That sounds like renunciation no? If so, then renunciation is not putting on robes and shaving heads.
This quote is Parting from the Four Attachments. Which is a teaching by Sakya Patriarch Sachen Kunga Nyingpo, and is not a Dzogchen teaching although it is very valuable and profound.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by LastLegend »

Chan does talk about wu wei or peacefully residing in nature, but it’s very clear about whether grasping and duality has completely gone and enlightenment is understood as having no appearance at all absolutely empty with that empty innate wisdom. So clearly know where one is.
Make personal vows.

End of the day: I don’t know.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by LastLegend »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:00 pm
LastLegend wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:54 pm
futerko wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:39 am


Hence the quotation from ChNN from the book you were interested in,

If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner;
If you are attached to samsara, you have no renunciation;
If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta;
If there is grasping, you do not have the view.

To establish confidence in the view is a huge step, but not the whole story - one must then integrate.
To Josef,

That sounds like renunciation no? If so, then renunciation is not putting on robes and shaving heads.
This quote is Parting from the Four Attachments. Which is a teaching by Sakya Patriarch Sachen Kunga Nyingpo, and is not a Dzogchen teaching although it is very valuable and profound.
It is but the attitude is towards enlightenment without that attitude is enlightenment even possible?
Make personal vows.

End of the day: I don’t know.
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by Josef »

LastLegend wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:00 pm
LastLegend wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:54 pm

To Josef,

That sounds like renunciation no? If so, then renunciation is not putting on robes and shaving heads.
This quote is Parting from the Four Attachments. Which is a teaching by Sakya Patriarch Sachen Kunga Nyingpo, and is not a Dzogchen teaching although it is very valuable and profound.
It is but the attitude is towards enlightenment without that attitude is enlightenment even possible?
That really depends on the practitioner. At different times we may have to cultivate or fabricate certain attitudes to practice etc. if one truly has experience of Dzogchen however there’s no need to fabricate any kind of attitude.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by LastLegend »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:07 pm
LastLegend wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:00 pm
This quote is Parting from the Four Attachments. Which is a teaching by Sakya Patriarch Sachen Kunga Nyingpo, and is not a Dzogchen teaching although it is very valuable and profound.
It is but the attitude is towards enlightenment without that attitude is enlightenment even possible?
That really depends on the practitioner. At different times we may have to cultivate or fabricate certain attitudes to practice etc. if one truly has experience of Dzogchen however there’s no need to fabricate any kind of attitude.
True because the practitioner clearly understands that they are walking the path towards enlightenment. Other things in life are not that important but are doing what other 7 billion people are doing which is work eat sleep family and intimate.
Make personal vows.

End of the day: I don’t know.
User avatar
heart
Posts: 5064
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by heart »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:51 pm
heart wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:34 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:50 pm
Definitely not.
I don’t think sems is confusion because it obviously is not. Confusion can be an affliction of the mind but since the minds nature is naturally perfect the mind can not be defined as confusion. This is actually pretty obvious and surprising that someone who’s been doing this as long as you have would have such a strange idea.
If you actually think mind IS confusion you’re practicing the path of renunciation, not self liberation. You’re basically practicing Chan, not Dzogchen.
Mind is confusion, delusion and the cause of endless Samsara. Still minds nature is pure and perfect and free from confusion. Through actually applying the practice of Dzogchen this becomes very obvious beyond intellectual ideas. My previous quotes are abundantly clear.

Joesph, you don't know me and so you know nothing about my practice.

/magnus
Actually, grasping at appearances as being other than one’s own phenomena is the cause of samsara.
The quotes are clear, your interpretation of them is what’s problematic. To make the bold assertion that mind=confusion goes too far. If mind was confusion the point of Dzogchen practice would be to renounce the mind entirely, not discover its nature. To assert that mind=confusion defies both intellectual analysis and practical application.
And actually Magnus, we’ve been interacting in conversations such as this for over a decade. Maybe you’re just not actually paying attention.
No matter if we discussed for a decade, you know nothing about my practice.

I already said what I wanted to say. To distinguish between samsara and nirvana, sems and rigpa is the point of Rushan, nothing I invented.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
dharmafootsteps
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:57 am

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by dharmafootsteps »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:44 pm
dharmafootsteps wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:30 pm Coincidentally Malcolm just answered this question on Facebook. I won't quote him directly as he prefers his posts not shared elsewhere, but his answer is in agreement with Heart. And he points out, as he has done here before, that what distinguishes Dzogchen from the path of transformation, including Mahamudra, is that Dzogchen takes ye shes as the basis, and not sems. According to Dzogchen mind is not transformed into ye shes, mind is discarded when ye shes is discovered.
That in no way agreed with “sems is confusion”.
Nobody is arguing that sems is the basis.
Hmm, no he didn't say specifically that "sems is confusion", but the statement that sems is not transformed into ye shes, but rather discarded when it is discovered is in accord with what Heart is saying is it not? The need to distinguish ye shes from sems doesn't seem to match what you said at the start of the thread about sems being what is naturally perfected.

This is above my pay grade though...I'm just trying to understand others posts here. It could be that I'm misinterpreting.

Here's a Malcolm quote from here: "When the neutral consciousness that arises with the rising of the compassion aspect of the basis (which is defined in Dzogchen tantras as personal and individual) recognizes its appearances as it's own state, this is recognition is called "rig pa." However, prior to this recognition or non recognition, this neutral consciousness possesses two of the three ignorances (ma rig pa). If this neutral consciousness does not recognize its own appearances, this non-recognition is the imputing ma rig pa, which initiates the process of development of what are called the "six intellects," grouped under the name "sems.""

So sems develops from the imputing ignorance? And it isn't present in rig pa?
User avatar
heart
Posts: 5064
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by heart »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:44 pm
dharmafootsteps wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:30 pm Coincidentally Malcolm just answered this question on Facebook. I won't quote him directly as he prefers his posts not shared elsewhere, but his answer is in agreement with Heart. And he points out, as he has done here before, that what distinguishes Dzogchen from the path of transformation, including Mahamudra, is that Dzogchen takes ye shes as the basis, and not sems. According to Dzogchen mind is not transformed into ye shes, mind is discarded when ye shes is discovered.
That in no way agreed with “sems is confusion”.
Nobody is arguing that sems is the basis.
Khenpo Gangshar:

It is very important to distinguish the difference between mind (sem) and awareness (rigpa). The Great Omniscient One said,

The elephants pretending to know ati now a days
Claim that discursive thinking is awakened mind.
Such ignorant people, in their realm of darkness,
Are far a"Way from the meaning of the natural Great Perfection.

If you fail to distinguish between mind and awareness you may engage in practices which confuse cause and result and thus turn away from the path in which view and conduct are united.When experiencing the continuity of undistracted naturalness, awareness is free from a reference point, like space, without even an atom of joy or sorrow, hope or fear, benefit or harm, whether you meet with positive or negative conditions. The character of (dualistic) mind is evident the moment you get slightly distracted and encounter (the same) conditions and you feel joy or sorrow. Having given rise to joy or sorrow, you will accumulate karmic actions.
For example, mind (sem) is like the clouds assembling in the sky. Therefore, you must gain stability in awareness (rigpa), which is like a cloudless sky. You must be able to purify the aspect of mind that is like the clouds in the sky.Through this you will be able to separate mind and awareness.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by Josef »

dharmafootsteps wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:21 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:44 pm
dharmafootsteps wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:30 pm Coincidentally Malcolm just answered this question on Facebook. I won't quote him directly as he prefers his posts not shared elsewhere, but his answer is in agreement with Heart. And he points out, as he has done here before, that what distinguishes Dzogchen from the path of transformation, including Mahamudra, is that Dzogchen takes ye shes as the basis, and not sems. According to Dzogchen mind is not transformed into ye shes, mind is discarded when ye shes is discovered.
That in no way agreed with “sems is confusion”.
Nobody is arguing that sems is the basis.
Hmm, no he didn't say specifically that "sems is confusion", but the statement that sems is not transformed into ye shes, but rather discarded when it is discovered is in accord with what Heart is saying is it not? The need to distinguish ye shes from sems doesn't seem to match what you said at the start of the thread about sems being what is naturally perfected.

This is above my pay grade though...I'm just trying to understand others posts here. It could be that I'm misinterpreting.

Here's a Malcolm quote from here: "When the neutral consciousness that arises with the rising of the compassion aspect of the basis (which is defined in Dzogchen tantras as personal and individual) recognizes its appearances as it's own state, this is recognition is called "rig pa." However, prior to this recognition or non recognition, this neutral consciousness possesses two of the three ignorances (ma rig pa). If this neutral consciousness does not recognize its own appearances, this non-recognition is the imputing ma rig pa, which initiates the process of development of what are called the "six intellects," grouped under the name "sems.""

So sems develops from the imputing ignorance? And it isn't present in rig pa?
Heart is quite literally asserting that sems is confusion. This is just wrong.
These aspects of arising from the basis are the 8 gateways.
All of the appearances of samsara manifest due to this misperception of appearances being other than ones own state. Here Malcolm is describing the gateway arising as compassion which deals directly with the appearances of samsara.
We can say things like “sems (six intellects) and the aggregates are the result of of this fundamental marigpa but to say sems IS confusion missed the mark completely and doesn’t take into account the actual process of how delusion arises.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by Josef »

heart wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:27 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:44 pm
dharmafootsteps wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:30 pm Coincidentally Malcolm just answered this question on Facebook. I won't quote him directly as he prefers his posts not shared elsewhere, but his answer is in agreement with Heart. And he points out, as he has done here before, that what distinguishes Dzogchen from the path of transformation, including Mahamudra, is that Dzogchen takes ye shes as the basis, and not sems. According to Dzogchen mind is not transformed into ye shes, mind is discarded when ye shes is discovered.
That in no way agreed with “sems is confusion”.
Nobody is arguing that sems is the basis.
Khenpo Gangshar:

It is very important to distinguish the difference between mind (sem) and awareness (rigpa). The Great Omniscient One said,

The elephants pretending to know ati now a days
Claim that discursive thinking is awakened mind.
Such ignorant people, in their realm of darkness,
Are far a"Way from the meaning of the natural Great Perfection.

If you fail to distinguish between mind and awareness you may engage in practices which confuse cause and result and thus turn away from the path in which view and conduct are united.When experiencing the continuity of undistracted naturalness, awareness is free from a reference point, like space, without even an atom of joy or sorrow, hope or fear, benefit or harm, whether you meet with positive or negative conditions. The character of (dualistic) mind is evident the moment you get slightly distracted and encounter (the same) conditions and you feel joy or sorrow. Having given rise to joy or sorrow, you will accumulate karmic actions.
For example, mind (sem) is like the clouds assembling in the sky. Therefore, you must gain stability in awareness (rigpa), which is like a cloudless sky. You must be able to purify the aspect of mind that is like the clouds in the sky.Through this you will be able to separate mind and awareness.

/magnus
Khenpo Gangshar is not saying mind=confusion here. He is saying one must distinguish between mind and rigpa. There’s a difference.
Even right here; “You must be able to purify the aspect of mind that is like the clouds in the sky.”
If one purifies the “aspect” of mind that is like clouds in the sky this implies a pure aspect of the sky itself. We can use waves and the ocean similarly. There is the appearance of mind and the phenomena of samsara but their nature is naturally perfected. It’s our job to understand this, not to label them as good and bad and further reinforce deluded dichotomies. The point is to integrate into the primordially pure nature, not toss babies out with bath water.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

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 amI'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.
Last edited by treehuggingoctopus on Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To offer care and affection to sentient beings
In desperate situations who lack protection
Brings just as much merit as the meditation
On emptiness with compassion as its core—
So it has been said by glorious Lord Atisha.

Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche

If you cannot generate an altruistic mind, even extensive retreat will be of not much benefit.
Garchen Triptrul Rinpoche
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by Josef »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:05 pm
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:26 pm

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?
Not really. If one notices the nature of water as being wet that doesnt mean that the water itself is separate from wetness.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:08 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:05 pm
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 pm

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?
Not really. If one notices the nature of water as being wet that doesnt mean that the water itself is separate from wetness.
Come on, you said there is no difference between them. I never suggested that they are separate.
To offer care and affection to sentient beings
In desperate situations who lack protection
Brings just as much merit as the meditation
On emptiness with compassion as its core—
So it has been said by glorious Lord Atisha.

Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche

If you cannot generate an altruistic mind, even extensive retreat will be of not much benefit.
Garchen Triptrul Rinpoche
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by Josef »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:14 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:08 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:05 pm

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?
Not really. If one notices the nature of water as being wet that doesnt mean that the water itself is separate from wetness.
Come on, you said there is no difference between them. I never suggested that they are separate.
We can notice the nature of something, that doesnt mean the appearance and nature are different. Mind and its nature are not different in any way. What is different is whether or not someone knows this. The object itself and its nature are not rendered different through this knowledge, the perceivers understanding is.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
User avatar
heart
Posts: 5064
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by heart »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:38 pm
heart wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:27 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:44 pm

That in no way agreed with “sems is confusion”.
Nobody is arguing that sems is the basis.
Khenpo Gangshar:

It is very important to distinguish the difference between mind (sem) and awareness (rigpa). The Great Omniscient One said,

The elephants pretending to know ati now a days
Claim that discursive thinking is awakened mind.
Such ignorant people, in their realm of darkness,
Are far away from the meaning of the natural Great Perfection.

If you fail to distinguish between mind and awareness you may engage in practices which confuse cause and result and thus turn away from the path in which view and conduct are united.When experiencing the continuity of undistracted naturalness, awareness is free from a reference point, like space, without even an atom of joy or sorrow, hope or fear, benefit or harm, whether you meet with positive or negative conditions. The character of (dualistic) mind is evident the moment you get slightly distracted and encounter (the same) conditions and you feel joy or sorrow. Having given rise to joy or sorrow, you will accumulate karmic actions.
For example, mind (sem) is like the clouds assembling in the sky. Therefore, you must gain stability in awareness (rigpa), which is like a cloudless sky. You must be able to purify the aspect of mind that is like the clouds in the sky.Through this you will be able to separate mind and awareness.

/magnus
Khenpo Gangshar is not saying mind=confusion here. He is saying one must distinguish between mind and rigpa. There’s a difference.
Even right here; “You must be able to purify the aspect of mind that is like the clouds in the sky.”
If one purifies the “aspect” of mind that is like clouds in the sky this implies a pure aspect of the sky itself. We can use waves and the ocean similarly. There is the appearance of mind and the phenomena of samsara but their nature is naturally perfected. It’s our job to understand this, not to label them as good and bad and further reinforce deluded dichotomies. The point is to integrate into the primordially pure nature, not toss babies out with bath water.
Of course he is saying Sems is confusion and deluded. But you can claim that "discursive thinking is awakened mind" all you like. Good luck with that.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by Josef »

heart wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:29 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:38 pm
heart wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:27 pm

Khenpo Gangshar:

It is very important to distinguish the difference between mind (sem) and awareness (rigpa). The Great Omniscient One said,

The elephants pretending to know ati now a days
Claim that discursive thinking is awakened mind.
Such ignorant people, in their realm of darkness,
Are far away from the meaning of the natural Great Perfection.

If you fail to distinguish between mind and awareness you may engage in practices which confuse cause and result and thus turn away from the path in which view and conduct are united.When experiencing the continuity of undistracted naturalness, awareness is free from a reference point, like space, without even an atom of joy or sorrow, hope or fear, benefit or harm, whether you meet with positive or negative conditions. The character of (dualistic) mind is evident the moment you get slightly distracted and encounter (the same) conditions and you feel joy or sorrow. Having given rise to joy or sorrow, you will accumulate karmic actions.
For example, mind (sem) is like the clouds assembling in the sky. Therefore, you must gain stability in awareness (rigpa), which is like a cloudless sky. You must be able to purify the aspect of mind that is like the clouds in the sky.Through this you will be able to separate mind and awareness.

/magnus
Khenpo Gangshar is not saying mind=confusion here. He is saying one must distinguish between mind and rigpa. There’s a difference.
Even right here; “You must be able to purify the aspect of mind that is like the clouds in the sky.”
If one purifies the “aspect” of mind that is like clouds in the sky this implies a pure aspect of the sky itself. We can use waves and the ocean similarly. There is the appearance of mind and the phenomena of samsara but their nature is naturally perfected. It’s our job to understand this, not to label them as good and bad and further reinforce deluded dichotomies. The point is to integrate into the primordially pure nature, not toss babies out with bath water.
Of course he is saying Sems is confusion and deluded. But you can claim that "discursive thinking is awakened mind" all you like. Good luck with that.

/magnus
You must be having a hard time reading the quote. He may be saying that sems is CONFUSED and deluded but nobody is saying "sems is confusion" but you.
Nobody is saying "discursive thinking is awakened mind".
There is nuance in these presentations that you are missing completely.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:25 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:14 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:08 pm

Not really. If one notices the nature of water as being wet that doesnt mean that the water itself is separate from wetness.
Come on, you said there is no difference between them. I never suggested that they are separate.
We can notice the nature of something, that doesnt mean the appearance and nature are different. Mind and its nature are not different in any way. What is different is whether or not someone knows this. The object itself and its nature are not rendered different through this knowledge, the perceivers understanding is.
Of course, which is why I wrote that the distinction is a heuristic tool and nothing but that.

The "mind" that you and I speak of here, though, will not be what Magnus (and TUR, etc) mean by sems. The latter pertains to the dualistic (= confused) functioning of our "mind" (in the broadest sense of the word) under marigpa.
To offer care and affection to sentient beings
In desperate situations who lack protection
Brings just as much merit as the meditation
On emptiness with compassion as its core—
So it has been said by glorious Lord Atisha.

Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche

If you cannot generate an altruistic mind, even extensive retreat will be of not much benefit.
Garchen Triptrul Rinpoche
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by Josef »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:34 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:25 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:14 pm

Come on, you said there is no difference between them. I never suggested that they are separate.
We can notice the nature of something, that doesnt mean the appearance and nature are different. Mind and its nature are not different in any way. What is different is whether or not someone knows this. The object itself and its nature are not rendered different through this knowledge, the perceivers understanding is.
Of course, which is why I wrote that the distinction is a heuristic tool and nothing but that.

The "mind" that you and I speak of here, though, will not be what Magnus (and TUR, etc) mean by sems. The latter pertains to the dualistic (= confused) functioning of our "mind" (in the broadest sense of the word) under marigpa.
There’s no problem with saying sems is confused, as you do here. The problem is in saying that sems=confusion. Confusion can be an aspect of sems but it is obviously not what it is, period.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: sems and rigpa

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:37 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:34 pm
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:25 pm

We can notice the nature of something, that doesnt mean the appearance and nature are different. Mind and its nature are not different in any way. What is different is whether or not someone knows this. The object itself and its nature are not rendered different through this knowledge, the perceivers understanding is.
Of course, which is why I wrote that the distinction is a heuristic tool and nothing but that.

The "mind" that you and I speak of here, though, will not be what Magnus (and TUR, etc) mean by sems. The latter pertains to the dualistic (= confused) functioning of our "mind" (in the broadest sense of the word) under marigpa.
There’s no problem with saying sems is confused, as you do here. The problem is in saying that sems=confusion. Confusion can be an aspect of sems but it is obviously not what it is, period.
You are using sems as referring to mindstream as such, in the broadest sense of the word -- which is presently under delusion but ultimately self-perfected.

Magnus is using it to refer solely to mindstream as it is under delusion. That is why he says that sems = confusion.

In terms of his definition it does not matter much whether you say that sems is confused or that it is confusion. In yours the difference is crucial.
To offer care and affection to sentient beings
In desperate situations who lack protection
Brings just as much merit as the meditation
On emptiness with compassion as its core—
So it has been said by glorious Lord Atisha.

Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche

If you cannot generate an altruistic mind, even extensive retreat will be of not much benefit.
Garchen Triptrul Rinpoche
Locked

Return to “Dzogchen”