Page 2 of 5

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:29 pm
by TrimePema
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:20 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:43 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.
So then, it's just non-recognition that is the issue, there is nothing to purify.
Correct. Everything is naturally perfected and pure in its true nature.
Yet, it is explained in myriad ways for different beings' propensities, in order for them to be able to realize this directly.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:47 pm
by Josef
TrimePema wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:29 pm
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:20 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:43 pm

So then, it's just non-recognition that is the issue, there is nothing to purify.
Correct. Everything is naturally perfected and pure in its true nature.
Yet, it is explained in myriad ways for different beings' propensities, in order for them to be able to realize this directly.
Sure, but this is the Dzogchen section afterall and the Dzogchen perspective is that it is naturally perfected.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:49 pm
by futerko
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:43 pm So then, it's just non-recognition that is the issue, there is nothing to purify.
hmm, yes and no - remember the blurb for that book you posted?

"This was understood by mahasiddhas like Saraha and Tilopa, who spent years doing practices to transform impure vision into pure vision. Then they realized that the problem was not vision, but attachment."

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:20 pm
by heart
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.
There is no difference between confusion and knowledge? :smile:

/magnus

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:35 pm
by Johnny Dangerous
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:47 pm
TrimePema wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:29 pm
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:20 pm
Correct. Everything is naturally perfected and pure in its true nature.
Yet, it is explained in myriad ways for different beings' propensities, in order for them to be able to realize this directly.
Sure, but this is the Dzogchen section afterall and the Dzogchen perspective is that it is naturally perfected.
Right, samsara in Dzogchen is non-recognition. I guess this means that the only "purification" is actually directed towards recognition and stabilizing it, rather than accumulating or purifying anything.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:36 pm
by Josef
heart wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:20 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.
There is no difference between confusion and knowledge? :smile:

/magnus
That's not what I said.
Ironically though if we look into the connate ignorance and wisdom of the basis there isnt really much of a difference there either. The resolution of ignorance at the ground of liberation is just the same nature but there is no longer any confusion about it.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:37 pm
by Josef
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:35 pm
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:47 pm
TrimePema wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:29 pm
Yet, it is explained in myriad ways for different beings' propensities, in order for them to be able to realize this directly.
Sure, but this is the Dzogchen section afterall and the Dzogchen perspective is that it is naturally perfected.
Right, samsara in Dzogchen is non-recognition. I guess this means that the only "purification" is actually directed towards recognition and stabilizing it, rather than accumulating or purifying anything.
Exactly. There are no accumulations in the liberation of Samantabhadra etc.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:47 pm
by heart
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:36 pm
heart wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:20 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.
There is no difference between confusion and knowledge? :smile:

/magnus
That's not what I said.
Ironically though if we look into the connate ignorance and wisdom of the basis there isnt really much of a difference there either. The resolution of ignorance at the ground of liberation is just the same nature but there is no longer any confusion about it.
So you don't think Sem is confusion? You don't think Rigpa is knowledge?

/magnus

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:51 pm
by Johnny Dangerous
Heh, I have to confess this is exactly why I posted this. There are a few different ways to answer this question and it's a pretty interesting conundrum...

It seems we can only answer in dualistic language of one kind or another, no matter how hard we try. Maybe that's sems for ya.

In Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds, I feel like the most substantial difference between the Dzogchen and Mahayana view is mainly just that Dzogchen doesn't acknowledge time, recognition ibeing definition timeless, and time being a function of the deluded mind... whereas the accumulation model is necessarily based on a chronology.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:02 am
by Josef
heart wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:47 pm
Josef wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:36 pm
heart wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:20 pm

There is no difference between confusion and knowledge? :smile:

/magnus
That's not what I said.
Ironically though if we look into the connate ignorance and wisdom of the basis there isnt really much of a difference there either. The resolution of ignorance at the ground of liberation is just the same nature but there is no longer any confusion about it.
So you don't think Sem is confusion? You don't think Rigpa is knowledge?

/magnus
sems is definitely not confusion. Sems nyid can be obscured by confusion but that doesnt mean that mind itself is confusion. Rigpa is ones knowledge of the basis amongst other things.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:05 am
by Josef
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:51 pm Heh, I have to confess this is exactly why I posted this. There are a few different ways to answer this question and it's a pretty interesting conundrum...

It seems we can only answer in dualistic language of one kind or another, no matter how hard we try. Maybe that's sems for ya.

In Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds, I feel like the most substantial difference between the Dzogchen and Mahayana view is mainly just that Dzogchen doesn't acknowledge time, recognition ibeing definition timeless, and time being a function of the deluded mind... whereas the accumulation model is necessarily based on a chronology.
The six characteristics of Samantabhadras liberation totally refute the notion of accumulating anything.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:11 am
by Johnny Dangerous
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:05 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:51 pm Heh, I have to confess this is exactly why I posted this. There are a few different ways to answer this question and it's a pretty interesting conundrum...

It seems we can only answer in dualistic language of one kind or another, no matter how hard we try. Maybe that's sems for ya.

In Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds, I feel like the most substantial difference between the Dzogchen and Mahayana view is mainly just that Dzogchen doesn't acknowledge time, recognition ibeing definition timeless, and time being a function of the deluded mind... whereas the accumulation model is necessarily based on a chronology.
The six characteristics of Samantabhadras liberation totally refute the notion of accumulating anything.
And?

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:15 am
by Josef
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:11 am
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:05 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:51 pm Heh, I have to confess this is exactly why I posted this. There are a few different ways to answer this question and it's a pretty interesting conundrum...

It seems we can only answer in dualistic language of one kind or another, no matter how hard we try. Maybe that's sems for ya.

In Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds, I feel like the most substantial difference between the Dzogchen and Mahayana view is mainly just that Dzogchen doesn't acknowledge time, recognition ibeing definition timeless, and time being a function of the deluded mind... whereas the accumulation model is necessarily based on a chronology.
The six characteristics of Samantabhadras liberation totally refute the notion of accumulating anything.
And?
and, that means that the way liberation is described in the tantras and their commentaries positions Dzogchen as a vehicle that is beyond any notions of accumulations, purification, or any other conventional notions of stages etc that we see in other yanas. Sure there is individual progress but actual liberation is completely free of any limitations.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:15 am
by futerko
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:11 am
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:05 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:51 pm Heh, I have to confess this is exactly why I posted this. There are a few different ways to answer this question and it's a pretty interesting conundrum...

It seems we can only answer in dualistic language of one kind or another, no matter how hard we try. Maybe that's sems for ya.

In Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds, I feel like the most substantial difference between the Dzogchen and Mahayana view is mainly just that Dzogchen doesn't acknowledge time, recognition ibeing definition timeless, and time being a function of the deluded mind... whereas the accumulation model is necessarily based on a chronology.
The six characteristics of Samantabhadras liberation totally refute the notion of accumulating anything.
And?
...and, believing that you are somehow existing outside of time - you will start to accumulate barnacles!

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:25 am
by Johnny Dangerous
futerko wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:15 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:11 am
Josef wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:05 am

The six characteristics of Samantabhadras liberation totally refute the notion of accumulating anything.
And?
...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.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:39 am
by futerko
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:25 am
futerko wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:15 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:11 am

And?
...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.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:42 am
by Johnny Dangerous
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.
Yeah.

I just got the book btw, it's awesome. This is a seriously important teaching in the Sakya world and it's pretty cool that this exists.

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:49 am
by futerko
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:42 am
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.
Yeah.

I just got the book btw, it's awesome. This is a seriously important teaching in the Sakya world and it's pretty cool that this exists.
Yeah, it does look really good - enjoy!

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:01 am
by LastLegend
:lol:

Non-differentiating wisdom that’s what we call nature: naturally knowing and pure. Yes, if you are certain that’s what you see, then that’s where you’ll stay and automatically fulfill the last two paramitas (and that’s built in accumulation). I am sure people also recognize grasping and duality being an issue, but it’s the right thing to ignore them and in fact forget pretty much all have learned. And just nature living itself. Much respect to this type of knowledge is only shown by enlightened masters.

But in terms of pure. Well if there is isn’t anything there at all, what is pure, compassion, etc coming from?

Re: sems and rigpa

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:46 am
by Johnny Dangerous
LastLegend wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:01 am

But in terms of pure. Well if there is isn’t anything there at all, what is pure, compassion, etc coming from?
My understanding of that is: Compassion is not separate from emptiness, it manifests when the relative is fully seen from the view of the absolute, but it is not separate thing which is "produced" anywhere.