sems and rigpa
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17125
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
sems and rigpa
Is sems "purified" by rigpa in the same way that the alaya-vijnana is purified in the Yogacara system?
Is it purified in any sense, or is it just recognized as intrinsically pure in the first place?
Is it purified in any sense, or is it just recognized as intrinsically pure in the first place?
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: sems and rigpa
hmm.. where to even start with this one? lol
Painting with very broad strokes, I would say that there seems to me to be three various conceptions of infinity, as either; oneness, an infinite time series, or the principle of self-difference.
The first idea of Oneness is the Vedic idea of a true Self or the Christian idea of becoming one with the Absolute in eternity. (As you can see it always involves capitalisation!)
The concept of an infinite time series, under secular capitalism is merely the need for endless growth, but with a non-nihilistic/non-physicalist system there seems to be the idea of working towards purification which may be realised in 7 billion kalpa or whatever - simply a point which appears to be always just over the horizon.
The idea of the cessation of endless cyclic existence is a difficult one because eternalism or nihilism seem to creep in...
The last is perhaps the most difficult to conceive of, but I think it brings the idea of the infinite into the present moment, and somewhat resembles the description given by the Buddha of the three marks - constant flux, no concept of ground/no obvious directionality, and the basic statement of non-identity, that A is not equal to A.
In other words, seeing that things do not come into or go out of existence, we perceive that there is endless flux - what would cessation actually look like in this context?
It could also be expressed as division by zero, which might be argued is not dissimilar to the concept of emptiness in regard to manifest appearances, but here I reach the point where I have to admit it is ungraspable - I have no concept of what division by zero might actually look like.
I believe this is one of the reasons that ChNN would always remind us to work with circumstances and adapt to real world conditions, because quite simply, the idea that "the infinite is now" is quite problematic within the horizon of an infinite time series.
Painting with very broad strokes, I would say that there seems to me to be three various conceptions of infinity, as either; oneness, an infinite time series, or the principle of self-difference.
The first idea of Oneness is the Vedic idea of a true Self or the Christian idea of becoming one with the Absolute in eternity. (As you can see it always involves capitalisation!)
The concept of an infinite time series, under secular capitalism is merely the need for endless growth, but with a non-nihilistic/non-physicalist system there seems to be the idea of working towards purification which may be realised in 7 billion kalpa or whatever - simply a point which appears to be always just over the horizon.
The idea of the cessation of endless cyclic existence is a difficult one because eternalism or nihilism seem to creep in...
The last is perhaps the most difficult to conceive of, but I think it brings the idea of the infinite into the present moment, and somewhat resembles the description given by the Buddha of the three marks - constant flux, no concept of ground/no obvious directionality, and the basic statement of non-identity, that A is not equal to A.
In other words, seeing that things do not come into or go out of existence, we perceive that there is endless flux - what would cessation actually look like in this context?
It could also be expressed as division by zero, which might be argued is not dissimilar to the concept of emptiness in regard to manifest appearances, but here I reach the point where I have to admit it is ungraspable - I have no concept of what division by zero might actually look like.
I believe this is one of the reasons that ChNN would always remind us to work with circumstances and adapt to real world conditions, because quite simply, the idea that "the infinite is now" is quite problematic within the horizon of an infinite time series.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: sems and rigpa
Malcolm once said it’s like gold. Gold doesn’t suddenly or slowly become gold. It’s already gold.
I can’t cite his post, and I can’t say it would apply to your specific question, but I thought I’d chime in with it.
I can’t cite his post, and I can’t say it would apply to your specific question, but I thought I’d chime in with it.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: sems and rigpa
The logic would look something like this...
if there were absolute being, it could not tolerate things coming and going - because then there would be change which would disprove it as an absolute
equally with non-being - in both these cases there can be no change, no passage of time - both absolute being and absolute non-being must necessarily manifest as isolated singularities which can have no possible contact with anything else, no possible change
(on that basis alone, we can rule out both of these possibilities simply because no absolute can have things outside of itself which come and go)
then that leaves this, whatever we call it, something in between being and non-being - emptiness or whatever...
here, it appears that things arise and cease even though we can be absolutely sure that in fact no such thing is possible - (because we have already established that there is nowhere else for it to go - it cannot possibly attain absolute being or absolute non-being)
therefore we must reason that the appearance of the finite, of change, and of the passage of time, are in fact simply the effect of whatever "this" is
the characteristics of "this" are that nothing can ever fully attain self-sameness (i.e. absolute being) - and therefore we must reason that what we are experiencing as finitude is in fact the only way that infinity can possibly manifest
on that basis, we cannot possibly have an endless series of nows where we just keep adding and adding one more - what appears to be change is in fact the only possible manifestation that infinity can take - and although it appears as an endless cyclic series, it cannot possibly be such.
As smcj says - it can only be what it already is.
if there were absolute being, it could not tolerate things coming and going - because then there would be change which would disprove it as an absolute
equally with non-being - in both these cases there can be no change, no passage of time - both absolute being and absolute non-being must necessarily manifest as isolated singularities which can have no possible contact with anything else, no possible change
(on that basis alone, we can rule out both of these possibilities simply because no absolute can have things outside of itself which come and go)
then that leaves this, whatever we call it, something in between being and non-being - emptiness or whatever...
here, it appears that things arise and cease even though we can be absolutely sure that in fact no such thing is possible - (because we have already established that there is nowhere else for it to go - it cannot possibly attain absolute being or absolute non-being)
therefore we must reason that the appearance of the finite, of change, and of the passage of time, are in fact simply the effect of whatever "this" is
the characteristics of "this" are that nothing can ever fully attain self-sameness (i.e. absolute being) - and therefore we must reason that what we are experiencing as finitude is in fact the only way that infinity can possibly manifest
on that basis, we cannot possibly have an endless series of nows where we just keep adding and adding one more - what appears to be change is in fact the only possible manifestation that infinity can take - and although it appears as an endless cyclic series, it cannot possibly be such.
As smcj says - it can only be what it already is.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17125
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: sems and rigpa
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".
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: sems and rigpa
I’m told Malcolm is on Facebook.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17125
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: sems and rigpa
I don't think he's particularly interested in answering my questions, but thanks, I'll keep it in mind..
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: sems and rigpa
"Sems" will self-liberate. Buddhas don't have "sems".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".
/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)
~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)
Re: sems and rigpa
That so? Do you have any sources for this?heart wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:43 am"Sems" will self-liberate. Buddhas don't have "sems".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".
/magnus
So, we have 3 possibilities on the table:
1. Sems can exist either in a pure or an impure state. For a buddha, sems is pure. For everyone else, it's impure. This implies that also a buddha has sems.
2. Sems ceases to exist for a buddha. Therefore, sems can only ever exist in an impure form for a non-enlightened being. Talking of such a thing as a pure sems for enlightenend beings makes no sense.
3. Sems has always been pure from the beginning, like gold never having been anything else than gold. Thus, also a buddha has sems, but in contrast to an ordinary being s/he does not cling to the wrong idea of an impure sems.
Now, playing the devil's advocate, which one is true?
Re: sems and rigpa
Thats non-sense. You should join the group.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:12 amI don't think he's particularly interested in answering my questions, but thanks, I'll keep it in mind..
Re: sems and rigpa
Yes, it is clear in all Dzogchen teachings.fckw wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:05 amThat so? Do you have any sources for this?heart wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:43 am"Sems" will self-liberate. Buddhas don't have "sems".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".
/magnus
The Pearl Garland Tantra:
Sem is the ground of all habitual tendencies,
The defilement of beings.
Sem perceives the perceived objects
And is therefore of a samsaric nature.
When free from sem buddhahood is attained
And all the defilements of beings are purified.
Cognizant and aware, clear and illuminating,
It burns away all conceptual thinking.
Empty cognizance is undefiled.
/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)
~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)
Re: sems and rigpa
if you can find the place where all the old candle flames go after they have been snuffed out, in the room next to that is where all the discarded sems are stored.
Re: sems and rigpa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubtlg17NaE4fckw wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:05 amThat so? Do you have any sources for this?heart wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:43 am"Sems" will self-liberate. Buddhas don't have "sems".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".
/magnus
So, we have 3 possibilities on the table:
1. Sems can exist either in a pure or an impure state. For a buddha, sems is pure. For everyone else, it's impure. This implies that also a buddha has sems.
2. Sems ceases to exist for a buddha. Therefore, sems can only ever exist in an impure form for a non-enlightened being. Talking of such a thing as a pure sems for enlightenend beings makes no sense.
3. Sems has always been pure from the beginning, like gold never having been anything else than gold. Thus, also a buddha has sems, but in contrast to an ordinary being s/he does not cling to the wrong idea of an impure sems.
Now, playing the devil's advocate, which one is true?
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17125
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: sems and rigpa
This is great, thanks. It accords with what I remember of the Uttaratantra as well.heart wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:47 pmYes, it is clear in all Dzogchen teachings.
The Pearl Garland Tantra:
Sem is the ground of all habitual tendencies,
The defilement of beings.
Sem perceives the perceived objects
And is therefore of a samsaric nature.
When free from sem buddhahood is attained
And all the defilements of beings are purified.
Cognizant and aware, clear and illuminating,
It burns away all conceptual thinking.
Empty cognizance is undefiled.
/magnus
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: sems and rigpa
Awesome, thanks!heart wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:47 pmYes, it is clear in all Dzogchen teachings.
The Pearl Garland Tantra:
Sem is the ground of all habitual tendencies,
The defilement of beings.
Sem perceives the perceived objects
And is therefore of a samsaric nature.
When free from sem buddhahood is attained
And all the defilements of beings are purified.
Cognizant and aware, clear and illuminating,
It burns away all conceptual thinking.
Empty cognizance is undefiled.
/magnus
- treehuggingoctopus
- Posts: 2512
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
- Location: EU
Re: sems and rigpa
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.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".
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
Re: sems and rigpa
Sems doesnt become anything. It, along with all phenomena are naturally perfected.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".
The problem is that we don't recognize this.
"All phenomena of samsara depend on the mind, so when the essence of mind is purified, samsara is purified. Since the phenomena of nirvana depend on the pristine consciousness of vidyā, because one remains in the immediacy of vidyā, buddhahood arises on its own. All critical points are summarized with those two." - Longchenpa
Re: sems and rigpa
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.treehuggingoctopus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:26 pmTUR (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.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".
"All phenomena of samsara depend on the mind, so when the essence of mind is purified, samsara is purified. Since the phenomena of nirvana depend on the pristine consciousness of vidyā, because one remains in the immediacy of vidyā, buddhahood arises on its own. All critical points are summarized with those two." - Longchenpa
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17125
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: sems and rigpa
So then, it's just non-recognition that is the issue, there is nothing to purify.Josef wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 pmThe 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.treehuggingoctopus wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:26 pmTUR (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.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".
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: sems and rigpa
Correct. Everything is naturally perfected and pure in its true nature.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:43 pmSo then, it's just non-recognition that is the issue, there is nothing to purify.Josef wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:00 pmThe 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.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.
"All phenomena of samsara depend on the mind, so when the essence of mind is purified, samsara is purified. Since the phenomena of nirvana depend on the pristine consciousness of vidyā, because one remains in the immediacy of vidyā, buddhahood arises on its own. All critical points are summarized with those two." - Longchenpa