Is the nature of the mind cognizant of itself?

[OdeKirk]

I suggest you read at least the last couple pages. It covers why, from a Buddhist point of view, the mind and its nature cannot be reflexive in this way. The question itself is based on a misapprehension of the mind, which involves attributing to thought what cannot be attributed to it, i.e. that it has some sort of origin or source (the mind), that it comes from somewhere (a thinker), and that there is a someone who knows thought (a knower). Mind is unknowable because the reification "mind" doesn't actually exist.

The early suttas reject a consciousness that knows itself implicitly by denying that consciousness can be its own support. The Bijasutta (SN 22.54):

“Consciousness, bhikkhus, while standing, might stand engaged with form; based upon form, established upon form, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase, and expansion. Or consciousness, while standing, might stand engaged with feeling … engaged with perception … engaged with volitional formations; based upon volitional formations, established upon volitional formations, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase, and expansion.

“Bhikkhus, though someone might say: ‘Apart from form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from volitional formations, I will make known the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and rebirth, its growth, increase, and expansion’—that is impossible.

Doesn't Dzogchen talk about a reflexive awareness? For example:
Loppon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche from Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings:

According to Dzogchen, Rang-rig is the awareness which knows the Natural State. It is not something separate from the Natural State. The Natural State is aware of itself; it is self-aware and self-illuminated.

I think this was quoted earlier in the thread too, but Mipham Rinpoche also talks about this here:
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-ma ... -awareness

Does the distinction between clarity (gsal-ba) and consciousness come into play here, where clarity is self-illuminating and is unconditioned (at least in Dzogchen), but consciousness is non-reflexive and is conditioned?

[Baz0]

Doesn't Dzogchen talk about a reflexive awareness?

a digital search of the phrase "self-cognizing awareness" in "The Precious Treasury of the Fundamental Nature" by Longchenpa with commentary by Khangsar Tenpa'I Wangchuk reveals it's used TWENTY TIMES - I can quote all 20 if you like but as only one example...

The supreme meditative absorption of greatly blissful self-cognizing awareness is at all times present and does not arise anew through deliberate effort and practice.

for me the end of the argument is right there in the name self-cognizing - if Longchenpa is wrong about that what in Dzogchen is not arguable or ill defined or... ??? but perhaps the Padmakara Translation Group mistranslated Longchenpa who did not intend to say "self-cognizing awareness" (in translation) and a majority of elite Dzogchenpas know that somehow?

[Josef]

Doesn't Dzogchen talk about a reflexive awareness?

a digital search of the phrase "self-cognizing awareness" in "The Precious Treasury of the Fundamental Nature" by Longchenpa with commentary by Khangsar Tenpa'I Wangchuk reveals it's used TWENTY TIMES - I can quote all 20 if you like but as only one example...

The supreme meditative absorption of greatly blissful self-cognizing awareness is at all times present and does not arise anew through deliberate effort and practice.

for me the end of the argument is right there in the name self-cognizing - if Longchenpa is wrong about that what in Dzogchen is not arguable or ill defined or... ??? but perhaps the Padmakara Translation Group mistranslated Longchenpa who did not intend to say "self-cognizing awareness" (in translation) and a majority of elite Dzogchenpas know that somehow?

rang rig means one's own rigpa.
It is each individuals own cognizant presence of the basis as it abides within themselves. This is ones personal knowledge of the basis.

[natusake]

Doesn't Dzogchen talk about a reflexive awareness? For example:
Loppon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche from Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings:

According to Dzogchen, Rang-rig is the awareness which knows the Natural State. It is not something separate from the Natural State. The Natural State is aware of itself; it is self-aware and self-illuminated.

I think this was quoted earlier in the thread too, but Mipham Rinpoche also talks about this here:
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-ma ... -awareness

Does the distinction between clarity (gsal-ba) and consciousness come into play here, where clarity is self-illuminating and is unconditioned (at least in Dzogchen), but consciousness is non-reflexive and is conditioned?

Nope; actually, this term "rang rig" was discussed earlier in this thread. Rang rig is a gloss and abbreviation of the phrase "pratyatmyavedanajnana", i.e. one's own personally intuited knowledge. Longchenpa himself explains this. For example, see: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 70#p671770

There are actually conditioned and unconditioned forms of clarity in Dzogchen. Clarity of the mind, cognitive clarity, is conditioned. Clarity of the basis, zangthal, is unconditioned. Neither of these are reflexive.

[OdeKirk]

Nope; actually, this term "rang rig" was discussed earlier in this thread. Rang rig is a gloss and abbreviation of the phrase "pratyatmyavedanajnana", i.e. one's own personally intuited knowledge. Longchenpa himself explains this. For example, see: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 70#p671770

There are actually conditioned and unconditioned forms of clarity in Dzogchen. Clarity of the mind, cognitive clarity, is conditioned. Clarity of the basis, zangthal, is unconditioned. Neither of these are reflexive.

Ah I missed that, apologies, thank you for the clarification!

[Baz0]

all quotes below are Longchenpa... wonder what Tibetan word(s) are being translated as "self-cognizing awareness" -- in addition to the following there are actually 38 more occurences of self-cognizing in this text by Longchenpa all referring to ultimate wisdom, awareness, etc etc some using slightly different word orders for a total over 50 times in just one book... What on earth is Longchenpa referring to here? Whatever it is (in Tibetan) can we agree it most definitely is self-cognizant?

Awareness, self-cognizing and enlightened, Is clearly revealed.It is completely pure and objectless, The primal wisdom of Victorious Ones.

Constantly within the great expanse, Awareness, self-cognizing, All arises equal and as equal dwells. All is equal in subsiding, neither good nor bad.

You reach a clear conviction That awareness—self-cognizing, open, unimpeded, Free of all appearance, Beyond all concentrated meditation on an object,

A state of infinite and all-embracing evenness. Neither can the mind, awareness, self-cognizing, Be divided into instants, earlier and later. It is a space-like state Of infinite and all-embracing evenness.

The great space of awareness, self-cognizing, The state of luminosity— Is hard to realize, though it lies within yourself.

The ground, awareness, self-cognizing, Is like this crystal sphere. Its emptiness is dharmakāya,

In the vast and pure expanse Of uninhibited awareness, self-cognizing, All appearances—objects, mental states—Are an unbroken state of evenness.

Likewise, even though from one awareness, self-cognizing, Nirvana and samsara both arise, Their root is one, the ultimate enlightened mind.

Within this ultimate dimension, The vast expanse of awareness, self-cognizing, There dwells the one sole wisdom

All things are subsumed Within awareness, one and self-cognizing.

You reach a clear conviction That all things are the vast expanse, Awareness, empty and unborn, Primordial wisdom self-cognizing.

Finally, since immaculate self-cognizing awareness—the fundamental nature endowed with twofold purity—is the dharmakāya, sambhogakāya, and nirmāṇakāya, the result is not to be looked for elsewhere.

Within awareness, the state of equality, empty and self-cognizing, the ultimate enlightened mind similar to space

In the same way, the things that manifest within the vast expanse of all-embracing self-cognizing awareness—the outer and inner things of phenomenal existence, samsara and nirvana—are all, in the very moment of their appearing, groundless and rootless.

Self-cognizing awareness does not stir from the original fundamental stratum of unchanging dharmakāya, and one understands that entities and their characteristics are pure. I am the only one these days who makes this distinction.

[natusake]

Whatever it is (in Tibetan) can we agree it most definitely is self-cognizant?

Yes, provided we understand this term "self-cognizant awareness" to be a contraction of "one's own personally intuited knowledge". This phrase is used even in Pali canon to refer to the fact that one finds awakening for themselves, and not by the power of another. Since Longchenpa himself explains the meaning, it would be inappropriate to attribute to it a meaning different from what he has explained.

Josef explained it this way as well. He is a teacher and it would be advisable to listen to him

[Baz0]

Whatever it is (in Tibetan) can we agree it most definitely is self-cognizant?

Yes, provided we understand this term "self-cognizant awareness" to be a contraction of "one's own personally intuited knowledge". This phrase is used even in Pali canon to refer to the fact that one finds awakening for themselves, and not by the power of another. Since Longchenpa himself explains the meaning, it would be inappropriate to attribute to it a meaning different from what he has explained.

Josef explained it this way as well. He is a teacher and it would be advisable to listen to him

Is there some kind of awareness which is more fundamental than the "self-cognizant awareness" of merely personally awakened mind? Is this more truly cosmic awareness not self-cognizant? Is that the point I missed?

[Johnny Dangerous]

Whatever it is (in Tibetan) can we agree it most definitely is self-cognizant?

Yes, provided we understand this term "self-cognizant awareness" to be a contraction of "one's own personally intuited knowledge". This phrase is used even in Pali canon to refer to the fact that one finds awakening for themselves, and not by the power of another. Since Longchenpa himself explains the meaning, it would be inappropriate to attribute to it a meaning different from what he has explained.

Josef explained it this way as well. He is a teacher and it would be advisable to listen to him

Is there some kind of awareness which is more fundamental than the "self-cognizant awareness" of merely personally awakened mind? Is this more truly cosmic awareness not self-cognizant? Is that the point I missed?

It’s a point you missed because you have no Dzogchen teacher or transmission and are trying to read Longchenpa and have him make sense in whatever other system you have studied.

[tingdzin]

Endless discussions attempting to understand rigpa through conceptual manipulation are completely beside the point. Dzogchen was not meant to be a philosophy, and was not considered one for centuries. So many people would rather lose themselves in contrived conceptions than make an effort to actually realize experientially what the words are just pointing to. If you want to philosophize, fine, but don't hold the idea that you are getting closer to understanding Dzogchen by doing so. Especially if you don't know Tibetan (Sanskrit is irrelevant here).

Really. the discussions of rigpa here are as frequent and as long as those on sex used to be, and I doubt they are more useful. I recommend reading Malcolm's "Tasting Sugar" on this site.

I don't expect this opinion will be well received, but I put it out there for new people who might be interested in Dzogchen, rather than for "experts", just so the new people who are genuine seekers can see an alternative approach.

[natusake]

Whatever it is (in Tibetan) can we agree it most definitely is self-cognizant?

Yes, provided we understand this term "self-cognizant awareness" to be a contraction of "one's own personally intuited knowledge". This phrase is used even in Pali canon to refer to the fact that one finds awakening for themselves, and not by the power of another. Since Longchenpa himself explains the meaning, it would be inappropriate to attribute to it a meaning different from what he has explained.

Josef explained it this way as well. He is a teacher and it would be advisable to listen to him

Is there some kind of awareness which is more fundamental than the "self-cognizant awareness" of merely personally awakened mind? Is this more truly cosmic awareness not self-cognizant? Is that the point I missed?

I'm going to go with the other posters and say it is better to learn this stuff from a teacher than read a know-it-all like myself tossing around terms and concepts to prove some point.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Endless discussions attempting to understand rigpa through conceptual manipulation are completely beside the point. Dzogchen was not meant to be a philosophy, and was not considered one for centuries. So many people would rather lose themselves in contrived conceptions than make an effort to actually realize experientially what the words are just pointing to. If you want to philosophize, fine, but don't hold the idea that you are getting closer to understanding Dzogchen by doing so. Especially if you don't know Tibetan (Sanskrit is irrelevant here).

Really. the discussions of rigpa here are as frequent and as long as those on sex used to be, and I doubt they are more useful. I recommend reading Malcolm's "Tasting Sugar" on this site.

I don't expect this opinion will be well received, but I put it out there for new people who might be interested in Dzogchen, rather than for "experts", just so the new people who are genuine seekers can see an alternative approach.

Beyond this I think sometimes conceptual discussion can become like gossip. Just casually entertaining oneself with Dzogchen ideas is a bad idea. Especially true for people who are prospective students and no formal teacher yet, these connections aren’t trivial.

I think sometimes these discussions are really helpful, other times they are just proliferation about the thing we should probably take the most seriously, and not just tool around with like it was a video game or something.

Not trying to go all Dharma cop here, I’m sure I’m guilty of trivializing teachings too, just saying I want to avoid it as much as possible.

[bowsamic]

Endless discussions attempting to understand rigpa through conceptual manipulation are completely beside the point. Dzogchen was not meant to be a philosophy, and was not considered one for centuries. So many people would rather lose themselves in contrived conceptions than make an effort to actually realize experientially what the words are just pointing to. If you want to philosophize, fine, but don't hold the idea that you are getting closer to understanding Dzogchen by doing so. Especially if you don't know Tibetan (Sanskrit is irrelevant here).

Really. the discussions of rigpa here are as frequent and as long as those on sex used to be, and I doubt they are more useful. I recommend reading Malcolm's "Tasting Sugar" on this site.

I don't expect this opinion will be well received, but I put it out there for new people who might be interested in Dzogchen, rather than for "experts", just so the new people who are genuine seekers can see an alternative approach.

Beyond this I think sometimes conceptual discussion can become like gossip. Just casually entertaining oneself with Dzogchen ideas is a bad idea. Especially true for people who are prospective students and no formal teacher yet, these connections aren’t trivial.

I think sometimes these discussions are really helpful, other times they are just proliferation about the thing we should probably take the most seriously, and not just tool around with like it was a video game or something.

Not trying to go all Dharma cop here, I’m sure I’m guilty of trivializing teachings too, just saying I want to avoid it as much as possible.

I'm not trying to draw a comparison between Zen and Dzogchen as I know very little about the latter, but I think it's weird how in Zen we all knew this very strongly, to the point where philosophising and discursive thought was basically immediately mocked or shut down, even by new practitioners. Even if you go in some really unsavoury Zen spaces online they will avoid any attempt at conceptualising Zen. Of course, if you don't get it, this isn't really helpful either (see the people pretending to be severe, shouting Zen masters)

Is there a reason why in Dzogchen people feel more comfortable conceptualising and philosophising, even though that's supposedly missing the mark?

[PadmaVonSamba]

The mind is like the eyes, in that the eyes can never see themselves.
But the eyes can see themselves reflected.
Similarly, the mind is aware of its existence because awareness is “reflected” in objects if awareness.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Endless discussions attempting to understand rigpa through conceptual manipulation are completely beside the point. Dzogchen was not meant to be a philosophy, and was not considered one for centuries. So many people would rather lose themselves in contrived conceptions than make an effort to actually realize experientially what the words are just pointing to. If you want to philosophize, fine, but don't hold the idea that you are getting closer to understanding Dzogchen by doing so. Especially if you don't know Tibetan (Sanskrit is irrelevant here).

Really. the discussions of rigpa here are as frequent and as long as those on sex used to be, and I doubt they are more useful. I recommend reading Malcolm's "Tasting Sugar" on this site.

I don't expect this opinion will be well received, but I put it out there for new people who might be interested in Dzogchen, rather than for "experts", just so the new people who are genuine seekers can see an alternative approach.

Beyond this I think sometimes conceptual discussion can become like gossip. Just casually entertaining oneself with Dzogchen ideas is a bad idea. Especially true for people who are prospective students and no formal teacher yet, these connections aren’t trivial.

I think sometimes these discussions are really helpful, other times they are just proliferation about the thing we should probably take the most seriously, and not just tool around with like it was a video game or something.

Not trying to go all Dharma cop here, I’m sure I’m guilty of trivializing teachings too, just saying I want to avoid it as much as possible.

I'm not trying to draw a comparison between Zen and Dzogchen as I know very little about the latter, but I think it's weird how in Zen we all knew this very strongly, to the point where philosophising and discursive thought was basically immediately mocked or shut down, even by new practitioners. Even if you go in some really unsavoury Zen spaces online they will avoid any attempt at conceptualising Zen. Of course, if you don't get it, this isn't really helpful either (see the people pretending to be severe, shouting Zen masters)

Is there a reason why in Dzogchen people feel more comfortable conceptualising and philosophising, even though that's supposedly missing the mark?

Firstly, that was not my experience in Zen. Second, often when it was done it was to save face and avoid saying “I don’t know.” Some Zen circles are almost anti-study in my experience, which is no better.

I think reason it happens with Tibetan Buddhism in general is because it is a text-heavy tradition with a history of debate, and because Westerners are super preoccupied with Orthopraxy…sometimes it’s good, other times it’s just neurotic.

Dzogchen is precise though, it is important to understand where we are at and easy to get lost if we don’t.

[bowsamic]

Beyond this I think sometimes conceptual discussion can become like gossip. Just casually entertaining oneself with Dzogchen ideas is a bad idea. Especially true for people who are prospective students and no formal teacher yet, these connections aren’t trivial.

I think sometimes these discussions are really helpful, other times they are just proliferation about the thing we should probably take the most seriously, and not just tool around with like it was a video game or something.

Not trying to go all Dharma cop here, I’m sure I’m guilty of trivializing teachings too, just saying I want to avoid it as much as possible.

I'm not trying to draw a comparison between Zen and Dzogchen as I know very little about the latter, but I think it's weird how in Zen we all knew this very strongly, to the point where philosophising and discursive thought was basically immediately mocked or shut down, even by new practitioners. Even if you go in some really unsavoury Zen spaces online they will avoid any attempt at conceptualising Zen. Of course, if you don't get it, this isn't really helpful either (see the people pretending to be severe, shouting Zen masters)

Is there a reason why in Dzogchen people feel more comfortable conceptualising and philosophising, even though that's supposedly missing the mark?

Firstly, that was not my experience in Zen. Second, often when it was done it was to save face and avoid saying “I don’t know.” Some Zen circles are almost anti-study in my experience, which is no better.

I think reason it happens with Tibetan Buddhism in general is because it is a text-heavy tradition with a history of debate, and because Westerners are super preoccupied with Orthopraxy…sometimes it’s good, other times it’s just neurotic.

Dzogchen is precise though, it is important to understand and easy to get lost if we don’t.

This just seems like more excuses for you to retain some utility for conceptualising to me. Suddenly becoming critical of Zen in response is telling.

Dzogchen is precise, and it is important to understand. Does conceptualising and philosophising help with that?

[Johnny Dangerous]

I'm not trying to draw a comparison between Zen and Dzogchen as I know very little about the latter, but I think it's weird how in Zen we all knew this very strongly, to the point where philosophising and discursive thought was basically immediately mocked or shut down, even by new practitioners. Even if you go in some really unsavoury Zen spaces online they will avoid any attempt at conceptualising Zen. Of course, if you don't get it, this isn't really helpful either (see the people pretending to be severe, shouting Zen masters)

Is there a reason why in Dzogchen people feel more comfortable conceptualising and philosophising, even though that's supposedly missing the mark?

Firstly, that was not my experience in Zen. Second, often when it was done it was to save face and avoid saying “I don’t know.” Some Zen circles are almost anti-study in my experience, which is no better.

I think reason it happens with Tibetan Buddhism in general is because it is a text-heavy tradition with a history of debate, and because Westerners are super preoccupied with Orthopraxy…sometimes it’s good, other times it’s just neurotic.

Dzogchen is precise though, it is important to understand and easy to get lost if we don’t.

This just seems like more excuses for you to retain some utility for conceptualising to me. Suddenly becoming critical of Zen in response is telling.

There is -some- utility to conceptualizing.

Wasn’t being critical of Zen, but pointing out Zen students have their own set of issues, and your attempt and psycho analyzing it is plain silly.

Dzogchen is precise, and it is important to understand. Does conceptualising and philosophising help with that?

Sometimes it does, other times not so much. It’s up to the student to develop judgement on that.

[bowsamic]

Firstly, that was not my experience in Zen. Second, often when it was done it was to save face and avoid saying “I don’t know.” Some Zen circles are almost anti-study in my experience, which is no better.

I think reason it happens with Tibetan Buddhism in general is because it is a text-heavy tradition with a history of debate, and because Westerners are super preoccupied with Orthopraxy…sometimes it’s good, other times it’s just neurotic.

Dzogchen is precise though, it is important to understand and easy to get lost if we don’t.

This just seems like more excuses for you to retain some utility for conceptualising to me. Suddenly becoming critical of Zen in response is telling.

Don’t even go there with me, I’m not interested.

Dzogchen is precise, and it is important to understand. Does conceptualising and philosophising help with that?

Sometimes it does, other times not so much. It’s up to the student to develop judgement on that.

Can you give me an example of how conceptualising Dzogchen can help a student's practise?

[Johnny Dangerous]

This just seems like more excuses for you to retain some utility for conceptualising to me. Suddenly becoming critical of Zen in response is telling.

Don’t even go there with me, I’m not interested.

Dzogchen is precise, and it is important to understand. Does conceptualising and philosophising help with that?

Sometimes it does, other times not so much. It’s up to the student to develop judgement on that.

Can you give me an example of how conceptualising Dzogchen can help a student's practise?

I’ll try, then I think I’m probably done talking to you about this.

“Conceptualizing” (which seems like a thought -averse way of saying “learning” here) is useful in Dzogchen for

1) understanding what makes Dzogchen a distinct path, what is transmitted, what to do next, etc.

2) understanding how to practice it, including common obstacles

3) understanding how to verbalize and have a framework for obstacles we might come across in our practice, ideally so that our teacher can individually direct us to overcome them.

Other than that “conceptualizing” is also part of preliminary practices such as learning about lineage masters and gaining confidence, turning away from samsara, other contemplations and mind trainings that should typically precede the main practice.

[bowsamic]

Don’t even go there with me, I’m not interested.


Sometimes it does, other times not so much. It’s up to the student to develop judgement on that.

Can you give me an example of how conceptualising Dzogchen can help a student's practise?

I’ll try, then I think I’m probably done talking to you about this.

“Conceptualizing” (which seems like a thought -averse way of saying “learning” here) is useful in Dzogchen for

1) understanding what makes Dzogchen a distinct path, what is transmitted, what to do next, etc.

2) understanding how to practice it, including common obstacles

3) understanding how to verbalize and have a framework for obstacles we might come across in our practice, ideally so that our teacher can individually direct us to overcome them.

Other than that “conceptualizing” is also part of preliminary practices such as learning about lineage masters and gaining confidence, turning away from samsara, other contemplations and mind trainings that should typically precede the main practice.

I think you are being disingenuous here. We both know that this thread is about none of those things.