Differentiating the purpose of Rushens and Semdzins (as taught by ChNN)

[Ati108]

When exactly should we apply the Rushens vs Semdzins?

[jet.urgyen]

When exactly should we apply the Rushens vs Semdzins?

Rushens are meant to help the yogin to discern what is mind and what is nature-of-mind.

Semdzins are meant to help the yogin for re-experience the nature-of-mind.

for example, one is thinking 'oh, this must be the nature of mind', thinking is mind and in such thinking is no certainty, so a little rushen can help.
for example, one is too busy to practice, or one practice a lot but without aim, etc., then if one already have the discernment one can become 'familiar' with the nature-of-mind and realize through experience what is the main point of all.

this is how i see it, what i understood.

[Ati108]

When exactly should we apply the Rushens vs Semdzins?

Rushens are meant to help the yogin to discern what is mind and what is nature-of-mind.

Semdzins are meant to help the yogin for re-experience the nature-of-mind.

for example, one is thinking 'oh, this must be the nature of mind', thinking is mind and in such thinking is no certainty, so a little rushen can help.
for example, one is too busy to practice, or one practice a lot but without aim, etc., then if one already have the discernment one can become 'familiar' with the nature-of-mind and realize through experience what is the main point of all.

this is how i see it, what i understood.

I hear your attempt to draw out a difference between the terms discernment and re-experiencing. However, isn't re-experiencing itself a way to discern the between mind and nature-of-mind, and isn't discernment essentially predicated on re-experiencing the difference between mind and its nature? I may be missing your point, but I don't quite see the difference. Maybe its a matter of emphasis.

[Johnny Dangerous]

When exactly should we apply the Rushens vs Semdzins?

Rushens are meant to help the yogin to discern what is mind and what is nature-of-mind.

Semdzins are meant to help the yogin for re-experience the nature-of-mind.

for example, one is thinking 'oh, this must be the nature of mind', thinking is mind and in such thinking is no certainty, so a little rushen can help.
for example, one is too busy to practice, or one practice a lot but without aim, etc., then if one already have the discernment one can become 'familiar' with the nature-of-mind and realize through experience what is the main point of all.

this is how i see it, what i understood.

I hear your attempt to draw out a difference between the terms discernment and re-experiencing. However, isn't re-experiencing itself a way to discern the between mind and nature-of-mind, and isn't discernment essentially predicated on re-experiencing the difference between mind and its nature? I may be missing your point, but I don't quite see the difference. Maybe its a matter of emphasis.

They are definitely connected, but we have to resolve doubts about minds nature. By definition if there is no discernment, then the experience cannot be identified. We will be confused about what is mind, what is its nature.

If that’s the case, semdzins will performative or intellectual, sort of convincing ourselves “this is minds nature”, but only in an intellectual way, based on someone else’s description in language, but there is no recognition.

However, I’m not convinced it’s a particularly linear process.

[Malcolm]

When exactly should we apply the Rushens vs Semdzins?

Rushan is something that should be done in retreat, systematically.

Semszins can be done any time, but in the beginning it is best to through then one by one.

[jet.urgyen]

Rushens are meant to help the yogin to discern what is mind and what is nature-of-mind.

Semdzins are meant to help the yogin for re-experience the nature-of-mind.

for example, one is thinking 'oh, this must be the nature of mind', thinking is mind and in such thinking is no certainty, so a little rushen can help.
for example, one is too busy to practice, or one practice a lot but without aim, etc., then if one already have the discernment one can become 'familiar' with the nature-of-mind and realize through experience what is the main point of all.

this is how i see it, what i understood.

I hear your attempt to draw out a difference between the terms discernment and re-experiencing. However, isn't re-experiencing itself a way to discern the between mind and nature-of-mind, and isn't discernment essentially predicated on re-experiencing the difference between mind and its nature? I may be missing your point, but I don't quite see the difference. Maybe its a matter of emphasis.

They are definitely connected, but we have to resolve doubts about minds nature. By definition if there is no discernment, then the experience cannot be identified. We will be confused about what is mind, what is its nature.

If that’s the case, semdzins will performative or intellectual, sort of convincing ourselves “this is minds nature”, but only in an intellectual way, based on someone else’s description in language, but there is no recognition.

so it is; that's why if one "didn't recognized anything", "didn't felt anything", etc., at the Direct Introduction, should go diligently-straight-forward towards rushen and semzin, since the rigpa of one's teacher, which is no other thing than what we call transmission, is right in oneself and "for the taking", the fruit is at the reach of one's hand.

from there comes certainty, and immense gratitude.

However, I’m not convinced it’s a particularly linear process.

i don't know, some people realize the discernment at DI, some people have glimpse mind at DI, some people even remain.

[Ati108]

When exactly should we apply the Rushens vs Semdzins?

Rushan is something that should be done in retreat, systematically.

Semszins can be done any time, but in the beginning it is best to through then one by one.

Ok understood. Do you differentiate the function of Rushens vs that of Semdzins? If so, in what way?