Impermanence, No-Self and Suffering

"There are some subtleties here that are being lost in the mix, as well as nuance to the thing, as well as dualities added that aren't there.

The connection between morality and the understanding of things as they are is not so easy to flush out, and drawing a line between some hypothesized amoral emptiness and some grand Virtuous Rigpa is also really missing something fundamental. Beware the morality models, either those positing amorality or those positing some defined morality and how they connect with knowing reality as it is, as things are not so easy as that and attempts at straightforward lines like you are trying to draw lead to denial and shadow sides."

Daniel,
You may be quite right, and clearly are right in terms of my styling "developmental emptiness" as fundamentally amoral - an intentional oversimplification to make a point.

This is the part, though, where I'd expect that if you'd had someone point out Rigpa to you, then you would have said so, and ended the dispute. My claim is that the *experience*, as well as the conceptual understanding of Emptiness is different.

This set of lines is not only drawn by me, but seemingly also by recognized masters of the Dzogpa Chenpo tradition (which translates literally as "Total Perfection). The Dzogchen people claim that Rigpa is the basis for enlightenment regardless of methodology, while proclaiming the superiority of their own methods. Chogyal Norbu Rinpoche writes "At heart, Zen, which without a doubt is a high and direct Buddhist teaching, is based on the principle of emptiness as explained in the sutras such as the Prajnaparamita. Even though, in this regard, in substance, it is no different from Dzogchen, the particularity of Dzogchen lies in the direct introduction to the primordial state not as "pure emptiness" but rather as endowed with all the aspects of the self-perfection of energy."

To recap then, the Dzogchen tradition would claim that Rigpa ultimately creates the enlightened state in any tradition, including Theravada, while positing that emptiness, or the primordial state, has certain "master qualities" that are in some sense, not qualities but form the basis for having qualities: clarity, purity, perfection, eternal and unchanging nature. They compare it to the sky, or a precious jewel that has never left your hand.

In most other traditions, emptiness is experienced through fruition - or rather processing the experience that frames the fruition. With rigpa, the primary experience is in real time, with no loss of experiential content, and the qualities mentioned above are directly experienced. With Theravada, reality is demonstrated to be fundamentally unreal, while with rigpa, there is "some-thing" SO real, everything else is a mere shadow. This "something" is the antithesis of the three characteristics - it is eternal, permanent and unchanging; it is completely satisfactory and fulfilling; and it *is* "you."

Note that I'm not claiming an ontological difference in the two types of emptiness - just that from an experiential and conceptual point of view, there might as well be.

It seems like Kenneth, who has gotten 4th path, and also has direct experience of rigpa, would simply have said that the controversy was merely apparent, if that is how he experienced it. That's not what he's said, however, he said something to the effect of "I used to be confused by what the Dzogchen people were talking about, then I tried their techniques, and they worked." Now that's a pragmatic approach to evaluation.
D

One last bit - the Dzogchen masters would probably agree with Daniel in an ultimate sense, saying that there "really is only one kind of emptiness" - but would go on to assert that their understanding and experience of emptiness was superior.

"Rigpa is connected to Virtue with a capital "V".

I would use the word "love" with a captial "L."

"
"Rigpa is connected to Virtue with a capital "V".

I would use the word "love" with a captial "L."

"

Indeed!

It's the @#*&ing Elixir! Its the Philosopher's Stone, Plato's Form of the Good, Plotinus' "The One!"

Chris, you are having classic Theravada style fruitions in your Vipassana practice as described in your thread, and you have an experience of Rigpa. Would you say that, from where you sit right now, the experiences and understanding garnered from each is the same, or different? In what way?

"Me, but it is not both, it is the same, just a question of how you look at it or describe it or what arises:

For instance:
* If attention turns to itself, the "I AM" arises
* If it turns to luminosity, there it is
* If it turns to the specifics, there they are

And yet, the same quality remains of it being what is, as it is, undefended at the deepest level, and the most interesting thing is that when attention looks around for the quality of suffering that resulted from the habitual misperception or phase-problem that was in place before, it is gone, which is the natural co-emergency of manifestation and wisdom.

One could just as easily say:

* When the "I AM" arises, that is what arose
* When the quality of luminosity arises, that is what arose
* When the qualities of the specifics of reality arise, there they are
* When effort arises, that is what arises...

This is so simple from this point of view, but the world wishes to make it complex..."

Ok Daniel, I somehow completely missed this post - sorry about that. Obviously you believe you've experienced rigpa, and no doubt you have, but my reading of this makes me believe that you may have misidentified it.

In some ways, I think it could be more challenging for an arahant to understand it. As an arahant, you've deeply integrated the insight that you are not any particular sensation, you are not the expansion or contraction of your attentional field, or any element of content within it - and there is nothing apart from these things. The nature of experience is deeply ephemeral, and no "thing" can be said to exist, etc. All True.

What's confusing from this point of view, is that when rigpa is first pointed out, it seems like an element of experience is being pointed out - a formation structure even - and yet it's said to be non-dual, with no center, etc. Cont...

So the immediate thing to think is that - "hey this is another element of experience - it shouldn't inherently be privileged over any other element of experience. I've seen through experience. This can't be what they're talking about. What they're talking about is the natural state of affairs for "me" - there's no center, nothing apart from my experience, no duality even in the experience of duality, etc."

Actually, it's not an element of experience, though certain particular elements of experience arise when the attention is drawn to it. In fact, it's a kind of property of the attentional field itself, regardless of what it's doing. In order to perceive it, one has to "do something" - essentially divide the attention in a particular way. Once it is noticed and identified it has to be investigated in a very specific way which is probably only available to expert yogis. Most are told not to try that, and to simply let it work on them... but you should be able to do it.

With humility, I'd like to provide some very detailed directions...

Haquan, a few things...

1) Realization is realization, and while there aspects of it that can be explored and some features someone might not notice if not directed in that direction, my exposure to high-level teachers, sources, descriptions and the like is pretty extensive, and many teachers along the way as I was coming up pointed to the fundamental thing, whatever you call it. Some question of Rites and Rituals arises in my mind from your side, a bit of thinking perhaps more magickal than I think makes sense in this context, but perhaps I misunderstood what you mean. I think that the reason there has been so much rapid progress from people to third path is due to pointing this out to them in places like my book. It is correct that the Theravada doesn't emphasize certain aspects of this that are helpful, and the correlations between the emphases of some of the other traditions and the later paths is in part a conceptual and technical innovation of mine, though one could just say I was re-discovering something, or clarifying something that had been not properly correlated before in the available literature. I don't want to speak for Kenneth, but I believe he has a certain amount of bitterness around this, as when he was second path, which he had a hard time with, he wan't given good instruction for what third path looked like, and had to go looking around to other traditions for what he needed. Our relationship was so poisoned at that time due to issues of dharma that we had a very hard time hearing much of what the other was saying, which is a tragedy but also water under the bridge. I also spent a lot of time exploring the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Vedantic literature while I was in that territory and it helped me a lot to correlate with what my practice was doing and revealing at that time in the late 1990's.

2) Fruition is one thing, the entrance to it another, both things stream enterers and second path know well, but emptiness in real time is something else, generally, though hinted at in the moments of the Three Doors for those in the early paths is not much of a living experience. As Third Path progresses it becomes more natural and prominent, but for Arahats it is a whole other world of depth and completion of that. It seems you are confusing Fruition and Rigpa as if there is some obvious relationship between them. Fruition can't be related to anything in any clear way, as it is an unfindable gap, and any correlations of it with anything are an artifact of the entrance or exit. Rigpa is about the entire sensate universe as it arises.

"
2) Fruition is one thing, the entrance to it another, both things stream enterers and second path know well, but emptiness in real time is something else, generally, though hinted at in the moments of the Three Doors for those in the early paths is not much of a living experience. As Third Path progresses it becomes more natural and prominent, but for Arahats it is a whole other world of depth and completion of that. It seems you are confusing Fruition and Rigpa as if there is some obvious relationship between them. Fruition can't be related to anything in any clear way, as it is an unfindable gap, and any correlations of it with anything are an artifact of the entrance or exit. Rigpa is about the entire sensate universe as it arises."

No, I'm not confusing emptiness in real time with fruition, though I can see why you're saying that. I was echoing Shinzen Young's comments about fruition - that as we emerge from that gap, we have a sense of having been somewhere profoundly peaceful (especially if it's one of the paths), and we get ideas about "what happens in the gap" that condition our ideas about emptiness. Not the same as "emptiness in real time" clearly.

Tell you what, you may be completely right, but let's just make sure that we are examining the same phenomenon. Then you can tell me, "OK Dave, that's blah blah blah", and I'll accept it. Just humor me for a moment. Try to think of this as a "4th door" - really a window, because you can't fully enter it. These are Kenneth's original instructions to me. Kenneth told me that if I already thought I knew this, I had no chance - may apply to you as well.

I'm going to give more specific instructions from a yogic point of view, but it may be best to try Kenneth's more intuitive directions:
Cont

To Daniel, Kenneth and everyone:
"suffering" and "non-suffering" -- I think my model of enlightenment before being exposed to all this included some kind of state in which there was no suffering. Now, I'm wondering if the enlightened person's body and mind is full of the same suffering as before -- constantly -- but with insight no longer identifies with the sensations and no longer "suffers." -- even though the same sensations of suffering that i am feeling right now are still continuing within them as before.
True? off the mark?

"awareness"
is this just another sensation?

"Would you say that, from where you sit right now, the experiences and understanding garnered from each is the same, or different? In what way?"

David, I'm really not experienced enough to provide a satisfactory answer to your question from the Theravada side. Best I can tell I'm somewhere in second path territory. That means, again from what I can tell, that I don't have the visibility into emptiness or other "things" that I would need to be able to adequately make the comparison. To me a fruition or cessation is a discontinuity, at first blatant and then as time has passed they have become much smaller blips. Inside a cessation there is nothing - deep, dark, black nothing. I'm not very clear on what is there just before other than that I "see" a flash of something that often appears to be a complex, mandala-like image. After is a rebooting, a coming back online. If I ever get to a point where I can answer this side of your question I'll be happy to try.

I can say that my experience of rigpa, if that's indeed what it is, is about as significant an experience as could ever be. I knew the universe was alive and aware -- knowing -- without any doubt or question, and that *I* did not matter even one tiny teensy itty bitty bit to that, and never would. But in spite of that enormous Truth, all the universe was connected and was in fact One Thing, and that the one word I might try to use to explain it was "Love," but that word was wholly inadequate, too, because it was just a word.

"Kenneth Folk wrote:

Without abiding in any state, just peek out of the corner of your eye at "the clean thing" as I secretly think of it. Don't try to capture it or dwell in it. There's nothing there anyway. Just get a little bitty peep at it. I don't know what it is. Nobody knows what it is. But it's there now, and you can just get a little look-see if you turn toward something clean, something that cannot be touched or stained by any number of eons of bad ****. You'll know when you catch a glimpse, because you can't help but smile.

Read Tilopa's Instuctions to Naropa again:

www.keithdowman.net/mahamudra/tilopa.htm

Just a little, peek, that's all. You can't possess this and you can't know about it.
"

Ok try that first without analyzing it.

Specifically what you want to do is defocus your attentional field, rather like you are trying to use your peripheral vision, and briefly and lightly focus on the edge of your attentional field, only to relax back into the de-focused field state. You do want to "turn towards something clean" - but only to get the slightest taste, or glimpse. You can't look directly at it - because it is a feature of the periphery of the field. You can never look directly at it for that reason, and it therefore can never be taken as an object of meditation.

And I know, yes, there's sensation there - I get sensations of coolness. That may have to do with personal associations, or be something my energy system does in response: they are not "it".

Without analyzing what it is, the practice is to take continued peeks at it, as often as one remembers. This seems to affect the energy system - what may happen, assuming you have the right thing, is that after a while of doing this, the sense of it broadens - and it may seem to rest in the periphery of one's awareness.

The moment you try to look at it, its gone - and the energetic effects and sensations are not "it."

So wait until you have a moment where it's resting in the periphery of one's entire field, and if you're good, you can get a better look by subtracting elements of your awareness. Not quite the same as focusing the field, but dropping elements out. The easiest one to start with is thought. Keep doing that until there's not much in your field of attention but that, and let me know what you see.
D

"

So wait until you have a moment where it's resting in the periphery of one's entire field, and if you're good, you can get a better look by subtracting elements of your awareness. Not quite the same as focusing the field, but dropping elements out. The easiest one to start with is thought. Keep doing that until there's not much in your field of attention but that, and let me know what you see.
D"

I should mention that the above is comparable to entering 8th jhana from 7th while simultaneously opening your eyes. Not quite that difficult, but comparable, and also illustrative of the process. You'd have to "subtract out" the visual field while you did the same with the sensations of "nothingness." It's a dissociative process really. I don't recommend it to anyone not an expert in concentration states.

First step is to make sure you saw it. There what might normally be identified as formations - but these are special - they'll be comprised of sensations that one associates with purity. The essence of purity... This is what needs to be closely looked at (although never directly) - openly, with no preconceptions. No noting the three characteristics here - we are not deconstructing this. We just want to get a look at it without letting it know, as though it's a rare wild animal, never seen by humans it's so shy...

After some peeking at it, something begins to happen to you - the sensations that one would associate with purity get stronger, but they are not It. You are doing that in response to It. There is a beautiful phrase from an ancient alchemical text "The Book of Lambsprinck" which is reminiscent of this: "Matter is made white by the operation, Spirit red, by Art. The interaction between the essences tend to perfection, and the Philosopher's Stone is prepared in this way." It may take a bit before the perception stabilizes.

Quick clarification on a point that was brought to my attention: There is *no* correlation between the classic jhanas and rigpa - that was meant as a metaphorical and illustrative example... and the technique I mention is something I personally created (jury rigged) in order to satisfy the unique conditions needed to actually closely examine this phenomenon which involve never looking directly at it - it's not really "rigpa" but it's not not-rigpa either. I'm going to shut up in a bit - I don't want to make it more difficult for Daniel to hear what I am saying while simultaneously giving him an opportunity to dismiss me.

I will say that rigpa is not a pure direct path like Adavaita - there is a developmental process at work, and while not made a big deal of, there are considered to be three stages. There is a recognition stage, a stabilization stage, and a stage in which the "it" is lived from. Concentration states are not needed to access rigpa, but a proficiency with them may be helpful developmentally, particularly in the second phase according to some teachers. Contact with "it" sort of evolves "you".

Anyway, 'nuff said for now.

Hey guys!

Interesting thread. Rigpa, as I understand it, and have experienced it, is 'knowing' or 'recognizing' the 'nature' of one's own mind. It is experienced as pristine, open spacious blissful clarity without a locus of experience or perception. It is merely AWARENESS without obscuration - delusional defilement of a sense of self. If you know this recognition, then you live in Rigpa. It is not a conceptualization or philosophy. It is pure naked being. Phenomena of mind states may arise in it, but are not it. They arise out of the storehouse consciousness. However, since one directly apprehends one's inherent nature as luminous empty clarity, one is untouched by such mind states which self-liberate of their own accord. Hence, there is no suffering or identification with them.

The nature of one's own mind is empty luminosity, or luminous emptiness or equivalent to Tantric 'Clear Light'; or Dharmakaya. The nature of the deluded mind has the characteristic of perpetual movement which refers to the eight consciousnesses. This deluded mind is sourced in the eighth storehouse consciousness. Deluded and non-deluded mind both arise out of the Dharmakaya which is clear luminous emptiness. This emptiness is the same emptiness spoken of in Theravada and Buddhism generally. Thus, mind and all phenomenon are empty. However, that is a negative description and misunderstanding may lead to nihilism. Thus, the understanding of luminous clarity, which is not to be confused with eternal ism or some kind of ontological substance - which it is not - it is empty and no-thing. It is clarity itself. Clarity cannot be a thing. This is how we recognize the nature of mind. Clarity is your fundamental nature. It knows this text right now. Otherwise you would be unconscious of this text right now. In this way we can see the nature of mind is here RIGHT now. Recognize it!!!
cont.

The nature or essence of mind (according to my limited understanding of Mahamudra) is luminous in the sense of clarity, knowing or awareness - pure formless, empty of content, cognizance. Thus, the nature of mind is broadly speaking a kind of self-shining cognizant emptiness. In this way we can see, the nature of mind is the source of all seeing, knowing, cognizance, awareness; it is that which sees or apprehends all possible sensations. In the absence of all possible sensations, this empty cognizance is what is left - that is your fundamental nature. Therefore, it cannot be reduced to sensations or any formation whatsoever; rather, it is that which apprehends said formations.

The nature of mind is ALWAYS present. It is just that we fail to recognize it. Practice, in whatever form or tricks of skillful means, are merely methods for setting up conditions in which we may recognize that which is present right now - the nature of mind - basic pristine cognizance.

[cont.]

So if you want to recognize the nature of mind, use whatever works for you. However, know that that which sees the use of methods is the nature of mind and thus, is prior to the use of those methods. Hence, we may drop any and all conceptualizations and associated methods and simply notice directly the nature of mind here and now. There can be no more direct path than this. This is what, as I understand it, Dzogchen teaches. An adept points out the nature of mind - Rigpa - to the student, and the student may recognize it, even if only for a few seconds. The student may then make use of less direct methods to set up conditions by which they can then recognize the nature of mind for themselves time and again, and steadily stabilize this recognition.

One such basic method is to sit in naked awareness in non-meditation - rest in the nature of mind. Another is to sit in mindful Shamatha and then - or simultaneously practice - vipassana in which one notices the nature of mind as luminous emptiness, or empty cognizance. That is, one simply looks at mind or awareness, and eventually recognition dawns - an apprehension takes place that one's own mind is the enlightened Buddha Mind. Over time one will catch glimpses of the natural state - spontaneous naked awareness - and integrate this with daily life in action - off the cushion.

Such is the practice of recognizing Rigpa.

In kind regards,

Adam.

Adam is correct in all he says as far as I can tell, though I think some techniques are probably helpful in recognition. The other reason I supplied them is that I've seen the nature of mind before this, but did not recognize it for what it was - didn't seem significant.

Ontologically it must be the same emptiness - but this emptiness can not be well understood rationally. I think there is definitely something to the idea that our formulations of this basic unknowable are tied to our methods of investigation. If we apply a generally deconstructive method which focuses on process, at the end of the day we will have nothing but process.

This methodology, on the other hand, examines something which seems initially like content, but is not. I think it's difficult, if not impossible to recognize this through direct awareness - because the focus of the attentional field demands an object. This is why initially it's better to employ a diffuse focus of the attentional field to notice it - rather like the samurai were said to do with their visual field. Les Fehmi would call this "open focus". Relaxing into it seems to be a bit like this as well - one assumes a diffuse focus, and simply rests in the indirect perception of mind. Once noticed it can be seen to pervade everything, including the focus of the attentional field.

Personally when I got a good look, it seemed as if I perceived the entire Monad of Totality, pristine in it's cosmic universal empty perfection, containing the whole of space and time. Who knew that's what my consciousness is? Not me...

(2) is a traditional version - one of many such variations - of Zen Shikantaza; and (1) is traditional to Mahamudra and Dzogchen. I have found both naturally lead to the realization of Rigpa. However, both have their challenges.

With the former, one can slip into dullness, or get lost in thought elaborations, thus, an uncontrived natural undistracted mindfulness is required; and of the later, one can try too hard and get stuck in the 7th consciousness of ego doership, tension and excitation of mind and elaborations of thought. Therefore, both methods are actually advanced methods of practice, requiring subtly and sophistication of practice. The later is actually similar to a kind of broad, inclusive Shamatha without object that naturally leads to simultaneous Shamatha-Vipassana and a direct cutting though of mind into an instant recognition of Dharmakaya. The former has the same effect and yet it is more like the radiant sun of Rigpa piercing through the clouds of obscuration of mind - thus, the mind is let be and settles and its natural radiant clarity simply dawns upon, or is revealed to, consciousness. Two different methods, same fruit. Personally, I recommend (2); which will naturally lead to (1) as the recognition of Rigpa dawns.

Brothers and sisters hear me, there can be NO greater joy than to know Rigpa - our essential nature. Non-dependent, self-existent freedom and absolute joy and satisfaction dawns and wells up within us, such that life is a magical Great Perfection of wonder to behold regardless of the display of phenomena. It is all that we seek - whether consciously or unconsciously - the complete end to suffering - this is it!!! But I digress.

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hi David!

Thanks for your great posts in working through this very difficult, subtle and yet utterly simple topic of recognizing that which we truly are!

You wrote: "This is why initially it's better to employ a diffuse focus of the attentional field to notice it - rather like the samurai were said to do with their visual field. Les Fehmi would call this "open focus". Relaxing into it seems to be a bit like this as well - one assumes a diffuse focus, and simply rests in the indirect perception of mind. Once noticed it can be seen to pervade everything, including the focus of the attentional field."

I think this is right. There are many traditional ways of going about this recognition which I am not qualified to comment on. However, two very common traditional methods which I have found useful, and which you have alluded to are: (1) the complete dropping of ALL 'doing' or doership - avolition - discursive and ego-based intention of the 6th and 7th consciousnesses, while remaining brightly aware as clarity resting in the nature of mind; and as you also mentioned, (2) a kind of actively bright, alert and clear Shikantaza, with diffuse open awareness as if one is in a jungle and one knows one is in danger from a tiger which is about to spring upon us in attack, and yet we have not identified its location - or like a Samurai is about to attack us with his Katana.

[cont.]

Thank you Daniel, Haquan & Adam for these interesting posts!

For those who don't have it yet and who are interested by a methodic and traditional step-by-step introduction to Mahamudra, you may download the following manual:

www.mediafire.com/file/mlt1dn4tzmy/Mahamudra-Manual.pdf

I believe that the method can still be improved and it seems that some of you have already found your own ways to uncover the dragon pearl.

Haquan, I am not sure that I fully understood your interesting method. The idea is I guess to see the silver coating of the mirror (pure awareness) beyind the reflected images (perceptions and thoughts), right?

"Brothers and sisters hear me, there can be NO greater joy than to know Rigpa - our essential nature. Non-dependent, self-existent freedom and absolute joy and satisfaction dawns and wells up within us, such that life is a magical Great Perfection of wonder to behold regardless of the display of phenomena. It is all that we seek - whether consciously or unconsciously - the complete end to suffering - this is it!!!"-Adam West

Your rhetoric is over the top and you sound suspiciously like a religious nut, but I'll be darned if if you didn't get that right.

Nice job, buddy.

Kenneth

edit: typo

Hey Kenneth!

Thanks mate!

Hahahaha... Lol! Yep, very suspicious indeed!! ;-P What can I say, I got carried away by the fruits of a recent meditation. It really does feel like that, though, doesn't it. It just dawns on us that so much of our daily life is a scurrying about trying to redress basic fundamental dissatisfaction or suffering - and then Rigpa dawns and there is complete rest and freedom - no need to 'do' or change anything - the Great Perfection - and yet 'doing' is spontaneously done - the play of Dharmakaya.

Taken at face value, could there be anything else that we could be more excited about!! Our previous motivations seem like the gasping breaths of a dying, struggling, unenlightened mind. Upon its cessation, and by comparison, the view of the non-deluded awareness seems pretty amazing. Songs have been written about much less... hehehehehe... however, I'll save you all from that!!

Oh, and just to be clear, I am not implying or claiming enlightenment, just babbling from the joyous intoxication of jolts or glimpses of pristine clarity and luminous bliss.

In kind regards,

Adam. Edit for clarification.