Rigpa

"Rigpa" is being referred to often in KFD. I am putting up the definition as "knowing without an observer" that others may refine or question.
The problem I see here is that there maybe states that have the appearance of rigpa. After all the observer might have a subtler appearances and go unnoticed. So if the observer is subtle and missed, the state is incorrectly thought to be rigpa. Without reqular or access at will to examination what one thinks is "rigpa" there is a bunch of memories, so one might be advised (as I was ) to discount or given little attention to experiences that are not permanent. The other thing about rigpa with direct path is the directions are often 'just realise what's already here". It is close to an encouragement to not examine and just say hey this is rigpa.
I myself have referred to an experience of rigpa that I am now thinking to be unwised as insightful as the experiences are. For those that know rigpa did you have mistaken rigpa experiences? For those that have had a rigpa experiences do you think you maybe mistaken? Or am I being overly concerned and it really is very simple?

Thanks
Gary

Hey Gary!

Good idea to create a thread that further explores this idea. Rigpa is tricky for the two reasons you have alluded to: (1) confusion on what it actually is - what's being referred to when we say Rigpa is here right now; and (2) misidentification of it with another state.

I don't pretend to be able to resolve this to satisfaction, as it is a subtle thing, easily confused until one comes upon it for oneself. Language can point to it, but only so far.

Kenneth who has access, so he tells me, to Rigpa rather easily and instantly and should hopefully be able to shed some useful light on it for us. Hopefully Dan will speak to it also.

As to (1): when an attempt is made to point to what is here and now, this is not some philosophical principle or abstraction - some belief or whatever. It is literally to point to what is here right now; like when I say your face, that thing right there on the front of your head - touch it for yourself '“ having done so '“ it is now there for you to know right now, and see that it always was there - it is very real. Rigpa is like that.

[cont.] Edited for clarity.

It is really here right now, but like your face, it may go unnoticed. And when you do notice it, it is something that can't be mistaken or confused - it is completely as real and obvious to you as your face is. So what is being pointed to when we say Rigpa is here and now is this: the very same awareness or consciousness or cognizance that is seeing this text and perceiving the cognitive processing of text into understanding of language, is the same fundamental awareness that is Rigpa. Rigpa is the formless PURE consciousness or SUCHNESS whose only fundamental attribute is self-existent, self-luminous, empty blissful cognizance. NOT the content of consciousness or states of consciousness which are always changing, but the cognizance '˜itself' that SEES these things.

In the absence of all possible phenomena that could possibly be imagined and described, what is left is empty, self-luminous cognizance. Self-Cognizant Fullness. That is the only thing that is fundamental to realty, and also the same thing that is YOU looking through your eyes at this text. This cognizance is not phenomena that can be imagined and described and thus eliminated as with other phenomena as we did with the above thought experiment because it is not a thing; it is absolutely empty in every sense, and yet profoundly full. It is merely cognizance without a knower or a known '“ just cognizance. It can't be described. It can only be pointed to, as has been done. And it can only be realized for oneself '“ as many have done so. But when having done so, it is the end of suffering, and all that we consciously or unconsciously seek '“ the end to existential angst. Period.

[cont.]

What is being pointed to is this: Primordial Awareness is not something other than this very awareness here and now. It is not a meta-you or meta-awareness / consciousness / cognizance - it is this ORDINARY AWARENESS here and now. The Buddha mind IS this ordinary mind reading this text right now. That is what it means by that-which is here and now - Rigpa is here and now. Completely real. Unmistakeable. Just like your face. By virtue of the fact that we are cognizant right now thinking and reading is proof of the reality of Rigpa here and now. They are not two. Non-dual.

That being said, to realize primordial awareness or to be in Rigpa is something that is profoundly different in its experiential feel from being identified with the '˜sensate-subject-self'. However, it is cognizance that sees this identification with a sensate-subject-self - and you, in so doing, mistake yourself to be this me-self. It is a shift in identification and thus a corresponding shift in self-definition of what we take to be SELF and ME. And yet, because the very same cognizance is fundamental to both experiential self-definitions '“ to be in Rigpa is to see for yourself that they are completely the same - at the very same time. So much so, that one wonders how could it have be missed all this time. But it is missed most of the time by most of us; and yet it is this very same ordinary mind that we spend all our time in AND AS.

[cont.] Edited for clarity.

So, according to (1) Rigpa is the experiential realization that 'ordinary mind' IS Buddha mind here and now as it always was; (2) to be in that realization - to directly cognize Rigpa - is unmistakable, however, spacious blissful Samadhis may be mistaken for Rigpa by those who do not have a baseline for comparison.

Now I hope some of the elders could give us their take on these issues!

In kind regards,

Adam.

"The Buddha mind IS this ordinary mind reading this text right now. "

Hi Adam,
You have said a lot here. One point for now.
I am suggesting one of the main reasons why rigpa is not recognized is due to a "self referencing". If there is an attempt to point to rigpa with statements like "Buddha mind is the reading this text now" self referencing will stop rigpa being recognized. However if there be no self referencing rigpa will be known without pointing. So is talk or pointing to rigpa really helpful? Is it better to enquire what is this? what am I? where am I? until the self referencing is recognized and known invoking a permanent change. recalling the states including rigpa along the way are a sidetrack to this enquiry. Also direct pointing is not helpful because it changes nothing with regards to the self referencing that occurs. Instead direct pointing tends to over simplify and appeal to the mind structures unless there already exists a significant alignment to Buddha mind.

Hey Gary!

You raise some good points. Hopefully Alex or others will jump in to elaborate on this too.

What you suggest is one effective way to do it. It definitely works. But it tends to set up a dualism before its attainment. It tends to deny what is here right now - that which is so simple. Yours would be more of an Advaita style pointing out. If that works for you, that is all that matters. Either way could result in that momentary shift in identification. That is all we want.

What is suggested by the above quote is an attempt to have the person see through this self-referential point of view; thus seeing the fundamental emptiness of the ego-self here and now - and in a moment of clarity litterally see - realize - that the self is NOT what we thought or took it to be, but none other than Buddha Mind in this very moment. This is both a technique and an acurate description of reality. The apparent self or ego does not fundamentally exist; what DOES exist, however, is the Buddha Mind. And it is here right now, as fundamental cognizance. Ordinary mind. However, ordinary mind is much more than we thought it was, and also profoundly simple. That is what is pointed to as that which reads the text. It is not some grand Deity. Dualism. It is not in the future, and thus not here now. Dualism. It is just this.

[cont.]

There is only Buddha Mind. Buddha mind is not something other than thisness - suchness - ordinary mind. Not two. Non-dual. Not something other than this. It is a question of experientially seeing the truth of things for oneself or not. So to look at our fundamental nature and to see the ego, is to misapprehend that fundamental nature. To look at mind and to see a separate desperate suffering self is to misperceive that mind. Instead, by pointing to the Buddha Nature as mind here and and now, one may point directly to the empty cognizant fullness that is here and now. That is why this is called the direct path. We seek to cut through the confusion of misidentification and thus instantly see what already was and IS here and now. That is why there is nothing to do or change - no development or deficit to overcome.

There is only self-luminous cognizance - that is what I am pointing to as here and now. Proof is the cognizance of the text before your eyes! That is real and fundamental.

[cont.]

Secondly, to point to the ordinary mind as Buddha Mind is to point to a resolution of an apparent dichotomy - that Buddha Nature is something other this; when it is not. If there is only Buddha Mind, what is this? Nothing you say. How can nothing exist? It cannot, because it is nothing. That would be a contradiction; as a non-existent thing cannot exist. So it must be something, right?. But what is it then? It is Buddha nature misapprehended. There is ONLY Buddha Nature. The play of phenomena is not other than, or separate to, the Tao. There is not two - non-dual. This is not a philosophical position - that is what is realized when it is apprehended. This is what I understood Dan to be saying also.

By definition then, ordinary mind is in fact misperceived as ego, when in fact we are failing to apprehend our fundamental Buddha Nature as it presents to us right now.

To point to other than this would be a confusion like any other; and would not be the direct path; and finally, would not be consistent with the realization itself.

Does that make my position any clearer? My apologies if my writing style is overly complex and fails to convey the point.

In kind regards,

Adam.

Yes, as I see it the idea is to see the screen behind the film. Vipassana Bhavana's works differently. It s purpose is to examine the film until one finds out that it is only a succession of images (thought-moments) until the film stops (fruition, cessation). Since the method is indirect the emphasis is on no-self. Whatever remains is neither self, nor the negation of a self according to the Pali Suttas (even if Abhidhamma tends to theorize the idea of no-self).

Dzogchen works differently. The idea is to see a trace of pure screen through the image right from the beginning. The pointing out instructions, or direct introduction to the nature of the mind, allows one to see that the nature of the mind is empty (there is no subject that can be seen), but also luminous in the sense that the mind reflects images, thoughts, sensations, etc. Since there are also empty of self and luminous, there is no difference between the observer, the moving and the non moving mind. It is clear and unmistakable in the sense that the "I", the "me" has left, dissolved in non-dual pristine awareness or pure knowing called rigpa (vidya or knowledge in Sanskrit).

However, this is only the beginning. Dzogchen makes a distinction between the view, the path and the fruit, as well as between the Son Clear Light and the Mother Clear Light. I believe that after years of Trekchod (cutting through solidity) practice based on this initial introduction, the state of pure knowing or pure presence gets stabilized and expends to integrate every experience, even sleep and deep dreamless sleep. The fruit is the Dharmakaya which is (I believe) identical to the attainment of the Arahat. Then however, the practice of Thogal allows one to eventually dissolve the energy of the physical body into a Body of Light, which is the final accomplishment.

I haven't answered Gary question, but believe that it is also a matter of faith in the beginning.

Thanks Alex. Great work buddy!

In kind regards,

Adam.

"I haven't answered Gary question, but believe that it is also a matter of faith in the beginning."

Hi Alex,

For me this is as much about context as a direct answer to the questions, so I find you've said helpful. Ripga is a label that I am not sure means the same thing to everyone, although the one using the word most likely expects it easily understood and therefore there is little qualification. After all reality without an observer should be straight forward; right?!

Part 1.

Hi Gary and Adam,

Yes, on this forum we tend to use the word "rigpa" for primordial awareness, which is experienced as "reality without an observer". The sense of self melts or withdraws into non-local awareness and perceptions, sensations and thoughts. In this respect our approach is very similar to that of Adyashanti.
Since I am not a Dzogchenpa, I personally tend to avoid using the word 'rigpa', because Dzogchen is a very complex and sophisticated tradition in which I have not been initiated by an authorized Lama.

Nevertheless, as I understand it, the word 'rigpa' does refer to pure awareness that it not marked by the three characteristics of conditioned existence. This has been the object of debates and even persecutions against Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Ch'an practitioners in Tibet for many years. The reason is that the official standpoint of Madhyamika adopted by the Gelugpa school and the kings of Tibet since the Kalamasila vs Hwashan Mahyana debate firmly rejects the idea of a pure consciousness beyond the 6 vijnanas of the consciousness aggregate (vijnanaskanda).

Part 3.

If the mirror or empty luminous awareness is intrinsically pure and cannot be defiled or obstructed by thoughts, sensations or perceptions, there is no need to try to control or pacify the mind. One can just relax in choiceless, goal-less, objectless awareness, accepting everything without grasping or holding to anything.

Furthermore, Dzogchen considers that thoughts, emotions, passions such as anger or lust are also manifestations or expressions of the luminous energy of rigpa. If they can be seen as such, they are said to self-liberate as they arise and pass away, while their energy is being recycled. There is therefore an alchemical transmutation that takes place and marks the tantric nature of Dzogchen or Great Perfection.

As I said, this is just a few lines expressing my present understand of the subject (at least a few ideas without using technical Tibetan concepts), but should not be considered as an authorized summary of Dzogchen.

Kind regards,

Alex

Part 2.

This is also the reason why Daniel Ingram cannot understand the concept of 'rigpa', even if he is actually living in rigpa (from the standpoint of Dzogchen and by the fact that he has accomplished the four paths). The reason is that most Theravada schools consider that consciousness or awareness is always aware or conscious of an object. They strongly believe that awareness cannot exist as such, in pure form, but always in relation with an object of cognition. From their point of view, awareness is consequently just an aggregate marked by the three characteristics of existence, nothing beyond.

Now what Dzogchen or Mahamudra says is that beyond the 6 vijnanas of the consciousness aggregates, there exists a stream of pure luminous awareness that pervades the consciousness aggregate, while being intrinsically transcendent, unborn, pure from the beginning and therefore not subject to birth and death.

For Dzogchen, this pure awareness is already present in all sentient beings as it pervades everyday consciousness. The main issue is to be able to recognize it, and therefore to separate awareness from its objects. One of the methods used is to try to turn awareness back onto its own source. Practically speaking, this means trying to become aware of the silent observer; trying to to see "who" or "what" is experiencing this moment. The eye cannot see itself, but the act of looking back at that which is looking magnifies awareness and somehow separates it from its objects. Then, objects (thoughts, perceptions) start to be seen as holographic images floating or reflected on the screen of pure awareness. They are gradually seen as reflections on a mirror.

Hi Alex!

Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify the fundamentals - just laying it out there for all to see, investigate and reject as they see fit. Marvelous!!

In grand humility,

Adam.

A long time student speaking of abiding in the nature of mind











In kind regards,

Adam.

Gary, thank you for starting this timely thread.

Adam and Alex, together you have created a work of art in pointing to and creating a conceptual foundation for rigpa. I may chime in at some point, but for now I just want to encourage everyone to read this thread through several times and try to understand what is being said here. Above all, don't forget to peek at your own mind every now and then to see that the clear light of awareness has never stopped functioning even as you were wondering what on earth these fellows were saying. The happiness that does not depend on conditions is nothing other than recognizing buddha nature within your own experience. (Take a look now.) From here you can see that there is nothing outside of buddha nature. Then, you can have a good laugh and a deep sigh of relief.

Kenneth

P.S. I've just watched the first of the videos Adam linked to in post 16. It's excellent, and I look forward to seeing the rest.

"They strongly believe that awareness cannot exist as such, in pure form, but always in relation with an object of cognition. From their point of view, awareness is consequently just an aggregate marked by the three characteristics of existence, nothing beyond.
"

Thanks Alex, you have clarified things really well.

It does seem odd to say one can live in rigpa and not understand rigpa.

I cam see the Theravadan's saying something like whether there be objects or "no objects" of awareness is it not the same awareness and therefore the same realization? Assuming of cousre there is a wilingness to be hypothetical .
I think you are saying best Dzogen or Mahamudra practice is not to be compared to Theravada practice.

Part 1:
@Adam: thanks a lot '“ I am looking forward to watch these videos over the week-end.

@Kenneth: thank you Kenneth. Feel free to correct or clarify what I am trying to explain here. Your advice and insight is always invaluable, especially when it comes to comparing the Theravada path with Dzogchen or Advaita Vedanta.

@Gary: Yes, as I see it, Buddhist practice is always based on samatha and vipassana. In Dzogchen and Mahamudra, the mind is taken as an object of samatha and vipassana. Taking the mind as an object allows one to easily alternate samatha and vipassana until they merge into one single practice.

The main differences are that during vipassana the focus is not only Emptiness (anicca, dukkha & anatta), but also on Clarity, the luminous, self-aware and reflective nature of the mind. When thoughts, the source from which thoughts rise, abide and dissolve and the observer of thoughts are recognized as empty and luminous, one can just relax and abide without distraction in this non-dual empty and luminous primordial awareness.

Part 2:
Initially, the recognition of rigpa might be very shallow. It might only be a small glimpse of non-dual awareness. But this might be sufficient to believe that such as state exists and is actually our natural state. In the beginning it is compared to a small stream. Eventually it might become a large river merging with the ocean, the mother Clear Light. The result is full enlightenment, which, as far as the realization of the Dharmakaya is concerned, is identical to the accomplishment of the fourth path of the Theravada school. I would say that Daniel Ingram's warnings about the dangers of taking the 5th or 6th Jhana for Rigpa is also found in these Tibetan traditions. The Dalai Lama also advises people interested by the Dzogchen path to take time to study its view and theory with great care for the same reasons.

The Zen map is also similar. The Ox is Buddha-nature (which more or less our Rigpa). One is first to see the tail of the ox and must learn to abide in the state until it becomes permanent and effortless, i.e., playing the flute of the back of the ox. Ultimately, both man and ox disappear. I see this as cessation or fruition in the Theravada map. Then one is to integrate the absolute (nirvana, dharmakaya) with the relative to return to the marketplace. This last stage is also illustrated by Tozan's Five Ranks. Stuart or Gozan might have to corect me here.

Basically, the Soto or Caodong school's shikantaza or silent illumination is similar to Mahamudra, but is not as clear and methodic. The Rinzai or Linji school makes use of koans or hua-tou to jam the discriminating mind in order to reveal Buddha-nature.

Some Zen masters like Zongmi or Chinul seem to have used pointing out instructions, almost exactly like Dzogchen or Mahamudra teachers.

"Initially, the recognition of rigpa might be very shallow. It might only be a small glimpse of non-dual awareness.
"

Hi Alex
Thanks again.
Can you qualify that you primarily meant shallow as you stated and not short. Of course any experience can be mistaken, but it seems rigpa can have quite an impact even thou the realization is brief.
Referring to rigpa's realization as developmental seems to contradict how the word is mostly used. This is case where there are directions to realize what is. It is helpful of course that you have added some qualifications with regards to right view.

Hi Gary,

Yes, the non-dual state is present or absent. There is no in-between. In this sense also it is always sudden and unmistakable. However, ripa is sometime used as an experience, sometimes as a metaphysical concept. As an example, Sogyal Rinpoche often tells beginners to rest in rigpa after mantra or visualization practice, in the sense of resting in the natural state without concentrating on anything. However, the same teacher's the formal introduction to rigpa is more dramatic and is normally a clear unmistakable experience of the non-dual state.

The idea is to see the goal first, and then practice to firmly establish one's identity there. So in the beginning it is only an experience, but through continued practice is becomes our intimate reality. That's how I see it.

But as I said, Dzogchen is very sophisticated and I only tried to summarize the main ideas in relation with other Buddhist traditions. Here is a text from Jackson Peterson (who is one of the rare qualified Western teachers authorized to teach both Trekchod and Thogal) that you might find interesting (Awareness -capital A- is used here instead of rigpa):

www.mediafire.com/?t2qiyxgmjim

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the text. It started innocent enough and as I read I was watching my boundaries being pushed.
It seems to me that although rigpa be pure and simple the experience of rigpa is interpreted. So there is a sense we see what we want to see and as such understand the exact same reality differently. This is akin to the comment you have made earlier. Some will want to put whole of reality to the realm of experience being pragmatic with regards to that which can be considered. For some a possibility is just a real as an experience.

Again, thanks Alex and Adam for the input here.
Gary

Thanks
Gary

Hey Garry!

Your welcome buddy! You might find this essay by Norbu Rinpoche of interest. Here is a quote and a link:

"Conditioned by the mind, one becomes strongly habituated to illusory actions. And then it's the same as far as pure Enlightenment is concerned; beyond one's own mind there is no dazzling light to come shining in from outside to wake one up. If one recognizes one's own intrinsic State as pure from the beginning and only temporarily obscured by impurities, and if one maintains the presence of this recognition without becoming distracted, then all the impurities dissolve."

Adam: Hence nothing to do but know our own intrinsic nature or mind, and thus, wake up to what is!!

www.fudomouth.net/rhizome/nnawareness.htm

In kind regards,

Adam.