Why does Tulku Urgyen equate Rigpa with no-thought?

Hello everyone!
I just read the 4-path thread with the extended "debate" about Rigpa last night. I'd like to say a few things about this.
First of all, I'd like to say that what I've found valuable about both Kenneth's and Daniel's work, and which we all probably owe to their mentor Bill Hamilton, is their amazingly straightforward explication of the Path of Vipassana.
Through the information they provide openly I have gained a much deeper understanding of what I've experienced over the years in mindfulness practice. Particularly the open descriptions of the progress of insight have revealed a whole dimension of development that places these experiences-- i.e., nanas and jhannas-- in the light of a finite developmental process with clearly specifiable outcomes and relevance. That's nice since I've been suffering from insight disease since about 14 years old! I don't believe for a second that this path is the only cure, but that's another topic. Suffice it to say that due to the generosity of these teachers I see clearly that this "homeopathic cure" is totally doable.
In contrast, the mainstream information available on this path has done little or nothing for me as far as giving me an understanding of what I was trying to accomplish through insight practice and therefore why I should bother. Just watch my breath, cultivate choiceless awareness, etc etc. and good luck! Daniel's metaphor of the mushroom factor is appropriate here; whatever good reasons teachers have for not giving the Big Picture ultimately dis-empower the practitioner. If I want to go around talking about things I haven't experienced as if I have, knowing the Big Picture will help me do that. It will also help me to have these experience first hand by providing context and a clear sense of purpose to my practice.

Due to the clear teachings I have read from these three fellows and especially to the coaching and encouragement of Kenneth, I've got some first hand experience of the progress of insight and am beginning to see the possibility of Stream entry and beyond as real for me. Thank you!
So what does the foregoing have to do with the topic of this thread? I hope I can make this as non-offensively clear as possible. First off, the latest post to the referenced thread, by Chelek, made an excellent point, which was that "Rigpa" may be understood differently from Sutric, Tantric and Dzogchen levels proper. Perhaps a better word than Rigpa here would be Buddha Nature, in which case the term Rigpa would denote two things: the Tantric understanding of Buddha Nature, especially in the Nyingma School, and the Dzogchen understanding of Buddha Nature, which is not to be equated with the former. To emphasise:
Buddha nature is understood differently on Sutric, Tantric and Dzogchen levels, and in the former two the term "rigpa" is used but with slightly different meanings.
Tulku Urgyen talks a lot about Rigpa in the second volume of As It Is. This book deals with the "Completion Stage" of Tantric practice, known in Tibetan as "Dzog-rim".
Dzog-rim is resting in pure open awareness. There is controversy among the Tibetans whether this is possible in the context of experiences or is just a resting in *only* open awareness, with no phenomena whatsoever. The latter view is held by many Gelugpas (the Dalai Lamma's school) while the former is generally shared by Sakyapas, Kagyupas and Nyingmapas. Nyingmapas sometimes use Rigpa to denote the Open Awareness of the completion stage, as do some Kagyus.
In this context the Tantric distinction between pure vision and karmic vision is very important. According to Tantra, Karmic vision is basically the 31 levels of Theravada-- the formless, form and desire realms.

Pure vision is really the Sambogakhaya-- pure mandalic forms from which are derived the Tantric Visualization practices. The purpose of Visualization, Mantra and concentration on these (Development Stage) is to develop pure vision of all thoughts as the deity's wisdom, sounds as their mantra, and forms as their body. This results in experiencing your actual body speech and mind as these things and your whole outer environment as palaces, jewels, other beings as dieties, etc. Traditionally, this is really what is intended by this path and I've heard Lammas talk about manifestations of this sort. It's an actual percptual shift. There is also a "soft" interpretation of this that doesn't involve a change of "what" you're seeing but "how" you are seeing it.
Next, the completion stage involves dissolving the visualization and resting in "pure" open awareness. Remember, in some lineages "pure" means only and in others it doesn't exclude experiences.
Tulku Urgyen is teaching the latter view, but because he's teaching in a Tantric context he's commited to the distinction betwen pure and karmic vision. He is teaching that Rigpa is only accessible in pure vision, so whatever is arising in mind can't be a "thought" as in karmic formations because as we've seen according to this view karmic vision and pure vision are mutually exclusive. Therefore he says that what manifests in the mind is "sherab" which is Tibetan for Prajna-- i.e., Wisdom. Remember, there are two versions of pure vision, one in which the actual content changes -- like from seeing this tree out my window to seeing two dieties in embrace, or seeing a "thought" float through my head to seeing sherab float through my head. The other version of pure vision involves a shift in *how* not "what" we experience.

So according to this way, the thought's the same, the tree's the same, even the projection of a dualistic frame over these phenomena can be the same-- but the crucial difference is that I'm not conditioned by that dualistic frame, it isn't separate from the field of luminous energetic presencing which in turn isn't separate from the open awareness.
In Dzogchen, as opposed to Tantric completion stage yoga, "Rigpa" doesn't refer to timeless open awareness. It refers to the awareness that is being in the undivided wholeness of the openness (timeless, Nirvana) and the luminous energetic presencing (everything "manifest" from the heights of Pure Vision in the Sambogakhaya through the whole range of Karmic experiencing, or Samsara).
Dzogchen has three series or modes of training, Semde (nature of mind series) Longde (space series) and Mannagde (series of spoken instructions). The Semde is best for gaining a concrete understanding of Rigpa while the latter two pertain more specifically to the process of Rigpa stabilisation and continuity.
The Semde is similar to the essence Mahamudra of the Kagyus which isn't surprising since the teacher who started that lineage had a teacher from whom he learned Dzogchen Semde.
Semde has four phases. Here is a very simple presentation. One: recognize the "calm state" of stillness not disturbed by thought and deepen that till no thoughts arise. This state is called "nepa", stillness. There are no thoughts or if they arise they are just ripples that don't disturb you. Next identify the one who *is* in this state, i.e., the presence of awareness in this state which is having the experience "nepa". Now allow thoughts to arise (gyuwa, movement) and notice the presence of awareness is the exact same as it was in "nepa".

Next notice that the state of stillness, "nepa", isn't actually disturbed by "gyuwa", movement. The two are simultaneaus like an ocean (nepa) and its waves (gyuwa). The state of simulteneity of these three, stillness, movement and the presence that is aware of them, is Rigpa. Understanding gyuwa to include all things as thought, Rigpa therefore includes everything that is.
Thus according to the most elementary, beginning phases of Dzogchen there is no contradiction between Rigpa and thinking. To use the sky/clouds metaphor, the sky is "nepa", thoughts (all phenomena) are clouds, and Rigpa is the sun that illuminates them both. It isn't a matter of now looking at the sky, and now looking at the clouds but somehow remembering that there is a sky too. All three are co-present.
This is a standard and non-controversial presentation of Rigpa as understood in Dzogchen.
Either Tulku Urgyen is talking about Rigpa in the context of completion stage yoga in his public teachings or he is offering his description in terms of an introduction to Dzogchen allong the lines that Adam mentioned in the other thread. Either way, making his definition normative for discussion is confusing, because it's an example of the Mushrrom factor as it plays out in Tibetan Syncretism.
---Jake

As a postscript, I'll mention that Nyingma and Kagyu Tantrists actually share the same view of Buddha Nature as Dzogchen in which it isn't just open awareness but also includes a continous manifestation of energy. The difference is that the Tantrics emphasise the two manifestations, pure and impure, of the energy as the bases of their path and only teach that even impure vision is ultimately equal to pure vision in the expanse of open awareness (this is the dzogchen understanding, recall, which amounts to undoing the tantric distinction by saying that all the energy o the state is ka-dag, primordially pure) as a very esoteric teaching which they don't present publicly. Thus all the controversy and culture shock around tantric monks who somehow have consorts, children etc. I think this applies to Tulku Urgeyn, by the way, but I'm not sure if he had monk vows. At any rate, it's common practice among the Tibetans. Kalu Rinpoche is a famous example. Obviously there are a lot of weird power dynamics possible in such a situation, at least from a Western perspective.
--Jake

My direct experience is that there is a "thing" that can be uncovered by human beings. That thing has no individual in it, no observer at all. It has no thoughts in it, but it does have knowing. It is absoutely clear from that thing that all the universe, both known and not known, is but one thing, and that thing has no separate parts - all of it is one. It is mathematically, physically, metaphorically and literally the essence of non-duality. I don't give a rat's ass what we call it, who says whatever about it, or what the shades of gray are in how we describe it. The experience of it will provide you with all you ever need to know about it. All the quoting of other teachers and practitioners in the world will have no effect on that understanding. It is unshakeable, certain, clear.

yep, and including everything includes thoughts. that's my direct experience. if it isn't yours, look and see.
What I'm getting at in this post Chris is that it's confusing to equate rigpa with a state "free of thoughts", as in a state in which no thoughts arise. I tried to show why Tulku Urgyen may do that as he is one of Kenneth's sources, and I tried to demonstrate that a cursory examination of the actual teaching of Dzogchen as it's existed for over a thousand years does not agree with a literal interpretation of Urgyen's position. Also I think I indicated that a literal interpretation of his position is not neccessary, since he doesn't actually use the english word thought but two tibetan words which could both be translated by our word thought, one of which is allowed in rigpa while the other is excluded. Also, according to your own description of the non-dual state, it can include the arising of thoughts, even those of mundane things. Again, if this isn't your experience, you might benefit from having a Dzogchen teacher, who could show you directly how to train in this experience. If it is your experience and you just sincerely don't care what anyone calls this state, then I'm not sure why you responded to my post.
It's pretty simple. As for you unshakeable understanding, if it is really so than you can have it in the presence of the manifestation of thoughts-- and emotions of the full range, including annoyance, anger, arrogance, envy, desire, etc.
---Jake

"If it is your experience and you just sincerely don't care what anyone calls this state, then I'm not sure why you responded to my post."

Jake. my reason for responding was simply in reaction to yet another thread about the semantics of "rigpa," wherein a bunch of folks quote their favorite Tibetan masters, all of whom appear to have different defintions of rigpa and whose various quotes can be used to support pretty much any version of what the term might mean, if it even has just one true meaning.

Simply put, experience trumps semantics, and while we can and do argue and differ over the meaning of words, our experience is not the words. So I prefer not to fret over the words any more since it's clear they have not produced much, if anything, of value. My guess is that Kenneth might, had he to say it all over again, make up his own term for this thing rather that chose a word that has so much baggage. But I'll leave it to Kenneth to present his position on it. I'm just surmising



.

I'll have to have a look at As It Is; but as an off-the-top impression of what would shed some light on this issue, let me offer this. In the Dzogchen teachings (from Ngak'chang Rinpoche) with which I'm most familiar, the explanation would be that there are 3 series of instructions: Sem-de, Long-De, and Mengak-De. The one represented in most quarters these days is the latter, the one that is entirely based on extremely cryptic personal transmission between a qualified Lama and student. Long-De is energy practices/'yoga'. But Sem-De, when you can find it, includes preliminary practices that can be talked about in a more ordinary, straightforward way. The four practices that enable the practice of Dzogchen, per se, are-- shi-ne (shamatha), lha-tong (vipasshanya), nyi-med (for which I don't know of a sanskrit or Pali equivalent) but roughly translated means 'no-difference', and lhun-drup, 'spontaneity' (in 'remaining in the state'). So shi-ne produces an experience of mind undisturbed (or empty) of thoughts; lha-tong permits thoughts to arise and dissolve with great clarity; ny-med investigates what is the same-- the Nature of Mind, natch-- and lhundrup deposits you on the beginningless/endless 'path of no path' of not straying from clarity, "Roaring Silence: discovering the mind of Dzogchen" is ever so much more wonderful than my nutshell presented here can indicate.

Cheerios, friends--
Kate

Okay, Chris. My point in posting this thread is to gently push the point. The reason why I put the word "debate" in quotes above is that it seemed to me like there were three "bunches" of folks on that thread:
1)--Kenneth and maybe Daniel, proposing the no-thoughts allowed version of "rigpa". (Actually, I'm not sure what Daniel was saying. Maybe he's in group three.)
2)-- People who actually have some direct training by Dzogchen masters, who were gently disagreeing.
3)People who were confused by the whole thing.
It's for group three's benefit that I started this post. If you're in group one, don't take Urgyen's word for it, get a living Dzogchen teacher or meditation manual and see for yourself. If you're in group three, don't let these confusing discussions turn you off from following the advice for group one. If you're in group two, don't let the no-thoughts-allowed version of Rigpa cause you to doubt what you've been trained in.
I prefaced my critique of this use of the term Rigpa by saying what I've valued about Kenneth's teaching not to be politic but to suggest that there are better sources for Rigpa Dharma than Tulku Urgyen-- although I suspect his inner circle got a different (i.e., complete) Dzogchen teaching.
I also pointed out that Urgyen actually said that in Rigpa there are no Nam-Tok, but there is Sherab. Both these Tibetan words refer to what we lump together in the term "thought", so there's definitely a translation issue there as well.
What Kenneth and Daniel have done for Vipassana, Namkai Norbu and others have done for Dzogchen. For Arhats who have penetrated the three characteristics of the whole spectrum of karmic vision, training under a qualified Dzogchen teacher would probably be smooth and effective and go very deep very quickly. I urge them to consider this!

HI Kate, thanks for chiming in! I was writing my last post while yours was posting.
Yeah, I was going to mention Roaring Silence, it's a top-notch intro to Semde. Again, Semde is the best for getting clear on what the Tibetans mean by Rigpa and hence what Rigpa means, conventionally. Sometimes the three series are said to correspond to the there statements of Garab Dorje- 1-"introduce the state directly" (through recognizing awareness in the state of formless concentration, then in ordinary thinking, then in the sameness of both (Rigpa)= Semde; 2-"don't remain in doubt" (through recognizing it in extraordinary experiences of bliss, clarity and emptiness induced via energy practices)=Longde; and 3) "continue in the state" (through treckcho and thogal) = mannagde although each series is a complete path to being in Rigpa 24/7.
My greatest familiarity is with Norbu's teaching but Ngak'chang Rinpoche and his partner Khandro Dechen have helped me too in their writings. I'm incredibly impressed with the way that as Tantrikas they don't reduce the Dzogchen teaching to a Tantric framework but instead open the Tantric framework into a Dzogchen expanse. This seems a lot closer to the (so-called "degenerate") way that Dzogchen and Tantrism were taught in Tibet by Padmasambava, Vairocana and Vimalamitra and their lineages prior to the rise of the Monastic governments of the Dalai Lamas and the Karmapas and the New Translation schools, which were syncretistic. Tibetan history is a great demonstration of why "separation of church and state" benefits religion even more than government.

Well, one more comment and then I'll leave this debate (discussion?) to those who wish to have it.

I'm in the camp (maybe it's a camp of one) that says we should develop a dharma that comes without translation issues because its terminology and its phenomenology come from Asia. I have nothing against Asia, per se, but I do think an authentic western dharma based on our own experience and our own direct understamding would resolve and/or eliminate a lot of the pointless arguments that have come to us by way of the old Asian traditions. Buddhism seems to have evolved to match the territory it finds itself occupying. I hope it does so once again.

Carry on

"

I'm in the camp (maybe it's a camp of one) that says we should develop a dharma that comes without translation issues because its terminology and its phenomenology come from Asia. I have nothing against Asia, per se, but I do think an authentic western dharma based on our own experience and our own direct understanding would resolve and/or eliminate a lot of the pointless arguments that have come to us by way of the old Asian traditions.


"

Well, what I'm trying to say is that there's actually consistency in the use of the word Rigpa amongst most Tibetans I know of. As for a "dharma that comes without translation issues", there's no language without translation issues. Ignoring them is a good way to confuse people. Facing them is a good way to come to clear understandings so that we all know whether we actually are misunderstanding each other or really disagree. Then if it's the latter we can lay out our reasons and see what happens.
Again, if all you want to do is pursue your own practice and realization and perhaps help others down the road then there's no reason for you to concern yourself with any of this, I suppose. If that's the case, then I don't know why you were so quick to jump in to "yet another thread about the semantics of rigpa". If you still think this is a matter of semantics and not a genuine difference in practice, then I don't know what to tell you. I think it's clearly a difference in experience and I'm trying to point out that the word Rigpa and Dzogchen practice go beyond a thought free state, and that anyone who has recognized primordial awareness in the thoughtfree state is capable of recognizing it while the energy of thought manifests. I think they will benefit by doing so. They can call the energy of thought that manifests in that state Sherab, like Tulku Urgyen, if they like ;--}
-Jake

Wow, I was just reading your practice thread Chris to clue in to where you're coming from. Amazing man, you're really doing beautiful things with first and second gear practice! I wish I had that kind of discipline sometimes. I can't quite muster the motivation to push like that into new territory with the nanas right now. While checking out that thread I popped over to Jackson's link to the Five Ranks blog and found the descriptions there to be related to what a Dzogchenpa goes through in terms of states (as opposed to stages) under Semde training. It's much less dramatic and psychological, but very similar basic process r.e. third rank- fourth rank- fifth rank kind of covering some of the territory involved in "integration", or carrying Rigpa into karmic experiencing as I was saying earlier. If you understood that model, you might apply it to what I've been saying here about Dzogchen involving a developmental process, not just periodic access of an unchanging transcendent state.
And Kenneth, if anything, this process in Dzogchen is more akin to a physio-energetic one than the psychological process of the Five Ranks. I really urge you to check into this, I think you'd really be able to take it somewhere! Frankly I'm surprised you haven't.
On the other hand, maybe there's no motivation for an Arhat to do so. In that case, I'm gonna quit Vipassana!
--Jake

Jake, I think we're kind of talking past each other. I'm probably jaded by the history I have but that you don't, that being the round about, endless discussion about what rigpa is, and if it's even a worthwhile pursuit, that periodically crops up here. It dates back to before Kenneth started this site, to the old Dharma Overground site. It brings mountains of baggage with it, mine included.

What you seem to be describing in this thread sounds very nice and quite worthwhile. It's clearly not what I have experience with, and so I will go find a close friend of mine, a long, long time and very accomplished Dzogchen practitioner, and see what more I can find out about it.

As for translation, I think we're addressing two different issues. Of course all languages come with translation issues. What I notice, however, is a whole generation of western Buddhists adopting the language and traditions of Asia, the good and the not so good. Why? We can have our own genuine experience of the dharma. It's not an Asian thing, it's not a wetsern thing. Dharma is a human being thing.

Absolutely, Chris. We *do* have our own Dharma, and its evolving right now, but some people confuse the cultural trappings of Asian countries with the Dharma. This is a special problem with Tibet since they're trying to preserve their culture and transmit the Dharma. Some Westerners I know really enjoy some of the cultural aspects of Tibet, Japan, etc, but it's true that when teachers push their culture on us and when we take it uncritically it doen't serve the Dharma. Actually, what I'm trying to do on this thread is introduce an element of Contemplative Anthropology to this "longstanding" debate by pointing out that Tulku Urgyen doesn't seem to give very much Dzogchen teaching, publicly at least. His public teachings seem to pertain to Tantra and include introductions to Rigpa but not the Dzogchen teaching per se. This is often what's called "Dzogchen" in the West, which is actually the Tibetan Syncretism of "hinayana", Mahayana and Vajrayana with an introduction to the *View* of Dzogchen but not much teaching on the latter's practice, conduct or goal.
There are also lineages, such as the two Kate and I are talking about for example, that teach Dzogchen with a more comprehensive understanding of Rigpa.
Also, if you can discover primordial awareness in a state free of thoughts, you can discover it in a state with thoughts. Try and see. It's the non-dual state; everything is allowed.

"If you can discover primordial awareness in a state free of thoughts, you can discover it in a state with thoughts." -jhsaintonge

This is true, Jake. On the other hand, I don't think this was ever the question. To recognize buddha nature is to know that there is nothing outside of buddha nature. So that is a red herring. Rather, the debate has been one of linguistics. My contention is that when a word is defined too broadly, it loses its usefulness. When this happens, it's time to purposefully limit the definition, perhaps coming up with two or three words to cover the territory previously occupied by one.

Chris has suggested that we develop our own vocabulary, and I agree; what do you say we move the focus of this discussion toward linguistic clarity?

To that end, I'd like to move back into the realm of your own experience. Is there a situation in which self-referencing does not arise? During such a moment, it wouldn't be possible to think "here I am enjoying rigpa." It would be pure awareness, knowing itself. Never mind whether this is the Cadillac of all situations. We don't have to privilege one situation over another. Let's just say that without direct apprehension of this "unborn" moment, talk of going beyond it is premature.

We should also keep in mind that the ego can co-opt anything. That's its job. Having once touched the unborn, the ego will immediately rush in to possess it. So let's begin by defining one thing. Let's identify a situation in which there is awareness without discursive thought. Let's give it a name. How about the "unborn," borrowing from Bankei? After all, once thoughts have arisen, we can't reasonably say that they remain unborn. Beginning here, with one simple definition, in words that even a child can understand, we can build a discussion.

Kenneth

Yes, sometimes I experience primordial awareness without thoughts. once I'm pretty sure I experienced it without any contents at all during deep sleep. Before anyone jumps on my use of the word "experience":
Technically "open awareness" is the "place" where experiences rise and dissolve. Thus when I say "open awareness", it equates with the unborn, buddha nature as it's understood generally outside of Dzogchen. But what are the experiences? The sutric answer is they're *not* made of self, aren't permanent, and don't satisfy-- at least if a permanent self in experiences is our criteria for satisfaction. That doesn't define experience, it defines what it's not.
Dzogchen (and Tantrism in a more confusing & dualistic way) says: experiences *are* luminous energy, which itself *is* open awareness. All the negations apply to our attempts to reify either the luminous energy into an object or the open awareness into a subject, but they don't apply in the same way to reality itself, which isn't .

Check out Peter Fenner's work on "Radient Mind". He uses the term "unconditioned mind" to refer to the unborn, and "radient mind" to refer to what happens when we allow That to "refract" through our ordinary experiences of body, speech and mind.

And yes, the tibetans do have three words actually; Rigpa of the Base (open awareness) of the path (when an individual form of luminous energy, i.e. Kenneth or Jake) "recognizes" the first as non-dual with the luminous energy within and around him/herself (radient mind per Peter Fenner) and of the goal, which is another whole topic and really way beyond our discussion so far (Dzogchen's contribution to the models of "Buddhahood").
---Jake

So yeah, we could equate "unborn" "open awareness" and "ground rigpa".

I may not get a vote, but if I did my vote would be to stop using the word "rigpa." It would also be to start anew. So...

I have this uncovered experience that I described here yesterday. I would like to call this flavor of experience "primordial non-dual awareness." It has no thought, though it knows becase it is knowing itself. It has no air or semblance of individuality, no separateness whatsoever. It is everything, and although that implies logically it could be said to "contain" thought, while I am uncovering this particular flavor of experience there is no thought occurring. There is just.... primordial non-dual awareness that is knowing itself and is completely and utterly just one thing. The instant a thought occurs or any hint of doing, a doer, a concept or a separation appears, this flavor of experience can no longer be said to be "primordial non-dual awareness."

Fair start?

Oops, I'd also accept Kenneth's suggestion to use "unborn" as the operative word for this thing. It is more efficient being shorter, easier to type and descriptive enough in its own right. The main thing I'd like to avoid is the use of a term that comes with wiggle room. "Rigpa" as a term to describe this experience appears to me to come with lots of wiggle room.

OK, Chris and Jake, this is beautiful. We have a concise, wiggle-free definition, and a tag for it, viz, the "unborn." All three of us can attest to its existence without resorting to external authority.

If we can stay with this for a moment, without skipping ahead, there are a few things to be said about the unborn:

1) The unborn is Absolute, meaning it can't be spoken of as something that changes, lives, or dies. It just is.

2) The unborn is, both literally and figuratively, the source from which all things flow.

3) The unborn IS awakening, because it is Awakeness Itself.

If we accept these three statements, the only reasonable thing for a pragmatic yogi to do is to recognize the unborn as often and as much a possible. If there is any further understanding to be gained beyond the unborn, or if there is any ego-integration to be won, it will come from simply noticing the unborn again and again. Conversely, discussing hypothetical integration without first having easy, anytime access to the unborn is putting the cart before the horse. I submit that a realistic and systematic approach to practice yields the greatest results.

When a yogi gets to the the point where it's possible to notice the unborn in any situation, at a moment's notice, whether full of compassion or raging out of control, we can reevaluate. If that yogi still feels there is something to be done with regard to their practice... let that yogi step forward and share.

Because it is the very act of recognition of the unborn, repeated over and over throughout a lifetime, that brings about the transformation of the ego, it makes more sense to focus on the unborn than on the implications of decades of noticing it. You discover the seed, you plant the seed, you water and tend it, and you let nature take its course. The fruit comes in its own time, in its own way.

Kenneth

I have no qualms accepting all three of your statements about the unborn, Kenneth.

BTW - a friend who has practiced Dzogchen for years and years and who I believe has a high level of realization says pretty much the same about what the next step is, Kenneth. I asked him for some suggestions on methods to help me access the unborn. He said in his e-mail reply:

"The Dzogchen "view" if you were to call it that posits a sort of radical view of this, which is that this experience you are referring to is merely one way of accessing or relating to something which is in fact present in all experience at all times. That is to say, that primordial awareness is the ground of all awareness, all reality, at all times. That's really the crucial point which they feel is important to explore, via any number of methods. Methods aren't really the main point from this point of view; another way of putting it is that no specific method is required to explore this, and which method or methods you use depend to a great extent on the specifics of you, the practitioner, and the context or time/place in which you're doing the exploration. So I wouldn't say I'd suggest a specific method to explore it, as nearly any method has the potential to open this up further."

"
BTW - a friend who has practiced Dzogchen for years and years and who I believe has a high level of realization says pretty much the same about what the next step is, Kenneth. I asked him for some suggestions on methods to help me access the unborn. He said in his e-mail reply:

"The Dzogchen "view" if you were to call it that posits a sort of radical view of this, which is that this experience you are referring to is merely one way of accessing or relating to something which is in fact present in all experience at all times. "

Right Chris, you're accessing it durring a state called nepa, mi-tog-pa, or no-thought. And Kenneth, it doesn't take a dramatic shift to experience that it's the same while thoughts are arising. I guess you are having a hard time relating to my experience, and thus probably doubt that you and I actuall have a similar experience of the unborn since I'm saying I still notice it when thoughts arise sometimes, and chris, the flavors the same.This is the famous "one-taste" of dzogchen and mahamudra. more later-- duty calls