Why does Tulku Urgyen equate Rigpa with no-thought?

Hmmm... I want at this moment to report that I have a renewed appreciation for the precision required of vipassana

Hey Kenneth!

Thanks for the compliment and appreciation. Also, thanks for elaborating on your view of third-gear. It is this high-level, yet simple and pragmatic insight and instruction on how to practice and how to frame that practice, that I find so valuable and rare in public, unencumbered discourse. I would suggest it takes the true clarity and penetrating insight of one who is there in actual attainment, to boil it all down to the simple truth of a panoramic view and unambiguous and practical pith instructions, such as yours.

That's the good stuff.

Thanks mate!

Humbly,

Adam.

" The question is not an intellectual one, it's an existential Koan which sometimes makes me feel like I'll explode!
"

Ah, yes: this is the heart of the matter, why we keep 'turning and turning in the widening gyre', why we can't leave it alone; we have all recognized the koan. As the outrageous and Dzogchen-worthy cryptic Zen master Ikkyu wrote:

only one koan matters
you

And, again:

wife daughters friends this is for you satori
is mistake after mistake

When practice stops being 'optional', it is a fierce blessing indeed.

Interesting rigpa link pointed out to me by my Dzogchen friend:

"Rigpa
Dzogchen practice emphasizes accessing rigpa (rig-pa, pure awareness), the subtlest level of mental activity. Rigpa is an unaffected phenomenon (' dus-ma-byed), not in the sense of being static, but in the sense of not being contrived or made up as something temporary and new. It is primordially present, continuous, and everlasting. ***It is unstained by fleeting ordinary mental activity '“ in other words, rigpa is devoid of them.***"

www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/a...#n00d63427a416875910

I was finally able to engage my friend in a phone conversation last night. HIs experience fits well with Kenneth's most recent posts about his experience. My friend also was very careful to state that there are levels of rigpa, which generally equate to its recognition of itself (as described above) and the recognition of rigpa outside of its awareness of itself. The page I referenced describes all of those levels, too.

Sorry, I know this could add to the energy here, but information yearns to be free

I remain convinced that we're all talking about the same thing, just from varying perspectives.

Thank you Chris. Yes, it is basically the empty primordial awareness that cognizes the coming and going of consciousness. It can be recognized as the witness of thoughts first. Then, it witness all appearances until the witness collapses within non-dual awareness. What we took as the real world (including our body and mind) is then seen as a lucid dream or as a magical display of Awareness. So, I see these stages as the natural unfolding of the same recognition of Buddha-nature.

"
Thank you Chris. Yes, it is basically the empty primordial awareness that cognizes the coming and going of consciousness. It can be recognized as the witness of thoughts first. Then, it witness all appearances until the witness collapses within non-dual awareness. What we took as the real world (including our body and mind) is then seen as a lucid dream or as a magical display of Awareness. So, I see these stages as the natural unfolding of the same recognition of Buddha-nature.




"

This is excellent, Alex.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is that in the Dzogchen tradition, "rigpa" seems to be synonymous with the Ultimate Reality. This makes our use of the word "rigpa" more complicated. For, there isn't just one characteristic of the Ultimate Reality.

Ultimate Reality is like a multifaceted jewel. One facet of the jewel is "Witnessing" or "Presence". Another facet is "Emptiness" or "Being." And yet another is "Compassion" or "Heart." One may come to know any combination of these facets, or even just one of them, and then consider their understanding to be complete. That would be a false view, would it not?

The integration of these facets, so that's one's enlightenment is multifaceted, is a more complete picture of Awakening. (As you may notice, I've been really liking Anadi's teachings lately!)

Side note: Describing the dissolution of Presence (Witnessing) into pure non-dual awareness as being like a "lucid dream" is spot on. In my recent experience, accessing this place of awareness with my eyes open reveals a very wiggly reality indeed. The "external" world seems to manifest in the same way that images arises in awareness while dreaming, a while being fully awake and present. Very much a magical display of Awareness!

~Jackson

I think we're getting somewhere! That sense that awarenes is stainless but *not* witnessing events instead *being* an undivided expanse of wholeness that *is* everything is what I have been experiencing more and more over the past two years and understand to be Rigpa, but it really became more frequent and "certain" when about nine months ago the Witness state began to arise very clearly while I was walking my dog (no joke, Jackson!) and I had the sudden sense that *it (the Witness) was NOT real*-- it collapsed so dramatically, leaving awareness "nowhere" , with no "side" to be on, yet utterly obvious and clear as never before, and the whole world was like a single, sizzly infinitely faceted jewel. This is exactly why I can't seem to practice the Witness stuff, Kenneth-- because every time that state arises it suddenly collapses into a sense that awareness is sideless and omnipresent, not "within" or "prior" at all but *utterly* simultaneaus with all being!
And Jackson, I really hear you about the "facets" of buddhanature; one of the things that grows ever more clear about it (to me) is that there are literally no limits to how it can display itself, and as powerful as my sense of it sometimes seems to me, it seems to bear the sense of endless possibility and beginning rather than some sort of "end state" or goal.

Oh, and Chris, I'm reading that link and yes it's very interesting. It is an example of what I have been calling "Tibetan Syncretism" in which correspondences are drawn and equivalencies proposed between Dzogchen, Tantra, and Mahayana. There's no reason that someone couldn't attain everything possible through following such teachings, but it seems to me that there are sociological reasons for presenting Dzogchen this way. The key thing is the insistence that the actual practice of Dzogchen is "very advanced" and in practice teachers who present this sort of syncretism often require their students to spend years and years (and in feudal Tibet, lifetimes and lifetimes) practicing all sorts of textual and philosophical study, ritual practice including Guru worship, etc etc before giving them the "highest teachings" of Treckcho and Thogal. Some of the generous teachers in this tradition give an introduction to Rigpa at the outset, some wait until the Tantric Preliminaries are completed, some wait until the Tantric practice is really going, etc etc.

There seem to be valid reasons for doing this too since people can and do use the Dzogchen concepts and even an advanced Dzogchen practice to justify awful behavior. However, there are historical considerations as well haveing to do with the rise of monasteries as temporal powers with the role of raising taxes-- and armies. I'm not sure it's a coincidence that while these politcal changes from feudal monarchy to feudal theocracy were happening, the Dzogchen and Tantric teachings that were allready established (and which have a different presentation) were persecuted and marginalized by the rising monastic powers.
Or maybe the Dzogchen masters and Tantric yogis in Tibet before the 11th century really were degenerates just waiting to be "reformed"!
I just wanted to insert a note of caution here, that sometimes there is more at play- especially in "doctrinal debates" such as the one we are reproducing here- and that a critical appraisel of the historical issues is neccessary-- unless you are just going to find a teacher and practice their teaching sincerely....

Jake, I just thought it might be helpful to pass some information along that agreed with what Kenneth posted here the other day. I'm pretty sure my friend is knowledgable. I know he's a long term Dzogchen practitioner who also teaches, so if his experience is like Kenneth's then, well, that's two similar data points for us to ponder.

Right, I appreciate that; like I said, there's no reason someone couldn't practice in a tradtion like that and realize everything there is to be realized. But Chris, the fact is that what I'm pointing out are accurate observations about the nature of this debate in Tibet. I'm just trying to make the point that far from there being many divergent views of Rigpa and Dzogchen, in my experience there are about two: and they fall into the categories we've been discussing. I've offered an explanation, based on a lot of reading and conversations with people who have some scholarship in the area, as to why these two traditions exist, what they're saying and why. And I've mentioned where I'm coming from in terms of the particular "brand" of Dzogchen that I practice. So just to be clear, for me it's not a matter of either/or, because although I only have practice experience in a tradition that is less syncretistic, I recognize that there are actual experiences corresponding to the "doctrine" of no-thought Rigpa.
And finally, I think this whole conversation makes more sense when we strictly differentiate the Unborn, as Kenneth teaches it, from Rigpa as it is taught in either hybrid Tibetan systems such as the one you've mentioned or more strictly Dzogchen systems such as Norbu teaches. Even if the Unborn has some striking similarities to no-thought Rigpa, it is still--- or so it seems to me-- an experience or realization that, emperically, is being taught by Kenneth and shared among his students, not taught by a Dzogchen lineage master. Again, I am not saying the Unborn isn't valid Dharma as I think we all agree that it is deep, subtle and life-changing apprehension of Reality, or that it doesn't thus have parallels in all brands of Buddhism and other great spiritual traditions.

And although I have only dipped into this Unborn during one sitting while in 11th nana, and to me (based on my experience in the kind of Dzogchen to which I gravitate) it didn't neccessarily involve Rigpa since it was a distinct experience that could be thoroughly specified as to its phenomenal content, since dipping into it I have had even easier access to Rigpa as I understand it so I can emphatically say there seems to be a connection or some sort of mysterious something happening here....

Hi Jackson,

Truly fascinating! Now you see why some of these traditions make use of dream yoga as means of exploration to understand how what we take as *the real world* is nothing more than a stable dream. As I start to see it, cessation/fruition might also be IT but in its purest form, when pure being or pure emptiness cognizes the cessation of the mind (manolaya / nirodha). True being is not aware of its own existence. This is at least how Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharishi explain it, and it makes sense. Any thoughts on that?

Yes, it seems that Rigpa is often synonymous of ultimate reality or at least its recognition even if it is only partially manifest (or clarified). Scholars never found a trace of a Buddhist Dzogchen tradition in India. They suspect that it came through Kashmir Shaivism or other similar tantric schools. From the perspective of iconography, it is clear that Padmasambhava had the appearance of a Kapalika shaiva tantric sadhu. Since most Buddhists are scared of the idea of a True Self (Shiva for the Kapalikas), they had to describe it as empty, yet cognizing, etc... So it becomes a bit complicated. Like saying True Self without pronouncing the word self.

In this respect, I would note that the contrary of Anicca-Dukha-Anatta is precisely Sat-Chit-Ananda, namely That which manifests as ultimate being, primordial non-dual awareness and the joy that does not depend on conditions. Padmasambhava once wrote, something like "some call it Rigpa, Self or No-self".

-Alex




.

Yes Alex, good point. The Dzogchen tradition has its own lineage going back to Garab Dorje (let's not even mention Bon Dzogchen!). The syncretists who insist that Dzogchen (and Tantra) are varients of Mahayana Buddhism also say that Garab Dorje was a re-incarnation of Shakyamuni, or even trace Dzogchen straight back to Sid and I see this as strictly speaking the same kind of move as a description of Rigpa in terms of the relative and absolute truth, or equating the process of gaining stability in Rigpa with traversing the Bumis, or etc. It's the attempt to translate something heterodox into an orthodox set of concepts never designed to express those experiences. IN contrast, and where I'm coming from (like it or not) Norbu doesn't require that one take refuge, practice Tantric Ngondro, or etc. in order to practice Dzogchen, and he maintains good relations with Bonpo lineage masters such as Tenzin Wangyal and Lopon Tendzin Namdak while yet remaining, on the conventional level, a Buddhist. It is a very different and more anarchist position to take than to stick to "one" mythic lineage, associated with a specific set of monasteries and regions and, frankly, feudal subjects and worshipers. See, politics+dharma minus critical social theory =confusion! or one can just pick a lineage and practice one's heart out, in which case none of that will matter-- until one has to talk with members of other lineages/traditions, and then it will seem to depend more on interpersonal dynamics whether you can see each other clearly through the filters of your models.
-Jake

"Even if the Unborn has some striking similarities to no-thought Rigpa, it is still--- or so it seems to me-- an experience or realization that, emperically, is being taught by Kenneth and shared among his students, not taught by a Dzogchen lineage master. Again, I am not saying the Unborn isn't valid Dharma as I think we all agree that it is deep, subtle and life-changing apprehension of Reality, or that it doesn't thus have parallels in all brands of Buddhism and other great spiritual traditions."

Well, I believe deeply and without reservation that the dharma is something that's endemic to being human. All the experiences, the theories, the spiritualities, the traditions from all cultures and religions all over this world are based on the very same human "stuff." So no one dharma, no one version, is right or wrong. I believe what we are experiencing now, maybe for the first time ever due to communcations and travel technologies, is the ability to compare all these traditions at once. This creates two urges: one is an urge to point to MY lineage, MY spiritual tradion, MY dharma, and tell all the others they're wrong. The other, which I believe is true to what we think of as Buddhist dharma, is to see the similarities and celebrate them. So I say, dharma exists and is based on the human anatomy and the way human beings and their minds evolved on this planet. Dzogchen is a beautiful way to realize this truth. Zen is a beautiful way to realize this truth. Theravada is a beautiful way to realize this truth. Lakota is a beautiful way to realize this truth. Kabbala is a beautiful wayto realize this truth. Sufism is a beautiful way to realize this truth. You get the idea.

This truth has facets, one being the realization of the process of mind, another being the realization of the process of universe. The two are unalterably intertwined and hard to find, digest, accept and live by.

Done.

"
Well, I believe deeply and without reservation that the dharma is something that's endemic to being human. All the experiences, the theories, the spiritualities, the traditions from all cultures and religions all over this world are based on the very same human "stuff." So no one dharma, no one version, is right or wrong. I believe what we are experiencing now, maybe for the first time ever due to communcations and travel technologies, is the ability to compare all these traditions at once. This creates two urges: one is an urge to point to MY lineage, MY spiritual tradion, MY dharma, and tell all the others they're wrong. The other, which I believe is true to what we think of as Buddhist dharma, is to see the similarities and celebrate them. So I say, dharma exists and is based on the human anatomy and the way human beings and their minds evolved on this planet. Dzogchen is a beautiful way to realize this truth. Zen is a beautiful way to realize this truth. Theravada is a beautiful way to realize this truth. Lakota is a beautiful way to realize this truth. Kabbala is a beautiful wayto realize this truth. Sufism is a beautiful way to realize this truth. You get the idea.

This truth has facets, one being the realization of the process of mind, another being the realization of the process of universe. The two are unalterably intertwined and hard to find, digest, accept and live by.

"

Agreed. Well said! Thanks Chris.

"As I start to see it, cessation/fruition might also be IT but in its purest form, when pure being or pure emptiness cognizes the cessation of the mind (manolaya / nirodha). True being is not aware of its own existence. This is at least how Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharishi explain it, and it makes sense. Any thoughts on that?"

Hello Alex!

Great reply (as usual). Is True being aware of its own existence? I don't know. But just for fun, let's look at from two different angle.

From the point of view of cessation/fruition, we come to know that there is no experience of Zero. There is only experience of going into and coming out of Zero. This is because consciousness winks out (as the polarities of expansion and contraction cancel each other out). From this perspective, it's quite easy to understand how True being is not aware of its own existence.

On the other hand, awareness is non-dual in relationship to True being. Whether True being is awareness itself or an activity of the Source/Zero is a matter of debate, as we both well know. Either way, though, if awareness is the activity of the Source (the same way that consciousness is), and is thus a manifestation or the activity of the Source, than whatever "knows" the Source IS the Source in a rather paradoxical way.

Philosophizing about this stuff can be just as much of a headache as is talking about the Trinity in Christian theology. There just isn't a way of doing so without paradox, as no linear reasoning is sufficient. As Soren Kierkegaard wrote, "Lying is a science; Truth a paradox."

Experientially we know that realizing one's True nature is something that occurs. It is fun and also frustrating to talk about realization, and at the end of the day words fail. Hearing an intellectual explanation of Buddha Nature cannot wake someone up, in the same way that hearing about sex cannot cause someone to lose their virginity.

Chris, very well said! I think that is a fitting place to leave this.

Hi Jackson,

Thanks for your interesting feedback.

If Truth is certainly a paradox, philosophizing about the Dharma is always a vain activity.

For Zen rascals of my specie, philosophizing is not a mental game but the means of a deep inquiry into the mysteries of the Mind.

Talking about sex, makes teenagers wanna taste the real thing.

The urge to make sense to the Dharma is even worse. It can become an obsession, a curse, an incurable disease. And the only cure is perfect enlightenment.

The process might be alien to other Buddhist schools, but that's how it goes. We read the koans and the sutras. Get stuck on a sentence, like Huineng's 'give birth to a mind that abides nowhere' from the Vajrachedika Sutra. Since these words came from an enlightened mind, they can only be understood by an enlightened mind.

So, are they absolutely clear? Do they make full sense beyond the shadow of a doubt?

If not, we go back to the cushion, again, again and again'¦ The method is old and time tested. If we can believe the documentary *Amongst White Coulds*, this is still the core practice of Chinese hermits.

Kind regards,

Alex

Hey Alex,

You make an interesting point. I not think that all dharma philosophizing is done in vain. I simply mean that "salvation" - so to speak - is not found in the learning of some tenants or obeying special rules. In Christianity there are "5 Point Calvinists" who believe in five thesis, and therein lies their salvation. I would hope to all that is good in the world that Buddhists wouldn't fall in to that trap!

There is much to be learned from the sutras, and much to be gained by inquiring into their meaning. Koans, I think , are a different thing entirely. I'm not a die hard Zen guy, so I could be wrong about this, but koan or hua-tou practice doesn't have much to do with solving the riddle, does it? What is important, I feel, is to keep the mind in a condition of utter perplexity so that insight will flash in when the mind is primed for it. Paralyzing the faculties of logic and reason facilitates the dawning of this insight in some way. Sometimes the insight is related to the content of the koan, and other times it would seem to be beside the point.

So yeah, study helps. But the late Alan Watts would advise us to be careful not to, "eat the menu instead of the dinner."

~Jackson

"What is important, I feel, is to keep the mind in a condition of utter perplexity so that insight will flash in when the mind is primed for it. Paralyzing the faculties of logic and reason facilitates the dawning of this insight in some way. Sometimes the insight is related to the content of the koan, and other times it would seem to be beside the point.

"

Hi Jackson,

Another way to look at this is, if the mind is endlessly perplexed we are creating needless activity, stiring the mind in this manner means it will not concentrate well. So the point of the koan is not to perplex rather, discrimination within the dualistic construct cannot be used to solve koans as they are purposly chosen "not to work" here. The priming of the mind or purpose is to aprehend directly, passed the mind that dicriminates. In this respect koans are a form of pointing.

Hi Jackson and Gary,

The tradition goes back to Bodhidharma (5th century) who used the Lankavatara Sutra to seal the mind. Huineng (638'“713), the 6rth patriarch, had his first awakening hearing the sentence "give rise to the mind which abides nowhere" from the Diamond Sutra. This sentence puzzled him for years and its complete meaning was only understood in the chamber of the 5th patriarch, when he received his transmission. Later he said that anyone who fully understood the Diamond Sutra would be his spiritual heir. Here again the sutra was used as a Mind seal (Cittamudra/Mahamudra). Many Zen masters like Zongmi or Chinul awakened to their original nature while reading sutras. In most cases however, koans replaced sutras.

Koan or gong an in Chinese is a legal term meaning precedent or public case. Basically, they are condensed wisdom used as pointers by famous teachers. Dahui Zonggao (1089'“1163) popularized their use as objects of concentration/investigation to generate an intense existential doubt. When the great doubt is shattered, the true nature is testified by all things. This is one use of koans, but some schools or lineages don't use them during meditation, but use them as teaching tools. If they do not have an answer, they nevertheless reveal Buddha-nature.

(cont.)

If I mention that, it is because if words and concept veil our original nature, they also reveal it. The ultimate (call it *cognizing emptiness*) cannot know itself unless it is reflected by the illusion that hides it in the first place. The sun cannot see its own light unless it is reflected by the clouds. This very fact is a basic pointer without which Zen is completely absurd and meaningless.

Here is an illustration of this point that also answers the main topic of this thread:

Once a monk asked Master Zhaozhou about the meaning of Bodhidharma coming from the West (namely the ultimate meaning of Zen).
Zhaozhou said, "Cypress tree in the garden."
The monk then said, "Don't use objects to teach about the ultimate."
Zhaozhou said, "I've never used objects to teach people."
The monk said, "Well then, what is the meaning?"
Zhaozhou said, "Cypress tree in the garden."

In these traditions, understanding is very practical.
Practice is maintaining right view sitting, standing, walking or laying down. Right view is the fruit of practice.

So what are thoughts in relation with rigpa?
Itsn't "cypress tree in the garden" nothing more than a thought or an appearence in the mind?
It this thought an object? What is its true substance? What cognizes thoughts?
Could *That* which cognizes thoughts be aware of itsef in the absence of appearences reflecting its own light?
It's the function of the unborn to manifest itself through thoughts and appearences.
Could the enuncitation "cypress tree in the garden" or Bodhidharma walking to China be the pure expression of Buddha-nature, expressing its function while revealing its essence?

Kind regards,

Alex

Awesome!
It seems to me that all the faculties-- thinking, imagining, feeling, sensing and beyond-- have the capacity to break free from dualism. They must have this capacity since their actual being is never dualistic, but only reality's wholeness displaying itself *as if it was* fragmentation, seeking, suffering, selfishness.
I can come to a conclusion about the fact that reality must have no duality, must not be in "opposition" to illusion, and that conclusion can be an intellectual opinion arrived at by logical thought-- but have no transformative power.
However, pursuing the implications of this intellectual comprehension relentlessly in my life, investigating every moment as to whether it is a display of unbroken wholeness or not (it always is!), provokes the sense in me that my very existence is a question: will I continue to be *as if* a separate, confused conflictual being or will I become what I actually am? Through living as this question, a genuine understanding grows organically in the clearing made by clear thinking. Clear thinking is the opposite of "believing" in a concept, tenet, or rule. Clear thinking is not the opposite of reality, since the latter has no opposites.
Dogen said something like: Sentient beings are greatly deluded about enlightenment; Buddhas are greatly enlightened about delusion. Our very being includes both "sides" and is yet not limited to either side; all that seems to be required is seeing things as they are-- illusion as illusion, reality as reality. Neither need be made a reference point through grasping or rejection. The one who is the unbroken wholeness of these, and is aware that he/she is this, in the moment of non-grasping is free-- in that moment, for that moment.
---Jake