Why does Tulku Urgyen equate Rigpa with no-thought?

So, yes Kenneth, I can agree with your three points.
The specific place where we may disagree is in your conclusion that the thing to do is notice the unborn again and again. I think of Dzogchen as a third gear *practice* with a development of understanding about the relationship of the "unborn" and phenomena, beginning with a sense of radical difference, moving to the sense that the unborn is the "source" of phenomena, into the shocking and strange experience that they are literally identical, the Same. There's one thing with openness/nothingness, awareness, and luminous energy facets. Each facet *is* the others, none of them are the source of the others. This is an experience anyone can have and seems to be the basis of Dzogchen. There are various methods for "accessing the different modes", if you will.
Also Chris, your friend made an important point about the use of methods in Dzogchen. A yogi may use methods to generate experiences, specifically of emptiness (no-thought), clarity and bliss in order to 1)distinguish the unborn from them and 2)recognize that they don't actually obscure the unborn and 3)see that they themselves are the same as the unborn. Or something like that. Mike (Gozen), if you're out there I wonder what you think of this conversation? I presume you agree with Kenneth's three points?

In terms of your orientation, Kenneth, I'd say there's a 3rd gear *practice* which unlike that of 1st and 2nd isn't really an intentionally engaged practice but an automatic process. All we can *do* is hinder it. It seems to play out differently in different teachings; for example, we could contrast the process of Demonstrations in Adi Da's 7th stage of life with the way this Sameness of phenomena and awareness plays out in Dzogchen, but either way it's an automatic process, somewhat unlike 1st and 2nd gear, which require effort to begin and sustain.

"The specific place where we may disagree is in your conclusion that the thing to do is notice the unborn again and again."-Jake

What would you have us do instead? Remember, for most people, the unborn is just a concept. Even for those who have tasted it, the temptation to dig in and live in ideas is almost irresistible. My question hangs in the air... will the yogi who has easy, anytime access to the unborn and is still unsatisfied please step forward...

(There is no shame in remaining silent at this point.)

"In terms of your orientation, Kenneth, I'd say there's a 3rd gear *practice* which unlike that of 1st and 2nd isn't a really an intentionally engaged practice but an automatic process."-Jake

Although I would quibble with the word "automatic" on the grounds that most people will never notice the unborn, you and I are on the same page in understanding that 3rd Gear is fundamentally different from 1st and 2nd. The first two gears, i.e., samatha/vipassana and the Witness, can be approached through an act of will, whereas 3rd gear, which is the direct apprehension of the unborn, only happens through surrender.

Okay, to the second point: absolutely. The third gear process is only automatic for someone who has "seen" the unborn. Actually seeing that and it's sameness with phenomena is the tricky part, once you've done that with a bit of guidance the process starts to unfold pretty, well, automatically. And discovering the unborn is not possible through any sequence of experiences, since it's the "place" where experiences arise and dissolve. That goes for thoughts too-- no sequence of thoughts, attentions, emotions, experiences whatsoever can lead to this. I have no idea how I have came to understand it, such as I have (that is, not much!"). I suspect there's something to the notion of transmission as in sat sang etc, I think Mike would have something to say about that since Adi Da was famous for having a powerful transmission.
Again let me stress that you absolutely do not access this state through thinking-- or through not having thoughts.

Now to your first point: Welllllll.... I think we're talking past each other here. Inasmuch as I've agreed with your formulation of the unborn and equated it with what I call "open awareness" I would say that the yogi who has easy any time access to the unborn and yet associate that with a set of conditions such as not having thoughts or only having certain thoughts or whatever, as long as they really have easy anytime access, (which would depend on the easy anytime access they have to the set of conditions which they associate with "accessing" the unborn), that yogi will be completely satisfied. To the extent that they have trouble accessing the conditions they associate with their recognition of the unborn, they will be anything from annoyed to pissed of to dissapointed to confused to easygoing, just a-waiting another chance to access the unborn.
Associating access to the unborn with specific experiences is dangerous for that reason, and what I'd have you do is see if the way you're relating to it in terms of specific modes of access is how you want to do this. Wouldn't you like to be able to reliably make a shopping list or do you're bills in rigpa? How about make love, sip coffee and talk with a friend, or stub you're toe and think "youch!". I know I would!
So what do I know is possible from my own experience? All of those things.

I will say that I notice something funny, though, and anyone else with experience in this territory please chime in:
I have periodic arisings of a full blown non-dual state, in which I can think up myriad thoughts, move around, even intentionally try to distract myself from this state and it's impossible. It's a state that I would call Rigpa, in which -- as you're friend says, Chris-- primordial awareness is simply known to be unwaveringly inseperable from absolutely everything that's happening, and nothing that happens can distract me from it since everything *is* it! This usually arises in everyday life and is like suddenly teleporting to the place my practice is laboriously lurching towards, step by step. Since looking back at my life I see that that arises more frequently, I believe one day it could just arise and last for days, weeks, or forever. I don't think of this experience as part of my practice; the cutting edge of my practice (my third gear practice) is integrating with movement, as I've outlined above and which Kate gave a nice synopsis of too. Adams mentioned it on some other posts. Anyone who's interested can find plenty of good books that will show you how, and wouldn't hurt to contact a Dzogchen teacher.
Aside from my root master's descriptions of Rigpa, the closest thing to this I can think of right now is Adyashanti's description of his Awakening, when he got up off his cushion and started walking around looking for something that *wasn't* IT; yup, the sink's it, yup my cat's it, maybe my toilet won't be it-- nope, toilet's it too... It really feels like that, even with the most ridiculous mundane thoughts.

The only difference between what you and Adyashanti have called enlightenment/rigpa and what Kenneth and Chris have called the unborn/the happiness that doesn't depend on conditions, that I can see, is which words have preferable connotations for each of you. That's the thing with form-- there are infinite individual differences. The thing with emptiness is that there are none, until you see the indivisibility facet-- and then you can talk about the 'form qualities of emptiness.' and of the 'emptiness qualities of form'-- which take in the 3 characteristics, among other things.

What philosopher doesn't love a good paradox? And what impetuous yogi doesn't want to just grab Manjusri's sword and whack it for once and for all! Me, I'm just a charter member of the Far Too Easily Amused Club.

Jake, I really enjoy your tenacity, both in the conversation and in your clearly wide-ranging research: a veritable 'pitbull on the pantleg' of dharma. With less damaging teeth.

"@Kenneth: 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.

... 3rd Gear is fundamentally different from 1st and 2nd. The first two gears, i.e., samatha/vipassana and the Witness, can be approached through an act of will, whereas 3rd gear, which is the direct apprehension of the unborn, only happens through surrender."

For what it's worth, I want to publicly endorse the above quotations penned by our very own Mr. Folk. Outstanding work.

Once the unborn is realized, what else is there to do other than surrender to it? Let go in to the Source - to allow all artificial boundaries to gravitate back in to the Void - to dwell as this Reality; as far as I'm convinced, this is THE practice.

Jackson

(Referring to the overall content of jhsaintonge's posts in this thread.)

Jake, I feel that I would be doing you and our other members and readers a disservice if I didn't call you out a little bit here. What you have presented in this thread does not sound like a testimony of enlightenment as much as a synthesis of other people's ideas, partially understood insights, and appeals to authority. It's not that much of what you are saying does not have merit. It's just that it doesn't ring true as you are presenting it. This is not bad, evil, wrong, or the least bit unusual. It is expected that a yogi will overvalue his/her practice at some point. Until recently, though, yogis did not have the internet to spread their confusion to the four corners of the planet. My concern is that newcomers will also be confused by your words, which, although not quite formed, are superficially plausible.

This enlightenment business is not always easy and almost never quick. May I ask that you give yourself more time to let it all sink in before you spread the good word?

I'm sorry to be so mean. I don't like it, but it's my job. Yikes!

Kenneth

"I have periodic arisings of a full blown non-dual state, in which I can think up myriad thoughts, move around, even intentionally try to distract myself from this state and it's impossible. It's a state that I would call Rigpa, in which -- as you're friend says, Chris-- primordial awareness is simply known to be unwaveringly inseperable from absolutely everything that's happening, and nothing that happens can distract me from it since everything *is* it! This usually arises in everyday life and is like suddenly teleporting to the place my practice is laboriously lurching towards, step by step. Since looking back at my life I see that that arises more frequently, I believe one day it could just arise and last for days, weeks, or forever."-jhsainonge

Hi Jake,

The experience you describe in the above passage is likely the Witness, aka 2nd Gear. The tipoff is the undistractablility of it. This is a powerful and valuable state, but it is not the goal of your practice. Neither is it rigpa, by any accepted definition. If, from the point of view of the Witness, you inquire into "who knows this state," it's possible to surrender to pure awareness, or what we are referring to here as the unborn.

Kenneth

"Inasmuch as I've agreed with your formulation of the unborn and equated it with what I call "open awareness" I would say that the yogi who has easy any time access to the unborn and yet associate that with a set of conditions such as not having thoughts or only having certain thoughts or whatever, as long as they really have easy anytime access, (which would depend on the easy anytime access they have to the set of conditions which they associate with "accessing" the unborn), that yogi will be completely satisfied."-jhsaintonge

It sounds like you are talking about the equanimity ñana, rather than the unborn. The unborn has nothing to do with conditions, and can be seen at any moment, from within any state, without changing that state. The unborn is just the recognition of what is always already the case: awareness is ever present and intrinsically awake. It doesn't arise or pass away, and you can't lock onto it the way you can lock onto the Witness. It's much more subtle than that, and more flexible, precisely because it's always here. You can't get it and you can't lose it. You can only be distracted from it (or not). Please don't sell it short or overlook it. Grand talk of integration is premature when one hasn't yet penetrated to the unborn. Conversely, integration is automatic when one has. As one of my favorite teachers says, "That's none of my business. All I have to do is be simple."

Kenneth

well, I'm glad you came out with what you'd been hinting at; I guess we called each other out! I've got to run for now but I think I like what Kate said better (ha hah ha!)
---Jake

Jake, please keep in mind, as I said in this thread the other day, experience on the path is critical, and it is so because when you have it you just know a thing in your bones. I think it hurts Kenneth to do what he termed "call you out a bit", but I believe in my heart of hearts that were he not to do that when he believes it's called for we'd end up talking past each other all the more.

"@Kenneth: It doesn't arise or pass away, and you can't lock onto it the way you can lock onto the Witness. It's much more subtle than that, and more flexible, precisely because it's always here. You can't get it and you can't lose it. You can only be distracted from it (or not). Please don't sell it short or overlook it. Grand talk of integration is premature when one hasn't yet penetrated to the unborn. Conversely, integration is automatic when one has. As one of my favorite teachers says, 'That's none of my business. All I have to do is be simple.'"

Hello Jake, et al.

What Kenneth is pointing out about you (Jake's) descriptions stood out to me as well, though I don't have as much experience in dharma diagnostics as does Kenneth and some of the other more experienced members of the forum.

What Kenneth says about "locking it in" is crucial. When I first started practicing the Witness, that was what set it apart from other attainments I had experienced. I used to do what I called "Taking no-dog for a walk," in which I would cultivate the Witness, lock the sucker in, and take a walk around the city blocks near my office. It is highly enjoyable Surrendering to the Source - the unborn, as we are calling it - is not something one can lock in.

Anyways, this is not to say that you (Jake) aren't describing experiences that are very important and helpful. You certainly are. At this point it is difficult to align what you're describing with the practice of recognizing (i.e. surrendering to) the unborn. We could be misunderstanding each other, or perhaps there's just more work to be done, so to speak - which is what I think is the case. I hope this is not taken as a dharma put down, 'cause that's not what this site is about.

cont.

cont. from above.

I can't even tell you how many times I've posted something in the forums like, "Hey guys, I think I experienced XYZ. Here's what happened. Here's why I think it's XYZ (insert textual references). What do you think?" More often than not, I was brought back down to earth by Kenneth, Daniel Ingram, Hokai Sobol, Vince Horn, and other yogis with a lot more experience than myself. I was actually right on occasion, but I was always challenged and told to take some time to sort it out in my experience. Daniel used to go as far as to say that we shouldn't go around claiming stuff until we've waited a year and a day, and I think that there's some wisdom in that - though the chosen time period is a little arbitrary. Anyways, if I had let these kinds of conversations cut me off from these forums, which are in some ways like a life-line for my practice, I wouldn't be where I am today.

OK, the pep-talk is over.

~Jackson

Yes, Jackson. Read through my thread for the many breathless reports I've posted but which have since faded. It's all part of the path and it's very normal to get out ahead of yourself. I've been wrong about my own "stuff" hundreds of times. Being excited and subsequently being proven wrong is probably one of the most effective ways I've learned all kinds of things in general, not just in the pursuit of dharma.

Well guys,
I'd have to look back over my posts to see what's meant by their tone. I'm not presenting anything unusual from a A Dzogchen standpoint as far as I know. I think I mistakenly supposed by his use of the word Rigpa that Kenneth's Third Gear equated with Dzogchen practice, and now I'm not so sure. I've definitely read a lot and use big words (and a lot of them) and if that makes you think I'm off base, so be it. As far as my "claims", I'm really confused. I think I was pretty clear that my experience with Dzogchen is limited to the utmost beginning stages, specifically the beginning of the second phase of Semde. I can't say that I haven't had that experience; sorry! Why you guys find it so far out I don't know.
Let me be clear: in terms of states/stages (I'll assume we all are familiar with this) I don't believe I have any stage attainments at all. I'm 100% sure I never claimed any; if someone thought I did, I didn't. I think I have an understanding of the "state" of Rigpa as I've been instructed by my teacher in discovering it but I don't think I ever said it was available at will, although I've been in it at least once a day for at least a year now. I'd have to ask a more experienced dzogchen yogi about "locking it in", Jackson, although there's nothing wrong with doing that. I've been instructed that stability will arise automatically with time once it's arisen at all.
I've received a lot of benefit from Kenneth's councils in the first gear and intend to continue relating to you regarding Vipassana, Kenneth. I can't tell you how amazingly illuminitive your coaching has been compared to the information that's out there! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree r.e. this Rigpa thing since we still seem to be talking past each other. I'

Hi Jake,

Thank you for your gracious response and for the clarification. I'd like to repeat here, in public, what I wrote to you in private: I'm glad you are here on this forum. I see your potential as well as your accomplishments, and I look forward to lots of great dialogues to come.

Sincerely,

Kenneth

Regarding Jackson's quote of Kenneth, yeah, I know what you mean. The difference between the spontaneasu state I was describing and the Witness state as I understand you to intend is that in the state I'm refering to, Awareness has nothing like a no-dog flavor. It seems to intrinsically care very deeply about things and people, and there's a lot of heart to it. Sorry!
As far as you know, I could be deluding myself, decieving you, or a sophisticated A.I. that isn't even sentient. Or I could be a sophisticated A.I. that is sentient and knows what it's talking about. "Grand talk of integration" is not what I'm getting at and I'm confused that you see it that way, Kenneth. As Norbu teaches it you aren't practicing Dzogchen, really, until you are integrating. It's not that lofty and it doesn't imply any sort of permanent realization, but it does involve seeing that the unborn awareness is the same whether thoughts manifest or not. Integrating all the time isn't the only definition of integrating, either; it happens in short moments, many times as well. Anyway, if you have as hard a time as you seem to relating to what I'm talking about since you don't think I'm speaking from experience, that's fine. It shouldn't interfere with our 1st gear dialogue.

Oh, just saw your comment, Kenneth, thank you. Also, thanks Jackson and Chris for your pep talks, I certainly appreciate it; and thanks Kenneth for having the courage to be the unfun big brother; I like that I can count on you to put me in my place. Since you seem to think of what I'm talking about as some difficult to attain special state, let's leave Rigpa out of it; although I will say that it took about eight years from my introduction to the point where I'm at now, so it isn't like one day I read about this in a book and decided "wow, I'll go around talking abut that as if that's my experience". For now, let's leave that whole relationship of spiritual mentor to the territory we agree on: 1st gear, and let the rest just be .
--Jake

--Jake

"@Jake: Regarding Jackson's quote of Kenneth, yeah, I know what you mean. The difference between the spontaneasu state I was describing and the Witness state as I understand you to intend is that in the state I'm refering to, Awareness has nothing like a no-dog flavor. It seems to intrinsically care very deeply about things and people, and there's a lot of heart to it. Sorry! "

Here's an excerpt from Jack Kornfield's "A Path With Heart" that might shed some light on what you're experiencing...

On the Equanimity nana, he writes:

"We enter a realm where consciousness is fully open and awake, perfectly balanced. This is a level of wonderful peace. We can sit at ease for hours, and nothing that arises causes any disturbance in the space of consciousness. Consciousness becomes luminous even beyond the stage of pseudo-nirvana (the A&P), because now everything is untangled, free, and we grasp at nothing. As it says in the Diamond Sutra, the world appears like a ply of light and color, as the start at down, as a rainbow, as clouds, and as a mirage. Everything that appears is singing one song, which is the song of emptiness and fullness. We experience the world of phenomena and consciousness, of light and dark, playing themselves out in a dance without separation...

"This state of profound balance the Elders called high equanimity. Our mind becomes like a crystal goblet or like the clear sky in which all things appear unhindered. We become completely transparent, as if every phenomenon just passes through our mind and body. We are simply space, and our whole identity opens to reveal the true nature of consciousness before we became identified with body and mind..."

(continued below)

(continued from above)

Your saying that "It seems to intrinsically care very deeply about things and people, and there's a lot of heart to it," is also something characteristic of the Equanimity nana. Since Equanimity arises when we are able to hold the suffering of the world by expanding our attention, compassion and heart are characteristics of this stage. Perhaps the dzogchen tradition of which you are familiar uses the word Rigpa to describe this stage as well as others. As you pointed out, this is not the case for all Tibetan traditions, and it isn't the way Kenneth uses it. Perhaps it is due to our Theravadin Progress of Insight background which causes us to describe the lower stages of awakening within that particular context. We tend to describe the higher aspects of the path with language that is more non-dual, rather than describing the whole of the path in those terms. This helps us to better identify the level to which a particular yogi is having such experiences. Referring to High Equanimity as Rigpa, for our purposes, will work against our attempt to explain that which we refer to as Rigpa - which is something far more profound and subtle.

So if what you're saying is that not everyone uses Rigpa the way that Kenneth does, than I agree with you. For the sake of communicating Kenneth's variety of teaching on this particular forum, I think it's best if we use the conceptual framework he has laid out for us. That's the only way we're going to be able to compare apples to apples.

Helpful?
~Jackson

"So if what you're saying is that not everyone uses Rigpa the way that Kenneth does, than I agree with you. For the sake of communicating Kenneth's variety of teaching on this particular forum, I think it's best if we use the conceptual framework he has laid out for us. That's the only way we're going to be able to compare apples to apples.

Helpful?
~Jackson"

Hi everyone,
I'm back from a week-plus long absence. Traveling, a conference, grading student papers, etc etc have been soaking up all my time. But I just wanted to chime in here with agreement for what Jackson wrote.

The language to describe the states and attainments and understandings under discussion here is notoriously slippery, especially when moving between traditions or even between different teachers in the same tradition. Therefore, I believe it is essential that we agree to conventions of language usage here, on the Kenneth Folk Dharma site, that were introduced by Kenneth himself. It's a simple matter of consistency. And it improves communication enormously. While we can debate interpretations and so forth, let's not debate the terminology as used on this site.

Thanks.
Gozen

Well, I think like I said earlier I'll just leave it to Vipassana between Kenneth and I for now, since we seem to understand each other on that front. Jackson, I have no doubt that entering 11th nana territory with Kenneth's coaching has made it ridiculously easy to experience what I've called Rigpa, but I still wouldn't equate them. Thanks for the quote, though; it seems to relate more to an experience I had about a month ago when all my confusion regarding Kenneth's three speed transmission started to become clear to me. I had an experience not unlike the one you're describing while sitting in the 11th nana, and kind of thought that it might be a refinement of that state, but when I related it to Kenneth he said it didn't sound like 11th nana so much as what he calls Rigpa!!!! Noticable in the state that I experienced was the fact that no thoughts or images were arising at all, in other respects your Kornfield quote could be taken to apply to it, and the lesson I'm taking away from this is that I seem to have a lot to learn from Kenneth r.e. Vipassana but that mixing in terms from other lineages seems to make everyone confused quickly. I'd rather talk about my Dzogchen practice with someone who is on that path in order to avoid confusion.
I am concerned that getting in Rigpa as I understand it will block my development past 11th Nana based on some things that were said on other posts about the unlikeliness of experiencing path and cessation while in Rigpa, and so I'm not sure that we can actually avoid talking about it. So we seem to be at sort of an impasse. I don't know where else to take this!

Also, r.e. my one line post #35: Mike called me out for being flip which is probably fair; I really had just logged on and read Kenneth's "calling me out" post and actually did have to go _car was running, son and wife bundled up and waiting. I probably should have waited until I got home before I wrote anything. Sorry, didn't mean to come off as a dick!
--Jake

"I'd rather talk about my Dzogchen practice with someone who can relate to what I'm relating, if you catch my drift."

Hi Jake,

Regarding the above quote, perhaps your right. If you're already working with teachers from a particular lineage who use different terms and such, and it works better for you, awesome! If Kenneth or anyone else on this forum can help you with the vipassana stuff, please stick around.

You also wrote... "I am concerned that getting in Rigpa as I understand it will block my development past 11th Nana based on some things that were said on other posts about the unlikeliness of experiencing path and cessation while in Rigpa, and so I'm not sure that we can actually avoid talking about it. So we seem to be at sort of an impasse. I don't know where else to take this!"

I find it hard to believe that your Dzogchen practice would in effect "block" you from making progress on the linear path, but that's my opinion. There are many ways to make progress on the linear path. The vipassana route enables the yogi to recognize particular aspects of progress in a linear way, but progress can be made without seeing that stuff. This is why people who have been meditating for years may come to vipassana and discover that this stuff was there all along, even the fruitions/cessations, but that they just didn't know how to look for it. I think you should stick to whatever practice keeps you practicing. If you combine sincere investigation with stability of concentration, you'll make progress on the linear path.

~Jackson