Why does Tulku Urgyen equate Rigpa with no-thought?

Mike, I think that I'm going to bow to you here. Kenneth, I guess if I take your definition of Rigpa for the sake of our work together, this actually will work... damn, what a whirlwind. It sounds like you and I have some things to hash out one on one, Kenneth, r.e. my current practice experiences. Also, please accept my apology for being "flip" earlier. I bounced the situation off my wife on the way home a little while ago and she pointed out that I can get weird with authority figures when I don't think they're getting me, although she agreed that I willingly submit to instruction when I recognize excellence in a teacher. I feel most comfortable relating to you on the 1st gear level, since I'm 100% confident that I know just about nothing and you've got it down. Given my acceptance, r.e. Mike's advice, to operate under the definitions as you've presented them, Kenneth, I suppose we can carry on-- and for now I'll leave the Dzogchen to the side in our work together.
--Jake

Jackson, I was changing that quote while you were quoting it, same idea. I think my concern about not developing beyond 11th nana is moot since the statements regarding Rigpa blocking such development pertain to Kenneth's definition, not the one I've been using. Thanks again for chiming in!
--jake

Group hug!

As for my current 1st gear practice, I have sat precisely twice in about the last month, both times at the beginning of this past weekend, and the description Jackson posted of "High EQ" seem to describe my experience. Sensations skittering through my sensate field like little sparks or those pictures of particles in a collider, everything very swift, smooth, peaceful, and translucent. I'll definitely admit, that's quite nice. Still feels like just another experience, though. Kenneth, in answer to Bill Hamilton's perennial question: I'm not laughing anymore...
--Jake

Although I haven't participated in this discussion, I found reading through this thread to be of value on many levels.
Peace and Happiness (without conditions),
- Tina

[edit: deleted irrelevant sentences]

Hi All,

It should be clear that Rigpa (cognizing emptiness or buddha-nature) is not an experience. It is the pure knowing-ness that allows one to experience the 16 stages of insight; to experience walking the dog or typing on this computer.

It is not a stage of insight, nor anything that we can see or think about. It is unborn and stands beyond thoughts. Yet thoughts are made of its immaterial substance. It is the source of all things. Yet no one has ever seen it. We cannot define it by a concept. We can only point to it.

Seems like the controversy lives on; maybe Kenneth was onto something by suggesting we differentiate the Unborn as the subject of third gear practice as he teaches it from Rigpa, since the latter term seems clearly to have a different meaning.

The descriptions of the Unborn presented here actually remind me of "absolute bodhicitta" in the Mahayana system accessed by someone with high Jhannic attainment.

"The descriptions of the Unborn presented here actually remind me of "absolute bodhicitta" in the Mahayana system accessed by someone with high Jhannic attainment."

Jake, you said something similar in a private mesage to me today, inferring, I think, that I'm somehow confusing jhanic attainment and the unborn. Why? On what basis do you make that case? Honestly, I don't think the descriptions posted here could be more clear. Where is the controversy other than over the meaning of a term (rigpa) we've all decided has so many meanings that we'd be better off not using it?

Edited for spelling.

I'm with Chris.

Besides, I think the word "unborn" says it all. Unborn. Uncompounded. Unmade. Not a state. Not a jhanic attainment.

~Jackson

To elaborate and add some further clarity from my experience -- confusing jhanic attainment with the unborn is virtually impossible. It's like comparing a car to a mountain.

Hey guys!

So back to the original topic at hand - Rigpa, or for sake of clarity, the unborn, which is the same thing, by definition, so we might as well call it Rigpa, as it is a very clearly defined technical term with a long standing history of use and critical discussion, but move along - do we think that realization of the unborn can take place in the presence of thought? Suppose one realizes the unborn, does that realization necessarily slip away, or is obscured, or lost, in the presence of thoughts? That is, can realization of the unborn continue or persist through the presence of thinking and general 'doing' and conversation with others? We have seen this question answered in other threads, clarification might be useful at this juncture.

What implications does this have for the whole non-dual thesis in terms of enlightenment as a deep, direct and lasting realization of the non-dual - all is the ONE living reality, or all 'is what it is' in its nakedness as it is, empty of an enduring or substantial individual identity and separation?

[cont.]

Realization of the unborn in the presence of thoughts or the absence of thoughts as a necessary condition for its realization or its continued recognition is the question that I feel Jake was attempting to explore with this thread and the only really relevant question, in my mind, given the previous threads that prompted it and the tremendous confusion and or controversy that surrounds it.

Given participants have alluded to their unmistakable realization, it should be easy for us to get a current consensus on the question of the relationship of thought / no-thought and realization of the unborn. Any takers?

Finally, I would strongly urge humility in the tone of this discussion, as it is very quickly degenerating into 'my realization is greater than yours', which is foolish and circular; and does nothing to redress any underlying confusions (which most definitely exist, given the complexity of the issues, and our finite understandings and limited ability to effectively communicate), since the possibility of confusion is not even acknowledged or admitted, due to our proposed clarity of realization.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Finally, I would strongly urge humility in the tone of this discussion, as it is very quickly degenerating into 'my realization is greater than yours', which is foolish and circular; and does nothing to redress any underlying confusions (which most definitely exist, given the complexity of the issues, and our finite understandings and limited ability to effectively communicate), since the possibility of confusion is not even acknowledged or admitted, due to our proposed clarity of realization."

Adam, in reviewing this thread I recognize many instances of talking past one another in regards to specific terms. But, I'm not picking up a sense of 'my realization is greater than yours.' Would you be able to point us toward an example of what you're referring to?

If anything, this discussion/argument has more to do with defining a certain Tibetan word and how it relates to practice. We all have different ideas about it could mean, and none of us are Ethnic Tibetan Rinpoches, so there's bound to be some disagreement (though, I'm we'd probably continue to disagree even if we WERE Rinpoches). I'm pretty sure most of us just want to agree on definitions (however arbitrary) for practical purposes, which is hardly the kind of chest thumping we've experienced elsewhere. I'd be happy with doing a 'search and replace' on this site to change all occurences of the word 'rigpa' to 'pickles' or 'ju-ju' or any other arbitrary word. Then we might actually get somehwere in our discussions.

No one's sizing each other up in the locker room here. I, for one, just want to drop the etymology debate and get back to talking about practice, using Kenneth's terminology whenever and wherever possible. Can we (all of us) agree to that?

~Jackson

123

Thanks Adam,

As I see it, the absence of thoughts or thoughts are not IT as such. IT is prior to that. IT is presence-awareness or cognizing emptiness that is aware of thoughts as well as the absence of thoughts. But thoughts are not like solid golf balls floating in water. Thoughts are basically vibrating awareness within awareness, perceived by awareness. Therefore IT is beyond thoughts, but is also the substance of thoughts. Thoughts rise, abide and dissolve in IT. The relationship is non-dual, like the ocean (primordial awareness) and its waves (thoughts).

Now the point is only to step back and look to realize that thoughts are not real objects separated from awareness creating a separate self thinking somewhere in a physical brain. As soon as we stand as pure awareness and see thoughts made of awareness rise and fall within awareness, the illusion of separation is likely to dissolves on its own. It naturally leads to the dissolution of the illusion of a separate self and therefore to what we may call non-dual awareness.

But if non-dual awareness might feel like an experience, awareness has always been non-dual. IT has never been dual in the first place. It is just that IT got identified with its own reflection and assumed to be a separate self witnessing objects. When the 'me' drops a way, it may feel like an experience. But where is this 'me' anyway. Right now and without special attainment or meditative effort, I cannot find a 'me' and 'I' or a 'separate self' anywhere in my body or mind. This is the reason why Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Advaita Vedanta and early Zen are called direct or non-dual paths. This is no 'I will get this super experience in 20 years that will liberate me from suffering'. Realization is here and now. What might take time is only getting rid of old habits. We have seen that there is no Santa Claus, but still behave for a while as if there was one.

Thanks Alex and Jackson!

We're off to a good start. Regarding difficulties of definition, it definitely makes it difficult to learn a language when its indigenous proponents don't seem to agree on the meaning and use of the term. And I have observed that there is a great deal of debate amongst lineages and sub-traditions as to the exact nature of one ontological entity or another - disagreement about what is what amongst the adepts - however, these debates are well documented and understood and not mysterious to those who are part of them. These same debates go on in Christianity or in science - nothing new or special to the Tibetans. Mostly the problem is, as I see it, we have a bunch of westerners who are outsiders to the Tibetan tradition trying to understand what is meant by their definitions.

[cont.]

"... we have a bunch of westerners who are outsiders to the Tibetan tradition trying to understand what is meant by their definitions. "

Which makes a good argument for doing just what we decided here to do -- drop the term "rigpa" in favor of one we can all agree on! Controversy about the semantics? Poof! Gone.

Jake has done a good job of alluding to the complexities involved as per the differences in 'presentation' of sutra, tantra and dzogchen, which may go some way to explaining the different presentations of the term Rigpa between Tulku Urgyen and Norbu and others. In conclusion then, things seem unclear because it is a complex issue, very subtle and sophisticated - a Tibetan science, like western science, so no surprise there (by analogy, I have undergraduate training in basic physics, however, I have nothing but a superficial understanding of PhD level physics - the gap is vast, as it is in Tibetan philosophy).

However, more importantly, things seem unclear because we are all uninitiated - outsiders. For example, if we were to take the time to study with Norbu, it would take approximately ten years to receive the full presentation and transmission of what he has chosen to preserve from his monastic education and transmissions and pass along to students; so there is much to know and understand, and there is levels within levels of understanding about the same topic or term, such as Rigpa. For this reason, using the term unborn, is probably a good idea. The Zen guys use it, as do the Tibetans and Advaitans.

[cont.]

Which brings us back to the question of realization of the unborn.

Alex wrote: "IT is presence-awareness or cognizing emptiness that is aware of thoughts as well as the absence of thoughts."

So that is a great starting point. To realize the unborn is to realize 'cognizant emptiness' itself as your true nature in real time, or the nature of reality. This is the perceiving-knowingness quality of reality, thus, where there is awareness or sentience, there it is, whether recognized for what it is or not. Thus, it is here and now perceiving and knowing this text on your computer, and it is here and now perceiving and reconizing these thoughts in your mind - that is it, that is our true nature - that is vipassana - "clearly seeing the nature of reality". Since it is that which perceives and recognizes all phenomena, it is that which is present in all phenomena, and also that which is present in the absence of all phenomena. Adittionally, all phenomena are seen to be the energetic display of this one basic reality, as Alex says, waves on the ocean; so ontologically, there is no separation or distinction between phenomena and reality - there is but one reality and it is non-dual, and all is empty luminosity. This is what Jake, as I understand it, went to great length to point out also. It has been discussed many times before.

Once that recognition is made, all is seen from that view, and thus all is seen as fundamental to and intrinsic to that nature - hence, non-dual.

[cont.]

Since all is seen as arising and passing away from and within this nature, which itself does not arise nor pass away - always present whether recognized or not - then it follows all phenomena are recognized as the display of empty luminosity i.e. non-dual - nothing is excluded from reality as it is - non-dual, luminous and empty. It would seem to follow that once this recognition has been stabilized, since nothing is excluded from it, there is no necessary condition that must exist in order for it to persist - that is, phenomena may come and go, and yet recognition of the true nature of that phenomena and reality remains. Right?

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hey Chis!

I want to address the question of recognition of the unborn in the presence of thought or not, since tradition has long stated that enlightenment is non-dual - nothing is excluded - and that before enlightenment, chopping wood; after enlightenment, chopping wood. That is, we are not just enlightened when sitting on the cushion free of thoughts, we are enlightened in daily life, living a very ordinary life, talking with others and enjoying this vast reality that we are. So it was unclear as to what the Tibetans' meant by Rigpa, however, that question pails in comparison to the true and underlying question that was the basis of the question of the definition of Rigpa, which was, does recognition of the unborn continue through daily life and thought, or is it only for an instant and then lost, and then reacquired? Which would be VERY controversial, as far as I'm concerned.

Most traditions I am familiar with are clear that enlightenment is untouched or undisturbed by thoughts, emotions and phenomena generally, and that we MUST be enlightened within our daily ordinary life, as this IS the nature of enlightenment - there is only ordinary life, at all times, we either realize its true nature or we don't - otherwise we are talking about something else. To be clear here, we are talking about 'always already' enlightenment, not developmental enlightenment, which appears to be distinct; and I would argue is enlightenment proper, but a stage none the less - perhaps a 4th path of a 5 path model - but that is for a different thread.

Any takers?

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for typo

Hello everyone! Thanks for joining, Alex and Adam!
I'm not feeling *quite* so alone on the edge, which is nice. If I had had this conversation a year or two ago on this thread, when I was first gaining real confidence in Rigpa- (rather than having occasional was that its? what is its? and oh, that must have been its)- if I had presented my experience here and been faced with the response I got, it might have been *very* confusing, disturbing, and disruptive to my practice. Some of you may be thinking "well, that's because you're only talking about ideas", to which I can only say that's a piss-poor basis for a conversation. This is a text-based communication. As I pointed out above, for all we know any one of us could be a computer program running out of an MIT dropout's mother's basement. Jumping to conclusions about whether another's words are backed up by experience is foolish, particularly when one is unfamilier with the other's tradition.
I have been very open about learning Vipassana as presented in Theravada, and equally open presenting my beginners understanding of Dzogchen, which as much as it seems to upset some of you, includes the recognition of Rigpa- whether or not thoughts are arising. A much more down to earth discussion would revolve around the fact that each of us, regardless of our current understanding of Rigpa, has a whole karmic topography of states which we find particularly disorienting, disturbing and distracting, not to mention harmful to others when we experience them so.
Practice for me, for a long time, was all about understanding Reality. Even though I was after direct experience, I was after it from an intellectual motivation to understand. Only upon beginning to recognize Rigpa, primordial unborn awareness utterly non-separate from all beings, did my emphasis shift to wanting to be liberated from disturbing states and to be of benefit to all.

"phenomena may come and go, and yet recognition of the true nature of that phenomena and reality remains. Right?

Adam."

Hi Adam,

That's the main point yes. We cannot lose it or fall out of it because we are That. That is the light that allows us to be aware of the coming and going of thoughts. Moreover, the fact that thoughts are present points to the fact that we are That. Thoughts are a display of That within That, known by That.

It is a bit like the sun and the clouds. We might imagine that the sun can be hidden by the clouds only if we are away from it. If we realize that we are the sun, our own light is reflected on the clouds. The fact that we, as the sun, are aware of the coming and going of clouds confirms us that we have never lost our radiant sunny nature even if we cannot see our own light directly (as we are that).

This applies to thoughts, but also to all appearances. Appearances don't only reveal IT (Berkeley's "esse est percipi"), but they are its manifestation. They are a magical display of That, just like our dreams. Deep sleep is also "That" aware of blankness.

It reminds me of the following quotes from the movie The Matrix:

'The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth'.

-Alex

Hi Jake,

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that it can be very confusing. Best is to clarify it on a one to one basis with someone who's been into it for years and knows how to point out to it directly, if possible in plain English (the main pitfall is to get entangled in labels).

When recognition takes place with unshakable certainty, the greatest release is that we realize that the search is over. We finally know what we are. We also know for sure that we will never be able fall down from what we are. Then it just becomes a matter of allowing this direct understanding sink in to remove false believes and old habits. Then anything might be used for this purpose including vipassana, samatha jhanas, dream yoga, tumo yoga, caring for others, you name it. The main point is to realize that the "I" or the "me" is nothing more than a cluser of thoughts, while time is basically a mental construct based on memory in a ever changing present. Then any practice is just a practice, not a "me" trying to get something in the future.

Best,

Alex