Why does Tulku Urgyen equate Rigpa with no-thought?

Folks, Jake and I have been been exchanging some private messages about this topic. It's pretty clear from those that this subject matter is just ripe for misunderstanding. I'm going to confess that I'm a major cause of some of the misunderstanding, as has become clear in our private messages. When we agreed to use the term "unborn" I assumed we were using that to replace the word "ripga." Not so! Some of you clearly see rigpa as a very distinct "thing" that is not what we have decided to call the "unborn." This was a major source of misunderstanding in the private messages Jake and I exchanged, so it's probably a source of confusion here, too. My fault, my bad. Jake, I'm sorry.

As a result, I have a few questions:

1. How does the experience of what is called "rigpa" differ from your everyday experience?

2. Is there anyone else here who would agree with a description of the "unborn" as follows: while it is revealed one does not experience conceptual thought and there is no experience of self. When revealed or uncovered, it is crystal clear that there is nothing simpler possible, ever. It is outside time and yes, it is the source of all.

Finally, as I think about this subject it occurs to me that the unborn, being revealed without concepts altogether, can only be uncovered. It cannot be added to in any way, by definition. And from my own experience, because if anything is added it's just no longer the unborn. It is a unity. It's unsullied by anything. Much confusion is generated by comments like "it contains everything so it contains thought." I believe this is a misunderstanding of what it means to "contain everything." In my own experience thought is what obscures the unborn. That's why only total surrender to it, to the very simplest unity, allows it to be revealed.

So... someone else?

"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."

Hi, Adam!

I think saying a person is "enlightened" is a huge oversimplification that is contributing to our confusion - which is no surprise. Ultimately first, there seems to be no one who is enlightened, no one who is trying to get enlightened. Second, it seems it's impossible for me to be "enlightened" in the ultimate sense every waking moment. I may have uncovered something which has completely changed my world view but in this poor fool's experience that uncovering only lasts a few short but blessed moments. If your world view has been changed by this then I believe that's potentially what human beings call "enlightenment." But that's my experience, my opinion, and YMMV of course.

BTW -- I can recall that "thing" into memory at any time I want. And, if I surrender to it utterly, I can maybe uncover that simplest thing once again. The memory of it alone is extremely powerful and reminds me of what the ultimate truth is, thus having a major effect on me when recalled.

I believe we all tend to interchange the terminology of everyday life with that of the ultimate, and thus some of our confusion is born.

Help? Hinder?

Hi Chris--
real quick, so others can chime in:
Rigpa is the experiencer, not an experience. Recognizing it one realizes that the experiencer is generally assumed to be some configuration of thoughts, feelings and sensations, but that such an assumption is an "optical illusion" and is never actually the case. Although Rigpa is never an experience, it is not different from any experience, therefore as Alex says everything is IT. The real question is whether and why certain states seem privileged in relation to it, as if certain states Are It and certain others Aren't.
I want to be careful not to assume that my current understanding is the same as Alex's in the last post, but it definitely rings bells. Alex, my experience is that even while not "recognizing" explicitly there is a lingering confidence which is spreading into more and more of my daily experiential territory, making it more likely that I will remember to "rest as that" even and sometimes especially when disturbing states arise. (Chris, this process sounds so similar to what you, Jackson and Kenneth describe!) This process seems to be increasing in frequency and intensity over the past year, and although I have longer moments of naturally resting as that, my focus seems to be naturally shifting from trying to prolong those moments to simply "trusting" that whatever arises is in fact without seperate, solid, independant existence and is proof that I am awake. I see the effects of this in the way I experience events, even very painful ones such as the grave illness of a parent or frustrating ones like a flat tire on the way home from work when my wife is waiting for me to take over with our son so *she* can go to work, that there is a simpler peaceful and benevolent responsiveness that arises where old patterns of self-referencing reactivity, labeling and story telling would have been. Does that make any sense?

"Rigpa is the experiencer, not an experience. Recognizing it one realizes that the experiencer is generally assumed to be some configuration of thoughts, feelings and sensations, but that such an assumption is an "optical illusion" and is never actually the case. Although Rigpa is never an experience, it is not different from any experience, therefore as Alex says everything is IT. The real question is whether and why certain states seem privileged in relation to it, as if certain states Are It and certain others Aren't.
I want to be careful not to assume that my current understanding is the same as Alex's in the last post, but it definitely rings bells. Alex, my experience is that even while not "recognizing" explicitly there is a lingering confidence which is spreading into more and more of my daily experiential territory, making it more likely that I will remember to "rest as that" even and sometimes especially when disturbing states arise. (Chris, this process sounds so similar to what you, Jackson and Kenneth describe!) This process seems to be increasing in frequency and intensity over the past year, and although I have longer moments of naturally resting as that, my focus seems to be naturally shifting from trying to prolong those moments to simply "trusting" that whatever arises is in fact without seperate, solid, independant existence and is proof that I am awake. I see the effects of this in the way I experience events, even very painful ones such as the grave illness of a parent or frustrating ones like a flat tire on the way home from work when my wife is waiting for me to take over with our son so *she* can go to work, that there is a simpler peaceful and benevolent responsiveness that arises where old patterns of self-referencing reactivity, labeling and story telling would have been. Does that make any sense?"

Yes, it makes sense

~Jackson

Sp rigpa is seeing the Three Characteristics? I can relate very well to what you just described but I wouldn't ever confuse it for the ultimate, simplest thing, the unborn. It's something that started happening to me as I approached equanimity. I could see the impermanence, the uncomfortableness (suffering), the illusion of self created by the myriad mental processes going on from moment to moment. I can see that all the time if I incline the mind that way.

If you have rigpa and you have a self-referencing thought, what happens?


Jeebus, I just re-read this post and I'm actually starting to sound like Nathan on the old DHo message boards. Maybe this is why Daniel Ingram holds the position he holds, because it sounds to me for all the world like you are describing equanimity.

Wow.

Hey Jake,

So you've recognized rigpa, and now your daily practice (as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong) is to remember rigpa as often as possible while resting/trusting in this reality.

In the Dzogchen view, is there a next step? What happens when one continually recognizes and rests in the reality of rigpa as true nature? Is that it? Does the realization deepen in any way over time, or is that it?

~Jackson

One more comment and then I must board a plane headed back to Chicago and will leave this discussion to others,

Adam --

"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."

Well, what does the word "recognition" mean in your paragraph? If it means being able to recall the unborn at any time then I agree. If it means the continual and un-ending uncovering of the unborn as I have described it here, then that's a different matter altogether.

I think you and I, Adam, are talking about different things here, so I'm not sure any of this matters much. My experience means a lot to me yet it's clear yours is different and is just as meaningful to you. What is it the French say about celebrating differences? Viva that!

Awhile back, my take on this conversation was that I didn't have anything left to say that hasn't been said. Maybe i'm getting a second wind, or something. Now I find myself fascinated by the fact that we just CANNOT leave it alone, and considering the implications of that: that 'rigpa', 'the unborn', 'the inconceivable' speaks to an unclear (for most of us, but not all) but inextinguishable intuition we have about the nature and function of 'something more' than this quotidian life of doing and achieving in even the most rarefied and laudable efforts.

That this irritating, nagging intuition persists, and eludes our efforts to 'tame' it by conceptual structures, study, well-disciplined practice-- that's a GOOD thing. Not being able to shut it up or 'win' the argument is our best hope, and proof that willy-nilly we're engaged. The process will let us know when we're done. 'Til then, we'll wrangle, on one level or another. Best to remain of good cheer for the duration!

The other thing I just remembered, is that this issue-- of realization-- has been fraught with (at times lethal) controversy in every culture in which esoteric religion/practice has posited the possibility. Sufism has its martyr saints; the founder of Christianity is an egregious example; and in Tibet there were (and perhaps still are-- I don't know) groups wishing to eradicate Dzogchen, or at the very least regulate it into virtual inacessibility.

So here we are: Do-Si-Do; bow to your partner; bow to your corners, all...

Kate

If people find the term Rigpa unclear, then change it to Buddha Nature or one's Original Face, or one's true nature; all Buddhist terms that point to that which has no name, so it does not matter what we call it. We are just attempting to point to that which is fundamental to reality - that which is unborn; unchanging; is not a thing or ontological essence; is empty; is that which is pure perceiving and knowingness, but which is not a thing, person or entity - just perceivingness-knowingness, without a knower or a separate object that is known; it is presence-awareness; it is cognizant-emptiness; it is sentience, without a being who is sentient; it is *reality* itself at its most fundamental, and yet all phenomena are of it, arise from it and return to it, and yet never were separate from it; and are its energetic display - it is that which is *always* present, but which is *unrecognized* by the unenlightened, and is this very same perceivingness-knowingness that sees this text before you - that cognizant-emptiness *is* your true nature, is *you* here and now. This *is* the 'always-already' of the direct path.

Because it is that which is fundamental to you and is always present at all times, and is the very basis of all reality in every phenomenal presentation, it is by definition, present and recognizable during the presentation and display of all phenomena at all times i.e. thoughts, aversive emotive states, no-thought, sex, killing, and all aspects of ordinary life.

[cont.]

I hope it is clear by now, that special states come and go i.e. jhana, no-thought, high samadhi etc., that which is fundamental to us, Buddha Nature or Rigpa, or the unborn, is always present, and it is *not* an object of meditation - not a state or condition that we perceive - rather it IS the source of all perception-knowing-ness that experiences-knows-perceives-sees all passing states and phenomena; and its recognition may be stabilized and permanently realized as the very definition of Buddha-hood. In this recognition, there is no self, witness or subjectivity, there is simply experience, without an 'experiencer' or an object of 'experience' - there is merely the direct apprehension of the dependently arising nature of phenomena as the energetic display of cognizant emptiness.

This recognition of Buddha Nature is not dependent upon conditions or states, and thus is untouched by them, and is present through *all* states including thinking and all else. This, I hope is clear, as per the logical basis of the model just outlined; the very same model outlined by the Buddha and his lineage holders as per its various traditions, as I understand them. To realize this Buddha nature as none other than reality itself, in its ordinary, everyday, here and now sense '“ inclusive of all phenomenal existence-display - is the '˜clear seeing' of vipassana '“ enlightenment.

In kind regards,

Adam.

Adam, regarding posts 83 and 84, there is one concept that I believe will illuminate the discussion enormously. It isn't a matter of realization, but one of language:

Rigpa, in the most useful sense of the word is *not* synonymous with buddha nature. Rigpa is the *recognition* of buddha nature in this moment. (I understand that these two words are often used synonymously. I'm requesting that we do not do that here, because it is a poor use of language, and I am a linguist.)

Even better, as Chris suggested, we can stop using the word "rigpa," which is *not* an unambiguous term and replace it with "the unborn," understanding that by that we mean the recognition *in this moment* of the Absolute.

If we can all agree on this convention, I believe we can stop talking past one another. No one here has suggested that buddha nature is anything less than all-inclusive. And yet I hear the case of the all-inclusive nature of buddha nature being made again and again. There is no argument there. Now what?

Kenneth

Adam, to address just one of your intriguing discussion topics:

"Does recognition of the unborn continue through daily life and thought, or is it only for an instant and then lost, and then reacquired?"-Adam

I wouldn't use the words "lost" or "reacquired." There are moments of distraction and moments of recognition. This is the nature of human life. The idea of spending a lifetime in a steady-state recognition of the Absolute is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It is an ideal, beautiful and valuable, that is never achieved by humans. Gotama Buddha, to my knowledge, never claimed it. The whole game here is to be able to flow easily between the extremes of individuality and the Absolute. Sasaki-roshi is fond of saying that he sells "round trip tickets to heaven and hell." That, I assert, is a wonderful thing.

Kenneth

Hey Kenneth!

"Rigpa is the *recognition* of buddha nature in this moment." - Kenneth.

Yes, I could not agree more. In this sense, Rigpa is a verb in the sense of an instance of recognition of Buddha Nature. Not, of course, a volitional act of attempting to recognize, or an entity or subject that recognizes, but the instance of, or direct apprehension of Buddha nature itself, in which there is no subject, witness, or object of recognition - there is just reality as it is - Buddha Nature.

Complete agreement my friend, and precisely how the Tibetans use it, as I understand it.

In kind regards,

Adam.

Sounds good, my brother!

I'll accept that convention.

"There is no argument there. Now what?" - Kenneth.

I gather the reference to Buddha Nature being all-inclusive is a reference to the question of *recognition* of the unborn through the entirety of the energetic display or Dharmakaya and thus, through all the presenting phenomena of ordinary life, or whether that recognition is dependent upon specific conditions being present, such as no-thought samadhi states.

This is a compelling question, as tradition states such recognition has no dependence upon states or conditions. Would you agree?

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hi Chris!

Nice to talk with you!

You have mentioned an experience of the unborn where no thought was present. There may be a suggestion that thought was impossible at that time, or just that it was not present, or that there was no pressure or inclination for its expression - no thought was very and deeply natural. I would completely sympathise with this experience / interpretation, as that has been my experience also.

You have said memory of that experience can be recalled at will, but not, I take it, the experience itself. The Buddhist tradition as I understand it, as presented via Zen and Dzogchen, clearly suggests recognition of the unborn is not prohibited by thinking, nor that thinking is impossible during that recognition. They have said, as I understand it, that recognition may be persistent through ordinary life, and indeed it must, if we are to be recognized *as* enlightened. Enlightenment is not a memorable experience that changes our would view. It is an ongoing moment to moment recognition of reality as it is - Dharamakaya.

[continued.]

So on one level we are talking about two different things; on another, we are talking about the same thing, as there is only one unborn. Thus, I would suggest that when you have that recognition again, you may find that it will persists through daily living, with all that that entails. The later, is what I propose will develop in you; or indeed, it may just happen instantly and remain so, with distraction from that recognition of Dharmakaya coming and going less and less frequently. However, it is this recognition that is your base-line state from now on; not distraction and dualistic experience, as it previously was. That is enlightenment of the already-always model.

When recognition of the unborn is persistent through the 24 hour cycle, 7 days a week, including through dreamless sleep, we will be a Buddha.

This is my understanding of the Buddha nature model as presented in Dzoghen and Zen and most of the worlds esoteric traditions, with minor changes in details, and language, of course.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"I gather the reference to Buddha Nature being all-inclusive is a reference to the question of *recognition* of the unborn through the entirety of the energetic display or Dharmakaya and thus, through all the presenting phenomena of ordinary life, or whether that recognition is dependent upon specific conditions being present, such as no-thought samadhi states. This is a compelling question, as tradition states such recognition has no dependence upon states or conditions. Would you agree?"-Adam

Yes, definitely a compelling question. Rather than answer philosophically, I'll just report what happens for me. There is never a moment when recognition cannot occur. So, recognition doesn't depend on conditions. What happens, then, during the moment of recognition? I don't know. There is a reason why this moment is described as ineffable. No one goes there to bring anything back. There is awareness, though. How do I know? I don't know how I know. It apparently isn't me who knows. It is fair to say that what is known "there" is upstream from the subject/object duality. Upon returning to dualistic thinking, the implication of the moment of allowing awareness to be as it is is intuitively obvious: awareness is always operating and nothing is outside of it. Awareness is all. This is my understanding of what is meant by the old saw that form is emptiness and emptiness is form; during the moment of the unborn, the question simply doesn't arise. Hence, "all is perfectly resolved in the unborn." Some have suggested that it is possible to form a tidy concept around this paradox of the non-duality between emptiness and form. I scoff. This cannot be resolved conceptually. It is only resolved when it is no longer an issue, which is to say when the subject/object split has not yet arisen. As soon as we embrace concepts, which are dualistic by nature, we do best to courageously acknowledge our confusion.

Yep, I'm with you there Ken. I don't advocate a *perfect* recognition of Dharamakaya. As such idealistic thought, like perfect round circles and perfectly straight lines do no exist in realty, they are logical entities and exist only in our mind. In the same way that we are all normally distracted from being aware of ourselves through working, or thinking or drifting off in thought - I forget me, Adam, am distracted from this fact, then I recognize it again, that I am Adam, without effort, completely naturally, so is an enlightened person, I would propose, distracted from recognition of reality as it is, and then effortlessly returns to this recognition as their base-line, just as Adam is my base-line.

Recognition of me as Adam is my ongoing base-line state. Distraction continues, but I always come back to it. Enlightenment, I would propose is the same. Recognition of me as none other than *reality* itself in this completely ordinary sense here and now, and not as 'me' as a distinct, persistent, separate entity that experiences 'us and them'; rather, there is just reality, just seeing, just hearing, just doing the laundry, completely ordinary, yet wholly fresh and perfect - distinctions and self-reference are conceptually imposed as socially constructed conventions, and prevent us from recognizing *this* - reality as it is here and now. When distinctions are imputed to have a solid, real and necessary existence, that is when we suffer, and fall from grace. Such distinctions serve a functional purpose, but have no ontological necessity in and of themselves.

[cont.]

In this way we can see, to be enlightened is to live this as one's base-line; even in enlightenment this convention continues, it is a part of reality as it is - no artificial distinctions or 'this is reality and that is not reality' all is reality and reality is inclusive of distinction, it is just that distinctions are seen for what they are, I would propose. Distraction is ongoing as described above, as is distraction into identification with old ways of perceiving one's self and reality, due to habitual patters of thought and ways of relating to each other and the world. However, to be enlightened, as I see it, is for our basic self-identity as *reality* to be our base-line for most of the time; in which we effortlessly and naturally return from distraction to this enlightened base-line over and over again.

Adam is my base-line, it cannot be lost - just distraction for a greater or lessor amount of time. So too, is enlightenment as this very reality, our base-line. That is the model of enlightenment I am proposing, and suggesting other traditions are proposing also.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"to be enlightened, as I see it, is for our basic self-identity as *reality* to be our base-line for most of the time; in which we effortlessly and naturally return from distraction to this enlightened base-line over and over again."-Adam

This is beautiful, Adam. Enlightenment brings a reversal of figure and ground. Rather than enlightenment appearing as an occasional aberration within the "norm" of selfhood, distraction is seen as a temporary obscuration of awareness. Enlightenment is the norm, and distraction is a natural function of being a human being. With this recognition comes the acceptance of both distraction and perfection, and the tendency to value one over the other becomes ever weaker.

This does not mean, of course, that we can skip to the end, just because we know the "right answer." Each of us is trailing an immense amount of conditioning, causing us to be drawn to distraction; to counter that trend, which according to Buddhism carries the momentum of countless lifetimes, it is necessary to make a conscious intervention. Hence, "the practice." Whether the practice is to develop, to surrender, or to develop until we are able to surrender, it begs to be done. It goes on even after we realize that it isn't "we" who are doing it.

To bring this full circle, when doing 3rd Gear practice, the task is to recognize primordial awareness as often as possible throughout the day. This is done, not by an act of will, but by surrender to what is always already the case. When this noticing goes on by itself, you get to take the day off. Until then, there is "no rest for the wicked."

Kenneth

Thank you all for clarifying these issues. We now all seem to agree.

Beside linguistic problems, it might not be clear that all genuine non-dual traditions start from the fact that the seeker is the sought. We are That right now. Nothing to gain, nothing to lose. Practice -if we can call it a practice- is then only a matter of recognizing that fact. What might get people confused is that *non-dual awareness* is sometimes interpreted as an experience, while is it just what we are and have always been even if it was not recognized.

Then of course IT is no-thought, but thoughts are made of its substance. I would rather say that IT is beyond thoughts. They rise, abide and dissolve within primordial awareness. Primordial awareness is not disturbed by thoughts because thoughts are nothing more than ripples within it.

Zen Master Bankei who popularized the term *Unborn* explained that very clearly:

"Don't hate the arising of thoughts or stop the thoughts that do arise; simply realize that our original mind, right from the start, is beyond thought, so that, no matter what, you never [actually] get involved with thoughts'¦. Thoughts arise temporarily in response to what you see and hear; they haven't any real existence of their own [like the objects seen and heard]. You must have faith that the original mind that is realized and that which realizes original mind are not different" (H 136).

'As you are, right here at this moment, is it. There's no getting anywhere or not getting anywhere. This is what's meant by the teaching of sudden enlightenment. Hesitate, and it's lost; waver and it draws further and further away' (H 158).

"This cannot be resolved conceptually. It is only resolved when it is no longer an issue, which is to say when the subject/object split has not yet arisen. As soon as we embrace concepts, which are dualistic by nature, we do best to courageously acknowledge our confusion."

That's it! That's what I was trying to say by posting that once concepts arise the thing is gone again.

"Rather than answer philosophically, I'll just report what happens for me."

Yep!

Thanks, Kenneth.

"Beside linguistic problems, it might not be clear that all genuine non-dual traditions start from the fact that the seeker is the sought. We are That right now. Nothing to gain, nothing to lose. Practice -if we can call it a practice- is then only a matter of recognizing that fact. What might get people confused is that *non-dual awareness* is sometimes interpreted as an experience, while is it just what we are and have always been even if it was not recognized.
"

the distinction Alexs makes here between experience and understanding here I think is a crucial point.

To use the analogy. the experience of looking at waves on the shore or a still lake are only and will only ever be, experiences. The realization that that there is only water and no distinction, does not come and go. To be absorb in the lakes beauty figuring out ways by which you can stay longer and longer, does not change thae fact that looking at the lake is an experience, and no matter how long you get to look, it will pass.

[edited for clarity]

Wow, I'm glad this is all spiraling around. Wonderful differences converging now rather than clashing. Much better! I'm proud of us all for sticking it out.
To answer your question, Jackson, might take a while. Briefly for now I'll say, you seem to be paraphrasing my current understanding well. As I understand this stuff within my own experience as informed by the particular Dzogchen tradition within which I was introduced to Rigpa, it is much as Adam says above. I am on *this* side of the "great divide", of the "practitioner's dilemma"-- that the prisoner *is* the prison, and both are optical illusions! Daily life presents constant opportunities to "remember" Reality, but "Jake" is my baseline. However, there is a sense (which to be fair has been waxing and waning for a few years and might very well continue for my whole life) that to transition to Reality as my baseline is entirely realistic (pun intended!). There is increasingly the sense that illusion is the display of reality, and hence over time I see a trend to be less interested in "seeking" anything, which is the essence of the illusion at the core of my Jakeness. Jake always wants something, and as long as he is the baseline, he will always be disappointed; however, were the Shift to occur, Jake could finally Rest.
The question becomes, for me, what is the actual topography of illusion with which I tend to become identified; in other words, why are certain illusions quite easy to see through in real time and others far more seductive- to me? The question is not an intellectual one, it's an existential Koan which sometimes makes me feel like I'll explode!

The only thing which makes this "inquiry" possible, for me right now, is that somehow qualities, energies, whatever you want to call them, seem to arise and function straight from Reality, at an angle perpendicular to my conditioning, so to speak, due to Rigpa (i.e., due to recognition of Reality- point taken Kenneth, yes that's more clear.) arising in my life. As I understand it, this is one of the two facets of Rigpa as tradition has it. These facets are "self-liberation", by which is meant that while in Rigpa one needn't do anything about one's conditioning, remove it, investigate it, purify it, or whatever- it just spontaneasusly arises and dissolves in Rigpa without affecting Rigpa, or the Reality that Rigpa "recognizes", at all. The other aspect is known as self-perfection, and is that whereby these qualities- love, compassion, insight, equanimity, whatever- arise directly from reality via it's recognition. Buddha nature *is* allready compassionate, wise, etc; while in Rigpa, these qualities manifest spontaneusly without being cultivated "at an angle perpendicular to our conditioning", in other words. It is the latter aspect which gives me the courage to inquire into the painful personal limits which seem to anchor "Jake" as my baseline and which *seem* to prevent the Shift to Reality as baseline from occuring.
I'll also mention that I'm naturally a skeptic when it comes to all these contemplative practices, and thus if the me from three years ago could listen to me now, he'd squint and stroke his beard, and the me from ten years ago would probably just be annoyed, and well, *skeptical*
---Jake