Descriptions of rigpa

I think the "finessing around" vs "chipping away" description is interesting and lines up with Kenneth's three gears.

This can be easily highlighted in some of the first couple of first gear insights - "I am not my body" "I am not my emotions" "I am not my thoughts". These insights are important, practical, and true and represent good progress, but say nothing of whether or not the mind can simply bypass the whole issue.

"I think the "finessing around" vs "chipping away" description is interesting and lines up with Kenneth's three gears.

This can be easily highlighted in some of the first couple of first gear insights - "I am not my body" "I am not my emotions" "I am not my thoughts". These insights are important, practical, and true and represent good progress, but say nothing of whether or not the mind can simply bypass the whole issue."

I agree with this way of lining things up. Kenneth has said that 4th path is a kind of tipping point in terms of a lot of things (including 3rd gear), and it makes sense that, if one chips away enough, it may be easier to finesse around what remains. (But, of course, one may finesse their way around at any time, depending on various factors.)

Orasis, does this sound like what you mean by rigpa?

As a bit of feedback, its very difficult to respond to something written out so long on a non conceptual topic. I need to read a sentence, try to conceptually understand it, then drop into awareness to see if it agrees, the go back into conceptual thought to see if there is something to communicate. By the time I have done this four times, I've completely forgotten what the original points are.

Your definition of dualistic thinking and conceptualizing doesn't quite resonate for me. To me its more like believing that concepts are intrinsically real and permanent instead of seeing them as impermanent phenomena just like everything else.

Is the idea of the number '1' permanent and to be believed in? Or is it instead something that may or may not arise in a moment?

I am sorry if my post was not optimally thought-out. I tried to include a lot of information about how I experience things and how what I experience is related to what we all know (direct mode) so that those who are familiar with rigpa could offer a more definitive opinion on whether what I describe is related to what they experience.

As for the idea of the number 1, I do not believe that the idea is more than an idea. However, I mean that I lack any explicit belief that it is anything more. However, when I think about the idea of the number 1 right now, I observe some kind of reification of the idea in a sense that is hard to describe, but something like "this-is-being-thought-now", except very subtle and not in words. Dualistic fixation focuses the mind to some extent on "this-is-being-thought-now", and to the extent that it does so, nondual experience becomes less clear. Perhaps one of those are what you have in mind by "believing that concepts are intrinsically real"?

I don't find anything in my experience at all that relates to the permanence of the idea of the number 1. (It never occurred to me until now.)

End, I think the distinction between dualistic mentation and dualistic *fixation* (in which attention is absorbed in the flow of dualistic mentation) is useful. I'll take a closer look at you post when I get hmw from work this afternoon.

As a general remark, I would like to insist on the fact that any sense of an Awareness beyond phenomena that would be apprehended as having an inherent substance, being separated from, and untouched by, reflected phenomena IS NOT Rigpa. Some contemporary Western dzogchen teachers may teach that. Some Tibetan may have a hard time translating Tibetan concepts into English, but the Dalai Lama was very clear about that.

Rigpa is the Tibetan for 'Vidya' ("knowledge" in Sanskrit). Rigpa is not the "luminous citta", nor a reified version of Asanga's Alayavijnana. Rigpa is the knowledge that ensues from recognizing one's nature, by which one knows that there is a primordial freedom from grasping his or her mind (sems).

Earlier, I tried to give a phenomenological description of how the recognition of the nature of the mind feels during sitting practice (in my humble experience), but Rigpa is definitely not an experience, nor is it grasping at the sense of a pure Awareness. In Buddhism in general and in Dzogchen in particular, awareness (skt. cit, citta, vijnana) is empty [of inherent essence]. It is just a word that describes a stream of consciousness.

In the absence of a cosmic Awareness that cognizes phenomena reflected within it like waves on the ocean, the Dzogchen and Mahamudra traditions consider that phenomena are themselves self-aware/luminous and empty. The union of emptiness and luminosity recognized as being the nature of all impermanent phenomena arising and passing away according to causes and conditions is the Mahamudra. Same for the 'sem-de' or mind series of Dzogchen.

Jake: "End, I think the distinction between dualistic mentation and dualistic *fixation* (in which attention is absorbed in the flow of dualistic mentation) is useful."

I find this distinction useful as well. I haven't quite worked out my thoughts on the matter, so I'll reserve any detailed questions or comments for another time.

In short, though, I will say that dualistic mentation can be either harmful or harmless depending on the context. I think that dualistic mentation is a part of what gives rise to and sustains dualistic fixation. But, the former can also be used in such a way as to lead one closer to the end of the latter. The path (or should I say, certain versions of it), after all, includes a lot of different kinds of discriminating, and it isn't a bad thing until it is no longer useful.

"Rigpa is the Tibetan for 'Vidya' ("knowledge" in Sanskrit). Rigpa is not the "luminous citta", nor a reified version of Asanga's Alayavijnana. Rigpa is the knowledge that ensues from recognizing one's nature, by which one knows that there is a primordial freedom from grasping his or her mind (sems).

"

Its opposite being Avidya/Avijja, right?

"
As a general remark, I would like to insist on the fact that any sense of an Awareness beyond phenomena that would be apprehended as having an inherent substance, being separated from, and untouched by, reflected phenomena IS NOT Rigpa. Some contemporary Western dzogchen teachers may teach that. Some Tibetan may have a hard time translating Tibetan concepts into English, but the Dalai Lama was very clear about that.

Rigpa is the Tibetan for 'Vidya' ("knowledge" in Sanskrit). Rigpa is not the "luminous citta", nor a reified version of Asanga's Alayavijnana. Rigpa is the knowledge that ensues from recognizing one's nature, by which one knows that there is a primordial freedom from grasping his or her mind (sems).

"

Right - I had always been looking to find some "thing" called awareness some how.

Simply recognizing that I am aware already was all I had to see for it to click for me. But yeah, I am simply effortlessly aware.

"In the absence of a cosmic Awareness that cognizes phenomena reflected within it like waves on the ocean, the Dzogchen and Mahamudra traditions consider that phenomena are themselves self-aware/luminous and empty."

I think reading this sentence made something click for me. Instead of trying to recognize this experience for 'me', so 'I' can recognize it - there is no 'I' (or Awareness) that can recognize it! The recognition is in every sensation. The difference between a centrally-planned communist economy and totally free-market capitalism. No need to be the dictator - just let the sensations sense themselves!

Alex: 'Rigpa is definitely not an experience, nor is it grasping at the sense of a pure Awareness.'

Yes, I think this is very important to remember.

Alex: 'In Buddhism in general and in Dzogchen in particular, awareness (skt. cit, citta, vijnana) is empty [of inherent essence]. It is just a word that describes a stream of consciousness.'

This is true of the consciousness-aggregate. However, a case can also be made for distinguishing the consciousness-aggregate from the consciousness of nirvana, which even in the Pali canon is considered to be 'without surface' (anidassanam), because it doesn't land. Thanissaro:

'Because the consciousness-aggregate covers only consciousness that is near or far, past, present, or future '” i.e., in connection with space and time '” consciousness without surface is not included in the aggregates. It's not eternal because eternity is a function of time. And because non-local also means undefined, the Buddha insisted that an awakened person '” unlike ordinary people '” can't be located or defined in any relation to the aggregates in this life; after death, he/she can't be described as existing, not existing, neither, or both, because descriptions can apply only to definable things.'

This still doesn't point to a Cosmic Self of any kind. When the Thai Forest Ajahns speak of the primal nature of citta being neither self nor not-self, neither constant nor inconstant, etc., I think they're pointing to this 'consciousness without surface,' which is unborn and deathless (neither arising nor passing, nor enduring nor not-enduring), and known only through/in unbinding (non-clinging). To know this consciousness is to know nirvana, and vice versa.

The answer to the consciousness conundrum, like much of what the Buddha taught, lies in the middle - which is to say, through practice and beyond thought.

APK: "Its opposite being Avidya/Avijja, right?"

Yes.

Note: The Thanissaro blurb in post 115 can be found at the link below...

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nirvanaverb.html

@awouldbehipster: Yes sure. Thanks for mentioning this. As a matter of fact Mahayana Buddhism counts more than 6 consciousness, and include the 8th or 9th, Alayavijnana, which shares strong similarities with the base (Tib. 'kunzhi') in the Dzogchen teachings. Alaya can be seen as "primodial awareness" (Wallace gives a pretty good description in his book about science and the mind) that does match my direct experience, especially its timless nature.

As a know, Alayavijnana (Lankavatara Sutra, Awakening of Faith Shastra) is at the root of further popular names like the Gotra (Srimaladevi Sutra) and above all the Buddha-Nature of the Parinirvana Mahayana Sutra. But still, Buddha-Nature is understood as a dynamic and non-substancial empty principle, or as a pure potential of Buddhahood present in all sentient being, reason why I insisted on the notion of flux, continium, stream and dynamic principle that is a closer match even if all impermanent pheomena share the same flavor or taste (Skt. Samarasa), when seen as being both empty and luminous.

In this sense, awareness is then more like the whiteness of a while cow on a snow field. Not a thing as such, but a quality present in all things. There is awareness, but this awareness is known as the luminous quality of a stream of empty and luminous/self-aware phenomena. This is where it gets very tricky to explain.

"APK: "Its opposite being Avidya/Avijja, right?"

Yes."


This is why ultimately, Rigpa (vidya) is also the natural state of the fully enlightened yogi, when the last subtle fetter of ignorance (avidya) has been erradicated.

Alex: "[...] There is awareness, but this awareness is known as the luminous quality of a stream of empty and luminous/self-aware phenomena. This is where it gets very tricky to explain."

As always, I appreciate your ability and willingness to share your knowledge of Mahayana Buddhism in relation to other (perhaps "earlier") forms of Buddhism. It would seem that as older teachings are misunderstood and taken out of context, and as language progresses and changes over time, new ways of explaining what are quite possibly the foundational teachings (and original intended meanings/interpretations) arise out of necessity and utility.

A similar thing is now happening in the West, and in other parts of the world, as the great wisdom traditions in their myriad expressions are coming together in an unprecedented way. And I think it takes more than just scholars to get things right. We need more practitioners in general, and more scholar-practitioner hybrids in particular, in order for this great multi-faceted tradition to survive and thrive today and in the days to come.

But I digress... back to "rigpa" - our regularly scheduled programming. )

Alex: Is there an explanation of what the essence of vipassana is framed by this understanding of rigpa? Experientially, it seems that the two are so damned closely related, like flip sides of the same coin or something.

Hey guys...I would still like to know whether you think what I'm talking about is the same thing as what you're talking about.

I could say "yes, what you've been saying resonates with me, so it must be the same!" but that wouldn't really be fair, as I have practiced for some time according to a different model and so it is not my place to state anything at all about how my experiences correspond or don't correspond. You are the experts about the word "rigpa", not me.

So, if you have some opinion about this, please let me know. If you think you would have an opinion after further clarification from me, ask away.

@Jackson - thanks
@Orasis - vipassana is looking deeply into the nature of the mind to confirm and validate the view [of Dzogchen], samatha resting in the natural state, and Dzogchen practice maintaining the view when samatha and vipassana have merged into one.

The Mahasi Sayadaw noting vipassana method is great and allows very fast progress. Yet, it is rather unique amongst Buddhist traditions and tends to generate very specific experiences, insights and cycles that are rather unique even if they seem to match the description of the Vishuddhimagga.

This specificity seems to have been a cause of confusion, as some of us came to oppose vipassana and self-inquiry, vipassana and the direct mode, vipassana cycling mode and pce-mode, you name it.

In reality, "sati" or "bhavana" is seeing things as they are with naked awareness.
While "vipassana" is the direct insight, or deep looking (lit. vipassana) into the nature of things as they are.

When things are seen as they truly are and not as they appear to be, the mind ceases to cling to what has been seen as an illusion. As a result, allowing everything to be as it is [in reality] becomes the essence of meditation.

"Hey guys...I would still like to know whether you think what I'm talking about is the same thing as what you're talking about.

I could say "yes, what you've been saying resonates with me, so it must be the same!" but that wouldn't really be fair, as I have practiced for some time according to a different model and so it is not my place to state anything at all about how my experiences correspond or don't correspond. You are the experts about the word "rigpa", not me.

So, if you have some opinion about this, please let me know. If you think you would have an opinion after further clarification from me, ask away."

@EndInSight The questions you asked me before, the description of your view of rigpa and the descriptions of the conversations you had with kenneth, have helped me see I was mistaken. It became evident to me that what I was describing is in fact a description of Direct Mode (body being prominent) and that rigpa is something I think I have experienced today for the first time (everything else is prominent without excluding the body) thanks to your descriptions and questions.

At the moment, my experience aligns to this strategy: "chip away at dualistic thinking and conceptualizing until rigpa peeks out from underneath", and to this "My current experience is well characterized as 'direct mode without trying', and, when one isn't trying (a light touch / no touch), it becomes possible to apprehend rigpa even while having a direct mode experience".

The model I've used to reach this is, for the most part, the Tibetan Preliminary Practices.

Since English isn't my native language, I have trouble understanding this strategy: "finesse your way around dualistic fixation". I have looked for the meaning of the words in a dictionary but the grammar structure still doesn't make sense. Can you paraphrase this a bit?

""finesse your way around dualistic fixation""

'Dualistic fixation' is when you are basically a self-made prisoner, trapped in suffering of your own making.

To finesse your way around something is to kind of pass through something by delicately avoiding it.

Imagine there is a huge crowd of people in a narrow street - thousands or more, though a finite amount. You are at one end - you want to reach the other. You have to make your way through the crowd.

You might try shoving your way through them, but this will cause a huge jam. Forcing your way won't work.

You can talk to each person, one by one, showing them that there is no point to stick around, though it is often remarkably difficult and painful to get them to leave and they often come back. At first there are so many people, you won't be able to even see the other side. But you will get glimpses as you slog through, and eventually will be able to walk through to the other side.

Or: You can go through very slowly. There will be small gaps in the crowd. you can gently walk in, avoiding them this way and that, not bumping into anybody, not angering anybody as to not cause a panic and thus a jam. This is more expedient, though harder to pull off, and impossible to pull off if the crowd is too thick. But you get better at seeing clear paths among the people.

The meaning of the metaphor is this: One side is samsara. The other side is nirvana. Each person in the crowd is a 'you', a suffering. Forcing your way is wrong effort. Talking people into leaving one by one is chipping away at dualistic thinking bit by bit. Going through the crowd without interacting with anybody is finessing your way around dualistic thinking.

It doesn't matter which way you do it; if you reach the other side without having taken care of everybody, you won't have to deal with them all as the goal will be reached.