Descriptions of rigpa

"For me, there is a very spacious quality to resting in/as rigpa (the natural state). It's not the kind of spacious quality that results when space is taken as object. Rather, it's the spaciousness that results when even the concept of space is allowed to dissolve.

When letting-be in naturalness, there is no confusing essence with expression; no misperceiving of awareness and objects apprehended as appearances of awareness."

1) Is this spaciousness a perception, or is it the lack of a particular kind of perception, or something else?

2) How do you recognize awareness as separate from its manifestations? What is it like? What would it be like if there were no manifestations?

With respect to the latter question, I have access to a state in which (as far as I can tell) there appears to be no objects of experience at all, and yet still experience / awareness (my best guess is that this is the ability to shift into a state of deep sleep while awake); however, this doesn't seem to make what you're talking about ring any bells for me.

"So, would you say that one recognizes that all experience is encompassed by rigpa to the extent that dualistic experience isn't manifesting?"

Yes, that is correct.

'1) Is this spaciousness a perception, or is it the lack of a particular kind of perception, or something else?'

'Spaciousness' is how I would describe one aspect of the experience, since I'm being asked to describe it. During the practice, there is no persistent perception of 'this is spacious'. If such a perception were to arise, it would be apprehended as the spontaneous expression of awareness, and would then dissolve on its own. Taking spaciousness as object is clinging to the perception of spaciousness in order to cultivate and perpetuate the effects of such a perception on a state of consciousness (as is the case with the 5th jhana).

It's even tricky, and slightly deceptive, to say that objects are apprehended as spontaneous expressions of awareness, for even that is just a way to describe the experience after the fact. If the thought 'these objects are as spontaneous expressions of awareness' during the practice, they would be apprehended as such, without the mental label. Talking about it is clumsy, but I'm pretty sure what I'm saying makes sense to those who are familiar with this practice.

'2) How do you recognize awareness as separate from its manifestations? What is it like? What would it be like if there were no manifestations?

With respect to the latter question, I have access to a state in which (as far as I can tell) there appears to be no objects of experience at all, and yet still experience / awareness (my best guess is that this is the ability to shift into a state of deep sleep while awake); however, this doesn't seem to make what you're talking about ring any bells for me.'

This awareness that is present in the deep-sleep-while-awake state '“ are you able to recognize it during waking and dream-sleep states as well?

I'd like to ask, more specifically, what you mean by "spaciousness". As my interest is understanding what rigpa means to others, see if you can give me a description of the spaciousness that isn't the perception arising from taking spaciousness as an object, under the assumption that, whether or not I know what this experience is like, I would need more description (of whatever kind) to make sense of it in terms of however I think about things.

As for this awareness without apparent objects, my impression is that it's always present during waking (so entering the state I'm describing is simply removing the objects, rather than conjuring up something new). I rarely remember my dreams anymore, so I can't say for sure what I recognize during them.

EDIT: It's hard to talk about "recognizing" it (as a distinct object of perception) as it doesn't seem to be anything in particular. Though I say that it seems to be present during waking experience, I have no clear idea why I think so, as I can't point to anything in particular that it is.

EDIT 2: Jackson, can you explain what the awareness you're talking about would be like, if there were no manifestation?

Are you merely recognizing that you are aware and in doing so you get a flash of it? As in, you aren't literally taking awareness as an object but it is seen that one is aware of all the things one is aware of such that there is no need to single out any aspect in order to be able to separate it from the whole and work with it. In other-words, awareness is simply aware without any effort required and it is changeless in that regard.

I can see that I am aware
I can see that this awareness is boundless
I can see that awareness is "illuminating" all that is seen (not in the sense of something separate from what is seen - like a flashlight lighting up a room)

Is this the sort of direction you are pointing at or am I totally going about this the wrong way?

"Yes, that is correct."

At the point of maximal recognition of the all-encompassing nature of rigpa, it seems that it would be a merely hypothetical recognition, as there would be no dualistic experience left to include, no?

So, can you shed some light on how one recognizes that rigpa includes dualistic experience?

"A question for you (and orasis): what are the "fireworks"?"

For me, the fireworks are often, but not necessarily: brightness, clarity, lucidity, looseness, openness, ease, simple delight and sometimes a very clean synchronization of the senses.

"Are you merely recognizing that you are aware and in doing so you get a flash of it? As in, you aren't literally taking awareness as an object but it is seen that one is aware of all the things one is aware of such that there is no need to single out any aspect in order to be able to separate it from the whole and work with it. In other-words, awareness is simply aware without any effort required and it is changeless in that regard.

I can see that I am aware
I can see that this awareness is boundless
I can see that awareness is "illuminating" all that is seen (not in the sense of something separate from what is seen - like a flashlight lighting up a room)

Is this the sort of direction you are pointing at or am I totally going about this the wrong way?"

To be explicit, I associate this awareness (with all objects removed) with sanna-vedayita-nirodha. (This is not NS as typically understood.)

It occurred to me at some point that whatever is in that state, is always in experience, but I can't really describe what's in that state.

I have thought that I might get more insight into it if I could sustain it for longer (as perhaps there is something in that state that I could talk about), but I have not figured out how to sustain it longer either. (I can attain it at will, but only for a fraction of a second.)

There is some weird stuff that happens upon exiting it which isn't especially clear to me.

"For me, the fireworks are often, but not necessarily: brightness, clarity, lucidity, looseness, openness, ease, simple delight and sometimes a very clean synchronization of the senses."

What kinds of experiences are these? Objects of perception? Lack of other objects of perception? Can you look at them or make them the focus of your attention?

What is synchronization of the senses?

"To be explicit, I associate this awareness (with all objects removed) with sanna-vedayita-nirodha. (This is not NS as typically understood.)

It occurred to me at some point that whatever is in that state, is always in experience, but I can't really describe what's in that state.

I have thought that I might get more insight into it if I could sustain it for longer (as perhaps there is something in that state that I could talk about), but I have not figured out how to sustain it longer either. (I can attain it at will, but only for a fraction of a second.)

There is some weird stuff that happens upon exiting it which isn't especially clear to me."

I was actually aiming the question at Jackson, Alex, etc.

It was regarding rigpa...

sorry for not being explicit on that

And on that note - I hope my question doesn't get lost in the shuffle...

"I was actually aiming the question at Jackson, Alex, etc. "

Heh, sorry!

'I'd like to ask, more specifically, what you mean by '˜spaciousness'.'

Hokai Sobol, in the Hurricane Ranch Discussion, describes spaciousness in a really clear way (at least for me). He said something to the effect of, 'nothing in experience impedes upon the arising of anything else.' I think he said the 'total object' (the whole of experience) is 'un-impede-ing' (as opposed to 'unimpeded'). In other words, there's spaciousness because there is no conflict or resistance. I don't know if that helps, but I hope so.

'It's hard to talk about '˜recognizing' it (as a distinct object of perception) as it doesn't seem to be anything in particular. Though I say that it seems to be present during waking experience, I have no clear idea why I think so, as I can't point to anything in particular that it is.'

Ah, and that's why this is tricky. To recognize awareness as an 'it' is simply to recognize the arising perception '“ of the concept of awareness. 'Recognition' here is more like jnana or gnosis '“ direct 'wisdom' or 'knowledge'. It's a knowing of what is the case, a recognition of truth. This is why pointers are used to bring about this recognition. The teacher may encourage student to look for a location of knowing, which can't be found. But the quality of knowing can't be denied, as it is occurring now. Following the pointing, it is realized/recognized that the essence of mind is empty-knowing, which can't be taken as an object (it has not substance). One doesn't apprehend rigpa as essence, only rigpa as expression. Paradoxically, of course, they are not-two, not-one. It sounds like gibberish in the form of words, it's clear as clear can be when wisdom replaces ignorance in any given moment.

"What kinds of experiences are these? Objects of perception? Lack of other objects of perception? Can you look at them or make them the focus of your attention?

What is synchronization of the senses?"

These descriptive words are just labels that either spontaneously arise during or are conjured after the fact from memory. Thats all they are - just words. I seem to be unable to take these as objects of attention. There is no inclination to take an object of attention. There are no objects to take as attention. They are simply labels that arise - nothing to take as object.

But, even these words above don't sound right. You might as well take the above as silence due to its inaccuracy.

The observation about attention is that sometimes certain types of phenomena arise and sometimes they don't - but it seems possible that absolutely any type of phenomena could arise. Sometimes this seemingly includes phenomena from all sense simultaneously - the whole nervous system is online. If I am concentrating on an object of attention, then the possibility seems limited. I see no limit of possibility.

Find a master - receive pointing out instructions.

"Hokai Sobol, in the Hurricane Ranch Discussion, describes spaciousness in a really clear way (at least for me). He said something to the effect of, 'nothing in experience impedes upon the arising of anything else.' I think he said the 'total object' (the whole of experience) is 'un-impede-ing' (as opposed to 'unimpeded'). In other words, there's spaciousness because there is no conflict or resistance. I don't know if that helps, but I hope so."

APrioriKreuz says that he believes dualistic experience is compatible (in some manner) with apprehending rigpa. What do you think? If you agree, do you think any dualistic experience that remains is equally un-conflicting and un-impeding in all ways, or does it mask spaciousness, or something else?

(EDIT: Also, do you think apprehending rigpa partially (in any sense of "partially") is possible?)

About awareness, what would it be like apart from manifestation (if you know, or if you can extrapolate from your own experience)?

"These descriptive words are just labels that either spontaneously arise during or are conjured after the fact from memory. Thats all they are - just words. I seem to be unable to take these as objects of attention. There is no inclination to take an object of attention. There are no objects to take as attention. They are simply labels that arise - nothing to take as object."

Would you say that these words are descriptions of the *lack* of an object, then? Or something else?

"Find a master - receive pointing out instructions."

Masters do not submit themselves to cross-questioning, unless they are pragmatic dharma masters.

Anyway, the bigger issue is, I am not interested as such in what masters say, I am interested in what people on KFD mean when they talk about rigpa. (To the extent that there is overlap, I am interested in the overlap.)

"Are you merely recognizing that you are aware and in doing so you get a flash of it? As in, you aren't literally taking awareness as an object but it is seen that one is aware of all the things one is aware of such that there is no need to single out any aspect in order to be able to separate it from the whole and work with it. In other-words, awareness is simply aware without any effort required and it is changeless in that regard.

I can see that I am aware
I can see that this awareness is boundless
I can see that awareness is "illuminating" all that is seen (not in the sense of something separate from what is seen - like a flashlight lighting up a room)

Is this the sort of direction you are pointing at or am I totally going about this the wrong way?"

Also - could one of you guys have a look at what I posted and let me know what you think?

(see the quote above)

Another general question (to everyone), which will help shed light on this. I believe Kenneth claims that he does not apprehend rigpa while in direct mode. Is this your experience as well? If so, do you have insight into why? (Is direct mode some kind of dualistic limitation on experience?) If not, what is the difference between apprehending rigpa in direct mode, and apprehending rigpa outside of direct mode, if any?

""These descriptive words are just labels that either spontaneously arise during or are conjured after the fact from memory. Thats all they are - just words. I seem to be unable to take these as objects of attention. There is no inclination to take an object of attention. There are no objects to take as attention. They are simply labels that arise - nothing to take as object."

Would you say that these words are descriptions of the *lack* of an object, then? Or something else?

"Find a master - receive pointing out instructions."

Masters do not submit themselves to cross-questioning, unless they are pragmatic dharma masters.

Anyway, the bigger issue is, I am not interested as such in what masters say, I am interested in what people on KFD mean when they talk about rigpa. (To the extent that there is overlap, I am interested in the overlap.)"

Yeah, but you don't need to question these guys - you just need transmission. The rest is just unneccessary conceptual masturbation.

The words are just words that arise and are seen as that. I can't say what they are or are not. For me, investigation/doing/inquiring and Rigpa are incompatible - but that may just be my personal limitation.

As the purpose of this thread is to discuss what people on KFD mean by rigpa and what their experiences are like, I would say that (with respect to this thread) transmission would be quite irrelevant.

'APrioriKreuz says that he believes dualistic experience is compatible (in some manner) with apprehending rigpa. What do you think? If you agree, do you think any dualistic experience that remains is equally un-conflicting and un-impeding in all ways, or does it mask spaciousness, or something else?'

I'll give a cautious 'yes, I agree' to the first question. Though, I don't think 'apprehending' is the right word to use. Personally, I reserve 'apprehending' for phenomenal appearances. I prefer 'recognition of' or 'realization of' or 'knowledge/wisdom of' when talking about rigpa. A subtle difference, but an important one (for me).

Dualistic experience is the result of buying into perceptions. To the extent that one is really buying into perceptions, I can't say that this is a moment of recognizing rigpa. But, perceptions that arise during recognition of rigpa may still temporarily shape appearances, but there's no buying into the perception. This is why they (perceptions) self-liberate, as oppose to proliferate and lead to becoming. In other words, perception may communicate a message that is false, but it isn't sticky. One isn't caught by it. If one is caught by it, and gets spun into ignorance, it can still release itself and return to a recognition of rigpa. That's why the practice is all about stabilizing recognition and self-liberation.

My experience with Direct Mode is limited and unimpressive. I'm not qualified to talk about rigpa in light of DM. Just an FYI

"Dualistic experience is the result of buying into perceptions. To the extent that one is really buying into perceptions, I can't say that this is a moment of recognizing rigpa. But, perceptions that arise during recognition of rigpa may still temporarily shape appearances, but there's no buying into the perception. This is why they (perceptions) self-liberate, as oppose to proliferate and lead to becoming. In other words, perception may communicate a message that is false, but it isn't sticky. One isn't caught by it. If one is caught by it, and gets spun into ignorance, it can still release itself and return to a recognition of rigpa. That's why the practice is all about stabilizing recognition and self-liberation."

What would an example of a perception that could be bought into (but isn't bought into) during the recognition of rigpa be?

A sense experience?

A thought of some kind?

Something dualistic?

The "non-stickiness" that you're talking about rings a bell for me (as does associating it with perception), so I'd like to explore this general issue further.

"At the point of maximal recognition of the all-encompassing nature of rigpa, it seems that it would be a merely hypothetical recognition, as there would be no dualistic experience left to include, no?

So, can you shed some light on how one recognizes that rigpa includes dualistic experience?"

Depends on what you mean by dualistic experience. If it means: Subject-object exists inherently, Subject-object doesnt exist inherently, exists and doesn't exist, etc. then no, it does not manifest/include it.

If it means subject-object is apparent, then yes, it does manifest/include it.

"Depends on what you mean by dualistic experience. If it means: Subject-object exists inherently, Subject-object doesnt exist inherently, exists and doesn't exist, etc. then no, it does not manifest/include it.

If it means subject-object is apparent, then yes, it does manifest/include it."

Well, as this is about your experience, "dualistic experience" can mean whatever you think is appropriate here.

But, again, as you have said that in the maximal recognition of the all-encompassing nature of rigpa, there is no dualistic experience, how can it be known that an apparent subject-object would be included, except hypothetically / conceptually? Is that a different meaning of dualistic experience than the one you originally had in mind?

'What would an example of a perception that could be bought into (but isn't bought into) during the recognition of rigpa be?'

Here's a bit of an extreme example'¦

Let's say I'm practicing the recognition of rigpa (that is, the way things are '“ not confusing awareness-as-essence with awareness-as-expression). Phenomenal appearances may take the form of a dreamscape, and the perception(s) give the message of a human being at the beach, sitting in the sand, looking out at the waves. To buy into the perception would be to get lost in the vision; to believe in some way that I am the being at the beach, enjoying myself. Recognition of the truth of rigpa is lost in that moment. But, there's also the possibility of not buy into the perception. Recognition of the way things are continues through the experience until it dissolves and the activity of impermanence fabricates new appearances.

In my take on things, dualistic experience is buying into the dream. Not buying into the dream (and thus, not buying into any arising perception) is synonymous with nondual realization.

Does that help?