Descriptions of rigpa

"In my take on things, dualistic experience is buying into the dream. Not buying into the dream is synonymous with nondual realization.

Does that help?"

Yes.

Would you consider it fair to say that recognizing rigpa means not buying into the dream (whether or not perceptions that comprise the dream are occurring), and that such a characterization of it includes and encompasses all the other issues surrounding rigpa that have been talked about so far?

EDIT: Also, would you say that perceptions comprising the dream are relevant in any way to rigpa (e.g. things that obscure it to some extent, things that obscure one's recognition of it to some extent, etc.)?

Then again, buying into the perception that say, "I'm not buying into perception" is itself a form of duality. Round n' round it goes, either in the direction of ignorance or the direction of wisdom.

"Would you consider it fair to say that recognizing rigpa means not buying into the dream (whether or not perceptions that comprise the dream are occurring), and that such a characterization of it includes and encompasses all the other issues surrounding rigpa that have been talked about so far?"

I don't know. I may get back to you on this one.

"Then again, buying into the perception that say, "I'm not buying into perception" is itself a form of duality. Round n' round it goes, either in the direction of ignorance or the direction of wisdom."

My understanding of not buying into the dream is when one doesn't perceive it as real and one doesn't perceive it as unreal, but one lacks all perception (or: conceptualization) related to its reality or unreality. Given that, let me ask you the previous question again:


"Would you consider it fair to say that recognizing rigpa means not buying into the dream (whether or not perceptions that comprise the dream are occurring), and that such a characterization of it includes and encompasses all the other issues surrounding rigpa that have been talked about so far?"

EDIT: Sorry, missed your post.

At this point, if "rigpa = not buying into the dream, despite the continuance of perceptions related to the dream" is a consensus position (is it?), I would be interested in describing a mode of experience that I can incline my mind towards, to hear what others think about it in relation to this topic.

But, I am also interested in hearing more about the relationship between rigpa and direct mode (for those who have experience with it). Coincidentally (or maybe not!) the mode of experience that I would describe conflicts with the experience of direct mode, insofar as I approach direct mode in a particular way.

"Also, would you say that perceptions comprising the dream are relevant in any way to rigpa (e.g. things that obscure it to some extent, things that obscure one's recognition of it to some extent, etc.)?"

Wow, another intense question.

As far as one who is actually recognizing rigpa in any moment, perceptions may or may not be about rigpa as a concept. Perceptions are not helpful or unhelpful during recognition, at least not for me.

BUT, in the process of having rigpa pointed out, perception is used to guide one's experience into recognition. In that sense, some perceptions are more helpful than others. Once there is recognition, the content of perception matter.

Some may need to use perception to guide their experience into recognition lots of times, until immediate recognition is possible for them.

Does that relate to what you were asking? I may have trailed off a bit there :-/

What I meant was (to take your example), suppose you're at the beach. There are perceptions that are merely sense experiences (water, sand, etc.) and, as I conceive of it, there are perceptions that are related to buying into the dream (the thought / conceptualization "I am a person", "I am at the beach", etc.), and there are subtle ways that the mind can buy into perceptions like these or not buy into them, apart from their existence as perceptions in experience.

Is the existence of these perceptions in experience relevant to recognizing rigpa? Do they detract from it in any way? Do they obscure the recognition of it?

EDIT: By "relevant", I mean, do they affect the non-dual nature of the whole thing (in whatever sense might be significant in this conversation)?...not whether they can help guide someone to recognizing rigpa.

"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?"

Haha, this feels like a light version of the Ruthless Truth Arena. Can't answer at the moment because of work, I'll get back to you as soon as possible. I agree with Jackson, pretty intense questions!

@mumuwu I'll give you my opinion too later in the day too

"At this point, if "rigpa = not buying into the dream, despite the continuance of perceptions related to the dream" is a consensus position (is it?)"

I would define rigpa as the immediate recognition/realization of:

(1) the primal nature of mind as empty-knowing
(2) appearances as lacking own-existence (i.e. not inherently-existing separate things)
(3) the relationship between (1) as essence and (2) as expression (not confusing the two), and thus, the fundamental non-separation of (1) and (2)

Throw in the fact that these descriptions/concepts are not necessarily occurring during recognition. If they are, they are immediately and directly in their proper relationship as described in point (3).

This is long, more complicated way of describing 'awareness-suffused-with-wisdom', which is the more concise definition. And, 'awareness-suffused-with-ignorance' (i.e. marigpa) is a good, concise description of 'buying into the dream'.

I don't know if this definition works for anyone else. It is, of course, not the final word on the matter.

"Is the existence of these perceptions in experience relevant to recognizing rigpa? Do they detract from it in any way? Do they obscure the recognition of it?"

The only thing that detracts from recognition is getting lost, falling out of recognition. What this "getting lost" is, I can't really say, aside from suggesting that it is ignorance. Where there is wisdom, there is no getting lost.

I don't know if it helps me, because there are too many concepts involved that I don't make use of. That's why I wanted to know whether my short definition (understood in context of how it came about in this discussion) is a *sufficient* characterization of rigpa or not.

I tried to explain it in terms of a threefold division of experience (sense experience / dream-perception / subtle buying into dream perception), which I hope made sense to you. If it didn't, or if it did but you think there may be more to rigpa than fits in the definition, you should feel free to ask me some questions to clarify exactly what I had in mind when I offered that definition.

EndInSight, you have embarked upon a quest which has remained unfulfilled for thousands of years

How can anyone describe the indescribable? We had this same conversation many months ago. If you can describe to me the taste of Coca Cola such that I can thereafter actually *taste* the Coca Cola, maybe, just maybe, this thing (rigpa if that's the word we agree to use) can be described so that one with no experience of it can grok it. It is not to be understood otherwise (without the experience of it) as it is not understandable in any other way.

As they say in Zen:

KATZ!!!

I can describe the taste of Coca-cola in such a way: it doesn't taste much like spinach, it leaves a residual taste on the palate for a short time after drinking it, it tastes more like grape juice than it tastes like plain tea, etc.

Similarly, we can talk about what kinds of perceptions may or may not occur during the recognition of rigpa, what kinds of "fireworks" there may be, whether its recognition can happen in the context of other modes of experience (such as direct mode), etc.

To be clear, the goal is not to exhaustively describe rigpa, but to describe it in such a way that either 1) one such as myself could come to understand what is meant by it, if understanding has been impeded solely by lack of shared terminology, or 2) one such as myself, not understanding it, could understand some features that are involved in the experience of 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?"

Ok back again. From my experience, it manifests only hypothetical/conceptual, but in fact, there is no subject-object.

I agree with Chris regarding the limited value of providing descriptions of first-person experiential realities. I think this is why a lot of teachers resort to only describing what realization is NOT. There is a great deal of danger when it comes to the potential for making love to concepts instead of seeing things directly, which makes what I've described (in terms of definitions) a very dicey affair, indeed.

In order to really understand the meaning of any 'signifier' (e.g. a definition or description of rigpa), there must be an experiential 'signified.' This is why the coca cola example is a good one, I think. Tasting something directly is what leads to a direct link between signifier and signified. Without the experiential signified corresponding with 'rigpa' or 'emptiness' or 'cessation' or 'PCE', the signifiers won't really make sense.

Pointing out instructions make use of certain signifiers that point to a signified that is already available, like the fact that knowing is happening, and that there is no discernable location from which knowing occurs. These point experience in the right direction, leading to realization, which is greater than the sum of the signifiers'¦ so to speak.

So, we can talk about this stuff, but we all know it's no substitute for the real thing. As Alan Watts would say, we don't want to mistake the menu for the dinner, or the money for the wealth.

"Ok back again. From my experience, it manifests only hypothetical/conceptual, but in fact, there is no subject-object."

So, is this a fair characterization of your position: rigpa always remains rigpa, but it is seen or recognized more completely to the extent that dualistic experience is not present?

Jackson, as I said, part of my interest in this is to see whether I understand the experience of rigpa but have been confused by terminological issues.

As I am a fairly advanced practitioner, this (my having experienced it) would not be especially surprising.

If I do know it from personal experience, then clarity can be shed on the issue by talking about it (as talking about it would point back to the experience). And if I don't, then clarity can be shed on the issue by noticing that I have not reached further understanding despite talking about it in depth.

So, I am still interested in pursuing our previous line of conversation if you are.

End, I get where you're coming from. I wasn't implying from my last post (#64) that I have any opinion regarding whether or not you, as a practitioner, know what I'm talking about. Just wanted to make that clear. If you haven't, I'm confident that you have all that you need within your experience to grok it. If you have, then maybe our conversation will clear up any language-based confusion.

I'm going to give it a rest for now, though, because I have lots of work to do! I'll come back when I can.

-Jackson

There are two aspects to Ripga - the pointing out instructions to Rigpa and Rigpa itself.

From my experience, if Rigpa is known, then Rigpa is known. If it is not known, then trying to understand Rigpa won't help - it isn't understandable.

To remove doubt about whether or not Rigpa is known - I received pointing out instructions from someone who deeply knows Rigpa and is masterful at pointing it out. Even if someone on this forum were able to point it out, would I believe their transmission is authentic? What is the lineage of transmission through which they realize the essential nature of mind?

I think there are a lot of great things bout the peer-to-peer learning model, but some things simply need to be learned through masters. Perhaps you can get lucky and by reading Padmasambhava, Tilopa, etc. and have an experience of simply undoubtably knowing the essential nature of mind. I would love to know how to reliably increase the probability of pointing out working.

In the end, I think it requires faith.

Sorry that these responses will be unsatisfactory.

"Even if someone on this forum were able to point it out, would I believe their transmission is authentic? What is the lineage of transmission through which they realize the essential nature of mind?"

The lineage would generally be through Kenneth, and then to whomever transmitted it to Kenneth (if anyone).

Others may have gone through a different lineage, having recognized it separately from encountering Kenneth's teachings.

In any case, there are many things that reading and hearing about rigpa suggests to me, and (as I am very keen on precision when it comes to these matters) I would like to figure out, as best as I can, which (if any) others are likely to be talking about when they talk about rigpa.

Not understanding each other and thus making assumptions about what others believe, experience, and are interested in has a tendency to cause many problems, especially in spiritual matters.

"Rigpa" has been a pet issue of mine to think about at times, and I have gone through numerous opinions about what others might be indicating when talking about it. However, it occurred to me that an opinion formed on the basis of hearing about others' experiences, and hearing clarifications about them when needed, is better than an opinion based on my own private speculation.

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

EIS, there are some standard classifications in the traditional literature of kinds of experiences one typically has, depending on one's mind's tendencies. Basically I'm referring to any strong but passing experience which can arise as a result of (removing the obstacles to) recognition/relaxation. For me they generally fall into the "clarity" category-- vividness, vivid openness, brightness of senses and awareness, that sort of thing. Some people get bodily bliss, some get profound moments of stillness. Also notable-- the "negative" experiences of purification, as deep rafts of tension surface and render experience turbulent (you know, like many forms of practice/insight, resting in rigpa "brings up your ****").

I'm sorry but I have to repeat this -- there is simply no way to describe this thing so that one who has no experience of it can "get" it. And the very milisecond that they have the experience of it ***they will need no description.*** This reply is no doubt, as Jason says, unsatisfactory and I know that, but there is no way around this truth.

I like Jackson's phrase "making love to concepts" because that's what the mind will inevitably try to do when confronted with a problem or something perceived as missing, or that is wanted/needed. But the conceptual mind, the thinker, the doer, is not able to connect to this experience. It is before/beyond that mind, forever.

"
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.
"

This is an important aspect of it for me as well. A sense of referenceless openness, beyond center and border (which are seen to be merely concepts in this insight, if they present at all).

"So, is this a fair characterization of your position: rigpa always remains rigpa, but it is seen or recognized more completely to the extent that dualistic experience is not present?"

Well, now that I think about, it depends more on the presence of ignorance/delusion.

"This is an important aspect of it for me as well. A sense of referenceless openness, beyond center and border (which are seen to be merely concepts in this insight, if they present at all)."

Yes. Spot on.

(I expected no less.)