Question on Duality/Other

LoveFromColorado
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Question on Duality/Other

Post by LoveFromColorado » Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:56 am

Hi everyone, if I am correct in understanding the teachings I have heard and books I have studied, rigpa is the single ground awareness, the dharmakaya. Our consciousness is a manifestation of this ground awareness. Everyone "else" is likewise a manifestation of ground awareness. It is definitely hard for me to translate what I have learned thus far into words but hopefully this is on track in the right direction.

I realize everything is not "one" in the sense of being the same singular substance, but would it be correct to recognize "other" as the same in that it is the same manifestation of ground awareness? Or would they be different manifestations from the same essence?

Also, what then constitutes the separation we observe between. consciousnesses?

Lastly, how would one explain differentiating the dharmadatu from the dharmakaya?

I feel like I "get" these understandings more than I can conceptualize them, and I certainly appreciate the help/insight!

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:32 pm

If you have to put effort in remembering all that for practicing, then you haven't realized knowledge.

One thing that shouldn't happen is that you hold a philosophical system in your head.

That's how i see it, but it doesn't mean one should not study in a more philosophical way. Just don't grasp it with hope, is just a general idea.
"Don't profess a view you haven't realized!
Since the view is devoid of viewing, mind essence is an expanse of great emptiness.
Since the meditation is without meditating, leave your individual experience free from fixation.
Since the conduct is without acting, it is unfabricated naturalness.
Since the fruition is without abandoning or achieving, it is the dharmakaya of great bliss.
These four sentences are words from my heart:
Contradict them and you fail to discover the nature of Ati Yoga."


Guru Padmasambhava.
From "Advice from the Lotus-Born".

LoveFromColorado
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by LoveFromColorado » Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:08 pm

Thank you for the reply Javier!

I certainly don't claim to have realizations; however, I have had at least some level of experiential understanding on these subjects. That said, I have not found a good way to articulate these details (mainly to myself). I can sense a decent portion of them but have not directly been taught some of these nuances (i.e. what distinguishes one awareness from another, etc., even though I know everything is not "one" in the sense that it is all the "same substance", etc.). Hence my questions - the perpetual skeptic in me wants to be able to have some level of logic to tie these details together although I don't rely on the faith aspect. In other words, I'm not looking for practice details here as much as I am logic.

I've read about these topics but am still working on some level of intellectual "sinking in" if you will. The teachings I have received are more centered on the aspects of the nature of mind but not necessarily in detail beyond that particular experience. There is a perpetual healthy level of intellectual skepticism that I naturally maintain (I say healthy as it is counterbalanced by healthy faith) and it is prompting a desire for some deeper knowledge in these areas.

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:29 pm

LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:08 pm
Thank you for the reply Javier!

I certainly don't claim to have realizations; however, I have had at least some level of experiential understanding on these subjects. That said, I have not found a good way to articulate these details (mainly to myself). I can sense a decent portion of them but have not directly been taught some of these nuances (i.e. what distinguishes one awareness from another, etc., even though I know everything is not "one" in the sense that it is all the "same substance", etc.). Hence my questions - the perpetual skeptic in me wants to be able to have some level of logic to tie these details together although I don't rely on the faith aspect. In other words, I'm not looking for practice details here as much as I am logic.

I've read about these topics but am still working on some level of intellectual "sinking in" if you will. The teachings I have received are more centered on the aspects of the nature of mind but not necessarily in detail beyond that particular experience. There is a perpetual healthy level of intellectual skepticism that I naturally maintain (I say healthy as it is counterbalanced by healthy faith) and it is prompting a desire for some deeper knowledge in these areas.
if you want to really have experience you should get rid of those logic, faith, presumptions, hipothesys, etc. at least at formal practice. it is it's scary, but once you have experience then you can do a very useful discernment.

you see, the approach is very different. going to the experience through logic v/s coming from the experience with logic. that's an example, we can then do the same with faith, compassion, and so.

i'm sorry, you should know i'm also skeptical, but i learned in the hard way that doing analysis isn't the main point. my teacher told me that like 15 years ago and i did not understood at that moment. that's how one gets lost and then regrets hahaha

now the disclaimer part: this is just my opinion.
"Don't profess a view you haven't realized!
Since the view is devoid of viewing, mind essence is an expanse of great emptiness.
Since the meditation is without meditating, leave your individual experience free from fixation.
Since the conduct is without acting, it is unfabricated naturalness.
Since the fruition is without abandoning or achieving, it is the dharmakaya of great bliss.
These four sentences are words from my heart:
Contradict them and you fail to discover the nature of Ati Yoga."


Guru Padmasambhava.
From "Advice from the Lotus-Born".

LoveFromColorado
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by LoveFromColorado » Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:46 pm

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:29 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:08 pm
Thank you for the reply Javier!

I certainly don't claim to have realizations; however, I have had at least some level of experiential understanding on these subjects. That said, I have not found a good way to articulate these details (mainly to myself). I can sense a decent portion of them but have not directly been taught some of these nuances (i.e. what distinguishes one awareness from another, etc., even though I know everything is not "one" in the sense that it is all the "same substance", etc.). Hence my questions - the perpetual skeptic in me wants to be able to have some level of logic to tie these details together although I don't rely on the faith aspect. In other words, I'm not looking for practice details here as much as I am logic.

I've read about these topics but am still working on some level of intellectual "sinking in" if you will. The teachings I have received are more centered on the aspects of the nature of mind but not necessarily in detail beyond that particular experience. There is a perpetual healthy level of intellectual skepticism that I naturally maintain (I say healthy as it is counterbalanced by healthy faith) and it is prompting a desire for some deeper knowledge in these areas.
if you want to really have experience you should get rid of those logic, faith, presumptions, hipothesys, etc. at least at formal practice. it is it's scary, but once you have experience then you can do a very useful discernment.

you see, the approach is very different. going to the experience through logic v/s coming from the experience with logic. that's an example, we can then do the same with faith, compassion, and so.

i'm sorry, you should know i'm also skeptical, but i learned in the hard way that doing analysis isn't the main point. my teacher told me that like 15 years ago and i did not understood at that moment. that's how one gets lost and then regrets hahaha

now the disclaimer part: this is just my opinion.
And a great opinion at that!

I 100% agree - when it comes to practice, I am not concerned with conceptual notions. These questions actually arose from my reading of The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra in which these topics are graced (at least at the beginning) but not flushed out in detail. I certainly don't want to confuse mind with practice, but I think pursuing intellectual understanding is not without benefit.

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:53 pm

LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:46 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:29 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:08 pm
Thank you for the reply Javier!

I certainly don't claim to have realizations; however, I have had at least some level of experiential understanding on these subjects. That said, I have not found a good way to articulate these details (mainly to myself). I can sense a decent portion of them but have not directly been taught some of these nuances (i.e. what distinguishes one awareness from another, etc., even though I know everything is not "one" in the sense that it is all the "same substance", etc.). Hence my questions - the perpetual skeptic in me wants to be able to have some level of logic to tie these details together although I don't rely on the faith aspect. In other words, I'm not looking for practice details here as much as I am logic.

I've read about these topics but am still working on some level of intellectual "sinking in" if you will. The teachings I have received are more centered on the aspects of the nature of mind but not necessarily in detail beyond that particular experience. There is a perpetual healthy level of intellectual skepticism that I naturally maintain (I say healthy as it is counterbalanced by healthy faith) and it is prompting a desire for some deeper knowledge in these areas.
if you want to really have experience you should get rid of those logic, faith, presumptions, hipothesys, etc. at least at formal practice. it is it's scary, but once you have experience then you can do a very useful discernment.

you see, the approach is very different. going to the experience through logic v/s coming from the experience with logic. that's an example, we can then do the same with faith, compassion, and so.

i'm sorry, you should know i'm also skeptical, but i learned in the hard way that doing analysis isn't the main point. my teacher told me that like 15 years ago and i did not understood at that moment. that's how one gets lost and then regrets hahaha

now the disclaimer part: this is just my opinion.
And a great opinion at that!

I 100% agree - when it comes to practice, I am not concerned with conceptual notions. These questions actually arose from my reading of The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra in which these topics are graced (at least at the beginning) but not flushed out in detail. I certainly don't want to confuse mind with practice, but I think pursuing intellectual understanding is not without benefit.
Ahh what an excellent prayer, is like a guideline on conduct more than on view. What woyld you say?
"Don't profess a view you haven't realized!
Since the view is devoid of viewing, mind essence is an expanse of great emptiness.
Since the meditation is without meditating, leave your individual experience free from fixation.
Since the conduct is without acting, it is unfabricated naturalness.
Since the fruition is without abandoning or achieving, it is the dharmakaya of great bliss.
These four sentences are words from my heart:
Contradict them and you fail to discover the nature of Ati Yoga."


Guru Padmasambhava.
From "Advice from the Lotus-Born".

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 8992
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:18 pm

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:53 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:46 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:29 pm


if you want to really have experience you should get rid of those logic, faith, presumptions, hipothesys, etc. at least at formal practice. it is it's scary, but once you have experience then you can do a very useful discernment.

you see, the approach is very different. going to the experience through logic v/s coming from the experience with logic. that's an example, we can then do the same with faith, compassion, and so.

i'm sorry, you should know i'm also skeptical, but i learned in the hard way that doing analysis isn't the main point. my teacher told me that like 15 years ago and i did not understood at that moment. that's how one gets lost and then regrets hahaha

now the disclaimer part: this is just my opinion.
And a great opinion at that!

I 100% agree - when it comes to practice, I am not concerned with conceptual notions. These questions actually arose from my reading of The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra in which these topics are graced (at least at the beginning) but not flushed out in detail. I certainly don't want to confuse mind with practice, but I think pursuing intellectual understanding is not without benefit.
Ahh what an excellent prayer, is like a guideline on conduct more than on view. What woyld you say?
I'd definitely disagree, the prayer is from the Avatamsaka Sutra and very much conveys both the view and conduct of the Mahayana.
There's no hoarding what has vanished,
No piling up for the future;
Those who have been born are standing
Like a seed upon a needle.

-Guhatthaka-suttaniddeso

LoveFromColorado
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by LoveFromColorado » Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:33 pm

I am still working my way through the beginning of the book. At the beginning, it is explained how Samantabhadra is before all activity in consciousness, effectively once awareness arises and recognizes itself. Samantabhadra is thus the same in all mindstreams.

This line of thought is what got me thinking (as mentioned above) - is consciousness a manifestation of rigpa and what differentiates one consciousness from another given that they are not the same in terms of oneness but are the same in terms of Samantabhadra?

Along these lines in a similar way, I am interested in the differentiation in a bigger way between the dharmakaya (which I believe is equivalent to rigpa) and the dharmadatu. It seems like the former is more "mind" and the latter is more "environment" but it also seems to reason that they are somehow the same at some level. I'm just looking for some clarifications here to avoid slipping into duality.

Lukeinaz
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:34 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by Lukeinaz » Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:43 pm

LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:33 pm
I am still working my way through the beginning of the book. At the beginning, it is explained how Samantabhadra is before all activity in consciousness, effectively once awareness arises and recognizes itself. Samantabhadra is thus the same in all mindstreams.

This line of thought is what got me thinking (as mentioned above) - is consciousness a manifestation of rigpa and what differentiates one consciousness from another given that they are not the same in terms of oneness but are the same in terms of Samantabhadra?

Along these lines in a similar way, I am interested in the differentiation in a bigger way between the dharmakaya (which I believe is equivalent to rigpa) and the dharmadatu. It seems like the former is more "mind" and the latter is more "environment" but it also seems to reason that they are somehow the same at some level. I'm just looking for some clarifications here to avoid slipping into duality.
No need to avoid slipping, you are fully immersed!
You are truly astonishing--going to look for yourself when you already are yourself! --Longchen Rabjam

LoveFromColorado
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by LoveFromColorado » Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:45 pm

Lukeinaz wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:43 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:33 pm
I am still working my way through the beginning of the book. At the beginning, it is explained how Samantabhadra is before all activity in consciousness, effectively once awareness arises and recognizes itself. Samantabhadra is thus the same in all mindstreams.

This line of thought is what got me thinking (as mentioned above) - is consciousness a manifestation of rigpa and what differentiates one consciousness from another given that they are not the same in terms of oneness but are the same in terms of Samantabhadra?

Along these lines in a similar way, I am interested in the differentiation in a bigger way between the dharmakaya (which I believe is equivalent to rigpa) and the dharmadatu. It seems like the former is more "mind" and the latter is more "environment" but it also seems to reason that they are somehow the same at some level. I'm just looking for some clarifications here to avoid slipping into duality.
No need to avoid slipping, you are fully immersed!
Hence my questions!

amanitamusc
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by amanitamusc » Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:57 pm

LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:08 pm
Thank you for the reply Javier!

I certainly don't claim to have realizations; however, I have had at least some level of experiential understanding on these subjects. That said, I have not found a good way to articulate these details (mainly to myself). I can sense a decent portion of them but have not directly been taught some of these nuances (i.e. what distinguishes one awareness from another, etc., even though I know everything is not "one" in the sense that it is all the "same substance", etc.). Hence my questions - the perpetual skeptic in me wants to be able to have some level of logic to tie these details together although I don't rely on the faith aspect. In other words, I'm not looking for practice details here as much as I am logic.

I've read about these topics but am still working on some level of intellectual "sinking in" if you will. The teachings I have received are more centered on the aspects of the nature of mind but not necessarily in detail beyond that particular experience. There is a perpetual healthy level of intellectual skepticism that I naturally maintain (I say healthy as it is counterbalanced by healthy faith) and it is prompting a desire for some deeper knowledge in these areas.
This can clarify your understanding.
https://www.wisdompubs.org/author/malcolm-smith

LoveFromColorado
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by LoveFromColorado » Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:10 pm

Fantastic, thank you! I am assuming it is the book Buddhahood in This Life that you are referring to (not the works on The Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra)? I also take it the author is malcolm from these forums? Excellent!

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1163
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:58 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:18 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:53 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:46 pm


And a great opinion at that!

I 100% agree - when it comes to practice, I am not concerned with conceptual notions. These questions actually arose from my reading of The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra in which these topics are graced (at least at the beginning) but not flushed out in detail. I certainly don't want to confuse mind with practice, but I think pursuing intellectual understanding is not without benefit.
Ahh what an excellent prayer, is like a guideline on conduct more than on view. What woyld you say?
I'd definitely disagree, the prayer is from the Avatamsaka Sutra and very much conveys both the view and conduct of the Mahayana.
Maybe, but at my eyes Samantabadhra's prayer, for example
Dualistic thoughts create doubt.
From subtle attachment to this dualistic turn of mind
Dualistic tendencies become stronger and thicker.
Food, wealth, clothes, home, and friends,
The five objects of the senses, and your beloved family —
All these things cause torment by creating longing and desire.
These are all worldly delusions; the activities of grasping
and clinging are endless.

When the fruition of attachment ripens, you are born as a hungry ghost,
Tormented by coveting and desiring, miserable, starving and thirsty.
Through Kuntuzangpo’s prayer may all you desirous and lustful beings
Who have attachments, neither reject longing desires,
Nor accept attachment to desires.
Let your consciousness relax in its own natural state,
Then your Awareness will be able to hold its own.
May you achieve the wisdom of perfect discernment!
and similarly
When external objects appear, the subtle consciousness of fear will arise.
From this fear, the habit of anger becomes stronger and stronger.
Finally, hostility comes causing violence and murder.
When the fruition of this anger ripens, you will suffer in hell
by boiling and burning.

Through Kuntuzangpo’s prayer, you beings of the six realms,
When strong anger arises for you, neither reject nor accept it.
Instead relax in the natural state and achieve the wisdom of clarity!
etc. for the rest...

"Relax/rest in it's natural state" is clearly is a self-liberation thing.
"Don't profess a view you haven't realized!
Since the view is devoid of viewing, mind essence is an expanse of great emptiness.
Since the meditation is without meditating, leave your individual experience free from fixation.
Since the conduct is without acting, it is unfabricated naturalness.
Since the fruition is without abandoning or achieving, it is the dharmakaya of great bliss.
These four sentences are words from my heart:
Contradict them and you fail to discover the nature of Ati Yoga."


Guru Padmasambhava.
From "Advice from the Lotus-Born".

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by Malcolm » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:25 pm

LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:56 am
Hi everyone, if I am correct in understanding the teachings I have heard and books I have studied, rigpa is the single ground awareness, the dharmakaya.
This is an incorrect understanding. There is no such thing as a "single ground awareness."
Our consciousness is a manifestation of this ground awareness. Everyone "else" is likewise a manifestation of ground awareness. It is definitely hard for me to translate what I have learned thus far into words but hopefully this is on track in the right direction.
No, this is leading you in the wrong direction.
I realize everything is not "one" in the sense of being the same singular substance, but would it be correct to recognize "other" as the same in that it is the same manifestation of ground awareness? Or would they be different manifestations from the same essence?
There is no such thing as a "single ground awareness." This represents a complete and total misunderstanding of the nature of the basis (ground).

If rigpa were a single ground, then there couldn't be two paths and two results of rig pa and ma rig pa:

All of the universe and beings, samsara and nirvana
have one basis. The two paths and two results
are the enchantments of knowledge (rig pa) and ignorance (ma rig pa)...


The basis being discussed, as clarified here by Jigme Lingpa, is not the original, generic basis (aka the unfabricated mind essence). The basis here is the "contextual" all-basis, which is not dharmakāya at all, it is one's consciousness. It is extremely important to distinguish the all-basis from the dharmakāya.

LoveFromColorado
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by LoveFromColorado » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:31 pm

Thank you Malcolm, that is indeed very helpful.

Speaking colloquially (due to my small understanding), would it be then safe to say that each consciousness has as its base its "own" rigpa? Would rigpa be a manifestation arising from the dharmakaya?

Thank you for these clarifications - this is indeed where my understanding is murky at best. Looking forward to your book once I get a chance to order it.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 8992
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:34 pm

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:58 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:18 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:53 pm


Ahh what an excellent prayer, is like a guideline on conduct more than on view. What woyld you say?
I'd definitely disagree, the prayer is from the Avatamsaka Sutra and very much conveys both the view and conduct of the Mahayana.
Maybe, but at my eyes Samantabadhra's prayer, for example
Dualistic thoughts create doubt.
From subtle attachment to this dualistic turn of mind
Dualistic tendencies become stronger and thicker.
Food, wealth, clothes, home, and friends,
The five objects of the senses, and your beloved family —
All these things cause torment by creating longing and desire.
These are all worldly delusions; the activities of grasping
and clinging are endless.

When the fruition of attachment ripens, you are born as a hungry ghost,
Tormented by coveting and desiring, miserable, starving and thirsty.
Through Kuntuzangpo’s prayer may all you desirous and lustful beings
Who have attachments, neither reject longing desires,
Nor accept attachment to desires.
Let your consciousness relax in its own natural state,
Then your Awareness will be able to hold its own.
May you achieve the wisdom of perfect discernment!
and similarly
When external objects appear, the subtle consciousness of fear will arise.
From this fear, the habit of anger becomes stronger and stronger.
Finally, hostility comes causing violence and murder.
When the fruition of this anger ripens, you will suffer in hell
by boiling and burning.

Through Kuntuzangpo’s prayer, you beings of the six realms,
When strong anger arises for you, neither reject nor accept it.
Instead relax in the natural state and achieve the wisdom of clarity!
etc. for the rest...

"Relax/rest in it's natural state" is clearly is a self-liberation thing.
My bad, I was assuming you were talking about the "King of Prayers" (http://www.lotsawahouse.org/words-of-th ... od-actions), and wondering why it was coming up in a Dzogchen thread.
There's no hoarding what has vanished,
No piling up for the future;
Those who have been born are standing
Like a seed upon a needle.

-Guhatthaka-suttaniddeso

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by Malcolm » Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:05 pm

LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:33 pm
I am still working my way through the beginning of the book. At the beginning, it is explained how Samantabhadra is before all activity in consciousness, effectively once awareness arises and recognizes itself. Samantabhadra is thus the same in all mindstreams.
This is also an error of interpretation. Samatabhadra arises out of recognizing the activity of consciousness as "his" own state. In other words, even Samantabhadra possesses ignorance. Samantabhadra is never deluded, but delusion and ignorance are not the same thing. Ignorance can lead to delusion, but it does not necessarily lead to delusion.
This line of thought is what got me thinking (as mentioned above) - is consciousness a manifestation of rigpa and what differentiates one consciousness from another given that they are not the same in terms of oneness but are the same in terms of Samantabhadra?
Rig pa is another name for a pure consciousness that recognizes its own state. If a consciousness does not recognize or mis-knows (ma rig pa) its own state, it then continues into delusion. On the other hand, rig pa and ma rig pa are likened to the front and the back of the hand-- they essentially belong together and are both forms of knowing.

In order to understand this, you need to understand the three-fold ignorance model: ignorance identical with its cause; connate ignorance; and imputing ignorance. These there are discussed in the section on how delusion arises which forms the second of the eleven topics of the Great Perfection. The prayer you are studying uses a two-fold ignorance model -- this presentation is also fine, but I have seen that it can be more easily misunderstood. The tantra this prayer is found in defines things as follows:

In the beginning, since the the unconscious mind overflows from the latent all-basis, the connate ignorance arises. As above, since the deluded vision of sounds, lights and rays arises gradually, the subtle mind that thinks "the external world arises from me," or "I arise from the external world" moves as a mistaken belief.

Here, the all-basis refers to the ālayavijñāna, which is defined as neutral. The "unconscious mind" is the way this tantra defines the first ignorance, the ignorance identical to the cause. Here, this simply means that in the beginning one is unaware of oneself, i.e., unconscious. At the moment the sounds, lights, and rays arise, which are manifestations of one's own state, the connate ignorance arises because now there is a perception which can be mistaken for duality.

Samantabhadra wakes up without entering delusion because in the second moment of the basis arising from the basis, he recognizes these sounds, lights, and rays as being his own state, and his consciousness becomes prajñā, and prajñā is rig pa, or vidyā. The way the Sound Tantra explains this is:

As such, in saṃsāra at the start and nirvāṇa at the end,
since the buddhas did not become deluded,
the sense organs that rose up out of the basis
recognized the self-appearances as natureless;
there was no lapse into mental analysis of external objects;
and [the self-appearances] were ascertained to be their own
movements.


Remember, ignorance does not equal delusion. This is an important point.

When we do not recognize these sounds, lights, and rays as being our own state, as stated above, we engage in dualistic grasping, which is the third ignorance, the imputing ignorance. For this reason, the Powerful Aspiration states:

The connate ignorance
is an amnesiac confused consciousness.
The imputing ignorance
grasps at both self and other.
The two ignorances, connate and imputing,
are the basis of the delusion of all sentient beings.
Through the aspiration of the Buddha, myself,
may all the sentient beings of samsara’s three realms
awaken from the thick darkness of amnesia,
purify the consciousness of dualistic grasping,
and recognize their own vidyā.


Thus in Buddhahood it is said:

If it is asked how delusion came about, delusion arose from the difference between the basis and the conscious aspect of the basis.

Remember, the basis is just one's unfabricated mind that is clear and empty. Buddhahood again:

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of the sole reality, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place, etc. Thus, that is called self-originated pristine consciousness.

In reality, one should study these things at the feet of a qualified teacher, because with Dzogchen, it is very easy to make mistakes and adopt wrong views.

As a famous Sakyapa master said, until you gain certainty in the view, the view should not be expressed in words. I understand that you want to understand these things, but talking about them here on Dharmawheel and other places on the internet is likely to just lead you deeper into confusion and an incorrect understanding.

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by Malcolm » Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:11 pm

LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:31 pm
Thank you Malcolm, that is indeed very helpful.

Speaking colloquially (due to my small understanding), would it be then safe to say that each consciousness has as its base its "own" rigpa? Would rigpa be a manifestation arising from the dharmakaya?

Thank you for these clarifications - this is indeed where my understanding is murky at best. Looking forward to your book once I get a chance to order it.
Every consciousness is characterized by the ability to know and to discern. When it knows and discerns correctly, then this is rig pa. When it knows and discerns incorrectly, this is ma rig pa.

BTW, it is quite well known that Dzogchen does not reject external phenomena. The view of Dzogchen concerning external phenomena is the same as Prasangika Madhyamaka. Phenomena are not mind, but they are also not other than mind, that is to say, they are dependent on mental designations of appearances, but appearances, such as the appearance of a mountain, does not arise from the mind.

LoveFromColorado
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:10 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by LoveFromColorado » Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:31 pm

Thanks yet again Malcolm. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain these details. As I've mentioned before, I am still in process in finding a teacher - married life with pre-teen kids keeps my bandwidth small in the shorter term but I'm still trying. At the very least, perhaps this small desire for a teacher and the teaching will generate something in this regard in the future or even a future life!

There is quite a bit to chew on in your explanations, and I especially like what you mentioned regarding not discussing the view until one is certain. That rings a bell with me.

Lukeinaz
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:34 pm

Re: Question on Duality/Other

Post by Lukeinaz » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:05 am

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:25 pm
LoveFromColorado wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:56 am
Hi everyone, if I am correct in understanding the teachings I have heard and books I have studied, rigpa is the single ground awareness, the dharmakaya.
This is an incorrect understanding. There is no such thing as a "single ground awareness."
Our consciousness is a manifestation of this ground awareness. Everyone "else" is likewise a manifestation of ground awareness. It is definitely hard for me to translate what I have learned thus far into words but hopefully this is on track in the right direction.
No, this is leading you in the wrong direction.
I realize everything is not "one" in the sense of being the same singular substance, but would it be correct to recognize "other" as the same in that it is the same manifestation of ground awareness? Or would they be different manifestations from the same essence?
There is no such thing as a "single ground awareness." This represents a complete and total misunderstanding of the nature of the basis (ground).

If rigpa were a single ground, then there couldn't be two paths and two results of rig pa and ma rig pa:

All of the universe and beings, samsara and nirvana
have one basis. The two paths and two results
are the enchantments of knowledge (rig pa) and ignorance (ma rig pa)...


The basis being discussed, as clarified here by Jigme Lingpa, is not the original, generic basis (aka the unfabricated mind essence). The basis here is the "contextual" all-basis, which is not dharmakāya at all, it is one's consciousness. It is extremely important to distinguish the all-basis from the dharmakāya.
Where could one find Jigme Lingpa's clarification?
You are truly astonishing--going to look for yourself when you already are yourself! --Longchen Rabjam

Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lazuli, lelopa and 22 guests