Page 6 of 10

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:30 pm
by Malcolm
mzaur wrote:Knowledge sounds so abstract. Like, I have a lot of knowledge about computers. How do I rest in that knowledge?I guess I don't understand what you mean by knowledge. Language is tricky.

To use your example of a job well done. Ok, so I 'know' I did a job well done because I have the thought, 'wow I did a great job' and the feeling of relief, satisfaction, etc.. so there is a thought and a feeling.. and you rest in that? :shrug:
It means you rest in the knowledge you discovered through a direct perception of your own state, your primordial state. One you have this knowledge, that's it. And yes there is relief and satisfaction.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:59 pm
by mzaur
Thank you for clarifying. So this knowledge is not a thought... it's a non-conceptual knowing. Right? I guess what confused me was that I see knowledge as having thoughts about a certain topic.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:01 pm
by Josef
mzaur wrote:Thank you for clarifying. So this knowledge is not a thought... it's a non-conceptual knowing. Right? I guess what confused me was that I see knowledge as having thoughts about a certain topic.
Its knowledge gained through personal experience.
A popular analogy is chocolate.
You can try to describe its taste all day but until one actually tastes it they wont truly have knowledge of chocolate.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:08 pm
by Dronma
mzaur wrote:Thank you for clarifying. So this knowledge is not a thought... it's a non-conceptual knowing. Right? I guess what confused me was that I see knowledge as having thoughts about a certain topic.
Yes, generally knowledge has the meaning of intellectual activity in many languages.
I would define it more like "recognition of one's primordial state".

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:21 pm
by mzaur
Nangwa wrote:
mzaur wrote:Thank you for clarifying. So this knowledge is not a thought... it's a non-conceptual knowing. Right? I guess what confused me was that I see knowledge as having thoughts about a certain topic.
Its knowledge gained through personal experience.
A popular analogy is chocolate.
You can try to describe its taste all day but until one actually tastes it they wont truly have knowledge of chocolate.
Ah, that's a great analogy. Thanks


Dronma wrote:
mzaur wrote:Thank you for clarifying. So this knowledge is not a thought... it's a non-conceptual knowing. Right? I guess what confused me was that I see knowledge as having thoughts about a certain topic.
Yes, generally knowledge has the meaning of intellectual activity in many languages.
I would define it more like "recognition of one's primordial state".

:thanks:

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:45 pm
by Malcolm
mzaur wrote:Thank you for clarifying. So this knowledge is not a thought... it's a non-conceptual knowing. Right? I guess what confused me was that I see knowledge as having thoughts about a certain topic.
It is direct perception and the knowledge that results from that direct perception.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:52 pm
by Dronma
Sometimes, English scholars are using the Greek term Gnosis for indicating Rigpa in a more fancy way, which is wrong as I have posted in many threads before.
Because gnosis means knowledge. As Greek, I would never say that Rigpa is Gnosis (Γνώσις). But I would say that Rigpa is Anagnorisis (Αναγνώρισις), which includes etymologically the root of the term Gnosis in it, but it is more specific and can be translated in English as Recognition.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:59 pm
by Anders
mzaur wrote:Knowledge sounds so abstract. Like, I have a lot of knowledge about computers. How do I rest in that knowledge?I guess I don't understand what you mean by knowledge. Language is tricky.

To use your example of a job well done. Ok, so I 'know' I did a job well done because I have the thought, 'wow I did a great job' and the feeling of relief, satisfaction, etc.. so there is a thought and a feeling.. and you rest in that? :shrug:
Perhaps 'knowing' would be a more apt rendering in some cases, to indicate an active state more so than the passive 'knowledge'.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:00 pm
by kalden yungdrung
Namdrol wrote:
mzaur wrote:Thank you for clarifying. So this knowledge is not a thought... it's a non-conceptual knowing. Right? I guess what confused me was that I see knowledge as having thoughts about a certain topic.
It is direct perception and the knowledge that results from that direct perception.

Tashi delek,

I guess that the Natural State does not need a result because it is complete. Do we hav e knowledge about this or are we aware of it.
Awareness is also in this case linked to the lights, rays and sounds. I cannot imagine myself that there is knowledge about these, more an awerenes or to be 100% in the Natural State.

Maybe an explanation of direct perception would be usefull...

Mutsog Marro
KY

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:11 pm
by Paul
Anders Honore wrote:
mzaur wrote:Knowledge sounds so abstract. Like, I have a lot of knowledge about computers. How do I rest in that knowledge?I guess I don't understand what you mean by knowledge. Language is tricky.

To use your example of a job well done. Ok, so I 'know' I did a job well done because I have the thought, 'wow I did a great job' and the feeling of relief, satisfaction, etc.. so there is a thought and a feeling.. and you rest in that? :shrug:
Perhaps 'knowing' would be a more apt rendering in some cases, to indicate an active state more so than the passive 'knowledge'.
Yes - I think that's a good point.

I sometimes think of it like directly knowing that the sky is blue by looking up at the sky. Getting distracted from rigpa is looking at something else in a moment of being absent mindedly distracted. The four cog bzhag (or any other instruction) is looking back up and therefore getting back to the directly knowing that the sky is blue.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:14 pm
by krodha
mzaur wrote: Ah, that's a great analogy. Thanks
Another good analogy is the attempt to describe the color red to someone blind since birth. The knowledge is a direct, innate, first hand apperceiving. Fully experiential. The intellect actually serves as a double edged sword in actualizing the truth rigpa represents, knowing the right balance is key(intellect will point you in the right direction but cannot take you there).

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:37 pm
by Malcolm
Dronma wrote:Sometimes, English scholars are using the Greek term Gnosis for indicating Rigpa in a more fancy way, which is wrong as I have posted in many threads before.
Because gnosis means knowledge. As Greek, I would never say that Rigpa is Gnosis (Γνώσις). But I would say that Rigpa is Anagnorisis (Αναγνώρισις), which includes etymologically the root of the term Gnosis in it, but it is more specific and can be translated in English as Recognition.
RIgpa comes from recognition and is based on recogniton.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:45 pm
by Grigoris
Namdrol wrote:RIgpa comes from recognition and is based on recogniton.
But surely recognition necessitates a mediation. I mean there has to be something recognised and a recogniser, right? In which case it all goes down the tubes again. I guess we can put it down to the shortcomings of language.
:namaste:

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:01 pm
by Malcolm
gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:RIgpa comes from recognition and is based on recogniton.
But surely recognition necessitates a mediation. I mean there has to be something recognised and a recogniser, right? In which case it all goes down the tubes again. I guess we can put it down to the shortcomings of language.
:namaste:
Non-dual in Dzogchen does not discount a subject and an object. It is just that subject and object are non-dual. So when you recognize your primordial state, you are recognizing your own face, as it were.

The term "recognize" is used over and over again in Dzogchen texts. It is an experiential unmediated direct recognition. That recogniton is the basis for your knowledge/knowing/vidyā. Without that recognition, you are in a state of ingorance/āvidya.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:08 pm
by florin
gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:RIgpa comes from recognition and is based on recogniton.
But surely recognition necessitates a mediation. I mean there has to be something recognised and a recogniser, right? In which case it all goes down the tubes again. I guess we can put it down to the shortcomings of language.
:namaste:
its a meeting of two things .when they meet they become one.like water being poured into water or like when you break a vase.When the vase is broken there is a meeting of two things.the inner space and outer space.
this is the dynamic of it.but there is more to it.and they've never been two things. :smile:

you have to go through the motions of understanding/seeing what recognizer/recognized is.
Once you see, then there will be a point where by moving into a particular direction there will be melting.And then you have to stay there. :smile:

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:43 pm
by Dronma
Namdrol wrote:
Dronma wrote:Sometimes, English scholars are using the Greek term Gnosis for indicating Rigpa in a more fancy way, which is wrong as I have posted in many threads before.
Because gnosis means knowledge. As Greek, I would never say that Rigpa is Gnosis (Γνώσις). But I would say that Rigpa is Anagnorisis (Αναγνώρισις), which includes etymologically the root of the term Gnosis in it, but it is more specific and can be translated in English as Recognition.
RIgpa comes from recognition and is based on recogniton.
Yes, exactly. I am using the term Rigpa as it has been transmitted by ChNN.
Rigpa is not the Primordial State itself.
Rigpa is the discovery (or recognition) of the Primordial State.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:45 am
by Grigoris
Namdrol wrote:Non-dual in Dzogchen does not discount a subject and an object. It is just that subject and object are non-dual. So when you recognize your primordial state, you are recognizing your own face, as it were.

The term "recognize" is used over and over again in Dzogchen texts. It is an experiential unmediated direct recognition. That recogniton is the basis for your knowledge/knowing/vidyā. Without that recognition, you are in a state of ingorance/āvidya.
I like this! It seems like a good upaya to circumvent the preponderence of most Buddhist to deny the validity of the relative in preference for an attachment to what they conceive of as "the ultimate". :thumbsup:

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:04 am
by muni
Dronma wrote:
muni wrote: practice, whether on vespa or in rollsroyce.
Hi!
Two shoes with nice sole, are just fitting to 'reach here'.

:smile:

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:16 pm
by White Lotus
a nice cup of hot chocolate!

my shoes are comfortable too, but difficult to get on.

Tom.

Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:37 pm
by Dechen Norbu
:focus:
Please avoid that sort of cryptic sentences.
They may mean something for you, but they don't help the discussion at all.
Similar posts will be deleted without warning.

Thank you.