Namdrol wrote:
What are you, a Heidegger fan?
And what are you, a polymath?
Namdrol wrote:
What are you, a Heidegger fan?
Yes, that much I know.Virgo wrote:That nature is always there. If there is any light, any existence, any blood, any form, any thing at all, then the nature is already available.padma norbu wrote: I suppose this may have something to do with the many things ChNN has said over the years that make me just go, "HUH?" like in the My Reincarnation movie where he tells the student (paraphrased), "there is not really much to change, it is not like one day you are transformed. Practice is about discovering something and becoming aware of that knowledge and working with that knowledge" ... and also his repeated instruction to remain present when we are going about our daily activities. Becoming aware of how the mind works and being mindful of it seems to be what rigpa is about, if I am not misunderstanding something or going too far here.
Uh... I really didn't think you did.Virgo wrote:You don't need a coupon, a discount, a charge card, a bucket, anything.
If we don't discover it and we don't maintain awareness, it doesn't make much difference to us if everything is perfect; we will continue on in delusion and cycle through samsara.Virgo wrote: It's there. So there is nothing to worry about. All things have the same essence. Everything is perfect.
Wittgenstein too:Namdrol wrote:What are you, a Heidegger fan?gad rgyangs wrote:Rigpa is that which enables you to be astonished that there is something rather than nothing.
It's the kind of thinking that can make you go insane, actually. At least, that's what I gathered from a BBC documentary called "Dangerous Knowledge" and some experience with people who've gone made trying to figure out the nature of reality purely intellectually and conceptually.gad rgyangs wrote:Wittgenstein too:Namdrol wrote:What are you, a Heidegger fan?gad rgyangs wrote:Rigpa is that which enables you to be astonished that there is something rather than nothing.
"I wonder at the existence of the world. And I am then inclined to use such phrases as 'how extraordinary that anything should exist' or 'how extraordinary that the world should exist'."
- Wittgenstein, "A Lecture on Ethics" (1929)
There is no conceptual knowledge apart from thoughts because this is the conceptual obscuration, the heart of "sem". Allowing the self-liberation of "sem" is rigpa.Namdrol wrote:Rig pa cog bzhag is allowing all thoughts to be as they are. Conceptual knowledge is included in thoughts.heart wrote:
I am afraid that makes no sense. Does ChNN say this?
/magnus
heart wrote:There is no conceptual knowledge apart from thoughts because this is the conceptual obscuration, the heart of "sem". Allowing the self-liberation of "sem" is rigpa.Namdrol wrote:Rig pa cog bzhag is allowing all thoughts to be as they are. Conceptual knowledge is included in thoughts.heart wrote:
I am afraid that makes no sense. Does ChNN say this?
/magnus
/magnus
Namdrol wrote: For this reason we can understand that thoughts are included in rigpa.
N
As you say rigpa is knowledge, knowledge of our natural state, knowledge of the Base. And the Base has three aspects : Essence, Nature, and Energy ... and Energy is without interruption, the thoughts.alwayson wrote:Namdrol wrote: For this reason we can understand that thoughts are included in rigpa.
N
How can thoughts be included in rigpa??
What about the infamous distinction between rigpa (knowledge) and sems, expounded by the omniscient masters?
Thoughts are the energy [rtsal] of rigpa.alwayson wrote:Namdrol wrote: For this reason we can understand that thoughts are included in rigpa.
N
How can thoughts be included in rigpa??
What about the infamous distinction between rigpa (knowledge) and sems, expounded by the omniscient masters?
No impact, and no, a Buddha still has no thoughts since, from a Dzogchen POV, mind is the result of karmic winds mixing with the rtsal of rigpa.conebeckham wrote:From the POV of Dzokchen, would a fully enlightened Buddha have "thoughts?" I'm thinking of the Madhyamika thread......I understand that the nature of thoughts is the energy of rigpa, but how does this impact the discussion of Buddhas being concept-free?
Then what is the rtsal of rigpa when no thoughts?Namdrol wrote:No impact, and no, a Buddha still has no thoughts since, from a Dzogchen POV, mind is the result of karmic winds mixing with the rtsal of rigpa.conebeckham wrote:From the POV of Dzokchen, would a fully enlightened Buddha have "thoughts?" I'm thinking of the Madhyamika thread......I understand that the nature of thoughts is the energy of rigpa, but how does this impact the discussion of Buddhas being concept-free?
N
Thoughts are always conceptual, but knowledge might be from concepts.Sönam wrote:Thoughts are not necessarily conceptuals ...
Sönam
A single essence doesn't mean they are the same. Like the nature of mind not being the same as mind. Actually, what you say sounds more Mahamudra related then Dzogchen.Namdrol wrote:heart wrote:There is no conceptual knowledge apart from thoughts because this is the conceptual obscuration, the heart of "sem". Allowing the self-liberation of "sem" is rigpa.Namdrol wrote:
Rig pa cog bzhag is allowing all thoughts to be as they are. Conceptual knowledge is included in thoughts.
/magnus
In The Lamp of Vidyā, five aspects of vidyā are described. According to Vimalamitra, the first, the vidyā which apprehends characteristics, designates general and specific phenomena, it is a non-conceptual awareness sullied by many cognitions.
When asked "Are those vidyā’ the same, or are they different?", the reply is that there is nothing other than a single essence.
For this reason we can understand that thoughts are included in rigpa.
N
Sönam wrote:Then what is the rtsal of rigpa when no thoughts?Namdrol wrote:No impact, and no, a Buddha still has no thoughts since, from a Dzogchen POV, mind is the result of karmic winds mixing with the rtsal of rigpa.conebeckham wrote:From the POV of Dzokchen, would a fully enlightened Buddha have "thoughts?" I'm thinking of the Madhyamika thread......I understand that the nature of thoughts is the energy of rigpa, but how does this impact the discussion of Buddhas being concept-free?
N
Sönam
heart wrote:
A single essence doesn't mean they are the same. Like the nature of mind not being the same as mind. Actually, what you say sounds more Mahamudra related then Dzogchen.
/magnus
Namdrol wrote: mind is the result of karmic winds mixing with the rtsal of rigpa.
N
Namdrol wrote: Thoughts are the energy [rtsal] of rigpa.
N
It means knowing the difference between the crystal that produces a rainbow and the rainbow projected from the crystal -- the rtsal of the crystal produces the rainbow, the rainbow comes from the crystal but is not part of the crystal. Likewise, thoughts come from the energy of vidyā, but they are not vidyā.alwayson wrote:Namdrol wrote: mind is the result of karmic winds mixing with the rtsal of rigpa.
NNamdrol wrote: Thoughts are the energy [rtsal] of rigpa.
N
Sure I believe all that
Then what does distinguishing between rigpa and sems mean if sems is actually partly derived from rigpa......