Enlightenment success rate

[Malcolm]

Awareness is an inadequate, unattested, unjustified rendering for rig pa.

You wouldn't have perchance attended the recently concluded translator's conference in Boulder would you? You could've raised the issue there.

It was raised with many people.

[Anonymous X]

It is really quite simple. This translation, one of the earliest made of a Dzogchen introduction text, was made in 1985, 32 years ago. Both teachers with whom Reynolds consulted were not fluent in English at the time this translation was made. We have made considerable progress in Dzogchen studies since that time. This should not be construed as a criticism of Reynolds, he did his best with limited resources.

The use of "awareness" for rig pa in Dzogchen translations has become a chronic issue, one that causes a great deal of misunderstanding, and one it seems few translators have the courage to face. There are really no good words in English which capture the full semantic range of the term rig pa as it is used in Dzogchen, just as "avocado sauce" does not really capture the meaning of the term "guacamole" (from Nahuatl ahuacamolli, from ahuacatl ‘avocado’ + molli ‘sauce.'). Given this, it is as useful to translate rig pa as "awareness" as it would be to translate rig pa as "guacamole."

I get your point, but ChNN also uses the term awareness.
Is there another more recent translation of this treatise that you can recommend?

There is Gyurme Dorje's, but it suffers from the same issue. Awareness is an inadequate, unattested, unjustified rendering for rig pa. I am afraid we are stuck with it until enough people have studied enough primary commentaries so the tides shift in a better direction.

Would you agree that the naming of it is not the actual point?

[Anonymous X]

My view is unimportant.

If so, then why say "It is worthless without your own engagement, just like repeating Madhyamaka views. It's quite boring, actually to listen to it all. There's no energy in this kind of repetition."

As for my take on the matter of inherent enlightenment, the true nature of mind, etc., it is too easy to mistake these expressions as some sort of ultimate self, while the whole point is just to recognise that this whole realm of experiences is unestablished as it is, and that non-abiding is the original nature of appearances.

"This dharma body is everything,
it is like an illusory dream, continuously changing.
The passions of greed, anger, and stupidity are all
invisible, changing, and immaterial, like flowing scum.
Observe clearly the human body.
It is not solid but fragile and inconsistent
(once separated, once reassembled).
All the intentions and all the calculations are empty."
(Dharma Flower Samadhi Sutra, T9n269p286b21-24, tr Nguyen Hien)

My only question to you is do you know this throughout your entire being? Otherwise, it is still intellectual.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Otherwise, it is still intellectual.

Well, yeah. Whadya expect, some enlightened being is spending his time posting on DW?

[Anonymous X]

Otherwise, it is still intellectual.

Well, yeah. Whadya expect, some enlightened being is spending his time posting on DW?

In another one of your posts, you mentioned that the level of understanding of most teachers are not even at the first bhumi. So, I don't expect some enlightened being posted on DW. What I do look for is a certain perspective that a poster might have towards all of this and their illusions about it. I think my statement still stands.

[Malcolm]

Would you agree that the naming of it is not the actual point?

Knowledge and awareness are not the same thing.

[Anonymous X]

Would you agree that the naming of it is not the actual point?

Knowledge and awareness are not the same thing.

They may not be, but putting a name on either one doesn't help to give one the experience of it. By your own admission, you say that there is no common word for Rigpa that Dzogchen translators agree upon. I think at best, we get a concept of what is meant by the word, but that is not the actual experience of it.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

What I do look for is a certain perspective that a poster might have towards all of this and their illusions about it. I think my statement still stands.

It's not in the ToS or anything, but if someone claims to be speaking from their own non-intellectual personal experience they get shot down pretty quickly around here. It is effectively claiming spiritual accomplishment. (Exceptions are made for life experiences.) So quoting texts or recognized teachers is the way we have to substantiate our ideas as valid.

The only claim I will make about myself is that I'm clean and sober18 years and did it through NgonDro. I never did AA or rehab. Here at DW that means almost zero. It's seen as analogous to taking the precept against drinking alcohol. But in recovery terms 18 years are bragging rights. Fortunately the subject almost never comes up.

[Anonymous X]

What I do look for is a certain perspective that a poster might have towards all of this and their illusions about it. I think my statement still stands.

It's not in the ToS or anything, but if someone claims to be speaking from their own non-intellectual personal experience they get shot down pretty quickly around here. It is effectively claiming spiritual accomplishment. (Exceptions are made for life experiences.) So quoting texts or recognized teachers is the way we have to substantiate our ideas as valid.

The only claim I will make about myself is that I'm clean and sober18 years and did it through NgonDro. I never did AA or rehab. Here at DW that means almost zero. It's seen as analogous to taking the precept against drinking alcohol. But in recovery terms 18 years are bragging rights. Fortunately the subject almost never comes up.

Your own accomplishment of sobriety stands on its own. You know the truth of it without me or anyone else corroborating it. It is the same with Dharma. You know it as your own state to one degree or another. If you want to talk about it, sure, words must be chosen, but only you know to what extent you are living it.

[Astus]

My only question to you is do you know this throughout your entire being? Otherwise, it is still intellectual.

Know what exactly? Whatever is written is necessarily a verbal-conceptual product. As for the intended meaning, that phenomena are unstable, that is directly perceivable to anyone. But, even though there has never been anything to cling to, it is exactly conceptualisation that creates the illusion of independent objects and subjects. So, what other knowledge is there but intellectual?

[Wayfarer]

what other knowledge is there but intellectual?

How to make pottery. How to play the piano. How to raise a child. How to ski.


I could go on.

[Astus]

How to make pottery. How to play the piano. How to raise a child. How to ski.

Do those knowledges reside in the mind or the body?

[Anonymous X]

My only question to you is do you know this throughout your entire being? Otherwise, it is still intellectual.

Know what exactly? Whatever is written is necessarily a verbal-conceptual product. As for the intended meaning, that phenomena are unstable, that is directly perceivable to anyone. But, even though there has never been anything to cling to, it is exactly conceptualisation that creates the illusion of independent objects and subjects. So, what other knowledge is there but intellectual?

That is my whole point. Zongmi's Knowing/Jnana is not intellectual knowledge. There is no subject/object duality. If you've never experienced this, I can see how you could ask this question.

[Astus]

Zongmi's Knowing/Jnana is not intellectual knowledge.

If you can tell what kind of knowledge it is, how is that not intellectual?

There is no subject/object duality. If you've never experienced this, I can see how you could ask this question.

As there is neither subject to experience it, nor object to be experienced, how could anyone ever experience it?

[Anonymous X]

Zongmi's Knowing/Jnana is not intellectual knowledge.

If you can tell what kind of knowledge it is, how is that not intellectual?

There is no subject/object duality. If you've never experienced this, I can see how you could ask this question.

As there is neither subject to experience it, nor object to be experienced, how could anyone ever experience it?

I'll leave you to figure it out and come back with some more encyclopaedia explanations.

[Malcolm]

Would you agree that the naming of it is not the actual point?

Knowledge and awareness are not the same thing.

They may not be, but putting a name on either one doesn't help to give one the experience of it. By your own admission, you say that there is no common word for Rigpa that Dzogchen translators agree upon. I think at best, we get a concept of what is meant by the word, but that is not the actual experience of it.

There may be no common agreement on what the word rig pa means among some translators, but the commentarial literature is extremely clear on what the word means— it means "knowledge" in general, and specifically, knowledge of the essence. The reason it is best not to use the term "knowledge" in Dzogchen translations, is that the term "knowledge" in English attenuates the meaning too narrowly. Rig pa is a knowledge, but it is a very special kind of knowledge. Rig by it self some cases in Dzogchen texts means "knowing," as in the phrase shes zhing rig, i.e. "consciousness and knowing," or one could say, "conscious and aware." But it never means the noun, "awareness." And commonly in its verbal form, rig bya, it means literally, "one should know."

The experiential knowledge indicated in Dzogchen by the term rig pa cannot be discovered independently, it can only be discovered on the basis of a teacher's intimate instruction. Those who disagree simply do not understand rig pa is in Dzogchen.

[PuerAzaelis]

I'll leave you to figure it out and come back with some more encyclopaedia explanations.

Since your response to conversations that reach certain results is aversion, I'd suggest not having them.

[Malcolm]

How to make pottery. How to play the piano. How to raise a child. How to ski.

Do those knowledges reside in the mind or the body?

Both — the division between mind and body (nāmarūpa) is formal, not actual.

[Astus]

Both — the division between mind and body (nāmarūpa) is formal, not actual.

In what interpretation? Rupa stands for earth, water, fire, and wind - neither of them carries any sentience. As for nama, it consists of feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention - of those perception is associated with memory.

But if the distinction is taken away - i.e. it's all just mind - then again every form of knowledge is of the same kind.

[Malcolm]

Both — the division between mind and body (nāmarūpa) is formal, not actual.

In what interpretation? Rupa stands for earth, water, fire, and wind - neither of them carries any sentience. .

There are no minds without bodies, and no bodies without minds. Mind and matter are coterminous.