The Four Paths of Enlightenment Model

"Daniel wrote: Kenneth, if I may presume to speak for him, as we just went over this between us, defines Buddhahood as full-time Rigpa and awareness of being in Rigpa, which even Sid the Buddha didn't achieve, as he said, when asked if he was perpetually aware of the fact that he was awake, something like, "No, but that aspect of things is there whenever I turn my mind to it, and I don't need to be continually aware of that aspect of things for it to function," the specific sutta number long forgotten by me, as I read it about a decade ago. "

Hi Daniel,
Thanks for weighing in here and correcting my misstatement of your position regarding whether arahantship and buddhahood are the same. I regret my error.

Now, in your more recent post that I quoted here, your paraphrase of the Buddha brings up an interesting point. If one knows Rigpa and can access it at any time, then the choice not to do so may be made for very good and practical reasons, reasons such as the need to interact with others in order to teach, to spread the Dharma, and to help others toward Awakening. This is the difference between a Buddha, who acts for the good of others, and a Pratyeka Buddha who does not, choosing to dwell in silent absorption instead.

Part of the Buddha's functionality that helps others toward Awakening comes in subtle form. It is associated with the bodily presence of the Awakened One whether or not he (or she) generates the conscious intention for this to happen. That is to say, there is a force which operates like a field around the Awakened One which can induce various phenomena in the body-minds of those nearby (or sometimes far away) who are sensitive and receptive to it. So, in the quote/paraphrase you provided, it seems to me that the Buddha is referring to this inductive field when he says "I don't need to be continually aware of that aspect of things for it to function."

Regards,
Gozen

"@Daniel: Kenneth, if I may presume to speak for him, as we just went over this between us, defines Buddhahood as full-time Rigpa and awareness of being in Rigpa, which even Sid the Buddha didn't achieve, as he said, when asked if he was perpetually aware of the fact that he was awake, something like, "No, but that aspect of things is there whenever I turn my mind to it, and I don't need to be continually aware of that aspect of things for it to function," the specific sutta number long forgotten by me, as I read it about a decade ago."

I would love to find the reference to that sutta. Does anyone have any idea which text it is from?

~Jackson

Tibetan adepts such as Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and Sogyal Rinpoche are clear when they say one can think, speak and teach while in Rigpa, which is in fact, the ideal place to do so. My experience is that one can do this; however, it becomes increasingly difficult to go into contrived, mental elaborations. Rigpa does not preclude it, but is not conducive to it; which I think shows these are two different faculties of mind, and mental elaboration is not natural to Rigpa - it is a non-conceptual way of being. It is like one 'knows' non-conceptually, and then there is an effort to translate it into language. It is the process of translation and the activation of additional bio-psycho faculties that place one at risk of distraction and losing Rigpa. It clearly can be done, and the Tibetans consider it something to aspire to - full integration with daily life and through dreamless sleep also.

[cont]

I have observed myself attempt to carry out complex cognitive processes of induction, deduction, communication and social judgements etc, and where the difficulty lies is being distracted from the view of Rigpa '“ the complexity and effort seems to absorb us into the mentation, causing us to lose contact with the natural state. In order to be successful, one has remain aware of Rigpa and the mentations simultaneously '“ mentations are just objects of experience like any other; it is as though one observes the mentations, rather than identifying with them as the '˜sole' objects of awareness, as is often the case when people are not aware of anything else while they are caught up in thought.

So, my feeling is that Buddhahood is indeed different, and is likely persistent, effortless Rigpa.

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for typo.

I know this is getting ridiculous, but I advocate that some coherent and consistent attempt at defining Rigpa happen so that we can all be clear about this, as I really don't think everyone is on the same page about this thing.

I was just talking to Kenneth, and for him Rigpa is just an instant, and then maybe a second later another instant, all proto- or pre-concept and pre-thought and duality, not something to dwell in.

It sounds like Adam has either a different thing he calls Rigpa, or has done something different with the same thing.

I think more terminological work needs to be done.

I really have no business opening my mouth, so to speak, among the accomplished, (So don't waste time telling me so: I'm obviously shamelessly going to do it anyway.) It's just that what appears to be needless confusion goads me into doing it.

So here goes: Rigpa / rigpa (the capitalization thing is our Western way of indicating extreme importance) is NOT-- a state of mind, an accomplishment, a body of knowledge-- however rarefied and subtle-- an experience, a quality that some can have and others lack (like 'a' buddha or 'The' Buddha), or any other THING that can be defined (delimited). This is what makes it difficult to write about/conceptualize and makes us trap ourselves in our attempts.

The 'experience' of recognizing rigpa (best indicated by 'nature of mind'-- mind being understood as a function or constellation of functions rather than an object)-- that IS an experience. The best analogy that conveys the startling simplicity of the experience is that the 'objects' of our awareness blink into the background and that 'background' (awareness) is suddenly apprehensible in a way that is unmistakeable, inarguable-- and, I would say, funny. Because it has been there all along!

Given this experience, however brief or extensive and by whatever means-- the practice to which 'meditation' 'yoga' etc. were the prelude, the practice demanded by the understanding of the actual functioning of reality-- the lifelong practice of enlightened living, begins. It is a practice because it doesn't just happen automatically. And various scriptures seem to caution that it is difficult and even dangerous, so that the support of teacher, teachings, and fellow sojourners is as precious as jewels.

"yet again, dear friends, unto the breach"
-- Kate Gowen

Well done, Kate!

I have to revert back to my previous comments on this subject and say that there are many, many awakened masters who have no trouble with the notion or existence of rigpa (or whatever you choose to call it) as something very different than the accomplishments of the Arahat. These masters include many from the Theravada tradition. Not only do these masters recognize rigpa, but they encourage the experience of it and they teach it. So I kinda don't think it's as big a deal (the differences) as some folks make it out to be.

But what do I know? That's just me speaking from all my inglorious foolishness.

...

From Wikipedia:

Rigpa (Tibetan; Sanskrit vidya) is the primordial, nondual awareness advocated by the Dzogchen and Mahamudra teachings.

"Rigpa is a Tibetan word, which in general means '˜intelligence' or '˜awareness'. In Dzogchen, however, the highest teachings in the Buddhist tradition of Tibet, rigpa has a deeper connotation, '˜the innermost nature of the mind'. The whole of the teaching of Buddha is directed towards realizing this, our ultimate nature, the state of omniscience or enlightenment '“ a truth so universal, so primordial that it goes beyond all limits, and beyond even religion itself.

'”Sogyal Rinpoche

Dear CMarti,

Interesting. I would be interested in the references for the Theravadans who teach Rigpa you mention and their differentiation from whatever definition of arahat, realizing that at least two different definitions of arahat are routinely used here, neither of which particularly close to the standard ones used by many Theravadans in certain key aspects. Thai Forest? Vietnamese?

Hey Michael!

Yeah, to realize Rigpa, is to 'recognize' the nature of mind, of one's own mind. It is an expereince insofar as it is an instance of conscious recognition here and now; you might say it is the same as recognizing the Tao as one's very own nature, Being and self. In so doing, one recgnizes that this has always been the case, and nothing in fact has changed. Before this recognition we were ignorant of the nature of things, now, in this moment, we are not. We are omniscient insofar as we know the true nature of things as they are here and now and have always been; not in terms of we know all concepts and ideas. In this recognition we directly apprehend that there is no-self, 'I' or ego as any kind of permaent substrate or atman. And yet, existence, experience and beingness has alwasy been the case, yet there is no one that experiences, nor any thing that is experienced; just experience or be-ing itself.

Often, due to mental habits, we cannot maintain this recognition, and slip back into ignorance where we no longer have real-time recogniztion or contact with the Tao; it becomes but a memory.

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hi AugustLeo, nice to see you here I remember you from TaoBums

For everyone, though I'm not qualified to comment.. I would like to point out that there is a book written on Rigpa from the Theravada POV : Small Boat, Great Mountain by Amaro Bhikku

www.abhayagiri.org/pdf/books/SmallBoat.pdf

mikael

"Thai Forest? Vietnamese?"

Daniel, yes, Thai Forest. "Small Boat Great Mountain" is one of Ajahn Amaro's works that I would point to, and look to the post just above this one for the link (thank you mikaelz). I would also point to Christopher Titmuss. In many of his writings and his talks he refers to something he calls "Truth." You can find some of the relevant material here:

christophertitmuss.org/blog/?p=50#more-50

And if you listen through these talks there's much more:

www.christophertitmuss.org/index.php/welcome/eng/free_downloads

-- as a kind of amplifying postscript:

It occurs to me that the formulation about 'not this, nor its opposite, nor both, nor neither' is an attempt to convey the indefinablity of rigpa/nature of awareness. Like a koan, or a sublimely jarring paradox, or calling 'it' the Tao, or 'the Inconceivable', or forbidding saying or writing the name of 'God', or making a representation of same-- it brings the busy little conceptual process that is blinding us to a screeching halt. Unfortunately, our response to this tends to be a mad scramble to get even cleverer about stuffing the genii back in the bottle. 'To define the undefinable, describe the indescribable, unscrew the inscrutable...'-- or something like that.

dementedly,
Kate

Dementedly Indeed!

Dear CMarti:

I studied with Christopher for 9+17+27+10+a few days on retreat with him in the US, India, and his home, England at his retreat center Gaia House. I have a few of his books, and have read them a few times. He actually was the person to which I reported stream entry and was later the person who first gave me permission to teach. I am very familiar with his teachings and his style and they helped me a lot. I owe him much and am very grateful for all his freely given aid. I find no reference to a permanent abiding Rigpa in Christopher's material, the type described by Kenneth, who is my primary conceptual foil in this particular exchange. Adam's definition is much closer to my definition of arahat, as I read him.

I am reading SBGM now, and enjoying it.

As to Kate's attempt to Nagarjunify the discussion of Rigpa, I do think the point is valid, but there are lots of "aroundums" that can be discussed, as well as technical aspects, that may help to get people on more of a similar page with a word that clearly is not straightforward and I still think is being used by different people different ways. For instance, I can distinguish Fruition from Nirodha Samapatti with ease despite the fact that both involve the complete vanishing of all sensate reality, and can do this by the setup, context, entrance, exit, afterglow, and implications of duration by external phenomena before and after. These sort of reproducible, criteria-based discussions, as well as any impressions of the thing, limitations, what happens in Rigpa, what doesn't, etc. help narrow things to the realm of manageable. This sort of careful, descriptive, analytical work can be done in this context and has failed to be done with the precision and care I tend to advocate with things at this level, which so often become a mush-fest of limp, useless, crap that people either hug, get drunk on, or sling at each other. I think we can do better.

Hey Daniel!

Thanks for your participation!

"I think we can do better." - Daniel. Agreed. I wonder if to that end, you'd like to provide the essential points of your conceptual and experiential presentation of what and how Arhat means and feels to you, and how a person would know it had been attained? Thus, we can start from there in comparing it with what could be said about Rigpa. It may be that it turns out to be the same thing; or not.

Thanks mate!

Edited for grammar

" This principle of nonabiding is also contained within the ancient
Theravada teachings. It wasn't just Ajahn Chah's personal insight
or the legacy of some stray Nyingmapa lama who wandered
over the mountains and fetched up in northeast Thailand 100
years ago. Right in the Pali Canon, the Buddha points directly
to this. In the Udaμna (the collection of 'Inspired Utterances'
of the Buddha), he says:
There is that sphere of being where there is no earth,
no water, no fire, nor wind; no experience of infinity
of space, of infinity of consciousness, of no-thingness,
or even of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; here
there is neither this world nor another world, neither
moon nor sun; this sphere of being I call neither a coming
nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor
a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution, and no
support: it is the end of dukkha. (ud. 8.1)
Rigpa, nondual awareness, is the direct knowing of this. It's
the quality of mind that knows, while abiding nowhere. "

-- what Ajahn Amaro says... [from Small Boat, Great Mountain]

Kate (drunk as charged, yer honor)

"
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!
"


Sorry about that, that was my "immature voice" as the Big Mind Zen people would say... Sometimes I really can't help myself - I really am, as my wife describes it, "easily entertained."

Daniel said: " was just talking to Kenneth, and for him Rigpa is just an instant, and then maybe a second later another instant, all proto- or pre-concept and pre-thought and duality, not something to dwell in. It sounds like Adam has either a different thing he calls Rigpa, or has done something different with the same thing."

I think I can shed some light on that. Kenneth introduced me to it, but I've been studying a lot of the original source materials.

Rigpa is the same as what the Mahamudra people call "non-meditation." Both the Dzogchen and the Mahamudra people admit that. The only real difference in the tradition is that the Mahamudra people have endless preparation before they even attempt the "state", while the Dzogchen people go straight to the punchline.

It should be noted, however, that Dzogchen can not be said to be a pure direct path, like Adavaita. There is a three stage developmental scheme: 1. Introduction - a master will "point it out" to a student (often people will "peek at it" as Daniel describes Kenneth doing). 2. Stabilization (it will begin to stabilize for longer and longer periods of time) 3. Abiding (the practice is to abide in nondual awareness as much as possible.

Nonmeditation has been pretty well described - there is no effort not to think, and thoughts may arise and pass, I feel reasonably certain one might experience pain while in that state, and indeed, all the other claims that Adam makes about it, once the stabilization has occurred.

Thanks Dave, for the clarification.

Speaking with a long time Mahamudra student - I posted his youtube videos on this site - he said the other day, non-meditation proper is done once one has realized Rigpa / Mahamudra per se, then there is abiding in the natural state, with no effort to do or not do, since there is no ego present or functioning at this point; thus, there is just 'being' in and as 'clear-seeing' as non-meditation. Until then, while we are in a state of subject-object dualism - even if wholly relaxed and non-identified as such, we are practicing shamatha without object, which is merely calm abiding in the present. So, as I understand it, non-meditation is more than simply not-meditating, or not-doing - natural just-being, without effort or intention - rather, it is the actual fruit, path and ground of ongoing non-dual abiding - Rigpa - that just IS in and of itself. Non-meditation is a post-enlightenment practice of no-practice. It is by definition, not possible unless enlightened - in Rigpa - until then, there is meditation of some kind.

Interestingly, this brings up Dogon's Shikantaza paradox of 'just sitting' as enlightenment here and now, rather than a fruit of attainment. Which is clearly true, and yet, clearly, just because we sit naturally in an uncontrived manner does not mean we recognize the nature of mind or our own enlightenment here and now either. So there is an equivocation here, where two apparently true propositions are in contradiction - hence the paradox. The recognition of Rigpa or the nature of mind is something that is very real and visceral and far from abstract or conceptual; nor more of the same ongoing dukkha of a suffering, dualisticly predicated, yet fully relaxed, non-efforting, non-conceptual, non-verbal ego-mind, as I know you'd agree. And yet, as Kate said, it is laughably ordinary.

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for clarity

"
"

...

...

Primordial awareness is a self-less impersonal non-dual awareness that stands prior to the consciousness of the 6 senses (vijnana skandha). It is that which enters and exits the Jhanas, that which goes through the stages of insight. It contains all objects. Yet, it transcends all objects. Thoughts, sensations, perceptions abide within it. Thoughts, sensations and perceptions are not separated from it. It is the witness and the substance of thoughts, sensations and perceptions.

Since it is prior to thoughts and words, no words can adequately describe it. Some call it Buddha-nature, the citta, rigpa, emptiness of self and phenomena, the white ox on open ground, the original face, the great seal or the non-abiding mind, but these are just words, just fingers pointing to the moon.

Now getting back to the Four Paths Model, evidence shows that one may get a glimpse of 'it' before reaching the third path. The Four Path Theravada model is a wonderful tool. Unfortunately, it doesn't match other (Mahayana or Vajrayana) paths, like the Dzogchen or Mahamudra Path. For an accurate Zen map, I would strongly suggest Mumon Yamada Roshi's "Lectures of the ten oxherding pictures".

"Nonmeditation has been pretty well described - there is no effort not to think, and thoughts may arise and pass, I feel reasonably certain one might experience pain while in that state, and indeed, all the other claims that Adam makes about it, once the stabilization has occurred."-Haquan

"This sort of careful, descriptive, analytical work can be done in this context and has failed to be done with the precision and care I tend to advocate with things at this level, which so often become a mush-fest of limp, useless, crap that people either hug, get drunk on, or sling at each other. I think we can do better."-Daniel Ingram

(Note: Daniel was not responding to Haguan's comment, but rather to the general tone of the discussion.)

Inspired by Daniel's exhortations to communicative rigor, I've adopted the narrowest possible definition of rigpa, presented here by Tulku Urgyen:

"Simply allow present wakefulness to be naturally stable by being free of thought. Be stable not in keeping a thought but in the absence of thought.

"To do so is to experience what we call present wakefulness, or thought-free wakefulness. Thought-free means free of conceptual thinking, yet the knowing or awake quality is not lost... The awake quality is not lost, and yet there is no thought. If you spend your life practicing like this, eventually thinking will get weaker and thoughts will decrease. But the continuity of thought-free wakefulness is not lost. It lasts for longer and longer periods naturally, of its own accord, while the moments of conceptual thinking become weaker and take up less time. Finally, you become totally free of thought. Conceptual thinking disappears, and there is only present thought-free wakefulness, uninterrupted through both day and night. That is called buddha mind" (Urgyen, Quintessential Dzogchen, 171, 172).

bit.ly/90zfsw

(cont)

(cont)

My own experience of this thought-free state lasts for just a moment before distraction calls. Even so, the effect on my life has been utterly transformative; to be able to notice these fresh moments of buddha nature anytime is the most wonderful gift. Leaving aside, for a moment, the seemingly impossibly high standard of full time rigpa as defined here, Tsoknyi Rinpoche's formula of "small moments many times" is highly recommended.

Of course it is possible to widen the definition of rigpa to include conceptual thought, in which case it becomes possible to know rigpa for longer periods of time even for those of us who are not yet buddhas.

One final point is that there should be some golden middle path between flaccid conceptual mushiness on the one hand and behaving like newly arrived visitors from the planet Reduction on the other. We can keep working to refine our communication, hopefully with the idea of helping each other know freedom. But no amount of bluster will reduce rigpa to a concept.

Kenneth