The Four Paths of Enlightenment Model

"
" 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)"

Hi Kate,
Thanks for posting Ajahn Amaro's comments and his quote from the Buddha. Perhaps Daniel can, on the basis of his hard-core criteria, fault the lack of precision in the Buddha's statement. And, yes, it lacks the precision that one would need for performing a medical procedure. Still, I cannot help but smile and say with delight "Yes, that's IT! If this be mushiness, then let's take it in our drunken embrace. In poetry too, not only in science or pragmatic practice protocols, there is wisdom."

Regards,
Gozen

I have to say (after reading this thread while eating some grits with cheese) this debate (I don't know what else to call it) always bothers me. It did so previously but from an ill-defined place. After talking this over with a friend of the Dzogchen persuasion, I'm sure I now know why: it's pointless.

In vipassana (Kenneth'sFirst Gear) we spend a lot of time investigating. This presumes there is a self involved, doing something. The objective is, of course, to realize the nature of the self - that is doing the investigating. I did that for a long time, and still do. But one day something completely unexpected - by me - occurred, and it was different than the insights I'd been having through vipassana practice. The world melted into something else where there was no investigator, and as Kate has said, objects faded into the background and awareness came forward. It was clear to me from that time on that THAT was a thing that mattered. I've continued my vispassana/First Gear practice since, but I also pursue this other thing - which I can uncover in a very different way, using a different kind of practice. I think that thing is rigpa, or as my Dzogchen friend said, "the main point." I'm not after some kind of purity in my dharma. I want to practice what works.

All that is a lot of words that mean to say more simply - there's room in my practice for both. In fact, I want both. So from now on when this comes up I'm going to imitate BIll Murray in the movie "Meatballs" --

"It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter."

"
I have to say (after reading this thread while eating some grits with cheese) this debate (I don't know what else to call it) always bothers me. It did so previously but from an ill-defined place. After talking this over with a friend of the Dzogchen persuasion, I'm sure I now know why: it's pointless.

In vipassana (Kenneth'sFirst Gear) we spend a lot of time investigating. This presumes there is a self involved, doing something. The objective is, of course, to realize the nature of the self - that is doing the investigating. I did that for a long time, and still do. But one day something completely unexpected - by me - occurred, and it was different than the insights I'd been having through vipassana practice. The world melted into something else where there was no investigator, and as Kate has said, objects faded into the background and awareness came forward. It was clear to me from that time on that THAT was a thing that mattered. I've continued my vispassana/First Gear practice since, but I also pursue this other thing - which I can uncover in a very different way, using a different kind of practice. I think that thing is rigpa, or as my Dzogchen friend said, "the main point." I'm not after some kind of purity in my dharma. I want to practice what works.

All that is a lot of words that mean to say more simply - there's room in my practice for both. In fact, I want both. So from now on when this comes up I'm going to imitate BIll Murray in the movie "Meatballs" --

"It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter."

"

Hi Chris,
Thanks for bringing some grits-with-cheese sanity to this debate. The angels were getting sore feet from dancing on the head of this pin point.

Regards,
Gozen

"(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.

"

Hey Kenneth,
When in Rigpa, is there any perception of prelinguistic protocognitive structures or processes - formations (for you)? Another way to ask this might be, is prajna present? The etymology seems to suggest "knowing". There's also interesting stuff in the old texts about "entering into sound." Can you comment on that at all?

Part of what we are doing is creating a language to describe structures or processes in our experiences of special 'states'. Creating a kind of taxonomy can be useful for various reasons - we can compare to see if we are doing the same things, and use it to refine our own technique. I share Daniel's enthusiasm for precise terminology.

I had read somewhere that in nonmeditation (which is, for the record, a form of meditation) that "if a thought arises, we let it rise, we do not resist it" etc. But yes, the general impression is that a full on engagement with linguistic formulations (actively thinking) is not happening much. I'll try to find the reference. Should we define thought as "inner monologue"?

Maybe the practice of nonmeditation is trying to get periods of Rigpa - and Rigpa is the non-goal of nonmeditation?
D

Have any of the other Dzogchen/Mahamudra enthusiasts out there encountered the teaching that, at the level of nondual realization, all experience/phenomena becomes 'the ornament of Rigpa', or, as the title of one of my books has it: "confusion dawns as wisdom."--?

The immense inspiration provided by such teachings may have the unsightly effect of making 'cheap drunks' of some of us, but it also fills in the blanks about the further end of the map, where 'sila is the last practice.' I'm not sure what is the cause of what feels like outrage over a proffered extension of the MCTOB map. [If it's just that MY manner seems offensively casual and unrigorous-- I can try to express myself more soberly.][here, anyway]

Kate

"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)."

Hey Kenneth!

Thanks for the reminder that it really is that simple and direct. I think the next level of attainment is continuity or undistractedness of 'wakefulness' even in the presence of thought and activity. Next beyond that, is continuity of 'wakefulness' through dreams and dreamless sleep. Its all about whether we are distracted from this essential wakefulness or not - that wakefulness or clarity or inherent, essential cognizance is the constant in reality, the constant in impermanence.

[cont.]

I think an interesting experiment is this: sit in meditation, in thought-free natural, ordinary awareness for half an hour to an hour - notice Rigpa dawns (however, long it takes for the noticing), and sustain this natural, thought free wakefulness; then after which, do some reading and writing, and see that this wakefulness continues in the foreground, middle-ground and background, and can be sustained in the presence of mental activity - cognizance of both. Then, unless we are a great adept, we will eventually lose it - this continuity of wakefulness, and fall into distraction. Such as it is. ;-P But I think we will find that it can be done.

In kind regards,

Adam.

" I think the next level of attainment is continuity or undistractedness of 'wakefulness' even in the presence of thought and activity." -Adam West

Hi Adam,

I chose this passage because it is so uncompromisingly clear. For Urgyen, there is no movement toward integration of thought. Notice that Urgyen talks about extending this thought-free state, as opposed to integrating thought into it.

Both of these are lofty and worthy goals, of course, but they are not the same. Urgyen does not see the integration of thought into rigpa as a goal, at least according to this passage. He has chosen a very narrow definition of rigpa, which does not include conceptual thought. If there is an advantage to arbitrarily choosing such a narrow definition, it is simply in precision of language for the sake of discussion. I confess that being thought-free is not one of my personal goals, but I love the "intellectual rigor" shown by Urgyen in this case.

In other words, you are right that there is a situation in which thought and wakefulness are integrated; it's just not what Urgyen calls rigpa.

Kenneth

"
When in Rigpa, is there any perception of prelinguistic protocognitive structures or processes - formations (for you)? Another way to ask this might be, is prajna present? The etymology seems to suggest "knowing". There's also interesting stuff in the old texts about "entering into sound." Can you comment on that at all?"

Aside from the "entering into sound" which I believe has something to do with fully engaging the present moment as it evolves, I think I can answer my own questions.

That would be a "no," to all three. Apparently there are three errors in nonmeditation: 1. Believing when thoughts are arising it's Rigpa. 2. Believing that dwelling in preverbal cognition (formations) is Rigpa. 3. Entering a formless void from which no thoughts arise and believing that's Rigpa.

Basically what Mahamudra is, is trying to "build the ideal platform" for Rigpa, and then introducing it very precisely. In fact, the literature on the yogic techniques in Mahamudra is "among the most detailed and precise in Buddhist literature." It very much should meet Daniel's needs for rigor.

The problem is that the Tibetans have a very different spin on the formless absorptions in general, and their vocabulary is quite a bit different from the Theravadans. To further confuse things, sometimes they have identical terms for very different things (for example, "fruition"). There are also varied accounts and finally, everyone's insistence that the state be pointed out to you personally by a master in the tradition.

They have a *very* different system, and don't really even think in term of "jhanas" - but rather qualities of mind. I'm trying to assimilate and translate right now...

From what I'm reading, I'll retract my earlier statements regarding thoughts.

Hey Everyone,

Just a bit more from Tulku Urgyen by way of presenting one very clear definition of rigpa. This is not the only definition of rigpa proffered by the various Tibetans, but by cracky, it's a rigorous one!

"The awakened state is free of thought. But merely thinking 'I want to be free of thought" is not the awakened state. It's just another thought. The same goes for checking: 'Is there a thought now,or is it free of thought?" Isn't that just another thought as well? It's necessary to rest totally unmixed with or unpolluted by thought. The awakened state is free of thought, yet vividly awake. If we train in this steadily and gradually, it becomes the fully awakened state, buddhahood... Simply allow present wakefulness to be naturally stable by being free of thought. Be stable not in keeping a thought by in the absence of thought" (Urgyen, Quintessential Dzogchen, 171).

If there is one thing I want to emphasize in these discussions, it's that there isn't just one point of view. There is "no fixed position" as they say in Zen. Anytime we assert anything at all, we are taking a position, and that position is artificially carving out a little piece of Reality and freezing it. We must all become students of perspectives; we can define our terms for the sake of each discussion, and have lots of fun chasing ideas around, but these ideas are not Reality, and no position is privileged over any other.

For the sake of this discussion, I am using Tulku Urgyen's rigorous definition of rigpa. By that definition, integration is a non-starter. Awakeness is resting in mind prior to the arising of thought. This act of recognition of primordial wakefulness is called rigpa. That which is recognized is called buddha nature. If we were all to adopt these definitions, just for the duration of this thread, something interesting might happen.

Kenneth - " I confess that being thought-free is not one of my personal goals, but I love the "intellectual rigor" shown by Urgyen in this case."

When we relax into Rigpa I thought are we were slowing things down enough to realize those "thought free" moments between thoughts. I have glimpses of a shift in perspective here that I have been trying to stabilse. Otherwise this practice is 2nd gear practice anyway.

Has anyone else any success or otherwise with practice like this?

In regards to this enlightenment model,
I am quite interested to hear in what way is the arahat free from craving and aversion, restlessness and worry, etc.

"For the sake of this discussion, I am using Tulku Urgyen's rigorous definition of rigpa. By that definition, integration is a non-starter. Awakeness is resting in mind prior to the arising of thought. This act of recognition of primordial wakefulness is called rigpa. That which is recognized is called buddha nature. If we were all to adopt these definitions, just for the duration of this thread, something interesting might happen."

Kenneth, I support this and I'm a big fan of the most rigorous definition. Why? First, because that's been my experience, and any movement at all, any doing, any thinking at all, taints the thing and just plain shoos it away. Second, without that rigorous definition we get into all that pointless debate over the truth of THE matter which is, as far as I'm concerned, the main point.

JMHO.

"

Just a bit more from Tulku Urgyen by way of presenting one very clear definition of rigpa. This is not the only definition of rigpa proffered by the various Tibetans, but by cracky, it's a rigorous one!"

I'm fine with accepting that definition of Rigpa, but it puts us back at square 1 in defining Buddhahood.

It seems like it would be pretty impractical to be thought free all of the time - you probably couldn't communicate with anyone, or speak. Also this definition of Buddhahood - that of being in perpetual Rigpa, given this particular definition of Rigpa, would seem to preclude Sid from being a Buddha!

David, I think we're entering a hall of mirrors when we talk abut what the historical Buddha could or couldn't do, was or was not, did or did not do. I think the Tibetans and Zen have as good a working knowledge of this subject area as anyone, but I don't view this definition from Kenneth as a step "back." I think it's a step into the clear. It IS impractical to walk around thought-free all the time. In fact. it's probably impossible. But so what? Does one have to BE in rigpa to benefit from it?

I would humbly add, that this first definition applied only to the samatha aspect of dzogchen meditation. Thoughts are later integrated during Trekchod practice, when the dzogchenpa realizes that they are an expression of the natural state, a magical display of the mind. Same applies for all perceptions and sensations. The result is pretty much like living in a lucid dream (according to Alan Wallace who seems to know his stuff).

The goal of Dzogchen is of course not the the absence of thoughts, but Buddhahood, namely the accomplishment of the three bodies of a Buddha (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya) as clearly described in numerous Mahayana sutras, shastras and tantras, but also the Rainbow Body, which is sort of specific to Dzogchen. I heard stories of the rainbow bodies from Lama Mon Lam (Tibetain lineage holder of Kalu Rinpoche and Dudjom Rinpoche), but I remain skeptical.

Which brings us back around to where this all started, with my model of arahatship, in which the true nature of the field of experience, thought and all, is seen as it is in an integrated way, non-dualistically, transient, ephemeral, empty, luminous, thus, an integrated sambhogakaya, nirmahakaya, dharmakaya field, insubstantial, causal, present.

I am going to see if I can figure out how to contact a senior Tulku, Rinpoche, or Lama or two and see what they have to say about it, as we seem to be using their words and arguing about their definitions detached from the living masters of those terms and concepts. This seems strange to me, so in the next day or two I'll try to see if I can send a letter or email to them to see what they think of the no-thought thing and how that relates to the goal and to daily function and to Rigpa. Any thoughts on who would be appropriately realized and credentialed candidates that still draw breath?

"I would humbly add, that this first definition applied only to the samatha aspect of dzogchen meditation. Thoughts are later integrated during Trekchod practice, when the dzogchenpa realizes that they are an expression of the natural state, a magical display of the mind. Same applies for all perceptions and sensations. "

Ah yes, Trekchod, not Rigpa - I think that's where I was getting that about the thoughts. This get's confusing doesn't it?

The Rainbow body is straight out of Taoist Immortality practice - or at least greatly influenced by it. I like the idea, but I'm a Romantic.

Personally, I don't feel like I'd reject whatever feedback you got on findings from the Tibetans based on their credentials, Daniel, but Tarthang Tulku and Sogyal Rinpoche come to mind.

This may be somewhat relevant to the 4 path model: The Mahamudra people talk about 4 stages of realization: 1. One pointedness - the essence of mind is grasped. 2. Nonduality - the nondual nature of experience is grasped. 3. The knowledge that all phenomenon are empty. 4. The absolute knowledge of no-self.

This seems to correlate roughly with the Theravadan model - particularly stage 3 and 4.

Just thought I'd throw that in...

"Daniel: Any thoughts on who would be appropriately realized and credentialed candidates that still draw breath?"

You might have some luck getting a hold of The Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche. He's been on Buddhist Geeks, so there has to be a way to contact him. He's pretty tech savvy, from what I hear (he mentions using a Blackberry on one of the BGeeks episodes). If I find a way to contact him I'll let you know.

I was musing about the various definitions of rigpa this morning. It seems that we could talk about concentric circles, with more precise or limited definitions toward the center, and getting more inclusive or "loose" as we go outward. The inner circle might look like this:

If you are sitting around congratulating yourself for being "in rigpa," that isn't rigpa.

If the thought "I" arises, that isn't rigpa.

If the sense of time is present, that isn't rigpa.

Of course, there is that wonderful sensation of happiness and contentment that comes whenever one has just been in rigpa, but I think that by the most "rigorous" definition, we should call that "being in and out" of rigpa, rather than an extension of rigpa.. In other words, why use the same word? It's confusing to use the same word to describe contradictory things. Either rigpa refers to a situation "outside of the three times," or it doesn't. I think we should honor all of the various situations, states, and attainments being described in our rigpa discussion, but for the sake of clear communication we should not use the same word to describe them all.

I do see a lot of reverse engineering in these discussions. The logic seems to be:

What happens to me is the the best. Everybody says rigpa is the best. Therefore, what happens to me must be rigpa. I therefore define my experience as rigpa, and rigpa as my experience.

Look how funny we all are with our egoistic investment in showing everyone how enlightened we are. It's something I see in others and in myself as well. The best part, though, is that whenever I notice "the clean thing," I forget to care about myself. Ahhhh...

"All things are resolved in the unborn." -Bankei

"What happens to me is the the best. Everybody says rigpa is the best. Therefore, what happens to me must be rigpa. I therefore define my experience as rigpa, and rigpa as my experience."

Guilty as charged, Your Honor!

One of the funniest teachings I've ever encountered on this subject begins with the apparently high spiritual statement that every sentient being without exception is beginninglessly enlightened and ends with a deflationary thud-- the observation that running around trumpeting 'my enlightenment' is akin to running around yelling about my 'newly-discovered' armpits.

What I've enjoyed, and suspected, and been confounded by, in 'the Tibetans' is that I haven't encountered a one who makes claims for him- or-herself, accomplishment-wise...

And Dogen's statement that 'to study the self is to forget the self; to forget the self is to be enlightened by all things' is of the same spirit: it really doesn't get any better, does it?

Seems like 'defining my experience as ANYTHING' is agreed to be the booby prize by those who seem to know. On the other hand, the stupidest thing I can come up with, seen 'under the aspect of Eternity' is just confusion, delusion-- as fragile as a soap bubble or a mirage. Gone between one breath and the next...

Cheers,
Kate

Hey guys,

I'm quite perplexed about Tulku Urgyen's emphasis on the thought free state. I am wondering two things: (1) the emphasis is an idiosyncrasy of his particular lineage; (2) the teaching, being a public one, is of an introductory level.

As I mentioned the other day, two other prominent Lamas teach that Rigpa - as recognition of basic intrinsic awareness, or nature of mind - is untouched and undisturbed by thought and ordinary activities; and thus, is ongoing through it, which is the ultimate goal and realization. It is the ongoing 'recognition' that is important, not one's mental state.

To recognize Rigpa is to recognize Dharmakaya in real time, and since all is the display of Dharmakaya, then all is recognized to be a display of Dharmakaya including thought and vexed states such as emotions arising out of grasping and aversion, which self-liberate of their own accord. This is what it means to be in non-dual awareness of what is - to be enlightened is see the true condition of things, including thoughts and all as it is, the display of Dharmakaya or essence and nature of mind. Anything rejected like thoughts as 'not it', is by definition not non-dual - it is setting up a dualism that is a false view - not consistent with seeing the nature of things - Dharmakaya as all there is - nothing but Dharmakaya.

That is why in Dzogchen, as I understand it, there is nothing to do or to change - all is already Dharmakaya - we need only recognize that in real time. To be in Rigpa is to recognize this as a direct apprehension in real time. Thus, all is the display of mind, and we recognize this when we are in Rigpa, and hence, thoughts are too, and so we are not touched or disturbed by them, nor do we or could we by definition, say thoughts are not of Dharmakaya.

See below posted quotes.

[cont.] edited for clarity

"Of course, there is that wonderful sensation of happiness and contentment that comes whenever one has just been in rigpa, but I think that by the most "rigorous" definition, we should call that "being in and out" of rigpa, rather than an extension of rigpa.. In other words, why use the same word? It's confusing to use the same word to describe contradictory things. Either rigpa refers to a situation "outside of the three times," or it doesn't. I think we should honor all of the various situations, states, and attainments being described in our rigpa discussion, but for the sake of clear communication we should not use the same word to describe them all."

Kenneth, I couldn't agree with you more. This discussion has really helped me to notice when the recognition of rigpa (what I've heard referred to as the "moment of Dzogchen") actually occurs in my experience. If I'm honest, there's no mistaking when the moment of Dzogchen breaks through, and for me it only lasts but a moment. But each moment is a real zinger! I now understand why the Dzogchen masters are so full of exuberance.

Here's to using precise language to further benefit our practice!

~Jackson

"Kenneth: Look how funny we all are with our egoistic investment in showing everyone how enlightened we are. It's something I see in others and in myself as well. The best part, though, is that whenever I notice "the clean thing," I forget to care about myself. Ahhhh..."

This is truly something I couldn't agree more with. Nowadays I'm not so much concerned of whether I have had awakening experiences in the past or not, but what I am experiencing RIGHT NOW!

But I will go on and off in the states where I try to give different values for the world I'm experiencing right now versus the past experiences I've had. And this judging of course creates pressure to have goals in the future.

But on the other hand this feature is very useful in my life and work f.ex. so I don't want to get a rid of it - perhaps just understand it better so that it doesn't create too much dukkha in my life.