In this video, he begins with instructions in Samatha. In future sessions he teaches Vipashana, and finally Tantric Mahamudra methods. Zasep Tulku Rinpoche, illustrated by Ben Christian. Video teaching on Samatha and resting the mind in the natural state at a weekend retreat on Mahamudra with H.
Tag: very subtle mind of clear light
Zasep Rinpoche. Lee Kane is the editor of Buddha Weekly, since His main focuses as a writer are mindfulness techniques, meditation, Dharma and Sutra commentaries, Buddhist practices, international perspectives and traditions, Vajrayana, Mahayana, Zen. He also covers various events. Lee also contributes as a writer to various other online magazines and blogs.
Share via: More. Lee Kane Author Buddha Weekly. Other Popular Stories. The knowing has no ignorance at any time. What I mean Soh, is what you are advising is excellent! But I am saying one can penetrate directly without addressing the issues of two-fold emptiness. The natural knowing is not lacking some insight.
It never strayed into samsara. You really don't get this? I agree with Malcolm! Very little is spoken about ' luminosity ' in sutras like the Prajnaparamita class other than one vague statement as you know and I am not sure of how it is defined there. This luminosity is not only spoken in Buddhist sutras but also in described in various religions including the upanishads which describes the atman-brahman as self-luminous.
This luminous , knowing aspect can be realized without penetrating its empty nature - not in the sense of formlessness , but empty of any self entity. This is why knowingness can be reified in a wrong way such as what happens in Advaita and certain forms of Shentong. Wei Yu, they then didn't know actual " luminosity ". Knowing real Clear Light is knowing its empty nature , that's because the luminosity is itself Wisdom. That wisdom IS the luminosity , yeshe. Malcolm Smith, he is saying that one can realize or recognize the " luminosity " without realizing emptiness.
They are inseparable in time or experience. I thought he said that? O'dsal is luminosity no? Thanks Malcolm for the clarification.
Are there different usage of the term luminosity? The core of mind has two aspects: It does not refer to a light that has the quality of clearness something that makes no sense , actually! Note also that in both Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist literature , this term is frequently abbreviated just to Skt. Hi Soh, I already addressed the errors that Duff makes in his Sanskrit here, if you recall.
This clarity has the quality of svasamvedana rang gyis rig pa , not the same as rang gi rig pa i. However, as a quality of citta , since the citta is momentary, so is it.
For example, it also says ""Because the earth element is naturally luminous , it is pure and totally lacks fundamental afflictions. In a previous thread, you said that Dzogchen does not agree with Gelug's characterization of clear light as momentary, is that right?
Clear light - Rigpa Wiki
The Gelugpa make a distinction between ultimate clear light and the mind of clear light , claiming that the latter is a very subtle momentary mind that forms the basis for the continuum of the person. What Mipham disagrees with is the idea that the Gelug mind of clear light , which is momentary, has the same meaning as rigpa. We don't have the "I am" in Dzogchen , and I guess Soh is saying that the realization of I Am is realization of Luminosity , but it can be reified as a Self or self.
And also yes sal ba is the clear aspect of sem or alaya. Because of this, some Gelug influenced Nyingmapas tried to equate the Gelug doctrine with Dzogchen. But gnyug ma sems is completely unconditioned , like bodhicitta.
When mirror error is seen through sound is no less "I AM" than that pure formless consciousness and experience is without center. What is its characteristics? Ultimate clear light , gnyug ma sems , bodhicitta are unchanging and permanent.
go to link And what are its characteristics? The Hindus speak of Atman-Brahman as changeless, etc, how is it different from ultimate clear light? Thanks for the clarifications Very much appreciated Also, is rigpa a state of resting in "total beingness" or is the knowledge actualized as spontaneous self-arising activity? Malcolm Smith, makes good sense. Now I understand what you meant about the Gelugpa view , but the Dalai Lama is not using " Mind of Clear Light " as that "momentary" mind in his book " Dzogchen ", but as a " permanent " Fundamental Mind.
- Standard Issue Partner.
- Clear Light Mind - Dharma Wheel.
- Wishing Prayer for the Attainment of the Ultimate Mahamudra by the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje.
- Dragon Dreams.
- Dharma Fellowship: Library - Mahamudra and Dzogchen, Two Systems of Buddhist Yoga.
The Great Fifth's Dzogchen is perfect. There is no fault with it. But the problem with HHDL's book is that he is very much trying to explain Dzogchen to Gelugpas without distinguishing the Gelug view of clear light mind with the notion of 'od gsal gi sems , " luminous mind ", etc. So when he says that the mind of clear light and rigpa are the same, Gelugs will hear that their presentation of the mind of clear light will agree with Dzogchen , and it does not.
Wow, these guys lived such "soap opera drama " lives! Could you explain in short why was he distasteful for Kagyu? Sure, when he was a young man, his government was involved in a major war for control of tibet with supporters of the Karma Kagyu. Clarity means cognizance; vividness; " brightness "; knowingness.
Luminosity is synonymous with two-fold emptiness aka. Rigpa means knowledge of one's beginingless state , inseparable clarity and emptiness.
And this is synonymous with clarity and luminosity? So a space metaphor clarity — a clearing in the woods is used for cognizance and a light metaphor luminosity — the shine or glow of a lamp is used for two-fold emptiness? To me this seems backwards. Cognizance seems like sourceless glow and emptiness seems like seamless space. What is the rationale for switching the terms? Also, Clear Light and Wisdom is luminosity?
If so, why distinguish? In all of this, the chief point seems to be distinguishing the base from the all-base. What is the base? But you, representing Dzogchen , said several times that luminosity is synonymous with emptiness. This is my current understanding. Please pick apart any and all that doesn't align — that would be very helpful! Alternatively clarity can be a metaphor of penetration " seeing through" , as in translucency. Still, the terms seems mixed. May 21 at 4: Btw, what a terrific thread this is! Hwa Yen , Thusness and some thorough clarifications by Malcolm!