The Mind According to Dzogchen
The following is copied from Tsoknyi Rinpoche's book Carefree Dignity. This Rinpoche is from the Dzogchen school of Tibetan Buddhism. I've gotten much inspiration from the perspective of Dzogchen teachings. Things are stated in a way which answered some questions I've had regarding the citta (mind) as discussed in the Thai Forest tradition. I used to think that the different schools of Buddhism contradicted each other but increasingly I feel that in their essence they are the same.
I'd like to briefly share a couple excerpts which may clarify what mind, knowing, really are. I've tried to comment on this in previous posts but when I came across the following, I figured there could be no more confusion. The Rinpoche clearly states how one gets from non-dual consciousness to duality. He puts to rest the idea that there is a knower behind the whole process.
This still may not satisfiy those who firmly hold to the view of being a person with a sense of identity which is permanent. However, I'll share it from someone who is said to be a reincarnate lama in the Dzogchen lineage. At least you won't have to rely on my delivery of these ideas.
In his book Carefree Dignity, Tsoknyi Rinpoche defines the word 'mind' as follows:
I would now like to define the word 'mind.' The Tibetan word is sem. Basically it means that which knows, that which thinks that things are "nice" or "not nice." Because there is some sense of knowing, there is some identity, some property of that which knows. Exactly what is it, how is it? In essence, it is your innate nature, which is all-pervasive, ever-present.
Most important is to remember we don't have to think of mind as a concrete 'thing.' It's really more a quality of knowing --- of knowing and thinking. This word 'mind' is going to be used a lot, but please remember every time you hear or read it that it simply means some act of knowing or thinking. It's really pretty simple. Knowing, just that.
Later on he says:
Our nature --- and now were back talking about mind --- this mind right here --- is something which is basically both empty and cognizant, indivisibly. What happens in a normal moment of perception when we are looking at a flower, for example, is that our basic identity, this unconfined, empty cognizance, becomes confined in the moment of perceiving. Somehow the empty quality becomes limited to being the perceiver, while the cognizance of the perceived, of what is present, is confined to being the object. The original unconfined and empty cognizance becomes apparently split up into perceiver and perceived, subject and object.
Of course, this isn't really the case; it just seems like that. This mistaking of what seemingly is as being real is confusioon. This is what confusioon really is: mistaking something that seems to be for what it isn't. At the same moment, one fails to recognize what actually is. Delusion is this ongoing, moment-to-moment conceptualizing activity of fabricating a subject and object that don't really exist.
This is a principle foundation of Buddhist doctrine. Carefree Dignity is a great book for Westerners to read because it skips much of the preliminary practices of Tibetan Buddhism and gets right to the crux. Those who are interested might want to check out the book. There are links online to free PDF's and I'll try to add one to this post soon.
-
The Rinpoche clearly states how one gets from non-dual consciousness to duality. He puts to rest the idea that there is a knower behind the whole process.
This still may not satisfy those who firmly hold to the view of being a person with a sense of identity which is permanent. However, I'll share it from someone who is said to be a reincarnate lama in the Dzogchen lineage. At least you won't have to rely on my delivery of these ideas.
Response:
Lama Dzogchen cannot put the rest the idea that there is a knower. For one thing his making such statements, is itself contradictory of what he is trying to establish. If there is no knower, then he, as no person, has nothing to say. And that is acceptable but instead he wrote something.
His experience stands its ground and so does the experience of anyone who opposes him. The variety of knowers is a fact.
Now a view should be considered which is
- being a person WITHOUT a permanent sense of identity.
Let me stress that there can be a person without a permanent sense of identity as that sense is experienced when using a physical body.
In other words, a person can have a sense of identity which is not permanent. The sense of identity does not have to be permanent. And the lack of a sense of identity does not mean there is no person. One should not run away with the idea that because the sense of identity is variant, there has to be no person or self there. That is a rash conclusion only.
We have to rely on your delivery because these ideas of yours and those of others whom you have confidence in, are being related through your person, even if through your ephemeral person if you are please to be considered as such.
-
Here is a link to a pdf of the book Carefree Dignity:
https://epdf.pub/carefree-dignity-discourses-on-training-in-the-nature-of-mind.html
I appreciate your comments above.
-
This is a link to the same book, except here it can be read online or downloaded.
Some sites which give download issue bots and viruses which may infect a computer.
This is a reliable site.
