About
    • AMMDI is an open-notebook hypertext writing experiment, authored by Mike Travers aka mtraven. It's a work in progress and some parts are more polished than others. Comments welcome! More.
Search
Page Contents
Full

rigpa

18 Apr 2026 - 26 Jun 2026
Open in Logseq
    • Rigpa - Wikipedia seems to be the Dzogchen version of enlightenment? The union of clarity, bliss, and emptiness.
    • (1) The unaltered state - by David Chapman - Meaningness
      • enlightenment is the unaltered state (according to Dzogchen)
      • Samsara is the state where you are constantly poking at your mind to get it to behave better.
      • You can't produce rigpa, it is always already there.
      • Dzogchen unlike tantra has no methods. Getting to Paris from Notre-Dame.
      • tax preparation as the opposite (has he read Pale King)
      • People in hell don't realize how lucky they are (because opportunities for death and rigpa). But don't go, it is a stupid place.
      • Rigpa is existential anti-foundationalism. No state is foundational, no state provides a reference frame for other states (I'd quibble with the second part of that, but ok, get the intent).
      • Rigpa ia not itself a state and so compatible with all possible states
        • OK ... then what is it? It is something beyond states, even states like "emptiness" and "non-dual awareness". Sort of meta to them, but irreducibly alive and dynamic. Like – being embedded in spacetime is a state, but being outside of spacetime like an observer of the block universe is also a state.
        • Hm slow on the uptake but it makes a lot more sense if "states" means "states of mind". And there is no foundation because there is no self. And rigpa, while not a state, and without methods, has characteristics...
      • Ideas about realization or awakening, such as "realizing emptiness" or "awakening to non-duality" often re-introduce a subtle reference state. Insofar as this occurs, "emptiness" and "non-duality" are not Rigpa, though such emptinesses and non-dualities, as with all other states, are compatible with Rigpa.
        • It's only Rigpa if it comes from some obscure part ofTibet, otherwise its just sparking nondualism. (Sorry couldn't resist)
    • How is this different from Taoism? Hm, where the Tao is unnameable and unknowable, we still call it Tao so maybe we aren't taking it seriously. Rigpa says, there is no Tao, no bottom layer, knowable or unknowable.
      • Ask Claude

        • Rigpa vs. Tao: The Key Distinction

        • Your last point is the sharpest one. The Taoist move is to posit an ineffable ground (Tao) and then immediately reify it - giving it a name, writing 81 chapters about it, building practices around alignment with it. There's still a foundational "something" even if it's officially unspeakable.
        • Rigpa's claim is more radical: no ground at all, not even an ineffable one. The "clarity, bliss, emptiness" formulation isn't describing a place you arrive at - it's describing the texture of groundlessness itself when you stop fighting it.

        • The "Already There" Problem

        • The "you can't produce it, it's always already there" move is interesting but slightly suspicious. It sounds like it's sneaking in a foundation through the back door - rigpa as the true substrate that samsaric confusion overlays. Chapman seems aware of this tension given his "not itself a state" framing.
        • The block universe analogy you're reaching for might actually work against rigpa: the outside-spacetime observer is still a privileged reference frame, just a different kind. If rigpa is genuinely meta to all states, you need to be careful it doesn't become just another transcendent standpoint dressed in anti-foundationalist language.

        • What Distinguishes It Practically

        • Dzogchen's "no methods" claim cuts through this somewhat. If there's no practice to align with rigpa, no technique to produce it, it can't function as a goal-state or foundation in the usual sense. The Paris/Notre-Dame point: you're already there, so navigation is incoherent.
        • The samsara-as-constant-poking framing is the operationally useful part: the problem isn't absence of the right state but effortful state-management itself.