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 - 20 Oct 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.
        • No that's stupid metaphysics. It makes a lot more sense if "states" means "states of mind". Then the dualism of inside and outside drops away, leaving something like pure awareness. 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.

    • Spaciousness

      • The Tantric Base: Spacious Passion | Vividness
        • In Vividness, I describe the base of Buddhist tantra as spacious passion. This is not quite standard, but is in accord with the traditional definition of the base as “experience of emptiness,” and the essence of Vajrayana overall as the enjoyment of empty form.
        • In tantra, the base, path, and result are ultimately the same. To accept the attitude of spacious passion is the base; maintaining spacious passion is the path; enjoying and deploying spacious passion is the goal. For the sake of clarity, however, it’s usual to describe the base, path, and result differently.
      • Ask Claude
        • Chapman's main treatment is the "Spacious freedom" page in Vividness, which sits inside his account of the Tantric base, "spacious passion." **Spaciousness (core definition)**
        • He defines it as "freedom from fixed meanings", which releases you from automatic interpretations and habitual responses. The phrase links to his Meaningness page on fixation and denial, so it is the non-fixating relationship to meaning.
        • It is an attitude, not a state or an insight: a willingness to suspend meaning-making and to allow unknowing, uncertainty, confusion, ambiguity, and meaninglessness.
        • Mechanism. He describes a six-step loop: something happens, you perceive it, you interpret it through a familiar framework, an emotion arises in response to that meaning, the emotion's energy demands action, and you act as if compelled. The loop is needlessly constrained at interpretation and at action: other interpretations and other responses are possible, and so is not interpreting or not reacting at all.
        • Perceptual side. Spaciousness depends on opened perception. Habitual categorization suppresses detail, and the supposed meaning of a situation blocks your view of it. Spaciousness turns attention to specifics and reveals their vividness, acknowledging both messiness and beauty rather than rejecting either. It gives experience freshness: each situation appears unique rather than as an instance of a category.
        • Why it matters. Emotions mostly respond to what you think something means, not to the thing itself. Suspending interpretation lets unexpected meanings emerge, which opens alternative responses and makes it possible to enjoy emotions as vivid, non-conceptual energy. Passion, and spacious passion
        • Passions, meaning strong emotions, connect us with what matters.
        • The two need each other. Spaciousness without passion is passive and yields only a stupid peacefulness. Passion without spaciousness is blind obsession, confined to fixed channels and often destructive. United, passion can flow in the many directions spaciousness reveals. In his words, spaciousness makes it possible to care deeply while accepting any outcome.
        • Spacious passion is his name for the tantric base. He calls this slightly non-standard but consistent with the traditional definition of the base as experience of emptiness, and with Vajrayana's essence as the enjoyment of empty form. In tantra, base, path, and result are ultimately identical: accepting the attitude is the base, maintaining it is the path, and enjoying and deploying it is the goal.
        • The phrase comes from Ngakpa Chögyam. His full formula is "spacious passion in passionate space," in which space is feminine and passion masculine, and each contains the other. Curiosity
        • Curiosity is spacious perception. In tantra, the faculty that recognizes spaciousness is called curiosity, wonderment, or inquisitiveness. It is more active and less conclusive than Sutra's "wisdom," the faculty that recognizes emptiness, which tantra de-emphasizes as placid and a dead end. Spaciousness vs. emptiness
        • This is his sharpest distinction. Emptiness is usually explained negatively. In Prasangika Madhyamaka it is a "non-affirming negation": the mere absence of inherent existence, with no qualities and no causal power.
        • Spaciousness is explained positively. Its qualities are openness, vastness, and vividness; its powers are potential, creativity, and transformation. It is alive and charged with energy, not the lifeless peace of nothingness.
        • Informal, meditation-derived explanations of emptiness often sound more like spaciousness. He also suspects the various theories of "emptiness" may not refer to the same thing, and suggests dropping the word altogether.
        • In practice, shamatha (shi-né) practices aim at emptiness; done in a Vajrayana style, they aim at positive spaciousness instead of Prasangika's negative emptiness. **Emptiness and form (Aro gTér usage)**
        • When he does use "emptiness," it is in the Aro sense. Form means five qualities: solidity, permanence, separateness, continuity, and definition. Emptiness means their apparent opposites: insubstantiality, transience, boundarilessness, discontinuity, and ambiguity.
        • The Aro gTér values form and emptiness equally and stresses their nonduality, whereas Sutrayana prioritizes emptiness and treats form as contaminating.
        • Its Four Extremes are eternalism, nihilism, monism, and dualism. Mapping to Meaningness
        • Meaningness works out practical consequences of these Four Extremes. It deliberately avoids the word "emptiness" because it would be misleading there.
        • My reading, not his explicit equation: the Aro emptiness qualities correspond roughly to nebulosity, the form qualities to pattern, and spaciousness is the attitude that neither fixates nor denies meaning. In Meaningness terms, that attitude belongs to the complete stance. Dzogchen-adjacent terms
        • "Spacious clarity" is the result of the practice in Charlie Awbery's Opening Awareness, which Chapman edited. It is described as revealing creative space around thinking, so that previously inhibited choices become available.
        • He doesn't formally distinguish this from Tantric spaciousness. A commenter asked how spaciousness relates to Dzogchen awareness, and that question went unanswered. Sources: