"Clarifications of a reddit conversation by Krodha/Kyle Dixon" Using ChatGPT
comments on original post by John Tan & Soh Wei
Q: you are an expert in dzgochen and Tibetan language. can you explain the excerpts below?
"There is a spectrum of aspects that can be recognized and realized, from vidyā [rig pa] to the nature of mind [sems nyid], the two are not technically synonymous, and so on. Then, within that we must differentiate ngo shes, to recognize; and rtogs pa, to realize, and then liberation [grol ba]. Recognition of sems nyid is not the realization of sems nyid, just as the initial vidyā in the form of a mental factor as rig pa skad cig ma, what Norbu Rinpoche called “instant presence” is not qualitatively the same as the definitive expression of vidyā that knows the essence [snying po] of mind. Therefore this topic really is not so cut and dry. "That's why people translate the first vision the way they do.. "manifest intrinsic reality" -- (from Dzogchen by His Holiness the Dalai Lama) on the first vision. "the direct experience of dharmata" -- (from A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro) The direct experience of dharmata doesn't exclude emptiness." Yes, well, this topic is also quite interesting. The use of chos nyid in the first vision as chos nyid mngon gsum “the direct perception of dharmatā” is actually a different use of dharmatā than sūtrayāna. Here, when we see chos nyid it indicates rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs (རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས), "confirming vidyā in a direct perception." Therefore in the case of the first vision, we are not referring to dharmatā as emptiness, but rather dharmatā is a term being used to indicate the appearances of rig pa that are ascertained in a direct perception [pratyaksa]. The total realization of emptiness does not then occur until the third vision, which is called “the full measure of vidyā” because at that time, upon realizing emptiness and non-arising, our knowledge [vidyā] of phenomena is complete, and has reached its “full measure.”
ChatGPT said:
Let's break down the excerpts you provided, focusing on Dzogchen concepts and the Tibetan language terminology involved. These excerpts engage with the nuanced differences between recognition, realization, and liberation in the Dzogchen tradition, as well as the progressive experiences of vidyā (rig pa, or pure awareness) and dharmatā (the intrinsic nature of reality).
Excerpt 1: Recognizing vs. Realizing in Dzogchen
Key Terms:
Vidyā [rigpa]: This refers to pure awareness or primordial knowledge, which is central to Dzogchen. It's the state of knowing that transcends ordinary dualistic perception.
Sems nyid: This is the "nature of mind" in Dzogchen. It's the underlying, luminous quality of consciousness, beyond conceptual thought.
Ngo shes (ངོ་ཤེས): Recognition, or the ability to recognize aspects of the nature of mind.
Rtogs pa (རྟོགས་པ): Realization, or a deeper, experiential understanding and embodiment of these recognized truths.
Grol ba (གྲོལ་བ): Liberation, referring to the freedom that comes from the full realization of the nature of mind and reality.
Explanation:
There’s a distinction between vidyā (pure awareness) and sems nyid (the nature of mind). While they are related, they are not synonymous. Vidyā refers to the immediate recognition of awareness, whereas sems nyid refers to the deeper, luminous nature of that awareness.
Recognizing sems nyid is not the same as realizing it. In Dzogchen, recognition (ngo shes) is the initial step of becoming aware of the nature of mind. This doesn’t yet amount to realization (rtogs pa), which involves a deeper embodiment of that recognition. For example, one might momentarily recognize rig pa (pure awareness) in an instance of clarity, but that’s not the full, stable realization.
Rigpa skad cig ma refers to instantaneous presence, a flash of awareness that might arise but is not yet the fully realized, stable state of rig pa. Norbu Rinpoche’s term “instant presence” refers to these fleeting glimpses of vidyā.
Snying po (essence) of mind is realized when vidyā becomes fully stable and complete. This process involves progressively deeper levels of realization and understanding of the mind's essence, moving from simple recognition to full liberation.
Thus, the topic is complex because there are layers to recognizing and realizing the nature of mind. What is recognized initially is not the same as the fully realized, liberated state.
Excerpt 2: Chos Nyid (Dharmatā) and the First Vision
Key Terms:
Chos nyid (ཆོས་ཉིད): Dharmatā, often translated as the intrinsic nature of phenomena or reality. In different contexts, it refers to different aspects of ultimate reality.
Chos nyid mngon gsum (ཆོས་ཉིད་མངོན་གསུམ): The direct perception of dharmatā, or reality, as it is seen in Dzogchen practice.
Rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs (རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས): This phrase means "confirming vidyā (rig pa) in a direct perception," referring to the experiential confirmation of awareness through direct experience.
Explanation:
The excerpt is discussing the first vision in Dzogchen, which involves the direct experience of chos nyid(dharmatā), but here it is clarified that the term “dharmatā” in this context doesn’t refer to emptiness as it does in the Sūtrayāna (the gradualist path), but rather to the appearances of rig pa.
In the first vision, dharmatā refers to the manifestation of intrinsic reality, or how reality appears when directly perceived through the lens of rig pa. It’s a direct, non-conceptual experience of awareness manifesting phenomena. This is different from the Sūtrayāna notion of dharmatā as being mainly synonymous with emptiness (śūnyatā).
In Dzogchen, chos nyid in this context refers to the appearance of rig pa, or how awareness manifests. This is the first vision—a direct perception of reality through the clear lens of awareness, but it is not yet the total realization of emptiness.
The third vision represents the stage where the complete realization of emptiness occurs. This stage is described as the "full measure of vidyā," meaning that at this point, awareness has fully matured. The practitioner realizes not only the emptiness of all phenomena but also their non-arising nature (i.e., the understanding that all phenomena lack inherent existence and do not arise in the way we ordinarily conceive them).
Three Visions in Dzogchen:
First Vision: The practitioner begins to directly experience dharmatā (reality) through the lens of rig pa, but this is an experience of appearance, not yet the full realization of emptiness.
Second Vision: The clarity and stability of vidyā deepen.
Third Vision: The practitioner realizes the non-arising nature of phenomena and their inherent emptiness, completing the full maturation of vidyā.
Summary:
These excerpts delve into key distinctions in Dzogchen practice, particularly the difference between recognition (initial glimpses of pure awareness) and realization (deep, embodied understanding of the nature of mind). Dzogchen teachings often emphasize the progression from recognizing awareness (rig pa) to fully realizing the nature of mind (sems nyid), and ultimately, to liberation.
In Dzogchen’s visionary practices, there is a clear distinction between early experiences of rig pa and the complete realization of the nature of reality, which includes a deeper understanding of emptiness and non-arising phenomena as expressed in the third vision.Soh wrote to Mr. J: as John Tan also said before, and also reiterated by many (including Malcolm, Dalai Lama, etc) who went through similar phases... there is distinct phase - realizing Awareness [although Malcolm does not use this term in the same way] or the unfabricated clarity aspect of rigpa, and realizing emptiness are distinct realizations. Even longchenpa and other dzogchen masters would point out that realizing emptiness only happens in thodgal practice at the third vision.
Explain this
"Q: For example you separate vidya from the nature of mind
A: Yes, as did my root teacher, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. The issue is that vidyā is subject to affliction, whereas the nature of mind, the basis, is not. If we say the basis and vidyā are one and the same, then we are saying vidyā is always perfected and there would be no reason for the Dzogchen path at all, which as Longchenpa states is the process of purifying vāyu and vidyā. It is a subtle but important distinction. Generally vidyā would belong to the lhun grub aspect of the basis, the nature [rang bzhin], but the basis is the trio of essence, nature and compassion."
ChatGPT said:
This excerpt engages with a crucial distinction in Dzogchen between vidyā (rig pa, pure awareness) and the nature of mind (sems nyid), as well as their relationship to the basis (gzhi), which is the fundamental ground of being in Dzogchen.
Let’s break it down point by point:
1. Vidyā (RigPa) vs. Nature of Mind (Sems Nyid):
Vidyā (rig pa) is the state of awareness or knowing in Dzogchen. It’s the immediate, direct experience of presence or clarity that arises when we recognize the nature of mind. However, in this explanation, vidyā is not completely pure or free from affliction. This suggests that vidyā can still be influenced by karmic traces, obscurations, or subtle attachments.
Nature of Mind (sems nyid), on the other hand, refers to the ultimate nature of consciousness, which is completely free from affliction. It is primordially pure and unconditioned. The basis, or ground of being, is the source of both vidyā and all phenomena, but unlike vidyā, the basis is never affected by obscurations or afflictions.
Why the distinction matters: If we were to say that vidyā and the nature of mind are the same thing, we would be implying that vidyā is always pure and perfected, which would invalidate the need for the Dzogchen path of practice. In Dzogchen, the practitioner must purify vidyā to fully realize the nature of mind. If vidyā were already fully perfected, there would be no need for any spiritual practice or purification.
2. Vidyā is Subject to Affliction:
The issue of vidyā being subject to affliction means that although vidyā represents awareness, it can still be obscured by ignorance or karmic traces (often described as vāyu or subtle energies). Vidyā can be clouded or conditioned by delusion, even though it is a moment of clarity. This is why purification of vidyā is essential on the Dzogchen path.
Dzogchen teachings frequently discuss the process of purifying vāyu (wind or subtle energy) and vidyā because even though vidyā gives us a glimpse of our true nature, it isn’t yet fully stable or liberated from all obscurations. This process of purification is needed for realization.
3. The Basis (gzhi):
The basis in Dzogchen is described as the ground of all phenomena, including both samsara and nirvana. It is often expressed as a trio of essence (ngo bo), nature (rang bzhin), and compassion (thugs rje). This triad represents the fundamental qualities of the nature of mind:
Essence (ngo bo): The pure, empty, and non-conceptual nature of the mind. It is the unchanging, formless ground of being.
Nature (rang bzhin): The luminous, knowing quality of the mind—the capacity of mind to be aware and perceive phenomena. This corresponds to vidyā.
Compassion (thugs rje): The spontaneous, active expression of the enlightened state, manifesting as compassion for all beings.
Lhun grub refers to the spontaneous presence or self-perfected nature of reality. Vidyā, as part of the nature aspect of the basis, belongs to this self-perfected quality, but again, it is not yet fully purified until realization is complete. Lhun grub indicates that the qualities of enlightenment are already present, but the practitioner still needs to recognize and realize this fact.
4. Longchenpa's Teaching on Purifying Vidyā:
Longchenpa was one of the greatest Dzogchen masters, and he often emphasized the purification of vidyā and vāyu as part of the path. Even though vidyā reflects awareness, it can still be conditioned or affected by subtle obscurations, particularly in the form of vāyu (energies or winds associated with karmic patterns).
Purification here means stabilizing vidyā so that it fully aligns with the nature of mind (sems nyid), where no trace of affliction remains. Until vidyā is fully purified, there is still a distinction between momentary recognition and full realization.
5. Subtle but Important Distinction:
The distinction between vidyā and the nature of mind is important because it helps explain why the Dzogchen path involves progressive realization. The practitioner must go through a process of recognizing, realizing, and ultimately liberating vidyā.
Without this distinction, there could be a misunderstanding that once someone has a glimpse of rig pa, the work is done. However, Dzogchen emphasizes that even after recognizing rig pa, the practitioner must continue purifying their perception until it aligns completely with the unafflicted nature of mind.
Conclusion:
In Dzogchen, vidyā (rigpa, awareness) and the nature of mind (sems nyid) are related but not identical. Vidyā is the experience of awareness, but it is still subject to afflictions and requires purification through practice. The nature of mind (the basis or ground) is always pure and unaffected by afflictions. The Dzogchen path involves purifying vidyā so that it fully aligns with the nature of mind, leading to complete liberation (grol ba).
Explain this
"Krodha: We had some confusion over the words recognition and realization but I'm not talking about a full realization of emptiness in the first vision. I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now." You still are not understanding what chos nyid means in chos nyid mgon sum it has nothing to do with emptiness. But I’ve explained this and you aren’t interested in listening, and that is okay for you, but your lack of clarity on this topic is concerning for others you may teach. "I'm talking about initial recognition and then familiarizing with empty cognizance. I made plenty of citations by now." Initial recognition of emptiness, unless the practitioner is very ripe, occurs at the third vision and then the third and fourth visions are the spectrum of integration with emptiness, hence the process of exhausting phenomena. Up until that time “emptiness” is rhetorical, indicating the clear and spacious nature of our knowing clarity [gsal rig]. Your Tulku Urgyen citations are not talking about the first vision. They are discussing the ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma or “moment of unfabricated consciousness” that is pointed out, which is the initial form of rig pa we use for practice, and specifically the practice of trekchö. "We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality, up until the third vision, “emptiness” is obscured and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness is not truly known until the third vision, again per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc., not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind. This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā."
ChatGPT said:
This dialogue is addressing important distinctions in the Dzogchen path of practice, especially regarding the recognition of rig pa (pure awareness) and the realization of emptiness (śūnyatā) in the context of the visionary experiences known as the four visions. The confusion seems to arise from the use of terminology and the different stages of recognition and realization within Dzogchen practice. Let’s clarify the key points mentioned:
1. Chos Nyid mngon sum and the Nature of Emptiness:
Chos nyid mngon sum is a term often translated as the "direct perception of dharmatā" (chos nyid, or reality). However, this chos nyid does not refer to the realization of emptiness (śūnyatā) as it might in other Buddhist traditions like Sūtrayāna. Instead, in the Dzogchen context, chos nyid mngon sum refers to the direct recognition of rig pa (pure awareness), specifically the appearances of rig pa.
The first vision in Dzogchen is not about realizing emptiness per se but rather about recognizing the clarity aspect of mind—gsal ba—which refers to the knowing or luminous quality of rig pa. This clarity is experienced as part of the recognition of awareness but does not yet entail full realization of emptiness.
2. Distinguishing Recognition from Realization:
Recognition (ngo shes) in Dzogchen refers to the initial glimpse or direct introduction to rig pa, where the practitioner recognizes the clarity and presence of pure awareness. However, this is not yet the full realization (rtogs pa) of emptiness or the non-dual nature of reality.
In the first two visions, practitioners primarily recognize the clarity of mind (gsal ba) and become more familiar with it through practice. This clarity is the knowing aspect of awareness, but it is not the realization of the emptiness aspect, which is why it is described as being like śamatha (calm-abiding).
Realization of emptiness occurs later in the Dzogchen path, particularly during the third and fourth visions, which are associated with vipaśyanā (insight). These stages involve the direct experience and integration of the empty nature of phenomena and the non-arising nature of reality. The practitioner begins to exhaust their clinging to phenomena and fully realizes the emptiness aspect of the nature of mind.
3. Emptiness and the First Vision:
The term “emptiness” as used in early stages of practice, such as in the first vision, is described as being rhetorical. This means that although emptiness might be conceptually discussed or referred to, it is not directly experienced by the practitioner at this stage. Instead, what is experienced is the clear and spacious nature of knowing or cognizance (gsal rig).
The third vision is where the direct realization of emptiness begins to occur. This is why the practitioner does not fully integrate emptiness until the third and fourth visions, where they move from the recognition of clarity to the realization of the non-arising, empty nature of phenomena. This aligns with traditional Dzogchen teachings from Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung, who emphasize that the non-dual experience of clarity and emptiness is fully realized only at the later stages of the path.
4. Role of Vidyā (RigPa) in Practice:
The citations from Tulku Urgyen mentioned in the dialogue are referring to skad cig ma (moment of unfabricated consciousness), which is a brief, clear moment of recognizing rig pa. This recognition is used in Dzogchen practice, particularly in trekchö, to stabilize and familiarize oneself with rig pa. However, this moment of rig pa recognition is still not equivalent to the full realization of emptiness.
Vidyā (rigpa) carries the practice forward by providing the practitioner with a clear recognition of awareness. But as the text explains, vidyā itself is not yet the citta dharmatā (nature of mind). The full realization of the nature of mind, which is non-dual clarity and emptiness, occurs later in the Dzogchen path, particularly during the third and fourth visions.
5. First Two Visions as Similar to Śamatha:
In this dialogue, the first two visions are likened to śamatha practice. This comparison emphasizes that these stages are about cultivating stability of mind and recognizing the clarity aspect of awareness. However, emptinessremains obscured at this stage, which is why the experience of non-dual emptiness and clarity does not fully manifest until the third and fourth visions.
The third and fourth visions are likened to vipaśyanā (insight), where the realization of emptiness begins to unfold. This progression from the stability of clarity in the early stages to the insight into emptiness in the later stages mirrors the development of calm-abiding and insight practices in other Buddhist paths.
Conclusion:
The key point here is the distinction between initial recognition of clarity (gsal ba) in the early stages of Dzogchen practice and the full realization of emptiness in the later stages. The first vision involves recognizing the clarity and presence of rig pa, but the realization of emptiness doesn’t occur until the third vision, where the practitioner begins to directly experience the non-arising nature of phenomena. This process continues through the fourth vision, where emptiness is fully integrated. Thus, in Dzogchen, emptiness is obscured during the initial stages, and the realization of emptiness only becomes complete at the later stages of the path.
John Tan's reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:
“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).
First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one's original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita -- the direct, immediate, perception of "consciousness" without intermediaries. They are the same.
However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.
Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist's anatta and selflessness of other religions -- whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.
The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.
As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both are equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they are the same (imo).”
Dalai Lama - "Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality... so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels...." - Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book
or as kyle dixon reiterated malcolm with regards to trekchod:
Kyle Dixon:
Yes, the actual state of trekchö is the nonconceptual equipoise of a yogic direct perception of emptiness. Emptiness cannot be known by unawakened people, but clarity can be known. The nominal trekchö we practice until we realize emptiness works with the clarity aspect [gsal cha]. The nominal “little” trekchö is also called “the yoga of the view.”
Malcolm:
“The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in trekchöd is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.”
“Actually, what one is resting is empty clarity. However, below the path of seeing, the emptiness of that clarity is a conceptual inference. However, when meditating, we just rest in the clarity aspect without engaging in concepts like "this is empty." We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.”
Q: Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche explains very succinctly what is the state if rigpa: “Whatever arises in the mind, the awareness of that, the presence of that state of whatever arises is itself rigpa. This is not a concept, but it's a direct experience, that kind of presence or awareness. It's beyond any concept. One continues to remain beyond concept and one continuously finds oneself in this knowingness, or presence. This is the essence of all that we speak of in the Upadesha teachings”.
Krodha: That is the initial form of rigpa yes, not the “definitive” type though. The definitive form is synonymous with prajñā [tib. shes rab]. To unpack further: Norbu Rinpoche, who is my own root teacher, in the quote above is discussing rig pa in the context of gnas gyu rig gsum or the trio of knowing, stillness of thought and movement of thought. Rigpa in that context is defined as gnas gyu shes pa or the “knowing of stillness and movement.” In his own writing Norbu Rinpoche is quite clear that this initial form of rigpa is simply the clarity or cognizance of one’s own mind, thus it is termed “rig pa” because it is a species of shes pa or knowing. This species of rigpa is an acceptable form of rigpa that one can recognize and use as a foundation for one's practice, however it is not yet the awakened form of rigpa which is accompanied by ye shes [skt. jñana]. This preliminary expression of rigpa, as the mere clarity of mind is a coarse expression of rigpa appearing as the consciousness [vijñāna] skandha, called by Vimalamitra; ”The vidyā that apprehends characteristics.” Vimalamitra defines this rigpa as ”the vidyā [rig pa] that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names, which is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls this modality of rigpa: ”rigpa mistaken as illusory mind”, and also refers to it by the name Vimalamitra gave it, which is again: ”the vidyā that apprehends characteristics.”
Jean-Luc Achard defines this species of rigpa as “unripened” or “immature” rigpa [tib. ma smin pa'i rig pa].
Tsoknyi Rinpoche is quite clear that we should not conflate this preliminary form of rigpa for the definitive and awakened expression of rigpa:
This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing [self-originated] awareness [rang byung rig pa].
His father, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said the same:
In the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing [self-originated] awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.
Krodha: It is a direct and visceral knowledge of the nature of mind [tib. sems nyid]. But it is also something like the fundamental essence of our knowledge, or the mind's capacity to know, and has other implications in that sense.
From what I gather it is not equivalent to the direct perception of emptiness.
Emptiness [stong pa nyid] is one aspect of the nature of mind, the other is clarity [gsal ba], which is the cognizant or noetic capacity of mind. So in this sense the nature of mind is defined as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness [stong gsal dbyer med]. When the nature of mind is recognized, and we have a direct, experiential knowledge [rig pa] of that nature, then we are knowing the nature of the mind as non-dual clarity and emptiness.
But one can have the direct perception of emptiness from the standpoint of rigpa.
The realization of emptiness which occurs at the first bhumi (the path of seeing in Mahayana) is called the "full measure" or "full culmination" of rigpa [rig pa tshad phebs]. This is when one's knowledge of his/her nature is complete.
Q: Is rigpa buddhahood in which relative and ultimate realities are seen simultaneously?
Krodha: Rigpa has various modalities and expressions, ranging from a relative knowledge to the omniscience that is attained at the time of the result. But it is not equivalent to buddhahood in and of itself. Buddhahood is the result, that occurs once the twin obscurations (afflictive and cognitive) are exhausted. But yes recognition of one's nature is also defined as knowing the union of the two truths. So, rigpa is not necessarily a non-dual experience. Rigpa does entail knowledge that phenomena are non-dual, which in the context of the buddhadharma means that phenomena are free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence.
Q: in that there is a dissolution of self
Recognition of the nature of mind implies a realization of selflessness. The self is an inferential construct that is imputed onto the clarity of mind when said clarity is mistakenly reified as a substantial, subjective point of reference (abiding in relation to allegedly external objects). Realizing that the clarity of mind is empty means we recognize that there is no foundation for a self, as there never truly has been.
Q: as there is in the direct perception of emptiness?
Yes, non-dual emptiness and clarity, or non-dual emptiness and appearance, both are essentially synonymous.
Q: How is "full measure" or "full culmination" realized permanently?
By way of a total exhaustion of the ignorance and obscurations that prevent the nature of mind from being apparent at all times.
Q: One has that experience and enters the first bhumi and then works to habituate the mind to what it has seen.
In a sense, yes. Although getting to that point is quite rare.
Q: But must one repeatedly dissolve the self and continue to have these direct perceptions of emptiness until it has fully imbued the relative mind so to speak?
Krodha: One continues to fluctuate between equipoise [mnyam bzhag] and post-equipoise [rjes thob] until they are fully merged. It does not involve dissolving the self so much, as there is no self to dissolve in the first place. Rather it simply involves continually resting in a direct knowledge [rig pa] of the nature of mind [sems nyid] as much as possible. Although latent habitual tendencies will make it difficult to maintain that equipoise and will cause one to lapse back into relative dualistic mind. The point of the path [lam] is to exhaust those latent traces that obstruct one's nature, so that eventually one never regresses from that knowledge ever again, which is the result ['bras bu], i.e., buddhahood.
Q: Back to the question... In some systems and schools of meditation, emptiness is seen as something that is "done": you actively focus on the empty space between thoughts and try to rest there for as long as possible. I was wondering if, in Dzogchen, there is a difference between the described above and "resting in the nature of the mind", or if the latter is a different thing.
Krodha: Yes there is a difference. The former, cultivating the space between thoughts is called stillness or nepa in Tibetan, gnas pa in the Wylie transliteration. Cultivating stillness is good practice, it is śamatha meditation, but in Dzogchen we must also integrate movement, and there are methods to accomplish that. The knower of stillness and movement of thought is called the characteristic of mind, it is sometimes nominally referred to as the nature of mind, but it is just an “example gnosis” which is used in practice so that the aspirant can realize true gnosis. True insight into the nature of mind however occurs in awakening to actual gnosis, the non-arisen luminosity of mind, and is the same as realizing there is no self, or no external objects as well, but it has to do with realizing emptiness [śūnyatā]. That insight is an actual cognitive shift where the inner subjective background collapses and/or external objects are realized to be false.