Khyab rig (continued)

Luca Violoni, still at his manipulating sources, says regarding the fact that "beings" is in between square brackets in the translation of the previous post :

"Nelle parentesi quadre c'è la sua aggiunta che non compare nel testo originario di Lopon e lui spiega che gli esseri è chiaramente implicato nel testo di Lopon." (more or less : "In the square brackets is his own addition which does not appear in the original (text) of Lopon et he explains that beings are clarly implied in the text by Lopon".)

Well, this remark is obvious from someone who does not read tibetan and is consequently totally unfamiliar with classical grammar, etc. If there are tibetologists reading this post, I invite them to use the "commentaire" field below to challenge or confirm my interpretation.

But the problem does not actually depends upon the translation, it is entirely linked to the fact that Violoni thinks objects have a natural state and therefore a Rigpa. Even the quote (given in the first khyab rig post here:http://khyungmkhar.blogspot.fr/2012/06/khyab-rig-pervading-knowledge-and-its.html) from the Zhangzhung Nyengyü did not convince him. It is probably the most stupid idea someone would have, right ? But where does it come from ? Ignorance of course, but also a tendency to blindly accept whatever he reads in a book, in particular when the book itself has deficiencies in terms of understanding clearly the philosophy of Dzogchen, and Rigpa in particular.

But to come back to Violoni's remark, I would answer : Not only is the reference to beings clearly implied by the text, but it is also clearly explained by Lopon in his own oral commentary on his own text. There is not a single inch of doubt about this. But you'll note that the despising tone of Violoni has disappeared... Again I invite anyone to go and ask Yongdzin if objects have a Rigpa as Violoni thinks because of his wrong understanding of khyab-rig.

And why would the reference to beings be clearly implied by Yongdzin Rinpoche and explicitely referred to by himself in his own commentary ? Well simply because the natural state demands a Rigpa and to have a Rigpa you need a mind. Violoni : Objects don't have a mind....

PS — You may also note that Violoni avoids mentioning my reference to Yongdzin Rinpoche's own oral commentary on his definition of khyab-rig as embracing only beings. If this is not intentional manipulation of the sources and his readers, then what is it ?