Comments on “Your self is not a spiritual obstacle”
Comments are for the page: Your self is not a spiritual obstacle
According to Dzogchen, you just are a Buddha, whether you like it or not. Whatever way you feel right now is what it feels like to be a Buddha, right now. If you have the sense that you have a self, then being a Buddha feels like having a self—at the moment.
“Experiencing non-self” is one definition of “enlightenment”. But for many Buddhisms, “experiencing the permanent, suffering-free Self” is “enlightenment.”
We should drop the word “enlightenment.” It means too many different things. Most of them are metaphysical fantasies, and worse than useless.
What does “Buddha” mean in this context? What would it mean not to be a Buddha?
Well, yes, for Dzogchen, everyone is a Buddha… you can’t not be one. So when Dzogchen says “Buddhas are such-and-such a way,” it implies “everyone is such-and-such a way.” This somewhat dissolves the meaning of the word—although the claim that “everyone is this way” remains.
For us, now, this is useful because it authorizes us to eliminate a bunch of bad Buddhist metaphysics. The original intent was probably somewhat different.
This seems to re-frame Madhyamika doctrine into something much more approachable. The relationship (compliment and apparent tension) between tathagatagharba and Madhyamika is philosophically interesting to me. This seems to be something a lot of people get tangled in leading to either nihilism or chaos. Resolution of the two truths paradox is something I’ve tried to approach from Zen for quite some time. It was only when explanations became forthcoming via the tantric viewpoint that it started to become somewhat more clear. Reading some Tsongkhapa also. Tathagatagharba always brought to mind Matryoshka dolls that one opens up only to find a smaller one within, but on a somewhat infinite non-material basis. Conceptual nesting dolls.
I’ve been studying up on Nagarjuna’s ideas as they came to be interpreted in early China. Example http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/ChineseMadhyamaka.htm mainly to try to figure out why I disagree with popular interpretations of it so strongly. This killing the ego notion is part of it or uses Nagarjuna as justification which strikes me as a very shallow understanding. The ego is a functional interface both social and psychologically organizational with emotion an epiphenomenon.
With Zen and Pure Land when one utterly fails,then truth is revealed. Nadir and zenith combine or are perceived non-dually.
OK maybe my comment is not quite ready for prime time. Here’s something else.
X, Y and Z explanations work well for me. All this stuff can be explained by such algorithms I feel. Sometimes Zen koans are like that I think. Or certain poetry.
It may be too late in the evening. Interlacing all this together needs a bit more work. I shall read all the references you have provided that I haven’t encountered yet and try to be a bit more coherent on this in the future. Something is germinating and your post has fertilized it somewhat. (in a good way) Thanks.
What an invitation to play Tantra is! As a modality for engaging with others, it really sounds like fun, and very theatrical. If we are already Buddha, then it seems we have simply failed to appreciate the game we are involved in and haven’t yet understood the rules of play. As we say in England, ‘It’s not cricket!’
From reading the comments about Buddha Nature V Nargajuna: Surely the confusion between the two philosophical schools is irrelevant if you’re placing your questioning into direct experience? Why be so concerned about adopting a fixed perspective on the process of awakening? The goal is not Buddhahood, it’s the end of suffering. When you appreciate how vast the different forms of suffering are, and specifically how they are essentially forms of separation from direct experience, often very subtle, the question is no longer what am I, or what am I not, but how is this moment and how am I in relation to it, and preferably, ‘What would be the optimum modality for engaging fully right here, right now?’
I think it useful as an intellectual exercise to explore the two perspectives, but they are probably wisely taken as simply two theoretical perspectives on experience. Perhaps you could be an independent thinker and conclude that both are correct and get on with practice? Or am I being flippant and dismissive?
Perhaps that’s why pursuing the identity of a Sky God was not the original message and not what’s the pay off in terms of super-powers? If you are freeing yourself from suffering and dissatisfaction then living anything but fully each and every moment is the inevitable conclusion when you get some traction in practice.
Paradox essentially seems to be the game to play and I’m pretty sure so far that it has nothing to do with resolution and more to do with embracing dynamic opposites. Perhaps this is another aspect of the notion of the middle-way?
http://buddhatrieste.blogspot.it/2012/03/lets-talk-about-sexbuddhism-meet.html (Some thoughts on sex and Buddhism)
As far as the fruition is concerned, there are no significant differences between the Mahayana-Sutrayana model of Buddhahood and the Vajrayana and Dzogchen one. You are trying to make the former sound fantastical and the latter sound naturalistic, and that is preposterous. There is a different view of the basis and path, yes, but not of the fruition.
In Dzogchen there is still a huge functional distinction made between those who have recognized, cultivated and stabilized rigpa and those who haven’t, so practically speaking there is still the same broad dichotomy that you are ridiculing. And the characterization of fully realized Buddhas is no less exalted and fantastical.
Great article! Blog-writing ranks really high on my list of “cool things for a Buddha to do.” Keep up the sacred play, my friend!
~ Ben
@ giannakali, @ Namaste — Thank you very much for re-blogs!
@ giannakali — I found a couple of posts on your blog that really resonated with what I’m saying here. Interesting!
@ NellaLou — Yes, attempts to resolve the dynamic tension between Madhyamaka and Tathagatagarbha theory seems to have been crucial for driving innovation in both Zen and tantra.
Tsongkhapa is brilliant, and totally worth reading, but in the end I don’t agree with his approach. He winds up saying that the tathagatagarbha is just the same thing as emptiness (which actually is probably the same resolution as in a lot of Zen). But I don’t think that works, especially not with his interpretation of emptiness as a mere absence. In the celebrated rangtong/zhentong debate, zhentong performs the opposite assimilation, asserting that emptiness actually has all the divine qualities of the tathagatagarbha; which I also find unhelpful. Ju Mipham’s attempt to resolve this via Dzogchen (in Beacon of Certainty) is brilliant, and I want to think it’s right, but I’m not sure I understand it.
In the end, I think both Madhyamaka and Tathagatagarbha are just wrong; but they are wrong in subtle, interesting ways that are absolutely worth wrestling with.
@ Matthew O’Connell — Yes: play, theatricality, and enjoying paradox are all at the heart of tantra!
As you suggest, I think both Madhyamaka and Tathagatagarbha theory began as attempts to describe meditation experiences. (Different ones in the two cases.) They also contain a lot of speculative, intellectual metaphysics. I do think it’s important to apply the intellect, and philosophy, when attempting to explain meditation experiences. However, part of the problem with both fields is probably that many of the theorists did not actually have the experiences the theories were originally about. So they quickly got detached from any real phenomena.
We actually have better philosophical tools available in the Western tradition. Applying those to what we experience in meditation may be productive.
Here it’s probably important both to respect the Buddhist philosophical tradition—which is often brilliant—and not to be bound by it.
I don’t think “ending suffering” is the goal of tantra, btw. I’ll have much more to say about that in future posts.
Oh, I forgot to mention. Dzogchen explicitly rejects the doctrine of “two truths.” It might be the only Buddhism that does so.
There’s only one reality, and we’re living in it—like it or not!
@ Greg:
As far as the fruition is concerned, there are no significant differences between the Mahayana-Sutrayana model of Buddhahood and the Vajrayana and Dzogchen one.
That’s disputed, within Tibetan Buddhism. One perspective is that Mahayana/Sutrayana realizes only emptiness, whereas Vajrayana realizes the union of emptiness and form/phenomena/bliss/clarity.
However, I’m interested in a different distinction: between concepts of fruition in which you become a supernatural sky god, and concepts in which you don’t.
Of course, Theravada has a sky-god-free account of fruition, and I think that makes it attractive for many modern Westerners.
However, Theravada’s fruition story has other metaphysics that I reject; and overall I find it completely unattractive, whereas aspects of the Mahayana and Vajrayana theories are appealing.
In Dzogchen ... the characterization of fully realized Buddhas is no less exalted and fantastical.
If we’re talking scripture, I think I would want to disagree with that, to some extent. However, this is undoubtedly true of the way Dzogchen is typically taught now by most Tibetans.
there is still a huge functional distinction made between those who have recognized, cultivated and stabilized rigpa and those who haven’t, so practically speaking there is still the same broad dichotomy that you are ridiculing.
Yes, as a social phenomenon this is certainly correct… although I’m not sure it is either useful, or consistent with scripture…
You are trying to make the former sound fantastical and the latter sound naturalistic, and that is preposterous.
I am trying to point toward a naturalistic account of the fruition of tantra, and to reject a metaphysical one. However, I’m not making the mistake of suggesting that this distinction lines up with sutra vs. tantra. For the tantric yanas below Dzogchen, fruition is definitely tathagatagarbha-based, and more-or-less equates with becoming a sky god.
I don’t think Dzogchen has an account of fruition that is deliberately naturalistic in the modern Western sense. I do think it eliminates some bad metaphysics. That makes it more amenable to a reinvention project that would actually naturalize it. I do think both tantra and Dzogchen contain resources for constructing a sky-god-free account of fruition.
I’m calling it “nobility.” I’ll sketch what that might look like in an upcoming post.
The essence of what I am saying, as I think you realize, is that it is preposterous to say that in Mahayana-Sutrayana you “become a supernatural sky god” and in Dzogchen you don’t. That is no less true in Dzogchen scripture, and in the exegetical tradition of the great figures of Dzogchen over the centuries, and in the way that Dzogchen is understood now by contemporary leading exponents. The same is true of the distinction between recognizing rigpa and not.
Whether or not this is useful or due for revisionism is a whole other thing, but you should be clear that you seem to be talking about a pseudo-Dzogchen of your own devising.
you seem to be talking about a pseudo-Dzogchen of your own devising.
Hmm, yes; let me refer you to my earlier post “Diversity, generalization, and authenticity.” Particularly where I say:
It may be useful sometimes to mentally replace the word “tantra” with “Chapman’s confused ideas.” Then maybe you like my ideas, or you don’t, and we can discuss that. That would probably be more useful than arguing about whether or not something is “really” Buddhist tantra.
(The same would go for “Dzogchen” as “tantra.”)
Setting aside the question of whether I’m talking about “authentic Dzogchen”: do you think that a naturalistic account of the fruition of Vajrayana would be useful? Or pointless? Or actively harmful?
So, where can I find these “tantric tools” that I can start using today?
Hi Chris,
It’s difficult to give specific recommendations, for two reasons:
The first is that tantra is intensely individual. Different people will be able to make best use of different tools, presented in different styles. Also, it’s hard to learn to use them other than in the context of personal apprenticeship, which means most people need to find a teacher who they can have a good relationship with.
The second problem is that Buddhist Tantra is mostly just not available in the West currently. There are very few people teaching it in a way that many people here are likely to be able to use.
The point of this blog series will be to ask “why is Tantra so unavailable?” and “What can we do about it?” The answer to the first question is historical and political; Tantra is unavailable because powerful people want it to be unavailable. The answer to the second, for teachers, is “innovate”; and “demand straightforwardness” for students. We ought to be able to do much better. I think we can—I hope we will.
I practice in the Aro Ter lineage, whose culturally-Western teachers present Tantra in ways that may be more accessible here than many culturally-Asian teachers. You can check out our websites to get a sense of the style of the lineage. If you like it, you can go on to read the books, and if you live in a place where there’s an Aro teacher, you can go to classes or a weekend event or something.
There are some other contemporary presentations I find interesting, but don’t know much about, so I’m listing them just as possible starting points for investigation:
- The Three Doors: transformation of body, speech, and mind
- Juniper Buddhist training for modern life
- Shinzen Young
- Hokai Sobol
Good luck,
David
Dude, David, I’m just so inspired and F-ing stoked checking out your blog. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and work collecting all these ideas~
It has, I think, the only workable answer to the problems with tathagatagarbha: According to Dzogchen, you are always already a fully-enlightened Buddha. That means that the garbha has no work to do, so we can chuck it out. All its metaphysical problems disappear along with it. The technical problem—how do I become a Buddha?—also disappears. You already are one, so there is nothing to do. Dzogchen is the only Buddhism that is not a path to enlightenment. It is a path from enlightenment. Dzogchen answers a different question
“According to Dzogchen, you are always already a fully-enlightened Buddha.” and.... Dzogchen is the only Buddhism that is not a path to enlightenment ?
==> No. Not really. Anyone who is knowledgeable of Zen Buddhism, can’t fail to notice that this is exactly the teaching of the main stream Zen tradition, such as Mazu of Hongzhou school. See the Zen encounter talk between Mazu and his dharma disciple, Hui-hai.
Mazu: Where are you from?
Hui-hai : From the Dayunsi(大雲寺, Dayun-temple, literally meaning ‘a temple of Great Cloud’) in Yuenzhou(越州).
Mazu: What have you come here to seek?
Hui-hai: To seek the Buddha-Dharma.
Mazu: Not caring your own treasure at your home but just wandering around, what Buddha-dharma are you trying to find out?
Upon hearing Mazu’s reply, the master bowed and asked a question: What is my own treasure?
Mazu: You are the treasure, the one who are asking me right now. It is complete as a whole and nothing lacking with it. It is freely available to you. Why are you seeking it outside of yourself?
Upon hearing it, our master realized the original mind and got enlightened.
Thanks! I know only a little about Zen, so I probably got that wrong.
Zen and Dzogchen are similar in many ways, and some historians think there was some mutual influence between them.
“Oh, I forgot to mention. Dzogchen explicitly rejects the doctrine of “two truths.” It might be the only Buddhism that does so.”
The sources I have seen are saying something rather more nuanced. eg.
“In the mind’s ultimate nature, the two truths are inseparable. The application of the two truths to the single nature of the mind is nothing more than a provisional use of labels or terminology. There is no ordinary mind within the ground or absolute space of reality, so there is no basis upon which the two truths could be applied. Nor is there any ordinary mind at the fruition, the wisdom mind of buddhahood, so that too can not be labelled in terms of two truths. Even in the clarity and emptiness, which is the nature of the minds of confused sentient beings, we can not find this [distinction], because there is only clear awareness and emptiness. This is why we must realize how the two truths are inseparable.
Even so, because the inseparability of the two truths can only be realized once we have understood the characteristics of each individually, there is still a purpose to making the twofold division.” – Patrul Rinpoche.
Here Patrul says that the “two truths” are a “provisional, conceptual teaching,” i.e. heuristically useful as a method at certain stages on the path, but not actually true. The “definitive teaching” (actually true) is that “we cannot find this distinction,” “even in the minds of confused sentient beings.”
This is the Nyingma orthodox teaching of the lower yanas as provisional expedients for those who cannot (yet) practice the higher ones.
From the point of view of Dzogchen itself, there are no “two truths”; those are inaccurate conceptual “labels or terminology.” From the Kunjé Gyalpo, the first major Dzogchen scripture:
In the sutras of the Bodhisattvayana, through the concepts and analysis of the two truths, it is asserted that the ultimate nature is emptiness like space. Whereas the great bliss [= ultimate nature] of Atiyoga [Dzogchen] is the enlightened mind, free from concepts and analysis. The sutras obscure the state of freedom from concepts and analysis. According to Dzogchen, concepts and analysis are a diversion into Sutrayana.
Tulku Thondup (summarizing Longchenpa and Jigmed Tenpa’i Nyima):
Madhyamaka, having distinguished the appearances and emptiness separately, emphasizes the concept of emptiness. Dzogchen, having distinguished rigpa, the pure and natural state of mind, from mind, realizes rigpa directly and nakedly. Thereby it realizes the truth of the whole universe free from discriminations [of appearances and emptiness] and extremes [of eternalism and nihilism, i.e. over-emphasis on appearances or emptiness].
For Dzogchen, all the dualities of emptiness and appearance, absolute and relative, result and path, nirvana and samsara, universe and self, etc. etc., are “coalescent” from the beginning. You can’t separate them. From Dzogchen’s own point of view, attempting to do so is just idiotic, and has no value whatsoever.
Note again that all Nyingma lamas do teach the lower yanas as well, and acknowledge their value as provisional means. Dzogchen’s view is definitive for the Nyingma, but for those who cannot adopt it, approximations are helpful.
Dzogchen doesn’t say “never mind the sky gods” at all. It says by allowing relaxed presence to naturally arise, your energy flow unblocks itself and the intrinsic true nature of your being AKA “omniscient sky god” becomes attainable in one lifetime or less. The Rainbow Body is surely “Sky god” status my friend, and yes it is an objective physical observable event not some vague metaphor.
That being said, you can still have your Sex Pistols.
This has something to do with the mind continuum, it seems…
David is attempting to naturalize too much, I think.
If we are really to avoid eternalism and nihilism as extremes, then we cannot say that there’s nothing in mind that continues after death. As well, we cannot say that there’s a “permanent being” that has this kind of continuity.
If this is so, then maybe there’s something permanent that keeps changing throughout the transmigratory cycle (also pointed by the Greeks somewhat). Wouldn’t that permanent thing be the Tathagatagarbha?
Who knows if this points to a possibility of realization far beyond the extremes that could look spooky from our narrow point of view?!?
Are the stories of masters crossing rocks and knotting swords just symbolic legends?
I notice this is an old entry and that someone has already made the point I was going to. Nonetheless I am going to do it again. The tradition of Zen that I practice in is Soto Zen. The Soto school’s primary teacher is Dogen. In Dogen there are numerous places where he insists that no distinction should be drawn between enlightened beings and non-enlightened beings. In the Genjokoan Dogen states this explicitly. Dogen states we are always already enlightened. Zazen is Buddha’s practice. etc. It is so central to Dogen’s teaching that it is what inspired him to go to China to begin with. The problem Dogen sought to answer was the reason why it should be that enlightened beings should need to practice (ie. why is it the case that we are not perfect?) This question drove him to seek umpteen teachers. It drove him to abandon the Tendai sect. It drove him across the sea. The answer he gives is not something I will pretend to be able to summarise. It is something I am still working through. The solution he gives has something to do with his own idiosyncratic use of the whole Buddha-Nature deal. Dogen transforms it from a noun into a verb. Buddha-Nature is not some substance that a self is or can possess. Buddha-Nature is just the name for everything. It is the name for the process of the actualisation of reality itself. I think. Ha! Further Dogen abandons the two truths as well. It may be that he does so differently from Dzogchen though. He maintains them only in order to deny them. There is no distinction between here and the hereafter. There is no distinction between conventional and ultimate reality.
I have written this less as a critique than as an way of pointing to convergences. These convergences are suggestive regarding Zen and Dzogchen. You have mentioned here and elsewhere about rumours of mutual influence. I tend to think in these terms. Zen is austere and Tantra is exuberant. Push austerity far enough and you get exuberance. Push exuberance far enough and you get austerity (ie. the condition of being awake).
The Dzogchen you describe is very appealing. It always has been. Getting a teacher where I am is difficult. There is a Tibetan centre here. Ironically this is where the Zen group I participate in meets. There is I think a question of fit. There is a question of pragmatics. Yet I wonder if there is not the possibility for cross-fertilisation. We are both Westerners. We are contaminating/transforming the Dharma in making contact with it. Is it beyond the pale to think how older forms mesh? Would that just be to repeat the Shambala stuff? If we are contaminating then we should cross-contaminate.
A last resonance: You say that only Dzogchen recognises the union of emptiness and form. Except this is there in Dogen too. Dogen goes so far as to eliminate the reversals “emptiness is form/form is emptiness.” He tells us that the form “x is y” always produces “y” as a redundancy. If “x is y” then “y” is totally unnecessary. If “emptiness is form” then when you say “emptiness” you also say “form.” When you say “form” you also say “emptiness.” There is a direct union. The “stupidity” that you refer to is the stupidity of delusion.
Let me go back to my previous comment about austerity and exuberance. It occasionally feels to me as though the major distinction between Soto Zen and Dzogchen is in the practice and the modes of expression. These are clearly not minor. Nonetheless they seem to be philosophically resonant. There are times I feel truly drawn to Tibetan Buddhism for its richness and its batshit insane weirdness. It flaunts its own apparent irrationality. I love that. I wish Zen were a little less sensible. There you go. I wonder if that is the real distinction in the end. The austere path to exuberance or the exuberant path to austerity; the insane path to sanity or the sane path to insanity. I mean these terms in less than categorical senses, of course ;-)
I made an audio recording of this for my own practice. Posting here in case anyone can make use of it.
The reaction to the concept of self is the problem…even though problems and purpose do not exist until we react and even then we humans are the one’s who call it a problem. Reality doesn’t admit of any problems
I think my ego is right here and it is a huge habit & obstruction to the cultivation of good habits and the letting go of bad habits.
I probably wouldn’t yearn to express myself here without my trusty conceited ego that thinks it knows it all but I dunno. I’m not always aware of that old rascal.
Not to nit-pick, but what about the sense that I have a self? If I were englightened already, presumably I wouldn’t feel like that exists?