The other day I saw a workshop advertised called "Dzogchen without
Buddhism". I have, over the years seen a number of suggestions that
Dzogchen practitioners can dispense with Buddhism, or that it is not
essential to be a Buddhist to practice Dzogchen. I would like a spend a
little time examining that claim.
The first question I am led to ask is this: just what is a Buddhist? At
the most basic level a Buddhist is someone who believes in the awakening
of a fellow named Gautama (the son of a petty tribal chief of the Ś�kya
clan on northern plains of India, also known as "The Buddha"), and
wishes to follow that path.
This leads to our next question: do Dzogchen texts mention the Buddha?
It would seem, from textual evidence, that they do. Disparate Dzogchen
tantras such as the rang 'byung chen po rgyud, the rig pa rang shar and
the kun byed rgyal po mention a person called Teacher Ś�kyamuni.
I suppose this is not completely convincing evidence, since it can be
pointed out that merely mentioning the name Buddha does not make a
tradition Buddhist. After all, Manichaeism, Baha'i and Hinduism accord
recognition to the Buddha as a great teacher of humankind. So there must
be something a bit more.
How about by goal? Dzogchen, like other Buddhist traditions proposes not
only is there a person called the Buddha, but that everyone who so
wishes can achieve that same result, known in Buddhism as byang chub,
bodhi awakening and buddha, sangs rgyas, full awakening. These two terms
appear by the thousands in Dzogchen tantras and texts.
So how does Dzogchen define "buddhahood"? Dzogchen is not a gradual
path, so it does not completely define full awakening in terms common to
the paths of cause and result i.e. as the result of the accumulation of
merit and wisdom. However, what Dzogchen does share with the lower
paths of the cause and result is the definition of full awakening,
buddhahood, as the permanent state of being completely free from the
afflictive obscuration and being endowed with full omniscience.
Like all Buddhist paths, Dzogchen sets out to solve the questions of
what constitutes suffering, the cause of suffering, and how we free
ourselves from that suffering. It may be objected that the answer to
that question is quite different from how it is answered in Hinayana and
Mahayana, and in the lower tantras — nevertheless, the fact that it
engages these questions in a Buddhist context shows that the context of
Dzogchen is entirely Buddhist. In fact, there are numerous Dzogchen
tantras that review the whole of the non-Buddhist and Buddhist tenet
systems in ascending order from non-Buddhist materialists, Samkhya,
Vedanta, and so on; then Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Pratyekabudha,
Cittamatra, Madhyamaka and so on.
Perhaps the principle difference between Dzogchen and other schools is
the pairing of two states: vidy� and avidy�, rigpa and ma rigpa,
knowledge and ignorance. Whereas other schools propose that affliction
is the cause of suffering, and engages in scrubbing afflictions,
Dzogchen sees the cause of suffering in the knowledge obscuration of
avidy�, ignorance. Dzogchen suggests that ignorance can only be removed
by knowledge or rigpa. That knowledge, vidy�, rigpa, is direct personal
experience of our actual state. But the terms with which Dzogchen
explores these issues is entirely grounded in Buddhist discourse, among
Buddhists.
What about Dzogchen in Bon? This is a highly contentious issue. There
may or may not have been a teacher called Ston pa Shenrab. He may have
come from Western Tibet, from the vicinity of Kailash, or "Tajik" to the
west. He may have lived eighteen thousand years ago, or he may have
lived four thousand years ago, and so on. We have no reliable documents
about him as a person that date before the 10th century. This shows
however that there is a tradition about him that predates this period.
But we can't really know how old it is. Everything we know about him
dates from the tenth century onward. Tibetans scrubbed their own history
pretty thoroughly after the imperial period, so all we have left are
visionary accounts from tenth century onward.
In the end, Bon more closely resembles Buddhism than it differs from it. So my point remains the same.
Finally in terms of the path: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has clearly
enunciated many times the following point: there are three sacred
principles without which a given practice that one is doing is not
Dzogchen: these principles are going for refuge, developing bodhicitta
motivation, and dedicating merits. Going for refuge is not defined by
reciting some words; it is defined by the recognition of problems with
one's own understanding and knowledge, and a desire to find the solution
to these problems in Buddhas, such as Samantabhadra, Vajrasattva,
Ś�kyamuni, Garab Dorje and so on, their teachings, the Dzogchen
teachings, which include the meaning of all y�nas; and the Sangha of
Dzogchen, the vidy�dharas such as Śrī Siṅgha, Padmasambhava and so on
and bodhisattvas such as MañjuÅ›rÄ«, AvalokiteÅ›vara and Vajrapani.
Motivation does not mean mouthing words about saving all sentient
beings, here it means that it is not sufficient to merely seeks one's
own liberation, whether through Dzogchen or any other vehicle, one must
have compassion and loving kindness as one's basis for entering
practice.
Dedication here means that we dedicate all our practice to others, in
the usual Mah�y�na way, not necessarily with words, but with our
intention, so that all others will reach the state of the adibuddha,
Samantabhadra, quickly.
Without these, whatever practice we are doing cannot be considered Dzogchen practice let alone Buddhist.
Dzogchen without Buddhism therefore is "Ati Lite™". It may sound good,
it may look good, it might have a nice package, but in the end, it has
no value. It is not spiritually nourishing, it is spiritually depleting.
Ati Lite™ will have the exact opposite effect of Dzogchen: instead of
becoming a more open, more humble person, one will become more
self-involved and afflicted. Instead of developing a broader mind, free
and flexible, able to accommodate changing conditions, one will become
more and more constricted, selfish and narrow. And in the end, one will
have nothing worth giving to anyone.
The refreshing taste of Ati Lite™.
