Why Dzogchen?

The sky symbolizes the nature of Mind in Dzogchen

The main unusual feature of the Aro gTér is its exceptional emphasis on Dzogchen.

In theory, at least, all Nyingma lineages and Lamas teach all the yanas: Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen, and their subdivisions. However, most teachers concentrate on a particular yana, whose style flavors their teaching of other yanas.

Because the yanas are extremely different in approach, one of the most important factors in choosing a lineage and teacher is the yana they emphasize. So in approaching Tibetan Buddhism, a clear understanding of the principles and functions of the yanas—and their non-conceptual “feel”—is invaluable.

Buddhism is not a one-size-fits-all religion

Because we are each different, we find different Buddhist paths to be the best “fit” for our personalities and capabilities. Buddhism is not a “one size fits all” religion. This page is meant to help find a good “fit” on the basis of yana. To speak of the yanas in terms of practical advantages and disadvantages, as if I were reviewing bathroom cleaning products, is crass. It seems disrespectful. However, for Buddhism to be useful, it has to be a tool for everyday use–not a holy abstraction venerated on Sundays.

Each yana has a base, path, and result. The base is its prerequisites: where you need to be to begin. The result is where it takes you. It is only possible to practice a yana whose base you are at, and only useful it its result is where you want to go.

The path of each yana has a texture or style or flavor. Most of our time as Buddhists is spent not at the base or result, but on the path. Unless its texture suits us, we will not be motivated to practice.

Sutra

The base of Sutra (which includes most forms of Buddhism) is recognition that there is something wrong with our understanding of worldly satisfaction. That makes most Westerners qualified for Sutra. The path is renunciation. One withdraws from the world to prevent its pleasures and pains from roiling one’s emotions. Accomplishing this project is generally incompatible with having a family, job, or non-religious interests. (That is why there are monasteries.) The end point of Sutra is recognition of emptiness—which is not full enlightenment, according to some other Buddhist views.

Sutra is effective for many. It is impractical or unattractive for those who are unwilling to give up on full-spectrum living, or for whom emptiness does not seem to be the whole story.

Tantra

The base of Tantra is realization of emptiness. That generally requires several years of dedicated meditation practice. Accordingly, you may not yet be qualified to practice Tantra. However, you may be inspired by the prospect of the path: brilliant, dynamic, magical, tempestuous, awe-inspiring.

In that case, fortunately, you are qualified to practice Tantric ngöndro. A ngöndro is a set of practices that brings you to the base of a yana, and that have the same texture as the yana. Tantric ngöndro has the same result as renunciation—realization of emptiness—but feels like Tantra.

The path of Tantra is extraordinarily complex. It requires mastery of vast masses of unlikely-sounding doctrine and arcane ritual. It involves deliberately provoking your negative emotions, which can be horrifying, and can actually drive you crazy. Tantra is dangerous. For some, all this may be attractive; for others, not.

Dzogchen

Dzogchen is sometimes called the “highest teaching of Buddhism,” and “the fastest route to enlightenment.” Some are attracted to it for that reason. That would be a mistake. The best teaching is whichever is most useful to you, now.

The base of Dzogchen is rigpa, or momentary enlightenment. Rigpa is elusive, and few are qualified to practice Dzogchen. If you are now approaching Tibetan Buddhism, you are highly unlikely to be.

So what good could Aro be, if it is all about something you can’t do? Again there is a ngöndro, which brings you to the base (rigpa) while practicing in the Dzogchen style. Its only prerequisite is willingness to practice. So if the Dzogchen style seems a good fit, this is a good starting point.

elegant, clear, powerful, practical, and simple

Dzogchen is elegant, clear, powerful, practical, and simple. These are virtues beloved of scientists, engineers, and businessmen such as myself. Dzogchen is the yana that most inspires me.

It is, however, rather dry and abstract. To make sense of it requires inspired transmission and explanation from a Lama, plus probably either years of shinè meditation practice or unusual intellectual capacity.

Dzogchen’s world-view is exceptionally compatible with modern Western culture. So much so, in fact, that it may be misunderstood as simple common sense. That would be to miss how extraordinarily radical it is.

It is valuable to understand the Dzogchen view intellectually even if you practice other yanas. Understanding Dzogchen makes the other yanas make sense, for me at least, in a way they do not on their own terms.

I am not capable of practicing Dzogchen. I practice Dzogchen ngöndro; but I also practice aspects of each of the other yanas, including all eight of their subdivisions. In the Aro way, I practice them with Dzogchen style: with simplicity, clarity, and openness.

Comments

Why Dzogchen? Emphasis of Aro on Dzogchen.

I can't believe your statement: "I know of no other lineage or Lama in whose teaching Dzogchen is so pervasive". What about Namkha'i Norbu Rinpoche and his worldwide Dzogchen Community and Lama Tenzin Wangyal of Ligmincha Institute. Namkha'i Norbu has done more to make Dzogchen known than any other Lama? What about Lama Surya Das and his Dzogchen Foundation? What about Keith Dowman who is now teaching Dzogchen in seminars around the world?

Hmm . . . gosh

Hmm, gosh, this wasn't meant to be provocative or exclusionary. It just described my personal experience and knowledge, but it was sloppy. I have dropped it; thank you for the correction.

I have written about my enormous appreciation of Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche here and elsewhere. Of non-Aro teachers whom I have direct experience of, he has the strongest Dzogchen orientation. And, I agree that he is more responsible for anyone else for making Dzogchen known and available. He is a colossal force. My experience is that he also teaches quite a bit of Mahayoga; Aro doesn't.

The others you mention also seem to be very fine teachers, based only on having read some of their books.

David

Sutra and non-duality

Dear David, it occured to me when reading this page that I have heard otherwise concerning your assertion that the fruit of sutra is emptiness, though I'm not sure from what yana that which I have heard comes from. I heard it told that in sutra one also discovers non-duality because when realising emptiness one concomitantly realises the compassion that arises out of emptiness, and their non-duality. If one can't realise non-duality through sutric practice then then one can't gain enlightenment so, it seems that sutric practice doesn't function as a buddhist yana because it doesn't have buddhahood as its result. Of course,as I said, maybe your statement is yana specific, and so nullifies my point with pragmatic clarity.

Sutra and rigpa

Hi, Alex,

Good to hear from you! Thanks for a difficult question . . .

Indeed, my statement was overly broad. I've changed "according to the other yanas" to "according to some other Buddhist views."

This question is tricky both conceptually, and in terms of sensitivity. I would strongly recommend each person discuss this directly with their teacher, because answers will be highly individual in terms of the teacher's viewpoint and the student's depth of understanding.

Within the scriptures of each Buddhist system, one finds polemical denigrations of the other systems. This is unhelpful, I think, when it leads to political conflicts (which it does). Reading the polemics can be helpful, however, in understanding how the systems differ. We can then honor (and practice) each system for what it does well, while also understanding its limitations.

Each Buddhist system has its own conception of what the ultimate goal is. Part of sorting out the different systems, and deciding how one is going to relate to them, is understanding their different theories of enlightenment—both what it is ("fruit"), and how you get there ("path").

Naturally, the view of Sutra is that Sutra leads to Buddhahood, which includes, inseparably, non-dual wisdom [i.e. perception of emptiness] and compassion. This is also the view of Tantra when it is taught as a means of realizing Sutra, i.e. as "esoteric Mahayana". Generally, that is the approach of the Geluk School. The corresponding philosophical system is Madhyamaka Prasangika. This is the Tibetan system best-known in the West.

Within other presentations of Tantra—especially Zhentong—and within Dzogchen, Prasangika is viewed as nihilistic. It fails to recognize the "form qualities of emptiness" or "the inherent luminosity of space." Its conception of Buddhahood is deficient in over-emphasizing wisdom (emptiness) and under-emphasizing blissful action (form). The non-duality realized in Sutra is not rigpa, according to Dzogchen; and so Sutra does not in fact lead all the way to Buddhahood. The path of Sutra, on this view, emphasizes methods of realizing emptiness over methods of realizing bliss-compassion. These are useful as preliminaries, but you have to go beyond Sutra to find realization.

Of course, Sutrayana would reply that it does have extensive methods for generating compassion, and that from its point of view, Tantra (if it has any validity at all) is exactly a set of Mahayana methods for that purpose. And, Zhentong and Dzogchen are eternalistic for wrongly going beyond the correct, strictly negative conception of emptiness. They make emptiness into a God, an ultimate truly-existing creator, which Buddhism must deny.

Trying to sort this out conceptually is extremely difficult (although fun for those with an academic bent).

Generally, one is particularly attracted to a particular style of Buddhist practice and teaching, based on personal taste. And then one practices and studies that system, whichever it is. For most of us, it is probably far more important to be enthusiastic about some brand of Buddhism than to spend a lot of time worrying about which is ultimately superior.

It may be that ultimately all the Buddhist systems lead to the same enlightenment, or maybe not—but this is only a meaningful question when one has nearly exhausted the system one was attracted to. There are accounts of great meditators who fully accomplished Buddhist system X and were dissatisfied with the results, and went on to practice system Y instead, and then became fully enlightened. So at a certain stage, "which really leads to Buddhahood" may become relevant.

I'm nowhere near that point. I work in a mainly-Dzogchen system (Aro) mostly because I like it; not because I'm sure Dzogchen's theory of the relationships between emptiness, form, and enlightenment are exactly correct.

Cheers,

David