Extract :
Question: Why have you chosen to complete the Dzogchen teachings with the empowerment of Padmasambhava?
HHDL: Generally speaking, for a genuine practitioner of Dzogchen, there are certain prerequisites that should be met prior to engaging intensively in Dzogchen practice. These include having received complete empowerment into any of the deities of Highest Yoga Tantra, and also having engaged in both the common and uncommon preliminary practices of Dzogchen. This must then be followed by receiving a direct transmission or blessing for the practice of Dzogchen from a living master, through receiving instruction on a text such as the Yeshé Lama.
The empowerment being given tomorrow is based on Padmasambhava, and this is in fact a practice similar to the Guru Yoga practice, of which there are a number of different kinds. In order to practise Dzogchen, first of all you need to receive the blessing of a transmission that comes down through an uninterrupted lineage. The lineage here stems from the primordial buddha Samantabhadra and has been passed down through a succession of lineage masters, one of whom was Guru Padmasambhava. This practice of Dzogchen is a practice specific to Guru Padmasambhava’s lineage, and because of the significance of this, I am giving the empowerment of Padmasambhava as a conclusion to the teaching on Dzogchen.
Question: Certain Nyingma masters have expounded shentong— emptiness of other—as the view of Dzogchen. Do you agree with them? Why is shentong such a controversial view among Tibetan Buddhist philosophers?
HHDL: If we read the writings of the great scholar Mipham, especially his commentary on the Sublime Continuum, we find that he explicitly mentions the importance of understanding the Dzogchen view, in which one is able to combine the teachings of emptiness, as expounded in the wisdom sütras of the second turning of the wheel of Dharma, with the sütras belonging to the third turning of the wheel of Dharma, particularly the Essence of Buddhahood Sutra. The understanding developed through a combination of the views expounded in both turnings of the wheel of Dharma will enable us to appreciate what in Dzogchen terminology are called: primordial purity, which is the main subject matter of the second turning, and spontaneous presence, which is the main subject matter of the third turning of the wheel of Dharma.
However, this does not mean that the emptiness spoken of in the second turning, that is in the wisdom sütras, is exactly the same as what in Dzogchen terminology is called primordial purity But one thing which is clear is that without an understanding of emptiness as expounded in the wisdom sutras, and without taking that understanding as a basis, there is no way that you can understand primordial purity in the context of Dzogchen.
As for the question of whether spontaneous presence in Dzogchen is synonymous with what is called the tathagatagarbha— the essence of buddhahood or innate mind of clear light—in the third turning of the wheel of Dharma, especially in the Essence of Buddhahood Sutra, there do seem to be divergent views on that, even among Nyingma meditators and scholars.
One view is that, although there is a difference, the eventual reference for the innate mind of clear light spoken of in Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum or the Essence of Buddhahood Sütra is definitely rigpa, or the spontaneous presence that is spoken of in Dzogchen. But that does not mean that the explicit mention of the two terms refers to the same thing. An example here is that in Yoga Tantra, especially in the tantra of Vairocanãbhisarnbodhi, there is a mention of the rainbow body. Now although we cannot say that this rainbow body is totally synonymous with what is spoken of as the illusory body in Highest Yoga Tantra, yet eventually that reference to the rainbow body, if understood at its deepest level, will come down to the illusory body.
As I explained earlier, in the writings of the Nyingma masters Longchen Rabjam, the omniscient Jikmé Lingpa, and Mipham, there may be mention of the term ‘emptiness of other’, but here the reference is mainly to the fundamental innate mind, that is, to rigpa. This innate mind is ‘empty of other’ in that it is devoid of circumstantial conceptual thought processes. Therefore these types of emptiness of other are totally different from the emptiness of other which was refuted by many Tibetan masters in the past.
There is a tradition of making a distinction between two different perspectives on the nature of emptiness: one is when emptiness is presented within a philosophical analysis of the ultimate reality of things, in which case it ought to be understood in terms of a non-affirming negative phenomena. On the other hand, when it is discussed from the point of view of experience, it should be understood more in terms of an affirming negation.
I think the reason for this statement is that when setting out your philosophical position and view of emptiness, you have to do so while taking into account the common viewpoints of sutra and tantra on the teaching of emptiness. But when speaking from an experiential point of view, you do so more from your understanding of emptiness in terms of the perspective of Highest Yoga Tantra.
Another reason for this difference is, I think, that in the practice of sutra and the three lower classes of tantra, the wisdom derived through special insight into emptiness is always a contemplative, analytical state of mind, and it is never a state of mental absorption, whereas in Highest Yoga Tantra a special insight into emptiness could be also a state of absorption. This is possible because in Highest Yoga Tantra the subjective mind employed in perceiving emptiness has the nature of a spontaneous experience of great bliss, and it is that faculty of great bliss which serves the purpose of analysis.
In Dzogchen practice, no effort is made to generate bliss through utilizing the channels, vital energy and essences, as is the case in the new translation school tantras. Rather, the nature of rigpa is directly introduced, and that view is what is maintained. But this is not an analytical process, because analysis means that mind would be sullied by ordinary consciousness. Rigpa is utterly relaxed, although the term tharnal gyi shépa—’ordinary awareness’, is not actually used here. Within this state of completely relaxed awareness, there is no focusing of the attention; consciousness simply rests without engaging in any kind of analysis. Should analysis set in, the experience would be sullied by ordinary consciousness; it would be mind—made, and this falls into ‘the view of intellectual speculation.’ |
