PACIFIC WORLD - The Institute of Buddhist Studies

Studstill: Cybernetic Approach to Dzogchen 337unobstructed view.” 67 Dzogchen constitutes “the direct introduction toand the abiding in [the] Primordial State of enlightenment or Buddhahood,”68 or, as Sogyal Rinpoche puts it, “the primordial state of…totalawakening that is the heart-essence of all the buddhas and all spiritualpaths.” 69From the above perspectives, some Dzogchen teachers deny thatDzogchen is either a school, a path, or an articulatable set of doctrines. AsJohn Reynolds notes, “the Nyingma Lamas do not regard Dzogchen as justanother set of beliefs, or a system of philosophical assertions, or a collectionof texts, or some sect or school.” 70 They point out that if Dzogchen isalready ineffable enlightenment as well as the “primordial state of theindividual,” 71 it cannot also be a “path” for attaining enlightenment. SapanKun-dga’ rgyal-mtshan (1181–1282) states: “The theory of Atiyoga isGnosis, not a means. To make a subject—that can not be expressed inwords—an object of discussion, is not a thought of the learned.” 72 Thesepoints notwithstanding, Dzogchen texts and teachers do attempt to explainthrough language the nature of Reality, and they recommend aparticular type of contemplative approach. It is in this sense that GeoffreySamuel characterizes Dzogchen as “a formless and nonconceptual systemof meditation conceived of…as the final stage of Tantric practice,…goingbeyond the transformational techniques of Tantra itself to the goal of theEnlightened state.” 73 Though Dzogchen may ultimately be much morethan a view and path, these categories are still legitimate and helpful waysof approaching the tradition.Dzogchen’s placement as the final of the Nine Yånas raises an additionalissue. Is Dzogchen essentially tantric (as the name Atiyogatantrasuggests), or does it constitute a distinct, non-tantric tradition? Eventhough the framework of the Nine Yånas locates Dzogchen as the highesttantric path, it is common for both Tibetan Buddhists and scholars tocontrast tantra and Dzogchen as being fundamentally distinct in approach.For example, tantra may be described as a path of “transformation” basedon highly ritualized, structured, and symbolically rich meditative practices,in contrast to Dzogchen, which aims at “self-liberation” (Tib. ranggrol)through the “formless” practice of “letting be.” 74 While this distinctionis valid (and will be elaborated on below), it would not seem tooverride the fundamental continuity between tantra and Dzogchen, andthe sense in which Dzogchen is the completion or culmination of tantricpractice. Like tantra (and Mahåyåna Buddhism in general), Dzogchenstresses the unqualified continuity of Absolute Reality and mundaneappearances, though tantra represents this continuity symbolically throughthe forms of the ma√∂ala while Dzogchen tends to subvert (at least as anultimate ideal) any form of symbolic representation (especially in thecontext of meditative practice). Dzogchen also shares one of tantra’sfundamentally defining characteristics: the identification of path and goal.