Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dzogchen and altruistic action
OtioseDodge
Explorer
Hi All,
I've been reading Dzogchen texts recently, and it seems to be the natural culmination of my path. Its assertion that all is perfect as it is, and that no action or effort is necessary to "reach" realization resonate with me on all levels.
My only doubt revolves around altruistic action. It seems to me that if all is perfect as it is, then there's absolutely no reason to engage in any kind of action, even in altruistic action. Sharing the "good news" about the natural great perfection seems equatable to attempting to make a stormy ocean more peaceful. What's the point? After all, the ocean is always the ocean, stormy or tranquil.
Thanks for reading.
I've been reading Dzogchen texts recently, and it seems to be the natural culmination of my path. Its assertion that all is perfect as it is, and that no action or effort is necessary to "reach" realization resonate with me on all levels.
My only doubt revolves around altruistic action. It seems to me that if all is perfect as it is, then there's absolutely no reason to engage in any kind of action, even in altruistic action. Sharing the "good news" about the natural great perfection seems equatable to attempting to make a stormy ocean more peaceful. What's the point? After all, the ocean is always the ocean, stormy or tranquil.
Thanks for reading.
0
Comments
if a man is beating his wife, then things are as they are, because they are as they are. it doesn't mean they should not be dealt with, to improve matters for those suffering.
My own experience is that the teachings of the Great Perfection make 'sense' like sunlight through venetian blinds: gleams but rarely full illumination.
When I was asking myself the same questions as you are doing, I finally concluded that, if I was prepared to believe that the Great Perfection was a view to embrace, I should also embrace the views of the teachers who tell me that it is a skillful means of walking the Noble Eightfold Path, with all its concomitant actions. These are the tactics by which we enter into understanding, just like doing pages of examples before we can understand a mathematical equation or play a new piece of music.
Although my view is higher than the sky, my respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as flour.
Padmasambhava
No pressure, just follow what seems right. If you feel a pressured urge to still a stormy ocean, you are also the storm. If you accept the beauty of the stormy ocean, you will be moved to dance with it in a way that helps it, though it happens without self-need.
For instance, my two year old daughter is perfect. Still, I work to teach her the alphabet and colors because even as perfect, she has more to learn in order to worrk with the world more skillfully.
Federica's example of a man that beats his wife is one that to me, at least, wrapped up in conventional morality. Why? Because everything, according to the doctrine of emptiness, which I certainly can't find any holes in, is a mere mental label, a mental construction: the man who beats his wife, the wife who feels pain, etc. And most importantly, in my opinion, the self that observes the man beating his wife is merely labeled also, as well as the mind doing the labeling.
That said, I think there's room for "spontaneous compassion" in my approach. For example, I find it fun to explain emptiness to people; it engages me. But I find that more and more I'm less and less willing to put any effort into this. Reality, I find, is a big joyful game, a fireworks display that dazzles me and fills me with wonder. And I love to play! So why make any effort? More important, I think, is to enjoy. And I think that that enjoyment, when genuine, is extremely infectious -- people feel it when you're truly free and happy.
So sure, I'll "help" the woman who's being beaten by her husband if it doesn't require effort on my part, if it's really something that I enjoy doing. But I certainly won't help if I don't enjoy it, if I don't remember the big cosmic joke while I'm doing it. If I didn't enjoy it, I feel like I wouldn't be being true to the spirit, or nature, of reality. Which to me is just a big game. Because the man and the woman and every other concept which we have are mere labels. Again, putting it metaphorically, I think that subduing the husband is like trying to subdue the ocean. But that can be a fun game, trying to subdue the waves! As long as you don't take it seriously.
aMatt, you speak of helping your two year-old daughter (three year-old now!
More and more, I think that enjoying life is our birthright, and that it's just a question of letting ourselves do this, of letting go of guilt and all these "shoulds" and these ridiculous moral codes about what we should be and do. I think that if we can truly analyze the nature of reality in depth, and realize that "we" are just labels, it's an immensely liberating experience, which opens the gateless gate, and makes "us" realize that we're just here to enjoy.
By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed writing this!
It may be something like saying, "Water is completely pure." H2O is in fact completely pure; it wouldn't be H2O if other elements bound to it. However, the fact that H2O itself is only H2O, with no possible contaminants, doesn't mean that our own water supply is pure. The pure H2O is there, but so are other things which are not part of H20 - yet we call both phenomena "water."
Two realities exist, then: 1) Water coming out of my tap is pure, and 2) my tap water smells like a sewer.
Analyzing further, what this really means is:
1) Water (H20) coming out of my tap is pure, and 2) my tap water (H2O+goodies) smells like a sewer.
(I get our triple-filtered drinking water at the local co-op...the kids and I call it "holy water.")
The joyful game you describe is very close to how a child sees the world - however, children do not take responsibility - they enjoy the privilege of innocence - overt concern with your own happiness above and beyond the happiness of others makes even less sense if you accept the nature of reality as empty - what does it matter if you are happy if you understand the emptiness of happiness where others are unhappy and they do not appreciate the emptiness of either their unhappiness or the empty happiness towards which they strive - surely if you are free of that illusion, the compulsion is away from then living square within the parameters of the same illusion?!
Enjoyment being infectious is a good key - infections attach.
Realising we are 'just here to enjoy' is the same as realising that we are 'just here to.....' fill in the gap - destroy / clean our souls / earn entry to heaven / earn 100,000 xbox points...
By the way, this is the teaching of Yangthang Rinpoche one of the greatest living Dzogchen lamas. And it's only a tiny bit of it.
For example, Sile says:
"If "perfect as it is" meant there was no need to attend to cause and effect, the various buddhas wouldn't have vowed to help sentient beings. If even the already-realized beings see importance in addressing relative suffering, I feel comfortable with the view that it's important."
This, to me, is a statement based on faith, not on empirical analysis. So I won't contest it any further.
However, Sile's example of water is, in my opinion, an attempt to justify his views empirically, though I think it's mistaken in its analysis. Why? Because it (metaphorically) divides reality into two types: pure and impure, which I think is clearly spurious. Instead, a Madhyamika analysis of reality reveals that all phenomena, whether labeled as good or bad (read: pure or impure), are just labels. "Good" is a mere label. "Bad" is a mere label. "Phenomena" too.
As for Zero's contribution, I think that it misinterprets my statements on enjoying, probably because I am speaking about something which ultimately can't be described using language, which is dualistic in nature. When "I" enjoy, I enjoy precisely because, as far as I can tell, all is merely labeled, and thus don't really take things seriously. It's like drawing on water, to quote a Buddhist master. I enjoy precisely because, according to my analysis, I'm enjoying a game, a dance. I like the definition of Nirvana which describes it as the cessation of suffering, not as the arising of a positive state of some kind. When I realized that I am merely labeled, suffering ceased.
Furthermore, Zero speaks of some sort of responsibility that I should be taking on as a result of my innocent state. To me, taking on responsibilities, assuming that they require effort, would merely be another case of not being able to let go. I argue that innocence is not a privilege; instead, I think it's our birthright.
Zero also says that my statement about enjoying being infectious is an indicator that I am somehow attached to conceptual reality. Maybe this would be the case if I were making an effort to transmit this joy to others. However, I am fully aware that the only way others can truly experience this joy is (paradoxically) by not being attached to mere labels.
And I won't attempt to parse Songhill's contribution, since, as I said above, out of respect for the religious orientation of this forum, I won't comment on views which are held as a result of faith. The only thing I can say is that I feel I have arrived at something similar, if not equal, to the "view" which he or she describes, but through different means.
I just meant that, whether or not you personally believe in buddhas and so forth, Dzogchen and other schools of Tibetan Buddhism speak of these buddha's vows to help sentient beings. At the same time, as you have said, these schools use the phrase "perfect as it is." Given that these schools place an incredibly strong emphasis on the importance of altruism, while at the same time teaching concepts such as "perfect as it is," it can be clearly understood that they do not take "perfect as it is" to mean altruism is meaningless.
So do they mean altruism is only important for those of us still stuck in delusional understanding, i.e. relative existence? It seems not, because these schools also refer to buddhas and bodhisattvas having a commitment--in fact, it's their very nature--to help suffering beings. So clearly, even for beings who are already enlightened, there is an understanding that suffering continues.
For what it's worth, the water analogy was simply meant to show that we can use a label (water, perfect-as-it-is) to mean two different things, and that we can do so without intending any contradiction.
I would suggest then that "perfect as it is" is not a reference to the desirability of suffering, or an encouragement to accept suffering. Just because the nature of ultimate reality is perfect as it is, doesn't mean we can't misapprehend it and maintain the chain of confusion and delusion that is the engine behind all the suffering in the world. If we recognized reality for what it was, we wouldn't even think of ourselves as an "I," and with no "I" to be harmed, we would no longer suffer.
So maybe the water thing does kind of work; the nature of water is pure, but that doesn't mean we humans don't do things that cause impurities to be consumed along with it. Those impurities don't affect the purity of the water whatsoever; the water is unphased, the actual H20 is not changed in any way. Saying "my water is contaminated" is not really accurate, because the water is not contaminated; rather, other things are flowing along with the water.
So clearly, even for beings who are already enlightened, there is an understanding that suffering continues [for those not yet enlightened].
I think the mere fact that teachers teach "perfect as it is..." implies "...if only we'd realize it."
To assimilate this point is simply an acceptance of what is.
This does not mean that what is remains 'static' in a state of 'perfection' - to change one part also changes another - this is cause and effect - the perfection (in the observance of a logic system) remains constant throughout change.
Thus 'perefct as is' is not 'no effort needed as everything is as it will be in a perfect unchanging state'.
A common misconception of Dzogchen is to consider upon transmission that one has 'arrived' whereas the transmission is simply a beginning of many.
Sile, for the reasons stated above, I won't address the first part of your message. But the part about water seems unnecessarily Baroque in its argumentation. Sure, a label can be used to mean two different things, but what does it matter, since it's only a label in the end, along with all other labels. Water is a label, and any impurities are labels, and for that reason I don't think we need to be Manichean and separate things into pure and impure, good and bad (which are merely other labels).
As for Zero's comment, which seems to be independent of faith-based assertions until the last sentence: I never said that I consider the perfection to be static. And the idea that the system is dynamic is also a label, as well as the word "chaos". In other words, I think that any analysis of any state of affairs benefits from applying the teachings of emptiness.
So given the above comments, I think we've reached an impasse. In any case, I just wanted to make sure that there weren't any holes in my reasoning, and I appreciate everyone's help in honing my view. I wish you all luck on your respective paths.
Best
Yes, labels are our basis of communication--I guess that's the point. Too many arguments happen because one side holds onto one label for a phenomenon; the other side holds an alternate label. They're not even really arguing.
What does "enjoy" mean? A child enjoys eating candy--until the teeth rot, early-onset diabetes manifests, and even death occurs.
Obviously, "enjoyment" is not a useful label (or pursuit) unless one truly doesn't care if one lives or dies.
Some people enjoy healthy living; others enjoy abusing themselves into an early demise. An autistic child enjoys twirling a dish; a virtuoso enjoys composing cello concertos. There's nothing wrong with enjoyment. It's just that, in the absence of analyzing what's being enjoyed, and ones goals (or lack thereof), enjoyment itself doesn't have much bearing on life or death.
I think you're forgetting to include life and death among the labels that you consider. And I think that if you do, along with the self, then you realize that life and death are just as trivial of a matter as any of the other supposed problems that we create as a result of labeling.
So to enjoy means, as the dictionary says, to take joy in something. And as I said before, I think that we can truly enjoy only when we realize that it's all just a game of labels, as opposed to taking joy seriously, as it were. If we believe that the object of life is to maximize positive emotion and minimize negative emotion without this fundamental attitude of it being a game because it's merely labeled, then that's when things go haywire. But once we stop making the stakes so high, we just relax and really enjoy.
Just to be as clear as possible: I don't give a damn about whether I live or die. Because "I" is a mere label, as well as living and dying. Instead, "I" will enjoy the show while I'm here, and I certainly won't make any negative or heavy effort to change anything that's ultimately just a label. Why waste time on that? It's like drawing on water. As a Zen master once said, "No self, no problem"! Furthermore, you say that one should analyze what's being enjoyed, presumably in order to evaluate whether it's right to enjoy it. Well, I think that according to the best analytic tool we've got, ie, realizing that it's empty, a mere label, we can eliminate the "rightness", the morality from the equation.
It took me quite a while to internalize this worldview, years. And I think that the reason for that is that I was, in effect, conditioned. Or hypnotized, if you will. Hypnotized to believe in the "solidity" of matter, and thus the seriousness of dualistic existence. When you really believe that things are separate, then of course you sometimes feel alienated and threatened by things. This is of course typical of anyone raised in today's Western scientifically materialistic society. I can't count the number of times that I used the incredibly sharp knife of Madhyamika analysis (ref: Nagarjuna) to cut myself out of a moral or materialistic conundrum, and it's only now that I'm able to leave behind the boat that I used to cross to the other shore. I highly recommend doing the same. The view's great from here!
"Nothing is except My self, i.e., the mind of perfect purity." ~ Kun byed rgya po'i mdo (Neumaier-Dargyay, The Sovereign All-Creating Mind the Motherly Buddha, p. 55)
Once again, I think that your comment may simply be a result of the limitations of language, which, as I've said before, is dualistic in nature, and therefore tends to cause problems in communication.
In any case, just to be clear, I want to emphasize that I think everything is merely labeled. Including what you label as the "absolute, pure Mind". And if that means that I'm not adhering to Dzogchen doctrine (assuming that Dzogchen doctrine even exists), then so be it. I don't intend to adhere to any path which requires me to accept any label as being anything beyond a mere label.
As for your quote, I certainly won't take it for granted, simply because, as far as I can tell, it's an assertion based on a mere label being reified.
All this said, there's a part of me which says that we're largely quibbling about semantics and not anything which is in fact important.