In response to someone’s theistic question about original causation, Buddha Shakyamuni related a parable about a man who had been shot in the chest with a poisoned arrow.  Here’s the story.  “Suppose a man has been shot in the chest with a poisoned arrow.  Undoubtedly, this man would therefore be in quite a lot of pain from the arrow itself having pierced deeply into his flesh.  But also, the arrow’s poisoned tip, in close proximity to the man’s heart, would soon be leaching sufficient toxicity as to become irreversibly fatal.  Fortunately, a wise and skillful surgeon happened to be in the area.  Having been urgently summoned by the man’s relatives and friends, the surgeon gathered his tools and medicine and arrived at the man’s side right away.  However, just as the surgeon was about to begin his life-saving procedure, the injured man slowly and painfully raised up his hand, placed it upon the surgeon’s arm and said, ‘Venerable doctor, before you administer your medicines and perform the necessary extraction, there are a few things I feel I must first know and understand.  Specifically, what is name of the person who shot me?  To what caste does he belong?  What were his motives?  Did he act alone or was there a conspiracy?  Surely the average man does not possess the knowledge of how to prepare poisons, so, who do we know in this area that might have such grim skills?  And what type of poison might have been used?  Also, it is my understanding that arrows have distinct characteristics that are unique to their particular maker.  Therefore, I should like to know also the name of the arrow smith who is thus additionally responsible, although indirectly, for my present critical state. ‘  Concluding the story there, Buddha then questioned his questioner, “Would you consider a man such as the one in this story to be wise?”  When the questioner admitted he would not, Buddha then equated the lack of wisdom of the man in the story with a lack of wisdom in being preoccupied with metaphysical and theological issues, when each of us is similarly suffering from the spiritually fatal poisoned arrows of ignorance, greed and aggression.

Historically, Buddha Shakyamuni was notorious for remaining literally silent whenever someone posed a philosophical question whose answer would not be of practical use to those seriously seeking spiritual liberation.  But there is some evidence that Buddha occasionally did attempt to clarify certain theological questions.  Because the Western world is overwhelmingly theistic by culture, and because sometimes Buddhism is incorrectly considered to be an atheistic religion, some discussion of theism in the context of Buddhism may be useful to those who, like me, sometimes feel compelled to think about such things.

The term, theology, is generally rejected as having any relevance in the context of Buddhist teachings because Buddhism is functionally and philosophically independent from theistic beliefs.  It is technically mistaken, however, to think of Buddhism as atheistic – although such a mistake is certainly less of a mistake than to think of Buddhism as theistic.  Being independent or non-dependent upon theistic concepts does not mean that Buddhism avoids the issue altogether.  On the contrary, an integral feature of Mindfullness practice is self-vigilance of the deep, habitual under-stirrings that are actually responsible for the very notion of Theos.  Buddha taught that the concept of Theos represents the erroneous retro-fitted rationalization for the vividness of our Clarity.  Without question, everything appears to be so real!  Due to this arresting vividness, beings who are ignorant of the true nature of phenomena remain adrift in a sea of confusion and fear.  Some apparent objects seem beneficial so we desperately try to acquire and keep those.  Other apparent objects seem detrimental so we frantically attempt to avoid or destroy those.  A few of the  apparent objects seem neutral, but only because we are not yet very familiar with those.  The two dominant philosophical categories that emerge from all this confusion were already well established in Buddha’s time.  Buddha referred to them as Eternalism and Nihilism and gave profound commentary on both views.  In one fascinating teaching, Buddha even went so far as to say that if one were for some reason obligated to follow either one or the other, Eternalism would be the better option because there is at least some opportunity for earning merit within that view.  Buddha, as we know, taught that is and isn’t aren’t the only alternatives views of reality.  Moreover, a negation of something actually affirms its potentiality.  Something that is not possible or not real can’t logically be negated.  Only something possible can be negated, such as, “I am not in my office right now.” Or, “This sandwich is not what I ordered.”  So, according to Buddhist teachings, not only are theism and atheism not the only alternative views, the concept of atheism actually affirms the potentiality of Theos.  As stated above, Buddhism functions independently from these issues.  There are, of course, broader interpretations of the God/god concept that encompass the notion of relative divinity.  One might be inclined to use the term, higher power, as is done in 12-step programs.  Without question, the notion of higher powers is not at all absent in Buddhism.  But there is a very distinctive and subtle understanding regarding such higher powers that constitutes the dividing-line between the real meaning of the Buddhist teachings, and what would otherwise be common theism.

There are numerous higher powers.  Some are abstract, such as collective karma or cosmic unfoldment, and some are understood to be actual living beings, like Jesus, Shugden, Our Lady of Medjugorje, and Tara.  Although there are arguments among the corresponding devotees about the degree of divinity that one’s own or someone else’s favorite higher power may possess, we will leave that matter aside.  Our subject here is the nature, function and practicality of seeking assistance from a higher power, and how that relates to Buddhist teachings in general, and Dzogchen in particular.

One of the considerations about asking for help is the matter of what might be the motivation of the intended helper.  Realistically, unless the intended helper is a fully realized being (in the Buddhist sense) their motives will be mixed, at best.  Sometimes this might not be problematic but sometimes it could be.  Another consideration about asking for help in this spiritual context is admittedly somewhat dark.  A call for help, even though it may be directed to a particular and trusted helper, can sometimes be heard (and answered) by beings whose motives are patently exploitative.  Without sufficiently developed spiritual clarity, it is very easy to misinterpret what might seem at first like welcome help from eavesdropping entities with evil agenda.  Many traditional fairy-tales illustrate this unfortunate risk.  These are a few of the reasons that the practice of asking for help from higher powers is handled in a very specific and particular way in Buddhism.  Great care is taken to assure that the lines of communication between the practitioner and deity are authentic, clear and secure.  Although these practices are not at all considered to be fundamental to Buddhism, in fact, some groups do seem to treat them as such.  This is because we are in the human condition and have needs.  There is a great difference however between acquiring the needs for living a life conducive to spiritual practice, as opposed to merely continuing to feed the dragon.

In Dzogchen practice it is axiomatic that we learn to integrate our essential qualities with the concrete facts of life, be they positive or negative.  As Namkhai Norbu always says, we need to work with our circumstances.  Sometimes our circumstances involve hardships that challenge or seem to exceed our abilities.  Sometimes we can also become subject to intentional hardship and provocations that have been perpetrated by beings that are antagonistic toward, or jealous of our spiritual practice.  At these times there are specific and powerful practices that we can employ for protection and support that effectively invoke what would unmistakably be characterized as a higher power.  However, in the Dzogchen tradition, the actual connection that we maintain with our spiritual master – on the essence-to-essence level – is viewed to be the ultimate protection and support, not in the sense of a higher power, but as a genuine realization that our own essence, nature and energy constitute the context, source and character of all our experiences.

This entry was posted in Dzogchen and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to OMg

  1. DL says:

    I found your webpage and was instantly inspired by the spirit of the radical Dzogchen of which you write. I have experienced Pointing Out Instruction, rising from and back into these waters has become the center of my practice. I write simply because I haven’t found this spirit expressed anywhere else, certainly not with the depth and clarity of your page. Looking to deepen my experience.

    • Lucjan says:

      Thank you for acknowledgment. I wish you all the best. Here is something to consider. In Pointing Out Instructions there are three aspects. One aspect is the reality of the state that being pointed out, the second aspect is the state of the Point-er, and the third aspect is the state of the Point-ee (not the theoretical primordial state, the actual state at that moment). Even in the best of circumstances where all three aspects were perfect, a real practitioner needs continuous work on integrating his real presence with emptiness, movement and the continuous momentum of manifestations.

      • DL says:

        Thank you for your quick response, “a real practitioner needs continuous work on integrating his real presence with emptiness, movement and the continuous momentum of manifestations.” This is where I feel I am now, I have moments where it feels like I have no ground to stand on… then back up out of this into the world, kind of, then back in… all the while, this movement is coming closer to the emptiness. I feel almost like there is nothing left to do, just watch/help this play out until finally (if there is a finally) … something happens, they become one/none/neither/both/or …. I don’t know.

      • Lucjan says:

        Dear DL, the reality of our true basis, as individuals, remains not only relevant but quintessential. Real dzogchen teachings are only about this. If you sometimes feel like there’s no ground, the real issue then is, “What kind of state are you in at the moment of that feeling?” The feeling itself is part of your clarity but will not be experienced as clarity if you are not in the real state of rigpa. The back and forth movement can only occur in the context of emptiness. There is no other context. So, there is no need to expect the movement to come closer to emptiness. It can’t. As beings who are not yet totally realized, we basically have two modes. One is temporal and the other is not. We mostly wallow around in the temporal mode. Sometimes we find that we can rest for a while in the atemporal mode. If we want to realize ourselves, we need to understand and have real knowledge of the fictitiousness of time. It is fine to let the world play out, but it is not so fine to let ourselves play out, so long as we are still magnetized in time. If you have discovered your real nature, really recognized it, then you must develop the certainty of utter familiarity with your individual Dharmata, the actual center of your universe. This is what the Trekcho teachings are for, and this specific work is indispensable. However, it only becomes useful IF one has truly discovered their real nature. By applying trekcho methods and arriving at the genuine certainty of true personal knowledge of one’s own basis, THEN, integration practice becomes possible. Sincere dzogchen practitioners need to periodically refresh themselves by literally retracing their steps through the knowledge process. Anything that happens is not your true nature, it is only your experience, especially the experience of emptiness. The essence is WHO the experiencer is. If you re-discover who you really are (Direct Introduction), and then work continuously with that knowledge by self-remembering and releasing (Eliminating Doubt {trekcho [drenpa/sheshen]}), then you will be able to fully integrate with all phenomena (Continue to Abide), on its own terms as real sound, real light and real radiance. Then there will be no question of watching or waiting for a finality, which is only ontologically meaningful while one is in the temporal mode. The state of “I Don’t Know” is good for Zen practitioners because they specialize on emptiness. Dzogchen however is the path of self(auto)-liberation so, real knowledge is where that must begin.

      • Andrew says:

        In Pointing out instructions there aren’t three different aspects. There is just the pointing out.
        Real practitioners are not real in any way and presence is not real either. Understand this and you understand what is meant by the term ’emptiness’.

      • Lucjan says:

        Thank you for your comment. As you probably know, words are used to mean different things at different times, depending on the context. That’s the nature of language. But if you presume that you do not have a real nature, then that only means that you have yet to discover it. The cognizant quality of one’s real nature is one’s fundamental presence, and it is real presence. But you can only know this by simply being, as that presence. As for what is meant by the term, emptiness, you seem to suggest that emptiness (shunyata) is the absolute. That certainly is a common idea among Buddhists but it is not the Dzogchen view (which is what I am writing about). In the Dzogchen view, emptiness is an aspect/quality of reality — not ultimate reality itself. As for pointing out instructions, you have simply missed the point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s