Dharma Wheel

Is there a definitive source of Dzogchen teachings? I mean, if I want to check whether a teaching given is authentic, is there a written canon that can confirm or deny the validity of a doctrine or method? Like, can the tantras be used for this, or the writings of certain masters? Or is it only the living lineage holders who can serve as accepted sources?

The definitive source is Samantabhadra, that said, one has to deal with that. There is no concepts supporting Dzogchen, some explanations are exposed for the sake of an answer (to questions) ... But there is a testament, the 3 statements of Garab Dorjé. Therefore a teaching is authentic if it leads to the recognition of our real nature (statement 1).

Sönam

So the three statements of Garab Dorje can be used in a similar way as the Four Dharma Seals?

Astus wrote:So the three statements of Garab Dorje can be used in a similar way as the Four Dharma Seals?

yes

That's good. It is then quite easy to tell the difference between Dzogchen and not Dzogchen.

Astus wrote:Is there a definitive source of Dzogchen teachings? I mean, if I want to check whether a teaching given is authentic, is there a written canon that can confirm or deny the validity of a doctrine or method? Like, can the tantras be used for this, or the writings of certain masters? Or is it only the living lineage holders who can serve as accepted sources?

Yes, root dzogchen tantras and their commentaries are the base of all the rest. There should be no disagreement between them and subsequent texts and teachings of various teachers.

I do not think that the three phrases of Garab Dorje would really clarify whether something is authentic or not by themselves. Since I could introduce your state as being a chocolate pudding, instruct you to eat it till all your doubt is removed and then tell you to continue in the state of the chocolate pudding. All the statements would be satisfied and you could just go around thinking you are a chocolate pudding.

Pero wrote: I do not think that the three phrases of Garab Dorje would really clarify whether something is authentic or not by themselves. Since I could introduce your state as being a chocolate pudding, instruct you to eat it till all your doubt is removed and then tell you to continue in the state of the chocolate pudding. All the statements would be satisfied and you could just go around thinking you are a chocolate pudding.

Tantras won't tell you if the teacher is really teaching Dzogchen or not ... everyone can repeat what is written in books, it does not make one a Dzogchen teacher. A contrario, if a teacher is able to introduce you to your real nature, then he can be identified as a Dzogchen master. And stories about pudding is just a non sense when we speak about recognition ... it does not help. With all respect, this view about books is a vajrayana view, not a dzogchen view.

Sönam

Pero wrote:

Astus wrote:Is there a definitive source of Dzogchen teachings? I mean, if I want to check whether a teaching given is authentic, is there a written canon that can confirm or deny the validity of a doctrine or method? Like, can the tantras be used for this, or the writings of certain masters? Or is it only the living lineage holders who can serve as accepted sources?

Yes, root dzogchen tantras and their commentaries are the base of all the rest. There should be no disagreement between them and subsequent texts and teachings of various teachers.

I do not think that the three phrases of Garab Dorje would really clarify whether something is authentic or not by themselves. Since I could introduce your state as being a chocolate pudding, instruct you to eat it till all your doubt is removed and then tell you to continue in the state of the chocolate pudding. All the statements would be satisfied and you could just go around thinking you are a chocolate pudding.

I think what he means is that the three statements are definitive in that they refine in the most basic way possible the entirety of the Dzogchen path. Regardless of which texts a person uses, who they study under, what their capacity is, what aspect of Dzogchen they focus on (space, mind or pith instructions), the three statements sum up all that needs to be done. Get direct introduction into rigpa. Gain confidence in rigpa. Then abide in rigpa.

For someone who liked chocolate pudding a lot, a master may well be able to introduce their natural state through the pudding. Since pudding engages the senses of sight, smell, texture and taste, through any of these senses the natural state might be realized. Therefore, one could be introduced to their natural state through an explanation of it related to pudding, then they could keep eating pudding and contemplating what they had learned. Once they gained confidence in their ability to abide in rigpa, contemplation can come to rest and they can experience the suchness of pudding, as it is, inseparable from the mind of samantabhadra.

Sönam wrote:

Pero wrote: I do not think that the three phrases of Garab Dorje would really clarify whether something is authentic or not by themselves. Since I could introduce your state as being a chocolate pudding, instruct you to eat it till all your doubt is removed and then tell you to continue in the state of the chocolate pudding. All the statements would be satisfied and you could just go around thinking you are a chocolate pudding.

Tantras won't tell you if the teacher is really teaching Dzogchen or not ... everyone can repeat what is written in books, it does not make one a Dzogchen teacher.

That is true but if what a teacher is saying is not in line with the root texts then you can know he is not really teaching Dzogchen.

A contrario, if a teacher is able to introduce you to your real nature, then he can be identified as a Dzogchen master.

Sure but also as above.

With all respect, this view about books is a vajrayana view, not a dzogchen view.

Yes well it's pretty strange then that there are so many dzogchen books.

wisdom wrote:

Pero wrote:

Astus wrote:Is there a definitive source of Dzogchen teachings? I mean, if I want to check whether a teaching given is authentic, is there a written canon that can confirm or deny the validity of a doctrine or method? Like, can the tantras be used for this, or the writings of certain masters? Or is it only the living lineage holders who can serve as accepted sources?

Yes, root dzogchen tantras and their commentaries are the base of all the rest. There should be no disagreement between them and subsequent texts and teachings of various teachers.

I do not think that the three phrases of Garab Dorje would really clarify whether something is authentic or not by themselves. Since I could introduce your state as being a chocolate pudding, instruct you to eat it till all your doubt is removed and then tell you to continue in the state of the chocolate pudding. All the statements would be satisfied and you could just go around thinking you are a chocolate pudding.

I think what he means is that the three statements are definitive in that they refine in the most basic way possible the entirety of the Dzogchen path. Regardless of which texts a person uses, who they study under, what their capacity is, what aspect of Dzogchen they focus on (space, mind or pith instructions), the three statements sum up all that needs to be done. Get direct introduction into rigpa. Gain confidence in rigpa. Then abide in rigpa.

For someone who liked chocolate pudding a lot, a master may well be able to introduce their natural state through the pudding. Since pudding engages the senses of sight, smell, texture and taste, through any of these senses the natural state might be realized. Therefore, one could be introduced to their natural state through an explanation of it related to pudding, then they could keep eating pudding and contemplating what they had learned. Once they gained confidence in their ability to abide in rigpa, contemplation can come to rest and they can experience the suchness of pudding, as it is, inseparable from the mind of samantabhadra.

Haha!

Sönam wrote: Tantras won't tell you if the teacher is really teaching Dzogchen or not ... everyone can repeat what is written in books, it does not make one a Dzogchen teacher.
.....
With all respect, this view about books is a vajrayana view, not a dzogchen view.

Sönam, ChNN Rinpoche is teaching again and again those Dzogchen Tantras through all these years. No?

So there are the 17 Dzogchen root tantras and there commentaries, however, they are not available in English, so those who can't read Tibetan can't really use them.

Does the three statements of Garab Dorje include a definition of rigpa that is to be introduced? Because it hinges on what is actually being shown, as pointed out by Pero. So if it is clarified then it's still a good measurement. If it isn't, perhaps there is some widely accepted commentary?

I read somewhere that Dolpopa was critical of Dzogchen and Mahamudra. As anyone come across this, too?

Astus wrote:So there are the 17 Dzogchen root tantras and there commentaries, however, they are not available in English, so those who can't read Tibetan can't really use them.

That's why there are Tibetan Dzogchen Masters nowadays who transmit them to everyone who is interested.

Astus wrote:Does the three statements of Garab Dorje include a definition of rigpa that is to be introduced? Because it hinges on what is actually being shown, as pointed out by Pero. So if it is clarified then it's still a good measurement. If it isn't, perhaps there is some widely accepted commentary?

It is not a matter of any definition, but of recognition through personal experience.
So, again a qualified Dzogchen Master is absolutely necessary!

Dronma wrote:

Sönam wrote: Tantras won't tell you if the teacher is really teaching Dzogchen or not ... everyone can repeat what is written in books, it does not make one a Dzogchen teacher.
.....
With all respect, this view about books is a vajrayana view, not a dzogchen view.

Sönam, ChNN Rinpoche is teaching again and again those Dzogchen Tantras through all these years. No?

No problem with that, and tantras, and even more commentaries on tantras, are important because it clarifies point, they are usefull for the second statement (no doubt). But that not the point, the point is "I want to check whether a teaching given is authentic". So to give the words found in the tantras is not enough, everybody can do that, and many do, it does not mean that the teacher is able to teach dzogchen. My point is that the only way to recognize a dzogchen teaching is if (at least some) students realize the nature of their mind ... therefore the 3 statements.

Sönam

Dronma wrote:It is not a matter of any definition, but of recognition through personal experience.
So, again a qualified Dzogchen Master is absolutely necessary!

In your opinion then only a Dzogchen teacher can confirm if one has the correct experience? But how do you confirm that the teacher is indeed giving you introduction to the nature of mind? Should one simply trust the appearance of authenticity of the teacher?

Astus wrote:

Dronma wrote:It is not a matter of any definition, but of recognition through personal experience.
So, again a qualified Dzogchen Master is absolutely necessary!

In your opinion then only a Dzogchen teacher can confirm if one has the correct experience? But how do you confirm that the teacher is indeed giving you introduction to the nature of mind? Should one simply trust the appearance of authenticity of the teacher?

NO, and that my point ... when one realize his real nature, thru the presence of the teacher, one can not mistake it. Knowledge is within the realization, with no possible mistake (to take it for chocolate pudding for exemple) That's why a master (or a realized practitioner) is a must. Without a master, doubt will always remain.
If one is not sure to have realized his true nature, with a teacher ... he has not.

Sönam

Very interesting topic.

Sönam wrote: Knowledge is within the realization, with no possible mistake (to take it for chocolate pudding for exemple) That's why a master (or a realized practitioner) is a must. Without a master, doubt will always remain.

I have a quick question to Sonam. If the knowledge is within the realization, how can it be dependent on a master? Is master the realization itself?

oushi wrote:Very interesting topic.

Sönam wrote: Knowledge is within the realization, with no possible mistake (to take it for chocolate pudding for exemple) That's why a master (or a realized practitioner) is a must. Without a master, doubt will always remain.

I have a quick question to Sonam. If the knowledge is within the realization, how can it be dependent on a master? Is master the realization itself?

The realization is within synchrocinity with the master ... but this is only words.

"At the first movement, by realizing the self-essence of the self-appearances, the realization of the true meaning develops ..."
- Longchen Rabjam - Tshig-Don Rin-Po-Ch'e'i mDzod -

Sönam