Nangwa wrote:The method is just a symbol to transmit the introduction.
It can be perceived or experienced if the student goes beyond the symbol of the method of introduction. And thats the rub. It IS a shared experience/connection that occurs at that very moment between the teacher and students. A recording just wont cut the mustard because the moment has passed.
Thats kind of the whole point. You are sharing an experience with the teacher via the methods he or she employs for the introduction.
Like I said before, its difficult to explain. Its up to the student and teacher to make that connection and work with it directly.
Letters are symbols to represent language, language is also a set of symbols to communicate thoughts. I don't see your thoughts and you don't see my thoughts. If I say the words you can't hear since you are not near me but as I write it down my thoughts eventually reach you in some form. Same goes on with symbols meant to convey the experience of realisation. The realisation itself is not communicated without some sort of expressions, and just as in case of words, the expressions don't lose their conveying nature if they are preserved in some way. To say that there is something is actually communicated without expressions means that there is actually no need for any form of communication, so the point of organising an event for transmission is meaningless. We can share an idea because we communicate in words or other means. Without words we don't share any idea neither can we decide if we share it or not. How is that different with realisation? Just because you have realised something - Dzogchen or anything else - if you don't tell me about it I won't be able to share it with you.
The Samdhinirmocana Sutra says, "Thus, good son, the saints, being freed from language through their holy wisdom and insight in this regard, realize the perfect awakening that reality is truly apart from language. It is because they desire to lead others to realize perfect awakening that they provisionally establish names and concepts and call things conditioned or unconditioned." This points clearly to the relationship between the ultimate and the conventional and how it is the conventional that teaches the path to the ultimate. Same what Nagarjuna said. How then can the Dzogchen transmission communicate something without conventional means? I know you said it's difficult to explain, but perhaps it's not impossible.
"While teachers of the middle way, mind only, transcendent wisdom, mantra, and other schools may have their own assertions, the fulfillment of those intentions is the same. There is not a single thing that is not contained within mind."
(Gampopa to Düsum Khyenpa, in "The First Karmapa", KTD Pub, p254)
“If you recognize the world of appearance and existence as the mind, realize the mind itself as empty, and have no grasping at the superiority of your realizations — this is the ultimate view."
(Chegom Dzongpa, in "The Book of Kadam", Wisdom Pub, p609)