This chapter focuses on the ways in which the notion of effortlessness is mobilized in our commentaries to establish the superiority of Dzogchen over and above the other vehicles, particularly Mahāyoga. This is an important topic since Nubchen Sangye Yeshe seems to have played a key role in demarcating Dzogchen as a vehicle distinct from Mahāyoga.1 We will begin our discussion by looking not at an abstract idea but by turning instead to the figure of the primeval Buddha Samantabhadra, who may be considered to be a symbolic personification of the Dzogchen approach as a whole.2 Already in the Mahāyoga context of the *Guhyagarbha-tantra, Samantabhadra and his consort Samantabhadrī are linked to the primordial goodness of the mind and of phenomena, respectively,3 an association which we find repeated in many evocations (Skt. sādhana) that draw on the same tantric lore.4 Interestingly, one of the two Dunhuang manuscripts dealing with Dzogchen, the Cuckoo of Awareness, features a self-conscious discussion regarding the superiority of Samantabhadra and the justification for his occupying the central place in the configuration (Skt. maṇḍala), a position usually reserved for Vajrasattva. The reason given is that Vajrasattva is the central deity in contexts emphasizing effort and striving, whereas Samantabhadra occupies the prominent position when transcending such goal-oriented endeavour.5 This explicit discussion, which occurs at the very beginning of the commentary to the root text, seems to bear witness to an underlying negotiation taking place between different modalities of tantric doctrine and practice, some of them characterized as involving effort, the others as being effortless in their orientation.
The Victorious Peak Commentary might be said to occupy a middle ground, for it frequently mentions Samantabhadra in conjunction with Vajrasattva in a manner that suggests that the latter is to be considered as the radiance of the former.6 On the other hand, the Commentary on the Holy Revered One is more uncompromising in its assertion of Samantabhadra’s superiority, a theme central to its ethos since Samantabhadra is the referent of the title of its root text. The commentary therefore goes to quite some lengths to explain why Samantabhadra may be considered to surpass other Buddhas, such as Vairocana and Vajrasattva. The reason for his superiority is that he is identified with the universal ground (kun gzhi)—a Dzogchen term for the enlightened mind, which already in Nubchen’s Mun pa’i go cha [Armour Against Darkness] is clearly differentiated from the universal ground consciousness (Skt. ālayavijñāna) of the Vijñānavāda, of which it is considered to be the diaphanous essence.7 Samantabhadra’s identification with the universal ground entails that he can be said to virtually encompass all the other Buddhas,8 with everything being considered his ornamentation.9 The commentary then launches into a discussion concerning various doxographical categories, where the state of Samantabhadra is placed above lower stages of realization, including those of the auditors (Skt. śrāvaka), of the independent buddhas (Skt. pratyekabuddha), of the Mahāyāna, and of the Mantrayāna.10 The reason for Dzogchen’s superiority to these vehicles is elsewhere said to lie in the fact that the wisdom it teaches is beyond cause and effect.11 Nonetheless, its superiority can have an inclusive (and inclusivist) aspect since in the Victorious Peak Commentary Dzogchen is tellingly compared to the ocean, which encompasses the various lesser rivers that flow into it,12 the point being that the lower vehicles ultimately lead to, and are even pervaded by, the Dzogchen approach.
Perhaps somewhat controversially, Nubchen explains in the Commentary on the Holy Revered One that Samantabhadra is a refuge for those yogins who have broken their pledges, for remaining in the state of great peace without deteriorating from the bliss of Samantabhadra is presented as a self-sufficient means to atone for any broken pledge.13 Here we see that Samantabhadra symbolizes a state of realization that is supposed to effortlessly include the kernel of the tantric pledges, yet without getting bogged down in their details. This is clearly connected to the notion that in Dzogchen there is only one all-suffusing pledge (snum pa’i dam tshig), which encompasses all the twenty-eight pledges of Mahāyoga.14 This pledge, of course, consists in remaining in the enlightened mind of intrinsic awareness, which the Victorious Peak Commentary equates with the essence of all the Buddhas.15
This brings us to a central trope of demarcation found in Nubchen’s commentaries: that of reinterpreting basic tantric categories from a Dzogchen perspective, while emphasizing a simpler, formless and effortless mode of practice. Typically, this effortless mode of interpretation does not overtly contradict the validity of the tantric terms but tends instead to transpose them on a higher and inward level. For example, in the Piercing Awl Commentary, Dzogchen meditation is declared to transcend the use of emblematic gestures (Skt. mudrā), mental objects of thematic focus (gza’ ba’i yul) and incantatory repetition (Skt. japa) of spells (Skt. mantra),16 all three categories being typical of Mahāyoga praxis.17 Simultaneously, in an obvious play on the tantric pledge never to interrupt the practice of the emblematic gesture and spell,18 Nubchen assures his readers that there is no impairment, since “the unwavering emblematic gesture and the spell of the inexpressible incantatory repetition are themselves free from appearance and expression.”19 The point being made is that, although Dzogchen meditation is ostensibly free from the emblematic gestures and the spells of regular tantric evocation, it is claimed to be superior to the latter because it realizes the ultimate significance of these ritual elements on a higher level which transcends their external performance. In a similar vein, the Commentary on the Holy Revered One expressly maintains that despite transcending the effortful practices of the spell, emblematic gesture and visualization that are integral parts of tantric evocation, the non-referential vehicle of Dzogchen20 is an evocation insofar as the meditator constantly remains in the quintessential meaning and thereby abides in the flow of the practice.21 The implication here is that, despite the absence of those external factors that define what an evocation is in the tantric context, Dzogchen meditation is in no way lacking, since it fulfils the essential requirement of maintaining the continuity of a practice of non-practice.22 What transpires from such statements is that the rhetorical denial of ritual is itself part of a process of negotiation in which Dzogchen is defined not merely by its exclusion of ritual elements but also by its transposition of these elements on to a higher (or inward) plane. Yet the very fact that the ritual components of tantric praxis are repeatedly mentioned only to be denied or sublimated goes to show that they continue to haunt Dzogchen by their absence, so to speak.23
A similar procedure of transposition is applied specifically to the term ‘seal’ (Skt. mudrā), which as we have seen above can also mean ‘emblem’ or ‘emblematic gesture’. Nubchen writes that remaining in the state wherein phenomena are just as they are, is to be identified with the seal of the doctrine (Skt. dharmamudrā). Playing on the multiple meanings of the word mudrā, Nubchen states that all seals abide within the seal of the doctrine and discourages his readers from practising the tantric visualization of a deity’s emblems (lha’i phyag rgya) since all the purposes which might be achieved by relying on these more relative and external interpretations of the term are complete in the great seal (phyag rgya chen po; Skt. mahāmudrā)24—to be understood, it would seem, as the nature of the mind itself. This interpretation of the term mahāmudrā to mean the nature of the mind may seem straightforward in the context of the later (post-11th century) understandings of mahāmudrā as formless meditation practice,25 yet it may in fact have been quite a bold hermeneutical move in Nubchen’s time. If we turn for instance to the Dunhuang manuscript IOL Tib J 754, mahāmudrā is used to mean meditation on oneself as the deity26 and is also divided into four categories—called ‘awakened body’ (sku), ‘doctrine’ (chos), ‘pledge’ (dam tshig) and ‘activity’ (las)—which correspond to body, speech, mind and activity.27 It is clear that these four were known to Nubchen since he briefly alludes to them, somewhat disparagingly, in his Victorious Peak Commentary.28 This classification presents a minor variation on the Sarvatathāgata-tattva-saṃgraha’s [Compendium of the Suchness of All the Thus-gone Ones] classic association of mahāmudrā with awakened body, of dharmamudrā with awakened speech, of samayamudrā with awakened mind, and of karmamudrā with awakened activities,29 since in IOL Tib J 754 we have the same overall rubrics, with the difference that the term mahāmudrā comes to refer to the four seals as a whole. This shift is also noticeable in other Dunhuang manuscripts, such as PT 42.30 In a similar fashion, the root text of the Victorious Peak Commentary attributes to mahāmudrā a more inclusive sense since it signifies the inseparability of awakened body, speech and mind31—it may be observed that no mention is there made of the activities which would correspond to karmamudrā. In the Thabs kyi zhags pa [Noble Noose of Methods] commentary, the term mahāmudrā is used to indicate the culminating moment of meditative absorption, which occurs after the generation of the seminal enlightened mind (Skt. bodhicitta) in the context of sexual yoga32 and following the meditation on the configuration of deities.33 Since the process of meditating on the deities is described in that text in fairly effortless terms—the Buddhas are already present without it being necessary to invite them from elsewhere, all speech is the spell, and all of the body’s movements are the deity’s emblems—the culminating absorption of mahāmudrā might here be said to provide a link to the more formless type of meditation Nubchen seems to be hinting at. Nevertheless, it must still be emphasized that in the Noble Noose of Methods the term is framed by the ritual context of visualization of and identification with the tantric deities.
It will therefore be seen that in the Commentary on the Holy Revered One, Nubchen is reinterpreting several of the key terms relating to mudrā in a new light: dharmamudrā, associated in early sources with awakened speech, here refers to remaining non-dually in the state of phenomena’s being as it is, whereas mahāmudrā, associated with meditation on the form of the deity, takes on a more expansive sense of all-inclusive completeness. Indeed, it is somewhat difficult to tell the difference between both terms since Nubchen’s presentation of dharmamudrā also has an inclusive sense, in that “all the seals abide within it,” a sense which paves the way for his characterization of mahāmudrā as being all-encompassing. What I would like to highlight is that Nubchen’s interpretation does not necessarily overtly contradict the ritualistically informed understandings of these terms current in his time but emphasizes, in a typically Dzogchen fashion, their inward sense relating to effortless practice. As we have just seen in the relevant passage from the Noble Noose of Methods commentary, this inner and effortless sense is not absent from Mahāyoga, but it is more clearly emphasized in the Dzogchen context.
The Inlaid Jewel of Bliss Commentary likewise engages in a Dzogchen reinterpretation of fundamental tantric categories, notably the correlation of the female and male sexual organs with the principles of acumen (Skt. prajñā)34 and means (Skt. upāya), respectively. The womb is thus associated with the spontaneously present open dimension of infinite space, whereas the phallus is connected to the functionality of appearances.35 The hermeneutical shift is quite subtle since it does not contradict the usual tantric connotations but brings them into the focus of a meditative culture of effortlessness and naturalness by alluding to particular states (openness and multifarious appearance) accessed through Dzogchen contemplation. This process of hermeneutical probing is also applied to the specific symbols used to instantiate the masculine and feminine principles, namely the vajra and the lotus, respectively. The former is specifically explained, on a secret level, as non-dual and hence as beyond the distinctions of male and female. Likewise, the lotus is understood to refer to meditation without the subject–object dichotomy implied in more wilful forms of practice, a meditation which reconciles the two poles of acumen and means.36 In these ways, tantric symbols are appropriated and then subtly subverted to highlight the superiority of the Dzogchen approach which, through its effortlessness, is held to transcend the dichotomizing framework of tantric practice.
Given the extensive use of symbols in tantric praxis on the one hand, and the importance in Dzogchen meditation of encountering, recognizing and remaining in mind-as-such on the other, Nubchen raises the interesting question as to whether and to what extent this deeper dimension of the mind is compatible with being symbolized at all. He does this in his Inlaid Jewel of Bliss Commentary in a lengthy discussion concerning the syllable HŪṂ and its capacity to adequately symbolize mind-as-such. The passage shifts across various positions on this delicate subject, starting with “HŪṂ searching for HŪṂ yet HŪṂ not being found,”37 which is not taken to be indicative of a problem with the syllable itself. Rather, more fundamentally, the concern here is to pinpoint what the nature of mind is in the first place, through an invitation to scrutinize whether or not the mind and the syllable are one and the same,38 hinting at their apparent identification (“HŪṂ is the awakened mind’s intrinsic insignia”).39 This latter identification is not straightforward, however, and is qualified by two considerations that are supposed to set it apart from normative tantric understandings: it is unique rather than manifold (as in the case of the five wisdoms, for example), and it is the self-arising of intrinsic awareness.40 Whether or not the latter can function as a convincing argument is open to question, given the pervasiveness of ‘self-originated’ symbols in tantric doctrines in general,41 yet it is used by Nubchen to demarcate Dzogchen symbols as apparently less contrived (or more natural) than their tantric counterparts. Despite what might appear as a slight ambivalence on this topic, Nubchen concludes that ultimately “the quintessence, the enlightened mind, does not abide in syllables,”42 and that awakened body, speech and mind cannot be accomplished by means of such syllables, since it is the wisdom of awareness wherein they are spontaneously present.43
Germano 1994: 219; van Schaik 2004: 195–196.
Kapstein 2000: 163. Samantabhadra’s symbolism is also discussed in Guenther 1989: 197–198; Achard 1999: 175, n. 70; Arguillère 2007: 570; Hatchell 2014: 57–59.
Guhyagarbhatantra, ch. 2, prologue, edited and translated in Dorje 1987: 185–186, 437–438.
An example of one such evocation from Dunhuang is found in IOL Tib J 437, fol. 1v–2r, translated and edited in Dalton 2011: 303, 309.
IOL Tib J 647, fol. 1r.4–6, translated and edited in Karmay 2007: 52, 56.
TBG 182.3–4, 185.1, 198.1, 200.5–6.
Higgins 2013: 141, 193–195; quoting gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes, Mun pa’i go cha, in NKD, vol. 51/zhi: 58.3–59.5. For a detailed discussion of this topic, see Germano and Waldron 2006.
JDG 292.5.
JDG 293.1.
JDG 294.1–5.
TBG 207.1–2.
TBG 188.4–5.
JDG 296.3–4.
JDG 299.4–5: […] dam tshig nyi shu rtsa brgyad la sogs pa bsrung ba’i phyogs yod pa la snum pa’i dam tshig ces bya’o/. On these twenty-eight pledges, see van Schaik 2010: 71–72. For their reception in the Chinese language material from Dunhuang, see Sørensen 2019: 24–25. On the Atiyoga understanding of ‘pledge’ as beyond transgression, see Dorje 2012: 86. On the multivalence of the term samaya in the Yoga and Mahāyoga materials, where, as well as meaning an oath to be observed, it already carries the sense of a Buddha’s non-dual wisdom, see Dalton 2022: 272–273, 282, 285–286.
TBG 213.6–214.1.
On the choice of this translation for mantra, see Snellgrove 2004: 143.
DZG 386.6–387.1.
van Schaik 2010: 67, 78.
DZG 388.6–389.1: sngags dang phyag rgya bral yang nyams pa med/ mi g.yo phyag rgya bzlas brjod med pa’i sngags/ de nyid bdag la snang brjod bral nyams med/.
It may be recalled that in the Lamp for the Eye of Contemplation the vehicle of Dzogchen is characterized as being without the support of referential imaging and that this feature serves to distinguish it from the tantric approach of Mahāyoga; see SM 28, 222, translated in Esler 2018: 48, 203. While references to the SM in this book are to my 2018 PhD thesis, my full translation of the text will be published in Esler 2023, in press.
JDG 297.2–4: /klung du gnas pas bsgrub thabs so zhes bya ba/ […] sngags dang phyag rgya dang/ sgom sgrub rtsol ba’i sa la mi gnas kyi/ mi dmigs pa’i theg pa khams gsum las nges par ’byung ba’i don gyi snying po la rtag du (sic! = tu) gnas pa nyid bsgrubs pa’i thabs so/.
This paradox is alluded to in Turpeinen 2018: 146.
Germano 1994: 209.
JDG 298.1–3: /don kun phyag rgya rdzogs pa yin zhes bya ba/ chos ji bzhin pa’i ngang la mi gnyis pa’i tshul gyis gnas pa ni chos phyag rgya yin la/ ’di’i nang du phyag rgya ril gnas pa’i phyir/ thams cad phyag rgya chen po ma lus pa yin pas rdzogs pa zhes kyang bya’i/ lha’i phyag rgya gsal ba tsam la ni mi bya’o/.
Sobisch 2020: 174.
Cantwell and Mayer 2008: 36, 142.
Cantwell and Mayer 2008: 140–141, 145–146.
TBG 206.3.
Dalton 2020: 124–125.
Dalton 2020: 133.
For the line in the root text, see Liljenberg 2012b: 238. The line is quoted twice in TBG 190.1, 199.1.
On this usage of the notion of enlightened mind, see Samuel 2009: 350.
Cantwell and Mayer 2012: 71, 257.
Following Guenther 1989: 34, I consider this translation for prajñā to be preferable to the widely used rendering as ‘wisdom’, a term which I reserve for jñāna. Cf. also Guenther 1984: 5.
DPG 310.1–2.
DPG 310.2–4: /gnyis su med pa’i rdo rje la/ /zhes pa/ de ltar chas bsnyad pa la ngo bos yab yum ’byed pa’i rtsol ba med de gsang ba’i rdo rje’o/ /’dzin chags med pa’i pad ma’o/ /zhes pa/ phrin las ci mdzad pa ched du byed pa’i gzung ’dzin tsam gyis kyang ma bsgom pa’i phyir thabs dang shes rab lhun gyis rdzogs pa’o/.
DPG 313.3: HŪṂ gis HŪṂ tshol HŪṂ mi rnyed/.
DPG 314.3.
DPG 314.5–6: HŪṂ ni thugs kyi rang rtags yin/.
DPG 314.6.
See, for example, the Guhyagarbhatantra, ch. 13, v. 14, edited and translated in Dorje 1987: 233, 985. See also the discussion regarding the Noble Noose of Methods in Cantwell and Mayer 2012: 63; and the lengthy hermeneutical explication of the term rang byung (‘self-originated’) in Guenther 1996: 175–176, n. 119.
DPG 315.5–6: /snying po byang chub sems de ni/ /yi ge la yang mi gnas shing/ […].
DPG 315.6–316.1: rig pa’i ye shes ’bru gsum re res mtshon pa’i tha snyad med par gsum lhun gyis grub pa’i ngo bo’o/.