Spaciousness: The Radical Dzogchen of the Vajra-Heart (Keith Dowman)
Dzogchen in the Dumpster
[My 2-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Spaciousness: The Radical Dzogchen of the Vajra-Heart: Lonchenpa’s Treasury of the Dharmadhatu†by Keith Dowman.]
This is my second review of a Keith Dowman text (see my two-star review of “Natural Perfection: Longchenpa’s Dzogchenâ€), and if I could make only a single statement about this book, and Dowman’s Dzogchen, it would be: If you want to see Dzogchen, the Great Perfection, transmogrified into Dzogchen in the Dumpster, the Gross Imperfection, then by all means read, and revel in, Dowman’s “creative interpretation†of Lonchenpa’s Dharma.
One could, of course, argue that Dowman can be excused for his “creative interpretation†on the grounds that he is simply exercising “poetic license†in his “translation†of Longchenpa’s Dharma,†but the literary cognoscenti would laugh at that argument, because they recognize Dowman the writer for what he is – a hack who can’t write a lick.
Want proof Dowman can’t write? Because this is just a review, I can only cite a few examples, but know that these examples are typical, not atypical, of Dowman’s Dharma debris.
Dowman consistently conflates the word “spaciousness†(his term for the Dharmadhatu) with the Absolute. For example, he writes, “Everything is total spaciousness and nothing else.†First off, spaciousness is non-existent with no ontological status. Spaciousness is not an ontological primary, because for there to be spaciousness, there must be something that is spacious. Spaciousness is a relative, subjective term, and only has meaning relative to someone experiencing it. Apart from someone who experiences spaciousness (as opposed to non-spaciousness) the term is meaningless. Dowman writes, “The spaciousness that is spontaneity.†Calling spaciousness spontaneous is like calling fatness hungry, which is laughably ridiculous.
This book is a translation of Longchenpa’s “The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena.†Unbeknownst to Dowman, the Basic Space of Phenomena is the Dharmakaya as the spaceless Context (or Dhamadhatu) in which phenomena appears. Space is not the uncreated Dharmakaya; it is the ether, the all-pervading space element whence the four elements – fire, air, earth, and water – derive. It is debatable if even “space†should serve as a metaphor for the Dharmadhatu, but it is disgraceful to employ “spaciousness†as a synonym for It.
Dowman writes, “Sameness is the reality of all things.†All things clearly are not the same. They share the same transcendental identity, and thus can be described as spiritually identical – but such identicalness hardly equates to sameness.
Dowman writes that “it [the totality of existence] is all an illusion.†But elsewhere he state that everything is total spaciousness, which he conflates with the Absolute. This is a contradiction, and contradictions are legion in Dowman’s Dzogchen, which isn’t surprising given his disrespect for logic (non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality). Apparently, Dowman doesn’t see the absurdity of his illusory mind being able to ascertain the ontological status of existents.
Dowman’s fractured descriptions are a hoot. He writes, “The Vajra-heart’s core, motionless, unremitting sameness, all suffusing spaciousness neither doable nor non-doable. This is not a domain that can be described in words.â€
If it can’t be described in words, then why does he describe it in words? He tells us this Vajra heart’s core is neither doable non-doable. How could one even do, nor not do, nor neither do nor not do, a Vajra heart’s core (whatever that might be), especially one that is nothing more than same-old spaciousness? And why differentiate the Vajra heart’s core from its non-core if everything is spaciousness, as Dowman asserts elsewhere? There’s a term for combining floating abstractions into jumbled, meaningless, contradictory sentences – claptrap writing – which is what Dowman specializes in.
Dowman waxes on "material things transfigured by the emptiness of the luminous matrix.†Not to cast aspersions on Dowman’s personal life, but I would imagine that one would need to drop kilograms of LSD to think that emptiness, a non-existent with no ontological status, can actually transform material things. But, hey, what do I know? Maybe I can throw out my coffee machine and instead have the emptiness in my coffee cup make my coffee by magically transfiguring the beans into brew.
I could go on and on deconstructing Dowman’s writing, but this review is already too long – so long, in fact, that I don’t have space to properly deconstruct his Dharma (which is as bad as his writing). But I’ll be glad to consider it in Comments to the review. Know, however, that Dharma experts who have “cracked the cosmic code†and are authorities on the essences of the foremost spiritual traditions/teachings (such as nondual Kashmir Shaivism, Ramana Maharshi’s Advaita Vedanta, Pali Buddhism, Yogacara Buddhism, Adi Da’s Daism, and Electrical Christianity) will dismiss Dowman’s Dhogchen poetry as Dharma drivel. The real shame is that Longchen Rabjam’s “The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena†is a wonderful (though hardly flawless) text (and when I review Padma Publishing’s “A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission,†which is a commentary on it, I will give it four or five stars). In other words, my problem is not with Longchenpa’s Dharma, but with its “Dowmanization.â€
Dowman ends his translation/book with the following statement: “Space out in mindless, marvelous presence; space out in infallible, superlative sameness.†If I were the editor of this book, I’d add another sentence at the end: “Space out in Dowman’s Gross Imperfection; space out in Dowman’s Dzogchen in the Dumpster.
[My 2-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Spaciousness: The Radical Dzogchen of the Vajra-Heart: Lonchenpa’s Treasury of the Dharmadhatu†by Keith Dowman.]
This is my second review of a Keith Dowman text (see my two-star review of “Natural Perfection: Longchenpa’s Dzogchenâ€), and if I could make only a single statement about this book, and Dowman’s Dzogchen, it would be: If you want to see Dzogchen, the Great Perfection, transmogrified into Dzogchen in the Dumpster, the Gross Imperfection, then by all means read, and revel in, Dowman’s “creative interpretation†of Lonchenpa’s Dharma.
One could, of course, argue that Dowman can be excused for his “creative interpretation†on the grounds that he is simply exercising “poetic license†in his “translation†of Longchenpa’s Dharma,†but the literary cognoscenti would laugh at that argument, because they recognize Dowman the writer for what he is – a hack who can’t write a lick.
Want proof Dowman can’t write? Because this is just a review, I can only cite a few examples, but know that these examples are typical, not atypical, of Dowman’s Dharma debris.
Dowman consistently conflates the word “spaciousness†(his term for the Dharmadhatu) with the Absolute. For example, he writes, “Everything is total spaciousness and nothing else.†First off, spaciousness is non-existent with no ontological status. Spaciousness is not an ontological primary, because for there to be spaciousness, there must be something that is spacious. Spaciousness is a relative, subjective term, and only has meaning relative to someone experiencing it. Apart from someone who experiences spaciousness (as opposed to non-spaciousness) the term is meaningless. Dowman writes, “The spaciousness that is spontaneity.†Calling spaciousness spontaneous is like calling fatness hungry, which is laughably ridiculous.
This book is a translation of Longchenpa’s “The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena.†Unbeknownst to Dowman, the Basic Space of Phenomena is the Dharmakaya as the spaceless Context (or Dhamadhatu) in which phenomena appears. Space is not the uncreated Dharmakaya; it is the ether, the all-pervading space element whence the four elements – fire, air, earth, and water – derive. It is debatable if even “space†should serve as a metaphor for the Dharmadhatu, but it is disgraceful to employ “spaciousness†as a synonym for It.
Dowman writes, “Sameness is the reality of all things.†All things clearly are not the same. They share the same transcendental identity, and thus can be described as spiritually identical – but such identicalness hardly equates to sameness.
Dowman writes that “it [the totality of existence] is all an illusion.†But elsewhere he state that everything is total spaciousness, which he conflates with the Absolute. This is a contradiction, and contradictions are legion in Dowman’s Dzogchen, which isn’t surprising given his disrespect for logic (non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality). Apparently, Dowman doesn’t see the absurdity of his illusory mind being able to ascertain the ontological status of existents.
Dowman’s fractured descriptions are a hoot. He writes, “The Vajra-heart’s core, motionless, unremitting sameness, all suffusing spaciousness neither doable nor non-doable. This is not a domain that can be described in words.â€
If it can’t be described in words, then why does he describe it in words? He tells us this Vajra heart’s core is neither doable non-doable. How could one even do, nor not do, nor neither do nor not do, a Vajra heart’s core (whatever that might be), especially one that is nothing more than same-old spaciousness? And why differentiate the Vajra heart’s core from its non-core if everything is spaciousness, as Dowman asserts elsewhere? There’s a term for combining floating abstractions into jumbled, meaningless, contradictory sentences – claptrap writing – which is what Dowman specializes in.
Dowman waxes on "material things transfigured by the emptiness of the luminous matrix.†Not to cast aspersions on Dowman’s personal life, but I would imagine that one would need to drop kilograms of LSD to think that emptiness, a non-existent with no ontological status, can actually transform material things. But, hey, what do I know? Maybe I can throw out my coffee machine and instead have the emptiness in my coffee cup make my coffee by magically transfiguring the beans into brew.
I could go on and on deconstructing Dowman’s writing, but this review is already too long – so long, in fact, that I don’t have space to properly deconstruct his Dharma (which is as bad as his writing). But I’ll be glad to consider it in Comments to the review. Know, however, that Dharma experts who have “cracked the cosmic code†and are authorities on the essences of the foremost spiritual traditions/teachings (such as nondual Kashmir Shaivism, Ramana Maharshi’s Advaita Vedanta, Pali Buddhism, Yogacara Buddhism, Adi Da’s Daism, and Electrical Christianity) will dismiss Dowman’s Dhogchen poetry as Dharma drivel. The real shame is that Longchen Rabjam’s “The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena†is a wonderful (though hardly flawless) text (and when I review Padma Publishing’s “A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission,†which is a commentary on it, I will give it four or five stars). In other words, my problem is not with Longchenpa’s Dharma, but with its “Dowmanization.â€
Dowman ends his translation/book with the following statement: “Space out in mindless, marvelous presence; space out in infallible, superlative sameness.†If I were the editor of this book, I’d add another sentence at the end: “Space out in Dowman’s Gross Imperfection; space out in Dowman’s Dzogchen in the Dumpster.
