Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness (John Myrdhin Reynolds)
A Fine but Parochial Dzogchen Text
[My 4-star Amazon Review of “Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness” by John Myrdhin Reynolds.]
John Reynolds is an outstanding translator/editor/author in the field of Tibetan Dzogchen. His Introduction to Namkhai Norbu’s “The Cycle of Day and Night” is excellent, as is his Dzogchen tome “The Golden Letters.” “Self-liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness” is also a fine text, featuring Reynolds’ translation of/commentary on legendary Tibetan Guru Padmasambhava’s Teaching of Self-Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness; but it is sullied a bit by Reynolds’ parochialism and need to discredit W. Y. Evans- Wentz, author of the classic “Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation,” the original English translation of/commentary on the same Teaching.
There is no doubt that Reynolds’ translation of Padmasambhava’s Teaching is superior to the one in the Evans-Wentz text—and this alone makes this book a buy for anyone serious about Dzogchen. But Reynolds seems allergic to regarding “mind” as universal Mind (the One Mind), or Divine Consciousness. Hence, from my perspective, the radius of his metaphysics is somewhat restricted. In fact, Reynolds almost comes across as a nitpicker, harpy, or shrew in his need to distance Dzogchen from other Dharmas. The vast majority of Buddhist scholars (mistakenly) believe that Buddhist metaphysics trumps Hindu Vedanta, and they recoil when The Buddha Dharma is expressed within a quasi-Hindu framework, as is the case in Evans-Wentz’s “The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation.” Unlike Evans-Wentz, Reynolds is not about framing Dzogchen within the Perennial Philosophy. In reality, the very term “Self-Liberation” that Reynolds employs mirrors Hindu Self-Realization; and whereas Padmasambhava himself sees the Oneness of the Self-Realization at the root of all true Dharmas, Reynolds doesn’t.
I strongly believe that serious students of Dzogchen should read Evans-Wentz’s text as well as Reynolds.’ Both texts, despite their flaws, are good—and a studious comparison of them will doubtless prove enlightening.
[My 4-star Amazon Review of “Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness” by John Myrdhin Reynolds.]
John Reynolds is an outstanding translator/editor/author in the field of Tibetan Dzogchen. His Introduction to Namkhai Norbu’s “The Cycle of Day and Night” is excellent, as is his Dzogchen tome “The Golden Letters.” “Self-liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness” is also a fine text, featuring Reynolds’ translation of/commentary on legendary Tibetan Guru Padmasambhava’s Teaching of Self-Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness; but it is sullied a bit by Reynolds’ parochialism and need to discredit W. Y. Evans- Wentz, author of the classic “Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation,” the original English translation of/commentary on the same Teaching.
There is no doubt that Reynolds’ translation of Padmasambhava’s Teaching is superior to the one in the Evans-Wentz text—and this alone makes this book a buy for anyone serious about Dzogchen. But Reynolds seems allergic to regarding “mind” as universal Mind (the One Mind), or Divine Consciousness. Hence, from my perspective, the radius of his metaphysics is somewhat restricted. In fact, Reynolds almost comes across as a nitpicker, harpy, or shrew in his need to distance Dzogchen from other Dharmas. The vast majority of Buddhist scholars (mistakenly) believe that Buddhist metaphysics trumps Hindu Vedanta, and they recoil when The Buddha Dharma is expressed within a quasi-Hindu framework, as is the case in Evans-Wentz’s “The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation.” Unlike Evans-Wentz, Reynolds is not about framing Dzogchen within the Perennial Philosophy. In reality, the very term “Self-Liberation” that Reynolds employs mirrors Hindu Self-Realization; and whereas Padmasambhava himself sees the Oneness of the Self-Realization at the root of all true Dharmas, Reynolds doesn’t.
I strongly believe that serious students of Dzogchen should read Evans-Wentz’s text as well as Reynolds.’ Both texts, despite their flaws, are good—and a studious comparison of them will doubtless prove enlightening.
