Wonders of the Natural Mind (Tenzin Wangyal)
Dzogchen in the Bon Tradition of Tibet
[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Wonders of the Natural Mind: The Essence of Dzogchen in the Native Bon Tradition of Tibet†by Tenzin Wangyal.]
I first read "Wonders of the Natural Mind" about fifteen years ago, when I began to seriously study Dzogchen. At that point in time, I had not "put it all together spiritually," and I found the book interesting and informative. The book went into storage when I moved, and a few months ago I received my copy. A few days ago, I re-read the book, and my take on it now is different than it was when I was still struggling to put it all together spiritually.
In the book's preface, author Tenzin Wangyal writes: "Though Dzogchen can be elaborated in manifold ways, it always retains the essential structure of its original points throughout. Very true, and when I teach Dzogchen, I elaborate it very differently than Wangyal. In fact, I elaborate it differently than all the Tibetan gurus, because I can't find a single contemporary Tibetan guru, including the esteemed Namkhai Norbu, who has a full grasp of Buddha Dharma.
The book begins with Wangyal's life story, and his story is an engaging read. But I don't get the sense that he became an accomplished mystic with intimate understanding of the mechanics of the awakening process. He provides lots of information, in a quasi-textbook-like manner, but I don't perceive an in-depth understanding of Dzogchen, just a parrot-like presentation of what he's been taught. Moreover, in addition to being philosophically challenged, he's not a clear, concise writer. For example, he states, "The difference between nirvana and samsara is the difference between understanding and not understanding..." If he were a more descriptive writer, he'd have properly defined nirvana as "the end of becoming (the drying up of the outflows)" and samsara as "becoming (going from one contracted state to another)."
Wangyal writes: "Often when the teachings use the terms `clarity' or `clear light, we tend to think of a pure light, but it is not like that. Clarity means knowing ourselves, rather than knowing some object or thing or knowing ourselves as an object." But elsewhere in the book, Wangyal contradicts himself: "The pure state of the mind, the base of Buddhahood, has a quality of clear light, which develops into the pure light of the natural state."
Wangyal, like most Tibetan gurus, erroneously conflates clarity with emptiness. He writes, "Emptiness is clarity and clarity is emptiness. We cannot say that emptiness is one thing and clarity another because in fact, they are a single unity." Unbeknownst to Wangyal, neither emptiness nor clarity is a thing or existent. A thing or existent, such as a cup or awareness itself, can be empty, but it is not emptiness, a non-existent. Further, clarity is something only a human consciousness can have, while emptiness can pertain to an inanimate object. If someone can point me to an empty cup that also posseses clarity, I'll agree that the two are the same thing.
It's bad enough that that Wangyal conflates emptiness with clarity, but even worse, he reduces self-understanding to a tautological absurdity when he states, "self-understanding of emptiness is by emptiness itself." According to Wangyal, "Emptiness understands itself and illuminates itself." It is hard to believe that Tibetan guru-professors like Wangyal spend years intensely studying dialectics and logic, and end up bedazzled by, and attributing ontological primacy to, a non-existent. Unbeknownst to these Tibetan gurus - brainwashed by Prasanga-Madhyamika philosophy stemming from the East's most-overrated philosopher, Nagarjuna - the Dharmakaya is not emptiness; it is awareness; and it's nature is not emptiness; it is clear-light energy. The Dharmakaya is formless, but it is not emptiness, which can only be an object to the irreducible subject, awareness itself.
The wheels totally come off for Wangyal in his chapter Trikaya: the Three Dimensions. I recently wrote a one-star Amazon review of Cynthia Bourgeault's uberpopular book "The Holy Trinity and the Law of Three," and some of the arguments I use to deconstruct her thesis also apply to Wangyal's discourse on the Trikaya, the Buddhist version of HolyTrinity. In short, Wangyal doesn't have a clue what the Trikaya (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya) is really about. First, he apes Namkhai Norbu's flawed description of the Trikaya, then he "creatively" makes one ridiculous statement after another about the dimensions, or bodies, of the Trikaya. But because this review is already too long, I won't venture into deconstructing his nonsense here. If anyone wants to stump for Wangyal's vision of the Trikaya, I'll gladly debate them via comments to this review.
In short, the Dharmakaya is Awareness (or Consciousness, or Mind) Itself, and not emptiness; the Sambhogakaya (Divine Power, or Clear Light Energy) is the Dharmakaya in Nirvana (the Buddhic "disposition" of Being, or unqualified presence + oneness); and the Nirmankaya is the Dharmakaya in samsara (conditional, or manifest, existence). The Trikaya is always ouside of space and time. And when "gurus" such as Wangyal attempt to implicate it in, or associate it with, aspects of creation, they err.
There are two essential spiritual practices in Dzogchen: Trekchod and Thogal. Wangyal doesn't provide a detailed explanation of Trekchod, and he doesn't understand what Thogal is really about - channeling the Sambhogakaya, which is the same Blessing/Blissing Power as Hindu Shakti and the Christian Holy Spirit. Wangyal emphasizes `clarity,' but anyone who depends solely on this book to get clarity on Dzogchen won't find it.
Because this review is already too long, I'll summarize my take on the book. Despite its numerous problems, it is still a worthwhile read, and will stay on the recommended Spiritual Reading List I provide in the books I write. It's a worthwhile read because it provides unique information about Dzogchen in the Bon tradition of Tibet, some good information on meditation and contemplation, and interesting, though flawed, information on esoteric spiritual "anatomy." I would like to give this book four stars, but because of its rampant errors, it only deserves three.
[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “Wonders of the Natural Mind: The Essence of Dzogchen in the Native Bon Tradition of Tibet†by Tenzin Wangyal.]
I first read "Wonders of the Natural Mind" about fifteen years ago, when I began to seriously study Dzogchen. At that point in time, I had not "put it all together spiritually," and I found the book interesting and informative. The book went into storage when I moved, and a few months ago I received my copy. A few days ago, I re-read the book, and my take on it now is different than it was when I was still struggling to put it all together spiritually.
In the book's preface, author Tenzin Wangyal writes: "Though Dzogchen can be elaborated in manifold ways, it always retains the essential structure of its original points throughout. Very true, and when I teach Dzogchen, I elaborate it very differently than Wangyal. In fact, I elaborate it differently than all the Tibetan gurus, because I can't find a single contemporary Tibetan guru, including the esteemed Namkhai Norbu, who has a full grasp of Buddha Dharma.
The book begins with Wangyal's life story, and his story is an engaging read. But I don't get the sense that he became an accomplished mystic with intimate understanding of the mechanics of the awakening process. He provides lots of information, in a quasi-textbook-like manner, but I don't perceive an in-depth understanding of Dzogchen, just a parrot-like presentation of what he's been taught. Moreover, in addition to being philosophically challenged, he's not a clear, concise writer. For example, he states, "The difference between nirvana and samsara is the difference between understanding and not understanding..." If he were a more descriptive writer, he'd have properly defined nirvana as "the end of becoming (the drying up of the outflows)" and samsara as "becoming (going from one contracted state to another)."
Wangyal writes: "Often when the teachings use the terms `clarity' or `clear light, we tend to think of a pure light, but it is not like that. Clarity means knowing ourselves, rather than knowing some object or thing or knowing ourselves as an object." But elsewhere in the book, Wangyal contradicts himself: "The pure state of the mind, the base of Buddhahood, has a quality of clear light, which develops into the pure light of the natural state."
Wangyal, like most Tibetan gurus, erroneously conflates clarity with emptiness. He writes, "Emptiness is clarity and clarity is emptiness. We cannot say that emptiness is one thing and clarity another because in fact, they are a single unity." Unbeknownst to Wangyal, neither emptiness nor clarity is a thing or existent. A thing or existent, such as a cup or awareness itself, can be empty, but it is not emptiness, a non-existent. Further, clarity is something only a human consciousness can have, while emptiness can pertain to an inanimate object. If someone can point me to an empty cup that also posseses clarity, I'll agree that the two are the same thing.
It's bad enough that that Wangyal conflates emptiness with clarity, but even worse, he reduces self-understanding to a tautological absurdity when he states, "self-understanding of emptiness is by emptiness itself." According to Wangyal, "Emptiness understands itself and illuminates itself." It is hard to believe that Tibetan guru-professors like Wangyal spend years intensely studying dialectics and logic, and end up bedazzled by, and attributing ontological primacy to, a non-existent. Unbeknownst to these Tibetan gurus - brainwashed by Prasanga-Madhyamika philosophy stemming from the East's most-overrated philosopher, Nagarjuna - the Dharmakaya is not emptiness; it is awareness; and it's nature is not emptiness; it is clear-light energy. The Dharmakaya is formless, but it is not emptiness, which can only be an object to the irreducible subject, awareness itself.
The wheels totally come off for Wangyal in his chapter Trikaya: the Three Dimensions. I recently wrote a one-star Amazon review of Cynthia Bourgeault's uberpopular book "The Holy Trinity and the Law of Three," and some of the arguments I use to deconstruct her thesis also apply to Wangyal's discourse on the Trikaya, the Buddhist version of HolyTrinity. In short, Wangyal doesn't have a clue what the Trikaya (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya) is really about. First, he apes Namkhai Norbu's flawed description of the Trikaya, then he "creatively" makes one ridiculous statement after another about the dimensions, or bodies, of the Trikaya. But because this review is already too long, I won't venture into deconstructing his nonsense here. If anyone wants to stump for Wangyal's vision of the Trikaya, I'll gladly debate them via comments to this review.
In short, the Dharmakaya is Awareness (or Consciousness, or Mind) Itself, and not emptiness; the Sambhogakaya (Divine Power, or Clear Light Energy) is the Dharmakaya in Nirvana (the Buddhic "disposition" of Being, or unqualified presence + oneness); and the Nirmankaya is the Dharmakaya in samsara (conditional, or manifest, existence). The Trikaya is always ouside of space and time. And when "gurus" such as Wangyal attempt to implicate it in, or associate it with, aspects of creation, they err.
There are two essential spiritual practices in Dzogchen: Trekchod and Thogal. Wangyal doesn't provide a detailed explanation of Trekchod, and he doesn't understand what Thogal is really about - channeling the Sambhogakaya, which is the same Blessing/Blissing Power as Hindu Shakti and the Christian Holy Spirit. Wangyal emphasizes `clarity,' but anyone who depends solely on this book to get clarity on Dzogchen won't find it.
Because this review is already too long, I'll summarize my take on the book. Despite its numerous problems, it is still a worthwhile read, and will stay on the recommended Spiritual Reading List I provide in the books I write. It's a worthwhile read because it provides unique information about Dzogchen in the Bon tradition of Tibet, some good information on meditation and contemplation, and interesting, though flawed, information on esoteric spiritual "anatomy." I would like to give this book four stars, but because of its rampant errors, it only deserves three.
