Direct introduction to the true nature of the mind - it's a conundrum!

This is all a bit wordy. I was thinking to myself. Only worth reading if you've already been puzzled by this! 

Ink gets spilt liberally in some corners of the internet about the importance of what is sometimes called "direct introduction" or DI (*1 below). DI is also referred to elsewhere as "pointing out instruction".

Some will tell us that receiving DI from Namkhai Norbu or his authorized representative is essential for dzogchen practice - that the necessary and fundamental insight, termed "rigpa", simply cannot be achieved in any other way. Rigpa is said to be knowledge of - or recognition of - the "base" or "ground", which is a pure empty consciousness that needs to be recognized to achieve awakening. DI cannot possibly be conveyed by, for instance, words in a book. You can't go to your local bookstore, get a book about dzogchen, read about the ground and start practicing. DI has to be obtained "live" from a living master.

What then is DI, and how is it brought about? In a formal introduction, the lama concerned leads the students through a series (possibly quite a short series) of reflections, meditations and/or visualizations designed to lead up to this recognition. Traditionally this would have taken place in a private space, perhaps a hermitage, maybe even a cave, and the students would have been carefully filtered for their readiness. But in the modern world things are different. Necessarily so.

Namkhai Norbu gave his version of this direct introduction to many, many people. In later years his introductions were done over the internet, but at an earlier stage a pre-recorded teaching on VHS tape was used. The tape would have been run at a predefined moment when, somewhere else in the world, NN was himself going through the same defined series of meditations and closely following his script.

Oddly, some of his followers have claimed that while the above process is valid, the requirement for the remote lama to be giving the teaching - unseen but accurately timed - did not imply any sort of "telepathic" or mystical "mind-to-mind" transmission.

How, in the absence of some remote mind-to-mind interaction, it can possibly make any difference whether or not the lama is going through the sequence of reflections as the same time is not explained. It could, of course, make a huge difference if the recipients of the teaching *believe* that the lama is going through the identical instructions and meditations as are recorded on the tape. But what if, on the following day, a telephone call comes in saying that unfortunately the lama had fallen ill and had been unable to give the teaching as planned. Is the process retrospectively invalidated? Are the experiences and insights gained by the students now supposed to evaporate?

I am not saying that either A) there is a mind-to-mind interaction happening in these introductions or that B) there is not. My point here is merely that a claim that the unseen, remote lama must be simultaneously echoing the words and actions on the tape in order for the transmission to be valid only holds water if the "telepathic" element is believed to be there.

Why this insight - recognition of the base - is so tightly, even absolutely, restricted to the process of going through this particular ritual is also not explained.

The problem, I think, arises from two mistakes. Firstly, conflation of  the formal ritual of giving pointing-out instructions with the true pointing out in which the student does indeed recognize rigpa. In an idealized and simplified narrative, a student goes to school, learns about Buddhism, starts some formal practice as well as studying, receives some empowerments, perhaps does some retreat, and then, if the teacher deems the student to be a suitable disciple, a "pointing out instruction" will be given. This may be embedded in some larger empowerment, or it may be a stand-alone event. Somewhat theatrically, the student now might exclaim: "Ah ha! I'd never looked at it like that before!" In possession of this insight the student is now able to understand dzogchen instructions and to practice them.

We may imagine such a romantic narrative having occasionally been played out, but life, including the spiritual life, is plainly not really that simple. On the one hand, it is both obvious and fully recognized that not everybody "gets it" that first and only time. Some people have to receive pointing out instructions many times and in many ways before they "get it". The tradition has amusing stories of the circumstances in which this recognition comes about, and there are similar colourful stories in, for instance, the Kagyu tradition about how recognizing the true nature of the mind, something central to mahamudra (*2 below) practice, can come about. 

On the other hand, it is a fundamental principle of this system that the ground of pure awareness is innate in every single sentient being, although generally unrecognized. Sayings along the lines of "you already have everything you need" are well-known in the literature. Does it not follow, as shadows follow sunlight, that it is possible for anyone to recognize the ground of pure awareness at any time whatsoever? It seems that mostly people don't, but sometimes, surely, they must. In in the modern world, particularly, it is possible for people with an interest in these things to be inspired by the literature to look into their own minds and to find this recognition. Perhaps they will not fully understand it, and may undervalue it. Or perhaps they may not fully understand it, overvalue it, and run around telling others that they are now enlightened. Ha, ha! 

If this insight has spontaneously arisen in someone, and if dzogchen or mahamudra is the path they want to take, they will then of course have to make a proper connection to an appropriate, qualified teacher, and may very well receive formal pointing out instructions at some stage. Another point made often enough is "No guru - no dzogchen" (*3 below). But surely the recognition itself cannot be securely imprisoned in the locked cage of formal introduction?

In short, the idea that this recognition is utterly tied to a specific formal introduction may be useful as a teaching approach for beginners, but real life has a way of being messy and not always matching the rules. Actual recognition and formal "DI" are not identical twins. Let's not conflate them.

The second mistake, I submit, is another over-simplification, namely thinking that we have a simple "on/off", "you got it/you haven't got it" pair of states. Not that there is no truth at all in that distinction, just as you can see the sun or you can't see the sun. And if you can't see the sun you would be foolish to pretend otherwise. But, as the tradition itself says, while it is ideal to stay with that recognition permanently, in reality we generally only have glimpses. How clear and how frequent those glimpses are is, of course, highly variable and personal.

Recognizing that this tendency to impose a binary, black-or-white-no-grey, model onto the question of introduction is over-simple solves another problem, namely the arguments about whether a particular mode of introduction is or is not valid. Must it be in-person and face-to-face? Is in person but in a very large group ok? Is it valid to do this via real-time streaming, Zoom for instance? What about a video recording where the lama is, we trust, going through the process simultaneously? A recording watched by the student alone, perhaps off YouTube? An audio recording? A book? Or spontaneously, without any external instruction at all? The arguments about where in this sequence the line between valid and invalid should be drawn can get heated, and there can be no objectively based conclusion. The thing is that there simply is no hard boundary. In-person, face to face between a realized and qualified lama and a properly prepared student or small group - perfect! Each step away from that dilutes the process, but whether the student actually "gets it" depends on much more than exactly how immediate the communication was.

In brief, recognizing the base of clear awareness is indispensable. It is at the very core of this kind of system. Formal, direct pointing out instructions are a classic element on the path, but we are ill-served by fetishizing one particular way of going about it.

*1) This term is particularly popular amongst those in the orbit of the "Dzogchen Community", which is/was the organization stemming from the activity of the late Namkhai Norbu

*2) Mahamudra is a system and tradition that is in significant ways parallel to key parts of the dzogchen tradition. But that's another story.

*3) "Guru" and "lama" are efffectively the same word.