The Conundrum of Direct Introduction (podcast)

 Approximate script, with some variations and possible errors:

Hello friends and all other sentient beings, who perhaps might have once been my mother! You are very welcome to the Double Dorje podcast.

A conundrum: direct introduction to the true nature of the mind, also known as pointing out instructions!

Ink gets spilt liberally in some corners of the internet about the importance of what is sometimes called "direct introduction". 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. They have made it a centrepiece of their teaching structure, and that is where it is known as “DI”. DI is also referred to elsewhere as "pointing out instruction". This last phrase, or something similar, is perhaps more widespread.

So first, why is it so important anyway? It might pay to look for a moment at what I think are the really radically different approaches to awakening taken within the broad fold of Buddhism. That in itself is fuel for more than a couple of podcasts, but briefly we have a division into the approach of abandoning the poisons of greed, hatred and stupidity, that is the pure monastic path, of transforming them into wisdom, i.e. the tantric path, and of what is called simply “knowing” them. These three approaches are called “pang gyur she” – “chuck, change, know”. We are dealing here with the third approach, summarized or characterized as “knowing”. The theory here goes something like this: buddhahood, awakening or enlightenment cannot be created. If it could, it could be broken. It follows that the essence of mind – our own mind – is already and always has been the enlightened, awake, buddha-mind. But we have lost sight of it, let it become overgrown by the weeds of mental poisons. What we have to do is to recognize it and to stay with that recognition. It's simple –it absolutely has to be simple. Getting to that point of recognition and maintaining it may get complicated, of course, but the key point is simplicity itself.

In these systems, mahamudra and dzogchen, it is the job of the guru, first of all, to bring the student to the place where they could recognize this true nature. This may or may not involve a good measure of study, not of the nature of the mind itself, which is often said to be beyond concepts, but to ensure that the students don’t mistake it for something else. If you practice a good bit of meditation (and no, I’m not going to put a measure on it) you can expect three kinds of result. Bliss, clarity, and freedom from concepts. These experiences (nyams) can be quite overpowering for some practitioners – the exact qualities, intensities and durations are very personal. Again and again and again the teachings stress the importance of not getting carried away by them, not mistaking them for the goal.

The second part of the guru’s job, once the students are ready, is to point at the mind’s true nature. This may be done with a short teaching, in a meditation session, or in some more spontaneous way. A slap with a sandal, a quiet word while listening to dogs barking in the valley below, some special visualisations at the high-point of a heavy-duty empowerment: there are wonderful stories about it! And then, of course, the student has to practice on that basis.

There is no question that, however this point is reached, it is 100% critical to both mahamudra and dzogchen. Without it, there is just peaceful meditation, which may be wonderful, may be beneficial – but it’s not the real thing!

Some will tell us that receiving DI from Namkhai Norbu – or from his authorized representative, a person who may or may not exist – is essential for dzogchen practice - that the necessary and fundamental insight, termed "recognising 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, they will tell you, 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 this direct introduction, 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 if we may permit ourselves this flight of fancy, 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 either that there IS a mind-to-mind interaction happening in these introductions or that 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, mixing up, or “conflating” to use one of my favourite words, the formal ritual of giving pointing-out instructions with the true pointing out in which the student does indeed recognize rigpa. I fear there is also a temptation to mix up a simple, idealised, traditional narrative with things that are likely to actually happen today.

In that idealized, simplified narrative, a student begins by going to school, traditionally perhaps a monastery, where they are surrounded by a structure of equals, senior students, teachers, and perhaps a high-teacher at the top of the pyramid. The student 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 pretty much according to that script, but life, including the spiritual life, is plainly not really that simple. On the one hand, it is entirely obvious, and not contentious, 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 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 the modern world, particularly, it is possible for people with an interest in these things to be inspired by the literature. They might then look into their own minds and 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 from their lama or guru. Another point made often enough is "No guru - no dzogchen". But surely the recognition itself cannot be forcibly imprisoned in the locked cage of formal introduction. Can it?

In short, the idea that this recognition is tied – or even chained – 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 confuse 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 introduction is far too simple does away with 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 it okay if it’s done in person, but in a very large group where much of the audience can scarcely see the lama? 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.

Were you not once perhaps sat on a beach, listening to the surf and the seagulls and to the hiss of the sand as the breeze blew in from the sea, pondering the mysteries of life and the soul, asking yourself the big question of what it is to be me, to be conscious, to be aware? And did you perhaps sense the vastness in which all our deeds are just a glint of sunshine on a tiny pebble? Did you glimpse the true nature of the mind then? I don’t know, but I think you must have come close.

Which reminds me, that while the first blinds of Blake’s “Auguries of Innocence” are well-known…

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

… the rest of the poem is much less widely quoted, and is one of the most Buddhist passages I know in English. Not that I’m an expert in that! I’ll include a link in the comments, along with one or two words you might like to look up.

Don’t forget to like, subscribe, share, tell your friends, whatever – and keep saying the good mantras!