Over the years I have had many discussions on the topic of Dzogchen[1] and Vedanta, particularly Advaita Vedanta, with friends and practitioners of Yungdrung Bön[2] and various schools of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Recently, this topic came up again in conversation when a friend  brought to my attention a section of Loel Guiness’ book Rainbow Body that contains an exposition of the Dzogchen view. We had a lively discussion about what was written there after my recent talk at Watkins Books in London and it is this discussion that has prompted me to write this article since, from the perspective of Dzogchen practice, confusing the view of Dzogchen with the view of Vedanta blocks the way to liberation, to attaining the Buddhahood of the rainbow body.[3] Instead, such confusion opens the way for rebirth in the formless realm of long-living gods,[4] a continuation of samsara. So a clear understanding of the differences between the views of Dzogchen and Vedanta is of fundamental importance for anyone who wishes to study and practise Dzogchen.

This article is primarily focused on the qualities of kunzhi,[5] the Base of All. As my main source of proof I rely on quotations from teachings on various cycles of Bönpo Dzogchen given in English by my root master, Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche. Some in academia may object to such an approach, so let me pre-empt any objections by reiterating that firstly, this article is intended primarily for those who practise Dzogchen; for practitioners, the oral explanations of the current lineage-holder of all Bönpo Dzogchen cycles is a perfectly reliable source. And, secondly, merely reading Dzogchen texts without receiving oral explanations[6] from a qualified master, or even with preconceived ideas, as is sometimes the case with scholars in both Western academic and Tibetan Buddhist circles, leads to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the subject matter. To correctly understand the meaning of any Yungdrung Bön or Buddhist teachings, one should follow the system of Three Points of Learning:[7] listening to the teachings, reflecting on the meaning, and meditating on what has been understood. Thus, just reading texts without the elucidation of a qualified master or actual practical experience is akin to judging the contents of a museum just by looking at its façade, without a guide and without entering it. This is particularly true for Dzogchen teachings.

            As a focus for my discussion, in this article, I shall examine and refute the following passages:

“THE COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL KUNZHI

Bön texts also contribute a further perspective on kunzhi drawing a distinction between two dimensions of kunzhi, as written by Samten Karmay. The first népa dön gyi kunzhi, represents the primordial basis pervading entire universe, while second, shérig gyü ki kunzhi, represents the primordial basis existing individually in living beings. While the former is analogous to the “universal mind”, the latter is analogous to the innate buddha-nature (Skt: tathāgatagarbha) found individually in all sentient beings. Uniting awareness of the individual kunzhi with the awareness of the universal kunzhi is another example of uniting of the mother  (ma) and the son (bu). In this respect, the Bön approach has points of comparison with the approach of (Hindu) Advaita Vedanta, in its teaching concerning liberation as being found in the union between ātman and brahman.

In Bön, népa dön gyi kunzhi, the universal state pervading the entire universe, is characterised as the “primordial mother”. It is characterised as original purity (kadag), spontaneous perfection (lhundrub), and absolute stability (lungmaten). It is also sometimes represented as “the single essence”, “the unbounded sphere”, or the “drop of totality” (thigle nya-chik), which is simultaneously infinitesimally small and infinitely large, filling the entire universe. It is ever-present in everything and is thus no less than the total and true underlying nature of all reality, bönnyi.

[…]

According to Bön teachings, samrig is actually ever-present in all sentient beings. However, the continuity of this awareness is constantly interrupted and obscured by attachment and distraction. As a result, for most people most of the time, samrig is entirely obscured, or only dimly perceived. It is always there, however, and pointing it out is the key gift of the Dzogchen teacher. Samrig is described in terms of six similes: it is like a butter lamp, symbolising self-illumination; it is like lotus, symbolising self-purification; it is like a peacock feather, symbolising the spontaneous perfection of clear light; it is like a mirror, symbolising unobstructed clarity; it is like crystal, symbolising naked transparent wisdom; and it is like space, symbolising non-dualistic, impartial, all-pervasive wisdom.

                The aim is for this son (bu), the individual awareness or samrig, to re-unite with mother (ma), the universal primordial awareness or yerig. This union comes about through experiential recognition of their primordial inseparability (yermé). Their re-unification, given the right circumstances, is not only possible but is natural and even, potentially, effortless. The journey of the individual primordial awareness to the universal primordial awareness is not a journey of creation or imagination, but one of rediscovery.”

Loel Guinness, Rainbow Body (Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2021), pp. 51-52.

The statement in the first paragraph cited above is in part based on the following passage from a scholarly book on Dzogchen by Samten Gyaltsen Karmay:

“Moreover, the Bonpo seem to have taken a further step in developing the conception of kun gzhi. They make a distinction between the “kun gzhi of the static principle” (gnas pa don gyi kun gzhi ) designating a kind of universal and genetic state pervading the whole universe and the “kun gzhi of mentality” (shes rig rgyud kyi kun gzhi) which is the Primordial Basis existing individually in living beings. The first one corresponds to the “Universal Mind” (spyi sems) of the Gab pa dgu skor.”

Samten Gyaltsen Karmay, The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism, Second Edition (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007), p. 184.

            Both statements are mistaken on a number of counts. Both authors claim that in Dzogchen there are two Bases: the first being a Universal Nature or ‘Universal Mind’ which permeates the whole universe and the second being the individual Nature of Mind[8] of every sentient being therein. While S. G. Karmay stops at that,  Rainbow Body goes on to say that, in order to attain the realisation of Dzogchen, one must unify the former with the latter and indeed goes even further, comparing “uniting of the mother (ma) and the son (bu)” with “the union between ātman and brahman” as taught in Advaita Vedanta.

---

[1] Tib. rdzogs chen / རྫོགས་།ཆེན།

[2] Tib. g.yung drung bon / གཡུང་དྲུང་བོན།

[3] Tib. ‘ja’ lus / འཇའ་ལུས།

[4] Tib. gzugs med khams / གཟུགས་མེད་ཁམས།

[5] Tib. kun gzhi / ཀུན་གཞི།

[6] Tib. zhal shes / ཞལ་ཤེས།

[7] Tib. thos pa, bsam pa, sgom pa / ཐོས་པ། བསམ་པ། སྒོམ་པ།

[8] Tib. sems nyid / སེམས་ཉིད།

Summary of the view and doctrines of Advaita Vedanta

Before demonstrating the differences between the views of Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta, let us first have a glance at the main doctrines of Advaita Vedanta:

“The cardinal doctrines of Advaita Vedanta accepted by all Acaryas on the basis of Upanishad passages […] are –

1. The absolute reality (paaramaarthika satyam) is Brahman, which is Existence-Consciousness-Infinity (satyam jnanam anantam). It is non-dual (advidiiyam), immutable (nirvikara), attributeless (nirvisesha), partless, divisionless (nishkalam), actionless (nishkriya), devoid of a mind (amanah). It is neither cause nor effect.    
2. We perceive and infer a universe of innumerable objects and the bodies and minds of living beings and are aware of our own bodies and minds. But these all only unreal forms, constituted of various attributes, with corresponding names (nama roopa) that are superimposed (adhyasta) on a real sub-stratum, Brahman, the Existence principle. The superimposition of nama roopa is done by an entity called Maya, associated with Brahman, which can neither be categorized as existent or non-existent. What we experience is a combination of the real Existence and the unreal nama roopa. What we perceive is the unreal nama roopa. The lower order of reality of Maya as well as the nama roopa which Maya unfolds as creation of the universe is called vyaavahaarika satyam (empirical reality).
3. Jivas, in their true nature, are identical with Brahman, being the same homogenous indivisible consciousness.  (Viewed from the angle of the jivas, the same consciousness is called atma).
4. The ignorance of jivas of their true nature as the infinite Brahman and their false notion that there is a real world of plurality and they themselves are limited individuals is a delusion (adhyaasa) caused by Maya.
5. On account of the adhyaasa, jivas interact with the objects and other jivas with a sense of doership and likes and dislikes and undergo a cycle (called samsaara) consisting of good and bad action and thought, involving merit and demerit (punya and papa, together called karma), transmigration from one janma to another to undergo the consequence of the fructified punya papa part of their accumulated karma (karmaphalam) through suffering and enjoyment.
6. Liberation from samsaara (called moksha) takes place when jiva in his janma on earth or in any of the higher lokas discovers his true nature through study of scripture under the guidance of a preceptor (guru). This discovery (jnanam) can take place while one still alive. One who has thus gained jnanam and perfected it is called jivanmukta. And when his physical body dissolves, the subtle body and causal body dissolve and ‘he merges in Brahman’. This is called videhamukti.”[1]

And:

“Brahman is the fundamental reality underlying all objects and experiences. Brahman is explained as pure existence, pure consciousness and pure bliss. All forms of existence presuppose a knowing self. Brahman or pure consciousness underlies the knowing self. Consciousness according to the Advaita School, unlike the positions held by other Vedānta schools, is not a property of Brahman but its very nature. Brahman is also one without a second, all-pervading and the immediate awareness. This absolute Brahman is known as nirguņa Brahman, or Brahman “without qualities,” but is usually simply called “Brahman.” This Brahman is ever known to Itself and constitutes the reality in all individuals selves, while the appearance of our empirical individuality is credited to avidya (ignorance) and māyā (illusion). Brahman thus cannot be known as an individual object distinct from the individual self. However, it can be experienced indirectly in the natural world of experience as a personal God, known as saguņa Brahman, or Brahman with qualities. It is usually referred to as īśvara (the Lord). The appearance of plurality arises from a natural state of confusion or ignorance (avidya), inherent in most biological entities. Given this natural state of ignorance, Advaita provisionally accepts the empirical reality of individual selves, mental ideas and physical objects as a cognitive construction of this natural state of ignorance. But from the absolute standpoint, none of these have independent existence but are founded on Brahman. From the standpoint of this fundamental reality, individual minds as well as physical objects are appearances and do not have abiding reality. Brahman appears as the manifold objects of experience because of its creative power, māyā. Māyā is that which appears to be real at the time of experience but which does not have ultimate existence. It is dependent on pure consciousness. Brahman appears as the manifold world without undergoing an intrinsic change or modification. At no point of time does Brahman change into the world. The world is but avivarta, a superimposition on Brahman. The world is neither totally real nor totally unreal. It is not totally unreal since it is experienced. It is not totally real since it is sublated by knowledge of Brahman. There are many examples given to illustrate the relation between the existence of the world and Brahman. The two famous examples are that of the space in a pot versus the space in the whole cosmos (undifferentiated in reality, though arbitrarily separated by the contingencies of the pot just as the world is in relation to Brahman), and the self versus the reflection of the self (the reflection having no substantial existence apart from the self just as the objects of the world rely upon Brahman for substantiality). The existence of an individuated jīva and the world are without a beginning. We cannot say when they began, or what the first cause is. But both are with an end, which is knowledge of Brahman. According to classical Advaita Vedānta, the existence of the empirical world cannot be conceived without a creator who is all-knowing and all-powerful. The creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the world are overseen by īśvara. īśvara is the purest manifestation of Brahman. Brahman with the creative power of māyā is īśvara. Māyā has both individual (vyaśti) and cosmic (samaśti) aspects. The cosmic aspect belongs to one īśvara, and the individual aspect, avidya, belongs to many jīvas. But the difference is thatīśvara is not controlled by māyā, whereas the jīva is overpowered by avidya. Māyā is responsible for the creation of the world. Avidya is responsible for confounding the distinct existence between self and the not-self. With this confounding, avidya conceals Brahman and constructs the world. As a result the jīva functions as a doer (karta) and enjoyer (bhokta) of a limited world. […] Mokṣa (liberation), which consists in the cessation of the cycle of life and death, governed by the karma of the individual self, is the result of knowledge of Brahman.”[2]

---

[1] D. Krishna Ayyar, Advaita Vedanta – A Bird’s Eye View @ https://www.vedantaadvaita.org/Annexure_1.htm, Section 2, accessed 10/09/2023.

[2] Sangeetha Menon, Advaita Vedanta @ https://iep.utm.edu/advaita-vedanta/, 2. a. Brahman, Jīva, īśvara, and Māyā; 3. Epistemology.

Kunzhi and thigle nyagchig

While in Advaita Vedanta the ultimate source and creator of the individual beings and the world is said to be the universal consciousness, Brahman, which is reflected in every individual being, this is not at all the case in Dzogchen which instead speaks of kunzhi. So what is the correct understanding of kunzhi,the Base of All, in Bönpo Dzogchen?

Firstly, it is important not to confuse kunzhi, the Base of All, with other bases which bear similar names:

“The name is kunzhi. In fact, there are three similar names with different meanings. One is nepazhiʼi kunzhi^[1] which is the Natural State, the Base of all nirvana and samsara. Another thing is the Base of all consciousness, kunzhi namshe.^[[2]] This is the Base of all the eight main consciousnesses and the fifty-one consciousnesses. The third is lamgyi kunzhi,^[3] the Base of practice.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Zhang Zhung Nyengyud Kagyud Korzhi: The General Presentation of the Outer Views & The Essential Pith Instructions of the Inner Cycle, Volume II, Teachings by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, FOURTH EDITION Revised and corrected 2022 (UK: FPYB, 2022), །།རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཞང་ཞུང་སྙན་རྒྱུད་ལས་སྒྲོན་མ་དྲུག་གི་གདམས་པ་བཞུགས་སོ།། /  The Instruction on the Six Lamps, p. 228.

Secondly, as was already said above, there are not two kunzhi bases in Dzogchen, an individual one and a universal one, which need to be somehow unified with each other. Dzogchen teachings simply speak about the general characteristics of the Base, which are similar for the Nature of Mind[4] of every individual sentient being; this is clearly opposite to the view of Advaita Vedanta, as is lucidly explained by Yongdzin Rinpoche according to Zhang Zhung Nyengyu Dzogchen:[5]

“Buddha and sentient beings go back to completely the same Nature, similar. ‘Same’ doesn’t mean that there is only one [universal Nature]; each individual being has Nature, and all the Natures are similar. We have an example: if you cut off a bamboo stick, you can see that it is hollow inside, so you know that all bamboo sticks are hollow inside, you don’t need to cut them all down. So in the same way, here it always looks as if there is one Nature, but don’t misunderstand. Nature is very much similar from Dharmakaya down to hell – the quality is the same because this Nature cannot be disturbed by obscurations, defilements or anything. Nature itself is completely empty and emptiness cannot be changed; you cannot add anything, so therefore it is generally explained as being equal. But each sentient being has [its own mind]. Where is mind? Nature and the individual’s consciousness or mind are completely inseparable. People quite often make this mistake. Otherwise it goes like Vedanta where it is said that there is only one Creator, that there is only one Nature and that branches spread [from it] out like rays to sentient beings and that makes them separate but connected to the same source. In the Dzogchen text it is not like this at all; it is only explained that there is similarity, not that they are [connected to the] the same [source]. You can see this logically: if one person takes Rainbow Body, he has realized his own Nature, practised and achieved the Final Goal so he can take Rainbow Body, but not all the sentient beings take it together with him. If Nature were only one, then there would be no separation, you see. So if one person took Rainbow Body then all sentient begins would have to go the same way. That is logical reasoning. But here it says it looks like this, so if we follow the words of the Teachings we have to understand that here it means similarity. ‘Similarity’ is quite the best word [for it], [it is] not [the] ‘same’. […] Here it says that the Buddha and sentient beings are one, so if you follow the words [literally] then it is the same as Vedanta. But the real meaning is different. […] Here, the Tibetan word means ‘same’ so if you don’t distinguish it is quite a dangerous word, unless you are clairvoyant. Even the word ‘dzogchen’ is not easy. ‘Dzog’ has two meanings, one is that everything is finished, the other is that everything is completely perfected. So these two meanings are totally different but the word is just the same. If you don’t follow the context but just go according to the words, it is difficult to understand so you have to be careful.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Teachings  on Dringpo Sorzhag, Large Version of The Experiential Transmission of Zhang Zhung, Vimoutiers, WEEK  II, 2 – 7 September 2003 (France: Association Yungdrung Bön, 2005) pp. 28-29.

Thus each being, each consciousness, is endowed with its individual Nature of Mind from which all the universe in all its manifold diversity manifests for that individual. As such, there can be absolutely no point of comparison with Advaita Vedanta. The following quotation further supports this:

“iii) Chigpu^[[6]]

We often explain thigle nyagchig, and indeed we have just used the term now. Chigpu means ‘single,’ and single generally means that it has no friends or something like that. Here it means Clarity, Emptiness and Unification are a single point. But don’t think that Nature doesn’t rely on anything, and therefore it is single; this is beyond thought. You cannot just catch and pick out some pieces. That is chigpu – without any partition.^[7] It means that each individual being has mind and the Nature of each individual mind is of a very similar quality. Don’t think that there is just one Nature for everyone. Don’t think it is like the sun, that there is just one sun but its rays cover everywhere.^[8] Each being has mind and wherever there is mind, there is Nature – it is not separate from mind but Nature is not just the same single consciousness for everyone. Each individual being has their own Nature and this Nature is practised and realized by the individual; it is the individual who takes the Result.^[9] When the text says thigle nyagchig it means ‘similar quality;’ Emptiness, Clarity and Unification are the same everywhere.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Comp., Trscr. & Ed. Dmitry Ermakov and Carol Ermakova. Four Samayas of Dzogchen and Thirteen Points of Tantra: Teachings by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche on Zhang Zhung Nyengyu and Nyamgyu Dringpo Sorzhag (UK: FPYB, 2020), pp. 31-32.

Dzogchen teachings pertaining to another Dzogchen cycle, Yethri Thasel,[10] also confirm that there is no single nature permeating the whole universe and all sentient beings ,and that the Nature of Mind is individual:

“Actually, there is no general, common reality; everything appears from your own Nature. It may seem common to ourselves and others because there are many similarities between what we see and what others see, but in fact appearances don’t arise from the same source or condition at all as everyone’s Nature is individual.”

Namdak, Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin, transl., Trscr. & Ed. Nagru Geshe Gelek Jinpa, Ermakova, C. & Ermakov, D. The Heart Essence of the Khandro, Experiential Instructions on Bönpo Dzogchen: Thirty Signs and Meanings from Women Lineage-Holders (New Delhi: Heritage Publishers, 2012), pp. 46-47.

The passage below from Yongdzin Rinpoche’s teachings on a further Dzogchen cycle, Namkha Trüldzö,[11] again reiterates the same point and provides us with a clear understanding for the actual meaning of thigle nyagchig, refuting the erroneous idea that this term refers to some universal mind that encompasses all phenomena and to which every individual being is connected:

“…text largely explains about this Nature. This is very general. We say Tawa Chyichö^[12]which means ‘explaining the Dzogchen view in general’, so everything […] is very general.

In this case, when we explain the instructions of the Natural State very generally, it can sometimes lead to confusion. We say that the Natural State is only a Single Point, Thigle Nyagchig^[13], but if it is only a single point then that means that all Nature is one, and then branches or rays scatter up and reach to the individuals and it looks as if they reach us. Many schools explain that there is one Nature and branches, many things are scattered and come to Nature, so each individual is connected to Nature, One [Universal] Nature, called Thigle Nyagchig. But this explanation isn’t true at all. […] If someone achieves Buddhahood, millions and millions are left behind. In the hells, the Pretas, Asuras, humans, Deva Loka everything is just the same. Up to now, many beings have achieved Buddhahood but we are still just remaining here!”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Namkha  Truldzö: The Commentary on the Precious Oral Transmission of the Great Perfection, which is called the Treasure of Space, Teachings by Löpon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche in Shenten Dargye Ling, 2 – 21 August 2005 (France: Association Yungdrung Bön, 2005), pp. 67-68.

The same point is confirmed yet again by Gyalwai Chyagtri,[14] the practice manual for the Zhang Zhung Nyengyu:

“It says that anyone – from Dharmakaya right down to the very tiny sentient beings, even very small insects – has consciousness. Wherever consciousness is, there is Nature. Wherever Nature is, it is completely the same. By ‘same’ I mean similar; they are not the same at all, they are individual[15]  but the quality is the same because the Dharmakaya has Buddha. He has Nature. This is nothing special or good. Everyone – a very simple man or a being who is in hell – has consciousness and has Nature. […] Nature is similar from Dharmakaya right down to the hells; wherever it is, the quality is similar. Don’t think that there is one Nature which encompasses all. Each individual being has spirit or consciousness, and consciousness has Nature. This Nature is called the Natural State.^[[16]] So when you know this, it is similar.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Dru Gyalwa Yungdrung. Gyalwa Chagtri, Chapter III: The Introduction to the View of the Base /  gZhi rang ngo sprad pa gcer mthong lta ba’i khrid, Teachings by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, Shenten Dargye Ling, 24 – 29 August 2008 (France: Shenten Dargye Ling, 2009), p. 18.

In fact, as is clearly stated in Yethri Tasel, holding and propagating the view that one single nature permeates all the universe and beings therein is considered a breaking of Dzogchen samaya:

“ii. Chigpu

This refers to the Natural State itself – we have already said that. Emptiness, clarity and unification are all qualities or characteristics of Nature, but if you look there, you cannot see them separately. It is impossible to distinguish what is empty, what is clear and what is unified. While you remain in the State, everything is there. ‘Clarity’ means self-aware of itself. When thoughts and everything disappear and are liberated, your presence is still quite clear – there is nothing you can explain or think about, yet this clarity is Awareness, Awareness is Nature and Nature is clarity. Everything is in there. If you don’t trust this then Nature itself (still) pervades the whole of phenomenal existence and then it explains in the text that this Nature equally encompasses everything from Dharmakaya right down to the hells. This means that the qualities or characteristics of Nature are the same, but the Nature itself is not the same at all. (So the misinterpretation is that) without knowing and distinguishing between these two, (you think that) there is one thing which pervades everything from Dharmakaya down to the hells. That is mistaken. It says many things here. Vedanta has this idea, too. […]  If you don’t understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig^[[17]] is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Drenpa Namkha, Yetri Thasel, dGos ‘dod gsal byed bshad gzhai’i mchongs – Commentary Chapters regarding the Base of the Teachings that Elucidate One’s Wishes (and Needs, Teachings by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, Pfauenhof, Germany, 8-14 September 2007 (France: Shenten Dargye Ling, 2007), p. 34-35.

All the above quotations from Yongdzin Rinpoche’s teachings on various Dzogchen cycles clearly refute the erroneous notions regarding kunzhi and thigle nyagchig in the passage cited from Rainbow Body.

---

[1] (Footnote as in the original): Tib. gnas pa bzhi’i kun gzhi / གནས་པ་གཤིའི་ཀུན་གཞི།

[2] Tib. kung zhi rnam shes / ཀུན་གཞི་རྣམ་ཤེས།

[3] (Footnote as in the original): Tib. lam gyi kun gzhi / ལམ་གྱི་ཀུན་གཞི།

[4] (Footnote as in the original): Tib. sems nyid / སེམས་ཉིད།

[5] Tib. Zhang zhung snyan rgyud / ཞང་ཞུང་སྙན་རྒྱུད།

[6] Tib. gcig pu / གཅིག་པུ།

[7] (Footnote as in the original): Tib. tha mi dad pa / ཐ་མི་དད་པ།

[8] (Footnote as in the original): This is an example from Advaita Vedanta philosophy: “The one non-dual, attributeless Brahman (nirguna Brahma) which is pure consciousness appearing as manifold knower consciousnesses in jivas, with attributes is indicated in such Upanishadic texts such as the following :- Cited in BSB 3.2.18 –  “As this luminous sun, though one in itself, becomes multifarious owing to its entry into water divided by different pots, similarly this Deity, the birthless,  self-effulgent atma, though one, seems to be diversified owing to Its entry into the different bodies, constituting Its limiting adjuncts”, Amritabindu Upanishad 12 –  “Being but one, the Universal Soul is present in all beings. Though one, It is seen as many, like the moon in water” Bu 2.5.19”, D. Krishna Ayyar, Advaita Vedanta – A Bird’s Eye View, <https://www.vedantaadvaita.org/Annexure_1.htm>, accessed 27/05/2020. This is a wrong view according to Dzogchen so it is very important to understand the difference between this view of Advaita Vedanta and the Dzogchen View. 

[9]  (Footnote as in the original): I.e. just the individual and not everyone else along with him. Example: if all beings were indeed permeated by a single supreme consciousness or mind, then when Buddha Tönpa Shenrab achieved final Buddhahood, all sentient beings must have become enlightened along with him. But that is not the case.

[10] Tib. Ye khri mtha’ sel / ཡེ་ཁྲི་མཐའ་སེལ།

[11] Tib. Nam mkha’ ‘phrul mdzod / ནམ་མཁའ་འཕྲུལ་མཛོད།

[12] (Footnote as in the original): Tib. lta ba spyi gcod / ལྟ་བ་སྤྱི་གཅོད།

[13] (Footnote as in the original): Tib. thig le nyag gcig / ཐིག་ལེ་ཉག་གཅིག

[14] Tib. Rgyal ba’i phyag khrid / རྒྱལ་བའི་ཕྱག་ཁྲིད།

[15] (Footnote as in the original): I.e. it is not at all the same as in Advaita Vedanta system of Hinduism which says that  there is only one universal mind or common consciousness which is like the sun and the minds of the individual sentient beings are like reflections of the sun in many water bowls. That is not the case here. Dzogchen Teachings say that each sentient being has its own individual Natural State. These Natural States, however, have the same qualities and characteristics.

[16] Tib. gnas lugs / གནས་ལུགས།

[17] Tib. dam tshig / དམ་ཚིག

Ma and Bu, Mother and Son

The metaphor of mother (ma)[1] and son (bu)[2] is often found in Bönpo Dzogchen teachings. As is often the case with figurative language, decoding the metaphor depends on context. To illustrate this and give us a better overall understanding of what is – and is not – meant by mother and son, especially as regards kunzhi, here is a compilation of quotations from teachings given by་Yongdzin Rinpoche on the texts of the Zhang Zhung Nyengyu Dzogchen cycle, Jonn Myrdhin Reynold’s translation of Gyalwai Chyagtri and Kunzang Nyingtig,[3] and Kusum Rangshar[4]by Shardza Trashi Gyaltsen,[5] all of which explain the usage of the ‘mother and son’ metaphor in Bönpo Dzogchen and, again, reiterate the point that there are no two kunzhis in Dzogchen but only explanations of different aspects of the same Base, i.e. similar qualities of the individual Nature of Mind of each being. The first quotation is from The Instruction on the Six Lamps:[6]

“Kunzhi is like the mother, rigpa^[[7]] is like the son, and lo^[[8]] is tsal.^[[9]] These all go back to the Natural State, which is utterly the same and integrated, but each being has these three aspects which are always without separation.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Zhang Zhung Nyengyud Kagyud Korzhi: The General Presentation of the Outer Views & The Essential Pith Instructions of the Inner Cycle, Volume II, Teachings by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, FOURTH EDITION Revised and corrected 2022 (UK: FPYB, 2022), p. 244.

And, from Gyalwai Chyagrti:

“… Mother, Kunzhi or Base, looks like the sky. The Son or Awareness looks like the sun shining in space – clear and empty. It doesn’t mean the sun itself. You have to think of a sunny day when you look into space; it is quite bright and clear but there is nothing special, it is only empty and clear. That is the example.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Retreat  In  Blanc: Gyalwa Chagtri, Afternoon ,Volume I, 3 – 15 June 2001, Week II: 10 – 15 June, Afternoon (France: Shenten Dargye Ling, 2006), p. 47.

So according to the Zhang Zhung Nyengyu, ‘mother’ refers to kunzhi and ‘son’ refers to awareness, rigpa. Another metaphor for these two is the space and the sun. Like sunlight in space, these two are inseparable. A further explanation, which also underlines the inseparability of ‘mother and son’, is found in The Six Points of Bodhichitta:[10]

“The three instructions explain:

• how to recognize the mother, the empty Natural State, which is as space;
• how to recognize the son, unobstructed self-clear wisdom-awareness, which is like the essence of the sun;
• how to recognize the inseparability of mother and son, the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, which is like the all-encompassing lights of the sun shining in space.

This analogy of the sun is often given, but it is not directly like the sun; we just use this as an example. Sunlight is integrated with space, it is clear and empty. This [inseparability] of emptiness and wisdom] is like this, you see. In the daytime, [space is] clear and empty, but it doesn’t disturb anything at all. So that is why we always say that there is no separation between sunlight and space; in a similar way, Nature and clarity [are inseparable], so therefore we say that clarity or awareness is Empty Nature, Nature is clarity and awareness – no separation. But it is taught one after the other, that is the system.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Zhang Zhung Nyengyud Kagyud Korzhi: The Essential Pith Instructions of the Inner Cycle, Volume III, Oral Teachings by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche (UK: FPYB, 2014), pp. 119-120.

From this we can clearly understand that there is no separation or split between mother (space) and son (sun). This passage above from The Six Points of Bodhichitta further elaborates the metaphorical meaning to include two aspects of the Natural State of mind, namely emptiness[11] and clarity.[12] The following quotation from Nyamgyu[13] supports this:

“Sometimes the text says that Clarity is the Son and the Nature of Mind is the Mother, or that the visions are like the Son and the Natural State is the Mother. You have to look at the context to see what is being taught. It means that Nature itself is everywhere and encompasses everything equally […]”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Teachings  in  Blanc: Nyamgyud, Morning, Volume II, 17 – 29 June 2001 (France: Shenten Dargye Ling, 2006), p. 30.

And:

“Nature itself naturally has two qualities: the Emptiness aspect and the Clarity aspect. These are not separate, but here it is explained that the Emptiness aspect is called ‘Mother’, Emptiness, Kunzhi or Basic Nature. The Clarity aspect is called ‘Son’, Awareness. Awareness is Emptiness, and Emptiness, the Mother, is Clarity, and there is no separation between them; we are just explaining the two different qualities of Nature – Clarity and Emptiness.”

Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak, Trscr. & Ed. Carol Ermakova and Dmitry Ermakov. Dru Gyalwa Yungdrung. Gyalwa Chagtri, Chapter III: The Introduction to the View of the Base /  gZhi rang ngo sprad pa gcer mthong lta ba’i khrid, Teachings by Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, Shenten Dargye Ling, 24 – 29 August 2008 (France: Shenten Dargye Ling, 2009), p. 23.

In the context of bardo visions, ‘mother and son’ are explained as follows:

“[…] The fourth are the visions of wisdom. The visions of wisdom are all dissolved to wisdom and the son goes to the mother’s lap. In this way awareness is liberated into the basic nature.” {Footnote: Lopon comments that unification means two things are united—awareness and emptiness. Awareness (the son) is dissolved into emptiness (the mother); however, they have always been inseparable. But how can you say that awareness dissolves into nature if they have always been together? What does it mean that awareness dissolves into nature? You must understand that they have always been united; that is the Dzogchen view. […] So the unification of mother and son is the realisation that the visions are self-created.}”

Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen. Commentary by Lopon Tenzin Namdak, Heart Drops of Dharmakaya: Dzogchen Practice of the Bön Tradition (Ithaca: SnowLion Publications, 1993), pp. 127-128.

The same point is again reiterated in Chapter Four of Gyalwai Chyagtri, Explanation of the View,[14] here in translation by J. M. Reynolds. This text also underlines that ‘mother,’ ‘son’ and potential energy are inseparable and are but aspects of the individual’s Natural State:

“Now, with respect to the first section (the direct introduction to the Mother), the Mother is, in fact, the Kunzhi, “the basis of everything,” which represents the Natural State of the real disposition of things, (that is to say, the state of emptiness, or Shunyata). […]

Second, with regard to the Son who represents the primal cognitions of Awareness (bu rig-pa’i ye-shes) […] (the Natural State of the Son), within the Mother, the Kunzhi, which is like vast (open, limitless) sky, the Son who is Awareness (bu rig-pa) arises as the inhabitant (of that vast dimension), being like the heart of the sun (rising high in the sky). […]

With respect to the three total manifestations that represent the potentiality of energy, […] from the potentiality of energy (rtsal) and radiant translucency (mdangs) of the primary cognitions of Awareness is like what (has been described above as the Son), there arise unceasingly (and without impediments)  the sounds, the lights and the rays as self-manifestations. […]

[…] with respect to the unity and the inseparability of the Mother, the Son, and the Energy (ma bu rtsal gsum dbyer-med zung-‘brel du ngo spard-pa) […] even though the three: the Mother, the Son and the Energy, have revealed themselves to be like that everywhere, (in actual fact) their Essence represents the inseparability of the Mother and the Son from the very first in the individual mind-stream and the Nature represents their unity (or linkage together). There exists no distinction in terms of the characteristics between them. From the Mother Kunzhi, which is like the purity of the sky (that is, the Shunyata), there arises the Son which is the primal cognition of Awareness, which without obscurations and who is inherently clear (bu rig-pa’i ye-shes sgrib-med rang-gsal), like the heart of the sun. From that unity (of Mother and Son), the sounds, the lights and the rays arise as apparitional displays like the rays of the sun. Furthermore, they are in their own forms without any preconditioning.

                According to the sGron-ma, “The Base (gzhi), the heart-essence (snying-po), and the apparitional displays (cho-‘phrul) are known as the Mother, the Son, and the Potential Energy in the mind-stream of the individual. As for the Natural State which is unconditioned, the Kunzhi is like the extent of the sky, the Rigpa is like the heart of the sun, and the Energy is like the rays of light of the sun.”

Tr. John Myrdhin Reynolds, The Practice of the Dzogchen in the Zhang-Zhung Tradition of Tibet: Translations from the The Gyalwa Chaktri of Druchen Gyalwa Yungdrung, and The Seven-fold Cycle of the Clear Light (Kathmandu: Vajra Publications, 2011), pp. 102-112.

            As we can clearly see from all the passages cited above, the ‘mother and son’ metaphor as used in Bönpo Dzogchen in no way suggests the existence of ‘two kunzhis’ which somehow unite. Rather, mother and son are clearly two inseparable aspects of the Natural State. I have been unable to find any textual evidence to support the statement in Rainbow Body that “Uniting awareness of the individual kunzhi with the awareness of the universal kunzhi is another example of uniting of the mother  (ma) and the son (bu).”[15]

Nor could I find a direct reference to the textual source or oral explanation which would justify such usage. The only references given for this usage of the ‘mother and son’ analogy seem to be S. G. Karmay’s The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen), already cited above, and S. T. Gyaltsen & L. T. Namdak, Heart Drops of Dharmakaya. However, a detailed reading reveals that in fact neither of these suggest an understanding as presented in Rainbow Body.

Assuming one is following the Dzogchen view and not a different one such as the Advaita Vedanta view refuted above, it is impossible to interpret the mother and son metaphor, in any of its usages, as an ‘individual awareness’ uniting with some ‘universal’ one. 

Nevertheless, the poetic metaphor of the son returning to the mother’s lap is found in Bönpo Dzogchen teachings. Let us read what the current lineage holder, Yongdzin Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, says about this:

“The inner meeting of consciousness and Wisdom means that when agitation and thoughts come, you look and suddenly thoughts liberate into Nature. The thoughts themselves are consciousness and they liberate into Wisdom, so that’s the inner meeting. These two are naturally without separation, they don’t only meet and then go separately. It’s not really possible to explain but sometimes they meet and thoughts themselves liberate into Nature. This is just a name, they aren’t naturally separated.

[…] consciousness meets with awareness – this is the synonym. Some texts say that consciousness is the same as Nature or the same as Wisdom, but a kind of energy and it’s called the son of Nature. So when the consciousness goes to Nature, it’s called the son going to Mother’s lap. Some texts explain that all kinds of visions are the son and when visions disappear  into Nature, that is the son going to Mother’s lap.”

Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen. Lopön Tenzin Namdak. Trnscr. & Ed. by Carol and Dmitry Ermakovi. Kusum Rangshar, Oral Teachings by Lopön Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, Paris, April 1999;  rDzogs pa chen po sku gsum rang shar las thod rgal snang bzhi’i nyams len ngo mtshar snang ba’i ltas mo / “The Display of Marvellous Visions – Practice of the Natural Emergence of the Three Bodies in their Great Perfection,” pp. 20-21.

---

[1] Tib. ma / མ།

[2] Tib. bu / བུ།

[3] Tib. Kun bzang snying tig / ཀུན་བཟང་སྙིང་ཏིག

[4]  Tib. Rdzogs pa chen po sku gsum rang shar / རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་སྐུ་གསུམ་རང་ཤར།

[5] Tib. Shar rdza Bkra shis rgyal mtshan / ཤར་རྫ་བཀྲ་ཤིས་རྒྱལ་མཚན།

[6] Tib. Rdzogs pa chen po zhang zhung snyan rgyud las sgron ma drug gig dams pa zhugs so /  །།རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཞང་ཞུང་སྙན་རྒྱུད་ལས་སྒྲོན་མ་དྲུག་གི་གདམས་པ་བཞུགས་སོ།།

[7] Tib. rig pa / རིག་པ།

[8] Tib. blo / བློ།

[9] Tib. rtsal / རྩལ།

^[10] Tib. Rdzogs pa chen po zhang zhung snyan rgyud las byang chub sems kyi gnad drug bzhugs so / །།རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཞང་ཞུང་སྙན་རྒྱུད་ལས་བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་ཀྱི་གནད་དྲུག་བཞུགས་སོ།།

[11] Tib. stong pa / སྟོང་པ།

[12] Tib. gsal ba / གསལ་བ།

[13] Tib. Nyams rgyud / ཉམས་རྒྱུད།

[14] Tib. Lta khrid / ལྟ་ཁྲིད།

[15] L. Guinness, Rainbow Body, p. 52

Samrig and Yerig

This brings me onto a further point, samrig[1] and yerig.[2] In Rainbow Body, the ‘mother and son’ metaphor is extended to this pair, too: 

“According to Bön teachings, samrig is actually ever-present in all sentient beings. However, the continuity of this awareness is constantly interrupted and obscured by attachment and distraction. As a result, for most people most of the time, samrig is entirely obscured, or only dimly perceived. It is always there, however, and pointing it out is the key gift of the Dzogchen teacher. Samrig is described in terms of six similes: it is like a butter lamp, symbolising self-illumination; it is like lotus, symbolising self-purification; it is like a peacock feather, symbolising the spontaneous perfection of clear light; it is like a mirror, symbolising unobstructed clarity; it is like crystal, symbolising naked transparent wisdom; and it is like space, symbolising non-dualistic, impartial, all-pervasive wisdom.

The aim is for this son (bu), the individual awareness or samrig, to re-unite with mother (ma), the universal primordial awareness or yerig. This union comes about through experiential recognition of their primordial inseparability (yermé). Their re-unification, given the right circumstances, is not only possible but is natural and even, potentially, effortless. The journey of the individual primordial awareness to the universal primordial awareness is not a journey of creation or imagination, but one of rediscovery.”

L. Guinness, Rainbow Body, p. 52

References are not given for the extension of this metaphor to yerig and samrig. This terminological pair is found in Namkha Trüldzö, written by Drenpa Namkha, and was also later used by Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen in his Kunzang Nyingtig (commonly known in English as Heart Drops of Dharmakaya). However, they are not spoken of as ‘mother and son’. Drenpa Namkha explains yerig as primordial awareness which always sees itself. It is the view of Dzogpa Chenpo, which is ever-present whether one meditates on it or not. Drenpa Namkha goes on to explain that samrig, on the other hand, is a general term mostly used in the lower vehicles to refer to the knowledge developed as one studies a teaching – the more one studies and the more experience one obtains, the more one’s understanding and awareness of that teaching is developed. Below is a quotation from Namkha Trüldzö which explains three kinds of awareness-rigpa:

རིག་པ་གནད་ལ་དབབ་པ་ནི། རིག་པ་ལ་དབྱེ་ན། རིག་པ་ཁྱབ་རིག་བདེ་བར་གཤེགས་པའི་སྙིང་པོས་འགྲོ་ལ་ཁྱབ་པ་ཙམ་དུ་འདོད་པ་དང༌། བསམ་རིག་ཐེག་པ་འོག་མ་བ་ལས་སོགས་པ་ཁ་ཅིག་གི་འདོད་པ། བསྒོམས་ན་རིག་མ་བསྒོམས་ན་མི་རིག་པ་ལས་སོགས་པའི་ཤེས་པ། རིག་པ་སྣང་བ་འདི་བོན་སྐུར་ཤེས་ན་རིག་ལ། མ་ཤེས་ན་མི་རིག་པར་འདོད་པའི་རྫོགས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་ཁ་ཅིག་ཡོད་དེ། གཞི་ཇི་བཞིན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྐྱེ་མཆེད་པའི་ལུགས་ཀྱིས། ཤེས་མ་ཤེས་སམ་རིག་མ་རིག་གཉིས་ཀ་ད་ལྟར་རང་གི་རྒྱུད་ལ་གནས་པའི་རིག་པ་འདི་རང་ཡིན་པས། འདི་ཡི་གནས་སྐབས་སུ། ཡེ་རིག་ཡེ་ཤར་ཡེ་ཡིན་ཆེན་པོའི་ལྟ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། སྣང་བ་ཡེ་ནས་སྟོང་པ་དངོས་ཡིན་པར་མ་བསྒོམས་ཀྱང་རིག་པ་དང༌། བོན་ཅན་ཡེ་ནས་བོན་ཉིད་དངོས་ཡིན་པར་རིག་པ་དང༌། སེམས་ཅན་ཡེ་ནས་སངས་རྒྱས་དངོས་ཡིན་པར་རིག་པ་དང༌། འཇིག་རྟེན་ཡེ་ནས་འདས་པ་དངོས་ཡིན་པར་རིག་པ་དང༌། དུག་ལྔ་ཡེ་ནས་ཡེ་ཤེས་དངོས་ཡིན་པར་རིག་པ་དང༌། སྣང་བ་ཡེ་ནས་རིག་པ་དངོས་ཡིན་པར་མ་བསྒོམས་ཀྱང་རིག་པས། དུས་མཐའ་མེད་པའི་རིག་པ་ཡུལ་མེད་དུ་ཤར་བའོ། དངོས་ཡིན་པར་རིག་པ་དང་། སྣང་བ་ཡེ་ནས་རིག་པ་དངོས་ཡིན་པར་མ་བསྒོམ་ཀྱང་རིག་པས། དུས་མཐའ་མེད་པའི་རིག་པ་ཡུལ་མེད་དུ་ཤར་བའོ། ༽^[3]

“As for the key point of awareness-rigpa: If we were to classify the awareness-rigpa, there are:

1. Chyabrig: the all-pervading awareness is the essence of Buddha which pervades each being[4] and;

2. Samrig: the awareness of thinking, which is accepted in some Lower Vehicles. When one meditates, this awareness becomes clear, but when one doesn’t meditate, it is not clear and so forth. If you recognise this awareness as bönku,[5] then it is awareness. If you don’t recognise this awareness as bönku, then it is not awareness; some Dzogchenpas say this.

3. Yerig: awareness-rigpa, aware of itself, arises from the great potential power of the Natural State of the Base. At that time, yerig, primordial awareness, primordially arises and primordially is. This is the great view. Primordially, appearances are actually emptiness. If you don’t meditate, awareness is there. Primordially, all phenomenal existence is actually the ultimate nature of reality, since awareness is there.  Primordially, all sentient beings are actually Buddhas, since awareness is there. Primordially, samsara is actually nirvana, since awareness is there. Primordially, the five poisons are actually wisdom, since awareness is there. Primordially, appearances arise as awareness. If you don’t meditate, awareness is there. Arising without an object, this awareness is awareness beyond the limits of time.”[6]

And here is a commentary by Yongdzin Rinpoche on the same subject of three kinds of rigpa from Heart Drops of Dharmakaya:

“There are three descriptions of awareness (rig pa). The first is encompassing awareness, the second is awareness of thinking and the third is primordial awareness. The first means the awareness of the Buddha who encompasses all beings. The second is that of some of the schools of meditation like Vipassana (insight) where awareness is practised in meditation. There, if you do not practise it you do not see the awareness, and sometimes it is clear and sometimes not. The third is according to this view—it is the real awareness of Dzogpachenpo. It is always there whether you are practicing meditation or not, or whether you realise it or not. Whether you know it or not does not matter.”

Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen. Commentary by Lopon Tenzin Namdak, Heart Drops of Dharmakaya,pp.58-59.

Once one has correctly understood that yerig is the Natural State, and samrig is a ‘awareness of thinking,’ it becomes self-evident that the six similes – butter lamp, lotus, peacock feather, mirror, crystal, space – in fact apply to yerig, not samrig, as stated in the passage from Rainbow Body cited above. These six examples, similes or symbols are also used during symbolic transmission, initiation and introduction to the Dzogchen view, i.e. yerig, in Zhang Zhung Nyengyu and many other Bönpo and Buddhist Dzogchen cycles:

“This is accomplished by way of examples that illustrate or exemplify it (gsang-ba dbang gcig brda thabs mthon-pa’i dpe la ngo-sprad-pa), usually by displaying to the candidate such symbolic objects as the mirror, the crystal, the peacock feather, and so on. This process represents the symbolic method of the single initiation lineage (dbang gcig brda thabs) and constitutes the secret entrance into the Zhang-zhung tradition of Dzogchen. Moreover, this will also usually include a verbal introduction to Dzogchen at the conclusion of the initiation ceremony. This direct introduction, or pointing out, brings about an immediate face-to-face encounter of the candidate with one’s own Nature of Mind. Originally, this was given by a master privately and secretly to only a single disciple (gcig brgyud).”

Reynolds, Oral Tradition, Notes, p. 415.

---

[1] Tib. bsam rig / བསམ་རིག

[2] Tib. ye rig / ཡེ་རིག

[3] དེབ་བཅུ་དགུ་བ། རྫོགས་ཆེན་ཚད་མའི་སྐོར། རྫོགས་ཆེན་ནམ་མཁའ་འཕྲུལ་མཛོད། རྫོགས་ཆེན་ནམ་མཁའ་འཕྲུལ་མཛོདཀྱི་འགྲེལ་བ། མཚན་དོན་བསྟན་པའི་སྐབས་འགྲེལ། གངས་ཏི་སེ་བོན་གཞུང་རིག་མཛོད། མི་རིགས་དཔེ་སྐྲུན་ཁང་།, p. 495.

[4] As already explained in detail above in the section Kunzhi and thigle nyagchig, this means that every sentient being has their own individual Buddha-Nature i.e. the Natural State of their own mind.

[5] Tib. bon sku, Skt. dharmakaya – body of the ultimate nature of reality.

[6] My translation.

Conclusion

Having examined the ‘mother and son’ metaphor from many angles, based on several texts and teachings, we have established that, in Bönpo Dzogchen, this pair does not refer to some ‘universal kunzhi’ and ‘individual kunzhi’. Instead, this poetic metaphor is used to elucidate kunzhi and rigpa, emptiness and clarity, which are universal aspects of the non-dual and inseparable Nature of Mind that is individually present in each sentient being. Indeed, the very notion of ‘collective and individual kunzhi’ is not found in Dzogchen. The terms ‘“kun gzhi of the static principle” (gnas pa don gyi kun gzhi )’ and  ‘“kun gzhi of mentality” (shes rig rgyud kyi kun gzhi)’[1] are themselves simply a way of explaining that the Nature of Mind of each being shares the same general, universal qualities. Hence in Dzogchen there can be no ‘journey of the individual primordial awareness to the universal primordial awareness.’[2]

Our analysis of both root texts and commentaries of Bönpo Dzogchen from various cycles has also clearly shown that in the exposition of the Dzogchen view found in Rainbow Body, samrig and yerig have been mixed up and misrepresented. Firstly, samrig is not ‘ever-present in all sentient beings’ but is instead an awareness of thinking mostly referred to in lower, provisional, ways. Secondly, the examples and qualities Guiness ascribes to samrig mostly describe yerig, primordial awareness, the Natural State itself.

Thus, by examining and comparing the views of Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen as well as various aspects of the Dzogchen view itself, we have clearly demonstrated that Advaita Vedanta’s doctrine of the non-dual single universal consciousness (Ātman-Brahman) which appears as the manifold consciousnesses of sentient beings (jivātman) is not at all comparable to the Natural State in Dzogchen. According to the Dzogchen View, while the Natural State has universal qualities, the Nature of Mind of each being is individual, not linked to any overarching collective consciousness.

---

[1] S. G. Karmay, The Great Perfection (rDzogs chen), p. 184.

[2] L. Guinness, Rainbow Body, p. 52.