Realised Losers

One has to look at one’s own capacity in the moment. To artificially assume Dzogchen view—and attempt to maintain it with bellicose determinism in every situation—is an intellectually distorted position devoid of benefit. One might not even have the strength to carry through with such an implausible scheme – yet people seem to try. Dzogchen view requires a certain strength – and that strength can only arise from authentic devotion to the Lama. Devotion to the Lama can only arise from practice – it cannot be intellectually or emotionally fabricated.

From the Dzogchen perspective, every vehicle needs to be open for practice. One observes one’s actual condition and practises accordingly. The Dzogchen view of charnel ground as fundamental chaos is not a theoretical position. It is not a stance one can adopt intellectually. One might say: ‘My situation is chaotic, so I choose to accept this as the charnel ground of existence and non-existence.’ Alternatively one might say: ‘I do not have the capacity for viewing my chaos as the charnel ground in this moment – so it would serve better to practise tonglen.’ Both approaches are feasible – but they miss a unique opportunity which is available to any practitioner – be they equipped for Dzogchen or otherwise: the Dzogchen view of charnel ground as tantric tonglen.

As a practitioner one requires the pivotal sense which distinguishes between laziness and cowardice on the one hand, and esoteric masochism on the other. Damaging oneself with the wilful application of an ultimate view is not useful. Anybody who tends to punish themselves with practice tends to develop a hard heart towards others – that is to say, ‘those who may not be measuring up to perverse standards of obdurate ulimatism’. It is not useful to inflict that on ourselves.

From the point of view of Dzogchen ‘living in the charnel ground of non-dual failure and success’ is Tantric tonglen and the one who lives in the charnel ground is a realised loser. Entering into this view is—in itself—compassionate activity. If one is confronted with suffering and there is nothing that can be done, then this can be called the charnel ground of the loser. Recognising a situation as the charnel ground of helplessness is what links all beings with the natural compassionate responsiveness of thug-je (thugs rJe) and, as losers, we simply fail to retract from whatever is taking place.

Often we retract from situations in which we are powerless. We make the internal statement: ‘Either I can help you or I will go away and try to help someone else in order not to be a loser.’ This is merely escapism posing as efficiency. We could say instead: ‘I do not have the power to help you, but as I am a loser – I can simply be here with you.’ I can dwell with you in this situation. It is not ‘your situation’ or ‘my situation’, or even ‘our situation’ – it is simply what is taking place. What we can give is our presence and our failure to distance ourselves.

With regard to compassion, we often define ourselves through our capacity to act. So when we cannot act, we appear to negate ourselves in terms of compassionate capacity. Lack of ability to save someone negates ‘me’ if I am addicted to the reference point of defining myself as a saviour. This is why ‘working for world peace’ has to be seen as a game for a loser. If I am involved in working for world peace, I have to accept that I cannot use this activity to define ‘me’. Working for world peace cannot define me in terms of success, because I may never see a result. A ‘world peacenik’ is a loser – albeit an ultimately worthwhile loser.

If I am independent of being defined by success, I am free. If I am working for a cause, and ‘I’ want to be ‘the one who achieves success’, then I become blind to the fact that I might not be the best person to effect change. One often finds this. There are people who like dominant rôles within organisations – even though they lack qualifications with respect to the tasks they are attempting to accomplish.

If what is important is that the task is accomplished, then the realised loser is free to see that another person might have more effective skills – or maybe merely that their face fits and our does not. Then there would be a time when it would become equally obvious that there is something one can accomplish as a realised loser – one for whom failure and success are merely the ornaments of non-referential activity.