Aro gTér Dzogchen and Tantra Teachings Wiki

Lion's Roar - Deep Reading

7 min read

Lion’s Roar — Deep Reading

An extended reading of the image introduced in Lion’s Roar of Reality. The claim: every element of the metaphor carries load, and the metaphor itself is the Dzogchen path’s argument for its own subtractive shape.

Key Points

  • Why a lion, not a bell or thunder: the lion is non-instrumental. A dog barks at an intruder (referential); a lion roars because that is what a lion being a lion sounds like. The utterance and the being are not two.
  • “Roaring silence” = propositionlessness, not soundlessness: a proposition needs subject/predicate, which need reference points. What is proclaimed is how things already are — a claim with no exterior vantage from which to predicate it. The roar is silent in the sense of contentless, roaring in the sense of unmistakably present.
  • The chiasmus is load-bearing: self-existent appears on both sides of “proclamation of confidence.” This equates medium and content ontologically — neither leans on anything outside itself. There is no purchase anywhere for a because, a by means of, an in order to.
  • “Taken refuge in timidity” inverts the Buddhist refuge formula: one traditionally takes refuge in Buddha/Dharma/Sangha. The diagnosis here is that we have instead taken refuge in timidity itself — reference-point dependence as hiding place. The wordplay is surgical, not rhetorical.
  • “Of reality,” not “of the Dharma”: Mahāyāna’s inherited siṃhanāda announces the teaching about reality. Dzogchen’s genitive collapses — the roar belongs to, is emitted by, is reality. No gap between announcement and announced.
  • Practical entailment — subtractive path: because the roar is continuously sounding, no generating-practice can produce it. The path can only be removal of what mutes hearing: Shi-nè and the rest of the Four Naljors loosen timidity, they do not build the confidence from scratch.

Why a Lion

Siṃhanāda (Skt.) / seng-gé’i dra (Tib.) is not a Dzogchen coinage. It is an old pan-Buddhist trope: the Buddha’s teaching is called a lion’s roar across Mahāyāna literature (Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda Sūtra, Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Siṃhanāda Sūtra). Dzogchen inherits this image and sharpens it.

The sharpening hinges on a question the metaphor answers without asking: why a lion specifically? The lion’s roar is non-referential. It is not an alert, not a bargain, not a persuasion. A dog’s bark points at an intruder — the bark exists because something else does. The lion roars because that is the audible shape of its being present. Voice and being are not two. This is the exact property the metaphor needs: an utterance whose medium and content are the same thing, which makes no argument because it is not addressed to anyone.

What “Roaring Silence” Is Saying

Ngakpa Chögyam uses roaring silence as a technical phrase, not a poetic flourish. “Silence” does not mean absence of sound — it means absence of propositional structure.

A proposition has the shape X is Y. To assert it, one needs to stand outside it, which means reference points: subjects, predicates, demarcations. But what the lion’s roar proclaims is the way things already are — there is no exterior vantage from which to make reality a predicate. So the proclamation has nothing to say in the propositional sense, while being unmistakably present.

Tactile image: a bell that cannot stop ringing, whose ringing is the bell. One has always lived inside that ring. Because identification runs at the level of vibrations built on top (reference points), the continuous ring registers either as nothing — or, when noticed, as threat.

The Chiasmus, Unpacked

the self-existent proclamation of self-existent confidence

Two halves, both load-bearing:

  • Self-existent confidence — not confidence in something. Ordinary confidence carries a hidden that: “confident that X.” Strip the that and what remains is the felt-ness of what is, not trust in an object. The book calls this empty confidence — empty of referent, not empty of presence.
  • Self-existent proclamation — the roar is not a medium carrying confidence as message. Medium and message share ontological status; neither leans on anything outside itself. The declaration does not report the confidence; it is the confidence audibly.

The chiastic doubling means form and content of the proclamation are both self-existent — so there is no opening anywhere for a “because,” “by means of,” “in order to.” The phrase closes every exit to instrumentality.

The Intimidation Clause — The Deepest Move

Three things happen at once in “a roar which is not a threat, although it inevitably intimidates those who have taken refuge in timidity”:

  1. Indifference of the lion. The lion is not roaring to intimidate. Intimidation is a side effect in the listener, not an intention in the roarer. Most spiritual rhetoric is persuasive; this is not.
  2. “Taken refuge in timidity” as inverted refuge. Against the traditional formula (refuge in Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), the diagnosis is that most take refuge in timidity itself — in the reassurance of reference points, in the known, in the verifiable. What has been called safety is itself a hiding-place from reality. The refuge verb is weaponized deliberately.
  3. Why self-existent reality is threatening. Not because it attacks — because it does not use one’s scaffolding. If one’s sense of being real is built from “I am X because Y,” then a reality that simply is without such structure is not an attacker; it is indifferent to one’s proofs-of-existence. The insult is the indifference. Timidity reads that indifference as danger.

So the roar intimidates not by pointing at the listener, but by being uninterested in being witnessed by the version of the listener that needs witnessing.

”Of Reality,” Not “Of the Dharma”

Worth registering the wording: the phrase is lion’s roar of reality, not the standard dharma-siṃhanāda (“lion’s roar of the Dharma”). This is a deliberate sharpening of Dzogchen’s position.

Mahāyāna’s inherited siṃhanāda announces a teaching about reality — typically tathāgatagarbha, “you have buddha-nature.” Dzogchen tightens: the natural state is already the case, and the declaration is identical with the declared. There is no gap between announcement and announced, therefore no gap across which “you” could “have” anything. This matches Dzogchen’s own claim that “utter totality” is a term applied to the teaching, to the practice, and to the intrinsic condition of the individual — these are not three referents but one.

The genitive of collapses. The roar is of reality in the sense of belonging to / emitted by / identical with — not about.

Practical Consequences for the Path

The metaphor is not decorative. Four things follow, and they shape the whole apparatus of Roaring Silence:

  1. The roar is not generated. It is continuously sounding. Practice is not sound-production.
  2. The confidence is not achieved. It is already “naturally ours.”
  3. The path is subtractive. Shi-nè, the Four Naljors, the whole apparatus exists to loosen timidity — reference-point dependence — not to build courage on top of timidity. Courage-on-top would just be a more fortified reference point.
  4. No reference-point practice can confirm it. What is to be heard is precisely what has no reference. Any method that tries to verify the natural state by its markers or phenomenology is still operating in za té and will miss. This is why the tradition insists on transmission rather than technique alone.

Compressed Holding

The lion’s roar of reality is the claim that what one is is already sounding itself without permission, and the only reason it registers as nothing — or as threat — is that one has organized one’s life around needing to be the one who sounds. The tradition’s wager: this is loosenable. Not by roaring louder, but by letting the timidity that mutes one relax enough to notice what was never not being said.

Graph View

Backlinks