In this presentation, I would like to draw a comparison between Iamblichus and Vajrayāna on the one hand, and Plotinus and Dzogchen on the other, proposing that Dzogchen could be to Plotinus what Vajrayana could be to Iamblichus. Dzogchen and Tibetan Vajrayāna Buddhism can be seen as parallel and complementary traditions. However, their View (skt. dṛṣṭi ; tib. lta ba) and methods, or skillful means (skt. upāya, tib. thabs), differ in significant ways: on the one hand, pure contemplation and natural simplicity without goal or effort in Dzogchen, with its rhetoric of negation (apophatic approach) and even, at times, criticism of formal practices—particularly in its radical and ancient forms (tib. sems sde, or sems phyogs). On the other hand, Vajrayāna is characterized by highly complex and elaborate ritual practices, including visualizations, offerings, prayers and mantra recitation, music and dance, and the use of all five senses. The same contrast may be observed in the Neoplatonic tradition with Plotinus and Iamblichus. While Plotinus is often associated with pure philosophy and metaphysics, rejecting rituals and religious procedures, Iamblichus is credited with reintegrating "religious" elements. These include theourgía as ritual practice, prayers, the visualization of sunthémata/súmbola, the recitation of "barbaric names" (gr. bárbara onómata), divination, sacrifices, the animation of statues, and more. However, the apparent contradictions may not be as insoluble as it seems. Dzogchen's View often incorporates Vajrayāna procedures on the path, for most practitioners; likewise, Plotinus may have employed certain "rituals" in his teachings. Furthermore, beyond this synchronic distinction, it is maybe also possible to perceive a diachronic evolution—a kind of dialectic between the interiorization of rituals and the reappearance of its tangible forms, as seen in Iamblichus and in the snying thig ("Heart Essence") Dzogchen tradition of the man ngag sde.