Tibetan Buddhism

[el_tortugo]

I wonder if anyone here knows a good source for getting an overview of Tibetan Buddhism and all its schools and practices.

 

Also of what is available here in the U.S.A.

 

Maybe someone wouldn't mind posting a brief synopsis here in this thread.

 

Gracias!

 

[Lozen]

I personally like the Shambhala Center--not for an overview but basic classes both in meditation for laymen and for Tibetan Buddhists. They are very laid back and human.

[el_tortugo]

I personally like the Shambhala Center--not for an overview but basic classes both in meditation for laymen and for Tibetan Buddhists. They are very laid back and human.

 

Thanks!

 

All that I know about Tibetan Buddhism is from a 3 month Lojong teaching at the local Shambala center. I liked them too, but found them a little too pushy, maybe i should give them another try.

[Lozen]

Shambhala Center, pushy? Wow. I never experienced that!! Where are you located? Amazing how different the centers are...

 

I did a 10-day Vipassana retreat-- THEY were pushy. Also hung out at a Zen Center but didn't last long there.

[el_tortugo]

Shambhala Center, pushy? Wow. I never experienced that!! Where are you located? Amazing how different the centers are...

 

I did a 10-day Vipassana retreat-- THEY were pushy. Also hung out at a Zen Center but didn't last long there.

 

I am in Santa Fe, NM.

 

Not everyone there was pushy. It was certainly chaotic and felt like it had some factions and I couldn't figure out how it was able to keep going/running. I learned a lot from them and perhaps read pushiness into some of their enthusiasm. Some of them seemed to really want me to sign up right away for the whole enchalada. I was just checking them out. The only thing I didn't like much was a feeling I got that you need to stay in house, not attending other schools. I agree with that once you decide on a school, but 'till then . . . how do you know that you want to stay.

 

I think its a good place 'till I find my place, and maybe shambala is it, I just don't think so at this moment.

[Lozen]

Yeah, I think it's good to pick a practice instead of dabbling but I also think it's important to check out different places before settling on one. I heard the Zen Center in Santa Fe was pretty good, too.

[Yen Hui]

Sorry, can't help you with the encyclopedic overview, but I personally like the Dzogchen lineage, which is the

Tibetan version of Chinese Chan. From what I've read in the past, Chan Buddhism was "officially" condemned

in Tibet, as heresy, shortly after it arrived there. It then went underground and was secretly preserved within

the Dzogchen lineage and teachings.

 

As far as I currently know, Dzogchen master Surya Das is the highest ranking American born Tibetan Lama. I

have one of his books and a CD, from some time ago when I was seriously looking into it, and I've owned a few

TB books in my time, to compare him against. The Shambhala teachings of Chogyam Trungpa are profound, to

be sure, and I really like them, but I personally lean toward the Dzogchen tradition, myself. And I really like the

style and teachings of Lama Surya Das.

 

Regarding Chogyam Trungpa, though, be sure to check out the Online Video Clips of him. They are fascinating,

to say the least! I highly recommend his book on Training the Mind. Acquire it by all means. It's very practical,

and can only help your cultivation practice, regardless of your tradition. A big namaste to you!

Edited May 10, 2007 by Yen Hui

[Trunk]

I wonder if anyone here knows a good source for getting an overview of Tibetan Buddhism and all its schools and practices.

 

Reginald Ray wrote two books:

Indestructible Truth

Secret of the Vajra World

 

He's a teacher at Naropa University in Boulder and needed textbooks that included Tibetan cultural history as well as religious thought, suitable for introducing westerners taking his college level courses. There were none, so he wrote those.

 

As far as religious view, "Indestructible.." focuses on Hinayana and Mahayana, and "Secret.." focuses on Vajrayana.

[sean]

FWIW I've heard really great things about Reginald Ray, I know a few people who are closely involved with him, one since the late 70s. And Surya Das has a nice vibe about him as well. They both pour all of their energy and resources into making their teachings accessible in the West.

[GrandTrinity]

qigongmaster.com!

[sean]

qigongmaster.com!

Been meaning to check out one of his videos. Any recommendations?

[Pero]

Sorry, can't help you with the encyclopedic overview, but I personally like the Dzogchen lineage, which is the

Tibetan version of Chinese Chan. From what I've read in the past, Chan Buddhism was "officially" condemned

in Tibet, as heresy, shortly after it arrived there. It then went underground and was secretly preserved within

the Dzogchen lineage and teachings.

 

Sorry, but I think this isn`t right. Perhaps there are some similarities, but I doubt very much that Dzogchen is the Tibetan version of Chan.

[Mandrake]

Pero, you don't have to doub - DC simply isn't the Tibetan version of Chan.

 

Several masters have practiced both which would be pointless if Chan was just a version of Dzogchen or vice versa. Chan belongs to the Sutra-vehicle, DC is based on tantra. The methods are radically different than those of Chan.

 

M

[rex]

These three are good detailed overviews, contextualise the various practices, but aren't 'how to' books:

The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen - Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

Highest Yoga Tantra - Daniel Cozort

Profound Buddhism: From Hinayana to Vajrayana - Kalu Rinpoche

 

This one is a good general overview:

The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of its Philosophy and Practice - Dalai Lama

 

This one is inspirational with hidden depths:

The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying - Sogyal Rinpoche

 

Chan belongs to the Sutra-vehicle, DC is based on tantra. The methods are radically different than those of Chan.

Dzogchen is a complete path in itself which doesn't have to rely on tantra or sutra for its methods or philosophy. Some lineages use tantra as a jumping off point into Dzogchen while Dzogchen practitioners avail themselves of tantric and sutric methods as useful secondary practices.

Edited May 11, 2007 by rex

[el_tortugo]

Thank you all for the input! I have hours of reading ahead of me.

 

 

Where did this man get those antique clothes?

[Yen Hui]

As far as I currently know, Dzogchen master Surya Das is the highest ranking American born Tibetan

Lama. I have one of his books and a CD, from some time ago when I was seriously looking into it ...

 

Lama Das describes the essential nature of Dzogchen in the following terms:-

 

"One ongoing controversy in Buddhism revolves around how long it takes to become enlightened. Some

schools feel that enlightenment is a gradual process that takes place over many life-times. Dzogchen is a

tradition that believes one can become enlightened within one life-time - even within a decade. The direct

path of Dzogchen was first practiced and taught in Tibet by Padma Sambhava 1,300 years ago although it

is actually much older than that.

 

"The earliest Indian Dzogchen master, Garab Dorje, who lived two centuries before Jesus Christ, wrote

about Dzogchen saying, 'Don't follow past thoughts, don't anticipate the future, and don't follow

illusory thoughts that arise in the present; but turning within, observe your own true nature

and maintain awareness of your natural mind, just as it is, beyond the conceptual limitations

of past, present, and future.'

 

"Dzogchen is a naked awareness practice; it does'nt depend on cultural forms or unfamiliar deities. In fact,

nowness - awareness - is the true Buddha, as my own lamas said. Dzogchen's unique message is that, by

nature, we are all Buddhas for whom enlightenment is possible within this life-time." (from Awakening the

Buddha Within, p. 44-45)

 

I am both curious and eager to hear from any or all of you how the above description distinguishes, or

fails to distinguish, the essential nature of Dzogchen from that of Chinese Chan. Namaste. ~ Yen Hui

[Yoda]

I studied with Reggie Ray 90-92... one of the best Buddhist scholars in the USA hands down. Buddhist Saints in India is extremely scholastic but is outstanding, I've not read his recent books.

 

Also Reggie's pal, Judith Simmer-Brown, is pretty kick ass too.

 

They both are able to bridge scholarship with personal practice... a rare blessing.

[Fat Mao]

I have spent an extended length of time as an ordained Monastic in a Chinese Buddhist lineage that included Traditional Ch'an practice, and have since then, received many Dzogchen teachings and Transmissions from several prominent Teachers, I would like to add that, from my experience, there is ultimately very little difference in all these "classifications."

 

Certainly, the lineages are different, and the vocabulary varies, yet the description of the Undifferentiated Primordial Mind sounds too similar to bother speaking of different systems/traditions.

 

(There is a much more systematic process of steps in recieving the complete Dzogchen cycle, which is more developed than in the Ch'an lineages; in the end, Ch'an and Dzogchen share much more in common than Dzogchen and Tantra).

 

There are many within the Orthodox Traditions that would accuse me of minimizing the subtlties of their respective Traditions, yet there are many that would, and have, agreed.

 

I have also heard the assertion that Ch'an survived in Tibet as Dzogchen. The subtle, and profound differences between the Tantric and Dzogchen Traditions, reflected in the difference in the Gelugpa and Nyingma Lineages, and the subsequent controversies of sudden vs. gradual approaches to enlightenment, and the nature of the Ultimate Reality, strongly reflects the main topics of the original debate in the legendary "showdown" in Lhasa involving Ha Shang Mahayana (Chinese) and the Indian/Tibetan factions vying for the status as the legitimate representative of the Buddhist Tradition back in the day.

 

The similarities are too significant to dismiss outright.

 

Consider this,

 

Is it Ch'an/Zen, or is it Dzogchen; or the Tao:

 

 

"Since everything is but an illusion, Perfect in being as it is; having no good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst into Laughter."

 

The answer shows how not different the traditions really are.

[rex]

In the Supreme Source, a translation of a Dzogchen Mind Series Tantra, the Kunjed Gyalpo, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche mentions that Zen and Dzogchen are not synonymous: "At heart, Zen, which without any doubt is a high and direct Buddhist teaching, is based on the principle of emptiness as explained in the sutras such as the Prajnaparamita. Even though in this regard, it is no different from Dzogchen, the particularity of Dzogchen lies in the direct introduction to the primordial state not as "pure emptiness" but rather as endowed with all the aspects of the self-perfection of energy".

Edited May 12, 2007 by rex

[Yen Hui]

I have also heard the assertion that Ch'an survived in Tibet as Dzogchen. The subtle, and profound differences

between the Tantric and Dzogchen Traditions, reflected in the difference in the Gelugpa and Nyingma Lineages,

and the subsequent controversies of sudden vs. gradual approaches to enlightenment, and the nature of the

Ultimate Reality, strongly reflects the main topics of the original debate in the legendary "showdown" in Lhasa

involving Ha Shang Mahayana (Chinese) and the Indian/Tibetan factions vying for the status as the legitimate

representative of the Buddhist Tradition back in the day.

 

The similarities are too significant to dismiss outright.

Great post Fat Mao! Thanks for taking the time to contribute. You have saved me a lot of work at attempting

to support my original claim by quoting from several different sources. Had I actually gone ahead with that

plan, though, it would have only demonstrated what you have already kindly indicated for us, which is that ...

 

"There are many within the Orthodox Traditions that would accuse me of minimizing the subtlties of their

respective Traditions, yet there are many that would, and have, agreed."

Regarding the question you have asked, though, concerning It's true nature, there is no denying that it is Tao!

 

Namaste! ~ Yen Hui

[Yen Hui]

In the Supreme Source, a translation of a Dzogchen Mind Series Tantra, the Kunjed Gyalpo, Chogyal Namkhai

Norbu Rinpoche mentions that Zen and Dzogchen are not synonymous: "At heart, Zen, which without any

doubt is a high and direct Buddhist teaching, is based on the principle of emptiness as explained in the sutras

such as the Prajnaparamita. Even though in this regard, it is no different from Dzogchen, the particularity of

Dzogchen lies in the direct introduction to the primordial state not as "pure emptiness" but rather as endowed

with all the aspects of the self-perfection of energy".

We should ask ourselves, however, why Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche even perceived there was a need

to address this question, if the resolution to it is so self-evident or crystal clear, as many wish us to believe.

Is it not because this precise relationship between Dzogchen and Chinese Chan has continued, even to this

day, as a standing controversy among distinguished persons on both sides of the debate?

 

But what has Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche actually stated? Other than that there is no difference between

Chan and Dzogchen regarding their fundamental basis in the principle of emptiness: "Form is emptiness and

emptiness is form, etc." It is what he says, though, regarding the particularity of Dzogchen that causes me to

raise an eyebrow! I do not wish to present myself as wiser, in any way, but in all honesty, Chan teaching

is very clear regarding the inherent self-perfection of original mind.

 

Nor is Chan's "introduction to the primordial state," as the self-perfection of original mind energy, any less

direct. Such a statement leaves me entirely baffled, to be perfectly honest. Perhaps he has a point, but if so,

it is surely one that is far from being self-evident, if evident at all. I'm afraid that is something which has yet

to be demonstrated. Is there a kind soul here that would care to take up that particular task? Namaste! ~

 

Yen Hui

Edited May 12, 2007 by Yen Hui

[rex]

We should ask ourselves, however, why Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche even perceived there was a need

to address this question, if the resolution to it is so self-evident or crystal clear, as many wish us to believe.

 

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has a definite reason for addressing this question - he is identfying the uniqueness of the ninth Buddhist vehicle that distinguishes it from the other eight. Because Dzogchen is a Buddhist path there should be no suprise that nearly all its tennets and views will be found somewhere in the other eight vehicles - all except one. What distinguishes Dzogchen is its working with the spontaneous energy of the primordial state and not the emptiness aspect of it. To this end, it has the practice of Togal (Leap Over), which results in dissolution of the physical body, a tradition and result that doesn't exist in Zen which takes emptiness as the goal of the path, as opposed to Dzogchen, which uses emptiness as the base of the path. Different grounds and paths lead to different results.

 

There is an indepth thread on E-Sangha on precisely this question on the similarities and differences between Dzogchen and Zen (Folks may need to register to read):

 

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...=26116&st=0

Edited May 12, 2007 by rex

[Fat Mao]

In the Supreme Source, a translation of a Dzogchen Mind Series Tantra, the Kunjed Gyalpo, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche mentions that Zen and Dzogchen are not synonymous: "At heart, Zen, which without any doubt is a high and direct Buddhist teaching, is based on the principle of emptiness as explained in the sutras such as the Prajnaparamita. Even though in this regard, it is no different from Dzogchen, the particularity of Dzogchen lies in the direct introduction to the primordial state not as "pure emptiness" but rather as endowed with all the aspects of the self-perfection of energy".

 

 

I would like to point out here that these statements although accurate, are only so from the point of view of the Dzogchen Tradition. Because Namkhai Norbu is not steep in the Ch'an Tradition, it is easy for him to dismiss the "Ultimate" goal of Ch'an as something less, or at least different than Dzogchen.

 

The classification that he uses is a Traditional Tibetan one, not a Pan East Asian distinction.

 

I have read his (Namkahi Norbu) works, and if, as he claims, the basis of Ch'an is what is spoken of in the (Prajnaparamita) Sutras, then why do the Masters and Patriarchs of the Ch'an/Zen Traditions themselves claim that their lineage is transmitted without words, outside the sutras? Why is Hui Neng often depicted destroying the Prajnaparamita sutras, not protecting them and worshipping them, as is the case in the Tibetan Tradition?

 

Because the Dzogchen Tradition has developed a highly systamatic exegesis of the Stages leading to the Primordial State, doesn't prove that in Reality, both Traditions are not speaking of the same Reality.

 

Both traditions ultimately reject all Expedient devices and descriptions, including Sutra and Tantra, and talk (or not) about Reality in its Pure Undifferentiated State.

 

I do agree that the Tibetan Tradition has a much more developed System that leads to that final Understanding; with the understanding that the lesser practices are imperfect (Ch'an also understands this as well). Yet in the End, they are indeed the same Teaching.

 

As far as the statement: "rather as endowed with all the aspects of the self-perfection of energy," is concerned, I find it highly unsubstantiated, especially when comparing an expreince to other purported experiences, niether of which which can be accurately described or put into words.

 

Of course, all this is my own opinion, and can't hold a drop of water.

 

By the way, the quote from my previous post is from Longchen Rabjam (Longchenpa), a very High, enlightend Dzogchen Master. When I first heard it, I thought it must be from a Zen Master. But whats the difference anyway?

[DentyDao]

The Dzogchen Khenpo I studied with says that Dzogchen tradition really respects Zen as a practice and teaching, but that it's much more difficult for most people to practice. From what I understand the goal is the same. I think it's clear that masters from both traditions have reached incredible levels, but when I look at the practices and the way they are received in the west, it's clear that Dzogchen has a broader appeal and accessability; especially the way it is present by Surya Das (aka Jeffery), who has done an amazing job of presenting the basic princibles of Dzogchen to the public in the US. Personally I agree with scholars in the west that Dzogchen is the 'new' spiritual practice for our generation.

 

Interestingly, while the Ch'an thing could very well have influenced Dzogchen, David believes as do I that it was the Daoists who originally influenced this tradition. Specifically, the Vadjra which has many similarities with and shares many of the same principles with the Lei Shan Dao. Of course you won't find that in any books. Dzogchen, as may have already been mentioned, was very unpopular in many parts of Tibet until the current Dali Lama spoke out in it's defense. Many Buddhists feel that because Dzogchen uses the frame of "true nature," that it is a basterdized form of Hinduism. But Dzogchen's answer to this debate is that there can be no true nature without emptiness. Personally, I think it's a rather Daoist take. True nature=Shen; the unmanifest.

 

Surya Das says that emptiness is not some void, it's dancing, formless, and full of variety. Something along those lines; a cosmic soup.

 

 

 

I also like that Dzogchen means great inclusion or great vehical because of the idea that all Buddha's teachings are included, including the secret vadjra tantras. Most lay people in the Kham region of Tibet used to practice vadjra tantra and there are many records of people who attained the famous rainbow body, and ascentions which also has connections to Daoist history of such events.

[Cameron]

I was just reading about this retreat Surya Das is doing at Omega Institute this afternoon. Same place I'll be going to a few weeks after for Adyashanti.

 

link