Dzogchen vs Mahamudra

[iinatti]

A few basic questions that have been percolating into my coffee pot: 

1. What is Dzogchen generally, other than just non-duality 

2. What is Mahamudra and how is it different from, or the same as, Dzogchen

3. How does Bön Dzogchen differ from Buddhist Dzogchen 

 

[C T]

From Tulku Urgyen: 

 

In Mahamudra, you are introduced to mind and then you train with awareness. The practice is mixed with mind until reaching nonmeditation. Then the practice is only rigpa, the ultimate view. In one-pointedness and simplicity, you exert lots of mental effort, through which fixation greatly reduces and obscurations are cast away. It is like peeling off different layers of corn; first one is peeled, then the next and the next. In Dzogchen, from the very beginning you are introduced to nonmeditation, nondistraction.

 

According to the words of Künkhyen Tsele Rinpoche, also called Tsele Natsok Rangdröl:

Mahamudra and Dzogchen
differ in words but not in meaning.
The only difference is that Mahamudra stresses mindfulness
while Dzogchen relaxes within awareness.

 

Mahamudra stresses mainly mindfulness. “Mindfulness” or “presence of mind” means to apply mindfulness or watchfulness, while Dzogchen relaxes into awareness; this is the mere difference. As it is said, “In Dzogchen the ultimate view is to relax into awareness,” which refers to nonfixation, nongrasping—[to remain] in the continuity of nongrasping. It is said in Mahamudra, “It is necessary to apply mindfulness.”

 

[In Mahamudra] you then train with appearances by utilizing whichever of the six sense perceptions that occurs, without keeping or discarding. —Tsele Natsok Rangdröl

 

In Dzogchen you “train with awareness” and in Mahamudra you “train with appearances.” The meaning of training with appearances is not inhibiting any experience. It is certain that forms will appear to your eyes and that sounds will appear to your ears; experience is unobstructed, intrinsic. To train means that whatever forms appear in your field of vision, however varied, just recognize the watcher; that is the training.

 

According to Dzogchen, awareness does not need to depend on external appearances. Simply remain in rigpa. Whatever appearance may occur—without trying to prohibit, inhibit, or encourage it—train in awareness itself. Here, “training” means developing a skill, becoming practiced, such as doing physical exercise. Similarly, students in school train by developing some skill, learning something.

[iinatti]

Super interesting and helpful.  Have been reading into this and struggling to make out the difference between the two. The sentence on the Dzogchen that stuck out to me:

 

4 hours ago, C T said:

To train means that whatever forms appear in your field of vision, however varied, just recognize the watcher; that is the training.

 

I guess this would would be in contrast to training with mindfulness to achieve non-fixation or non-attachment to the form, with perhaps either approach leading to the same place.

 

Maybe this metaphor works?: In Dzogchen you hold the egg with an open palm, but in Mahamudra you softly close your hand around it.   

 

[C T]

1 hour ago, iinatti said:

Super interesting and helpful.  Have been reading into this and struggling to make out the difference between the two. The sentence on the Dzogchen that stuck out to me:

 

 

I guess this would would be in contrast to training with mindfulness to achieve non-fixation or non-attachment to the form, with perhaps either approach leading to the same place.

 

Maybe this metaphor works?: In Dzogchen you hold the egg with an open palm, but in Mahamudra you softly close your hand around it.   

 

 

Aptly put 👍😃

[Apech]

16 hours ago, iinatti said:

A few basic questions that have been percolating into my coffee pot: 

1. What is Dzogchen generally, other than just non-duality 

2. What is Mahamudra and how is it different from, or the same as, Dzogchen

3. How does Bön Dzogchen differ from Buddhist Dzogchen 

 

 

I think @C T has answered it really but just to give a different perspective.

 

Dzogchen and Mahamudra are two lineages which address the same point which could be called the inherent perfection of Mind.  The way of teaching between the two lineages differs - but the result is the 'same'.  The two lineages also far from being totally independent of each other have had many interactions through historical masters of each being trained also in the other tradition.  But in terms of being transmitted the two paths are kept pure by being transmitted separately and not mixed.  I would think that there are some students who respond more readily to mahamudra and others to dzogchen.

 

There have also been disputes through the ages between the two lineages of teachings which mostly centre around criticisms of the other for somehow departing from the path.  So it is not so much that say, Sakya Pandita states that mahamudra is wrong but rather towards certain practitioners that you and doing it or teaching it wrong.  For instance the great Gampopa introduced 'sutra mahamudra' for ordained monks which did not build on tantric practices.  For while neither mahamudra or dzogchen are tantric as such, they are both normally taught with a contextual base of tantric practices.  Gampopa said that mahamudra is inherent in and implied by prajnaparamita mahayana texts.

 

I don't know anything about Bon Dzogchen so perhaps @steve will be able to answer this.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Apech

[C T]

Ultimately, all authentic Buddhist paths will lead out of contractive, sticky, graspy mindsets. 

 

The Buddha recognised needs exist in multivaried forms, hence the many doors. 

[iinatti]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

I don't know anything about Bon Dzogchen so perhaps @steve will be able to answer this.

 

Maybe was a misconception to think that Dzogchen part of Bön would different, since it is really just a label for the training method.  While Bön practice and belief system may have different aspects, seems like the same refrain @C T mentioned would apply to it as well:

 

6 hours ago, C T said:

Ultimately, all authentic Buddhist[/Bön] paths will lead out of contractive, sticky, graspy mindsets. 

 

The Buddha recognised needs exist in multivaried forms, hence the many doors. 

 

[C T]

Nuances aplenty, even within the same lineage or school, but different masters, for different audiences. Which is the reason why Mahayana emphasises the vital point about devotion to one root guru after finding him or her, taking refuge, and nurturing that affinity thereafter. This has been the case for many a great mahasiddha, be they from Buddhist or Bon traditions. Perhaps also to be seen in other great spiritual traditions, East or West. Authentic teachers are quite the rarity, so once a connection is secured, hopefully over a length of time (at least a couple of years, I would think), then growing faith and devotion isn't going to be very difficult. 

 

With regards to Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism, metaphorically speaking, the masters have said there are 84000 doors to enter the Dharma, one for every human affliction. Dzogchen is one such door. So is Mahamudra, Bon, Zen... different strokes, same brush. Just need to be mindful not to make the mistake of becoming overly fascinated with the strokes to the extent that sight of the brush is lost. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by C T

[Apech]

45 minutes ago, iinatti said:

 

Maybe was a misconception to think that Dzogchen part of Bön would different, since it is really just a label for the training method.  While Bön practice and belief system may have different aspects, seems like the same refrain @C T mentioned would apply to it as well:

 

 

 

There will be no doubt some differences in emphasis and style. 

[doc benway]

8 hours ago, Apech said:

I don't know anything about Bon Dzogchen so perhaps @steve will be able to answer this.

 

I think there are some differences in form and character. I don't think they affect the essence of the view, practice, or fruition.

The lineage and iconography are certainly different with some overlap. There are some who believe Bön dzogchen came from India however Bönpos attribute their dzogchen teachings to Tonpa Shenrab and central Asia. You do see some variation in language, emphasis and metaphors in the teachings. Bönpo teachings often incorporate terms from the Zhangzhung language but I think there are some differences even in the use of Tibetan and Sanskrit at times. Bön teachings tend to be a bit more sparse, metaphorical and practice focused than much of the Buddhist scripture I've read but I've received little in the way of teachings in Buddhist dzogchen so qualify my comments. I've been told that the presentation of trekchod and thogal teachings differs a bit between the two, but for all intents and purposes I believe the view, practices, and result are essentially the same. 

 

[doc benway]

On 7/14/2023 at 1:39 AM, C T said:

Mahamudra stresses mainly mindfulness. “Mindfulness” or “presence of mind” means to apply mindfulness or watchfulness, while Dzogchen relaxes into awareness; this is the mere difference. As it is said, “In Dzogchen the ultimate view is to relax into awareness,” which refers to nonfixation, nongrasping—[to remain] in the continuity of nongrasping. It is said in Mahamudra, “It is necessary to apply mindfulness.”

 

In teachings I've received this distinction between mindfulness and resting in the nature of mind is considered very important. 

Mindfulness necessarily implies subject-object duality, a sense of subject is present who is remaining mindful or observing. Mindfulness may be defined differently in Mahamudra, I know very little about it, but this is one difference between the two from the Bön dzogchen perspective as far as I've come to understand.

 

Dzogchen abiding, or trekchod, involves releasing even the effort or focus associated with remaining mindful into the spaciousness and immediacy of the present moment. One technique for doing this is precisely what CT mentions. A thought invariably arises and is allowed to be as it is. If it releases effortlessly, we simply continue to abide but when the watcher arises, the instruction is to turn the attention toward the watcher and simply observe. There is nothing there, nothing to grasp. The watcher is now watching itself and extinguishes itself, and that openness and freshness is where dzogchen practice occurs. Similar to mindfulness, there is a need to maintain this "state" of abiding and there are aspects of the awareness that are engaged in identifying when we have disconnected and so forth. This is a subject of some of the more subtle and advanced understandings of the practice. 

 

The other thing I'll share is that in the dzogchen teachings I've received, no distinction is made between practicing with appearances and practicing with awareness. This may be a difference between Bön and Buddhist traditions or between Mahamudra and dzogchen teachings in general, I don't know. The two, appearance and awareness, are inextricably related. It is said in the dzogchen teachings that when sounds, lights, and rays (eg any appearances, including thought and feeling) present to the ordinary mind through the sense gates these appearances are impure and karmic traces are generated. When those same appearances present to the mind's essence, they are pure and inherently perfect, generating no karmic traces. This is the source of the name "dzogchen" and is the basis for the practice of thodgal. The general idea in dzogchen is to practice with the senses fully open, including the eyes. The sense gates are open but unfocused on anything in particular. Once stability in this mode of abiding is achieved sitting quietly and undisturbed on the meditation cushion, the instruction is to begin to integrate this with all appearances in an active fashion. The behavior as described in dzogchen instruction is that all appearances become the path, this is what we "work" with in what is referred to as informal practice - everything that presents itself is the path. Of course, it takes time to get to the point where our precision and stability allow this level of integration.

 

There is a book by His Eminence Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, the most senior Bön practitioner currently alive, called Bönpo Dzogchen. It is largely a relatively comprehensive comparison of dzogchen to other methods of practice, including Mahamudra. If anyone is interested in the theoretical basis of sutra, tantra, and dzogchen and how they relate to each other and other specific practices from a Bön perspective, it's a very good resource. As I recall it even addresses differences and similarity between Bön and Buddhist dzogchen. One caveat, my knowledge and experience are very limited, especially my scholarship and theoretical knowledge. Take everything I say with a heaping tablespoon of salt. 

 

One last thing I'll mention is that there are four distinct lineages of dzogchen teachings in Bön. The first and most treasured is the Zhangzhung Nyengüd, said to be an unbroken transmission of the teachings (oral only until the 8th century then written down) from the Nature of Mind itself, Samantabhadra, to the present time. The others are A-Tri, Drakpa Korsum, and Yetri Thasel. Each lineage has slightly different emphasis and qualities but again, all have comparable view, meditation, behavior, and conduct. 

[doc benway]

20 hours ago, iinatti said:

Maybe was a misconception to think that Dzogchen part of Bön would different, since it is really just a label for the training method. 

 

In my understanding, dzogchen is far more than a training method. 

The label dzogchen encompasses our view and understanding of reality, our training method, our daily interaction with the world through our behavior, and the ultimate outcome or fruition of engaging in this path.

The basic tenet is that reality is absolutely perfect just as it is.

Enlightenment is always already present in us but obscured by karma and habit.

Nothing has ever needed to be changed, nothing added or subtracted.

This radical view has been the subject of criticism and controversy from earliest times to the present day.

I've seen people get quite frustrated, indignant, even angry when trying to come to grips with the view in teachings. 

One important point is that this view is from the side of the mind's essence which is primordially pure and perfect.

All the qualities of enlightenment, such as the ten paramitas and four immeasurables are already alive in us just waiting to be unveiled. And the avenue to reach that is through doing and changing absolutely nothing whatsoever.

In the dzogchen paradigm, each of these four - view, meditation, conduct, and fruition is precisely the same as the other three.

That is they are inseparable other than as an artificial distinction for the sake of communication and learning. 

Just thought I'd add more fodder for discussion.

It's one of my favorite topics. 

[iinatti]

1 hour ago, steve said:

It's one of my favorite topics. 

 

Thanks!  Very interesting.  

[Creation]

On 7/13/2023 at 2:28 PM, iinatti said:

A few basic questions that have been percolating into my coffee pot: 

1. What is Dzogchen generally, other than just non-duality 

2. What is Mahamudra and how is it different from, or the same as, Dzogchen

3. How does Bön Dzogchen differ from Buddhist Dzogchen 

 

Both Dzogchen and Mahamudra emphasize realizing the (non-dual) nature of mind, and grew out of and are integrated with the Tantric Buddhist worldview and practices.  But there are differences in approach. 

 

Mahamudra can refer to the result of combined creation and completion stage of highest yoga tantra practice of the Sarma schools, and it can refer to the system of shamatha and vipasyana meditation called the "four yogas" for directly pointing out and developing the experience of the nature of mind.  Generally, these are practiced in tandem, the are called "tantra mahamudra" and "sutra mahamudra" respectively. 

 

Nyingma Dzogchen is a system of practices and principles for realizing and integrating the nature of mind that is integrated with the tantras of the Nyingma school.  It's earliest form was also a form shamatha and vipasyana divided into four contemplations that were practiced alsongside the creation and completion stages of tantra, just like Sutra Mahamudra.  But the tantras involved were different, for instance the "anuyoga" tantras that de-emphasized visualization and focused instead on feeling.  Also, there was a tradition of revealing new teachings, leading to a development into new forms of practice, such as rushan, treckchod, and thogal, that do not fit the older shamatha-vipasyana and creation-completion stage paradigms.  So in this sense Mahamudra is more conservative, more inline with mainstream late Indian Buddhism.

 

There was also a development of the idea of a uniquely Dzogchen view, where the same practices could be done with different "views", Dzogchen being placed as the highest.  So deity yoga, tummo, even ngondro, could be done with the "Dzogchen view" and this makes it subtly different from the same practices on the Mahamudra side. 

 

One non-technical difference in practice is that Sutra Mahamudra is going to have more of an emphasis on strong, one pointed concentration at the beginning, whereas Dzogchen emphasizes relaxation and openness from the beginning.

[iinatti]

.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by iinatti

[Immortal4life]

From what I understand in essence there is no difference. They are the same thing ultimately. Nothing anyone said about one couldn't also be said about the other.

 

Some people have called dzogchen the padmasambhava lineage, and mahamudra the tiliopa lineage.

 

There are certain specific practices that can be unique to certain school I believe.  Like 5 part mahamudra for example. You can also blend different aspects of your experience in meditation together, love and compassion, wisdom, emptiness, awareness etc.

 

Also you can view meditation in stages, like starting with resting mind and mindfulness, you can have mindful body practice, mindful emotion, mindful consciousness, mindful phenomena, then shamata, vipassana, and fiinally mahanudra/dzogchen

 

At the end they're both about you seeing your true real nature and true nature of reality. The empty and luminous nature, that there is no self, the mind seeing itself, and resting in the natural state of Rigpa, etc and profound deep stuff  like that that's hard to grasp or talk about in words and all that. 

Edited April 7 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

On 2023-07-14 at 3:39 AM, iinatti said:

 

 

 

I guess this would would be in contrast to training with mindfulness to achieve non-fixation or non-attachment to the form, with perhaps either approach leading to the same place.

 

 
Not sure there’s really any contrast. I’m thinking there’s more to non attachment than just non attachment in a certain sense. From an absolute truth perspective form doesn’t exist. It’s an illusion, so everything dissolves to emptiness. It never even existed anywhere but in your mind in the first place. There’s just emptiness, the present, a pure clarity, and the yiddam qualities arising and dissolving. Everything else just falls by the wayside, and never happened.

[idiot_stimpy]

 

 

 

[tao.te.kat]

Not very different of what already have been said:

 

In Mahamudra they talk about Sutric Mahamura, Tantric Mahamudra and Essence Mahamudra.

 

Essence Mahamudra is quite close to Dzogchen. The most important is recognizing your own nature and then the main path begins. Call it rigpa or essence or whatever. And the main practice is returning all the time to this rigpa-essence. So they're quite close. Sometimes they're considered "direct vehicles" because you train directly from scratch with buddha nature (only after recognition). That's my path.

 

In tantric Mahamudra usually you will work with the Six yogas of Naropa (or Kalachakra or some other tantric teaching) together with the Mahamudra practices. And it's a gradual approach.

 

Also sutric Mahamudra will be gradual too and there will be more focus on paramitas, prajna, four noble truths, etc... samatha and vipashyana, etc...

 

More or less...

 

A good reference for Essence Mahamudra can be "Gampopa teaches essence Mahamudra" (2 books)

You have a lot of "Six yogas of Naropa" books

And as for the main drawing of all the Mahamudra path any book from Dakpo Tashi Namgyal will do well.

[Apech]

My current view for what it is worth is that Dzogchen and Mahamudra derive from Zouwang.

 

[forestofclarity]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

My current view for what it is worth is that Dzogchen and Mahamudra derive from Zouwang.

 

 

Why is that? Genuinely curious. 

[Apech]

14 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

Why is that? Genuinely curious. 

it is part of a general theory of mine which is that the Chinese influence on Tibetan Buddhism has been downplayed - also having read Olivia Kohn’s ‘ sitting in oblivion’ there is a strong Daoist/ Buddhist crossover which I think works both ways.

Edited April 25 by Apech

[forestofclarity]

The basic difference in my experience is that in Mahamudra, step by step meditation precedes the view whereas in Dzogchen, the view is introduced and is the meditation. There are also techniques unique to each, and ideas are transmitted with different models depending on the specific school, teacher, etc. Both have been highly flavored by the monastic, Tantric Tibetan culture in my opinion. 

 

4 hours ago, Apech said:

it is part of a general theory of mine which is that the Chinese influence on Tibetan Buddhism has been downplayed - also having read Olivia Kohn’s ‘ sitting in oblivion’ there is a strong Daoist/ Buddhist crossover which I think works both ways.

 

I'll have to check it out. It seems there are a lot of parallels with Vedanta and Shaivism, and Chinese Chan. I'm curious to what the Daoist influences might be. 

 

[tao.te.kat]

>My current view for what it is worth is that Dzogchen and Mahamudra derive from Zouwang.

 

Meditation similar to Zouwang and others existed in India too even before Buddha. Jhanas were taught to Buddha by hinduists the VI century BC (in India-Nepal)

 

So it's hard to tell. But meditation existed way before Buddhism and probably Daoism. And in Cnina and India. Both places. India for sure.

 

On respect Dzogchen there's some debate, but Mahamudra origins are clearly from Indian Siddhas Tilopa and then Naropa. Marpa the translator came next and was the first tibetan to receive the teachings, then came the famous Milarepa. And his disciple, Gampopa build the foundations of what now we know as Mahamudra. The lineage here is quite clear and documented and comes from India.

 

So for Mahamudra derivate from Zouwang it has to have come first to India and be adopted by the great siddhas of the time. Not impossible, but strange.

 

Dzogchen origins are less clear. They revert to Padmasambhava, also indian (VIII century) that went to Tíbet but his life is quite a legendary one. And there's some suspicion that some Chan/Zen influences may be there from the time Moheyan (chinese Chan monk) went to Tíbet on the VIII century. From this time on, there's, no doubt some chinese influence in tibetan buddhism but the indian one is a lot more clear.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, tao.te.kat said:

>My current view for what it is worth is that Dzogchen and Mahamudra derive from Zouwang.

 

Meditation similar to Zouwang and others existed in India too even before Buddha. Jhanas were taught to Buddha by hinduists the VI century BC (in India-Nepal)

 

So it's hard to tell. But meditation existed way before Buddhism and probably Daoism. And in Cnina and India. Both places. India for sure.

 

On respect Dzogchen there's some debate, but Mahamudra origins are clearly from Indian Siddhas Tilopa and then Naropa. Marpa the translator came next and was the first tibetan to receive the teachings, then came the famous Milarepa. And his disciple, Gampopa build the foundations of what now we know as Mahamudra. The lineage here is quite clear and documented and comes from India.

 

So for Mahamudra derivate from Zouwang it has to have come first to India and be adopted by the great siddhas of the time. Not impossible, but strange.

 

Dzogchen origins are less clear. They revert to Padmasambhava, also indian (VIII century) that went to Tíbet but his life is quite a legendary one. And there's some suspicion that some Chan/Zen influences may be there from the time Moheyan (chinese Chan monk) went to Tíbet on the VIII century. From this time on, there's, no doubt some chinese influence in tibetan buddhism but the indian one is a lot more clear.

Apart from anything else Marpa obtained the Mahamudra lineage from Maitripa and not Naropa.

 

Zouwang is first mentioned in zhuangzi and is probably much older thus pre- dating the Buddha.