Dzogchen vs Mahamudra

[tao.te.kat]

A traditional depiction of Marpa painted on a rock on Holy Isle, Firth of Clyde

 

Marpa Lotsāwa (མར་པ་ལོ་ཙཱ་བ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་བློ་གྲོས་, 1012–1097), sometimes known fully as Marpa Chökyi Lodrö (Wylie: mar pa chos kyi blo gros) or commonly as Marpa the Translator (Marpa Lotsāwa), was a Tibetan Buddhist teacher credited with the transmission of many Vajrayana teachings from India, including the teachings and lineages of Mahamudra. Due to this, the Kagyu lineage, which he founded, is often called Marpa Kagyu in his honour.^[1]

Although some accounts relate that the Mahasiddha Naropa was the personal teacher of Marpa, other accounts suggest that Marpa held Naropa's lineage through intermediary disciples only.^[2] Either way, Marpa was a personal student of the Mahasiddha Maitripa and of the dakini Niguma.^[3]

 

 

But anyway Maitripa is also Indian and his teacher Naropa. Doesnt change at all my argument about Mahamudra. You can see the lineagea as Naropa-> Marpa or as Naropa-> Maitripa-> Marpa. Doesnt change that the source of Mahamudra is fully Indian and then fully Tibetan.

 

ZhuangZi is considered to have lived in IV AC so later than Buddha, but again, He, Sakyamuni learnt meditation from older sources. So meditation in Nepal/India at least, was quite older than VI AC. It doesnt change the argment neither. The point is that there was a lot of meditation in India prior to VI AC.

 

Best wishes.

 

 

Edited April 26 by tao.te.kat

[tao.te.kat]

BTW, the Kagyu official lineage puts Naropa just before Marpa (thought it names also Maitripa).

 

That's the info I had, but anyway is not that important:

 

https://kagyuoffice.org/kagyu-lineage/

Edited April 26 by tao.te.kat

[Apech]

1 hour ago, tao.te.kat said:

BTW, the Kagyu official lineage puts Naropa just before Marpa (thought it names also Maitripa).

 

That's the info I had, but anyway is not that important:

 

https://kagyuoffice.org/kagyu-lineage/

Marpa held two lineages the direct and the indirect - the first from Naropa and the second from Maitripa.  The Mahamudra lineage was the second.

 

But of course this was in the tenth century AD and is not relevant to the true origins of either Mahamudra or Dzogchen.  The true origins are connected to the kingdoms in the area of the Kashmir and Afghanistan which were in turn connected to the silk route and kingdoms such as Parthia and so on and of course China itself.  This is the route along which both goods and knowledge were transmitted. 

Edited April 26 by Apech

[snowymountains]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

The true origins are connected to the kingdoms in the area of the Kashmir and Afghanistan which were in turn connected to the silk route and kingdoms such as Parthia and so on and of course China itself.  This is the route along which both goods and knowledge were transmitted. 

 

Are Afghan/Kashmirian/Parthian/Chinese origins backed by historical research? This is interesting, if you have the time, could you please give pointers as to who has done this research?

[Apech]

7 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Are Afghan/Kashmirian/Parthian/Chinese origins backed by historical research? This is interesting, if you have the time, could you please give pointers as to who has done this research?

I don’t have references to hand I’m afraid.

[Apech]

24 minutes ago, Apech said:

I don’t have references to hand I’m afraid.

Could be Sam van Schaik or Jeffrey Samuel - I have read a lot of both.

Edited April 26 by Apech

[forestofclarity]

There has been some work done about Dzogchen and Chan by Sam van Schaik, but he doesn't concur with the Chan influence theory. I believe he has updated this in his Tibetan Zen book, but here is an old article in which he suggests the influence may have gone the other way: 

 

https://www.academia.edu/34502820/Dzogchen_Chan_and_the_Question_of_Influence

 

The Shaivism - Buddhist connection is summarized here by Wallis:

 

http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis

 

It is clear that there was interplay between China and Tibet, and between Buddhism  and Shaivism. 

 

What I find odd is hearing a lot of overlap between a range of Tibetan Buddhist practices (including deity yoga) and Advaita Vedanta via Swami Sarvapriyananda's oral lectures. There is also a lot of overlap with Shaivism and Shaivism provides some answers to things that aren't entirely clear in the Tibetan context. This suggests to me a common source, and if I had to speculate, I think the common source in Indian Tantra as opposed to Chinese influences. But I haven't really studied it since the practice is more important than the history. 

 

However, there are some similarities between some of these practices and Daoist practices as well, particularly as related to body/energy practices. My experience is that the "secrets" of Daoist practices tend to be close held and even when disclosed, tend to be to full time practitioners. 

 

 

 

 

[stirling]

38 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

There has been some work done about Dzogchen and Chan by Sam van Schaik, but he doesn't concur with the Chan influence theory. I believe he has updated this in his Tibetan Zen book, but here is an old article in which he suggests the influence may have gone the other way: 

 

https://www.academia.edu/34502820/Dzogchen_Chan_and_the_Question_of_Influence

 

The Shaivism - Buddhist connection is summarized here by Wallis:

 

http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis

 

It is clear that there was interplay between China and Tibet, and between Buddhism and Shaivism. 

 

What I find odd is hearing a lot of overlap between a range of Tibetan Buddhist practices (including deity yoga) and Advaita Vedanta via Swami Sarvapriyananda's oral lectures. There is also a lot of overlap with Shaivism and Shaivism provides some answers to things that aren't entirely clear in the Tibetan context. This suggests to me a common source, and if I had to speculate, I think the common source in Indian Tantra as opposed to Chinese influences. But I haven't really studied it since the practice is more important than the history. 

 

However, there are some similarities between some of these practices and Daoist practices as well, particularly as related to body/energy practices. My experience is that the "secrets" of Daoist practices tend to be close held and even when disclosed, tend to be to full time practitioners.

 

I don't think there is anything in our universe that doesn't co-create and intermingle. Having investigated a couple of these traditions as a non-scholar on this topic, I think it is obvious that Buddhism/Ch'an, Taoism, and other traditions definitely co-mingled in China and influenced each other. 

 

Rather than thinking about these "movements" as separate, I tend to think of them in terms of the teachers. Enlightened teachers (in my experience) have ZERO qualms about quoting some Rumi, Ramana Maharshi, or whatever valid dharma they have met with and recognized in order to wake up their students. This story of intermingling isn't so much about traditions as it is about well-known,  recognized and well-traveled teachers picking up teachings as they move through the world and using them as skillful means. 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

There has been some work done about Dzogchen and Chan by Sam van Schaik, but he doesn't concur with the Chan influence theory. I believe he has updated this in his Tibetan Zen book, but here is an old article in which he suggests the influence may have gone the other way: 

 

https://www.academia.edu/34502820/Dzogchen_Chan_and_the_Question_of_Influence

 

The Shaivism - Buddhist connection is summarized here by Wallis:

 

http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis

 

It is clear that there was interplay between China and Tibet, and between Buddhism  and Shaivism. 

 

What I find odd is hearing a lot of overlap between a range of Tibetan Buddhist practices (including deity yoga) and Advaita Vedanta via Swami Sarvapriyananda's oral lectures. There is also a lot of overlap with Shaivism and Shaivism provides some answers to things that aren't entirely clear in the Tibetan context. This suggests to me a common source, and if I had to speculate, I think the common source in Indian Tantra as opposed to Chinese influences. But I haven't really studied it since the practice is more important than the history. 

 

However, there are some similarities between some of these practices and Daoist practices as well, particularly as related to body/energy practices. My experience is that the "secrets" of Daoist practices tend to be close held and even when disclosed, tend to be to full time practitioners. 

 

 

 

 

I think what Sam is suggesting is that the idea of distinct ‘things’ called dzogchen or Chan may be confusing.  I think it’s not about one thing dominating another thing but more something happened from which what we know as Dzogchen and Chan emerged.

[Apech]

28 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

I don't think there is anything in our universe that doesn't co-create and intermingle. Having investigated a couple of these traditions as a non-scholar on this topic, I think it is obvious that Buddhism/Ch'an, Taoism, and other traditions definitely co-mingled in China and influenced each other. 

 

Rather than thinking about these "movements" as separate, I tend to think of them in terms of the teachers. Enlightened teachers (in my experience) have ZERO qualms about quoting some Rumi, Ramana Maharshi, or whatever valid dharma they have met with and recognized in order to wake up their students. This story of intermingling isn't so much about traditions as it is about well-known,  recognized and well-traveled teachers picking up teachings as they move through the world and using them as skillful means. 

well put

 

just as an example Tilopa appears in both Buddhist and Hindu lineage lists.

 

 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

well put

 

just as an example Tilopa appears in both Buddhist and Hindu lineage lists.

 

...and the terms "Dao" and "the way" appear in some of the last Buddhist Mahayana Sutras, originally authored in Chinese.

[tao.te.kat]

12 hours ago, stirling said:

 

...and the terms "Dao" and "the way" appear in some of the last Buddhist Mahayana Sutras, originally authored in Chinese.

 

Do as "the way" is quite common in all the Zen literature. But usually doesnt refer to Dao as understood in Daoism but as the way meanig the Zen way or the buddhist way.

 

For example:

 

“From thought-instant to thought-instant, no FORM; from thought-instant to thought-instant, no ACTIVITY—that is to be a Buddha! If you students of the Way wish to become Buddhas, you need study no doctrines whatever, but learn only how to avoid seeking for and attaching yourselves to anything.”
― Huang Po, The Zen Teachings of Huang Po: On the Transmission of Mind

 

[Apech]

18 hours ago, stirling said:

 

...and the terms "Dao" and "the way" appear in some of the last Buddhist Mahayana Sutras, originally authored in Chinese.

There’s a very good book called ‘ how Buddhism found its way to China and squired a soul’ by Park which explains in some detail how the Chinese approached translating the sutras.

[stirling]

6 hours ago, tao.te.kat said:

Do as "the way" is quite common in all the Zen literature. But usually doesnt refer to Dao as understood in Daoism but as the way meanig the Zen way or the buddhist way.

 

For example:

 

“From thought-instant to thought-instant, no FORM; from thought-instant to thought-instant, no ACTIVITY—that is to be a Buddha! If you students of the Way wish to become Buddhas, you need study no doctrines whatever, but learn only how to avoid seeking for and attaching yourselves to anything.”
― Huang Po, The Zen Teachings of Huang Po: On the Transmission of Mind

 

The way in either Daoism or Buddhism refer to the "path" and practices, yes.

 

While the highlighted qualia and terminology might be more specific in Buddhism, being in "alignment", or "wu wei" in Daoism, are no different than "Beginner's Mind", or non-doership in Advaita Vedanta for example. 

 

Enlightenment is enlightenment. The depth of that enlightenment depends on the degree to which dualities have been seen through and are no longer identified with.

 

Edited to add: 

 

Those dualities INCLUDE attachment to specific practices and rites, which Stream Entry (Sotapanna)  greatly reduces and arhatship dissolves entirely:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Path_and_fruit

 

Edited April 27 by stirling

[stirling]

28 minutes ago, Apech said:

There’s a very good book called ‘ how Buddhism found its way to China and squired a soul’ by Park which explains in some detail how the Chinese approached translating the sutras.

 

I would imagine that they terminology in those sutras that came from Daoism was used because of the recognizably similar conceptual material.

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

I would imagine that they terminology in those sutras that came from Daoism was used because of the recognizably similar conceptual material.

yes particularly the ‘abstruce mystery school’ - xuanxue… the last step In the process involved a classically trained Daoist or Confucian scholar reframing the translation into ‘correct’ Chinese - if they hadn’t done this the sutras wouldn’t have been taken seriously by the intelligencia .

Edited April 27 by Apech

[Apech]

An extract from Park's book 'How Buddhism Acquired a Soul on the way to China' attached if anyone is interested.