Dzogchen in India post 8CE

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Konch
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:43 pm

Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Konch »

Hello All!

After recently reading some texts on the history of the late indian buddhism, and some bios, a question arose in my mind.
I have tried to research a little more, but so far not much luck in finding any sort of information.
First of all - I dont want to start any polemics, my intentions are just of real wish for clarification.

The point is this: If my understanding is correct, during the time of the early translations and transmissions into Tibet,
around the 8CE, amongst others, we get the Guhyagarbha Tantra, and then from Vimalamitra, Padmasambhava and Vairocana, the Dzogchen teachings.

From the several biographies/hagiographies I have read, it points that Garab Dorje lived most of his life around Bodhgaya, and that was where Manjushrimitra met him.
Considering the geographic proximity of Nalanda, and the fact that Shantarakshita was Abbot at Nalanda, and clearly knew Padmasambhava as according to the story was he would adviced the King to invite Padmasambhava.
Also in http://www.padmasambhava.org/lineage.html, it says:

" From Shri Singha the Dzogchen teachings passed to Jhanasutra, Guru Padmasambhava
and Vimalamitra -- who was the principle teacher of the five hundred great pandits of India at that time ".

So according to this, Vimalamitra was well in the India circles of the time.

So what happened after the 8th century?

When the Sarma schools developed, there was the claim no Dzogchen teachings were found, nor the Guyahgarba Tantra.
Aside from the Hagiographies, the historical persons of Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra seem beyond question, as do their impact in the transmission
lineages in early Tibet, so howcome 200 years later in India, nothing is found?
AFAIK the last destruction of Nalanda was circa 12CE, and the origin of the lineages that would end up in Sarma, started before that.
Was there competing agendas of the new translators? Were the teachings still there, just not brought back to Tibet as part of the second translations?
does anyone know if any research was done on this area or has any points on literature on the topic.. any ideas?

(on the flip side, if the Mahamudra traditions were already the prevalent before 9CE, then why in the early translations that is not seen clearly?)

thanks!
ConradTree
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by ConradTree »

The book "Tibetan Renaissance" answers your questions.
Konch
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Konch »

Thanks. I will check out that book.
Konch
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Konch »

So.. a quick review on the relevant chapters on this book - the author seems to suggest two things, if I understood his intentions:
- Even though it seems reliable that the Semde teachings arrived in Tibet in the first transmission, the later texts were "produced" in Tibet, so no Indian source would have been found. Seems that another source of the Guyagharba was found though.
- On the other hand, the apparent chaos during the new translation period, almost like a Dharma gold rush, and sometimes poor quality and standards of this new wave, together with the melting pot of Yogic/Siddha traditions in India during that period fluctuating a great deal, that type of teaching could just be not in the forefront of the current fashion.

conclusion: This whole thing seems very messy :)
tingdzin
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by tingdzin »

It is very messy. One must also keep in mind that during the rebirth of Buddhism in Tibet (beginning 10th century), establishment of pedigrees going back to India was considered key in legitimating teachings -- some extremists even said that anything without such an Indian pedigree was not real Buddhism. (Many modern adherents of these schools still believe the same, and latch on to the most tenuous data to "prove" an Indian connection). For this reason, some Tibetan schools, those which accepted the Dzogchen tantras in particular, probably concocted Indian "histories" which were more acceptable to those who held such a viewpoint. It is noteworthy, for example, that many or most of the early teachers claimed by the Nyingmapa as Dzogchen founders (with the exception of Manjusrimitra) seem to have more connection with borderline areas of India (i.e. Oddiyana) or Inner Asia (Vairocana was from Kashgar, Sri Singha from Sogdian China) than with India itself. No Indic "originals" for major Dzogchen tantras have been found, last I heard.
Konch
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Konch »

tingdzin wrote:It is very messy. One must also keep in mind that during the rebirth of Buddhism in Tibet (beginning 10th century), establishment of pedigrees going back to India was considered key in legitimating teachings -- some extremists even said that anything without such an Indian pedigree was not real Buddhism. (Many modern adherents of these schools still believe the same, and latch on to the most tenuous data to "prove" an Indian connection). For this reason, some Tibetan schools, those which accepted the Dzogchen tantras in particular, probably concocted Indian "histories" which were more acceptable to those who held such a viewpoint. It is noteworthy, for example, that many or most of the early teachers claimed by the Nyingmapa as Dzogchen founders (with the exception of Manjusrimitra) seem to have more connection with borderline areas of India (i.e. Oddiyana) or Inner Asia (Vairocana was from Kashgar, Sri Singha from Sogdian China) than with India itself. No Indic "originals" for major Dzogchen tantras have been found, last I heard.

Right, your post reflects my own thoughts on this. But the intention of my post though, was less focused on what happened in Tibet, but more of what happened in India. Assuming what seems to be generally accepted that at least such teachers as Manjusrimitra did teach some form of dzogchen, and that the first Semde texts that Vairocana took into Tibet had an origin outside tibet from such teachers - then my point was more, what happened in India to those teachings, and if there is an research, hints, or indications of this. We see that no texts regarding the Tantras were found, but what about the original 5 translations from Vairocana, or anything resembling it? did it just died out in India after that period? Did it merge with other streams.. was it just that the new translators from Tibet did not meet the "right people"?
pensum
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:12 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by pensum »

According to what seems to me a quite reasonable account of Sri Singha's life that he ended up in Nepal, where both Hungkara and Padmasambhava met him and he eventually passed away. See http://www.dharmafellowship.org/biograp ... -simha.htm.

The Ch'an lineage also includes the name Sri Simha as i believe the 24th patriarch in India, which might be the same individual, but there is no way to be certain, however Ch'an was widespread in Tibet before being suppressed by the central government and as Sems sde (the mind section teachings of Dzogchen) is primarily focused on the view it would seem highly possible that he could have a place in the Ch'an lineage as well. Not to mention that i believe it was Vimalamitra who was also well-versed in Ch'an.
tingdzin
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by tingdzin »

I'm sorry, Pensum, but this article you link to is useless from the standpoint of scholarly history. For example: note 3 says that So khyam is Su gnam; this is not only a phonetic stretch, it is directly contradicted by other Tibetan sources (e.g. Deb ther Sngon po, the Blue Annals), that have nothing to do with Sri Singha, but which put So khyam in the NW part of China proper, i.e. the upper reaches of the Yellow River. Phonologically So khyam is correctly related to the Chinese Suo fang and the Khotanese Sva hvam, both historically referring to the same area. This So khyam is moreover quite close to the Chinese Wu tai shan, which would make it a logical choice for Sri Singha's studies. The Five-peaked Mountain in Khotan was attested earlier than the one in China, but I don't think the one in Nepal was; in fact, as I recall, putting a five-peaked mountain in Nepal was simply a result of the later massive transfer of all the lore associated with Khotan to Nepal, under the mistaken later belief that Nepal was the Li yul often talked about in the oldest Tibetan material. This massive transfer might itself have been inspired by the pathological refusal of the later Tibetan schools to accept anything from outside the Indian subcontinent as authentic Buddhism. When the (conveniently anonymous) author of this article says things like "it is known that" to preface remarks which are at least highly controversial and probably complete fabrication, without citing sources, he shows that his "scholarship" is not worthy of consideration, regardless of its acceptance by an official Buddhist organization. If you are very interested in these things, I can refer you to real scholarly materials.
pensum
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:12 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by pensum »

tingdzin wrote:I'm sorry, Pensum, but this article you link to is useless from the standpoint of scholarly history. For example: note 3 says that So khyam is Su gnam; this is not only a phonetic stretch, it is directly contradicted by other Tibetan sources (e.g. Deb ther Sngon po, the Blue Annals), that have nothing to do with Sri Singha, but which put So khyam in the NW part of China proper, i.e. the upper reaches of the Yellow River. Phonologically So khyam is correctly related to the Chinese Suo fang and the Khotanese Sva hvam, both historically referring to the same area. This So khyam is moreover quite close to the Chinese Wu tai shan, which would make it a logical choice for Sri Singha's studies. The Five-peaked Mountain in Khotan was attested earlier than the one in China, but I don't think the one in Nepal was; in fact, as I recall, putting a five-peaked mountain in Nepal was simply a result of the later massive transfer of all the lore associated with Khotan to Nepal, under the mistaken later belief that Nepal was the Li yul often talked about in the oldest Tibetan material. This massive transfer might itself have been inspired by the pathological refusal of the later Tibetan schools to accept anything from outside the Indian subcontinent as authentic Buddhism. When the (conveniently anonymous) author of this article says things like "it is known that" to preface remarks which are at least highly controversial and probably complete fabrication, without citing sources, he shows that his "scholarship" is not worthy of consideration, regardless of its acceptance by an official Buddhist organization. If you are very interested in these things, I can refer you to real scholarly materials.
I certainly would be interested in any good accounts of Sri Singha's life that you might recommend Tingdzin, scholarly or otherwise. I have yet to find any reasonable account of Sri Singha's life other than brief mentions in the bio's of others. More later.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Malcolm »

tingdzin wrote:I'm sorry, Pensum, but this article you link to is useless from the standpoint of scholarly history. For example: note 3 says that So khyam is Su gnam; this is not only a phonetic stretch, it is directly contradicted by other Tibetan sources (e.g. Deb ther Sngon po, the Blue Annals), that have nothing to do with Sri Singha, but which put So khyam in the NW part of China proper, i.e. the upper reaches of the Yellow River. Phonologically So khyam is correctly related to the Chinese Suo fang and the Khotanese Sva hvam, both historically referring to the same area. This So khyam is moreover quite close to the Chinese Wu tai shan, which would make it a logical choice for Sri Singha's studies. The Five-peaked Mountain in Khotan was attested earlier than the one in China, but I don't think the one in Nepal was; in fact, as I recall, putting a five-peaked mountain in Nepal was simply a result of the later massive transfer of all the lore associated with Khotan to Nepal, under the mistaken later belief that Nepal was the Li yul often talked about in the oldest Tibetan material. This massive transfer might itself have been inspired by the pathological refusal of the later Tibetan schools to accept anything from outside the Indian subcontinent as authentic Buddhism. When the (conveniently anonymous) author of this article says things like "it is known that" to preface remarks which are at least highly controversial and probably complete fabrication, without citing sources, he shows that his "scholarship" is not worthy of consideration, regardless of its acceptance by an official Buddhist organization. If you are very interested in these things, I can refer you to real scholarly materials.
The earliest source that mentions that Shri Siṃha comes from somewhere outside of India is the 12th century lo rgyus chen mo. This is totally unlikely, considering that the pan grub thugs bcud (Bima rgyud 'bum. vol. 1) locates Shri Simha in India, near Bodhgaya. Thus, we can regard any idea that Sṛī Siṃha is anything other than an Indian a late Tibetan fantasy.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by dzogchungpa »

Malcolm wrote:The earliest source that mentions that Shri Siṃha comes from somewhere outside of India is the 12th century lo rgyus chen mo. This is totally unlikely, considering that the pan grub thugs bcud (Bima rgyud 'bum. vol. 1) locates Shri Simha in India, near Bodhgaya. Thus, we can regard any idea that Sṛī Siṃha is anything other than an Indian a late Tibetan fantasy.
That's interesting. Do you have any idea why they would want to fantasize in that way?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Malcolm »

dzogchungpa wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The earliest source that mentions that Shri Siṃha comes from somewhere outside of India is the 12th century lo rgyus chen mo. This is totally unlikely, considering that the pan grub thugs bcud (Bima rgyud 'bum. vol. 1) locates Shri Simha in India, near Bodhgaya. Thus, we can regard any idea that Sṛī Siṃha is anything other than an Indian a late Tibetan fantasy.
That's interesting. Do you have any idea why they would want to fantasize in that way?
I cannot speak about their motivations, apart from the fact that perhaps it was important to Zhangton to make Dzogchen seem more exotic than Indian tantra.
Konch
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Konch »

On a side track regarding shri simha, does anyone have comments on this statement from "http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/ind ... &tb=1&pb=1" ..
" Tucci’s argument is supported by Longchenpa’s claim that Srisimha, one of the earliest figures of the Dzogchen lineage, was Ho-shang Mahayana, "


But this aside, going back a little to the main topic from the OP, so it seems noone is having a go at the point of what happnened to dzogchen in India. I could not find much on this from the reading and search on this topic so far. Could we start to assume that perhaps the teachings that Vairocana brought into Tibet (and perhaps Vimalamitra), were part of a flowing and evolving movement in India, which continued its evolution, so being merely a transitory phenomena within the Indian tradition, hence ending up saying that, Dzogchen as we know it, or what we call the Dzogchen Tradition of teachings, never actually developed in India. that original movement, did evolve but into something else, or merged into other traditions (Essence Mahamudra? this might be a stretch but just thinking outloud).
Konch
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Konch »

Konch wrote:On a side track regarding shri simha, does anyone have comments on this statement from "http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/ind ... &tb=1&pb=1" ..
" Tucci’s argument is supported by Longchenpa’s claim that Srisimha, one of the earliest figures of the Dzogchen lineage, was Ho-shang Mahayana, "


But this aside, going back a little to the main topic from the OP, so it seems noone is having a go at the point of what happnened to dzogchen in India. I could not find much on this from the reading and search on this topic so far. Could we start to assume that perhaps the teachings that Vairocana brought into Tibet (and perhaps Vimalamitra), were part of a flowing and evolving movement in India, which continued its evolution, so being merely a transitory phenomena within the Indian tradition, hence ending up saying that, Dzogchen as we know it, or what we call the Dzogchen Tradition of teachings, never actually developed in India. that original movement, did evolve but into something else, or merged into other traditions (Essence Mahamudra? this might be a stretch but just thinking outloud).
Wanted to add something to my previous post that I just came accross that might somehow fit into this discussion:
Sahajayana
(http://books.google.nl/books?id=CiksWMc ... na&f=false)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Malcolm »

Konch wrote:Longchenpa’s claim that Srisimha, one of the earliest figures of the Dzogchen lineage, was Ho-shang Mahayana
Longchenpa's view of the history of the arrival of Dzogchen to Tibet was a bit skewed by Nyang ral's term bio. In some places it seems he follows Nyang, in others, he seems to follow Zhangton. In general, he seems to more or less ignore the sem sde account which formed the basis for the "Great Image" bio of Vairocana (which is a composite bio based on several sources).

But this aside, going back a little to the main topic from the OP, so it seems noone is having a go at the point of what happnened to dzogchen in India.
That is because there is nothing definitive we can say about it beyond the fact that two students of Śrī Siṃha brought it to Tibet.

Given the interchangeability between the terms mahāmudra and rdzogchen in the early texts, we can consider that Dzogchen was a pre-mother tantra approach to the completion stage.

M
tingdzin
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by tingdzin »

Once again, Malcolm dismisses as fantasy what does not accord with his preconceptions. As you rightly noted, I supplied a motive for later Tibetan scholars to attribute Indian origins to Sri Singha, while he offers none for the converse situation. I offer a concrete historical location and context, while he just says "near Bodh Gaya". Pensum, I will get back to you with historical sources by PM, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with someone who is Always Right, even when he has no background in the relevant material.
pensum
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:12 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by pensum »

tingdzin wrote:Pensum, I will get back to you with historical sources by PM, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with someone who is Always Right, even when he has no background in the relevant material.
Thanks Tingdzin, much appreciated. Here is another account of Sri Singha's life http://books.google.ca/books?id=LVlyX6i ... &q&f=false But this version seems more than a little biased as Vairotsana isn't even mentioned among his students, while Jnanasutra and Vimalamitra are, with Vimalamitra being credited with introducing Dzogchen to Tibet.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Malcolm »

tingdzin wrote:Once again, Malcolm dismisses as fantasy what does not accord with his preconceptions. As you rightly noted, I supplied a motive for later Tibetan scholars to attribute Indian origins to Sri Singha, while he offers none for the converse situation. I offer a concrete historical location and context, while he just says "near Bodh Gaya". Pensum, I will get back to you with historical sources by PM, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with someone who is Always Right, even when he has no background in the relevant material.

Tingzin:

I have either read and translated all the earliest datable historical sources for Sṛī Siṃha (pan grub thugs bcud, lo rgyus chen mo, the Vajra bridge histories, etc,) so your assertion that I have "no background" in relevant materials is plain nonsense.

The lo rgyus chen mo is quite late, comparatively, and is quite out of step with what the earlier sources say (which locate Shri Simha in India). Later Tibetan scholars in general do not locate Shri Simha in India, they locate him in all sorts of places outside of India such as Khotan, China, and so on.
florin
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by florin »

Malcolm wrote: I have either read and translated all the earliest datable historical sources for Sṛī Siṃha (pan grub thugs bcud, lo rgyus chen mo, the Vajra bridge histories, etc,) so your assertion that I have "no background" in relevant materials is plain nonsense.
Are these texts publicly available or will you publish them sometime in the future?
I would be particularly interested in anything related to Vajra Bridge.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen in India post 8CE

Post by Malcolm »

alpha wrote:
Malcolm wrote: I have either read and translated all the earliest datable historical sources for Sṛī Siṃha (pan grub thugs bcud, lo rgyus chen mo, the Vajra bridge histories, etc,) so your assertion that I have "no background" in relevant materials is plain nonsense.
Are these texts publicly available or will you publish them sometime in the future?
I would be particularly interested in anything related to Vajra Bridge.
I hope to publish yet another version of the five early bodhicitta texts at some point since I regard them as being the origin of the Dzogchen tradition. I am less certain of the actual provenance of the 13 later bodhicitta texts, and it is pretty clear (to me at any rate) that the kun byed rgyal po, the mdo bcu and the rmad du byung ba tantras are Tibetan compilations.
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”