tao.te.kat

Lankavatara is first and then Sandhinirmocana. Probably because they are quite "technical".

Ok, let's see. A Bodhisattva with a sword is always Manjushri, so we got that. Black Manjushri is Yamantaka, Cutting through (attachment) is literally what means Trekchö which is a Dzogchen set of practices or stage. I cant say much more... https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Yamantaka About Daoism or Kabala, I cannot help.

Color black or absolute darkness? The closest I can think of are the Dark retreats of Bon/Dzogchen, but not really related (I think) beause the main focus is not dissolution of aflictive states but: The time period dedicated to dark retreat varies from a few hours to decades. Dark retreat in the Himalayan tradition is a restricted practice only to be engaged by the senior spiritual practitioner under appropriate spiritual guidance. This practice is considered conducive for navigating the bardo at the time of death and for realizing the rainbow body.

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

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/

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.

>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.

>Big fan of "Clarifying the Natural State". I did the translation of the book to spanish in case anyone is interested. at https://blogdetao.org >So, what is your practice background? Started some decades ago with zen but mostly by my own and friends, and switched to Essence Mahamudra which is mostly similar but more clear and without paradoxal language. But in the middle I studied Vedanta, the Thusness model, Dzogchen, etc... I'm semi-old... I've talked with John Tan and Soh from time to time. Very nice people. Best wishes.

Pure shikantaza is impossible prior kensho. It was know even for Bodhidharma so long ago (you can find it). Bodhidharma spoke of this in his Essay on the Dharma pulse: If someone without kensho tries constantly to make his thoughts free and unattached, he commits a great transgression against the Dharma and is a great fool to boot. He winds up in the passive indifference of empty emptiness, no more able to distinguish good from bad than a drunken man. If you want to put the Dharma of non- activity into practice, you must bring an end to all your thought-attachments by breaking through into kensho. Unless you have kensho, you can never expect to achieve a state of non-doing. Prior to kensho you do Zazen Which is not exactly the same. But they're not so different. So there's some confussion. Prior to the turning over described in the Lankavatara sutra (paravritti aka kensho in japanese) zazen is like self-liberation of thoughts in Tibet. You stay there, no point of focus, but attentive, if you get lost in a fantasy, you detect it, let it go and go back to be attentive. After kensho, shikantaza is just sitting because you shouldnt self-liberate, you just stay in front of thoughts when they appear, and you just stay when they dont appear. You are attentive and that's all. Because, as Bodhidharma said you're free and unattached to thoughts. So you achieve a state of "only-sitting" or non-doing.

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.

>As seen from this mind, thoughts are the driving pulse of actions and desires. Without them then no action is possible. Do you think on walking while walking? Do you think on talking while talking? Do you think on driving while driving? Etc... In fact it's very rare that you're thinking about what you're doing in this moment (check it yourself). So it cannot be the driver of the current action. So no, thoughts, like action (it's a form of internal action) arise from a deeper ground, based on desires and attachments. So it's the reverse: desires, attachments, fears and the rest, motivate actions and thougths. You can check it yourself. That deeper ground is Alaya (eigth consciousness). ALso in the 12 nidanas, Bhavana (becoming) comes from Upadana (attachment)

Dzogchen history contains a lot of debate as is mostly based on relatively recent Termas (findings) that claim to be very old. But no proof of it. "Recent" means from XII century or so. A lot of information here (I hope it's allowed): Dzogchen Historiography - Dharma Wheel For example, Bardo Thodol is supposed to be a text from Padmasambhava (VIII century) but it was found on the XIV century by Karma Lingpa...

>then one afternoon, Visions began to fill the space of the wall, You probably already know but these visions are quite usual in Zen. They call them MAKYO. Makyō - Wikipedia

>when I do sitting and forgetting I have ‘memories’ which are not my own. Quite vivid and elaborate scenes and people which I realize I have never known or seen before. It’s quite weird. Me too, which is fun because I also "I am" a white cat with blue collar... Recalling other-life memories is an experience described in buddhism, it fits.

Not forgetting the four Mahamudra yogas which are, for me, the most detailed stages to be found in buddhism. Check Dakpo Tashi Namgyal. Also the five ranks of Tosan are very interesting, but less clear... There're many stage models in buddhism... The Thusness/John Tan model (adopted by Soh) is interesting and fits also some other models, but being so "clear" is also a problem because people have a tendency to focus too much on objectives, milestones, realization and results, and that is an hindrance. Also a way for a lot of self-deceit. But also of value, no doubt.

The name of my cat... Zen masters used to get their name from the place they were teaching... for example Lin-Ji took his name from Lin-ji temple in Hebei where he taught.

Just sit: shikantaza. Just stay there, no distractions. Just be, and be aware.

> It's often glorified as the ultimate or best teaching by its practitioners. Usually Zen people will say the same. And Mahamudra. And Theravada... And... So... Take the path you find good for you and forget about silly supremacisms Also esoteric buddhism is not superior to non esoteric, it's just that some teachings are kept only to adepts because they can do some harm to non initited if done wrong. So they keep it private. Said that, I found surprising how popular is Dzogchen in the internet community, In Tibet Mahamudra is probably more practiced than Dzogchen. Both are great. I found Mahamudra to be better for me, but that's a personal choice,

(128) Editors - No Harm (Official Video) - YouTube

>That is why I assume a realized master should also realize the atomic body eventually at the end of his/her life Dzogchen doesnt affirm that. But usually they say that you can reach Nirvana at the bardo (after death) if you realized rigpa while living >I dont think it is healthy to compare the Bodhisattvas stages/paths to Dzogchen. Dzogchenpas are bodhisatvas, they follow the bhumi stages, even some Nyingma tertons "updated" the model to 13 or 16 bhumis and even more stages... https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Bhumi > Path of seeing is realizing emptiness not Rigpa. From here: http://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/tantra/mahamudra-dzogchen/what-is-dzogchen This is rigpa in its aspect of being the “open space” or “cognitive sphere” that allows for the arising of appearances and the cognizing of them, with the latter more prominent. When we recognize and stay focused with this, we attain break-through, a seeing path of mind (path of seeing), the third of the five pathway minds on the way to enlightenment. == Rigpa is the state of presence recognizing the ground of mind as emptiness

>is special feature of Dzogchen Probably they say that, but as you can imagine, there's no special part of the mind that only Dzogchenpas have. This will make no sense. So it's really an universal feature. Remember that's not a creation but a recognition, all of us have it. Now. In fact the recognition is the same in Essence Mahamudra (said by the own tibetan masters, not me). So probably rigpa is the same recognition of the nature of mind seen in Zen (Kensho) and for sure is the same as in Essence Mahamudra. The changes are in the way they explain it and the practices of every lineage. But you can only be sure of your own realization if a lineage master is at hand to confirm it (be it Zen, Mahamudra or Dzogchen). The introduction is a nice effort to make you recognize it using the situation and the capacities of the master. Some Dzogchenpas have the realization outside the introduction, later, and there's no problem at all.

No, the masters know perfectly rigpa. They are not blind. There's a long road from recognizing rigpa to buddhahood, you seem to think they're the same point... So you have: - People before the path of seeing -> Not rigpa recognized. Blind - People after completing the path of seeing, they're at the path of meditation -> Rigpa recognized, not Buddha at all. Some of them are masters. They're Aryas. - Buddhas after completing the path of meditation, at the path of no-more-learning -> Buddhahood realized. They can get rainbow body (or not) Look for the five paths tibetan system. So no blind is leading blind. But dont expect your master to be a Buddha. Maybe s/he is not. But he is not blind.

Hi, I'm Oskar from Barcelona, very happy to join the forum and learn. My field of study is more buddhism than daoism but... my cat is called Tao and I love ZhuangZi or LieZi. And expect to learn a little bit more of daosim here. I have a blog: https://blogdetao.org Best regards

It's a lot funnier when you hear them...

Wisdom!