Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

[Aemilius]

Anzan Hoshin Roshi says that Sri Simha is actually the 24. ( or 25. in some lists) Zen/Chan patriarch in India. Anzan Hoshin has translated a text from Chan patriarch Simha in his site http://www.wwzc.org/book/zerbu-dunpa-qi-ding-shichi-kugi-seven-nails. I find this all quite interesting, it has signifigance beyond the Zen school, so I put it here. Zen master Sri Simha is included in the Transmission of the Lamp text, in Thomas Cleary's translation by the name Simha.

[tomamundsen]

Anzan Hoshin Roshi says that Sri Simha is actually the 24. ( or 25. in some lists) Zen/Chan patriarch in India. Anzan Hoshin has translated a text from Chan patriarch Simha in his site http://www.wwzc.org/book/zerbu-dunpa-qi-ding-shichi-kugi-seven-nails. I find this all quite interesting, it has signifigance beyond the Zen school, so I put it here. Zen master Sri Simha is included in the Transmission of the Lamp text, in Thomas Cleary's translation by the name Simha.

That is very interesting!

[pueraeternus]

Also interesting in this:

http://www.chibs.edu.tw/ch_html/chbj/03/chbj0313.htm

I wonder if there were any discussion/rebuttal of this article in the Dzogchen subforum?

[gregkavarnos]

Chan is related to Sutra Mahamudra. Dzogchen comes from the Dzogchen Tantras. Buddha taught sudden enlightenment in the Pali texts too. So Bhaddiya the Bark-Clad is the first Zen master, I mean Threkchod master. I mean Mahamudra master.

[Jinzang]

Interesting, but are Garab Dorje and Sri Simha historical persons? Not trying to be confrontational, but I have my doubts how much is accepted uncritically by Tibetan Buddhist practitioners is historically correct. And I have the same doubts about the lineage of Zen before Bodhidharma. Obviously he had teachers, but what historical credibility can be placed in the Indian lineage?

[Yudron]

It's a way-cool poem.

[pueraeternus]

So Bhaddiya the Bark-Clad is the first Zen master

Not so according to the "official" Chan lineage chart - it is Mahakasyapa.

And I have the same doubts about the lineage of Zen before Bodhidharma. Obviously he had teachers, but what historical credibility can be placed in the Indian lineage

Seriously, the earliest portion of the Chan lineage are all Sravakayana masters, and there is nothing "Chan" about their praxis. Maybe during this period, what they are teaching is really just regular Dhyana focused paths as taught in the early Abhidharma lineages. When Mahayana sutras started appearing, then what we recognize as Chan/Zen practice now begun developing, starting with the Lankavatara, etc.

[pueraeternus]

Interesting, but are Garab Dorje and Sri Simha historical persons? Not trying to be confrontational, but I have my doubts how much is accepted uncritically by Tibetan Buddhist practitioners is historically correct.

To be honest, I think a large part of what we now understand as Dzogchen developed later, and it seems a lot of creative mythic narratives and hagiography were developed after the fact. Only the early Mind series teachings (they weren't even tantras at that point) were pristine.

[deepbluehum]

Not so according to the "official" Chan lineage chart - it is Mahakasyapa.

If no one laughs did I tell a joke?

[pueraeternus]

Not so according to the "official" Chan lineage chart - it is Mahakasyapa.

If no one laughs did I tell a joke?

Mu

[deepbluehum]

Not so according to the "official" Chan lineage chart - it is Mahakasyapa.

If no one laughs did I tell a joke?

Mu

Bok

[Astus]

The Indian lineage of Chan is taken from non-Chan sources and have nothing to do with Chan beyond the lineage concept that was created to legitimise Chinese teachers. I don't know who and when made up the Dzogchen lineage of the early teachers, but even the legends of the two Simhas don't match. Besides this accidental choice of name I see no connection here.

[Yudron]

The Indian lineage of Chan is taken from non-Chan sources and have nothing to do with Chan beyond the lineage concept that was created to legitimise Chinese teachers. I don't know who and when made up the Dzogchen lineage of the early teachers, but even the legends of the two Simhas don't match. Besides this accidental choice of name I see no connection here.

I don't think the received history of the early Dzogchen lineage is "made up." It is incomplete, however... and quite possibly was reconstructed based on oral history after the fact.

[deepbluehum]

The Indian lineage of Chan is taken from non-Chan sources and have nothing to do with Chan beyond the lineage concept that was created to legitimise Chinese teachers. I don't know who and when made up the Dzogchen lineage of the early teachers, but even the legends of the two Simhas don't match. Besides this accidental choice of name I see no connection here.

I don't think the received history of the early Dzogchen lineage is "made up." It is incomplete, however... and quite possibly was reconstructed based on oral history after the fact.

No way. The lineage story came from Guru P and blazed into the minds of the Great Tertons.

[Aemilius]

So Bhaddiya the Bark-Clad is the first Zen master

Not so according to the "official" Chan lineage chart - it is Mahakasyapa.

And I have the same doubts about the lineage of Zen before Bodhidharma. Obviously he had teachers, but what historical credibility can be placed in the Indian lineage

Seriously, the earliest portion of the Chan lineage are all Sravakayana masters, and there is nothing "Chan" about their praxis. Maybe during this period, what they are teaching is really just regular Dhyana focused paths as taught in the early Abhidharma lineages. When Mahayana sutras started appearing, then what we recognize as Chan/Zen practice now begun developing, starting with the Lankavatara, etc.

What are your grounds for saying that? That line of thinking presupposes that Buddha Shakyamuni knew only shravakayana, that he didn't know Mahayana, that he didn't know the symbolic transmission outside the sutras! Which is worse than ridiculous! Bhagavan Shakyamuni was fully enlightened, he didn't hold back teachings, but taught everything, including Mahayana and the symbolic transmission of Zen/Dhyan school, when the situation or opportunity arose for it.
There is no need to believe that few narrow minded individuals were the essence of Dharma, that there was nothing else. Have you read the Transmission of the Lamp (or Transmission of the Light)? What causes your unbelief in these early masters of Mahayana?
As it is only your personal lack of faith, it should not be presented as "truth". It has no other justification than your lack of insight in and knowledge of the nature of Mahayana/Chan.
It is widely known that Dharma existed as an oral tradition for several hundreds of years, and even more than a thousand years. This should not be forgotten and dismissed as nonexistent, when it carries the true nature of Dharma. It has been the true nature of early Mahayana Dharma, and also the nature of much of the later transmission of Dharma.

[Astus]

I don't think the received history of the early Dzogchen lineage is "made up." It is incomplete, however... and quite possibly was reconstructed based on oral history after the fact.

In any case, the two Simhas show know connection.

[Yudron]

The Indian lineage of Chan is taken from non-Chan sources and have nothing to do with Chan beyond the lineage concept that was created to legitimise Chinese teachers. I don't know who and when made up the Dzogchen lineage of the early teachers, but even the legends of the two Simhas don't match. Besides this accidental choice of name I see no connection here.

I don't think the received history of the early Dzogchen lineage is "made up." It is incomplete, however... and quite possibly was reconstructed based on oral history after the fact.

No way. The lineage story came from Guru P and blazed into the minds of the Great Tertons.

Hmmmmm. I've heard it said that the concept that a lineage history meant keeping track of transmission from one individual to the next is a relatively modern invention. I'm not sure Guru Rinpoche would have thought that important to preserve. On the other hand the importance of key figures--the great adepts--seems to have been stressed.

[Sherlock]

Hmmmmm. I've heard it said that the concept that a lineage history meant keeping track of transmission from one individual to the next is a relatively modern invention. I'm not sure Guru Rinpoche would have thought that important to preserve. On the other hand the importance of key figures--the great adepts--seems to have been stressed.

I think I remember reading somewhere that there is a small genre of Tibetan literature concerned specifically with tracking the lineages of teachings the author had received and that Jigme Lingpa (if I remember correctly, it might also have been Dudjom Lingpa, but in any case it was a famous terton who lived in either the 18th or 19th century) compiled one of the most detailed books on this. The genre itself dated back hundreds of years though and probably started around the time of the Sarma schools, especially with the Kagyu schools descended from Milarepa and the Sakya school.

[Yudron]

Hmmmmm. I've heard it said that the concept that a lineage history meant keeping track of transmission from one individual to the next is a relatively modern invention. I'm not sure Guru Rinpoche would have thought that important to preserve. On the other hand the importance of key figures--the great adepts--seems to have been stressed.

I think I remember reading somewhere that there is a small genre of Tibetan literature concerned specifically with tracking the lineages of teachings the author had received and that Jigme Lingpa (if I remember correctly, it might also have been Dudjom Lingpa, but in any case it was a famous terton who lived in either the 18th or 19th century) compiled one of the most detailed books on this. The genre itself dated back hundreds of years though and probably started around the time of the Sarma schools, especially with the Kagyu schools descended from Milarepa and the Sakya school.

Yes, the great lamas in recent history do write down records of teachings received, and these are put in their collected works. In some good scholarly works I've read that this was not tracked in early Tibet.

Jacob Dalton argues, in his dissertation on the dGongs pa dus pai mdo, that it was in the 13th through the 15th centuries that the Nyingma began to place an emphasis on lineage, as a defense against Sarma critics. He argued, also, that lineage is speculative and it is political who gets mentioned when lineages are created.

[Yudron]

By the way, an idea just popped into my head that it would be fun to do an online book group on the Dalton's paper on the dGongs pa dus pai mdo. I would prefer to divide it into sections so we could really in depth on it.



My goodness, I just figured out Dr. Dalton lives near me. Fun!