Fahai Lama and Dzogchen in China

[Rakshasa]

Very interesting account of Fahai Lama and his transmission of Tibetan Dzogchen in China here by Monica Esposito. Namkhai Norbu is also known to have met this "Lama".

What I find interesting is that Fahai Lama considered Dzogchen to be on par with Chinese Chan. Another interesting fact is that Fahai Lama gave Tantric empowerments to his teacher Huidong who was himself a direct disciple of Ven. Xuyun !

[Huifeng]

You may also want to check out Ven. Fazun 法尊, who while not on the Dzogchen side of things, was involved in similar activities of a Gelug type. I think he had maybe more influence in the end, especially with some of his translations.

~~ Huifeng

[Rakshasa]

I think China holds great significance for the transmission of Dzogchen lineage. Sri Simha, one of the patriarchs, was known to have made Mt. Wutai Shan his abode.

Its interesting though that the Chinese viewed Tibetan Tantric practices as psychic Qi Gong and nothing more.

[Huifeng]

I think China holds great significance for the transmission of Dzogchen lineage. Sri Simha, one of the patriarchs, was known to have made Mt. Wutai Shan his abode.

Its interesting though that the Chinese viewed Tibetan Tantric practices as psychic Qi Gong and nothing more.

"The Chinese", eh? All 1.5 billion of them? Not likely. Not even close, I would say.
There are a huge range of different attitudes among a very diverse population, and it pays not to over simplify such issues.

~~ Huifeng

[JKhedrup]

It seems that Tibetan Buddhism was quite important in the courts of several of the dynasties that ruled China.

[Zen Dude]

Yes, it was.

[plwk]

It seems that Tibetan Buddhism was quite important in the courts of several of the dynasties that ruled China.

To the point of including an uncommon protector? Or a strategic concession?

[JKhedrup]

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/late/summa ... kohle.html


Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?: Patronage, Pilgrimage, and the Place of Tibetan Buddhism at the Early Qing Court

Historians studying the Qing period have traditionally argued that the completely sinicized Manchu Qing emperors had no personal commitment to Buddhism, and that their lavish patronage of Tibetan Buddhism was mere political expediency, in what was essentially an attempt to create a new stronghold of Tibetan Buddhism in the Chinese interior in order to orient the Mongols towards China and away from Tibet. Lately, however, some scholars, such as Patricia Berger, have offered evidence which renders this argument questionable.

http://www.thlib.org/collections/texts/ ... 06/tuttle/

Assessing the motivations and effects of Qing (1644-1911) patronage of Tibetan Buddhism is a task complicated by the many biases and layers of historical analysis that surround the topic. Rather than trying to summarize the entire range of Qing patronage of Wutai shan (Riwo Tsenga) from a state policy perspective, this study will attempt to look closely at Qing editions of the primary sources involved with the Buddhist pilgrimage and cultic site of Wutai shan in order to question past assumptions and suggest new directions of research.1 Focusing on the relative minutia of the social history of Qing patronage at one particular site yields a very different story than that portrayed in a few general anti-Tibetan Buddhist statements
[page 164]
preserved in the Confucian-dominated historiography of the imperial court.2 I will describe the social history of Qing patronage of Wutai shan based largely on imperially endorsed gazetteers in a tradition of Buddhist-dominated historiography.3 Although this different (Buddhist) perspective remains only that – one representation of a place and events among many – the imperial support for this alternative view indicates that it was something the Qing court wished to encourage. However, unlike the Confucian-dominated historiography whose audience is fairly obvious, it is unclear at first for whom exactly the Chinese-language materials associated with Wutai shan were produced.

[Zen Dude]

During the Qing dynasty, the nobility consisted of many Mongolian-Manchu cross marriages. I don't agree with the concept of a "heavily sinicized" Qing emperor. They were literally in bed with the Mongolians, the Han hated them and started secret societies to try to remove them from power.

[icylake]

the banner men was a constitutional political-ethnic group. even after "sinization" of daily language in Qian-long emperor's reign. the ididentity of "Banner men" was very concrete. iin fact, the term "sinization" must be replaced with "mutual-assimialation", take the urban-culture of Beijing on Qing dynasty for example. the mutual-assimilation of several cultures was very evident. all of Beijing dwellers went to Yong he gong the Tibetan temple which built by Yong zheng emperor to see Cham dance heavily mixed with Manch-Mongol shamanism and Chinse exsorcist rituals during Chinese new year. even now, there are many Taoist tao shi, and chinse fortune tellers around Yong-he gong and Bai ta si temple, and they have lived besides tibetan-Mongolian lamas for hundreds years. the traditional Beijing culture is really highly hybrid. and don't forget there are many Mosques, 4 Catholic churches, 1 orthodox churches in Beijing, all of them were busy praising the glory of emperor.. and highly "Pekingized" . the emperors bestowed all of these temples(Tibetan, Chinese buddhism, Taoism, islam, Catholic, Orthodox christianity, Shamanism shrines)money, lands, calligrapies, and controlled them so severely, all of these temples erected memorial stones dedicated to emperors, and those monuments are carved in Chinese, Manchrian, Mongloian, Latin, Arabic, Church Slavic. Qing dynasty was a real empire in it's literal meaning