How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi

[Beatzen]

2. Or you just say something about zazen, but actually you never know what is Zazen, what is shikantaza.

I see that the problem here is that you can't really talk about shikantaza. It's pointless.

So that kind of wraps up the thread. On the one hand, the tantric practitioners participating in the discussion either know that you can't really adequately communicate what Zazen samadhi is like, or guage what the merits of it are - on the other, they have never practiced Zazen, and have ideas about Zazen... which isn't Zazen.

I imagine that followers of a philosophically sophisticated system such as Tibetan tantra might get frustrated by this. Why, it frustrates me sometimes. But, personally, that's part of the appeal.

I don't think this thread was necessarily pointless, at least for my own learning. I created the thread wondering if I should continue to study with the Zen community, as I have for the last few years, or if I should seek out my local Nyingma lama. He is a very nice man, but from what I now (think I) know about the Tibetan method, I think I'll stick with zazen.

I also found an appreciation for Namdrol's wisdom. He seemed a little rigid at first, but I humbly bow to anyone with the commitment to carry out a three year retreat.

I did get around to speaking with my teacher, and she cleared up a lot of the confusion I was having - mostly about the conditionality of prajna. Today I got one step closer to letting go of my philosophical comfort-blanket. Let the Buddha's teaching be done! Happy new year by the way.

[ground]

PS, everyone can see by now this conversation is fruitless.

I don't think that a conversation with assertive "this is that" and "this is not that" is fruitless.

Kind regards

[DarwidHalim]

I don't think this thread was necessarily pointless, at least for my own learning. I created the thread wondering if I should continue to study with the Zen community, as I have for the last few years, or if I should seek out my local Nyingma lama. He is a very nice man, but from what I now (think I) know about the Tibetan method, I think I'll stick with zazen.

I personally really like Zen. I always think Buddhism should be like Zen and Theravada. Simple. Not full of ornaments and symbols.

The problem with Zen is it is too simple for the learning process. It is like throwing you to the jungle and let you there found out your own way out from that jungle.
Just sit and meditate + sometimes Koan supplement.

Depending on the students, it is very very difficult for beginners. For students who like puzzles, Zen approach may be excellent.

Unless you know what is the ultimate truth, Zen is very challenging.

Mahamudra is excellent in the sense that it gives you complete structures from the foundation until the result. We can sense conceptually Ohh it is like this. Ohh it is like that. Ohh this is what it means by direct perception. So, when we do a meditation, we are already thousand steps ahead clearing unnecessary confusion and mistakes. The job of meditation is then very clear. Directly experiencing this "sunyata".

I never stick myself to only 1 tradition. I don't see the point.

I believe you know this story:

The nun Wu Jincang asked the Sixth Patriach Huineng, "I have studied the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas i do not quite understand. Please enlighten me."
The patriach responded, "I am illiterate. Please read out the characters to me and perhaps i will be able to explain the meaning."
Said the nun, "You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you able then to understand the meaning?"
"Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon's location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?"

We are all looking for the truth.

Zen masters said, the truth is everywhere.

If we can even see the truth in the toilet, there is no reason we cannot see the truth in Theravada, Zen, Vajrayana, or Mahayana.

All schools have differences in surface, but the truth is same, depending on whether we can see it or not.

Political party is never able see the truth objectively, always bias.

Drop the mind.
Drop the body.
Drop the party.

[Adamantine]

I don't think this thread was necessarily pointless, at least for my own learning. I created the thread wondering if I should continue to study with the Zen community, as I have for the last few years, or if I should seek out my local Nyingma lama. He is a very nice man, but from what I now (think I) know about the Tibetan method, I think I'll stick with zazen.

http://siddharthasintent.org/podcast/Volume2.mp3 go to time frame 5:25 in Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche's podcast and you will hear his quite supportive view of Japanese Zen meditation, especially for beginning students of Buddhism...

"At this moment I think Zen is one of those few paths where it is really not that easy to create loopholes or sidetracks, because either you do it or not"

And this is from one of the most revered Vajrayana Buddhist teachers of our time.

He gives some of his own pith instruction on Zen sitting too...

[Beatzen]

I personally hate puzzles. I was horrible at math in highschool, especially story problems. Maybe that's what propelled me into this.

I like Zen because it cuts you off at the knees. It's lovingly brutal in a way. It takes you and pushes you under the putrescent waters of the defilements while you learn to concentrate. No training wheels of structure or philosophy... Just *splash*

[Astus]

Let's turn the things around a bit and look at Mahamudra and Dzogchen from a Zen perspective. For the sake of argument, I take up the classical Zen definition as a special transmission outside teachings, not established on words and letters, but points directly to the mind, so by seeing its nature one reaches buddhahood.

Mahamudra and Dzogchen are full of expedient means, they require devotion and transmission, then extensive training. There are also many teachers who say that besides Mahamudra/Dzogchen one should also do different ritual practices, analytical meditation, deity yoga, etc. Beyond all those practices, one should also familiarise oneself with many levels of doctrines appropriate to the tradition where one studies, as preliminary requirements.

Zen doesn't require anything special, there are no transmissions, no guru devotion, no deities to pray to, no recitations and secret mantras, no long texts to learn. One is instructed from day one how to realise buddha-mind right there without anything else left to achieve. No hidden teachings, no obscure symbolism, just the essence of the Dharma from which all other teachings come. There are no fixed methods to follow but one is free to utilise whatever one wants to.

So there are quite a few differences here.

[DarwidHalim]

Actually Mahamudra doesn't have this mantra recitation, deity, or energy modification whatsoever.

If we see the Mahamudra teaching by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, Mahamudra: The Moonlight -- Quintessence of Mind and Meditation, you wont be able to find this energy stuff.

Saraha actually in his song for the King, also mentioned it if I remember it correctly.

In the preface of Mahamudra, Kadampa 16 mentioned that Mahamudra is suitable for western people, lay practicioner. High yoga tantra is very complicated. If you do it wrongly, it is very harmful. I think it is quite easy to practise it wrongly as well, unless we have a clear understanding of that bindu, channel, so on.

Mahamudra can be combined with this energy stuff, such as 6 yoga Naropa, but I think that one is the enhancement.

The core teaching is free from that.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

[Sönam]

Actually Mahamudra doesn't have this mantra recitation, deity, or energy modification whatsoever.

If we see the Mahamudra teaching by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, Mahamudra: The Moonlight -- Quintessence of Mind and Meditation, you wont be able to find this energy stuff.

Saraha actually in his song for the King, also mentioned it if I remember it correctly.

In the preface of Mahamudra, Kadampa 16 mentioned that Mahamudra is suitable for western people, lay practicioner. High yoga tantra is very complicated. If you do it wrongly, it is very harmful. I think it is quite easy to practise it wrongly as well, unless we have a clear understanding of that bindu, channel, so on.

Mahamudra can be combined with this energy stuff, such as 6 yoga Naropa, but I think that one is the enhancement.

The core teaching is free from that.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

You are wrong ... so wrong that it is incorrigible, you have to start from the beginning. By the way Doctor, who is Kadampa 16?

[Astus]

Mahamudra can be combined with this energy stuff, such as 6 yoga Naropa, but I think that one is the enhancement.

The core teaching is free from that.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

Unlike certain (theoretical) forms of Zen that has been reduced to the bare minimum, both Mahamudra and Dzogchen are generally understood as integral parts of a more complex teaching of Vajrayana. Also, unlike Zen, neither of those existed as independent traditions but only within the frames of the many schools of Vajrayana. Besides a very few modern teachers you won't find Vajrayana masters who cut off these practices from the others. Although Gampopa and some later Kagyü teachers taught about a stand alone Mahamudra, it is more of an exception than the rule.

Note that Zen hasn't really existed in its minimalistic form either in real life, nor as a strictly separate teaching. That's why Dogen said that it is wrong to call his teaching Soto or even Zen, as what he actually imported from China was a large curriculum of Buddhism in general (from temple design to koan collections).

[Malcolm]

Zen doesn't require anything special, there are no transmissions,

This is the main different between Zen on the one hand, and (Kagyu) Mahāmudra and Dzogchen on the other. It is also the main difference between sutra and tantra i.e. the presence or absence of direct introduction. Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are based on direct introduction. This does not exist in any school of Zen, much less sutra.

N

[DarwidHalim]

Btw, I mean Karmapa 16

If we look into the path of Mahamudra, we can see clearly that the path of Mahamudra is "doing nothing" meditation. Mahamudra is looking at this mind barely and nakedly.

Mahamudra has nothing to with this kind of tantric visualization, and so on.

When we do a tantric practice, there is a generation step and completion stage.

The generation step is not Mahamudra practice. Because they are conflicting each other. In generation stage, we create or visual a deity. Mahamudra is a meditation that ask you please do nothing. We can see here, they are conflicting each other. In the visualization process, which is samantha, the process of visualization really create a lot of merit where it removes obscuration for omniscience. This process also help a lot in stabilize the mind during that visualization. In higher yoga tantra, the bindu, nadi, and so on are modified in such a way that the intense sense of bliss is generated.

Up to this point, this generation step do nothing in raising the realization of emptiness. There is no Mahamudra part. Again, this process is conflicting with the path of Mahamudra.

If we just stop here, this meditation, besides creating a lot of merit, it brings no realization. Only if we can use this bliss intensity in higher yoga tantra to go to the next step - completion stage, they are extremely powerful.

The completion stage is the Mahamudra stage, where all our visualiazation or sound or whatever they are, are seen as the display of mind which is empty. In this sense, vipashana. Mahamudra path then play its role by simply looking this mind nakedly. When the bliss is already so intense from the generation stage, these 2 combinations are extremely powerful.

Only people who need to do the visualiation of deity, need ceremony, such as 4 vases empowerment and so on. Because we need to enter the mandala, receive blessing from the deity, etc.

In several songs regarding Mahamudra, the visualization is actually mentioned as some sort of hindrance for Mahamudra practice

In the song of Mahamudra by Tilopa, he mentioned that:
"The practice of Mantra and Paramita,
Instruction in the Sutras and Precepts,
And teaching from the Schools and Scriptures will not bring
Realization of the Innate Truth.
For if the mind when filled with some desire
Should seek a goal, it only hides the Light."

Virupa mentioned:
"Some are completely tortured with empowerment rites,
some always count their rosary saying hūm phat,
some consume shit, piss, blood, semen and meat,
some meditate the yoga of nadi and vāyu, but all are deluded."

I remember clearly that Saraha actually also mention about this visualization method as a sort of hindrance when we are doing Mahamudra, but I really forget where it is. Sorry about it. But I believe some of you may be able to find it.

It is true that there are so many Mahamudra, which are related to bindu, nadi, etc, but that is the combination of tantric practice with this Mahamudra.

Ponlop Rinpoche gives a very good article about the types of Mahamudra in this link:
http://dpr.info/media/www.DPR.info-Thre ... amudra.pdf

Mahamudra is classified into 3:
1. Sutra Mahamudra
We can achieve even ten Bhumis. THere is no such things called visualization, ceremenony, etc. Extremely simple and direct.
2. Mantra Mahamudra
This is where, we need ceremony, visualization, etc, because of generation path, where we need to visualize deity.
3. Essence Mahamudra
Mahamudra through special blessing.

At the end, I just want to say that Mahamudra meditation is a meditation free from visualization, it is a direct path to realize this clear light. Can you see the conflict with Tantra - generation Path, where actually we PURPOSELY do visualization? They are conflicting each other.

They definitely can be combined, where the Mahamudra is the last part of the Completion part.

[DarwidHalim]

Why I said Shikantaza and Mahamudra is similar is because of the direct path meditation.

Not all Mahamudra needs ceremony. They can be as plain and as simple as Shikantaza.

[Malcolm]

Virupa mentioned:
"Some are completely tortured with empowerment rites,
some always count their rosary saying hūm phat,
some consume shit, piss, blood, semen and meat,
some meditate the yoga of nadi and vāyu, but all are deluded."

Funny, this is my translation from which you are quoting.

You are missing a crucial point. This Doha for example, of Virupa is not an expression of mahāmudra as a path. It is an expression of Virupa's realization of the result from following the path of the two stages of creation and completion based on his practice of Nairatmayogini (the consort of Hevajra).

At the end, I just want to say that Mahamudra meditation is a meditation free from visualization, it is a direct path to realize this clear light. Can you see the conflict with Tantra - generation Path, where actually we PURPOSELY do visualization? They are conflicting each other.

These three mahāmudras are regularly practice by Karma Kagyus without conflict (This elaboration of three mahāmudras is mostly Karma Kagyu approach, BTW, in Drugpa and Drigung, they practice a different system that comes from Phagmo Dru called five-fold mahāmudra). In fact they are considered to be mutually supportive.

But in all of this you are missing one crucial point -- sutra mahāmudra that you cite, according to Kongtrul, is elaborated for those who do not have the capacity to practice the two stages. This meditation is does not rely on mantra and visualization because it is sutra path of the perfection of wisdom.

The middle one, is classical Indian tantric practice of the two stages of creation and completion.

The last, essence mahāmudra, is the mahāmudra which is solely based on a direct introduction and finds its justification in the mahāmudra chapter of the Jñānasiddhi by Indrabodhi. Through this, the disciple realizes the essence of the nature of the mind and remains in that state.

But Darwid, this far, while I have received teaching on Zen, Mahāmudra, and Dzogchen, I am not sure what teachings, if any you are have received from anyone. If you have not received any real teachings on these things, you are like a blind man talking about colors.

[Malcolm]

Why I said Shikantaza and Mahamudra is similar is because of the direct path meditation.

Not all Mahamudra needs ceremony. They can be as plain and as simple as Shikantaza.

Sutra Mahāmudra also has rather elaborate system of introduction.

All Mahāmudra is based on introduction, because ultimately Mahāmudra is a Vajrayāna system.

[Astus]

This is the main different between Zen on the one hand, and (Kagyu) Mahāmudra and Dzogchen on the other. It is also the main difference between sutra and tantra i.e. the presence or absence of direct introduction. Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are based on direct introduction. This does not exist in any school of Zen, much less sutra.

I really want to add here the whole guru concept (and related yoga) as an outstanding difference - although some confuse it with blind worship of authority that exists everywhere. Zen has no such direct introduction partially because there is no such person to introduce one, and also because there is no such system one would have to adhere to in order to call it a feature of Zen.

[DarwidHalim]

Namdrol
"But in all of this you are missing one crucial point -- sutra mahāmudra that you cite, according to Kongtrul, is elaborated for those who do not have the capacity to practice the two stages. This meditation is does not rely on mantra and visualization because it is sutra path of the perfection of wisdom. "

That is Kongtrul opinion.

There is no point to argue about it when the forefather of Mahamudra, such as Saraha mentioned about the ability of Mahamudra WITHOUT manipulating channel, bind, and so on, in bringing you full enlightenment.

Let's see how Saraha criticized this kind of practice.

In A Song for the King by Saraha:
(21)
Once totally attached to kissing and the bliss of what follows,
The ignorant say that this in indeed the ultimate.
Having left his house, he stands in front of gate,
Soliciting tales of sensual pressure.

It is very clear here how Saraha object the practice of Karmamudra (practicing with consort), without Mahamudra.

(22)
For the sake of the winds, you meditate on your body as an empty house,
Practicing artificial methods in great variety and number.
From space it falls, along with faults.*
Overwhelmed, the yogi faints away.
(note * is the practice of inner heat)

If, the practice of Mahamudra is not completed without Tantra or that channel, bindu stuff, he will not criticize this kind of practice. He will indeed encourage it. But here, in fact he criticize it.

The critique from Virupa is the clearest:
Virupa mentioned:
"Some are completely tortured with empowerment rites,
some always count their rosary saying hūm phat,
some consume shit, piss, blood, semen and meat,
some meditate the yoga of nadi and vāyu, but all are deluded."

This practice are deluded.

Please note here. I am not saying this practice with consort or inner heat are wrong.

What I want to highlight here is:
Mahamudra has nothing to do with this channel, bindu, energy practice. They are separate entity.
Same with Guru Yoga. Guru yoga has nothing to do with Mahamudra, or Consort practice, or Inner heat practice.

Inner heat is inner heat.
Mahamudra is mahamudra.
Consort practice is consort practice.

When you combine all of them, it becomes Mantra Mahamudra or Tantric Mahamudra.

But, remember, they are separate entity.

Without all this channel, wind, bindu, and so on, The Mahamudra path alone is complete in the sense that it bring you to buddhahood.
This is where the Sutra Mahamudra becomes important.

It has nothing to do with those channel, energy, bindu business.

I am not agree that Sutra Mahamudra is elaborated for those who do not have the capacity to practice the two stages.

The question is: Is it really really necessary?

All are complete path. If not complete, Saraha and Virupa will not criticize these practices in this Mahamudra.

Tantric Mahamudra also does not mean it is more superior than Sutra Mahamudra, or vice versa.

It all depends in the hand of the operator.

[Malcolm]

All are complete path. If not complete, Saraha and Virupa will not criticize these practices in this Mahamudra.

What you seem to fail to understand is that for Saraha and Virupa, there is no meditation of Mahāmudra at all. Mahāmudra is a name for the result, buddhahood.

N

[DarwidHalim]

In this case you are saying there is no meditation in Kagyu lineage.

Please note we are now talking not in the ultimate sense, but in relative sense. If we just mix them without knowing the place, it simply brings confusion.

[Malcolm]

In this case you are saying there is no meditation in Kagyu lineage.

Please note we are now talking not in the ultimate sense, but in relative sense. If we just mix them without knowing the place, it simply brings confusion.

You cannot meditate on mahāmudra.

N

[DarwidHalim]

This is even scarier.

What is the use all master explaining the PATH of mahamudra?

Again, we need to know the place when we are talking realization and when we are talking the practice part to realize that.

Please don't mix them.