Comments on “Dzogchen”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: Dzogchen
Good points all David,
Good points all David, although I sometimes think the case that “Buddhism” was invented is made a little too strongly. There was in fact a Sanskrit word for “Buddhist” - - Bauddha – and for “Buddhism,” more or less – “Buddhadharma.” There is also some sense among monks Xuanzang encountered in Buddhist monasteries, despite their myriad differences of doctrinal orientation and nationality, there was some sense among many or most of them that they were correligionists who could be demarcated from the rest of the Indian religious milleu. So I think there is at least a strong emic precedent for the later etic judgments of the British.
Regarding Tantra growing out o Tathagatagarbha, I would make the opposite point. I think it’s clear that Tantra grew out of Tathagatagarbha opened the way for Tantra, but Tantra coalesced as a pan-Indian phenomenon that owes as much to Shaivism as to anything else.
You may be correct that the
You may be correct that the term “buddhadharma ” is not often found in sutras, and it may not be frequently used in medieval Indian literature, but I’m fairly confident it isn’t a neologism. In any event your broader point about why the Kunjed Gyalpo allegedly doesn’t mention “Buddhism” is quite correct. A Buddhismless Dzogchen may or may not be a desideratum for the modern age, but there is no point advancing the case with specious arguments.
Regarding tathagatagarbha and tantra, I don’t particularly disagree with anything you say about, I just was objecting to the possible suggestion that the former grew out of the later exclusively. More of a quibble really, as you did not mean to suggest that.
Dzogchen a yana of Budhism,
Dzogchen a yana of Budhism, not at all the Great Perfection is not an ism
read the Kunjud Gyalpo the primary text of the Semsde series
not a word in there about Budhism