Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2150
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Josef » Thu May 10, 2018 3:15 am

Malcolm wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 1:58 am
Josef wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:59 pm
This notion of explicit permission is something that seems to mostly apply to non-Tibetan practitioners.
If one was living in a valley in the Himalaya's, had received empowerment, instructions, and applied the practices diligently, there would be nobody questioning whether or not said individual could "teach" or transmit the practices they have a lineage connection to.

I find it extremely unlikely that the Mahasiddhas had some kind of certificate or explicit permission to benefit beings through offering them dharma. The notion is a bit silly.
Actually, they had to renew their teaching license every five years with the BRUB (Board of Really Uptight Buddhists).
Aw crud!
I forgot about the BRUB!
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Thu May 10, 2018 3:19 am

fckw wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 10:44 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:10 pm
afaik mahasiddhas were once buddhist monks (shravakas and/or boddhisattvas in training) and top scholars on dharma that arrived a point...
Nah, not really. They really had all sorts of social backgrounds, by far not all of them were learned. And a few ones of them - according to Buddhist sources - were actually non-Buddhists.
oh, true, i just saw a post of a YY instructor pointing that Humchenkara was shepherd before. my apollogies
Identities are false and not true

User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Sādhaka » Thu May 10, 2018 8:58 am

The texts say that it is not possible to help sentient beings without the clear vision that comes with the Path of Seeing i.e. the First Bhumi.

Therefore the Path of Seeing would be one’s permission to start teaching; and there would be no mistaking the signs....

Not to say that ‘ordinary’ practitioners can’t give lung transmissions to other practitioners who have already received transmission, that is if the former have done the requisite retreat(s). But I’m talking about becoming an actual Teacher.

The only exception to this would be if your Teacher gives you permission to start teaching.

This is my understanding anyway.
“...we should try to acquire clairvoyance. Without it, we are like a baby bird whose wings are undeveloped and has not yet grown feathers and remains stuck in its nest, unable to fly. Without clairvoyance, we cannot work for other sentient beings.” — Khunu Lama
“Just as a bird can not fly without both wings,
The welfare of others cannot be accomplished without the higher faculties of perception,
So diligently strive for your own wellbeing, whilst mentally considering the welfare of others.” — Longchenpa

yagmort
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by yagmort » Thu May 10, 2018 10:10 am

Josef wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 8:39 pm
...There were many large monastic institutions in India at the time of the Mahasiddhas...
what are those? i am only avare of 5: Nalanda, Vikramashila, Somapura, Odantapura and Jagaddala. that's from wikipedia. to my eyes i wouldn't call that "monastic establishment" in comparison to how it had developed in tibetan vajrayana, where the majority of accomplished masters have gone through rigorous monastic training first, perhaps excluding Shangpa to a certain degree. also, i was thinking they didn't teach tantric practices there, but that's just my uneducated assumptions based on what i've read about mahasiddhas. seems like all of them got their mahamudra introduction from yet another mahasiddhas and not from university teachers. i may of course be mistaken so any inputs are welcome.

User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2150
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Josef » Thu May 10, 2018 3:49 pm

yagmort wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 10:10 am
Josef wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 8:39 pm
...There were many large monastic institutions in India at the time of the Mahasiddhas...
what are those? i am only avare of 5: Nalanda, Vikramashila, Somapura, Odantapura and Jagaddala. that's from wikipedia.
That counts as many to me, and they were definitely "institutions".

Nalanda was a center for international intellectual exchange, and would have had a large residential community of practitioners. If Wikipiedia, as a publicly curated information website lists that many it would seem that there were even more.

Some of the namthars of Mahasiddhas, Virupa for example include references to tantric practice etc. while in a monastic setting.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

Varis
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:09 am

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Varis » Thu May 10, 2018 11:36 pm

fckw wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 10:44 pm
And a few ones of them - according to Buddhist sources - were actually non-Buddhists.
AFAIK the non-Buddhist ones are not described as having actually attained Mahasiddhi.

fckw
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:10 am

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by fckw » Fri May 11, 2018 10:08 pm

Varis wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:36 pm
fckw wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 10:44 pm
And a few ones of them - according to Buddhist sources - were actually non-Buddhists.
AFAIK the non-Buddhist ones are not described as having actually attained Mahasiddhi.
Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.

User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Aryjna » Fri May 11, 2018 10:11 pm

fckw wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:08 pm
Varis wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:36 pm
fckw wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 10:44 pm
And a few ones of them - according to Buddhist sources - were actually non-Buddhists.
AFAIK the non-Buddhist ones are not described as having actually attained Mahasiddhi.
Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.
I remember seeing quotations in this forum against this claim. At least according to some texts, all of them were Buddhist and also mahasiddhas. Some evidence should be given to support the claim that some of them were not Buddhist.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by dzogchungpa » Fri May 11, 2018 10:17 pm

Aryjna wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:11 pm
fckw wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:08 pm
Varis wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:36 pm


AFAIK the non-Buddhist ones are not described as having actually attained Mahasiddhi.
Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.
I remember seeing quotations in this forum against this claim. At least according to some texts, all of them were Buddhist and also mahasiddhas. Some evidence should be given to support the claim that some of them were not Buddhist.

Well, Minapa's guru was Shiva ...
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Aryjna » Fri May 11, 2018 10:22 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:17 pm
Aryjna wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:11 pm
fckw wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:08 pm

Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.
I remember seeing quotations in this forum against this claim. At least according to some texts, all of them were Buddhist and also mahasiddhas. Some evidence should be given to support the claim that some of them were not Buddhist.

Well, Minapa's guru was Shiva ...
Doesn't really change anything as long as what he taught him was dharma and not something else.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by dzogchungpa » Fri May 11, 2018 10:45 pm

Aryjna wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:22 pm
dzogchungpa wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:17 pm
Well, Minapa's guru was Shiva ...
Doesn't really change anything as long as what he taught him was dharma and not something else.

Good point. Some of Shiva's stuff is very well spoken.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Sennin
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:19 am

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Sennin » Sat May 12, 2018 12:38 am

I don't think anyone could just proclaim to be a paṇḍita though right? I read that was reserved for the Indians, and Tibetans were the lotsawas. :reading:
He in whose heart the words of the master have entered,
Sees the truth like a treasure in his own palm. -- Saraha

User avatar
PSM
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by PSM » Sat May 12, 2018 12:22 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:17 pm
Aryjna wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:11 pm
fckw wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:08 pm

Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.
I remember seeing quotations in this forum against this claim. At least according to some texts, all of them were Buddhist and also mahasiddhas. Some evidence should be given to support the claim that some of them were not Buddhist.

Well, Minapa's guru was Shiva ...
And I have it on very good authority Shiva is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara. As with anything in Indian religions, it gets pretty complicated when trying to draw strict demarcations.
"The only virtue which cannot be faked is courage" - Nassim Nicholas Taleb
"We don't want to feel the weirdness of life." - James Low

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by dzogchungpa » Sat May 12, 2018 5:09 pm

PSM wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 12:22 pm
dzogchungpa wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:17 pm
Well, Minapa's guru was Shiva ...
And I have it on very good authority Shiva is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara. As with anything in Indian religions, it gets pretty complicated when trying to draw strict demarcations.

Indeed. Boom Shankar, y'all.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Varis
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:09 am

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Varis » Sat May 12, 2018 6:13 pm

fckw wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:08 pm
Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.
The reason why a Shaivite can't attain Buddhahood through that path is answered in the sutras.
The better questions would be how these figures got grouped together, and why it was accepted by Buddhists. My personal suspicion is that they were included to convert tirthikas. I mean, imagine an interaction between Virupa and one of the non-Buddhist Mahasiddhas.

Varis
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:09 am

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Varis » Sat May 12, 2018 6:18 pm

Sennin wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 12:38 am
I don't think anyone could just proclaim to be a paṇḍita though right? I read that was reserved for the Indians, and Tibetans were the lotsawas. :reading:
Pandita is a title for someone who has learned the five sciences, it's not an exclusively Indian title, Sakya Pandita was Tibetan. A Lotsawa is a translator, not the same as a Pandita.

User avatar
heart
Posts: 4383
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by heart » Sat May 12, 2018 7:20 pm

Varis wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:36 pm
fckw wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 10:44 pm
And a few ones of them - according to Buddhist sources - were actually non-Buddhists.
AFAIK the non-Buddhist ones are not described as having actually attained Mahasiddhi.
Read any book on the 84 mahasiddhas. A few of them where not Buddhists but attained the same level of realisation.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)

User avatar
Sennin
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:19 am

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Sennin » Sat May 12, 2018 8:03 pm

Varis wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 6:18 pm
Sennin wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 12:38 am
I don't think anyone could just proclaim to be a paṇḍita though right? I read that was reserved for the Indians, and Tibetans were the lotsawas. :reading:
Pandita is a title for someone who has learned the five sciences, it's not an exclusively Indian title, Sakya Pandita was Tibetan. A Lotsawa is a translator, not the same as a Pandita.
Haha yes that's what I was getting at... :D
He in whose heart the words of the master have entered,
Sees the truth like a treasure in his own palm. -- Saraha

User avatar
Palzang Jangchub
Posts: 981
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Palzang Jangchub » Sun May 13, 2018 12:35 am

Varis wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 6:18 pm
Sennin wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 12:38 am
I don't think anyone could just proclaim to be a paṇḍita though right? I read that was reserved for the Indians, and Tibetans were the lotsawas. :reading:
Pandita is a title for someone who has learned the five sciences, it's not an exclusively Indian title, Sakya Pandita was Tibetan. A Lotsawa is a translator, not the same as a Pandita.
Lotsa(wa) as a title is particularly used to refer to the realized Tibetans who went thru the vast undertaking of translating the Sutras and Tantras from Sanskrit into their native language. It even became part of their most commonly used names at times. Think Drokmi Lotsawa, Khye'u Chung Lotsawa, Marpa Lotsawa, etc.

Often this was done under the guidance of Indian panditas due to their extensive knowledge of Sanskrit, which is why you'll see the two terms used in conjunction. As Varis points out, pandita is not the Sanskrit for lotsawa, nor was it restricted to ethnic Indians.

Though there is some uncertainty about its origins, lotsawa is actually said to derive from Sanskrit lochava, itself a corruption of lokacakṣus, which literally means "eye(s) of the world." This can be used to refer to the Sun, so perhaps "one who illuminates the teachings" was the original intent there. I, however, always thought of it being somewhat like "citizen of the world"... a beautiful, poetic way of referring to those who are well-traveled, and broad-minded as a result.

At one point I thought that lotsawa was the general term for translator, even modern ones who are not themselves masters. Very few out there use it as a title however, probably due to the historical connotation. There are exceptions to this, of course, such as the translator for Khentrul Lodrö T'hayé Rinpoche. I've heard of others using the title being met with some derision and suspicion (though they were already noted for having odd/disturbing/harmful behavior).

Terms used nowadays are "kegyur (khen)" སྐད་སྒྱུར་(མཁན་) and "yikgyur(wa)" ཡིག་སྒྱུར་(བ་) or "yikgyur jepo/chepo" ཡིག་སྒྱུར་བྱེད་པོ་. As i was taught, སྐད་ ("ke") refers to spoken words, whereas ཡིག་ ("yik") is written words. This would make a kegyur an oral translator (interpreter) and a yikgyur a translator of texts.

See:
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Lotsawa
http://treasuryoflives.org/institution/Translators
Image

"The Sutras, Tantras, and Philosophical Scriptures are great in number. However life is short, and intelligence is limited, so it's hard to cover them completely. You may know a lot, but if you don't put it into practice, it's like dying of thirst on the shore of a great lake. Likewise, a common corpse is found in the bed of a great scholar." ~ Karma Chagme

དྲིན་ཆེན་རྩ་བའི་བླ་མ་སྐྱབས་རྗེ་མགར་ཆེན་ཁྲི་སྤྲུལ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ཁྱེད་མཁྱེན་ནོ།།
རྗེ་བཙུན་བླ་མ་མཁས་གྲུབ་ཀརྨ་ཆགས་མེད་མཁྱེན་ནོ། ཀརྨ་པ་མཁྱེན་ནོཿ

User avatar
Sennin
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:19 am

Re: Did the 84 mahasiddhas authorize others to teach?

Post by Sennin » Sun May 13, 2018 4:11 am

Palzang Jangchub wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 12:35 am
Varis wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 6:18 pm
Sennin wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 12:38 am
I don't think anyone could just proclaim to be a paṇḍita though right? I read that was reserved for the Indians, and Tibetans were the lotsawas. :reading:
Pandita is a title for someone who has learned the five sciences, it's not an exclusively Indian title, Sakya Pandita was Tibetan. A Lotsawa is a translator, not the same as a Pandita.
Lotsa(wa) as a title is particularly used to refer to the realized Tibetans who went thru the vast undertaking of translating the Sutras and Tantras from Sanskrit into their native language. It even became part of their most commonly used names at times. Think Drokmi Lotsawa, Khye'u Chung Lotsawa, Marpa Lotsawa, etc.

Often this was done under the guidance of Indian panditas due to their extensive knowledge of Sanskrit, which is why you'll see the two terms used in conjunction. As Varis points out, pandita is not the Sanskrit for lotsawa, nor was it restricted to ethnic Indians.
Right. I was saying (and failing horribly :lol: ) how mostly we hear of the Indians as the panditas, and the Tibetans were the lotsawas.
He in whose heart the words of the master have entered,
Sees the truth like a treasure in his own palm. -- Saraha

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart, lelopa, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 69 guests