Susan Ganje

su.morrissey@gmail.com
Graduate Student Religions of Asia & Africa, SOAS, University of London
Assignment for Buddhism in Tibet with Mr. Charles Manson
6th January 2013

Origins and Development of Dzogchen in Tibetan Buddhism

Dzogchen, also known as the Great Perfection or the Great Fulfilment (rDzogs-chen), has been described
by van Schaik as a ‘Buddhist approach to salvation, in a form only known to have existed in Tibet’ (2004:
3). The lineage of Dzogchen is typically traced back to the eight century CE when Tibet was at the height
of its empire with dominance over most of Central Asia and parts of China. The central theme of
Dzogchen has been the immediate presence of the enlightened mind or, in the words of Samuel, the
‘sudden awakening’ of the enlightened state, which is brought about by ‘the absence of mental activity’
(1993: 452). With this central theme, Dzogchen has been regarded by some as representing a
continuation of a form of Chinese Buddhism, which was rejected by Tibet in the late eight century.
Nonetheless, transmission of the teachings has been maintained throughout the centuries to this day
due the ability of the lineage to adapt, develop and integrate the teachings within Tibetan Buddhism. By
exploring the origins and early development of Dzogchen, this paper seeks to identify the factors which
contributed to the preservation of the teachings over time.
Let us begin by identifying the principal features of Dzogchen. Van Schaik notes that Dzogchen
owes much of its essential features to earlier literature of Buddhism, notably the doctrine of emptiness
(Prajñāpāranitā Sutras), the understanding of the nature of the mind (sutras such as Laṇkāvatāra) and
the concept of the awakened mind (Yogacārā texts) (2004: 4, 5). Central to the teachings is the concept
that man’s true nature is the awakened state. It is described as primordial signifying that the awakened
state has always been present, uncreated and pure. The true nature of man is thus the same nature as
the buddhas, which is empty but if it has to be defined, ‘it is the pure essence which is realised
spontaneously in its own nature’ (Snellgrove, 1987: 398). It is thus immediately present and un-
fabricated. The true nature of reality is understood as non-dual; it is also known as the ‘basis for all’, the
underlying principle or the foundation characterising all existence. The basis for all is synonymous with
Buddhism in Tibet: S. Ganje

the awakened mind which, ‘as well as being immediately present, is the basis of all that manifests’ (van
Schaik, 2004: 5).
The true nature of reality is, however, not always recognised but instead the duality of the world
with all its multiplicity is perceived. Dzogchen teaches that one does not always recognise its true nature
as the mind creates the world of illusion and ‘through its activities it has obscured its own real nature
(sems nyid) from time immemorial’ (Karmay, 1988: 175). Indeed the mind, as Karmay notes, ‘constitutes
the central problem in Buddhism’ (1988: 175). The mind thus leads to a problem of perception; through
the workings of the intellect and language the mind constructs an obscured reality. However, if the mind
was clear one would recognise that the true nature of all is empty, all-encompassing, primordial, pure
and always-present. In the teachings of Dzogchen this innate pure awareness is called Rigpa, often
translated as gnosis. Gnosis, the Greek word meaning ‘knowledge’, has been used in ‘comparative
religion to indicate a current of antiquity that stressed awareness of the divine mysteries’ (Guipsel,
2005: 3507). Rigpa is all-encompassing, non-dual and open awareness (van Schaik, 2004: 6), which
transcends all concepts of subject and object.
While details of the origins of Dzogchen have been lost to time, it is believed that both Indian
and Chinese teachings of Buddhism were active at the time of its earliest texts. The definitive source of
the teachings remains a contested subject among scholars. Many Western writers, according to Karmay,
have often viewed it as a ‘survival of what is known as ‘The Sudden Path’, a form of the Ch’an school
which was once known in Tibet in the eight century’ (1988: preface). However, many scholars, such as
Samuel (1993: 452) and Germano (2007: 221), see Dzogchen as a Tibetan phenomenon drawing on a
mixture of Indian and Chinese sources. The first known texts relating to the Dzogchen appeared in the
eighth century and these early texts were discovered at the monastic complex of Dunhaung in Central
Asia, which at that time was under the control of the Tibetans (van Schaik, 2004: 3, 4). The earliest texts
are therefore traced back to the first diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet as it is traditionally believed that
King Songsten Gampo, who ruled in the seventh century, was the first king to have sponsored Buddhism
in Tibet (van Schaik, 2004: 3).
Buddhism in Tibet experienced major developments under the rule of King Trisong Detsen.
During his reign in the latter half of the eighth century, it is believed that he invited the famous Indian
scholar Śāntarakṣita to Tibet to help establish Tibet’s first monastery at Samyé. To help combat
difficulties encountered in the construction of the monastery, the tantric master, Padmasambhava, was
also invited. It is believed that he helped with the taming and domestication of wild spirits understood
to be hindering completion of the project. Padmasambhava is known to have been a great exponent of

2
Buddhism in Tibet: S. Ganje

the Buddhist tantras and is believed to have taught the practice of the tantras and possibly Dzogchen in
Tibet (Van Schaik, 2004: 4). Followers of Dzogchen typically attribute the teachings to either
Padmasambhava or Vairocana, who is believed to have been a disciple of Padmasambhava and one of
the first seven monks ordained at Samyé. In addition to the establishment of monasteries, two other
significant developments for Buddhism in Tibet at this time included the introduction of the practice of
the tantras, known as the Vajrayāna, by both laypeople and monks and the translation of a range of
Buddhist literature from both Sanskrit and Chinese (van Schaik, 2004: 4).
Under the reign of King Trisong Detsen a debate was organised at Samyé to determine whether
Tibet would follow the Buddhism of India or China. It is believed that this debate began in c. 792 CE and
lasted approximately two years. Buddhism of India was associated with a gradualist approach
advocating cultivation of teachings and practice over time, while Buddhism of China was associated with
a sudden approach to enlightenment. Ultimately, Buddhism of India was favoured and following the
debate, Tibet became committed to receiving Buddhism from India. This debate and its outcome hold
significance for Dzogchen as it was later the subject of attack by other schools who claimed it
represented a form of continuation of Chinese Buddhism, which had supposedly been rejected.
A major set-back occurred for Buddhism in Tibet when King Langdarma came to power and was
subsequently assassinated. King Langdarma was supposedly ‘anti-Buddhist’ (Samuel: 1993, 443) or at
least not a supporter of Buddhism. He was killed in c. 842 CE supposedly by a Buddhist monk and
following his death the Tibetan kingdom began to unravel. A period of 150 years followed, later known
as the ‘era of fragmentation’ as we know very little about this time. During this period there appears to
have been no strong central religious or political power. Buddhism as an organised religion disappeared
as there was ‘no religious centre with any significant political role’ (Samuel, 1993: 457). The era of
fragmentation undoubtedly also threatened the continuation of the teachings of Dzogchen but it
survived possibly thanks to the dissemination of tantric practices among laypeople and with those
practices the teachings of Dzogchen.
While there was little or no monastic presence during the era of fragmentation, the lay tantric
practitioners ‘flourished and maintained the transmission of the tantras and their associated practices,
including the Great Perfection’(van Schaik, 2004: 6). These lay tantric practitioners thus played a major
role in maintaining the line of transmission of Dzogchen, which otherwise most likely would have been
lost to time. Samuel notes that the form of Buddhism that survived the collapse of the kingdom and ‘to
some extent flourished was the closest to the ‘shamanic’ folk religion of Tibet’, which he describes as ‘a
form of Tantric Buddhism’, which was ‘continued by hereditary lineages of lay Tantric practitioners who

3
Buddhism in Tibet: S. Ganje

provided ritual services to the surrounding population’ (1993: 458). In explaining the use of the word
‘shamanic’, Samuel advocate that ‘certain aspects of Vajrayāna (Tantric) Buddhism as practiced in Tibet
may be described as shamanic, in that they are centred around communication with an alternative
mode of reality (that of the Tantric deities) via the alternate states of consciousness of Tantric yoga’
(1993: 8).
The early teachings of Dzogchen appear on the surface to be in conflict with tantric practices
and as such it is interesting that the teachings were adopted and maintained by the lay tantric
practitioners. The early teachings of Dzogchen appear to reject any practice aimed at cultivating or
creating the enlightened state given its immediate presence. Van Schaik has noted the following passage
as a typical example taken from one of the earliest texts at Dunhaung:

It does not matter whether all the phenomenon of mind and mental appearances, or afflictions
and enlightenment, are understood or not. At this very moment, without accomplishing it
through a path or fabricating it with antidotes, one should remain in the spontaneous presence
1
of the body, speech, and mind of primordial buddhahood.

Practices such as visualisation would be another mental construct. As such the practitioner is instructed
to meditate directly on the experience of the true nature of reality to access directly his own
enlightened nature (van Schaik, 2004: 4; 2004A: 165).
Some scholars see the early Dzogchen teachings as a means of providing a framework for
approaching the tantric practices. Van Schaik suggests that the ‘conceptually constructed’ tantric
practices may have been ‘contextualised with the higher perspective of non-conceptuality and non-
duality’ (2004: 5). These teachings would, therefore, not advocate the practitioner to abandon deity
yoga and other rituals but to apply the teachings to all yogic practice. One understanding of van Schaik’s
interpretation could be that the practitioner would carry out its practice of deity yoga with the
understanding that behind any communication with a different mode of reality or any experience of
self-identification with a deity is a greater reality. The deity could, for example, personify or represent
this greater reality and help the practitioner realise that this greater reality is the underlying pure
luminous state of all, which, in fact, is already present. This possible integration of the teachings of
Dzogchen with tantric practices undoubtedly contributed to its survival.
By the early eleventh century Tibet experienced a revival in interest in Buddhism. This is
believed to have begun at the initiative of some rulers in Western Tibet who wanted to see a

1
Translated by van Schaik, 2004: 4. IOL TibJ 4.54 (panel 1)

4
Buddhism in Tibet: S. Ganje

reinstatement of monastic Buddhism and a curb in tantric practice by lay practitioners (van Schaik, 2004:
6; Karmay, 1980). This second diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet brought new teachings and practices from
India; notably Tibetans went to India to study and learn to translate and the renowned Indian monk and
scholar, Atiśa, came to Tibet instigating a wave of translation of Buddhist texts (van Schaik, 2004: 6).
New schools emerged in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which, undoubtedly, threatened the
survival of Dzogchen. The teachings of Dzogchen were, however, preserved and developed by two
groups which became known as the Nyingmapas and the Bönpos.
The Nyingmapas represented, in Snellgrove’s words, ‘a rather haphazard grouping’ (1987: 397)
of those who still adhered to the early teachings of the first diffusion of Buddhism including Dzogchen,
while the Bönpos grouped those who considered themselves representing the earlier pre-Buddhist
religion of Tibet. The Bönpo order which arose at this time is often regarded by scholars including
Snellgrove (1987) and Kvaerne (1993) as a form of Tibetan Buddhism, although the group may claim
themselves as non-Buddhist. According to Samuel, the lay people who continued the practice of the
tantras during the era fragmentation were the ancestors of what was to become the Nyingmapa and
Bönpo religious orders (1993: 458). He describes the lay tantric practitioners, the predecessors of the
Nyingmapas and Bönpos, as the ‘hereditary Buddhist shamans’ (1993: 458). These two groups, unlike
the newer schools, did not, at least originally, have centralised leadership nor did they have an
organised hierarchy. In the early days it is believed that they had little monastic presence.
Dzogchen is considered by Samuel as the greatest point of conflict between the Nyingmapa and
Bönpo orders and the other religious schools (1993: 463). Dzogchen is categorised by both the
Nyingmapas and Bönpos as the ninth and ultimate way or vehicle (yāna) to Buddhahood. It is identified
as the vehicle of supreme yoga (atiyoga), representing the highest form of teachings. This classification
of nine successive vehicles follows the old tantra tradition, which was continued by the Nyingmpas
(Samuel, 1993: 231). The new tantra traditions, brought to Tibet during the second diffusion, did not
have ‘a formal place for Dzogchen, and reacted to it in various ways’ (Samuel, 1993: 463). Notably it was
attacked by the renowned thirteenth century scholar Sakya Pandita as invalid teachings associated with
the Chinese doctrines, which had rejected by Tibet at the Samyé debate (Samuel, 1993: 463). It is likely
that the Nyingmpas were threatened by the new schools, who would have challenged the authenticity
of their teachings as the related Sanskrit texts may not have survived (Snellgrove, 1987: 397). The new
tantras, on the other hand, adopted by the new schools would have been received from India and Nepal
with Sanskrit originals and commentaries (Samuel, 1993: 460).

5
Buddhism in Tibet: S. Ganje

The discovery of terma played a significant role in maintaining and developing the lineage of
Dzogchen. By the eleventh century the Nyingmapas began to discover treasure (terma), which consisted
of important scriptures revealed to a tertön (a revealer of treasure) actually physically (through a
material text) or through a vision. They believed the texts were hidden by Padmasambhava in the eight
century for future revelation when the time was ripe. Snellgrove suggests the Nyingmapas may have
sought their authority in Padmasambhava when the authenticity of their teachings were challenged
(1987: 397). The Bönpos also discovered term and it is possible that they may have originated the
concept (Samuel, 1993: 462). The Nyingma scriptures began to grow vastly largely thanks to the
discovery of the terma, and this supported the development of Dzogchen from its simple early form into
a more complex system of teachings and practices (van Schaik 2004: 7, 8).
By the eleventh century Dzogchen had developed beyond ‘its role as an interpretative approach
to tantra (although it did not lose that role) and had developed into a complex series of meditation
techniques of its own’ (van Schaik, 2004: 8). A series of Dzogchen movements emerged, which
incorporated new meditative systems influenced by the new tantric traditions and which culminated in
the late eleventh and twelfth centuries with the Seminal Heart (Germano, 2007: 221; 2005: 2547).
Germano notes that the influence of the yoginī tantric traditions included ‘the rise of subtle body
representations and practices, new pantheons of wrathful and erotic Buddhas, increasingly antinomian
rhetoric, and a focus on motifs of death’ (2005: 2547). These transformative developments were
assimilated into the tradition of Dzogchen, which maintained its commitment to ‘naturalism, Gnosticism,
simplicity, and divine creation’ (Germano, 2005: 2537).
The Seminal Heart Teachings introduced a ‘dualistic’ kind of instruction possibly necessary for a
more gradualist approach where the Buddha-nature is immanent but obscured (van Schaik, 2004: 51). It
continued to place great emphasis on non-dualism but it was recognised that the sudden path is not
available to everyone and so a gradualist path was justified. Therefore, while the Buddha-nature is
immanent, it is often obscured and practices were instructed to help the practitioner clear its mind so it
could perceive what is already present.
Possibly the greatest exponent of Dzogchen was the famous fourteenth century scholar,
Longchenpa (van Schaik, 2004: 9). He is credited with revitalising the Seminal Heart Tradition, and
organised the tradition into a system of teachings and practices. He composed the ‘Seven Treasuries’,
which provided a ‘detailed philosophical basis for the Great Perfection’ (Kvaerne, 1995: 263). In
centuries following Longchenpa, according to van Schaik, the Instruction Series became more
widespread but by the eighteenth century, the continuation of Dzogchen was in danger as the teachings

6
Buddhism in Tibet: S. Ganje

of the Seminal Heart were appearing as various diverging and competing practices (2004: 10). This trend
he sees as reversed with the work of Jigme Lingpa, who greatly contributed to the revival of the
tradition. Jigme Lingpa was an eighteenth century treasure-revealer (tertön) who received extensive
teachings from Longchenpa (2004: 10). The cycle of the revelations known as the Longchen Nyingtig
became the basis of the main Dzogchen teaching lineages in more recent times (Samuel, 1993: 534).
Dzogchen faced great challenges in the early centuries following its first appearance in Tibet. It
survived the era of fragmentation, where essentially organised Buddhism left Tibet for approximately
150 years. The guardians of Dzogchen, the Nyingmpas and the Bönpos, lacked central organisation at
their outset, they were attacked by some schools as supporting inauthentic teachings and were accused
by others of following a form of Buddhism associated with the Chinese Ch’an school. Perhaps against
the odds, Dzogchen survived all these challenges. It has survived and flourished perhaps due to a
number of elements, namely, the integration of the teachings as a framework for tantric practices,
innovative discovery of terma, the great contribution of teachers such as Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa
and the assimilation into the tradition of elaborate practices and teachings including a more gradualist
approach. Germano has referred to the Nyingmpas and Bönpos as ‘creative agents of change’, and it is
indeed these creative groups who can be greatly accredited for the preservation of the lineage of
Dzogchen (2005: 2546). Last but not least, undoubtedly the core teachings of primordial purity, gnosis
and spontaneous presence have continued to speak to practitioners from the eighth century to this day.

7
Buddhism in Tibet: S. Ganje

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dowman, K. 2006. Old Man Basking in the Sun, Longchenpa’s Treasury of Natural Perfection. Nepal:
Vajra Publications.
Germano, D. 2007. “Food, Clothes, Dreams, and Karmic Propensities”. Religions of Tibet in Practice, pp.
221-240, Abridged Edition, edited by Lopez D. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Germano, D. 2005. "Dzogchen." Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. pp. 2545 –
2550. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005.
Kvaerne, P. 1995. “Tibet: The Rise and Fall of a Monastic Tradition”. The World of Buddhism,
Buddhist Monks and Nuns in Society and Culture. London: Thames and Hudson.
Kværne, P. and Thargyal, R. 1993. Bon, Buddhism and Democracy: The Building of a Tibetan National
Identity. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies.
Karmay, S.G. 1988. The Great Perfection (rDzogs Chen), A philosophical and Meditative Teaching of
Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Quispel, G. 2005. “Gnosticism from its origins to the middle ages”. Encyclopedia of Religion.
Ed. Lindsay Jones. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. pp. 3507-3515. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
Samuel, G. 1993. Civilised Shamans, Buddhism in Tibetan Societies. Washington and London:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Snellgrove, D.L. 1987. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors.
London: Serinda Publications.
Van Schaik, S. 2004. Approaching the Great Perfection: Simultaneous and Gradual Approaches to
Dzogchen Practice in Jigme Lingpa's Longchen Nyingtig. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
Van Schaik, S. 2004. “The Early Days of the Great Perfection”. JIBS – Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies, Volume 27, Number 1.