The following quote from a teaching called Introduction to Mahamudra by Gen Thubten Gyatso (aka Neil Elliott) back in 1994 has been unjustly cited time and again as evidence of sectarianism on the part of the New Kadampa Tradition:

So therefore, this I would like to say, when Geshe Kelsang says that he established the New Kadampa Tradition so as to preserve and protect the Dharma that was transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri to Je Tsongkhapa, this is what he is talking about, the Mahamudra. This is the actual inner practice of the New Kadampa Tradition, the only practice of the New Kadampa Tradition. And we can say these days, previously you could find the practice of the Mahamudra outside this tradition; other traditions held this practice. But these days we can say definitely it doesn’t exist outside of our tradition. Only this tradition holds the lineage, the pure lineage, of the Vajrayana Mahamudra. So this is what we need to preserve, this is what we need to protect. Geshe-la has carried this entire lineage.

This is clarified in Mahamudra Tantra (pp. 71-74). Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is referring to the lineage of practice that comes through the Ganden Oral Lineage given to Je Tsongkhapa by Manjushri: “Therefore, our uncommon Mahamudra Tantra practice begins with meditating on the central channel of the heart channel wheel. The transmission, teachings and lineage of this uncommon instruction are not possessed by any other tradition.” The Kagyupas still have the lineage of Vajrayana Mahamudra wherein the practice begins at the navel chakra, which is also shared by the Gelugpas and taught by Geshe-la in Clear Light of Bliss.

However, since the time of Je Tsongkhapa, the New Kadampas have been the sole possessor of the uncommon Varjrayana Mahamudra practice wherein one begins to meditate on the central channel of the heart channel wheel (as contrasted with the navel channel wheel). Other traditions have their own lineages of Mahamudra, but they do not share this particular one. If that fact is a sectarian statement, then the Gelugpa tradition has been sectarian from the start!

Although originally taught by Buddha Vajradhara in the Ambhidana Tantra, the lineage of this instruction was eventually lost by all Tantric traditions, until it was passed down again to Je Tsongkhapa through Buddha Manjushri, who still held the lineage. So, in Root Tantra of Manjushri, when Buddha Shakyamuni predicts Manjushri’s emanation in Tibet as Je Tsongkhapa: “After I pass away and my pure doctrine is absent, you will appear as an ordinary being, performing the deeds of a Buddha and establishing the Joyful Land, the great Protector, in the Land of the Snows,” he is referring to this special Mahamudra. Buddha himself regarded this uncommon practice as superior to other forms of Mahamudra; the reasons are given in Tantric Grounds and Paths (pp. 121, 123).

All of the lineage Gurus of this uncommon Mahamudra practice have been Gelugpas—followers of Je Tsongkhapa—and for the past two centuries they have recognized and relied on Dorje Shugden as an enlightened being. (You can read about some of them on the Dorje Shugden History website.) If they are now no longer regarded as authentic Buddhist Masters but mere “spirit worshippers,” then what happens to the blessings of that uncommon practice lineage? What happens to Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition? “And my pure doctrine is absent” once again!

ADDENDUM

Someone recently wrote to me, asking for clarification about this post. This was great because it gave me the opportunity to delve into things a little deeper and to show the thought process behind my conclusions. The title of the post, Kagyus Lose Mahamudra Tradition?, was taken from an old Google Groups discussion by the same name, initiated by Avyorth Rolinson. Avyorth’s interpretation was:

[N]obody even considered the possible implications of what Thubten was saying!! … I guess all you Kagyu practitioners will be signing up with the NKT to receive the only pure lineage of the Mahamudra!!!

So, we have to decide how to interpret Gen-la’s teaching, either as (a) the Kagyu tradition has lost its Mahamudra lineage, or just (b) the Gelug tradition has lost its Mahamudra lineage. Regarding these two possible interpretations—that Gen-la was referring to Mahamudra in general, or to the uncommon Mahamudra in particular—I have a few reasons negating the former and supporting the latter.

(a) Was Gen-la referring to Mahamudra within the Kagyu tradition?

• No. The first sentence that Avyorth gives us from the recording is “So therefore, this I would like to say, when Geshe Kelsang says that he established the New Kadampa Tradition so as to preserve and protect the Dharma that was transmitted from the Wisdom Buddha Manjushri to Je Tsongkhapa, this is what he is talking about, the Mahamudra.” Given this context, from this point on when Gen-la speaks about “the practice of Mahamudra,” he is specifically referring to the uncommon Mahamudra tradition—the one transmitted to Je Tsongkhapa—not Mahamudra in general.
• No. Otherwise, this would contradict Geshe-la’s teachings in Tantric Grounds and Paths that the Kagyupas and Gelugpas share the common Mahamudra practice: “In Clear Light of Bliss, I explain only the common tradition, not our uncommon tradition.” If the Kagyu tradition had lost its Mahamudra lineage, it wouldn’t be a “common tradition” anymore (perhaps a “once common tradition”?). Besides, I cannot imagine why Geshe-la would ever say that they no longer have this lineage as well, or that he as anything ‘against’ the Kagyu tradition. Even David Kay (p. 88) agrees that, as a Gelugpa, Geshe-la has only ever been critical of fellow Gelugpas.

(b) Was Gen-la referring to Mahamudra within the NKT vs. Gelug traditions?

• Yes. When Gen-la says that “previously you could find the practice of the Mahamudra outside this tradition,” he must, therefore, be referring to the NKT versus other Gelugpa groups. This is because only the Gelugpas have held the uncommon Mahamudra practice, so how could Gen-la’s remarks refer to non-Gelug traditions if they never had it in the first place? A Tibetan saying goes, “Every Lama is his own tradition,” so by tradition Gen-la likely just means the NKT (“The New Kadampa Tradition is an entirely independent Buddhist tradition…”) as distinct other Gelugpa groups.
• Concerning Gen-la’s words when he says, “previously you could find the practice of the Mahamudra outside [the NKT],” this must refer to a recent change, something that occurred within the past generation that we ourselves could have witnessed. Certainly, the Karmapa Controversy has not caused the Kagyupas to lose their Mahamudra lineage. The only explanation that makes sense, then, is if we’re talking about the implications of the Dalai Lama’s views on Dorje Shugden. As Geshe-la said to Newsweek, “If these three are not pure Teachers [Je Phabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche being Mahamudra lineage Gurus] then there is no doubt that the entire practice of the Gelug Tradition is invalid. This is the main issue that needs clarification.”

Letter from Shugden Society USA

September 2nd, 2009

Press Release

Today we would like to bring to the attention of all those who believe in peaceful coexistence of all faiths and beliefs in this world, and particularly the attention of the people who believe in freedom of religion and human rights.

Today, September 2nd is The Tibetan Democracy Day, but the irony is that we the Tibetan people do not have true democracy due to the policies of the Tibetan government in exile, under the powerful guidance of the Dalai Lama, that undermines our Rights to Religious Freedom as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and other international conclaves. We, The Dorjee Shugden practitioners, must commemorate the date of September 2nd to create a global awareness of our plight.

On the 9th of January 2008, His Holiness the Dalai Lama declared that “Dorjee Shugden devotees are supported by the Chinese and therefore there is no need for them to be in exile, they can go back to Tibet (under Chinese rule).” On the same day, he also called for “holding an open referendum, to decide if the majority of the Tibetans want to coexist with the devotees of the deity.” This is an invitation for open segregation in the Tibetan society, under the disguise of practicing democracy. To hear such statements from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, whom we regard as our most compassionate leader and who is known and respected around the world, as a champion of peace, is deeply heartbreaking for all of our people. Furthermore, because of His Holiness’s position and influence, his statements become government policies, and therefore have great consequences. These statements from His Holiness’s position, undermine our fundamental rights: our right to exercise freedom of religion, right to peaceful living, and right to equal opportunity; they denote an obvious contempt of the devotees of the deity; they implicate accusations for which there are no ground at all. These statements have great potential to cause communal violence in the society and as a result, we, the followers of this deity, and our family members have been victims of ostracism and violence.

In reference to the letter to the prime minister of the Tibetan Government in exile, Samdong Rinpoche and The Dalai Lama, dated April 25, 2008, we had appealed to the Tibetan government to enforce our demands within the deadline of September 2nd, 2008. Our demands were:

• To entitle us to the fundamental rights of freedom to speech, beliefs, and the rights to live peacefully as guaranteed in the Constitution of Tibetan Government-in-Exile and Democratic countries.
• To lift the ban on Shugden practice and the religious persecution of its practitioners.
• To stop the systematic process of segregation in the Tibetan communities in exile, that has led to the social, psychological and physical torture of Shugden practitioners.

As our demands were time and again blatantly ignored, and in addition to the plight:

• The Tibetan government in exile continue to ostracise and segregate the Shugden practitioners from the rest of the Tibetan society.
• All the Tibetan media including the Voice of America (Tibetan Section) and the Radio free Asia, instead of standing up for the democratic principles, promote further segregation and ostracism of the Shugden devotees.
• Hundreds of monks, who worshipped Dorjee Shugden, were ostracised and expelled from the monasteries. As a result, a new wall at Ganden monastery in Southern India was built in March 2008 to segregate the Shugden worshippers.
• Monks who worshipped Shugden were denied medical services from the health clinics in the Tibetan communities in exile.
• Students, whose parents worshipped Dorjee Shugden, were ostracised in schools system.
• The idols of the Dorjee Shugden deity, destroyed in places like Lhasa, Central Tibet, South India and Kathmandu.

Due to such violation of our fundamental human rights, we are left with no clear options but to stand up for our rights. From this date onwards, we will implement the following campaign measures until our democratic rights to practice our religious rights are established:

• Being proactive by using various media to create the awareness of our plight.
• Organise and gather petition and submit to various concerned authorities and organisations.
• Organise systematic demonstrations.

Following are few of the recent incidents of violence towards Shugden devotees (more details of the atrocities can be read here):

1. In July 2008, wanted posters of several monks involved in the Western Shugden Society protests appeared in Queens, New York. Al Jazeera reported about the wanted posters saying, “No Shugden worshipper has ever been charged or investigated for terrorism and yet the monks that continue to worship Shugden remain victims of name and shame.”
2. An attack on Gaden Shartse monastery in South India by thousands of monks and laymen resulted in 40 people wounded and properties damaged.
3. In 1997, a nun in Tibet, was beaten up and left naked in the street to die, who fortunately survived.
4. In Clement town, there was also an attempt of arson on a Shugden devotees family’s house.
5. In July 29th 2009, the Tibetan section of Radio Free Asia, with intention to turn the general Tibetan people against the Shugden devotees, demonised the Shugden devotees of being responsible for the abductions of Tenzing Thakpa, Woeser Rinpoche’s father and a 13 year old boy along with few goats and sheep in Markham. In reality, Woeser Rinpoche’s father and a 13 year old boy were victims of flood, and Tenzing Thakpa was seen alive and well, travelling in Lhasa and India.

These are just a few cases from countless incidents of atrocities involving violence and discrimination towards Shugden followers.

With best regards,
Shugden Society USA

In her book, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (pp. 175-175), Jane Ardley writes about the Dorje Shugden affair:

During the late 1990s a dispute emerged within the Tibetan exile community that illustrates perfectly why Tibetan politics must become fully secularised. A long-standing issue in the Tibetan community has been the worship of the deity Dorje Shugden, considered to be the spirit of a seventeenth-century monk, Tulku Drakpa Gyaltsen, who protects the Gelug sect and its members, particularly from the influence of the Nyingma sect. Worship of this figure is especially popular in eastern Tibet, and the present Dalai Lama prayed to Dorje Shugden for many years. However in 1976 the Dalai Lama announced he was advising against the practice because it was promoting sectarianism, which could potentially damage the Tibetan independence movement. Twenty years later, in 1996, the Dalai Lama went further and announced that members of both government departments and monasteries under the control of the Tibetan exile administration were forbidden from worshipping the spirit because the ‘practice fosters religious intolerance and leads to the degeneration of Buddhism into a cult of spirit worship’. This led to a massive outcry from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain. The Dalai Lama was accused of religious intolerance and provided an opportunity that was not missed by Beijing, who used the dispute as a further reason to denounce the Dalai Lama. In December 1998 the first secretary of the Chinese embassy in New Delhi was reported to have visited a Tibetan settlement in southern India notorious for its support of Shugden.

Although a report by Amnesty International exonerated the Tibetan government in exile of human rights abuses, the unfortunate fact remains that the Dalai Lama, as political leader of the Tibetans, was at fault in forbidding his officials from partaking in a particular religious practice, however undesirable. The whole Dorje Shugden affair was an illustration of the complexities of the relationships, both religious and political, between the sects in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. While the Dalai Lama’s stated concern, that worship of the deity threatened the Tibetan struggle, is entirely valid from a political perspective, this was not cause enough to ban it as a religious practice. It was also difficult to justify on the grounds that China would manipulate the issue, though this was extremely likely to happen. Rather, the Dorje Shugden affair was an example of an issue that should have remained completely in the religious arena and should not have been politicised at all. However, given the two concepts remain interwoven in the present Tibetan perception, an issue of religious controversy was seen as a threat to political unity. The Dalai Lama used his political authority to deal with what was and should have remained a purely religious issue. A secular Tibetan state would have guarded against this.

While Gandhi insisted that religion and politics were inseparable, it was not this view that dominated the post-independence Indian state. Congress were resolutely secular, as they recognised that no single religion could be allowed to dominate government, having seen the damange that religio-politics could inflict during Partition. The Dalai Lama, a staunch admirer of Gandhi, should be aware of this. Although it was appropriate for the Gandhian infusion of religion and politics to influence the practical ‘means’ of independence, in other words, satyagraha, Gandhi’s religious ideas did not influence the political thinking of the state-builders of the new India.

Perhaps there is a lesson here for Tibetans: religion may have a place in the practical means of resistance and protest, but it should not play a role in the government in exile, which, it is intended, should form the government of a future Tibet. Although Tibetans inside and outside Tibet may use some form of religious ritual or religious justification in their protest, this does not mean the government in exile should interpret all protest in religious terms. Nor does it mean that religion has to then infuse political life at an institutional level. For true Gandhian techniques to be developed, the Tibetan political process would need to become resolutely secular, while leaving religion to continue to play a role at grass-roots level.

Melodious Drum (based on Je Phabongkhapa’s Kangso text)

What Dorje Shugden represents is the wisdom in practicing one’s own tradition single-pointedly, which is the middle way between sectarianism and eclecticism. Of course, there is no single Buddhist tradition that is right for everybody. Buddhas present different paths to the world which suit the varying karmic dispositions of disciples, so practicing ‘the many through the one’ could never engender sectarianism or deluded pride in any one tradition, Guru, Deity, or Dharma Protector (Trijang Rinpoche, Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors, p. 12). After all, how can we cherish the one without respecting the many?

Practicing our tradition single-pointedly also means that we do not go around pointing out any perceived faults in other traditions. We should be satisfied just with what we are doing, not worrying about what other traditions are doing or not doing. This is how we avoid the extreme of sectarianism. (More on this in Standing Up for the Middle Way.) However, in Melodious Drum, Victorious in All Directions (p. 44), which is the extensive fulfilling and restoring ritual of Dorje Shugden, we recite a verse of confession which reads:

And I confess actions that especially offend your mind, for having met with the complete unmistaken essence of the teachings, I have either mixed and polluted them with incomplete or false teachings or rejected them altogether.

On the surface, then, it sounds like Melodious Drum is explicitly saying that some non-Gelug teachings are “incomplete” and “false.” This would mean that non-Gelug paths are incomplete paths, which goes against everything I have been saying about there being “one truth, many paths” in Buddhism. I would challenge this interpretation by saying: those non-Gelug teachings are incomplete only insofar as they do not complete the Gelug tradition, which is to say nothing of their place in other traditions. It is a relative judgement, not an absolute one. This distinction can be understood with the following analogy.

Buddha’s teachings are like a vast pharmacopeia, and all its Dharma medicines are pure. But just as an ordinary doctor will contraindicate some medicines that naturally should not be taken along with others (e.g., combining incompatible prescriptions), so will our Spiritual Guide protect us from the confusion that comes from mixing (apparently) contradictory teachings and practices. “There are many paths up to the top of the mountain,” but oftentimes they lead in opposite directions to get there.

(Please note: Two additional verses from Melodious Drum are explained in Does the Dorje Shugden Practice Promote Sectarianism?)

Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors (by Trijang Rinpoche)

As demonstrated in the essay One Truth, Many Paths, the best way to attain the realization of the inseparability of all Gurus, Deities, and Dharma Protectors is through the practice of one tradition. As a Gelugpa, for example, if I can recognize Je Tsongkhapa as the synthesis of all Three Jewels, how could I ask for anything more?! This is the same thought behind Trijang Rinpoche’s commentary to the following supposedly sectarian verse of praise to Dorje Shugden:

Those who mix or pollute the Ganden teachings,
Whether great beings, ordinary beings, or powerful lords,
You grind into particles of dust, O Deity,
Protector of the Yellow Hat Teachings, praise to you!

…[A]ny who hypocritically claimed to be followers of Protector Manjushri Tsongkhapa’s Teachings while remaining unsatisfied with Je Lama’s precious Teachings of Sutra and Tantra—which, in terms of view, meditation, and action, need not crave more from any other tradition—and, instead, mixed, polluted, or confused them with other modes of view and practice … have met with unpleasant wrathful punishments, such as being punished by authorities, litigation and legal disputes, untimely death, and so forth. (Trijang Rinpoche, Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors, p. 121)

Buddha Shakyamuni introduced Dharma to the world in three main phases, known as the three turnings of the Wheel of Dharma: the four noble truths, the Madhyamika-Prasangika view (i.e., emptiness of inherent existence), and the Chittamatra view. Long story short, the Nyingma and Kagyu traditions regard some teachings from the third Wheel as definitive (e.g., Buddha nature, clear light), whereas the Gelug tradition regards them merely as interpretive (i.e., provisional skillful means), and instead presents teachings from the second Wheel as Buddha’s final view.

Those who wish to mix traditions sure do have a lot of details to work out! It’s no wonder, then, that enlightened Teachers such as Trijang Rinpoche exhorted their disciples in such wrathful language to practice the teachings of only one tradition, so as to not become utterly lost and confused…

The Yellow Book (compiled by Zemey Tulku)

The Yellow Book’s section on Pema Wangchen says that Geshe Sharab Rinpoche advised him to follow only Je Tsongkhapa’s doctrine. It continues, “The Geshe further added that he was not sectarian and his instructions were proper.” I think there is something to this, unless this Geshe was insincere about being non-sectarian.

It further says that Pema Wangchen became sick because he “did not enter the proper path and abandon the wrong one.” I do not believe that the ‘proper path’ vs. ‘wrong path’ being mentioned here is simply the Gelug tradition vs. the Nyingma tradition, because such an absolute judgement would obviously be sectarian! Rather I think the proper path is following one tradition (i.e., Gelug or Nyingma), whereas the wrong path is trying to combine the two together. This is consistent with everything I have described so far, and it shows that there was no sectarian rivalry going on. How else can we understand Geshe Sharab’s statement that he was not being sectarian?

When such comprehensive explanations can be given, the fact that detractors to the practice of Dorje Shugden continue to misinterpret the intention of these realized Masters is very sad, and unfortunate.

Kadampa Buddhism = Old & New Kadampa Traditions

Kadampa Buddhism – A Mahayana Buddhist school founded by the great Indian Buddhist Master Atisha (AD 982-1054). See also Kadampa and Kadampa Tradition.

Kadampa Tradition – The pure tradition of Buddhism established by Atisha. Followers of this tradition up to the time of Je Tsongkhapa are known as ‘Old Kadampas’, and those after the time of Je Tsongkhapa are known as ‘New Kadampas’. See also Kadampa and Kadampa Buddhism.

New Kadampa Tradition = Je Tsongkhapa’s Tradition

“I make requests to you, Gurus of the Old Kadam lineage, the second Buddha Atisha, Dromtonpa, Geshe Potowa, and all the other precious Teachers who have revealed the union of vast and profound paths.”

“I make requests to you, Gurus of the New Kadam lineage, Venerable Tsongkhapa, Jampel Gyatso, Khedrubje, and all the other precious Teachers who have revealed the union of Sutra and Tantra.”

(Essence of Good Fortune sadhana, Requests to the Field for Accumulating Merit and the Lamrim lineage Gurus, p. 12)

Je Tsongkhapa’s Tradition = Gelug Tradition (“Virtuous Tradition”)

Gelug – The tradition established by Je Tsongkhapa. The name ‘Gelug’ means ‘Virtuous Tradition’. A Gelugpa is a practitioner who follows this tradition. The Gelugpas are sometimes referred to as the ‘new Kadampas’.

(See also Prayers for the Virtuous Tradition in the closing prayers of every NKT-IKBU sadhana.)

A Gelugpa = A New Kadampa

“We are pure Gelugpas. The name Gelugpa doesn’t matter, but we believe we are following the pure tradition of Je Tsongkhapa. We are studying and practicing Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings and taking as our example what the ancient Kadampa lamas and Geshes did. All the books that I have written are commentaries on Lama Tsongkhapa’s teachings. We try our best to follow the example of the ancient Kadampa Tradition, and use the name Kadampa to remind people to practice purely.”

(Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tricycle: the Buddhist Review, No. 27, Spring 1998, p. 74)

NKT-IKBU

The New Kadampa Tradition – International Kadampa Buddhist Union is defined as the union of Kadampa Buddhist Centres, the international association of study and meditation centres that follow the pure tradition of Mahayana Buddhism derived from the Buddhist meditators and scholars Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa, introduced into the West by the Buddhist teacher Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, the Founder of the New Kadampa Tradition – International Kadampa Buddhist Union; and that follow the three New Kadampa Tradition Study Programmes; and that are guided by the code of moral discipline called The Internal Rules of the New Kadampa Tradition -
International Kadampa Buddhist Union.

Buddhism is an experiential tradition, so Buddha invites everyone to “see for yourself.” It is a middle way between dogmatism and radical skepticism. However, some have taken poor translations of the Kalama Sutta as license to pick apart Buddhadharma, approving some of Buddha’s teachings and faulting the rest. They believe that Buddha himself encouraged us to do this, but is that what he is really saying? A Look at the Kalama Sutta helps to put things back in context:

On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker’s kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.

Paradoxically, the very people who say that all religions teach the same thing are also ones who say that while all religions have things one can benefit from, some things taught in them should be discarded. After all, this empirical approach is just what the Buddha taught! Or is it?

“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher, his age or wisdom. But if after due examination and analysis, you find it to be kind, conducive to the benefit and welfare of all beings, then take that doctrine as your guide.” —The Buddha

I have yet to find whom to attribute this particular translation to. It appears all over the internet and in countless books, but always without crediting the original source. A quick Amazon search showed that none of the authors even acknowledged that it is based on the Kalama Sutra! Here is a similar rendition:

“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings—that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” —The Buddha

Rather than just take their word for it, I decided to check up on the above quotes, comparing them with the full text available through the Access to Insight website. Interestingly, the word doctrine does not appear in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation. Instead, the Buddha speaks of adopting good qualities after abandoning bad ones: “When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

An alternate translation from the Pali is given by Soma Thera, and again, when the teaching is read in context, Buddha is not so much concerned here about accepting or rejecting the philosophies of other teachers but about abandoning faults such as greed and hate, and cultivating their opposites: “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

What Buddha demonstrates through his Q&A in this discourse is how to reason these things through for ourselves, which is why Buddhism empahsizes contemplative meditations rather than mere appeal to authority. However, this is not to say that Buddha denies the value of spiritual authority: what we come to accept or reject must finally be checked against the wisdom of experienced Masters.

For the individual practitioner, therefore, we are not to just “pick and choose” which of Buddha’s teachings we like and throw everything else out. (“I’m just doing my own thing” sounds like the ego at work to me.) This would be like going to a doctor and receiving a prescription regimen, and then saying to ourselves, “I’ll decide for myself how much medicine to take and when. If I skip a dose or two, that’s my choice.” How effective will that be?

Ringu Tulku says, “The Ri-me position is that although the various Tibetan lineages have evolved different emphases and practices, they have a single ultimate understanding, and their teachings arrive at the same essential point” (The Ri-me Philosophy, p. 11). Why have they evolved differently? He explains:

One of the unique features of Buddhism is the acceptance that different paths are appropriate for different types of people. Just as one medicine cannot cure all diseases, so one set of teachings cannot help all beings—this is a basic principle of Buddhism. (p. 2)

Not every way to practice Buddha’s teachings is meant for every person. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says the same:

Just as a doctor needs to cure each of his patients according to a specific course of treatment, so the Buddhas guide sentient beings to enlightenment in a manner that is suitable to their individual dispositions. (Meaningful to Behold, p. 401)

Understanding that the different Vajrayana traditions are not in contradiction with one another, even though their practices are different, Ringu Tulku quotes an old Tibetan proverb (p. 9):

If two philosophers agree, one is not a philosopher.
If two saints disagree, one is not a saint.

Of course, this ecumenical attitude does not extend to non-Buddhist religions such as Christianity, for even the Dalai Lama says, “When it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue I feel that we must part company… the two traditions must diverge” (The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus, p. 82). Donald Lopez explains:

As a proponent of the Prasangika-Madhyamika schools of Buddhist philosophy, the Dalai Lama takes the position that it is impossible to be liberated from rebirth without understanding the doctrine of emptiness as it is presented by that school; even other Buddhist philosophical schools (and hence all non-Buddhist schools) are incapable of providing the insight required for liberation. Thus, even in the context of [inter-faith] dialogue, he, like other Buddhist modernists before him, maintains a certain Buddhist triumphalism. (Prisoners of Shangri-La, p. 187)

That said, Ringu Tulku offers the following original verse of praise and condemnation to his fellow Buddhists:

The noble ones are like bees who enjoy the nectar of instruction
In the garden of blooming flowers of impartial treatises;
While the sectarian ones with bad intentions are like caterpillars
Whose spit merely binds them inside their cocoons.

This verse praises practitioners of the Eclectic Movement (Tib. Rime) who delight in all Tibetan Buddhist practices, regardless of tradition, while it condemns any who are not so ‘open’. The first thing I thought of in reading this verse is that here is yet another instance of Buddhists not speaking the language of the middle way. Instead, you are either nonsectarian or sectarian; you are either with us or against us!

For those of you who have not yet read Standing Up for the Middle Way, I outlined two aspects of the middle way that combat eclecticism and sectarianism, respectively:

‘Moderate exclusivism’ means practicing one’s own tradition exclusively, recognizing it as having a complete path. If we wish to gain the wisdom of any one tradition, we must concentrate on it single-pointedly, undistracted even by other virtuous traditions (which would just be a form of ‘mental excitement’).

‘Moderate inclusivism’ means respecting traditions other than one’s own, recognizing their virtue as spiritual paths. Respect is shown through equanimity and rejoicing in others’ sincere spiritual practice. When there is respect, people can co-exist and live harmoniously without fighting over philosophical differences.

Judging from the opening quotes above, Ringu Tulku definitely affirms the value of inclusivism, for without it moderate exclusivism would become extreme exclusivism (i.e., sectarianism). But does he hold exclusivism in equal esteem?

Even where there was no misunderstanding or disrespect to other schools, some practitioners, in their enthusiasm to keep their own lineages pure and undiluted, went so far as to refuse teachings from the masters of other lineages, and would not study the texts of other schools. Ignorance is the most fertile ground for growing doubts and misconceptions. (p. 2)

This seems to deny the value of moderate exclusivism at the intra-faith level, simply because—untempered by inclusivism—exclusivism opens the door to sectarianism. But without moderate exclusivism, moderate inclusivism goes unchecked and becomes extreme inclusivism (i.e., eclecticism). Yet, if moderate exclusivism is okay towards non-Buddhist religions, why is it not okay between Buddhist traditions? In writing Standing Up for the Middle Way, I wanted a Buddhist perspective on religious freedom which could be applied consistently at both the intra-faith and inter-faith levels.

Ringu Tulku, like others in the Eclectic Movement, accuse non-eclectic Buddhists of being sectarian, claiming that we commit the great fault of “rejecting the dharma” (p. 7). What eclectics fail to fully appreciate is that all of Buddha’s teachings are present in any single Vajrayana tradition; of course, this is something that they themselves believe, except the logical consequence being that there is no practical need to take up practices from more than one tradition.

Monarch Butterfly

For example, in the New Kadampa Tradition we practice the Lamrim, which is a condensation of all Buddhadharma:

By studying the complete Lamrim we shall see that there are no contradictions between any of Buddha’s teachings and that all of them are to be put into practice. Knowing this we shall take each instruction as personal advice and gain experience for ourself, thus discovering that every instruction is perfect and reliable (Joyful Path of Good Fortune, p. 22)

Every tradition accomplishes the meaning of Buddha’s teachings in its own way. So, to hold Ringu Tulku true to his own words, if “different paths are appropriate for different types of people,” then why is one labeled sectarian simply for exclusively practicing only one tradition? Indeed, I do not “refuse teachings from the masters of other lineages,” since I cannot refuse something I have not requested. I recognize that my Spiritual Doctor is fully capable of helping me to cure the inner disease of the delusions; I do not need endless ‘second opinions’. And, to follow up on Ringu Tulku’s attempt at poetry, I know that once a monarch butterfly emerges from its cocoon, it feeds on nectar from many different flowers, just like a bee… We can say that, in the end, they both arrive at the same essential point!

P.S. In case you didn’t know, the leaves of the milkweed flower are the only thing that monarch butterfly caterpillars eat. So, milkweed is the only plant that a monarch butterfly will lay her eggs on.

See also Do We Really Need to Rely on a Tradition?

Je Phabongkhapa (1878-1941) was the spiritual father of Trijang Rinpoche (1901-1981), and thus the spiritual grandfather of both the current Dalai Lama and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. In his memoir of his root Guru, Rilbur Rinpoche said, “About two thousand people would come to his general discourses and initiations and fewer to special teachings, but when he gave bodhisattva vows, up to ten thousand people would show up.” Je Phabongkhapa’s impact on the Gelug tradition cannot be overestimated:

Pabongkha Rinpoche was probably the most influential Gelug lama of this century, holding all the important lineages of sutra and tantra and passing them on to most of the important Gelug lamas of the next two generations; the list of his oral discourses is vast in depth and breadth. He was also the root guru of the Kyabje Ling Rinpoche (1903-83), Senior Tutor of the Dalai Lama, Trijang Rinpoche, and many other highly respected teachers. His collected works occupy fifteen large volumes and cover every aspect of Buddhism. If you have ever received a teaching from a Gelug lama, you have been influenced by Pabongka Rinpoche. (Michael Richards, from the translator’s introduction, p. x)

In 1921, Je Phabongkhapa delivered a 24-day Lamrim discourse that was transcribed by his main disciple, Trijang Rinpoche, which was later edited and published as Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand (Tib. rNam grol lag bcangs), and forms the basis of most Gelug Teachers’ Lamrim presentations, including Geshe Kelsang’s text Joyful Path of Good Fortune.

Some say that Je Phabongkhapa’s popularity made other Teachers jealous, fueling rumors of sectarianism on his part against other Tibetan Buddhist traditions. Responding to this allegation, Lama Zopa of the FPMT says:

Another thing is that some Tibetans and others severely criticize Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo because he practiced Shugden, making him out to be some kind of demon. However, Pabongka Dechen Nyingpo wrote incredible teachings on sutra and tantra; on Heruka, Tara Cittamani and many other topics. All these amazing teachings were written purely from his experience. So it’s impossible that he can really be some kind of evil being, as those extremists accuse him of being. There’s no way he could have done the negative things they say he did.

Some have quoted the contents of letters written by Je Phabongkhapa which seem to indicate a sectarian attitude toward other Buddhist traditions. Many have speculated on exactly what Je Phabongkhapa was talking about when he said, for example, “Apart from the doctrine of Manjughosha Tsongkhapa alone, these days the views of all Sakyas, Kagyus, Nyingmas and so on are erroneous.” People’s first reaction is to declare such statements as blatantly sectarian, even though the letters themselves give us little context in which to understand his intended meaning. I believe Je Phabongkhapa explained everything in Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, which we can use to show that he was in fact not sectarian against non-Gelug Buddhist traditions.

Day 2 of Je Phabongkhapa’s Lamrim discourse includes a biography of Atisha, whom Je Phabongkhapa admired greatly for his non-sectarianism:

Although Atisha followed mainly the traditions of the Mahasamgika school, he was also well versed in the traditions of all the other schools; and because he showed absolutely no sectarianism, he became the crowning jewel of all the Sangha in Magadha as well as across India. (p. 40)

One of the great qualities of Atisha’s Lamrim instructions is that we realize that all of Buddha’s teachings are without contradiction. Not understanding this, we risk the “great fault” of abandoning Dharma. This includes rejecting any Buddhist tradition, whether it be Hinayana or Mahayana, and is considered to be the “worst misdeed”:

Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest. (p. 137; see also pp. 147, 274)

Some claim that Je Phabongkhapa rejected the Nyingma teachings, and even condoned destroying images and statues of its Teacher, Padmasambhava. Yet, Phabongkhapa himself says that Padmasambhava, Je Tsongkhapa, Atisha, and Buddha Shakyamuni were all one holy being, not four separate mental continuums (pp. 158-159; see also p. 254). In a similar vein, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso rejects these rumors saying, “Je Phabongkhapa had great devotion for Je Tsongkhapa. Je Tsongkhapa praised Padmasambhava, so it is impossible for Je Phabongkhapa to show disrespect for Padmasambhava, impossible.”

Throughout Liberation, two teachings stand out as most important to Je Phabongkhapa: refuge practice and the three principle aspects of the path (renunciation, bodhichitta, and emptiness). Je Phabongkhapa makes no apologies for the fact that taking refuge in Buddhadharma is incompatible with taking refuge in non-Buddhist teachings (Skt. tirthika). As he correctly points out, no one has ever achieved liberation following a non-Buddhist dharma:

We have taken refuge in our Teacher and are disciples of his teachings; we have taken this refuge for good and cannot exchange it for some other refuge. The dharmas of Boenpos, tirthikas, and so forth are non-Buddhist and should not be taken as our refuge. There is a difference in superiority between Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachers, their teachings, and their disciples. (p. 371)

Here in Tibet there are no true tirthikas, but there are some big mouths who claim to be practitioners and scholars yet see nothing wrong in dabbling in Boen or barbarian dharma to curry favor with others, gain a big following, or help themselves out when they meet with difficulties. By taking two refuges, they have evicted [the act of] taking refuge from their mind streams and cast themselves out of the ranks of Buddhists. (p. 372)

Likewise, Je Phabongkhapa taught that bodhichitta is of paramount importance, no matter which Mahayana tradition you practice:

Whether a particular teaching is Mahayana depends on whether it has bodhichitta in it. For the moment, put aside Dharma everyone calls profound and practice bodhichitta seriously. But many are the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, and Nyingma practitioners who do not understand this point yet still want buddhahood. They meditate on the two stages of the secret tantras, dispense with bodhichitta, and still hope to make rapid progress on the path. (p. 513-514)

Notice that Je Phabongkhapa says that many practitioners of all four Tibetan Buddhist traditions are guilty of pinning their hopes on Tantric Deities and reciting mantras, without bothering to cultivate bodhichitta. He was not saying that only Gelugpas can reach enlightenment; quite the opposite!

The Dharma you follow is the Buddha’s teachings. Within these teachings you have met with the Mahayana Dharma, and more importantly, the teachings of the secret tantras that can enlighten you in a single lifetime. This is something that holds for all the [Tibetan] sects. (p. 534)

He mentions Mahamudra and Dzogchen (a Nyingma practice) together in the same breath as authentic practices conducive to enlightenment, as long as they are practiced with bodhichitta motivation:

Someone who merely has some understanding of bodhichitta will be enlightened sooner than someone lacking bodhichitta who meditates on, for example, the mahamudra, the great completion [dzogchen], the two stages [of tantra], or receiving visions of many sets of deities. Bodhichitta is vital, and this was the message of great Atisha, someone who knew all the holy Dharma and practiced it. He said: “Meditate on love, compassion, and bodhichitta.” (pp. 513-514, 515-516)

If you have no bodhichitta, no matter what meditations you do in the hope of achieving buddhahood—be they on mahamudra or dzogchen, the middle way, or the generation and completion stages, etc.—they will not get you one bit closer to buddhahood. And as if this were not enough, you will not even enter the gateway to the Mahayana. Thus everybody must concentrate on the practice of bodhichitta. The buddhas have perceived things for many eons with the primal wisdom of their omniscience, but they have not seen any better method for any other gateway to the path. (pp. 573-574)

So, what happened? How did Je Phabongkhapa go from respecting all Tibetan Buddhist traditions as having a complete path to enlightenment, to “Apart from the doctrine of Manjughosha Tsongkhapa alone, these days the views of all Sakyas, Kagyus, Nyingmas and so on are erroneous. They are not even Svatantra or Cittamatra, let alone the view of Prasanga Madhyamaka—meditating only the nihilist view like tirthikas and Hashang”?

Geshe Kelsang explains that the twelth-century Chinese monk Hashang believed that the way to meditate on emptiness (of inherent existence) was simply to ‘empty’ the mind of all conceptual thoughts and let the mind go ‘blank.’ Such a view and practice does not accord with any of the four philosophical schools of Buddhist tenets, least of all the Madhyamika-Prasangika view taught by Nagarjuna:

Before Hashang came to Tibet, a very pure Buddhadharma flourished there. Many people correctly identified the middle way, and as a result gained profound realizations. However, Hashang’s view quickly spread and as a result many Tibetans found themselves without the means to practice either the profound path or the vast path. By meditating on nothingness instead of emptiness they had forsaken the profound path; and by abandoning all conceptual minds, including love, compassion, and bodhichitta, they had forsaken the vast path. The path to enlightenment was blocked for them. Even the practice of observing the laws of karma was lost.

Seeing this, King Trisong Detsen, the thirty-seventh king of Tibet, invited Kamalashila from India to debate with Hashang. Kamalashila conclusively defeated Hashang, and Hashang was banished from Tibet. King Trisong Detsen then issued a proclamation declaring that from then on all Tibetans were to follow the teachings of Nagarjuna. However Hashang’s heresy was not completely expunged, and even today there are many who advocate this view. (Ocean of Nectar, pp. 171-172)

Geshe Kelsang explains in Clear Light of Bliss, based on the root text by the first Panchen Lama, how meditating according to Hashang’s teachings causes many mistakes when practicing Mahamudra, which you can read here. About this, the first Panchen Lama said, “As we cannot perceive the mindstream of others, we should strive to appreciate the teachings of all; but I cannot accept those who spread wrong views and through these wrong views lead many astray.” This was exactly Je Phabongkhapa’s motivation; he never decried the Nyingma tradition nor Dzogchen practice, merely the influence Hashang’s heresy had in corrupting practices such as Mahamudra by mistaking realizing the conventional nature of the mind with realizing its ultimate nature, emptiness:

These days there are people who pretend they seek the view found in the mahamudra or dzogchen teachings by referring to short and simplistic texts instead of relying on the great classics. Such people will find it difficult to achieve anything of real value discussed in the classics, even common mental quiescence, for example. Yet we share mental quiescence [with non-Buddhists]. According to the root text of the mahamudra, observation of the conscious workings of the mind is said merely to acquaint you with the relative truth of the mind. So you may think your meditations along these lines are sound, but it is like believing a lump of brass to be gold. You deserve only to wander aimlessly on wrong paths. You may increase your dullness and mistake this for meditation, but such meditation will not even precipitate your rebirth in the higher realms [of form and formlessness]. You will merely create the cause for rebirth as, for example, and animal. Sakya Pandita says:

The blind usually turn meditation on the mahamudra
Into the cause for becoming an animal,
Or better, fall into the cessation of the shravakas,
Or are reborn in the formless realms. (p. 619)

Again, Je Phabongkhapa’s concern was that practitioners were ignoring the importance of developing bodhichitta in favor of more ‘advanced’ meditation practice. And, on top of this, they were then mistaking ‘emptying’ or ‘blanking’ the mind for those very advanced practices!

You may analyze the nature of the mind has having no color or shape, and do this not in conjunction with any of the three fundamentals of the path; or perhaps you are familiar with the instruction, “Do not retrace the past; do not anticipate the future” [that is, dwell only in the present in your meditations]. Such slavish meditations only cause a human life to become empty and hollow; they cannot lead you to any of the paths and levels. But in conjunction with bodhichitta, renunciation, correct view, and taking refuge, such a practice becomes, respectively, Mahayana, a practice leading to liberation, a Buddhist Dharma. You must enter such an unmistaken path. If you don’t, the mere realization that the nature of the mind is clear, empty, and without grasping [at meaning] cannot make inroads on your grasping at a self. At best, such meditations threaten to have the same effect as those extreme practices of the tirthikas. Do not, therefore, hold such inferior paths to be sound. You must know how to distinguish between the correct path and those that only seem to be correct. (p. 620)

Apparently, Je Phabongkhapa believed that meditation practices akin to what Hashang had taught had once again become widespread in the Sakya, Kagyu, and Nyingma traditions, to the detriment of their pure Dharma teachings. Whether this was actually happening or not, it is significant because it demonstrates yet again that Je Phabongkhapa’s criticism was not based simply on sectarianism towards fellow Buddhist traditions—for example, disliking Nyingma for being Nyingma—but rather he believed that other traditions had erroneously supplanted their authentic Dharma practices of Mahamudra and Dzogchen with a heresy leading disciples away from enlightenment, not towards it.

Dalai Lama wearing Bon regalia

From Je Phabongkhapa’s point of view, then, it was not he who had abandoned Dharma by disparaging other traditions, as some have interpreted his words; rather, it was his belief that they themselves were in danger of abandoning Dharma by favoring non-Buddhist practices over the ones that Buddha, Nagarjuna, Padmasambhava, and Atisha had taught.

P.S. Now, with all this in mind, if you go back and re-read Dreyfus where he (incorrectly) supposes that it was Dzogchen which Je Phabongkhapa was denigrating in his Dorje Shugden commentary, and instead keep Hashang and Bon in mind, it is clear why Je Phabongkhapa considered other traditions to be in a state of ‘confusion’ in regards to correct practice, without him being sectarian about it!

See also Was Je Phabongkhapa a Spirit Worshipper?

Although there was a lot of fuss in the British press during the mid-90s about the NKT’s seemingly cultish devotion towards Geshe Kelsang, such Guru devotion is not at all unusual in the realm of Vajrayana Buddhism.

Helen Waterhouse explains:

The Guardian article claimed that members pray to and worship Geshe Kelsang, which, it argued, represents a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of Buddhism. Such accusations are entirely to be expected given, first, the diversity of Buddhism in the UK and, second, the diversity of Buddhism in Asia as a whole and in Tibet. They stem in part from popular misunderstandings about the role of the Dalai Lama in Tibet, and of the centrality of the role of the lama (teacher) in Tibetan Buddhism. For Tibetans, the lama is a focus for going for refuge. Indeed, it is common within Tibetan Buddhism for practitioners to go for refuge to the lama, Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, in that order. In the individualistic West, people are suspicious of systems that promote another person, which, for religious reasons, much of Tibetan Buddhism does. In retaining this element of traditional Tibetan practice, therefore, the NKT has attracted criticism from Buddhists who operate without devotion to a teacher and from Buddhists who are devoted to another teacher. (Representing western Buddhism: a United Kingdom focus. quoted in From sacred text to Internet, p. 151)

All of the following quotes are from the 14th Dalai Lama. They are taken from his book Union of Bliss and Emptiness: A Commentary on Guru Yoga Practice. NKT students will recognize that these same teachings are what Geshe Keslang teaches, consistent with the instructions of his spiritual forefathers.

To develop a correct practice one has to rely upon a qualified Master and follow his instructions to the word. (p. 18)

Such a person has to be viewed as a Buddha… One has to view the Guru as the actual embodiment of all the Buddhas. (p. 18)

Lama Tsongkhapa says that proper reliance on the Guru is “the root of all the paths.” (p. 19)

If you are able to develop a heartfelt faith and conviction in your Guru by reflecting upon his great qualifications and viewing him as a true Buddha, this will be of great advantage for cultivating a very receptive mind, fertile for spiritual progress on the path. The stronger your faith, the more progress you will make in your practice. (p. 19)

If the Buddhas are engaged in helping all sentient beings, including oneself, it is definitely only through the Guru that they perform these activities. Therefore, the Guru is the only door through which we benefit from the activities of the Buddhas. (p. 20)

You should view the Guru as the embodiment of the Buddha, irrespective of whether he is a Buddha in reality or not. As far as oneself is concerned, one’s root Guru is the most kind and most valuable. Although Lord Buddha is sacred and a very high being, as far as we are concerned we did not have the fortune to see him in person; the same with Nagarjuna: although he had tremendous wisdom, we did not see him. (p. 20)

If, for example, one were to speak of the faults of the Guru or insult the Guru, because he is the source through which all the activities of the Buddhas reach us, indirectly one would be insulting all the Buddhas. So, if one were to have a breach in one’s Guru devotion it would hinder one’s practices even in this lifetime, not to mention one’s future fate. (p. 118)

We can see practitioners who, at the mention of their root Guru’s name, actually have tears come into their eyes—these should be taken as the model. (p. 119)

All temporary and ultimate goodness is the consequence of relying on the Guru, and all suffering an unsatisfactoriness is the consequence of not meeting a Guru or not properly relying on him. (p. 119)

So, it is questionable whether the faults and defects actually exist within the Guru or whether they are merely projections of your deluded mind. You can conclude that the faults you see in your Spiritual Guide are your projection. (p. 120)

What is meant by [a Buddha] assuming an ordinary form is: having all the normal human faults, like emotional afflictions and so on. A person appearing to be free of these faults is generally regarded as uncommon, even in conventional terms. So, all the activities which show that the Guru possesses negative states of mind are actually skillful means. It is because of these means that we can see him and have access to his wisdom. If he had not assumed this form there is no way he could tame us. (p. 121)

Therefore, thinking along such lines, and seeing superficial faults in Gurus as an expression of skillful means should help your faith increase. Through such techniques you can actually cause the perception of faults in the Guru to assist the increase of faith in him. (p. 121)

One should reflect on the fact that the Guru is endowed with the qualifications as explained in the Vinaya, is a Bhikshu and is like the successor of Buddha, and on that basis cultivate faith. (p. 123)

Your Guru is kinder that all the Buddhas and even kinder than Buddha Shakyamuni. You should reflect: “I, who have been left behind by all the Buddhas who appeared in the past, have this opportunity to practice through your kindness alone.” Contemplate what your fate would be if you were not under the care of this Guru. Thinking along such lines will enable you to realize his great kindness. (p. 125)

So, when you do this practice, from the point of view of qualifications there is no difference between Buddha Shakyamuni and your own root Guru, but there is a great difference in terms of their kindness; thinking along these lines, you will be able to convince yourself of the value of your Guru. (p. 127)

To read what Geshe Kelsang says about Guru devotion in the NKT, check out Relying upon the Spiritual Guide in these Modern Times.

David Kay believes that reliance upon the Dharma Protector Dorje Shugden as a “defining feature” of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) can be discerned from one of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s earliest publications, Universal Compassion. This book is a commentary to the short poem Training the Mind in Seven Points by Geshe Chekhawa (1102-1176). One of the lines in this poem makes reference to transforming adverse conditions into the path through the practice of the four preparations, the fourth preparation being ‘making offerings to Dharma Protectors.’ Kay decides to compare Geshe Kelsang Gyatso’s commentary on this part of the root text to Geshe Rabten’s Advice from a Spiritual Friend, saying:

Since Geshe Chekhawa’s root text on mind training encourages Mahayana trainees to make offerings to protective deities in order to be free from any interference when practising, it is of no surprise to find comment upon such practices in both Advice from a Spiritual Friend and Universal Compassion. There is a noticeable difference, however, in the emphasis placed upon protector-deity practice in the two commentaries, with Geshe Kelsang going into more detail about its function and importance. (Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain, p. 75).

Geshe Kelsang uses 322 words to explain making offerings to Dharma Protectors, while Geshe Rabten uses just 109 words. However, we have to interpret this difference in a larger context. For example, to explain all four preparations, Geshe Kelsang gives us more than 9 pages of commentary, while Geshe Rabten offers his readers only 1-and-a-half pages total. From this, it is clear that Geshe Kelsang is not ‘obsessing’ over the issue of Dharma Protectors—it is just that his commentary overall is much more detailed than Geshe Rabten’s. It is also worth noting that Dorje Shugden is not mentioned anywhere in Geshe Kelsang’s commentary. The two examples of Dharma Protectors he does give are Mahakala and Kalarupa (p. 87).

Some have been claiming recently that only Highest Yoga Tantra practitioners should be engaging in the Heart Jewel sadhana published by the NKT, saying that reliance upon Dharma Protectors has no relevance outside of Highest Yoga Tantra. In the aforementioned commentary, Geshe Kelsang says that “Buddha Shakyamuni gave explanations in many Sutras and Tantras of the nature and function of different Dharma Protectors, and of the way to rely upon them,” showing that reliance upon Dharma Protectors is not limited only to Tantric practitioners. Remember, ‘training the mind’ (Tib. Lojong) is a part of Sutra practice, and the root text Training the Mind in Seven Points mentioned above advises us to rely upon Dharma Protectors in order to have success in this practice. Returning to the question of Highest Yoga Tantra, the Heart Jewel sadhana is comprised of two practices: (1) a Guru yoga of Je Tsongkhapa called The Hundreds of Deities of the Joyful Land (Tib. Ganden Lhagyema), followed by (2) a condensed sadhana of Dorje Shugden. Neither of these practices requires a Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment as a prerequisite:

(1) There are two main Guru yogas related to Je Tsongkhapa: Offering to the Spiritual Guide, or Lama Chopa, which is practised in conjunction with Highest Yoga Tantra, and The Hundreds of Deities of the Joyful Land, or Ganden Lhagyema, which is a more general yoga that can be practised in association with either Sutra or Tantra. This second practice is very famous and all followers of Je Tsongkhapa memorize it and practise it regularly. (Great Treasury of Merit, p. 25)

This is in perfect agreement with the Dalai Lama who says that the practices of Gaden Lhagyema and Khedup Chikyue and “are very integrated guru yoga practices but do not require the receiving of initiation into highest yoga tantra” (Union of Bliss and Emptiness, p. 16).

(2) There are common sadhanas and special sadhanas of Dorje Shugden. The common sadhanas, such as the Heart Jewel sadhana, can be practised by anyone who has faith, regardless of whether or not they have received a Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment or a blessing empowerment of Dorje Shugden… If we have received a Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment, we can practise uncommon sadhanas, such as the Wishfulfilling Jewel sadhana. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Heart Jewel, pp. 122-123)

Anyone practicing Dharma—whether according to the initial scope, the intermediate scope, or the great scope—needs help eliminating obstacles to their practice and accumulating favourable conditions, which is the function of the Sangha Jewel. It is for this reason that Je Tsongkhapa established Kalarupa, Mahakala, and Vaishravana as Dharma Protectors for practitioners of the Gelug tradition. Otherwise, we come to the absurd conclusion that only Highest Yoga Tantra practitioners need help protecting their Dharma realizations.

The Dalai Lama says, “Actually there is no need for any dharmapala besides these three. Sometimes I say that only when we hear that Kalarupa has passed away will we have to seek some other protection” (Union of Bliss and Emptiness, p. 84). Yet, the Dalai Lama’s own root Guru, Trijang Rinpoche, believed this had already happened, in accordance with his own Guru’s Guru, as explained in his text Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors. Geshe Kelsang used this work as the basis for his commentary to the practice of Dorje Shugden appearing in the book Heart Jewel. In it he says:

Among all the Dharma Protectors, four-faced Mahakala, Kalarupa, and Dorje Shugden in particular have the same nature because they are all emanations of Manjushri. However, the beings of this present time have a stronger karmic link with Dorje Shugden than with the other Dharma Protectors. It was for this reason that Morchen Dorjechang Kunga Lhundrup, a very highly realized Master of the Sakya tradition, told his disciples, ‘Now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden.’ (p. 91)

Some dispute the authenticity of the quote “Now is the time to rely upon Dorje Shugden,” saying that no reference for it has ever been given. However, Geshe Kelsang has already said it comes through Trijang Rinpoche. Now that Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors has been translated into English, we can see that he took it from Losel Gyatso’s Dispelling the Darkness of Torment, as quoted by Lelung Shepai Dorje:

Again, at a later time, Morchen Dorje Chang Kunga Lhundrub spread the practice [of Dorje Shugden] widely, saying that, since now is the time for all of his special pure visions to be fulfilled, one must rely upon this Great King, himself. (p. 110)

Of course, now people will be running around trying to track down Dispelling the Darkness of Torment, but for me the answer is quite simple. When controversy arose during the time of the 1st Dalai Lama over the authenticity of some particular Kadampa scriptures, he said, “I don’t know whether they are authentic or not, but they actually are helpful for the mind.” That is to say, it does not matter if something is ‘true’ or not; the real question is: Does it benefit your mind? The 14th Dalai Lama agrees (at least in principle) when he says, “if something is helpful for training the mind it proves it is an authentic dharma teaching; what further qualities are needed?” (Union of Bliss and Emptiness, p. 81). That’s always been good enough for me!

When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness,” then you should enter and remain in them. (Buddha Shakyamuni, Kalama Sutta)

Atisha said, “Some of you Tibetans have tried to accomplish a hundred Deities but have failed to gain a single attainment, while some Indian Buddhists have gained the attainments of a hundred Deities by accomplishing the practice of just one.”

In a previous post, I mentioned briefly how the individual practices within any given Buddhist tradition are themselves each complete paths. Accomplishing all the stages of the path through just one practice does not take away from the tradition as a whole, but is its very hope for us! Atisha recommended this way of practicing when he advised us to accomplish all Deities through the practice of just one. This same logic informs the instruction to practice “one Guru, Deity, and Protector” through one tradition.

We can understand where Atisha is coming from by looking at a fractal image. Zooming in on any one part of a fractal reveals that it is a microcosm of the whole. That is to say, the whole is reflected in every part. Atisha’s advice above is based on such fractal math: “1 Deity = 100 Deities” (i.e., that any one Buddha is equal to all the others, in the sense of sharing all the same enlightened good qualities). This is certainly not inviting a narrow-minded attitude, because Atisha is not saying that “1 Deity > 100 Deities” (i.e., that one Buddha is greater than, or superior to, the others), for that would be samsaric math. I also believe it is samsaric math to say that “1 Deity < 100 Deities” (i.e., that one Buddha is lesser than, or inferior to, the others).

Again, Atisha is not saying that there is just one particular Deity who is right for everybody, but each person should choose the Deity with whom they have the closest karmic connection and go from there. Likewise, people will not have the same karmic connection with every tradition. I always tell someone who is still searching for the right Buddhist group for themselves to “Check them all out, then pick the one that’s your personal favorite.” But, whether it is Deities or traditions, this is not at all choosing one over another. Instead, you will be practicing “the many through the one.” This is seeing the Dharma as like a fractal—there are never any missing pieces.

Je Phabongkhapa said, “The four are the one entity,” meaning that although we see Vajradhara, Shakyamuni, Je Tsongkhapa and our root Guru as four separate beings, there is in reality only one. We can see, then, that Atisha’s advice applies to everything: “1 Guru = 4 Gurus,” “1 Deity = 4 Deities,” “1 Dharma Protector = 4 Dharma Protectors,” and “1 tradition = 4 traditions,” or a hundred! To Dorje Shugden practitioners who are following Atisha’s advice (i.e., one Buddha = all Buddhas), claiming that “Dorje Shugden is not important and can be summarily removed from the pantheon of Buddhist Deities” is tantamount to spurning the blessings of all the Buddhas! Maybe Hindus are better at expressing this pure view when they say, “One God, many faces…” which is why Deity discrimination is illegal in India (and why the Dalai Lama is being taken to court for it).

There is no unnecessary redundancy in Buddhadharma. Practicing “one Guru, Deity, and Protector” through one tradition is just letting the apparent redundancy dissolve back into emptiness. However, an eclectic is unable to practice this way, because instead of seeing the Dharma as a fractal, he sees something fractured: things are ‘missing’ from tradition X and therefore in his mind it is incomplete, and therefore not perfect for him already. (It is an axiom of eclecticism that “nobody has the whole truth…”) Seeing the Dharma as something that can be incomplete from its own side is only possible with samsaric math. But, a person practicing one tradition cannot ‘gain’ anything more by practicing additional traditions. Anyone who feels as though he is ‘missing out’ on the others by practicing only one is still using samsaric math (“if one is good, four must be better”). If someone’s Dharma practice is motivated by these worldly concerns of gain and loss, then he is not practicing purely.

Atisha is helping us find the middle way between two extremes:

Extreme #1: Four traditions are better than one (“I need all the help I can get”), which leads to eclecticism.

Extreme #2: One tradition is better than the other three (“one size fits all”), which leads to sectarianism.

The Middle Way: (a) One tradition can accomplish everything for you (“less is more”), which counters eclecticism. Yet, (b) one tradition cannot accomplish everything for everybody (“different strokes for different folks”), which counters sectarianism.

Some have explained that practicing multiple traditions is not in fact ‘mixing’ at all, as long as one keeps the practices of different traditions ‘separate.’ I guess, then, it would be like someone putting on his or her Gelug hat at 8 o’clock in the morning to do Gelug practices, then changing for his Sakya hat at noon, having his Kagyu hat on by 4 o’clock in the afternoon, and finally ending his evening at 8 o’clock with his Nyingma hat on. Sounds kind of schizophrenic to me, but maybe his Gelug hat is a little bigger than the others to remind him that he is principally a Gelugpa who just happens to be doing these other unrelated practices. Maybe he even keeps four separate meditation cushions as Atisha found was the case with Rinchen Sangpo! Granted, Rinchen Sangpo had a separate cushion for each of his 4 Yidam practices, but the samsaric math is still the same if one is doing separate practices from different traditions. That is to say, eclecticism in any form seems to completely miss the point of Atisha’s advice: integrate all your Dharma practices into one; but you cannot do this if you keep things compartmentalized.

The invalidity of eclecticism boils down to two points. First, unenlightened beings do not have the skillful means required to synthesize new presentations of the Buddhist path for others, much less for themselves. Besides, Buddha has given us everything we need already (“there’s something for everybody”), so we do not have to cook up our own self-created synthesis. Second, what motivates someone to go outside of an established presentation of Dharma? Some may say it is because the person recognizes that all Dharma is the same, just as Atisha did. If so, then why does he not go ahead and practice this way? Surely, practicing one tradition would be the most practical and efficient way to demonstrate such an insight if one had it. So, what prompts eclecticism is actually based on ignorance, not wisdom, because eclectics do not in fact recognize the ‘one taste’ of Dharma, but have to go and get bits of it from here, there, and yonder. This is seeing Dharma as something fractured into pieces; but Dharma cannot work for you if you think it is broken.

P.S. There is a difference between studying different religious traditions and practicing them. For example, you can study different world religions but not necessarily practice any of them. Or, within a particular religion you can study its different traditions/denominations/schools, but still only practice one. Eclecticism refers specifically to the practice (not merely the study) of different traditions.

Someone once humorously described Tibetan Buddhism as “Mexican Catholicism gone mad!” No doubt this was a reference to all its colorful (and oftentimes loud) ritual ceremonies, as well as the large pantheon of Buddhist Deities and Bodhisattvas (which, although Tantra emphasizes it more, exists in all Mahayana traditions).

For those who first experience Buddhism through what is called a “single-practice tradition,” Vajrayana Buddhism can be quite a culture shock. Comparatively speaking, the relatively simple practices of, for example, zazen (‘just sitting’ meditation) in Zen Buddhism, or the recitation of the mantra Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō in Nichiren Buddhism are said by their respective traditions to have condensed all Buddha’s teachings down to their simple elegance.

Kadampa Buddhism is also a Mahayana tradition. While it has left all the cultural entrapments of Tibet behind (Geshe-la recognized that we can’t be turned into Tibetans), it still retains a distinctively Vajrayana character and feel. Every Vajrayana tradition prides itself (and rightfully so), in presenting all of Buddha’s 84,000 teachings. While I jokingly explain this as “84,000 different strokes for 84,000 different folks,” in reality each teaching is a specific ‘antidote’ to one of 84,000 different mental afflictions (or delusions) that human beings habitually experience. However, the sheer vastness of teachings existing within Buddhism is bound to make most people feel overwhelmed at times.

However, it was not Buddha’s intention to burden people. Anyone who has formally studied Buddhism for very long knows that Buddhists sure do love their enumerated lists: 2 of this, 4 of that, 8 of these, 16 of those, 37 ways to do this, 108 ways of looking at that, and on and on… What this means in practical terms, however, is less exacting: it is just hoped that something in there will speak to us. While all Buddha’s teachings are meant to be taken as personal advice (i.e., no Dharma teaching is superfluous), maybe just one thing out of a list of 10 is relevant to our life right now, and that is what we are to put into practice (Meaningful to Behold, 5th ed., p. 27).

In a sense, Kadampa Buddhism is also a single-practice tradition: “The unmistaken path is Lamrim, Lojong, and Mahamudra.” Geshe-la explains:

According to Je Tsongkhapa’s tradition, a skilled Teacher will gradually lead his disciples through the stages of Lamrim, Lojong, and Secret Mantra, and show them how to combine all these into a regular practice. (Great Treasury of Merit, p. 180)

Lamrim is the “stages of the path” to enlightenment. In The Three Principal Aspects of the Path, Je Tsongkhapa outlined “the essential meaning of all the Conqueror’s teachings” in terms of renunciation, bodhichitta, and wisdom realizing emptiness. Geshe Kelsang explains that “those who have mastered the three virtuous roots are able to transform all their experiences into the path to enlightenment. This is why the three virtuous roots are called the ‘essence of Buddhadharma’” (Understanding the Mind, p. 153). Therefore, if your practice consists solely of a 10- or 15-minute Lamrim meditation every day, you have no worries!

Next, Lojong is “training the mind” in love and compassion. Geshe Kelsang says that “Compassion is the very essence of Buddhadharma, and the main practice of a Mahayana Buddhist” (Eight Steps to Happiness, p. 110). He further says that “Developing compassion and wisdom, and helping those in need whenever possible, is the true meaning of life” (p. 119). Indeed, any practice of compassion mixed with wisdom leads us towards enlightenment. Method (i.e., renunciation and bodhichitta) and wisdom are like two wings of a bird with which we can “fly to the state of full enlightenment” (p. 178).

The last of the big three, which earlier Geshe Kelsang refers to as the “actual practice,” is Mahamudra Tantra. Geshe-la quotes a Tibetan Buddhist scholar who said that the union of great bliss and emptiness is “the very essence of Buddha’s eighty-four thousand teachings” (Mahamudra Tantra, p. 57). Whether they are practiced sequentially (as done in Sutra) or simultaneously (as done in Tantra), we see that it is the combination of the ‘vast path’ and the ‘profound path’ which makes for a complete path.

Despite all this, the practice of Lamrim, Lojong, and Mahamudra may still seem like a lot. Actually, Kadampa Buddhism can be as ‘simple’ or ‘complex’ as you like. You can look at it both ways: (1) the deeper you go, the more elaborate and detailed things get, or (2) the deeper you go, the more everything ‘comes together.’ My ultimate aim here, actually, is to show how “less is more.” That is to say, if you can see how to consolidate all of Buddha’s teachings into a single practice that you really identify with, then you’ve “got it”! For myself, I love doing everything: I devour all of Geshe-la’s books, and I relish every sadhana practice we do. But in the end, all I am left with as a daily practice is the Migstema prayer. Simply put, Migstema has it all:

Once a Mongolian minister asked the Panchen Lama, Palden Yeshe, to give him a small practice that he could do every day because he was otherwise very busy. The Panchen Lama asked him what kind of practice he wanted, and the Mongolian replied that he would like to receive the instruction on the Migstema practice. The Panchen Lama was surprised and said, ‘How can you say that the practice of Migstema is a small practice? There is no greater practice than this; it contains the meaning of all Buddha’s eighty-four thousand teachings!’ (Heart Jewel, p. 20)

P.S. In the two previous posts, I have described how eclectics fail to esteem different Buddhist traditions as complete paths. In contrast, non-eclectics have a far superior understanding, going so far as to realize that even the individual practices presented within any given tradition are themselves complete paths!

David Kay uses the theoretical framework of inclusivism vs. exclusivism throughout his analysis of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) (Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in Britain: Transplantation, Development, and Adaptation, esp. pp. 40-41, 65, 109-110). What these terms mean for him becomes clear by the adjectives he uses to contrast the approaches of the eclectic Rime movement (shamanic, Tantric, encyclopedic) vs. conservative Gelugpas (clerical, scholarly/philosophical, orthodox), and also Lama Yeshe (ecumenical, open, unconventional) vs. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (focused/committed, hard-lined, literalistic). Kay ends his analysis with another parallel of this dichotomy: proteanism (modernist, skeptical, pluralistic) vs. fundamentalism (reactionary, dogmatic, purist). And so, of course, readers take away from this that the NKT is fundamentalist, which is quite irresponsible on Kay’s part! As explained in the Wikipedia article on fundamentalism:

However, most scholars do not agree with this characterization. Inken Prohl expresses hesitation over Kay’s use of the word fundamentalist in regards to the NKT because of “the vague and, at the same time, extremely political implications of this term.” Likewise, Paul Williams prefers the word traditionalist over fundamentalist in describing the NKT and other Dorje Shugden followers. Reacting to the charge that the NKT is a ‘fundamentalist movement,’ Robert Bluck said, “Again a balanced approach is needed here: the practitioner’s confident belief may appear as dogmatism to an unsympathetic observer.”

David Kay believes that, with his new inclusive-exclusive framework, he has overcome a common “Western theoretical bias” (pp. 37-38), but it is clear that his characterizations still reflect a Western liberal bias, and so he has not provided the “theoretically balanced analysis” he had hope for. To his credit, however, Kay does acknowledge that there are degrees of inclusivism and exclusivism. For example, although the NKT is exclusively oriented, nowhere in his book does Kay ever characterize the NKT as being sectarian.

Also, David Kay describes Lama Yeshe as being inclusive, but not eclectic: “Although Lama Yeshe never encouraged the abolition of religious differences and followed the tradition of Tsong Khapa strictly, his orientation was more inclusive than exclusive” (p. 65). This suggests a whole range of possible positions on the inclusive-exclusive spectrum. Two examples that Kay gives of radical inclusivism are the Rime movement (p. 42) and also the current Dalai Lama, who considers it praiseworthy “when someone practices all the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu and Nyingma teachings through listening, thinking and meditation according to his own level of realization” (quoted on pp. 42-43).

This begs the question whether eclecticism is itself extremist! That is to say, at what point is inclusivism taken too far? In proposing a ‘middle way’ between exclusivism and inclusivism, I challenge any Buddhist to answer this question from the essay Standing Up for the Middle Way:

There are always two extremes flanking the middle way. Given that sectarianism is one of those extremes, then if eclecticism is the middle way, what exactly would be the other extreme?

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso exhibits the perfect balance of exclusivism and inclusivism: cherishing one’s own tradition while respecting all other traditions and the right of each individual to follow the tradition of his or her choosing. Geshe Kelsang also says that non-Gelug traditions possess complete paths to enlightenment. Again, very inclusive!

David Kay says that eclectics also maintain “the validity of all paths” (p. 42) but this sentiment is insincere given the fact that they regard different traditions as only “partial descriptions and approaches” rather than complete paths (pp. 41-42). So, “equally valid” in the mind of the eclectic actually just means “equally incomplete”! As I said in the previous blog post, it is the eclectic who is insulting Buddhadharma, not the moderate exclusivist.

In the essay Context Changes Everything: Do Geshe-la’s Writings Promote Sectarianism?, I put back into context the quote “We should be like a wise blind person who relies totally upon one trusted guide instead of attempting to follow a number of people at once,” by showing that it is Buddha Vajrayogini who is the Guide to Dakini Land. With this instruction, Geshe-la advises his students “to integrate all their Tantric practices into the Vajrayogini sadhana by realizing that all Tantric Deities have the same nature, differing only in appearance” (p. 20). Just as we have five fingers in one hand, so can we accomplish all Deities through the practice of just one.

Now, I would like to put the following back into context as well, as it is often cited as inviting a narrow-minded attitude:

Experience shows that realizations come from deep, unchanging faith, and that this faith comes as a result of following one tradition purely—relying upon one Teacher, practicing only his teachings, and following his Dharma Protector. If we mix traditions many obstacles arise and it takes a long time for us to attain realizations. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Great Treasury of Merit: How to Rely Upon a Spiritual Guide, p. 31, © 1992)

The book cited here is a commentary to the Guru yoga of Je Tsongkhapa, who is the “one Teacher” referred to in the quote above. This is confirmed by the quote’s preceding context, as well as in the book Heart Jewel, a commentary to another Guru yoga practice of Je Tsongkhapa, which says:

Many sadhanas of Dorje Shugden state that Dorje Shugden is the embodiment of the ‘Guru, Yidam, and Protector’. Here, ‘Guru’ refers specifically to Lama Tsongkhapa. Thus, when we practice the sadhana of Dorje Shugden we are indirectly practising the Guru yoga of Je Tsongkhapa, as well as the practices of Yamantaka and Kalarupa. (p. 115)

To show how Dorje Shugden can be one’s Guru (Je Tsongkhapa), his Yidam (Yamantaka), and his Dharma Protector (Kalarupa) all at once, Geshe-la reminds us of Atisha’s advice for accomplishing all Tantric Deities within a single Deity practice, saying “it is much more meaningful to practise one Deity sincerely, regarding that Deity as the synthesis of all Deities, than it is to practise many Deities superficially.” And just as one Deity is the same nature as all Deities, so too are all Gurus in essence the same. Geshe-la explains that not viewing one’s Guru as being equal with all Gurus “would display a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Guru” (Great Treasury of Merit, p. 50).

But, if realizing the synthesis of all Buddhas is so actively encouraged, then why is mixing different Buddhist traditions so discouraged? After all, in Understanding the Mind, Geshe-la claims that “If we try to create a synthesis of different traditions we shall destroy the special power of each and be left only with a mishmash of our own making that will be a source of confusion and doubt” (p. 162). One form of synthesis (or mixing) speeds our progress towards enlightenment, while the other proves to be a major obstacle. What is the difference?

Consider the person who feels that practicing one Deity is insufficient. He or she does not understand that this single Deity already embodies them all. As a result, he comes to regard his spiritual practice as somehow being incomplete, and so he supplements it with many other Deity practices. Atisha encountered this impractical approach when he travelled to Tibet: “Some of you Tibetans have tried to accomplish a hundred Deities but have failed to gain a single attainment, while some Indian Buddhists have gained the attainments of a hundred Deities by accomplishing the practice of just one.”

The parallel between practicing one Guru, Yidam, and Protector and practicing one tradition is now not so difficult to infer. Every Buddhist tradition is in essence the same as all the others; that is to say, each is a perfect and complete path to liberation unto itself. If out of ignorance someone does not realize their pre-existent synthesis, he may become dissatisfied and try to create it himself. The spiritual eclectic pursues ‘the one through the many’ because he cannot imagine the possibility of there already being ‘the many in the one.’ (If he did, he would never become discontent with practicing only one.) In response, Geshe-la might very well say that this displays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of one’s tradition! Indeed, it is not hard to see how such inflexibility of mind makes it take a long time to attain Dharma realizations.

For the person who doesn’t believe in there already being ‘the many in the one,’ some traditions have things that other traditions don’t have, meaning that none of them is complete. Unless he or she freely takes from them all, he believes he is ‘missing out on something.’ This perceived incompleteness hinders his faith in any one tradition as being able to provide him with a complete path to liberation. So I have to ask, how is it possible to achieve ‘the one through the many’ if none of them individually is “good enough” for us? Moreover, even if all taken together, would this ever add up to be a complete path? How would we know?

In contrast, for the person who does believe in ‘the many in the one,’ he or she has confidence that his tradition of choice can in fact take him to the other shore. And because every Buddhist tradition is equally a complete path, he believes liberation is possible for all Buddhists, each through his own respective tradition. So, the person who practices in terms of ‘the many through the one’ actually thinks more highly of other traditions than the eclectic does! In reality it is the eclectic approach that shows disrespect towards all the different traditions, while it is the non-eclectic approach that actually regards each of them as supremely precious. Some people take it the wrong way and think that the exclusivity that comes with practicing only one tradition is motivated by sectarianism or disdainful intolerance for anything other than one’s own, when actually it is a wish that all traditions be preserved just as they are for generations to come. If it ain’t broke, don’t “mix” it!

Anne Bancroft compiled a book called The Pocket Buddha Reader, which includes the following quote (pp. 113-114):

Sakka asked the Buddha: “Do different religious teachers head for the same goal or practice the same disciplines or aspire to the same thing?”

“No, Sakka, they do not. And why? This world is made up of myriad different states of being, and people adhere to one or another of these states and become tenaciously possessive of them, saying, ‘This alone is true, everything else is false.’ It is like a territory that they believe is theirs. So all religious teachers do not teach the same goal or the same discipline, nor do they aspire to the same thing.”

“But if you find truth in any religion or philosophy, then accept that truth without prejudice.” —Digha Nikaya

The last line concerns me because it does not appear in the original source; it seems to have been added in by the author without justification. I would advise people to check this ‘popularized’ version of the quote from the Digha Nikaya 21 (aka the Sakka-pañha Sutta) against non-commercialized translations, such as the ones available at Access to Insight or Wikipitaka. In those more reliable sources, you will not find Buddha saying “accept truth from all religions and philosophies” or any words to that effect. Actually, quite the opposite! Here, Buddha unequivocally states that the world’s religions do not all teach the same thing.

Immediately after this, Buddha is asked whether priests and contemplatives of other religions have reached nirvana: “No, only those who are liberated by the destruction of craving are fully proficient, freed from the bonds, perfect in the holy life and have perfectly reached the goal.” Buddha says that the means for attaining liberation from delusions are not even taught outside of Buddhadharma. Buddha explained in the Brahmajala Sutta:

Bhikkus, there are countless philosophies, doctrines, and theories in this world. People criticize each other and argue endlessly over their theories. According to my investigation, there are sixty-two main theories which underlie the thousands of philosophies and religions current in our world. Looked at from the Way of Enlightenment and Emancipation, all sixty-two of these theories contain errors and create obstacles… A good fisherman places his net in the water and catches all the shrimp and fish he can. As he watches the creatures try to leap out of the net, he tells them, ‘No matter how high you jump, you will only land in the net again.’ He is correct. The thousands of beliefs flourishing at present can all be found in the net of these sixty-two theories. Bhikkus, don’t fall into that bewitching net. You will only waste time and lose your chance to practice the Way of Enlightenment. (Translated by Thich Nhat Hanh, Old Path, White Clouds, pp. 399-400)

Clearly, not all worldviews are created equal. In Friendly Letter (vv.61-62), Nagarjuna says that the wisdom of the middle way is not made known by any other religion: “Ask if they propound what passes beyond ‘is’ and ‘is not’. Thereby know that the ambrosia of the Buddhas’ teaching is called profound, an uncommon doctrine passing far beyond existence and non-existence.” Bodhichitta and emptiness of inherent existence have no counterpart in Christianity or any other faith. At best, Jesus’ self-sacrifice has an affinity with bodhichitta, but a slight resemblance is not enough to claim “same idea, different word.”

When asked, “Don’t all religions teach the same thing? Is it possible to unify them?” the Dalai Lama said:

People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing.

In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy.

For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory.

I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend. If by unifying you mean mixing, that is impossible, useless.

Jesus does not lead you to nirvana, and Buddha does not lead you to God. Christianity teaches a creator God, but Buddha said only mind is the creator. Christianity teaches one life (and after that, the judgment), but Buddhism teaches past and future lives. Christianity teaches an immortal soul, but Buddhism teaches anatman (“no soul”). These are diametrically opposed, so how can we reconcile them without being unfaithful to one religion or the other, and without being untruthful to ourselves?