Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand: Je Phabongkhapa and Sectarianism

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?