Kadampas as the Monarch Butterflies of Buddhism

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?