Like this:

“I prostrate to Manjushri,
Through whose kindness my virtuous intentions arise;
And I prostrate to my Spiritual Guide,
Through whose kindness my virtuous qualities increase.”

— Shantideva, Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, p. 194

Tenzin Peljor has been circulating a document with quotes from Buddhist scriptures and commentaries concerning unqualified Spiritual Guides, which he hopes will encourage people to abandon Geshe Kelsang Gyatso as their root Guru. He references a number of books written by Tibetan Masters:

• Ornament of Stainless Light by Khedrup Norsang Gyatso
• Buddhist Ethics by Jamgon Kongtrul
• Tantric Ethics by Je Tsongkhapa
• The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path (Vol. 1) by Je Tsongkhapa
• Words of My Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche

Most prominent is an extensive excerpt from the book Ornament of Stainless Light, from which the section “Characteristics of those unsuitable to be gurus” is quoted in full. Well, almost… As always, it is interesting to observe what is omitted by Tenzin Peljor & Company. For example, the ending quote from the Paramarthaseva (pp. 216-217) has been mysteriously left out, even though it also appears in Buddhist Ethics (p. 52); I will quote this below. As another example, Tenzin Peljor cites Je Tsongkhapa’s reference to Ornament of the Essence, which says…

Distance yourself from Vajra Masters who are not keeping the three vows, who keep on with a root downfall, who are miserly with the Dharma, and who engage in actions that should be forsaken. Those who worship them go to hell and so on as a result.

…but Tenzin Peljor fails to give his audience the surrounding context, namely Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary which explains how, even if the above accurately describes our own Spiritual Guide, “This is not a problem” and we can still receive the empowerment (Tantric Ethics, p. 46).

To continue, both Ornament of Stainless Light (p. 214) and Buddhist Ethics (p. 52) give the same list of unsuitable characteristics for a Spiritual Guide:

Proud, subject to uncontrollable anger, defiant of pledges, guilty of misappropriation, ignorant [of the doctrine], willfully deceptive of students, having failed to enter the state of supreme bliss, uninitiated, a slave to wealth and enjoyments, careless, rude in speech, and obsessed with sexual desire: wise students who wish full awakening should shun such a teacher as they would hell.

Apparently, in Tenzin Peljor’s mind, Geshe-la is such a teacher. However, both commentaries also state that no Teacher nowadays will be free from all of these faults; instead, we should rely on a Teacher whose good qualities predominate, as explained in the Paramarthaseva, this being the quote which Tenzin Peljor left out:

In these troubled times
faults and good qualities in gurus are mixed.
None are completely without fault.
The disciples will come to rely upon
those discovered, after careful examination,
to have a predominance of good qualities.

Along these lines, Je Tsongkhapa gives a second list of good qualities, saying that one may accept a Teacher who has only an eighth (1/8) of them (The Great Treatise, p. 75). He later explains how to train in faith in such a Teacher (The Great Treatise, p. 81):

Your guru might have good qualities for the most part, and have only slight faults. If you examine your guru for those faults, this will block your own attainments. Whereas, even in the case of a guru who mostly has faults, you will give rise to your own attainments if you train in faith by focusing on the good qualities while not looking for the faults.

Therefore, once someone is your guru,* whether he or she has small or great faults, contemplate the disadvantages of examining for his or her faults. Repeatedly think about eliminating that tendency, and then stop it. (*Cf. Great Treasury of Merit, p. 199)

Elsewhere—in his commentary on the first root downfall of the Tantric vows (Tantric Ethics, p. 85)—Je Tsongkhapa says that “at issue is not the amount of qualities possessed by masters who have been kind enough to teach us the Vajrayana, but their connection with tantric doctrine.”

It can be difficult, then, to harmonize one commentary with another. Patrul Rinpoche (pp. 151-152) attempts to simplify things for us, such that “examining a teacher could be condensed into just one question: does he or does he not have bodhichitta?” (See also Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Gampopa, p. 73.) But even Patrul Rinpoche admits that such an extraordinary inner quality is difficult to discern; sometimes Teachers “hide their true nature,” while charlatans abound, making a display of good qualities they don’t really have. Instead, he considers us extremely lucky to have met a Spiritual Guide with whom we have a positive karmic connection from a previous life; our faith quickens and our heart sings:

The greatest of all teachers is the one with whom we are linked from former lives. With him, examination is superfluous. Simply to meet him, simply to hear his voice—or even just his name—can transform everything in an instant and stir such faith that every hair on our bodies stands on end.

For those not so fortunate, is there no consistent, objective standard as to whether a Guru is authentic? In Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand (pp. 238, 250-251), after first asking us to “thoroughly investigate the guru, and rely on him only if you see he is worthy of it,” Je Phabongkhapa then says that, in terms of someone’s inner qualities, we cannot assess anyone, much less a Guru: “You can only assess yourself,” adding that the stories of how people first perceived Milarepa, Shantideva, and others “make a mockery of everything we see”!

Once again, the commentaries previously mentioned instruct us variously: either to rely only on a Teacher with all the good qualities listed (Words of My Perfect Teacher, p. 151), or those with mostly good qualities (Ornament of Stainless Light, Buddhist Ethics; see also Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, p. 238). Yet, with faith, we could still rely on a Teacher with mostly bad qualities (The Great Treatise); in his Tantric Ethics Je Tsongkhapa quotes the Guhyasamaja Tantra which says, “Even if a guru who teaches you the mandala behaves badly, physically or mentally, understanding [the consequences], never disparage” (p. 84). Additionally, as a means to test our ability to make our own determinations and not just follow the Guru blindly (The Great Treatise, pp. 86, 385-386, n. 132), our Teacher might instruct us to act non-virtuously (e.g., to steal), in which case we may—with soothing words—politely excuse ourself from following this particular instruction. Je Tsongkhapa adds that “it is improper to take the gurus’ wrong actions as a reason for subsequent misbehavior such as disrespecting, reproaching, or despising the gurus” (The Great Treatise, p. 86). According to Je Tsongkhapa, this is no occasion to abandon a Guru, but rather we should remain with him and “acquire a portion of their teachings.”

Patrul Rinpoche sums up the paradox (Words of My Perfect Teacher, p. 146):

It is therefore important not to take any of your teacher’s actions in the wrong way; train yourself to have only pure perception.

Do not misinterpret how he acts.
Most of India’s siddhas lived
As common evil-doers, base outcastes,
More degenerate than the lowest of the low.

People who ignore this point, continually misinterpreting and criticising what their teacher does, would, so it is said, find fault even in the Buddha if they were to live with him long enough.

For this reason—that it is so easy for us to see faults in our Teachers and lose faith—Je Tsongkhapa says it is better that “you should have few teachers” (The Great Treatise, p. 77).

In looking to reconcile the different commentaries into something more straightforward, I came across the following in The Great Treatise’s chapter on “Relying on the Teacher,” in a section labeled “The faults of not relying on the teacher” (p. 90):

Moreover, if you rely on nonvirtuous teachers and bad friends, your good qualities will slowly diminish and all of your faults will increase. Then everything that is unwanted will develop. Therefore, always avoid them.

A friend has pointed out to me how much it must have pained Je Tsongkhapa to put the two words non-virtuous and teacher together, and indeed the term appears nowhere else in The Great Treatise. One is left wondering, then, what makes for a non-virtuous teacher, if not—for example—a Guru who asks us to steal for him, or a Guru who is mentally and physically abusive?

I believe that Je Tsongkhapa could not bring himself to state the matter explicitly, for it is just like the question Vajrapani asks the Buddha in the Tantra Bestowing the Initiation of Vajrapani, quoted by Je Tsongkhapa at the beginning of this section:

“Bhagavan, what sort of fruition is there for those who reproach their masters?” The Bhagavan answered, “Vajrapani, do not ask this question, for the answer will frighten the world and the deities…”

Basically, in all of the laundry lists of characteristics of those suitable to be Gurus, why is their own reliance upon a Spiritual Guide not listed among them? After all, a Teacher’s virtues and good qualities—including bodhichitta—come solely from his or her devotion to a Spiritual Guide. For this reason, I believe that the question of a Teacher’s authenticity could be further condensed into “Does he himself rely upon his root Guru?” For example, we could check: In the past 12 years, has this Teacher ever contradicted, criticized, disparaged, disrespected, reproached, forsaken, or abandoned his virtuous Spiritual Guide? This is the one fault that could never be excused or explained away as a virtue or skillful means, for surely this would be the greatest deception.

Therefore, in this context, a “nonvirtuous teacher” may simply mean a “faithless teacher,” a teacher who has lost faith in his own Spiritual Guide, the root of all virtues. (Hence why this point is included in the section “The faults of not relying on the teacher”!) Conversely, a “virtuous Teacher” would be a “faithful Teacher,” one who continually relies upon his Spiritual Guide. Going back and re-reading the sections of Je Tsongkhapa’s commentary in regards to how to interpret a virtuous Teacher’s apparent faults and wrong actions, these are all revealed as “blessings in disguise,” for how could non-virtue ever arise in the mind of a Guru who fully relies upon his Spiritual Guide? The results of actions are definite.

To “disparage the master from the heart” is to disparage those from whom you have received advice on the precepts and so forth [thinking] “Now what use is there in listening to their advice, and so on?” — Je Tsongkhapa, Tantric Ethics, p. 84

I also wish to take issue with Tenzin Peljor’s interpolation of the advice given in these sources in regards to what should be one’s attitude and conduct towards a former Spiritual Guide. Tenzin Peljor says that leaving Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and the NKT is no big deal:

There is no real problem. It is advised in the Kalachakra Tantra, that one can leave a teacher – one goes to a neutral distance – if one sees to [sic] many obvious faults.

According to him, the details are to be found in the section “Characteristics of those unsuitable to be gurus” mentioned at the beginning of this essay. I have paraphrased one part in particular:

If you have taken someone as your Guru when they have many faults—such as being without compassion, angry and malicious, arrogant, grasping, uncontrolled, and boastful—then you should part company with him and no longer associate with him in person. Go this far, but please no further! If you also lose faith in him, or forsake him as a Guru, or cast him out of the Field of Merit, then you open yourself up to a root downfall.

Indeed, if you check the quotes cited therein, “They do not teach that one should lose one’s faith due to seeing faults” (Ornament of Stainless Light, p. 216). One never casts the Guru out of the Field for Accumulating Merit, but continues to visualize him or her as an object of refuge, making offerings of one’s daily practice to him as the highest field of worship. If we are able to keep the Guru in our heart in this way, it could never be claimed that we have abandoned or forsaken him.

So, obviously, “going to a neutral distance” is not what is being recommended; as a continuing spiritual practice, going merely to a neutral place in regards to one’s Spiritual Guide is actually a step backwards. Tenzin Peljor adopted this wording from Dr. Alexander Berzin, but changed it slightly from “deciding to keep a respectful distance” (emphasis added). This is also Ron Garry’s take in the introduction to The Teacher-Student Relationship (p. 53) by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodu Thaye, another book suggested by Tenzin Peljor:

Sometimes a student examines the characteristics of the lama after taking him as a teacher. Kongtrul suggests that in the case of subsequently discovering that the lama is not qualified, the student should quietly distance himself from that lama. This should be done without criticism or generating negativity in any way.

Indeed, it is also interesting how Tenzin Peljor pretends that Lama Zopa’s advice on not abandoning Shugden Lamas such as Geshe Kelsang Gyatso does not exist. Lama Zopa points out how important it is “not to criticize, to keep the mind in equanimity regarding him.” One wonders why quotes like these do not appear in Tenzin Peljor’s set of advice:

“By giving up Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, you have created heavy negative karma in this life. Since you haven’t given me up, I suggest that you confess to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso about what happened, and devote yourself again to this virtuous friend.” — Lama Zopa Rinpoche

ADDENDUM

In discussing the last of the 10 non-virtuous actions, Je Tsongkhapa said, “Although it is certainly the case that there are other wrong views, only this is called “wrong view,” for it is the greatest of all wrong views in that it is through this wrong view that you sever all your roots of virtue” (The Great Treatise, p. 227).

The Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive’s glossary of terms defines wrong view or heresy (Tib. lta ba log pa) as “A general term in Tibetan Buddhism for the wrong view of negating karma and so forth; the negative thoughts toward the guru, the opposite of devotion.” More commonly translated as “wrong view,” Dr. Alexander Berzin renders it as “distorted antagonistic thinking” (Tib. log-lta), which he defines as “The action of thinking with a distorted outlook and, in addition, wishing to repudiate, with hostility, anyone that disagrees with one’s view.” He then references this when discussing what it means to have “a breach of guru-devotion”:

Moreover, according to Tsongkhapa’s Grand Exposition of the Graded Stages of the Path [Vol. 1, pp. 226-227], the motivation behind thinking with a distorted, antagonistic attitude needs to include five further disturbing emotions and attitudes: (1) One needs to be stubbornly blind to the actual qualities of someone. (2) One needs to be contentious, from having a perverse sense of enjoying being negative. (3) One needs to be convinced of the distortion, based on incorrect consideration and analysis. (4) One needs to be mean, unwilling to accept that others have good qualities. (5) One needs to be headstrong in wishing to bring down the person, without the least bit of shame about it and without thinking it improper.

From this, Tenzin Peljor concludes that “it will be very hard to go to hell by leaving a Guru, because to go to hell you need a lot of negative attitudes and must be in a way in long-time-hate-delusions. Which will surely not be the case for the most human beings.” We can infer from Tenzin Peljor’s conclusion, then, that it is indeed very rare to ever develop wrong views about anyone!

Given the following quote from Je Tsongkhapa, it is not hard to imagine what wrong view towards one’s Spiritual Guide would entail (Tantric Ethics, p. 76):

“Forsaking the holy Dharma” is wrong view [in the sense of] removing the importance Dharma has in your life, denigrating it and those who explain it, and desisting, each day, from listening to, thinking about, meditating on, asking about, reading, or worshipping the Dharma.

Advertisement