Differences between the 4 schools (Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Gelug)?
Chris J Fynn
wrote:
> I'm looking information on what distinguishes the four schools of
> Buddhism (Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Gelug) and what makes each one
> unique. If you have the info or know where to find it (on the Net or
> otherwise), I'd be grateful for direction. Please e-mail me.
> Thanks in advance.
Jason
There is far more which unites the different schools of Tibetan
Buddhism than distinguishes them. Basically the different schools of
Tibetan Buddhism originated with the lineages arising from the
different teachers who brought Vajrayana Buddhism to Tibet. The
Nyingma is the lineage of these teachings which came to Tibet via
Padmasambhava, Vairotsana & Vimalamitra; the Kadampa is the lineage
which originated with the teachings & practices brought to Tibet by
Atisha; the Kagyu the lineage which originated in Tibet with the
teachings & practices introduced by the translator Marpa; the Sakya
with the teachings & practices introduced by the translator Drogmi;
etc. Only the Gelugpa school was founded by a teacher who was neither
an Indian nor a Tibetan who had travelled to India to obtain teachings
- but the teachings of this school are largely a synthesis of those of
several earlier schools.
I think it is important to realise that all the schools of Tibetan
Buddhism contain many teachings borrowed from the other schools
and that the sectarian divisions which often characterise contemporary
Tibetan Buddhism crystallised only between the fourteenth and the
seventeenth centuries - largely as a result of political factors.
If you look at a detailed history of Tibetan Buddhism prior to that
period, such as Gos Lotsawa's "The Blue Annals" (translated by G. N.
Roerich), you will see just how frequently lamas of one tradition
studied with those of other traditions and consequently how
interconnected all these traditions really are.
There is a brief outline of the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism
at: http://isis.infinet.com/rinpoche/fivet.htm
and at: http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/budintro.html
also this may be useful:
http://quietmountain.com/links/teachings/nonsect.htm
For a basic general introduction to Tibetan Buddhism and it's schools
you can read John Powers' "Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism" (Snow
Lion) and Tulku Thondup Rinpoche's "Buddhist Civilization in Tibet"
(RKP). Geoffrey Samuel's "Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan
Societies" (Smithsonian) is also *very* useful.
HH the Dalai Lama's "The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra" (Snow
Lion)
discusses some of the differences and similarities between the
meditative traditions of the Tibetan Buddhist schools.
There are a few recent books which discuss some of the philosophical /
epistemological differences between the different Tibetan traditions
(these books are not light reading):
Dreyfus, Georges B. J. "Recognizing Reality: Dharmakirti's Philosophy
and it's Tibetan Interpretations" (SUNY)
Makransky, John J. "Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in
India and Tibet" (SUNY)
Williams, Paul "The Reflexive Nature of Awareness (Rang Rig)"
Curzon Press
- Chris
Upaya
the question.
Except to say... that Gelug, the youngest of the four, came about as a
reform of the Kadam by Je Tsong-ka-pa at the end of the 14th century. So
the Gelug-pa will trace the lineage of many of their teachings back to
Atisha. Tsong-ka-pa definitely WAS a Tibetan, though. His name means "man
from the land of onions" (you'd think it would be something more auspicious)
and he was born in N.E. Tibet on the site of the present Kum-Bum monastery
in Amdo province. Since Atisa was from India, I can't imagine who you might
be thinking of who was 'neither Indian nor Tibetan'. The Gelug-pa is the
school that is headed by the Dalai Lama .
I think it's also worth mentioning that the Sakya don't place as much
emphasis on the idea of 'tulku' as the others. It is probably one of the
most significant distinguishing characteristics in fundamental beliefs of
any of the four, imo.
Chris J Fynn wrote in message <36cde4b8...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:50:33 GMT, jjk...@sas.upenn.edu (Jason Kane)
>wrote:
>
>> I'm looking information on what distinguishes the four schools of
>> Buddhism (Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Gelug) and what makes each one
>> unique. If you have the info or know where to find it (on the Net or
>> otherwise), I'd be grateful for direction. Please e-mail me.
>> Thanks in advance.
>
>Jason
>
>There is far more which unites the different schools of Tibetan
>Buddhism than distinguishes them.
>>>
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Upaya wrote:
>
> >etc. Only the Gelugpa school was founded by a teacher who was neither
> >an Indian nor a Tibetan who had travelled to India to obtain teachings
> >- but the teachings of this school are largely a synthesis of those of
> >several earlier schools.
>
> Except to say... that Gelug, the youngest of the four, came about as a
> reform of the Kadam by Je Tsong-ka-pa at the end of the 14th century. So
> the Gelug-pa will trace the lineage of many of their teachings back to
> Atisha. Tsong-ka-pa definitely WAS a Tibetan, though. His name means "man
> from the land of onions" (you'd think it would be something more auspicious)
> and he was born in N.E. Tibet on the site of the present Kum-Bum monastery
> in Amdo province. Since Atisa was from India, I can't imagine who you might
> be thinking of who was 'neither Indian nor Tibetan'. The Gelug-pa is the
> school that is headed by the Dalai Lama .
Je Tsongkhapa didn't travel to India to obtain teachings. And there is
no Indian teacher came to Tibet to establish a school called 'Gelugpa'
or 'Ganden traition'. Atisha's teachings eventually went into all the
schools, Nyingma, Sakya and Kagyud. Especially, one can remember that
Gampopa (Milarepa's disciple) is a physcian from the Kadam tradition.
Most of the schools practice Atisha's Thought Transformation practice
from Serlingpa. Chris is right!
--
Yours in Dharma,
Henry Chia
(Ngawang Geleg)
email: ge...@pacific.net.sg
URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/index.htm
Kent Sandvik
Yep. Je Tsongkhapa, Lozang Dragka, had teachers from many traditions,
not just the Kadampa tradition. There's nothing wrong with names of
people from places, quite common in Tibet. Robert Thurman's book Life
and Teachings of Je Tsongkhapa has more details.
Also, HH Dalai Lama is not heading the Gelug tradition, this is Gaden
Tripa. HH Dalai Lama is traditionally scholed by the Gelugs but has
received teachings from all traditions. It's nothing uncommon at all
to receive teachings from various traditions, that's quite OK, as long
as one does not destroy pure lineages by combining and mixing
traditions with no realizations and so forth.
Anyway, not all of the thought transformation school is from Serlingpa
alone, even if Serlingpa was Atisha's maybe main guru. More about this
is to found in the excellent small booklet from Geshe Tarchin called
The Essence of Mahayana Lojong Practice, the best purchase you could
do for $8.50 (Mahayana Sutra and Tantra Press).
Sarva mangalam, Kent
Kent Sandvik
>not just the Kadampa tradition. There's nothing wrong with names of
>people from places, quite common in Tibet. Robert Thurman's book Life
>and Teachings of Je Tsongkhapa has more details.
That should teach me sitting up in the middle of the night posting.
It's Lozang Dragpa.
If anyone knows who Sumatikirti is, that's a bonus point!
Sarva mangalam, Kent
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Kent Sandvik wrote:
>
> If anyone knows who Sumatikirti is, that's a bonus point!
Je Rinpoche! :) And guess who is Matibhadrashri?
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
cf...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:50:33 GMT, jjk...@sas.upenn.edu (Jason Kane)
> wrote:
>
> > I'm looking information on what distinguishes the four schools of
> > Buddhism (Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, Gelug) and what makes each one
> > unique. If you have the info or know where to find it (on the Net or
> > otherwise), I'd be grateful for direction. Please e-mail me.
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> Jason
>
> There is far more which unites the different schools of Tibetan
> Tibetan Buddhism originated with the lineages arising from the
> different teachers who brought Vajrayana Buddhism to Tibet. The
> Nyingma is the lineage of these teachings which came to Tibet via
> Padmasambhava, Vairotsana & Vimalamitra; the Kadampa is the lineage
> which originated with the teachings & practices brought to Tibet by
> Atisha; the Kagyu the lineage which originated in Tibet with the
> teachings & practices introduced by the translator Marpa; the Sakya
> with the teachings & practices introduced by the translator Drogmi;
> an Indian nor a Tibetan who had travelled to India to obtain teachings
> - but the teachings of this school are largely a synthesis of those of
> several earlier schools.
>
> Buddhism contain many teachings borrowed from the other schools
> and that the sectarian divisions which often characterise contemporary
> Tibetan Buddhism crystallised only between the fourteenth and the
> seventeenth centuries - largely as a result of political factors.
> If you look at a detailed history of Tibetan Buddhism prior to that
> period, such as Gos Lotsawa's "The Blue Annals" (translated by G. N.
> Roerich), you will see just how frequently lamas of one tradition
> studied with those of other traditions and consequently how
> interconnected all these traditions really are.
>
> at: http://isis.infinet.com/rinpoche/fivet.htm
> and at: http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/budintro.html
> also this may be useful:
> http://quietmountain.com/links/teachings/nonsect.htm
>
> For a basic general introduction to Tibetan Buddhism and it's schools
> you can read John Powers' "Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism" (Snow
> Lion) and Tulku Thondup Rinpoche's "Buddhist Civilization in Tibet"
> (RKP). Geoffrey Samuel's "Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan
> Societies" (Smithsonian) is also *very* useful.
>
> HH the Dalai Lama's "The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra" (Snow
> Lion)
> discusses some of the differences and similarities between the
> meditative traditions of the Tibetan Buddhist schools.
>
> There are a few recent books which discuss some of the philosophical /
> epistemological differences between the different Tibetan traditions
> (these books are not light reading):
>
> Dreyfus, Georges B. J. "Recognizing Reality: Dharmakirti's Philosophy
> and it's Tibetan Interpretations" (SUNY)
>
> Makransky, John J. "Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in
> India and Tibet" (SUNY)
>
> Williams, Paul "The Reflexive Nature of Awareness (Rang Rig)"
> Curzon Press
>
> - Chris
>
I'd like to add, if I may (and I may!)-
Although Jason's question was specifically about the four schools, I'd like to
mention that, in addition to these four "institutional" schools, or "monastic
systems," there were many other traditions of tantric practice, such as the
Jonangpa, the Vajra Yoga, and the Shangpa Kagyu, which have since been
assimilated into the various "institutions."
There is a difference between the current 4 "schools" and the mutliple
lineages of tantric practice. Differences in thought or presentation exist
in these tantric practice traditions, and due to the tantric lineages being
assimilated, it can sometimes seem that one "school" can have
self-contradictory views.
For a Western practitioner such as myself, I think it easier to identify
oneself with a tradition of practice, rather than with a monastic system.
Ultimately, one can only say one practices in the lineages of one's
teacher(s), and from my experience, each teacher has a different lineage,
anyway!
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself!"
--Walt Whitman
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Upaya
name-dropping, but I think you're confused about who posted what, Henry. If
Je Tsongka-pa founded the Gelug tradition, as I tried to clarify, and if he
did NOT travel to India to obtain teachings, then Chris is NOT right (that's
what HE said).
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg) wrote in message
I suspected that Chris might have been thinking about Serlingpa (who was
possibly Indonesian) when he spoke of "a teacher who was neither an Indian
nor a Tibetan", but as you correctly point out, Serlingpa was a teacher of
Atisa, the founder of the Kadam. It was Je Tsongka-pa who reformed the
Kadam into the Gelug and who is acknowledged as the 'founder' of the Gelug.
Chris may have been thinking the Gelug "was founded by" Serlingpa, and
there is some connection. Although, many Tibetan schools trace the seperate
lineages of many of their teachings back to the great Atisa, the Gelug-pa
have a greater affinity for Atisa as an originator in THEIR school because
of the connection between the Kadam and its successor-school, the Gelug.
But then I was trying not to confuse things for the original questioner of
this thread who was not very familiar with the intricacies of all this. lol
<36CE6ECE...@pacific.net.sg>...
>
>
>Upaya wrote:
>>
>> >etc. Only the Gelugpa school was founded by a teacher who was neither
>> >an Indian nor a Tibetan who had travelled to India to obtain teachings
>> >- but the teachings of this school are largely a synthesis of those of
>> >several earlier schools.
>>
>> Except to say... that Gelug, the youngest of the four, came about as a
>> reform of the Kadam by Je Tsong-ka-pa at the end of the 14th century. So
>> the Gelug-pa will trace the lineage of many of their teachings back to
>> Atisha. Tsong-ka-pa definitely WAS a Tibetan, though. His name means
"man
>> from the land of onions" (you'd think it would be something more
auspicious)
>> and he was born in N.E. Tibet on the site of the present Kum-Bum
monastery
>> in Amdo province. Since Atisa was from India, I can't imagine who you
might
>> be thinking of who was 'neither Indian nor Tibetan'. The Gelug-pa is the
>> school that is headed by the Dalai Lama .
>
>Je Tsongkhapa didn't travel to India to obtain teachings. And there is
>no Indian teacher came to Tibet to establish a school called 'Gelugpa'
>or 'Ganden traition'. Atisha's teachings eventually went into all the
>schools, Nyingma, Sakya and Kagyud. Especially, one can remember that
>Gampopa (Milarepa's disciple) is a physcian from the Kadam tradition.
>Most of the schools practice Atisha's Thought Transformation practice
>from Serlingpa. Chris is right!
>
Edwin Crabbe
What Chris said was perfectly intelligent - he just didn't put in enough
commas, and people have rushed off looking for third nationalities and
triumphantly failing to find them. Using mathematical brackets:
who was neither (an Indian) nor (a Tibetan who had travelled to India to
obtain teachings) ...
Easy, really!
Ed
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Upaya wrote:
>
> I suspected that Chris might have been thinking about Serlingpa (who was
> possibly Indonesian) when he spoke of "a teacher who was neither an Indian
> nor a Tibetan", but as you correctly point out, Serlingpa was a teacher of
> Atisa, the founder of the Kadam. It was Je Tsongka-pa who reformed the
> Kadam into the Gelug and who is acknowledged as the 'founder' of the Gelug.
So? Kadampa teachings have been absorbed into other traditions. Even you
are using the '' for the "'founder' of the Gelug" yourself. Furthermore,
Ganden tradition also practices teachings from Naropa, such as Mahamudra
teachings, Six Yogas of Naropa and so forth. It is more like extracting
the important teachings from other schools and emphasize on scholaristic
approach.
> Chris may have been thinking the Gelug "was founded by" Serlingpa, and
> there is some connection. Although, many Tibetan schools trace the seperate
> lineages of many of their teachings back to the great Atisa, the Gelug-pa
> have a greater affinity for Atisa as an originator in THEIR school because
> of the connection between the Kadam and its successor-school, the Gelug.
Is Je Rinpoche's main teacher, Ven. Rendawa, a Sakyapa? And it is said
that the original Migtsema prayer was offering to Ven. Rendawa by Je
Rinpoche. However, Ven. Rendawa offered this prayer back to Je Rinpoche.
Therefore, can I conclude that Je Rinpoche is a Sakyapa too?
> But then I was trying not to confuse things for the original questioner of
> this thread who was not very familiar with the intricacies of all this. lol
I think Chris is familiar with Tibetan Buddhist history.
Upaya
simply wanted to name the founder of the Gelug as Je Tsongka-pa (the name
wasn't in Chris's original post), clarify that he WAS Tibetan, and establish
the connection between the Kadam and the Gelug. This thread, however, has
degenerated into a shining example of samsara with alacrity. Perhaps Ed
spotted part of the cause of the original misunderstanding as one of
grammar. In any event, I think it's time for me to sit back and see if
Chris himself has any clarification to offer. Otherwise, :-x
Edwin Crabbe wrote in message <7aoiab$p9r$2...@scotty.tinet.ie>...
Chris J Fynn
wrote:
> Except to say... that Gelug, the youngest of the four, came about as a
> reform of the Kadam by Je Tsong-ka-pa at the end of the 14th century. So
> the Gelug-pa will trace the lineage of many of their teachings back to
> Atisha. Tsong-ka-pa definitely WAS a Tibetan, though. His name means "man
> from the land of onions" (you'd think it would be something more auspicious)
> and he was born in N.E. Tibet on the site of the present Kum-Bum monastery
> in Amdo province. Since Atisa was from India, I can't imagine who you might
> be thinking of who was 'neither Indian nor Tibetan'.
Upaya
Perhaps I should have been clearer but I didn't say that the founder
of the Ganden or Gelugpa tradition (Je Tsongkhapa) wasn't a Tibetan -
only that he had neither travel led to India to receive teachings (as
did i.e. Marpa or Chungponaljor) nor were his teachers Indian Buddhist
masters who had come to Tibet
While it's true to say that Je Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim teachings are
modeled on those of the Kadampa, and that the Gelugpa have most
closely identified themselves with the Kadampa, Je Tsongkhapa
studied with teachers from most of the major monasteries and
traditions of his time. Many of Je Tsonkhapa's principle teachers
belonged to the Sakya tradition and his greatest disciples Gyal-tsab
Je and Keydrub Je both belonged to that tradition.
Georges Drefyus, a fully qualified Gelugpa Geshe, has written that:
"The Ga-den-bas did not see themselves as completely separate from
other schools. There was a particular lack of differentiation from
the Sa-gya school, to which Dzong-ka-ba and most of his disciples
belonged. In these institutions students seem to have examined
Sa-pan's and Dzong-ka-ba's systems without clearly differentiating
between the two. It is hard to know the degree to which sectarian
labels were even applicable to this time."
Of course Je Tsongkhapa's earliest teacher, Dondrub Rinchen, was
a Kadampa - but the first teachers of Gampopa, the originator of the
institutionalized Kagyu school were the Kadampa masters
Jayulpa, Nyugrumpa and Gongkhapa and he was a considered to be
a Kadampa Geshe at the time he met Milarepa. Even after he met
Milarepa Gampopa received teachings from Nyugrumpa
The Kagyu school is really founded on Gampopa's synthesis of the
Kadampa teachings with the Mahamudra & Vajrayana teachings he
received from Milarepa and I think that the Kagyupa as much as the
Gelugpa can be considered as heirs of the tradition of Atisha - which
has also had a great influence on both the Sakya and the Nyingma
tradition as we find them today..
Gampopa's "Jewel Ornament" is clearly one of the texts which
Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chenmo is modeled on. And like
Gampopa Je Tsongkhapa taught a Mahamudra based on the
teachings of the Samadhraja Sutra merged with the Mahamudra
tradition which came through Marpa and Milarepa.
The teacher who seems to have had the sort of impact on Tsongkhapa
that Milarepa had on Gampopa was Lama Umapa - who had been an
illiterate cowherd - through whom he received teachings from Manjusri,
and also the Nyingmapa yogin Namkhai Gyaltsen through whom Je
Tsongkhapa received inspiration from Vajrapani.
When Tsongkhapa met Lama Umapa he became very interested in
Tantra and "forsook his academic pursuits and eventually wandered off
to the retreat caves" - which seems to have, at first, upset his Sakya
teacher Redawa.
> The Gelug-pa is the school that is headed by the Dalai Lama .
Technically speaking I think the Ganden Tri Rinpoche is the head of
the Gelugpa order though HH the Dalai Lama is clearly the most
important tulku within that tradition and, in most things, he takes
precedence over the Ganden Tri Rinpoche.
> I think it's also worth mentioning that the Sakya don't place as much
> emphasis on the idea of 'tulku' as the others. It is probably one of the
> most significant distinguishing characteristics in fundamental beliefs of
> any of the four, imo.
Perhaps one of the reasons that the Sakyapa don't place quite as much
emphasis on tulkus as some other schools do may be that the main
branch of that tradition has passed through a family succession.
There are also branches of the Nyingma (i.e. Mindroling) where this is
the case. While differences in the means of selecting the head of
monasteries or a whole tradition may be distinguishing characteristics
- I don't think they effect the fundamental beliefs of these
traditions all that much.
As I mentioned earlier I think anybody interested in Tibetan
religious history and the place and functioning of Tibetan Buddhism
within the context of Tibetan culture and society should read
Gefforey Samuel's book "Civilized Shaman ism: Buddhism in Tibetan
Societies" [ISBN 1-56098-231-4] and, if you are interested in the
bewildering complexity and cross-fertilization of Tibetan lineages up
to the early 15th century, then Gos Lotsawa's "The Blue Annals"
translated by George Roerich [ISBN 81-208-0471-6] is an
invaluable reference. Many other books in English
grossly oversimplify these things.
- Chris
Henry Chia (Ngawang Geleg)
Chris J Fynn wrote:
>
> As I mentioned earlier I think anybody interested in Tibetan
> religious history and the place and functioning of Tibetan Buddhism
> within the context of Tibetan culture and society should read
> Gefforey Samuel's book "Civilized Shaman ism: Buddhism in Tibetan
> Societies" [ISBN 1-56098-231-4] and, if you are interested in the
> bewildering complexity and cross-fertilization of Tibetan lineages up
> to the early 15th century, then Gos Lotsawa's "The Blue Annals"
> translated by George Roerich [ISBN 81-208-0471-6] is an
> invaluable reference. Many other books in English
> grossly oversimplify these things.
Well post! :) I like it.
david.st...@gmail.com
> There is a brief outline of the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism
> at: http://isis.infinet.com/rinpoche/fivet.htm
> and at: http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/budintro.html
norbu....@gmail.com
The Nyingma pactioneers were from the first exchange of Indian techers and Tibetan students circa 630, although there were ealier exchanges...They are the “Old (Translation) Tradition” (nying.ma) – not originally a collective school....
Then there was King Langdarma who persecuted buddhists and tried to eradicate these teachings (circa 836) –
Then around 900 – 1000 a new wave of Tibetans went to India to study (Marpa, etc) and returned with new texts and and translation of the basic sutras etc – This became the “Sarma” “New Translation” traditions of Kagyu, Sakya, Jonang etc. A major difference was that Nyingma highest teaching were based on the dzog.chen (“completeness”) texts the new traditions were based on Saraha’s “Mahamudra” (“pointing to openess”) teachings – the Kagyu, Sakya, and Jonang having some Indian teachers in common, and some different.
Dzogchen and Mahamudra teachings have much in common (along with Hwa-Yen,Chan/Zen etc), and were later harmonized and practiced together.
The odd thing out here is the Geluk tradition. The so-called founder of that is Tsong Khapa (1357-1419) who was a Kagyu monk, and never claimed to break from the Kagyu or found anything different. What he did do different was to go against the advice of his teachers and return to an early interpretation of the Prajnaparamita teachings as interpreted by Nagarjuna – as interpreted by Indian Madyamika philosophers – a theorical speculation philosophy that had died out in India many centuries ago.
Simple version: All buddhists teaching say an unexamined life is like an illusion; the Geluk say life is an illussion – a collective halucination.
But, as even Tsong Khapa wasn’t the founder of some Geluk sect, nither were his students – The Geluk sect being founded by a Mongol warlord Altan Khan aith the “third Dalai Lama” Sonam Gyatso (circa 1577) – the previous two “Dalai Lamas” being declare postumousouly, as was Tsong Khapa as the founder of the new sect. The Mongols then used this sect to gain control of Tibet, persecuting the Nyingma, driving many Kagyu into Bhutan, nearlt oblitariting the Jonang, burning their monestaries and librarie (their tradition was thought extinct until it was rediscovered in Westen China).
Contol of the Geluk sect passed from Mongol to Chinese warlords until Tibet became free of both in the early 1900s. At that time Geluk, Kagyu, Nyingma, Sakya scholars agreed to study and compare each others traditions as well as all Asian buddhadharma (relecting back on a movement of around 1890.. )– the result was the nis.med (“no one way”) non-sectarian movement. Many Tibetan teachers are from this non-sectarian tradition....and a few are not. So best to learn your history and sutras etc as there are some folks holding old entrenched dogma and views...
thupten kalden
🅱️ What are the differences between Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Geluk traditions ?
———————————————
First, let’s understand the overview of the Tibetan Buddhism.
There are mainly four traditions namely;
1. Nyingma tradition
2. Sakya tradition
3.Kagyu tradition
4. Geluk tradition
Buddhism reached Tibet from erstwhile Nalanda University, India in the 8th century AD. In fact it was Abbot Shantarakshita supported by Guru Padmasambhava who introduced Mahayana or what is called Sanskrit tradition of Buddhism in Tibet for the first time during the Emperor Trisong Detsen.
The basic four practices called ‘Ngon dro’ (pre-requisite) which is the preliminary practices for all the traditions are exactly same and identical. The common practices for all four traditions are;
1. Renunciation
2. Bodhicitta
3. Wisdom of emptiness
4. Samadhi in general
Therefore, some scholars say that Tibetan Buddhism as (4+1) tradition, meaning that the first four is common among all the traditions and the only differences is on the fifth level which is also called TANTRA Practice.
Now the fifth one or at the Tantra level, every tradition has different methods and different labels such as;
Nyingma— has Dzogchen practice.
Sakya— has Seltong Zungjug practice.
Kagyu— has Mahamudra practice.
Geluk—has Nyukma lhenchik Keypey Woesel practice.
The above four methods of Tantra practices are to activate Subjective Clear lights.
Nyingmas - employ “Dzogchen” (great completion) to achieve mere awareness meditation.
Sakyas - employ “Seltong Zungjug” which is union of clarity and emptiness.
Kagyus - employ “Mahamudra/Chakchen” (great gesture) to achieve awareness of awareness meditation.
Geluks - employ “Nyukma Lhenchik Keypey Woesel” which is union of bliss and emptiness.
Once the Subjective Clear light is achieved then employ this to activate Objective Clear light in union. Thereby the Cognitive obscuration which is very subtle stains of Afflictive obscuration is cleared and then the Mind flows freely in space and time. By then, Infinite ease or Infinite Happiness is achieved. That is the state of Buddha-hood.
Therefore, in order to achieve the fifth that is Tantra part, a path is required and this path is non other than the four common preliminary practices of Renunciation, Bodhicitta, Wisdom of emptiness and Samadhi. In other words, one cannot jump to Tantra practice without the qualification of the four preliminary practices. Many a times people have wrong notion that they can jump into Tantra practice and quickly achieve Buddha-hood. But actually for such a wish, the person must be a very special person with lots of past Karmic deeds and Karmic connections requiring just a trigger in this life otherwise, it is impossible. Therefore generally speaking one must qualify the four preliminary practices first and then go for Tantra practice.
Brief back grounds of the four traditions:-
Nyingma—meaning old translation system, and in this context it got started in the 8th Century by Acharya Shantarakshita and Guru Padmasambhava. In the 11th Century, Sakya and Kagyu they are almost contemporary with a gap of few years came into being. Kagyu—Ka means teachings of Buddha and Gyu mean lineage. Another version is Ka which also means white as they (Kagyupa) wear white robes. It was started by Jetsun Marpa Lotsawa who was the student of Jetsun Naropa of Nalanda University. Jetsun Marpa was also the teacher of famous Jetsun Milarepa who achieved Buddhahood in one life time.
Sakya —Sa means land and Kya means kind of a barren land. A Monastery constructed on such a land so the name Sakya Monastery. It was started by Sachen Kunga Nyingpo as forefather and other Sakya Panditas.
Another tradition called Kadampa (meaning supreme teaching) also came into being in the 11th Century started by Lama Atisha Dipankara Srijnana as the forefather. Then later in the 14th Century with the arrival of Lama Tsongkhapa the Kadampa tradition got more intensified especially in the practice of Wisdom of emptiness. Some people called it Kadamserma meaning new Kadampa or intensified Kadampa tradition. Later, with the coming up of Gaden Monastery this tradition headed by Lama Tsongkhapa became Geluk tradition. Initially it was called Galuk meaning happy tradition but then later on it became Geluk. Some says Galuk didn’t sound nice in tibetan phonetic so it got changed to Geluk meaning virtuous tradition. Today we have Gaden Tri rinpoche who maintains this linage and he is also considered as the head of Geluk tradition.
All these four traditions somehow have some basic links to the Kadampa tradition. For example in the Nyingma tradition which is oldest has “Kunzang Lamey Sheylung” (words of my perfect teacher) by Zapatrul rinpoche is from Kadampa tradition.
Today all four traditions that is Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Geluk have standard teachings and teachers with solid ground on the Kadampa tradition. All these are such a beautiful path to Buddha hood.
Unfortunately today some people, on the line of these traditions create some sort of sectarianism. These are totally on the basis of not knowing the traditions well. The best antidote to such sectarianism is education. The more you learn about the different traditions, the more you see how they all fit together even if they describe things differently. Therefore, respecting all the traditions is very important.
Thank you.🙏🙏🙏