Gelug View of Dzogchen?

[Caz]

Buton Rinczen Drup (1290-1364 r. n.e.) made the collection of scripture generally known as the Old Nartang (snar thang) edition of the Kangyur (bka' 'gyur) and Tengyur (bstan 'gyur). In it He did not include such things as termas of Inner Tantras and other Tantras of Dzogchen because they seem to be not authentic source. Is it not true Tsonkghapa followed Him strictly? As I saw some Gelug lamas never gave initiations from Maha, Anu, or Ati, for example H.E. Dagyab Rinpoche.

This is generally the position as I have heard it.

[Mariusz]

Mariusz, yes there was criticism due to this, and that is also why many of the works in the tibetan tradition trace the khungs (source) of their topic to a particular Sanskrit source. But things change and evolve constantly. If we were to strictly follow this paradigm of Buton Rinchen Drub, for example, then the beloved practices of Chittamani Tara and Ganden Chod would have to be cast from the Gelug tantric corpus because they are in the ancient canon. The Lama Chopa liturgy and the vast number of commentaries on it wouldn't be considered canonical.
Sera Jey would have to get rid of Hayagriva, and a large segment of the teachings of the 5th Dalai Lama would have to be cast aside. So I am not sure this paradigm continued beyond the early stages of the tradition.

Thank you. It seems to me that some Gelug lamas were and are more preventive simply, just in case

[JKhedrup]

Since Buton Rinchen Drub was a great Sakya scholar and abbot of the important Shalu monastery it would be interesting to know how his conservative views were seen by the modern Rimey masters of the Sakya tradition like Kyentse Chokyi Lodro. We see that many of the great Sakya masters, heirs of Buton, came to appreciate the Dzogchen teachings, so perhaps the same will happen in Gelug?
I don't think that you will see a widespread acceptance of Dzogchen as the pinnacle of all in the Gelug monasteries but an appreciation of its effectiveness and its practice by certain adepts within the tradition without sectarian institutional censure is certainly something we can hope for.

[Mariusz]

I don't think that you will see a widespread acceptance of Dzogchen as the pinnacle of all in the Gelug monasteries

Even in Sakya it is not so now, although Sakya arose from Nyingma (the ancient sources) since the start and Dzogchen already was there! Now we are in the West, where everything is possible

Take for example a quote from Patrul Rin­poché http://yeshekhorlo.mahajana.net/2012/09/26/the-transmission-lineage-of-dzogchen/, which principle I think is very far from the standart in Gelug and Sakya now:

This is also neces­sary in this vajra essence vehicle, the heart
essence of the Natural Great Per­fec­tion. It is not taught that the
profound truth should be established through the process of
analysis and logic as is done in the lower vehic­les. Nor is it taught
that com­mon accom­plish­ments should be relied upon in order to
obtain supreme con­sum­mation, as in the lower tan­tras. It is also
not taught that you should emphasize reliance upon the illustrative
wis­dom of the third empower­ment to introduce ultimate
wis­dom, as it is in the higher tan­tras. In the Great Per­fec­tion tradition,
you rely upon prayer made with fervent devotion to the
supremely realized Lama alone, whose lineage is like a gol­den
chain untain­ted by the defilement of broken tan­tric com­mit­ments,
and con­sider him to be an actual Bud­dha. If you sim­ply
pray to him in this way, your mind will merge inseparably with
his wis­dom mind. By the power of the trans­ference of his bles­sings
to you, it is said that realization will arise within you.

[Tom]

We also see how a practice of Sang De Jig Sum would be very difficult for the average householder and this is why HHDL has said during a previous Gelug conference that for those with a connection to the practice and limited time, Vajrayogini is suitable.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule.

The point I was making is that the Gelug tradition, has been, since the beginning, an evolving thing. So official or not official cannot necessarily be determined based on whether something is in the Sungbum of LTK or not. If this were the case, then we would have to discount Vajrayogini, Chittamani Tara and Ganden Chod, popularized by Caz's own lineage gurus.

These examples for me are not convincing since:

According to the Gelug lineages that practice VY and Ganden Chod, they believe that these were passed down by Tsongkhapa.

As for Cittamani Tara, this was not a practice that was around in Tsongkhapa's time, so it does not really work in an argument against the position that says Tsongkhapa could have but did not incorporate Dzokchen into his teaching system.

It just seems to me to be going out on a limb to say, "Could Dzokchen be a Geglugpa practice… why not…we have VY, Cittamani, etc."

However, I agree with you in principle that a Gelug practice need not be defined by its being in Tsongkhapa's Sumbum. I just wanted to add that just because a Gelug lama practices and teaches something, that does not make it a Gelug practice.

BTW, I have no beef here and I have been fortunate enough to attend lectures on Dzokchen from HHDL (at a Gelug monastery!) and also have close non-Gelug teachers in the mahamudra & dzokchen traditions.

Also,the function of the Ganden Tripa, although an esteemed position, is not to serve as some type of guru to all of the followers of Gelug lineage, like the Karmapa does for the Karma Kagyu. In fact, the majority of Ganden Tripas do not form samaya bonds through giving empowerments to a large number of Gelug faithful, though they may have their own students. In this way, the current Dalai Lama is more of a unifying influence and far more influential than any of the current or previous Ganden Tripas of this era, who though well-known in their respective monasteries, do not have the same stature as HH Dalai Lama.

True, but not sure of the point your making. There are practitioners from all the Tibetan traditions have Samaya with the Dalai Lama.

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that people seem to have a concept of the tradition as an orthodox, monolithic construction. But Tsongkhapa was eclectic from the beginning, and the Gelug tradition in its history has continued to incorporate all sorts of elements into its fold.

I agree.

I guess talking about "schools" although necessary is always problematic. The Indian philosophical textual traditions a perfect demonstration of this.

Anyways we have moved on to Buton now... Dolpopa anyone?

[JKhedrup]

According to the Gelug lineages that practice VY and Ganden Chod, they believe that these were passed down by Tsongkhapa.

Perhaps but this is a thorny issue. With Vajrayogini it is a little bit easier, since LTK did compose commentaries to the Chakrasamvara systems of Luipa and Ghantapa and touches on her practice in those commentaries. But to prove Ganden Chod comes from Tsongkhapa would be a touchy thing. And it is no coincidence that there was a great controversy when students of lamas enthusiastic about the practice tried to introduce it at the monasteries.

Due to lineage developments there are those who insist that Vajrayogini was the most important, heart practice of Tsongkhapa. But the majority of Lamas I've asked, including former abbots of the tantric college, have stated that it is very clear it was Guyasamaja.

It is a bit of a paradox, because in many ways it is the conservative lineage lamas who worry about "purity" and "khungs/sources"- things that can be traced back to the Sanskrit, who are the strongest practitioners of the Ganden Ear Whispered teachings. These teachings are comparable to mind termas. They came in visions and meditative experiences, and there are no precursor texts in the sanskrit available for them. So I always find it funny when practitioners whose lamas hold up this lineage as profound can an instant later then state that Dzogchen for example is faulty because there is no Sanskrit root text. I should state myself that I have faith in several of the Ganden Ear Whispered teachings, and have one as a daily practice. But I cannot vouch for their authenticity and then call out Dzogchen because of lack of tantric sources. It would be a strange line of argument.

However, I agree with you in principle that a Gelug practice need not be defined by its being in Tsongkhapa's Sumbum. I just wanted to add that just because a Gelug lama practices and teaches something, that does not make it a Gelug practice.

I'm in complete agreement.

True, but not sure of the point your making. There are practitioners from all the Tibetan traditions have Samaya with the Dalai Lama.

This statement was a response to Caz's comment about the Ganden Tripa "having to okay such practices". My point was in fact that especially the tantric lineages have been transmitted to the vast majority of Gelug lamas by HH Dalai Lama, and in this way practically His Holiness' influence supersedes that of the Ganden Tripa. So when His Holiness gave the Guru Rinpoche empowerment and teachings on Words of My Perfect Teacher in Dharamsala in 2004 for example (I was there), the audience was mainly Gelug (though HH Karmapa and Dilgo Kyentse Yangsi also attended). In this way, these lineage were transmitted to a number of very important lamas and Geshes of the Ganden tradition.

While the Ganden Tripa's role is very important in terms of maintaining the discipline and academic rigour of the Gelugpa monasteries, the role of any of the Ganden Tripas of the modern period as Tantric master would not be as far-reaching as that of His Holiness.

I guess talking about "schools" although necessary is always problematic. The Indian philosophical textual traditions a perfect demonstration of this.

I agree it is not always a fun topic. Why I tend to put a lot of effort into challenging certain assertions is because I feel many students of Gelug centres in the West don't have direct experience of the diversity of views and practices within the tradition, because they largely remain connected with one teacher who emphasizes the practice of his/her teachers, monastery etc. But those of us who have been in India and traveled to different monasteries and seen different teaching styles, emphasis in terms of rituals, etc, understand that there is no one, pure Gelug tradition. (Despite however much people might want there to be). There are a variety of teachers practicing in a variety of ways who connect themselves to Lama Tzongkhapa due him being their main inspiration.

HH Dalai Lama has been trying to challenge the (yes, I'm going to say it) historical status quo of the Gelug tradition through opening it up to various different viewpoints and practices. At the same time, it is His Holiness himself who insists on the academic rigour based on the 5 Treatises in the great monasteries (as Tsongkhapa would have wanted), and who transmits the important texts of the lineage to hundreds of thousands of people. (This year and next during the Jangchub Lam Rim transmissions on the 18 Stages of the path texts.)

[Tom]

Perhaps but this is a thorny issue. With Vajrayogini it is a little bit easier, since LTK did compose commentaries to the Chakrasamvara systems of Luipa and Ghantapa and touches on her practice in those commentaries. But to prove Ganden Chod comes from Tsongkhapa would be a touchy thing. And it is no coincidence that there was a great controversy when students of lamas enthusiastic about the practice tried to introduce it at the monasteries.

Due to lineage developments there are those who insist that Vajrayogini was the most important, heart practice of Tsongkhapa. But the majority of Lamas I've asked, including former abbots of the tantric college, have stated that it is very clear it was Guyasamaja.

These positions are well known to be a controversial but that does not then make them good examples of permissibility of non-Tsongkhapian innovations in the lineage. Since those who practice them and consider them to be Gelug practices believe they came from Tsongkhapa. Perhaps the 5th Dalai Lama's pure visions are better examples.

It is a bit of a paradox, because in many ways it is the conservative lineage lamas who worry about "purity" and "khungs/sources"- things that can be traced back to the Sanskrit, who are the strongest practitioners of the Ganden Ear Whispered teachings. These teachings are comparable to mind termas. They came in visions and meditative experiences, and there are no precursor texts in the sanskrit available for them. So I always find it funny when practitioners whose lamas hold up this lineage as profound can an instant later then state that Dzogchen for example is faulty because there is no Sanskrit root text. I should state myself that I have faith in several of the Ganden Ear Whispered teachings, and have one as a daily practice. But I cannot vouch for their authenticity and then call out Dzogchen because of lack of tantric sources. It would be a strange line of argument.

Yes, this paradox has occurred to me. Still, it is no argument for Dzokchen being a Gelug practice.

I just have misgivings of the need to classify Dzokchen as a Gelug practice.

I agree it is not always a fun topic. Why I tend to put a lot of effort into challenging certain assertions is because I feel many students of Gelug centres in the West don't have direct experience of the diversity of views and practices within the tradition, because they largely remain connected with one teacher who emphasizes the practice of his/her teachers, monastery etc.

It seems to me the common assertions in Gelug centers in the West are similar to what you have been arguing for here - that the main Gelug practices for busy westerners are Lam Rim and VY and Yamantaka as Yidams. Maybe you are pointing out to them as I mentioned that this is an exception to the rule. Maybe you have something else in mind?

But those of us who have been in India and traveled to different monasteries and seen different teaching styles, emphasis in terms of rituals, etc, understand that there is no one, pure Gelug tradition. (Despite however much people might want there to be). There are a variety of teachers practicing in a variety of ways who connect themselves to Lama Tzongkhapa due him being their main inspiration.

Seems to me the Westerns in the Indian scene are just as myopic and sometimes less tolerant of other lineages/ideas. If anything they seem to get more fundamental about college house stuff and text book writers.

It seems knowing only a little more knowledge often compounds the problem. For example, many take the yabsesum for granted and do not realize how much Khedrup Je influenced which aspects of Tsongkhapa's teachings became well known. Many of Tsongkhapa's other close students had many interesting things to say but not all coincided with Khedrup Je's views. Also, it seems those westerners who have just studied yigcha are often unable for some reason to read and discuss the original Indian masters on their own terms. Just an observation, and an over generalization to be sure!

[Malcolm]

I just have misgivings of the need to classify Dzokchen as a Gelug practice.

Dzogchen is not a Gelug practice -- nevertheless, there have been many great Gelug Dzogchen masters such as the great Fifth, Desri Sangye Gyatso, etc., and more recently, Khenpo Acho.

[Tom]

I just have misgivings of the need to classify Dzokchen as a Gelug practice.

Dzogchen is not a Gelug practice -- nevertheless, there have been many great Gelug Dzogchen masters such as the great Fifth, Desri Sangye Gyatso, etc., and more recently, Khenpo Acho.

Really, this is my point. It seems forced to talk of classifying Dzokchen as Gelug but I am not discount the harmony of the practices and the potential of Great Gelug Dzokchen masters. As I said I have teachers in both lineages.

[JKhedrup]

seems to me the common assertions in Gelug centers in the West are similar to what you have been arguing for here - that the main Gelug practices for busy westerners are Lam Rim and VY and Yamantaka as Yidams. Maybe you are pointing out to them as I mentioned that this is an exception to the rule. Maybe you have something else in mind?

It is a good point, but no this is something aside from the Yamantaka/Vajrayogini issue. it is more that students of certain teachers think that the views of their particular lama and his monastery are normative whereas they are one of a myriad of diverse viewpoints by those who call themselves "Gelugpas". As I mentioned, this term covers a broad range of people who consider their main inspiration Tsongkhapa and his lineage but the views within are incredibly divergent, as are the practices.

Seems to me the Westerns in the Indian scene are just as myopic and sometimes less tolerant of other lineages/ideas. If anything they seem to get more fundamental about college house stuff and text book writers.

In a way you could be right. Depends on the Westerners, your point is correct in that many of the Western monks and nuns studying at particular monasteries of course develop in most cases a liking for the textbooks of their college. And perhaps a bias towards those. And there are those who follow a particular guru and feel that this means his and only his views must be correct.

But most of my friends in India (perhaps this is due to my views and who I am surrounded by) amongst the Westerners are pretty eclectic in terms of who they take teachings from. In terms of initiations and daily practice commitments they might stick to a particular system as there are only so many hours in a day. But it is very common for example for students who study at the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives with Geshe Sonam Rinchen to take classes with Chamtrul Rinpoche, a well known Nyingma teacher in the upper McLeod. Similarly, most of the Dharamsala wallahs who have the time attend both the teachings of HH Dalai Lama and HH Karmapa.

I just have misgivings of the need to classify Dzokchen as a Gelug practice.

I understand that this is a thorny issue and I think it worthy of caution. I agree that such a classification might be problematic. However, I want to emphasize the diversity of views and opinions within Gelug, because some seem to hold that it is a monolithic, orthodox institution with standardized views and practice when in fact there is great diversity.

In terms of Tsongkhapa and his two sons - I agree with this point. Khedrup Je's charisma and wrathful aspect are noted in the history of the Gelug tradition. These must have been important factors in the popularity that his works achieved within the tradition. Though many of the works are very beautiful.

[T. Chokyi]

So to say that dzogchen cannot be considered an official part of the Gelug tradition because it isn't included in the works of LTK (of which there seems to be some argument, if we look at the other thread posted about this topic), does not seem a valid reason. Because all sorts of different Gelug lamas considered as realized beings have incorporated a variety of practices after the passing of Lama Tzongkhapa, and those practices have in many cases become essential aspects of the tradition.

Hi JKhedrup-la,

Always good to see you posting.
I hope you are in good health.

I think you're correct, also, Dzogchen practices don't really belong to any one "school" as Khenpo Achos demonstrated when he passed, I was thinking of posting this Khenpo's name because he was a Gelugpa Abbot, so glad to see the name posted.
Here is a quick read on him, in two places, and a picture.

From Mandala Magazine:
http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives ... che/#_ftn2

Link Two a Forum:
http://www.powerfulintentions.org/forum ... y-of-light

[Mariusz]

It seems to me the common assertions in Gelug centers in the West are similar to what you have been arguing for here - that the main Gelug practices for busy westerners are Lam Rim and VY and Yamantaka as Yidams.

When one see such beautiful very detailed english guide for their practice even in internet http://yamantaka.org/ / http://vajra-yogini.org/ it is evident in the West. Nevertheless Highest Yoga Tantra can not be finalized in Dzogchen as Maha Yoga does, as I know?

[JKhedrup]

Chokyila,
I'm well, thank you.
Thanks so much for sharing the information on Achos Rinpoche. It is nice to see that practically the Gelug tradition leaves room for great practitioners to aim for realization using a myriad of methods, including Dzogchen. And that such adepts can also hold positions within the institutional framework. It gives one hope!
I must admit it my ignorance I had not heard of this master, now I am going to do some research.

[Tom]

It seems to me the common assertions in Gelug centers in the West are similar to what you have been arguing for here - that the main Gelug practices for busy westerners are Lam Rim and VY and Yamantaka as Yidams.

When one see such beautiful very detailed english guide for their practice even in internet http://yamantaka.org/ / http://vajra-yogini.org/ it is evident in the West. Nevertheless Highest Yoga Tantra can not be finalized in Dzogchen as Maha Yoga does, as I know?

Mariusz,

I am not exactly sure of your point but, I just want make clear that I am not putting down those practices of which I have recieved extensive instruction on and respect very much.

[MalaBeads]

I wonder why they didn't add Longchen Nyinthig yet in their curriculum vitae? Jigme Lingpa cherished Gelug Prasangika as I know

It's an interesting question. At a 1989 dzogchen teaching given by the current Dalai Lama, he stated that Jigme Lingpa was his dzogchen teacher. My memory of it is that he used the word "real" dzogchen teacher but my memory could be faulty.

[Mariusz]

It seems to me the common assertions in Gelug centers in the West are similar to what you have been arguing for here - that the main Gelug practices for busy westerners are Lam Rim and VY and Yamantaka as Yidams.

When one see such beautiful very detailed english guide for their practice even in internet http://yamantaka.org/ / http://vajra-yogini.org/ it is evident in the West. Nevertheless Highest Yoga Tantra can not be finalized in Dzogchen as Maha Yoga does, as I know?

Mariusz,

I am not exactly sure of your point but, I just want make clear that I am not putting down those practices of which I have recieved extensive instruction on and respect very much.

However it is possible in some tantras to include Maha Yoga with Anu Yoga for Ati Yoga, as for example the 8 Kagye according to a terma from Pema Lingpa. I think it is not possible with HYT. So Gelug lamas have less possibilties with Dzogchen. Of course there is always possible to do the Nyinthig separately. There is a story on some Sakya monk who was excluded form a Sakya monastery. He practiced secretly autside the monastery Nyinthig and attained a rainbow body. But I can not find now the source to quote.

[Namgyal]

It depends which Gelug. Within this school there has always been two camps. The liberal camp, championed by successive Dalai Lamas, is Rime and so open to all traditions, whereas the conservative camp, exemplified by Pabongka and Co. would be very happy if the other schools simply withered away, leaving them in charge.

[Mariusz]

:namaste: It depends which Gelug. Within this school there has always been two camps. The liberal camp, championed by successive Dalai Lamas, is Rime and so open to all traditions, whereas the conservative camp, exemplified by Pabongka and Co. would be very happy if the other schools simply withered away, leaving them in charge.

No wonder. Everything is interdependent. For example Dzogchen Monastery had have relationship with termas of Dalailamas for centuries. 4 years ago Dzogchen Rinpoche gave the initation of Medicine Buddha from a terma of V Dalai Lama even in my city.

[lama tsewang]

to khedrup.
Tsongkhapa wrote a chod commentary , it was translated by sawaas , for her phd thesis . i believe this was for the buddhist studies at madison wisconsin. UI have read her book. so it is , it would seem, a part of the gelugpa lineage , from its inception.

[JKhedrup]

Lama Tsewang-la,
This surprises me! Thanks for pointing that out and I will try to investigate that. I did not realize that there was Chod in LTK's Sungbum, but of course his Sungbum is vast and I have only read tiny portions of it!