Features of the Gelug TraditionTsongkhapa (rJe Tsong-kha-pa Blo-bzang-grags-pa) (1357-1419) was a radical reformer who, through direct instruction from Manjushri in innumerable pure visions and through exhaustive study of the Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts, impeccable logic, and intense meditation, reinterpreted many of the basic Buddhist teachings. Thus, the Gelug tradition that follows him as its founder has many special features not shared in common with the other Tibetan traditions: Nyingma, Sakya, and Kagyu. Here, we shall look at only some of the major points. This is not an exhaustive survey. Moreover, within the Gelug tradition, the various monastic textbooks differ in their interpretations of many fine points. Here, we shall mostly mention the major view. Further, the non-Gelug positions presented here are generalizations made in order to show the contrast with Gelug in a simple fashion. They do not imply that all the non-Gelug schools share the same assertions on every point.
The head of the Gelug tradition, the Ganden Tripa (dGa’-ldan khri-pa, Ganden Throne Holder), is a position that any qualified monk can attain. The position alternates between the senior-most retired abbots of Gyumay (rGyud-smad Grva-tshang) and Gyuto (rGyud-stod Grva-tshang) Upper and Lower Tantric Colleges and is for seven years only. The heads of the other Tibetan traditions are either specific tulkus (reincarnate lamas) or, in the case of Sakya, members of a specific clan, and they serve for life.
Svatantrika Madhyamaka has two distinct divisions, Yogachara Svatantrika-Madhyamaka (such as Kamalashila, Shantarakshita, Haribhadra, and Vimuktisena) and Sautrantika Svatantrika-Madhyamaka (such as Bhavaviveka). The other Tibetan traditions do not make this clear distinction. They divide Madhyamaka in various other ways. Only Sautrantika Svatantika accepts external phenomenon; Yogachara Svatantrika does not. The other Tibetan traditions say that Svatantrika accepts external phenomena. Only Yogachara Svatantrika accepts reflexive awareness (rang-rig); Sautrantika Svatantrika does not. Within Gelug, the Jetsunpa (rJe-btsun-pa Chos-kyi rgyal-mtshan) textbooks assert that none of the Svatantrika divisions accepts it. The other Tibetan traditions say that Svatantrika accepts reflexive awareness. Neither Yogachara Svatantrika nor Sautrantika Svatantrika accepts alayavijnana (kun-gzhi rnam-shes, all-encompassing foundation consciousness, storehouse consciousness), even as a conventionally existent phenomenon. The other Tibetan traditions say that Svatantrika accepts alayavijnana as a conventionally existent phenomenon; but unlike Chittamatra, it does not assert it as being truly existent.
Valid nonconceptual sensory cognition (dbang-mngon tshad-ma) cognizes not just sensibilia (sights, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations), but also commonsense objects. The other Tibetan traditions assert that valid nonconceptual sensory cognition cognizes only single moments of sensibilia, and not commonsense objects. Commonsense objects that extend over time and over the sensibilia of several senses are merely conceptual constructs. The definition of valid cognition in the Svatantrika-Madhyamaka tenet systems and below is fresh, nonfraudulent cognition of an object (gsar-tu mi-bslu-ba). Only Prasangika-Madhyamaka omits the criterion that valid cognition needs to be fresh, and this is because it does not assert inherently established existence. Thus, every moment of an object is fresh. According to the other Tibetan traditions, all tenet systems assert the definition of valid cognition as merely nonfraudulent cognition of an object. This is because they do not assert commonsense objects extending over time as validly cognizable by nonconceptual cognition. Only one moment of anything exists at a time, and therefore cognition is always fresh. The Svatantrika-Madhyamaka tenet systems and below assert subsequent cognition (bcad-shes) as a way of knowing an object that may apprehend its object (rtogs-pa) nonfraudulently. It is not a valid way of knowing, however, because it is not fresh. Because Prasangika-Madhyamaka does not assert inherently established existence, it does not assert subsequent cognition. According to the other Tibetan traditions, none of the tenet systems asserts subsequent cognition. Valid nonconceptual cognition is a determining cognition (nges-pa) of its involved object (‘jug-yul) – it decisively determines it as "this," such that one can validly remember it. The other Tibetan traditions say that since valid nonconceptual sensory cognition does not cognize commonsense objects, it is a nondetermining cognition of what appears to it (snang-la ma-nges-pa). It does not determine it as a "this" or a "that." This is an important point in terms of their emphasis on nonconceptual meditation. For Gelug, the term nondetermining cognition of what appears means inattentive cognition, and it is not a valid cognition. For the others, it may be a valid cognition. Other than in the Chittamatra and Yogachara Svatantrika systems, valid nonconceptual sensory cognition cognizes external objects (phyi-don). It does so through fully transparent mental representations (rnam-pa) of them, which it produces in order to cognize them. The other Tibetan traditions assert that valid nonconceptual sensory cognition directly cognizes only mental representations of external objects. Other than in the Chittamatra system, it cognizes external objects only indirectly, because the moment of the external objects that causes the sensory cognition of it no longer exists the moment the cognition of it arises. Thus, mental representations are all opaque. Valid conceptual cognition cognizes a semitransparent mental representation of a universal (spyi-mtshan) (such as "table") and, through it, a fully transparent mental representation of a specific table, and through that, the specific external table that is its conceptualized object (zhen-yul), even if that table is not present. The other Tibetan traditions assert that valid conceptual cognition cognizes an opaque mental representation of a universal (such as "table"). It does not cognize the external object, such as a specific table, that is its conceptualized object. Valid cognition, both conceptual and nonconceptual, can explicitly apprehend (dngos-su rtogs-pa) its appearing object (snang-yul) (the mental representation or appearance that it produces) and, simultaneously, implicitly apprehend (shugs-la rtogs-pa) another object, without producing a mental appearance of it. The other Tibetan traditions do not assert implicit apprehension.
Prasangika asserts affirmations (sgrub-pa) – for example, existence established merely by mental labeling. In other words, Prasangika has its own special assertions. The other Tibetan traditions say that Prasangika makes no assertions or affirmations of its own. It merely nullifies (refutes) (dgag-pa). All Tibetan traditions agree that Svatantrika asserts inherently existent logic that can prove statements through syllogisms using inherently existent lines of reasoning, while Prasangika rejects such logic and argues through absurd conclusions (thal-‘gyur). Gelug accepts this as only one among many differences between Prasangika and Svatantrika. The other Tibetan traditions assert this as the major difference between the two divisions of Madhyamaka. All Tibetan traditions agree that Prasangika nullifies impossible modes of existence through absurd conclusions. According to Gelug, Prasangika use absurd conclusions to establish (prove) the voidness of inherently established existence, which is a total absence of inherently established existence. The other Tibetan traditions assert that Prasangika uses absurd conclusions to go beyond all impossible modes of existence – not only true unimputed existence, but also the absence of true unimputed existence, both, and neither. It does not use absurd conclusions to establish (prove) anything. Inherently existent defining characteristics (rang-bzhin) do not exist at all, not even as conventionally existent phenomena, although defining characteristics established by mental labeling alone do conventionally exist. The other Tibetan traditions follow Svatantrika and accept inherently existing defining characteristic from the viewpoint of conventional truth, although they refute them from the viewpoint of deepest truth. Inherently established existence (rang-bzhin-gyis grub-pa) and true unimputed existence (bden-par grub-pa) are equivalent. The other Tibetan traditions follow Svatantrika on this point. True unimputed existence means existence established independently of mental labeling. Inherently established existence means that mentally labeled objects are findable when searched for with a mind validly examining conventional truth. The object of nullification (dgag-bya) for the voidness of a person and of all phenomena is the same – inherently established existence. The other Tibetan traditions follow Svatantrika on the point that the object of nullification for the identitylessness of a person, which one needs to realize for gaining liberation, is different from the object of nullification for the identitylessness (voidness) of all phenomena, which one needs to realize for gaining enlightenment. The object of nullification for the identitylessness of a person, on the gross level, is existence as an unaffected, monolithic, independent (rtag-gcig-rang-dbang) self. On the subtle level, the object of nullification is existence as something substantially knowable on its own (rang-rkya thub-pa’i rdzas-yod). The object of nullification for the voidness of all phenomena is the four extreme modes of impossible existence: true existence, non-true existence, both, and neither. The voidness of all phenomena is beyond all words and concepts of these four impossible modes of existence. The voidness validly cognized either conceptually or nonconceptually is the same. It is the voidness of inherently established existence and this includes inherently established existence, nonexistence, both, and neither. According to the other Tibetan traditions, the voidnesses cognized are different. The voidness validly cognized conceptually is just the denumerable (rnam-grangs-pa) voidness of true unimputed existence. The voidness validly cognized nonconceptually is nondenumerable (rnam-grangs med-pa) voidness beyond all conceptual categories of truly existent, nontruly existent, both, or neither. Thus, nondenumerable voidness cannot be validly known conceptually. The voidness cognized nonconceptually by shravaka and pratyekabuddha aryas is the same as that cognized nonconceptually by bodhisattva aryas. It is the voidness of inherently established existence and it is with respect to all phenomena. The other Tibetan traditions assert that the subtle identitylessness of a person nonconceptually cognized by shravaka and pratyekabuddha aryas is equivalent to the denumerable deepest truth (rnam-grangs-pa’i don-dam bden-pa) (the denumerable voidness) about the person. In other words, a person’s lack of existence as something substantially knowable on its own is equivalent to a person’s lack of true unimputed existence. The subtle identitylessness of a person is a specific example of the denumerable voidness of all phenomena. Shravaka and pratyekabuddha aryas merely do not apply denumerable voidness to all phenomena and, further, their nonconceptual cognition of it is not nonconceptual in the full definitional sense. Moreover, they do not cognize the nondenumerable deepest truth (rnam-grangs-med-pa’i don-dam bden-pa) (nondenumerable voidness beyond all words and concepts) of either the person or all phenomena – their lack of being truly existent, non-truly existent, both, or neither. According to Gelug Prasangika, a lack of existence as something substantially knowable on its own is not equivalent to a lack of true unimputed existence, let alone equivalent to a lack of inherently established existence. The voidness of inherent existence nonconceptually cognized has existence established merely by mental labeling. Thus, although voidness does not correspond to the inherently existent category "voidness" that the word voidness conceptualizes, nevertheless the word voidness conventionally refers to voidness. The other Tibetan traditions assert that the voidness nonconceptually cognized by aryas is beyond all words and concepts. To gain nonconceptual cognition of voidness, one needs to realize the voidness of voidness – the lack of the inherently established existence of voidness. Since the voidness of inherent existence is a nonimplicative nullification (med-dgag), the realization of the voidness of voidness is also a nonimplicative nullification. The other Tibetan traditions assert that nonconceptual cognition of voidness requires going beyond all words and concepts, including nullifications, which are also concepts: they are concepts of nontrue existence. Gaining valid cognition of voidness requires correctly identifying (distinguishing) the object of nullification, namely inherently established existence. According to the other Tibetan traditions, all four impossible extreme modes of existence, such as true unimputed existence, do not exist at all. Therefore, it is absurd to try to identify a mode of existence that does not exist. Reflexive awareness and alayavijnana do not exist at all, not even as conventionally existent phenomena. The other Tibetan traditions follow Svatantrika on these points and accept their conventional existence. Memory (dran-pa) occurs based on noninherently existent cognitions implicitly cognizing themselves. The other Tibetan traditions follow their version of the Svatantrika position, according to which memory occurs based on nontruly existent, but still inherently existent reflexive awareness accompanying nontruly existent, but still inherently existent cognition.
Unawareness (ma-rig-pa) of the voidness of all phenomena is a disturbing emotion (nyon-mongs). Thus, it is included among the obscurations that are disturbing emotions, and which prevent liberation (nyon-sgrib). Except for Karma Kagyu after the Eighth Karmapa, the other Tibetan traditions follow the Svatantrika position that unawareness of the voidness of all phenomena is not a disturbing emotion. Thus, it is not included among the obscurations that are disturbing emotions, and which prevent liberation. Only unawareness of the voidness of persons is a disturbing emotion and included among the obscurations preventing liberation. The obscurations regarding all knowables, and which prevent omniscience (shes-sgrib), include only the habits of grasping for true existence of all phenomena (the habits of unawareness of the voidness of all phenomena) and the factor that prevents simultaneous cognition of the two truths. The other Tibetan traditions, except for Karma Kagyu after the Eighth Karmapa, follow Svatantrika and include among them unawareness of the voidness of all phenomena. Practitioners start to rid themselves of the obscurations preventing omniscience only on the eighth bodhisattva bhumi, after ridding themselves completely of the obscurations preventing liberation. The other schools, except for Karma Kagyu after the Eighth Karmapa, follow Svatantrika and say that practitioners begin to rid themselves of the obscurations preventing omniscience on the path of seeing, at the same time as they begin to rid themselves of the obscurations preventing liberation.
Svabhavakaya has two aspects: the voidness of the omniscient mind of a Buddha and the partings (bral-ba) from the two sets of obscurations on the omniscient mind of a Buddha. The other Tibetan traditions assert svabhavakaya as the inseparability of the other three Buddha-bodies: Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Jnanadharmakaya. This is equivalent to the inseparability of the two truths. Only voidness, the deepest truth, appears to the face of the total absorption (mnyam-bzhag, meditative equipoise) of an arya. The absorption does not cognize the conventional truth (the appearance of the phenomenon) that is the basis for the voidness (stong-gzhi), not even implicitly. The other traditions assert that both truths appear and are cognized by the total absorption of an arya. During total absorption, deepest truth is more prominent, while during the subsequent attainment phase (rjes-thob, post-meditation), conventional truth is more prominent.
The distinction between words of definitive meaning (nges-don) and words of interpretable meaning (drang-don) refers to specific passages in sutras and not to whole sutras or entire rounds of transmission of the Dharma (chos-skor, turnings of the wheel of Dharma). The other Tibetan traditions follow Svatantrika that the distinction regards whole sutras and entire rounds of transmission of Dharma. Definitive-meaning passages speak about deepest truth, the voidness of inherently established existence. Interpretable-meaning passages refer to conventional truths. The other Tibetan traditions follow Svatantrika that definitive-meaning sutras may be taken literally, while interpretable-meaning sutras may not be taken literally, but require interpretation. The distinction among the three rounds of transmission of the Dharma regard subject matter – specifically, the assertions of how things exist. The other Tibetan traditions make the distinction according to when Buddha delivered the sutras. The third round of transmission concerns the Chittamatra position that some phenomena have true unimputed existence and other lack true unimputed existence. The other Tibetan traditions assert that the third round primarily concerns Buddha-nature. The second round of transmission is of definitive meaning; the third is of interpretable meaning. Because the other Tibetan traditions define the contents of the third round differently from the way that Gelug does, for them the third round is of definitive meaning. Some non-Gelug authors, for instance within the Nyingma school, assert the second round also to be of definitive meaning. When others, such as within the Karma Kagyu school, assert the second round to be of interpretable meaning, this is because they take the second round to teach only self-voidness (rang-stong). They consider self-voidness as equivalent to denumerable voidness (the voidness of true unimputed existence that is cognized only conceptually). Only the third round teaches other-voidness (gzhan-stong), which they take to be the mind that nonconceptually cognizes nondenumerable voidness.
Prasangika, like Vaibhashika, asserts that physical and verbal karmas are forms of physical phenomena. These forms include the revealing forms (rnam-par rig-byed-kyi gzugs) of the physical actions or the sounds of the words, which end when the actions end. They also include the nonrevealing forms (rnam-par rig-byed ma-yin-pa’i gzugs) of the subtle impulses of energy that accompany the actions and continue afterward so long as the intention to repeat the action continues. The other Tibetan traditions say that only Vaibhashika asserts karma like this. For them, all Madhyamaka schools assert that, like mental karma, physical and verbal karmas are only the mental urges that bring on the actions. Prasangika, like Vaibhashika, asserts that vows are also nonrevealing forms. The other Tibetan traditions assert that they are ways of being aware of something. They are aspects of ethical self-discipline. Prasangika asserts that karmic legacies (seeds) and habits are imputed on the mere "I" and are carried from one lifetime to the next imputedly existent on that basis. The other Tibetan traditions follow their version of Svatantrika, according to which they are imputed on the alayavijnana and are carried from one lifetime to the next imputedly existent on that basis.
All Tibetan traditions accept that when an affected phenomenon, such as a karmic action, passes away (‘jig-pa, disintegrates), a nullification called a "no-longer-happening" (zhig-pa, passing) of the phenomenon ensues. According to Gelug, Prasangika asserts no-longer-happenings of karmic actions to be implicative nullifications (ma-yin dgag, affirming negations), which are nonstatic phenomena. They arise from a cause and can produce an effect – for example, the no-longer-happening of a karmic action can give rise to an effect as its ripening. The other Tibetan traditions follow Svatantrika and assert no-longer-happenings to be nonimplicative nullifications (med-dgag, nonaffirming negations), which are static unaffected phenomena. They are merely the total absence of the karmic action. All Tibetan traditions accept that the past and future of functional phenomena are not affirmations: they are not phenomena that are presently happening anywhere. They are nullifications, absences – namely, the "passed-happening" (‘das-pa) and the "not-yet-happening" (ma-‘ong-pa) of a phenomenon. In other words, the passed-happening of a karmic action and the not-yet-happening of its result are nullifications that imputedly exist on whatever a particular school asserts as providing continuity into future lives, but they are not presently happening phenomena (da-lta-ba) that are affirmations. According to Gelug, Prasangika asserts passed-happenings and not-yet-happenings of phenomena to be implicative nullifications, which are nonstatic phenomena. The former has a beginning and the latter has an end, both of which occur due to the affect of causes and conditions. The other Tibetan traditions follow Svatantrika and assert them as nonaffirming nullifications, which are static unaffected phenomena.
All Tibetan traditions assert that true stoppings (‘gog-bden) are nonimplicative nullifications imputed on the mental continuum of an arya. They are static, unaffected phenomena that do not arise from causes and conditions. Their attainment (thob-pa) arises dependently on causes and conditions, but the true stoppings themselves are merely the states of being parted forever (bral-ba). According to Gelug, Prasangika asserts that true stoppings are deepest truths and equivalent to the voidness or absence of the inherently established existence of the mental continuum. The other traditions follow Svatantrika in asserting true stoppings as conventional truths and not equivalent to voidness.
Mind (mental activity) is an impermanent affected phenomenon, in the sense that it changes from moment to moment because it takes a different object each moment. According to the other Tibetan traditions, mind is a permanent unaffected phenomenon, in the sense that its conventional nature, as clarity and awareness, has no beginning or end, does not arise anew each moment, and is unaffected by anything. No matter what object mind cognizes, the conventional nature of mind remains the same. The conventional nature of mind (mere clarity and awareness) is an evolving Buddha-nature trait (rgyas-‘gyur-gyi rigs), not a naturally abiding one (rang-bzhin gnas-rigs). It evolves to become the Dharmajnanakaya, the omniscient mind of a Buddha. "Naturally abiding" means that it does not change; it does not evolve or develop through stages into a Buddha-body. It merely accounts for a Buddha-body – specifically, the voidness of the mental continuum accounts for the Svabhavakaya (the voidness of the omniscient mind) of a Buddha. The other Tibetan traditions assert that mere clarity and awareness is a naturally abiding Buddha-nature trait. It accounts for a Dharmajnanakaya (the omniscient mind of a Buddha).
Certain aspects in the style of practice in Gelug differ from those of the other Tibetan traditions, but these are only superficial differences. Moreover, they do not occur exclusively in Gelug and never in the other traditions. Practitioners do the extraordinary preliminaries of 100,000 repetitions of various practices one by one, whenever they fit into their training. In the other Tibetan traditions, they usually do them all together as an event early in their training. Practitioners do mantra retreats of various Buddha-figures one by one, whenever they fit into their training. If they are studying for a Geshe degree, they usually do them only after receiving the degree. Moreover, a three-year retreat is only on one specific Buddha-figure practice. In the other Tibetan traditions, practitioners do the mantra retreats of the major Buddha-figures all together, one after the other, as a three-year retreat. They do three-year retreats on one Buddha-figure only afterwards. Monks chant with extremely deep bass voices, capable of producing chords. The other Tibetan traditions usually chant in normal voices.
Tsongkhapa practiced six main anuttarayoga Buddha-figure systems: the Akshobhya form of Guhyasamaja (gSang-‘dus Mi-bskyod-pa), the Luipa lineage of Chakrasamvara (bDe-mchog Lu’i-pa), Thirteen-Couple Vajrabhairava (‘Jigs-byed Lha-bcu-gsum), Single-Figure Vajrabhairava (‘Jigs-byed dPa’-bo gcig-pa), Kalachakra (Dus-‘khor), and Mahachakra Vajrapani (Phyag-rdor ‘khor-chen). Tsongkhapa taught eight discourse traditions for complete stage (rdzogs-rim) practice: the Luipa lineage of Chakrasamvara, the Ghantapada (Dril-bu-pa) Body-Mandala lineage of Chakrasamvara (bDe-mchog Lus-dkyil), the Six Practices ("Yogas") of Naropa (Na-ro’i chos-drug), Kalachakra, the Arya lineage of Guhyasamaja (gSang-‘dus ‘Phags-lugs), the Jnanapada lineage of Guhyasamaja (gSang-‘dus Ye-shes zhabs-lugs), Vajrabhairava, and Mahachakra Vajrapani. Tsongkhapa taught a method of practice that combines the Akshobhya form of Guhyasamaja, Thirteen-Couple Vajrabhairava, and the Luipa lineage of Chakrasamvara. This is the main practice of the three tantric colleges (Lower, Upper, and Say) (rGyud-smad, rGyud-stod, Srad-rgyud). The distinction between father (pha-rgyud) and mother (ma-rgyud) anuttarayoga tantra is that father tantra has more detail and emphasis on illusory body (sgyu-lus), while mother tantra has more on clear light (‘od-gsal). Among the other Tibetan traditions, only Sakya and Kagyu use the category anuttarayoga tantra. They draw the distinction between father and mother anuttarayoga tantra based on other criteria, such as the gender of the secondary figures immediately surrounding the central figure or couple of the mandala. Nondual tantra (gnyis-med rgyud) is not a separate category of anuttarayoga. All anuttarayoga tantras are nondual in that all teach inseparable voidness and blissful awareness (bde-stong dbyer-med). When other Tibetan traditions use the category nondual anuttarayoga tantra (not all masters from each tradition do), it is a separate category of anuttarayoga. The nondual tantras have features of both father and mother tantra. Among the various offerings made in a sadhana are offerings to oneself generated as the Buddha-figure (bdag-bskyed-kyi mchod-pa). The other Tibetan traditions do not make self-offerings. In the practice of taking death as a pathway for Dharmakaya (‘chi-ba chos-sku lam-khyer), practitioners approach the clear-light realization of voidness through imagining that the consciousness gets increasingly more subtle through eight or ten stages. Although the other Tibetan traditions have similar visualizations elsewhere in sadhanas, practitioners approach the clear-light realization of voidness using other methods.
|