Geluk
Basic Meaning
The Geluk tradition traces its origin to Tsongkhapa, who propagated a modified version of the Kadampa lojong and lamrim teachings. It is the dominant tradition of Tibet, having established its control of the government under the figure of the Dalai Lama.
The Fundamental Potential for Enlightenment sets forth an analysis of the natural and developed potential within all of us from the perspectives of the two main schools of mahayana thought–the Mind-Only school and the Middle Way school. It explains how this potential is transformed into the state of enlightenment and gives comprehensive definitions and explanations clearly establishing the existence and nature of the various facets of enlightenment.
(Source: back cover)Understanding Buddha-Nature in the Geluk Yigcha Literature
Geshe Jigme presents the interpretation and understanding of specific controversial points according to the yigcha textbooks of the main Geluk monastic colleges. In general, he states that the yigcha writers agree on most points and are consistent in their interpretation. The topic of buddha-nature in most of the textbooks is covered while discussing the section on gotra, or spiritual gene, in the Ornament of Realization. He presents the discussion of buddha-nature through the five points of (1) the nature or definition of buddha-nature, (2) types, (3) etymology, (4) the manner in which the spiritual gene is made manifest, and (5) the issue of those without the gene.
The Geluk authors agree that in the Vaibhaśika school the mental state of being nonattached or content is considered as the gotra for enlightenment. In the Sautrāntika school, it is the seed which is able to generate stainless qualities of nirvāṇa. In these two schools, there is no classification of naturally present spiritual genes or acquired spiritual genes.
Geshe Jigme states that for the Cittamātra school of thought, the Geluk authors have two schools: those accepting the store-consciousness and those who do not accept it. Both accept the spiritual gene to be a seed passed down primordially in one's mindstream, which enables one to eliminate impurities and give rise to transcendental qualities. Some regard this to be a specific quality of the six internal senses or mindstream, while others consider it to be an aspect of the store-consciousness. This seed or nature of the consciousness has four features according to the Bodhisattvabhūmi.
When this seed is not aroused or made manifest through faith, study, etc., it is known as the naturally present spiritual gene, and when it is aroused or being made partially manifest, it is known as the acquired spiritual gene. There are different assertions among the Geluk textbook authors of the monastic colleges as to whether these two are mutually exclusive, the same, or overlapping. The authors also agree that the spiritual gene is considered inherently existent in the Cittamātra school of thought and that there are beings who do not possess this spiritual gene.
In both the Cittamātra and Mādhyamika schools of thought, whatever is able to reach buddhahood is necessarily endowed with the spiritual gene. Thus, the spiritual gene is limited to sentient beings and not applicable to inanimate objects such as earth and rocks. In the Mādhyamika tradition, buddha-nature is clearly identified as the emptiness or reality of the mind, as a nature which serves as the basis for sublime qualities to rise. However, not all authors are clear on whether the spiritual gene is synonymous with buddha-nature or not.
The Geluk authors agree that in the Mādhyamika school there is no sentient being who lacks the spiritual gene, and thus the teachings on the absence of the spiritual gene in some beings are provisional and not to be taken literally. Geshe goes on to explain how the Geluk textbook authors interpreted the verses in the Ultimate Continuum. For example, the ten aspects of formulation are considered to focus on the luminous stainless nature of the mind and indirectly show that the impurities can be removed, whereas the nine analogies demonstrate directly how the impurities can be removed and show the stainless nature of the mind indirectly.Distinct Gelukpa Interpretations of Buddha-Nature in Sūtra and Tantra
Geshe starts by explaining how different sources talk about the concept of buddha-nature and gives reference to his written article which contains detailed information in over 80 pages. In discussing the buddha-nature in the context of sūtra, he explains that according to the Geluk tradition, buddha-nature exists in sentient beings as the nature of their mind, and is not introduced or bestowed by any creator or some other external power. This follows that all sentient beings are thus equal by nature and it helps overcome discrimination based on differences in race, caste, sex, etc. and promotes an egalitarian ethos.
If asked to point out the nature of buddha-nature, in the Geluk tradition, it refers to emptiness/reality of the mind. Not all emptiness or lack of inherent existence qualifies to be buddha-nature, and the emptiness of each phenomenon is different. This is according to the Mādhyamika tradition, and the lower schools of thought have their own understanding of gotra, or spiritual gene, and different names are used to refer to it.
According to the Mādhyamika tradition, the buddha-nature taught in the sūtras and commentarial treatises refers to the emptiness of the mind, the reality stained by impurities but having the potential for actualizing buddhahood. Thus, the middle turning of the wheel is considered to be definitive teachings showing the ultimate truth, and both the first and the final wheels are considered to be provisional in nature. Because buddha-nature is equated with emptiness, the sūtras teaching buddha-nature are not considered to be part of the final wheel. They are said to have been taught by the Buddha 10 years after his perfect enlightenment. Within the Mādhyamika, no distinction or differences in the definition of buddha-nature are made between the subschools of Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika according to the Geluk tradition.
In understanding the definition of the Buddha in the Ultimate Continuum, the first three characteristics of the Buddha are unconditioned, but the last three are considered as conditioned phenomena. Thus, the Buddha is not seen as an unconditioned permanent phenomena. It is not conditioned by afflictive emotions or by subtle propensities of ignorance and thus described as unconditioned. However, it is conditioned by causes.
The gotra, or spiritual gene, according to the Geluk tradition, is also not an authentic cause, as buddha-nature is not conditioned. Similarly, Geshe explains that an emptiness which is a nonimplicative negation can be experienced, and Tāranātha's refutation of the Geluk tradition does not assail the Geluk position. Although the term rangtong may apply to both the Geluk and followers of other traditions which accept buddha-nature to be empty of its own being, there is still a big difference in that the Geluk understand mind to be empty of its inherent nature, whereas other schools consider mind to be empty of mind itself, which is not acceptable according to the Geluk tradition.
Thus, despite the same terminology, there are vast differences, and it is important to acknowledge such differences and agree to disagree. Geshe Lobsang Gyatso points out these and many other distinct features of the Geluk understanding.Buddha-Nature in the Geluk Tradition and in the Teachings of H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama
Geshe starts with the reading of his salutation to the masters of the past, including Indian figures and the leading patriarchs of all Tibetan Buddhist traditions, and expressing deep appreciation for the occasion to discuss buddha-nature at an august gathering. He highlights how in the Tibetan Buddhist traditions, there exists the unique and important tradition of transmission and continuity of the Buddha's teachings through uninterrupted lines of masters. His main topic is the explanation of the understanding of buddha-nature and the interpretation of the Ultimate Continuum in the Geluk tradition. This, he explains, should be based on the commentary on the Ultimate Continuum and the Exegesis of Ornament of Realization called the Ornament of Essence by Gyaltsab Darma Rinchen and the writings of Tsongkhapa, including Golden Rosary of Elegant Words and Essence of Elegant Words on Provisional and Definitive Teachings.
Then, Geshela goes on to highlight the importance placed on buddha-nature and the Ultimate Continuum by H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso. His Holiness has given several teachings on buddha-nature, as the topic is important to all Tibetan Buddhist traditions. He explains how His Holiness has shared special insights into the teachings on buddha-nature. For instance, while interpreting the verse said to have been uttered by the Buddha after his enlightenment, His Holiness states that the terms "profound and tranquil" (ཟབ་ཞི་) refer to the teachings belonging to the first turning of the wheel, the term "free from elaborations" (སྤྲོས་བྲལ་) refers to the emptiness taught in the middle turning of the wheel, and the terms "luminous and unconditioned" (འོད་གསལ་འདུས་མ་བྱས་) refer to the content of the final turning of the wheel. The final term does not directly show the subtle innate mind taught in the tantric tradition but points to it indirectly.
He also points out that His Holiness emphasizes the rime (རིས་མེད་) ecumenical approach to see how this ultimate truth is presented by different Tibetan Buddhist traditions in their own way using different terms. Similarly, His Holiness explains the Great Madhyamaka of Other Emptiness (གཞན་སྟོང་དབུ་མ་ཆེན་པོ་) as referring to the subtle mind which is the natural innate aspect of the mind because this subtle mind does not lack its natural awareness but is empty of other gross aspects of the mind. These interpretations indicate the open and ecumenical approach His Holiness adopts with deep respect and appreciation to all traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, like appreciating different flowers in a garden.
Another point Geshe raises is with regard to the authorship of the Ultimate Continuum and other writings, which Tibetan tradition normally attributes to Maitreya. It is important to discuss these questions and to see when the five treatises came to be known as the five works of Maitreya. Are the works really taught by Maitreya to Asaṅga in Tuṣita heaven? Is the commentary attributed to Asaṅga really by him and why didn’t Vasubandhu and many others quote him? Similarly, there are questions as to which tenet system the Ultimate Continuum and other treatises belong? Geshe concludes by explaining how the different Tibetan Buddhist traditions discuss the same nature of the mind using different terms, and how in the Geluk tradition the Ultimate Continuum has as its ultimate purport the emptiness of mind, which is what buddha-nature means and which is also the main topic of the middle turning of the wheel.The Gelukpa Understanding of Buddha-Nature Based on Gyaltsab Je's Commentary
Geshe starts by stating the importance of making the Buddhist message easily accessible to a common listener. He expresses concern that scholars often discuss Buddhist topics using technical terms and do not consider the general audience who do not follow the technical vocabulary. Thus, he states that his aim is to present the Geluk understanding of buddha-nature in as simplest terms as he can, based on the writings of Tsongkhapa and his two main students, using mainly Gyaltsab Je's commentary on the Ultimate Continuum. Gyaltsab Je wrote his commentary having received teachings on the Ultimate Continuum from both Tsongkhapa and Rendawa.
He divides his presentation into three sections of (1) how the sūtras teach buddha-nature, (2) what is the essence or nature of buddha-nature, and (3) what is the benefit of such teachings on buddha-nature. Discussing the first part, he mentions how the first wheel mainly focused on the topic of the absence of a personal self as the clinging to self is the main cause of suffering. However, in the middle wheel, the Buddha not only negated the inherent existence of a personal self but also extended the application of emptiness to all five aggregates and all phenomena. Thus, all phenomena are established to be empty of inherent existence. In the third wheel, such emptiness of the mind or the lack of inherent or truly existent nature of the mind, which is luminous, is given the name buddha-nature.
Going on to explain the characteristics of buddha-nature, Geshe points out that in the Geluk tradition, it is the emptiness of the luminous mind which is buddha-nature. Emptiness of other things such as pillars and vases are not considered buddha-nature, although they are also empty of inherent nature. Buddha-nature pervades all minds, as all minds are luminous by nature, but not all emptiness qualifies as buddha-nature. If any emptiness would be buddha-nature, all inanimate objects would also have buddha-nature. Similarly, if buddha-nature is identical with the resultant dharmakāya, all sentient beings would be buddhas. Thus, buddha-nature refers only to the emptiness of the mind of the sentient beings.
Asked how the teachings on buddha-nature as emptiness can help in the pursuit of enlightenment and happiness, Geshe responds using the example of a plain screen. Just as multiple pictures appear on the screen, although they do not really exist, the diverse world appears in the state of emptiness although they do not really exist. The teachings on buddha-nature show how they do not truly exist. Responding to another question, he clarifies that the Ultimate Continuum in the Geluk tradition, according to Gyaltsab's commentary, is considered to align with the Prāsaṅgika Mādhyamika thought.
A part of "The Life and Legacy of Lama Tsongkhapa" presented by Tse Chen Ling
This event was held at Tse Chen Ling in San Francisco on September 20 and 21, 2019. Over the course of two days (three sessions), Don Handrick examined Tsongkhapa's exposition of enlightenment based on Maitreya's text "Sublime Continuum."
Maitreya's "Sublime Continuum" on Buddha Nature
What is enlightenment? How is it possible? Who can achieve it? One of Mahayana Buddhism’s most important teachings is the doctrine of tathagatagarbha, or buddha nature, the innate pure and changeless essence of the mind which gives rise to the fundamental potential for each being to attain full enlightenment or buddhahood. In this course we will examine selected verses from the first chapter of Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum of the Mahayana (Mahayana-uttaratantra Shastra), a text replete with rich poetic imagery and metaphor, to explore this profound and inspiring topic. . . .
"The Life and Legacy of Lama Tsongkhapa"
The Kālacakra, or “wheel of time,” tantra likely entered Indian Mahayana Buddhism around the tenth century. In expounding the root tantra, the Indian master Puṇḍarīka, one of the legendary Kalkī kings of the land of Shambhala, wrote his influential Stainless Light. Ornament of Stainless Light is an authoritative Tibetan exposition of this important text, composed in the fifteenth century by Khedrup Norsang Gyatso, tutor to the Second Dalai Lama.
One of the central projects of Kālacakra literature is a detailed correlation between the human body and the external universe. In working out this complex correspondence, the Kālacakra texts present an amazingly detailed theory of cosmology and astronomy, especially about the movements of the various celestial bodies. The Kālacakra tantra is also a highly complex system of Buddhist theory and practice that employs vital bodily energies, deep meditative mental states, and a penetrative focus on subtle points within the body’s key energy conduits known as channels. Ornament of Stainless Light addresses all these topics, elaborating on the external universe, the inner world of the individual, the Kālacakra initiation rites, and the tantric stages of generation and completion, all in a highly readable English translation. (Source: Wisdom Publications)Part I, the historical and doctrinal background, consists of six chapters: Chapter 1 describes the authorship and the history of the transmission of the RGV in India, using Indian and Tibetan materials. Chapter 2 studies six different Tibetan translations of the RGV, clarifying how the RGV was transmitted from India to Tibet. Chapter 3 outlines rNgog's life and writings. Chapter 4 presents rNgog's philosophical positions taught in his RGV commentary. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the impact of his interpretations on the later Tibetan doctrinal developments, and reactions to them. Part II is a critical edition of rNgog-lo's RGV commentary, Theg chen rgyud bla ma'i don bsdus pa (1a-46a5 and 65a5-66a4), preceded by an explanation of textual materials and an outline of the whole text. Part III presents an annotated translation of that commentary.
Appendix A presents a diplomatic edition of rNgog-lo's “topical outline” of the RGV, his other work related to the RGV (discovered at Kharakhoto and preserved in the British Library). Appendix B presents a critical edition of a versified summary of the RGV in Sanskrit, the Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa composed by the Kashmiri Paṇḍita Sajjana, a teacher of rNgog-lo. Appendix C provides another Sanskrit commentary on the RGV, Vairocanarakṣita's Mahāyanottaratantraṭippaṇī, while appendix D presents translations of relevant passages from the Sākārasiddhi and Sākarasaṃgraha of Jñānaśrīmitra. Appendix E presents rNgog-lo's identification of the passages of the RGVV that refer to the Nidānaparivarta (“introductory chapter”) of the Dhāraṇīśvararājasūtra, as well as a topical outline of this chapter of the sūtra. Appendix F investigates the dating of Blo-gros-mtshungs-med, who among later Tibetans criticized rNgog-lo's position most severely. Appendix G presents a list of commentaries on the RGV. Appendix H lists
records of the RGV's transmission lineage from gsan yigs. (Kano, introduction, 12-13)
Section II investigates the complex, and controversial, problem of whether a (Prāsaṅgika) Mādhyamika may, within the frame of his school's philosophy, assert a thesis (pratijñā) and maintain a philosophical position (pakṣa, mata). It is a reworked and expanded version of an earlier study: 'On the thesis and assertion in the Madhyamaka/dBu ma' in E. Steinkellner and H. Tauscher (ed.), Contributions on Tibetan and Buddhist religion and philosophy (Proceedings of the Csoma de Korös Symposium held at Velm-Vienna, 13-19 September 1981 (Vienna, 1983), pp. 205-241).
Section III concerns the very significant place occupied in Tsoṅ kha pa's Madhyamaka philosophy by the ideas and methods of epistemological and logical system (pramāṇavidyā) of Dharmakīrti. It is an expanded version of a study first published in 1991: 'On pramāṇa theory in Tsoṅ khap pa's Madhyamaka philosophy' in E. Steinkellner (ed.), Studies in the Buddhist epistemological tradition (Proceedings of the Second International Dharmakīrti Conference, Vienna, 11-16 June, 1989, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 222. Band (Vienna, 1991), pp. 281-310).
Part II of these Studies will contain annotated translations of Candrakīrti's Sanskrit commentary on Madhyamakakārikā i.1 taken from his renowned Prasannapadā madhyamakavṛttiḥ and of rGyal tshab Dar ma rin chen's Tibetan Summary-Memorandum on the Eight Crucial Points in Madhyamaka philosophy (dKya' gnad/gnas brgyad kyi zin bris). (Source: foreword in Part I)
This question aside, seeing the canon as a predicament, i.e., as a tradition's self-imposed limitation, and viewing the exegetical enterprise as the means whereby a tradition extricates itself from this predicament, is indeed a provocative way of formulating the problematic of religious canons. In this essay I intend to employ Smith's notion as a springboard for discussing the Indo-Tibetan concept of siddhānta (Tibetan grub mtha', literally 'tenet'), a concept that represents on the level of philosophical ideas this same process of self-limitation. I will maintain that the adoption of such a schema serves functionally to "canonize" philosophy in much the same way as the collection of accepted scriptural texts creates a norm for what is textually canonical. I shall also examine some of the rhetorical strategies involved in utilizing and upholding the validity of the siddhānta schema. In particular, in the latter part of the essay I will turn my attention to the exegesis of the Tibetan dGe lugs pa school and shall examine how this brand of Buddhist scholasticism deals with the problems that arise out of the self-limitation that occurs in the course of canonizing its philosophical tradition. As might be expected, the examples that best illustrate the unique dGe lugs pa exposition of siddhānta have to do with points of controversy, and among these some of the most controversial have to do with the theory of Buddha Nature. Hence, much of the material that we shall consider will in one way or another have to do with the notion of tathāgatagarbha.
In what follows I shall urge, first of all, that in the scholastic tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, especially in the literature of the dGe lugs pa sect, the siddhānta schematization served as a de facto canonization of Buddhist philosophy that came to defme what was philosophically normative.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000105A-QINU`"' Secondly, I shall maintain that, despite the fact that Tibetan exegetes have arrived at only a tentative consensus'"`UNIQ--ref-0000105B-QINU`"' as to the nature of the textual canons,'"`UNIQ--ref-0000105C-QINU`"' the determination of whether or not a doctrine was normatively Buddhist (and if so either provisionally or unequivocally true)'"`UNIQ--ref-0000105D-QINU`"' involved to a great extent a rhetoric that had as its basic presupposition the validity of the siddhānta schema. Put in another way, philosophical discourse (and particularly polemics) was based as much on the siddhānta classification scheme as it was on the physical canons, the collection of the "Buddha's word" and the commentarial literature whose creation it spurred. In many instances the siddhānta schema that formed the doctrinal or philosophical canon came to supersede the physical canon as the standard by comparison with which new ideas or texts came to achieve legitimacy.'"`UNIQ--ref-0000105E-QINU`"' (Cabezón, "The Canonization of Philosophy," 7–9)Given the disregard many lamas and yogis have had towards the soteriological efficacy of epistemology, one may come to the false conclusion that epistemology is only relevant to the context of debate, without any application to meditation practice and the path to liberation. However, one can clearly see that this is not completely true, since Dharmakīrti (c. 600 CE), who is arguably Buddhism’s most influential epistemologist, provides an account of how a practitioner may attain the liberative cognition known as yogic direct valid means of cognition (rnal ’byor mngon sum tshad ma, hereafter referred to as yogic perception). In Tibet, the dGe lugs pa-s are particularly known for their soteriological use of epistemology, which is unsurprising given their emphasis on scholarship, but there are even thinkers in the meditation- oriented bKa’ brgyud school who have a soteriologically-oriented take on epistemology.
The aim in thesis is to show how bKa’ brgyud epistemologists’ (most notably, the Seventh Karma pa’s (1454-1506)) view on yogic perception differs from that of Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s, since most western scholarship on Buddhist epistemology has focused on them. Like Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s, the Seventh Karma pa describes the gradual path to attaining yogic perception through inference and familiarization, although there are striking differences in their understandings of the nature of what is observed in this type of perception. His epistemology is not only relevant to the scholarly path of inference, as one finds with most epistemologists, however. His view on reflexive awareness represents a common ground between the theory attached to Mahāmudrā, and pramāṇa, which allows for an epistemological explanation of the Mahāmudrā method of “taking direct perception as the path.” Through showing first, how his view of yogic perception differs from Dharmakīrti and the dGe lugs pa-s,and secondly, how his view concerning reflexive awareness is connected to Mahāmudrā, I wish to show the unique characteristics of the Seventh Karma pa’s brand of soteriological epistemology.
Contemporary scholars have widely mis-understood the Buddhist Centrist teaching of emptiness, or selflessness, as either a form of nihilism or a radical skepticism. Yet Buddhist philosophers from Nāgārjuna on have shown that the negation of intrinsic reality affirms the supreme value of relative realities if accurately understood. Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen, in his Supercommentary, elucidates a highly positive theory of the “buddha-nature,” showing how the wisdom of emptiness empowers the compassionate life of the enlightened, as it is touched by its oneness with the truth body of all buddhas. With his clear study of Gyaltsap’s insight and his original English translation, Bo Jiang, Ph.D. completes his historic project of studying and presenting these works from Sanskrit and Tibetan both in Chinese and, now, English translations, in linked publications.
| Term Variations | |
|---|---|
| Key Term | Geluk |
| Topic Variation | Geluk |
| Tibetan | དགེ་ལུགས་ ( ge luk) |
| Wylie Tibetan Transliteration | dge lugs ( ge luk) |
| Buddha-nature Site Standard English | Geluk |
| Term Information | |
| Source Language | Tibetan |
| Basic Meaning | The Geluk tradition traces its origin to Tsongkhapa, who propagated a modified version of the Kadampa lojong and lamrim teachings. It is the dominant tradition of Tibet, having established its control of the government under the figure of the Dalai Lama. |
| Term Type | School |
| Definitions | |
