Common Features of the Tibetan Buddhist Traditions

The four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism share most of their material in common. They all follow the teachings from India as their primary basis. They all train with the debating tradition of the Indian monastic universities. They all study the four Indian Buddhist philosophical tenet systems as a graded path for gaining a progressively more sophisticated view of reality. In this respect, they all accept the Madhyamaka view as supreme.

They all are heirs of the traditions of the great tantric meditators, the mahasiddhas of India. Thus, they all meditate as well as study texts. They all follow a combined path of sutra and the four or six classes of tantra. The sutras provide the Mahayana basis of tantra. They all practice the “cleansing of attitudes” (mind-training, lojong) teachings of the Kadam tradition. They all memorize texts and perform elaborate rituals. They all have a characteristically deep-bass chanting style with a typically Tibetan instrumental accompaniment of drums, cymbals, handbells, conches, long horns and a reed instrument similar to an oboe. They all have ritual mask dances.

All four Tibetan schools engage in the “cutting off” (chod) practice. One imagines chopping up one’s body, much like the Indian Buddhist and Tibetan funerary rites, and offering it for the benefit of others. The purpose is to help cut off attachment to one’s body as one’s true self. This lineage came to Tibet from India in 1091 CE with the visit of Padampa Sangye. The practice was further developed and transmitted by one of Tibet’s most eminent female masters, Machig Labdron (1031–1129). A similar practice is found in Bon.

All four Tibetan traditions have both lay householder and celibate ordained practitioners. They all follow the same lineage of monks’ and nuns’ monastic vows and wear the same robes, maroon in color, consisting of a skirt and a shawl. They wear a sleeveless shirt and often a vest.

Skirts are not part of the habit in any other Buddhist tradition. Theravada robes in Southeast Asia consist of a single length of cloth wrapped around the waist and then draped over one or both shoulders. The Dharmaguptaka monks and nuns of China and East Asia wear pants. One Russian scholar has postulated that the skirt entered the Tibetan Buddhist habit from the early Bon ritual costume, and this ultimately derived from Iran. This is difficult to decide. Skirt-like clothing has always been worn in India, although not the same style as the Tibetan Buddhist lower robe.

The monastic vows followed in Tibet are from the Mulasarvastivada tradition, a Hinayana lineage that developed in Kashmir from Sarvastivada. The vows differ only slightly from those of the Theravada and Dharmaguptaka traditions. The Mulasarvastivada lineage of fully ordained nuns was not transmitted to Tibet, only that of novice nuns. This was because ten nuns are necessary for conferring the full nuns’ ordination ceremony, and in those days the Indian nuns found the journey from India to Tibet too difficult.

Each of the four traditions follows a graded path (lam-rim) as was the Indian style. As preparation for tantra, each teaches common and extraordinary preliminary practices. The topics shared in common with all Mahayana traditions are study and meditation on the sutra topics of safe direction in life (refuge), impermanence, karma, uncontrollably recurring problems, the determination to be free from them (renunciation), compassion, a dedicated heart of bodhichitta, concentration and the absence of fantasized ways of existing (voidness). Everyone works to help others with the far-reaching attitudes of generosity, ethical self-discipline, patience, perseverance, mental stability and discriminating awareness (wisdom).

For further building up of positive force, practitioners circumambulate temples and stupa reliquary monuments, prostrate, offer butter lamps and repeat mantras, sometimes with the use of a prayer wheel. Although incense is lit, it is not the principal offering as in the Chinese traditions. Water bowls are offered in accordance with the custom begun by Atisha. When Atisha arrived in Tibet, he found many people very poor, and the typical Indian offering substances of flowers, rice and sweets quite rare. With skillful means, he suggested the offering of clean, fresh water with a pure heart. The most popular mantra is Om mani padme hum, the mantra of Avalokiteshvara (Chenrezig in Tibetan), the embodiment of all the Buddhas’ compassion. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is regarded by all as the human manifestation of Chenrezig.

The extraordinary preliminaries exclusive to tantra are 100,000 repetitions of several practices, such as prostration. These are done for purification and further building up of positive force. In the Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya traditions, the extraordinary preliminaries are done all at once at the beginning of one’s spiritual path. In the Gelug tradition, they are done one at a time, when one is sufficiently well-established in motivation and understanding.

All traditions encourage serious meditators to do a three-year tantric retreat. In the Nyingma, Kagyu and Sakya schools, this is a period of intensive study and practice of the main Buddha-figure systems of their tradition. During the three years, one does several weeks or months of each practice. After this initial three-year basic training in the practices and rituals of the tradition, one can enter further lengthy retreats specializing on a single, particular practice. In the Gelug tradition, the shorter retreats of several weeks or months are done at separate times, whenever convenient. Three-year retreats are always focused on just one Buddha-figure practice.

All four Tibetan Buddhist traditions follow the same basic canon for their sutra teachings and their Indian commentaries. The new translation schools follow this same canon for tantra as well. Most, but not all of the tantras of the old translation school are extracanonical. The Tibetan commentaries from each tradition are also extracanonical, usually published in the format of collected works of individual authors.

The Buddhist texts were translated into Tibetan mostly from classical Sanskrit and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. A few were translated from Chinese when the original Sanskrit had already been lost. An occasional text was rendered from Khotanese or Uighur. The styles of the Old and New Translation periods differ primarily in spelling and vocabulary.

The translated texts are in two major collections: the Kangyur, which contains the actual words of the Buddha, and the Tengyur, the Indian commentaries. The latter includes a few Hindu texts on Sanskrit grammar, literature, medicine and astrology.

The first catalogue of Tibetan Buddhist translations was prepared by Kawa Paltseg during the reign of King Ralpachen (815–836 CE). This was called the Denkarma (White Inventory) and included primarily sutra material rendered from Indian languages. The Old Translation Period tantras were mostly excluded. Twenty-four sutras translated from Chinese, principally at Dunhuang, were also included, although translations of Chinese Chan texts were omitted.

In 1153, Narthang Monastery was founded as the center for the classics lineage of the Kadam school. In the mid-thirteenth century, Rigpe Raldri catalogued the scriptural holdings of the monastery. This Old Narthang catalogue was copied by hand and distributed throughout Tibet. It was edited and revised by the great Sakya master Buton Rinchen Drub (1290–1364).

The first formal compilation of the Kangyur is attributed to Buton. His work is known as the Zhalu Manuscript, after the name of his monastery. The library of Zhalu Monastery contained a large number of Sanskrit manuscripts against which Buton could check the Tibetan translations. Not only did Buton decide which texts were to be included in the Kangyur collection, but when there were several renderings of the same text, he chose the best version.

The first printing of the Kangyur was in 1411 CE, more than four centuries after the first printing of the Chinese Buddhist canon. It was sponsored by the Yongle Emperor of Ming China (ruled 1403–1425). The Yongle Emperor was a staunch supporter of Tibetan Buddhism. In 1407 he had presented the Fifth Karmapa with the black hat famous to the Karmapa line. The next year he received Tsongkhapa’s envoy and disciple, Jamchen Choje, the founder of Sera Monastery.

The Second Manchu Emperor of China, Kangxi (ruled 1661–1722), sponsored the compilation of the Peking edition of the Kangyur and Tengyur, beginning in 1684. The Kangxi Emperor was a great patron of Tibetan Buddhism. The Fifth Dalai Lama (1617–1682) prepared the catalogue upon which the Peking edition of the Tengyur is based. The printing of this edition was completed and the first copy presented to the Seventh Dalai Lama by the next Manchu emperor in 1725.

The first edition of the entire Kangyur and Tengyur printed in Tibet was the New Narthang, prepared under the supervision of the Gelug master Purchog Ngawang Jampa (1682–1762). It was sponsored by Polhane, the ruler of Tibet during the minority of the Seventh Dalai Lama. The Kangyur, divided into a hundred volumes, was finished in 1732, and the Tengyur, in 220 volumes, in 1742.

The Derge Vermilion edition of the Kangyur and Tengyur was printed under the patronage of the King of Derge in eastern Kham just slightly after the New Narthang edition was published. Previously, there had been a Derge Black edition, printed in black ink. The Kangyur of the vermilion ink edition was prepared by the Karma Kagyu master, the Eighth Tai Situpa, Chokyi Jungne (1700–1774), and was printed in 1733. Its Tengyur was edited by the Sakya scholar Tsultrim Rinchen (1697–1769) and published in 1744.

A fourth edition of the complete Kangyur and Tengyur was also prepared during the eighteenth century. This was the Chone edition, compiled between 1753 and 1773. During the twentieth century, two further editions of the Kangyur were printed: the Urga in 1910 and the Lhasa in 1933. Each of these editions of the two sets of scriptures differs slightly in their choice of texts, translation versions and order.

The Kangyur and Tengyur constitute the largest collection of Buddhist canonical literature. They contain a considerable proportion of the full development of what had grown in India. This was particularly valuable after the disappearance of Buddhism in India and Kashmir between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries with the Turkic invasions. Many of the texts that were lost in the original Sanskrit have been preserved in Tibetan translation.

Some of the urgency for compiling and preserving the Tibetan translations undoubtedly came from the news from India. Chag Lotsawa (1197–1264) was the last Tibetan translator to study at Nalanda Monastic University. He was there between 1234 and 1236 and witnessed its final destruction. The other great Buddhist monastic institutions of learning had already been razed to the ground. In 1258, Rigpe Raldri met Chag Lotsawa and received an account of his experiences and several of his translations. This encounter may have inspired Rigpe Raldri’s preparation of the catalogue of Narthang Monastery’s library holdings that became the basis for Buton’s work.

Many translations from the Old Translation Period were not included in Buton’s Zhalu Manuscript. Longchenpa (1308–1363) recorded the tantras and texts of his Nyingma school that had been excluded. Based on this, Ratna Lingpa (1403–1478) assembled the first complete Nyingma Gyubum (The Myriad Nyingma Tantras). It included treasure-text material and expanded on earlier partial collections like the Vairo Gyubum (The Myriad Tantras of Vairochana), a compilation of the texts translated in the late eighth century by Vairochana. Ratna Lingpa’s collection was revised and augmented by Jigme Lingpa (1726–1798).

The most complete extracanonical collection of Nyingma texts is the Rinchen Terdzo (Treasury of Precious Treasure Texts). Compiled by the Rime non-sectarian master Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye (1813–1899), it is a selection in sixty volumes of the treasure text material discovered up to his time.

Many Bon monks studied sutra debate at Sakya and Gelug monasteries, and several treasure-revealers discovered both Bon and Nyingma dzogchen texts. There are many features shared in common between Bon and Buddhism that have allowed this interchange.

The Bon tradition has been very eclectic. Some scholars characterize Bon as a storehouse of all Tibetan cultural developments. This storehouse includes ancient Bon material, as well as aspects similar to Buddhism, ranging from Nyingma-style dzogchen to Gelug-style debate and geshe training. There is even a Bon equivalent of the Kalachakra teachings. Although the vocabulary and names of figures used in Bon are different, the main techniques and teachings are very similar to those found in Buddhism. To help forge the bridge, the Bon masters declared Shakyamuni Buddha to be an emanation of Shenrab Miwo, and Padmasambhava to be the son of Drenpa Namka, the main concealer of the Bon treasure texts.

Differing Bon and Buddhist-style accounts were harmonized. For example, just as Buddhism has two presentations of cosmology: abhidharma and Kalachakra, with each of the descriptions of the universe intended for a different purpose, Bon also has two cosmologies. One is the ancient Bon presentation with its various gods of light and darkness. The other is quite similar to the Buddhist abhidharma description with Mount Meru and the four island-worlds. Each cosmology has its own purpose and place.

Furthermore, the ten traditional fields of knowledge studied in Buddhism also have their Bon counterpart. The Buddhist list is:

1. Art and craftsmanship
2. Medicine
3. Languages and grammar, particularly Sanskrit
4. Logic
5. Inner self-knowledge according to Buddhist principles
6. Poetry and figures of speech
7. Lexicons and synonyms
8. Poetic meters and composition
9. Drama and dance
10. Astrology and mathematics.

Bon replaces logic and inner self-knowledge with spelling and the preparation of materials to be put inside statues. The topic of languages and grammar still includes Sanskrit, while lexicons and synonyms include the study of other languages, such as Zhang-zhung.

In the Bon monasteries, the study of these ten fields forms an integral part of the training. Buddhist monks only study these optionally. Bon has lay, novice and full monks’ and nuns’ vows. Many are the same as the Mulasarvastivada vows followed by Tibetan Buddhism, but there are distinct differences. The five lay vows are the same in both traditions. Mulasarvastivada has thirty-six novice vows, Bon twenty-five. There are 253 monk’s vows and 364 nuns’ in Mulasarvastivada, while Bon has 250 and 360 respectively. In contrast, the Dharmaguptaka tradition of East Asia has 250 and 348, while the Theravada has 227 and no tradition of full nun’s vows. Even though Bon and Dharmaguptaka have the same number of full monk’s vows, they are not the same list.

Several vows are included in Bon that are not found in the Buddhist pratimoksha set for monastic discipline. Among the twenty-five Bon novice vows, one promises not to eat meat, garlic or onions and to keep clean and wash regularly. The Chinese version of the bodhisattva vows, which derive from the Net of Brahma Sutra (Skt. Brahmajāla Sūtra), includes these same dietary restrictions. They are not found in the Tibetan transmission of the bodhisattva vows, which derive from Asanga’s the Bodhisattva Stages of Mind (Skt. Bodhisattvabhūmi)

Bon monks and nuns wear maroon robes that are practically identical with those found in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. The major difference is that Bon replaces the yellow paneling of the Buddhist vest with blue. Blue is an especially favored color in Bon due to the association of Shenrab Miwo with a blue cuckoo. Buddha allowed his monastic community to wear three colors: red/orange, yellow and blue. Blue, however, was hardly ever used. Tibetan Buddhists wrap their loose-leaf scriptures in yellow or red cloth. Bon uses blue.

The discipline at the major Bon monasteries before the twentieth century was very strict. If any monk broke one of the four root vows of not to kill, steal, lie or engage in sexual activity, he was whipped 500 times and then driven out of the monastery naked, with a bag of ashes tied to his back and wearing a paper hat, with all the monks clapping to chase him away like an evil spirit. It was possible, however, to repent and take the vows once more. In modern times, the disciplinary actions have been far less severe. No comparable form of punishment was found in the Buddhist monasteries.

Bon rituals have many features similar to Buddhist ones. The chanting and instrumental style and the use of tormas (sculpted conical cakes of barley flour) are common to both. Differences tend to be superficial. Buddhists circumambulate clockwise, while Bonpos counterclockwise. Hindus circumambulate sacred monuments counterclockwise as well.

The Bon canon is organized into two sections, parallel to the Buddhist canon. It is slightly longer than its Buddhist counterpart. The Bon Kangyur, in 113 volumes, contains the Tibetan translations of scriptures taught in the Zhang-zhung language by Shenrab Miwo. It was first published around 1386. It contains texts equivalent to the Buddhist sutras and tantras and deals with such common topics as prajnaparamita (far-reaching discriminating awareness on the stages of the path), madhyamaka (the middle way view of voidness), abhidharma (special topics of knowledge, such as cosmology) and vinaya (rules of monastic discipline).

The Kanten, in 293 volumes, is the collection of native Tibetan works that rely on the words of Shenrab. Like the Buddhist Tengyur, it includes commentaries on logic, rituals, art, medicine, astrology and poetry. It was published some time between 1415 and 1450 CE.

The compilation of the Bon and Buddhist canons, as well as the Nyingma extracanonical collections, then, was roughly contemporary. It is difficult to say that one was modelled after the other. The main difference is that dzogchen treasure-text material is included in the Bon canon, whereas the Buddhist counterpart has been transmitted extracanonically.

Tibet was the heir of the full development of Indian Buddhism. Buddhist teachings had become well-organized in India in the form of a gradual path. The great contribution the Tibetans made was to further organize and comment on the teachings. The Tibetans made very detailed outlines of the major texts and developed systematic ways of teaching the material. All Tibetan traditions follow this style.

The system of incarnate lamas, known as “tulkus,” is unique to Tibet and the cultural areas where Tibetan Buddhism spread. Incarnate lamas are found not only in all the Tibetan Buddhist traditions, but also later in Bon. The majority have been male, with a small number of female incarnates as well. This discrepancy in number according to gender reflects the societal condition rather than the theory. Tulkus are given the title “Rinpoche,” meaning “Precious One.” Abbots and sometimes one’s own spiritual teacher may also be called Rinpoche.

There are several levels of attainment at which one is able to begin a line of incarnate lamas. The highest is to have reached that stage of highest tantra practice at which one is able to control the process of death, in-between period (bardo) and rebirth. One can then direct one’s rebirth so as to be born in an optimal family and situation in which one can continue working to benefit others. The minimal level is to have developed the strong bodhichitta motivation to reach enlightenment to benefit others and to have gained proficiency in the visualization practices in which one simulates death, the in-between period and rebirth. With appropriate strong prayers and these qualifications, it is not even necessary to have gained non-conceptual, straightforward cognition of voidness.

Even if a particular member of a line of incarnate lamas is not a strong practitioner in his or her lifetime, subsequent incarnations can be generated by the force of the attainments of the founder of the line. Not all members of a specific line of incarnate lamas, then, are at the same spiritual level. Nor is it the case that the members of a line pick up and continue their spiritual development where their immediate predecessor left off.

Those who begin lines of incarnate lamas on the basis of minimal qualifications have not yet rid themselves of all negative karmic forces. As Buddha explained, a bucket is not filled by the first drop of water nor the last, but by a collection of drops built up over time. Although the dominant factor that ripens for a rebirth as an incarnate lama may be the spiritual efforts of the founder of one’s line, other karmic forces will also have ripened to complete the circumstances of that rebirth. Since these potentials may still have been negative, some incarnate lamas may not seem as spiritually advanced as their predecessors. To avoid possible abuses of the system, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama stresses that incarnate lamas must prove themselves by their attainments in their own lifetime and not rest on the laurels of their name.

Incarnate lamas, then, are not actually Buddhas, and so the titles “incarnate Buddhas” or “living Buddhas,” as they are known in Chinese, are improper. The founders of their lines are, however, bodhisattvas who are well-advanced on the tantric path. There are approximately a thousand incarnate lamas in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. They have been taking rebirth among the practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism throughout Central Asia since the late thirteenth century. The oldest line of incarnate lamas is the Karmapas, and the highest in rank and fame is the Dalai Lamas.

There can be several reasons why the system of incarnate lamas is found only in the Tibetan cultural areas. Firstly, the full practice of the fourth class of tantra, which is necessary to be able to reach this level of attainment, is only available in the Tibetan areas. If one is able to direct one’s rebirths, one would want to be reborn not only where one can be of best help to others, but also where one can continue one’s tantric studies and practice. Secondly, there must be a society that will support the system by locating and educating young incarnates.

One Western scholar has postulated that the custom of incarnate lamas, which began in the line of Karmapas, was encouraged by the late Mongol rulers of China. The Mongols perhaps wished to institutionalize this custom for political purposes.

Most people accept the Second Karmapa, Karma Pakshi (1206–1283), as the first incarnate lama, since he was called the tulku of the First Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa (1110–1193). This scholar argues that the institution began with the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje (1284–1338). Be that as it may, he sees the invitation of the Third and Fourth Karmapas to the Mongol imperial court in Beijing as a move to prop up the Karmapas as a possible alternative to the current rule in Tibet.

The Mongols had installed the Sakya line as temporal rulers over Tibet. The Pagmodru clan of the Kagyus eventually supplanted the Sakyas. The line of succession among the Sakya and Pagmodru was hereditary, and there had been a great deal of sibling rivalry. If the rule in Tibet were passed down by reincarnation in a line of monks, rather than in a family line, this might provide more stability and easier Mongol control. Monks would be more respected by the populace and would not be able to set up a family power base.

This theory is difficult to substantiate. The Mongol Yuan Dynasty ended in 1367 CE, before any concrete step was taken by the Mongols to try to establish the Fourth Karmapa, Rolpe Dorje (1340–1383), in a political position.

The second officially recognized incarnate lama in Tibet was the Second Dalai Lama, Gendun Gyatso (1476–1542). He was known as the reincarnation of the First Dalai Lama, Gendun Drub (1391–1474). If the theory about the Karmapas is correct, it might also help explain why the Mongol Altan Khan chose to invite to Mongolia the next incarnation, Sonam Gyatso (1543–1588), and gave him the title “Dalai Lama.” A line of incarnate lamas as his backing could help give Altan Khan political legitimacy, and such a line would not pose a threat of a rival family dynasty.

The Tibetan word “lama” (Skt. guru) means someone with superior qualities. Within the Gelug and Sakya traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, it is used only for highly realized spiritual teachers. It is also used for tulkus, even if they are only young children. Thus, lamas may be either monks, nuns or lay persons.

In the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions, anyone who has completed a three-year meditational retreat can also be called a lama. Here, a lama is like a specialist in rituals, a village priest to perform ceremonies for the people. He or she is not necessarily a great or learned spiritual teacher and again can be either ordained or lay. In Ladakh, the word “lama” is used as a synonym for a monk, regardless of his level of attainment.

In Mongolia and Buryatia, “lama” is used within the Gelug tradition for anyone who lives at a monastery, even if only occasionally, and who wears robes and performs rituals. They are always male, since the tradition of nuns never reached the Mongol areas. They are not necessarily monks, because in these regions there is the custom of married laypersons also wearing robes if they perform rituals for people. These lamas have not necessarily done any meditational retreats and are not necessarily great spiritual teachers. They have, however, had some training in rituals. Thus, the word “lama” is used differently by particular groups of Tibetan Buddhists.

It is inappropriate, then, to call Tibetan Buddhism “Lamaism.” The Chinese coined this name during the Manchu period, and many Western scholars have followed this custom. If “lama” means an ordained person, a spiritual teacher or a performer of rituals, lamas are not unique to the Tibetan traditions. Even if “lama” refers to incarnate lamas, still the reverence shown to them is not found exclusively in the Tibetan cultural areas. Tibetan Buddhism is not separate from Indian Buddhism but is soundly based on it. The tantra tradition for directing rebirths comes from India, and the basic texts on a wholehearted commitment to a spiritual teacher, so important in Tibetan Buddhism, were translated from Sanskrit.