Where there is a dog there will also be a tail

Question: Rinpoche, could you say something about the idea of reformation – I have always been a bit mystified by the idea that Tibetan Buddhism needed reforming, as if something had gone wrong? Did something ‘go wrong’, and if so what is the position of the schools and traditions which went wrong – I mean, if that word is applicable?

Rinpoche: One of the interesting things about ‘Tibetan Buddhism’—its lineages, Traditions and Schools—is that they each initially arose through the inspiration of a great Lama, rather than through rebellion, antagonism, or reformation. Although the Gélug School is sometimes called the ‘reformed school’, Jé Tsongkhapa was not a Tibetan Martin Luther, Calvin, or John Wesley – not even a John Wesley Hardin. Jé Tsongkhapa simply taught the tradition of Atisha, and that had its own ramifications. The Gélug School at that time was called the ‘New Kadam’ because Tsongkhapa was a pure example of a Kadampa – a follower of Atisha’s tradition. His disciples then followed his example and a tradition was born. There was no ‘reformation’ as such – particularly, there was no reformation of Tibetan Buddhism per se.

Q: So there was no great battle involved?

R: No – it was simply a change which occurred within the Kadam School, because Jé Tsongkhapa was someone worth following. He was not in opposition to anyone else or anyone else’s modus operandi. Jé Tsongkhapa had several important Nyingma and Kagyüd teachers, so how can he be described as a reformer of Tibetan Buddhism – as if he had set out to reform the Traditions of his own Lamas. That would be unthinkable and implausible from the point of view of Vajrayana.

This whole idea of ‘reformation’ is based on an imposition of the European historical Christian model. I think that the amateur Tibetologist Captain L.A Waddel first introduced this idea of ‘reformation’. He called the Gélug School ‘reformed’ and then proceeded to designate the Kagyüd and Sakya Schools as ‘semi-reformed’, and the Nyingmas as ‘unreformed’. These designations are ludicrous – as they do not apply to anything which applies to those schools – but unfortunately the designations have persisted. He also coined the idea of ‘yellow hats’ and ‘red hats’ and these useless and confusing terms have also persisted. It is maybe possible to forgive Captain Waddel on the basis that he was merely attempting to make taxonomic sense of what he saw through some form of Christian rule-of-thumb empiricism. These ideas seem to have merely aided people in a sectarian view, and that is a great pity. The great Lamas of all schools have always respected each other. The Great Fifth Dalai Lama and Great Sixth Dalai Lama held Nyingma lineages and there are Nyingma Lamas such as Shabkar who held Gélug lineages. There are many Kagyüd and Sakya Lamas who hold Nyingma lineages. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ri-mé movement or non-sectarian movement was quite influential – and there were Lamas—particularly Nyingma, Kagyüd, Sakya—who mastered their own systems and then began to master the practices of other schools.

Q: But there was also sectarianism.

R: Yes. That is unavoidable – but we do not have to focus on that as ‘characteristic’. Where there are people there will also be problems. Where there is a dog there will also be a tail – and that which falls from beneath it. Sectarianism however, is not Dharma – and you should all remember that, no matter what traditions you follow. People in all religions have adopted stances for their own peculiar purposes, and it is a shame when that happens. It is always a shame.

Q: So what of the idea that Tibetan Buddhism needs to change in order to be appropriate to the West – could you see that as a ‘reformation movement’ or would that also be a mistake.

R: Yes. Dharma is never in need of reformation. People may be in need of reformation. Ngakpa Chögyam may well need reformation – but not Dharma. If Dharma needs reformation, then it is a relative phenomenon and hence cannot be described as Dharma.

Q: But . . . doesn’t change have to happen in terms of Buddhism being established in the West?

R: Yes and no. Change will certainly happen, but not in terms of reformation – or of adapting Dharma to suit our neuroses. We have to change ourselves in order to accommodate the imperatives of Dharma – not the other way round. Outer aspects will change over time, but the essential teaching can only continue – or it will no longer be Dharma. People should not be in such a hurry to change what they have so recently received. I have heard people talk about Buddhism changing in the West, and the need for change – but that position is unappreciative, arrogant, and narrow, and severely lacking in circumspection. Dharma has always evolved into the local culture where ever it has travelled – so there is no reason to suppose that this will not happen here in its own good time. We do not want to mistake the dog for that which drops from beneath its tail.

Q: So you see change as being a very long process.

R: Yes and no. In some sense change is already here. Tibetan Lamas have taken enormous steps in terms of accommodating the West. The very way in which we are speaking here together is a sign of that. We are speaking in contemporary English. That is a considerable change, and the only one I can envisage. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche pioneered this change, and so I feel confident that it is important to continue in this direction.