FUTURE OF THE GELUG TRADITION: AN INTERVIEW WITH SAMDHONG RINPOCHE

Mandala Magazine January – June 2016 Professor Samdhong Rinpoche (Lobsang Tenzin) was born in 1939 in Jol in Eastern Tibet. At age five, he was recognized as the reincarnation of the fourth Samdhong Rinpoche. He became a monk two years later and began his studies. He entered Drepung Monastery in Lhasa at age 12. Rinpoche went into exile in India in 1959 at the age of 19.

He received his Geshe Lharampa degree in 1968 from the reestablished Drepung Monastery in India and then attended Gyuto Tantric College. During this time he also had teaching and administrative responsibilities at several different Tibetan schools in India. From 1971-2001, he served as the principal and then director of the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Varanasi (now called the Central University of Tibetan Studies).

In 2001, Samdhong Rinpoche was elected prime minister of the Central Tibetan administration, or the Tibetan government-in-exile, which is based in Dharamsala, India. He served two terms, leaving office in 2011, when he was succeeded by Lobsang Sangay.

Rinpoche is regarded as a leading Tibetan scholar of Buddhism and is fluent in Hindi and English. He has received many other high-level academic and administrative appointments, including currently serving as a member of the expert advisory committee for the Government of India’s Ministry of Culture.

In October 2015, Melissa Mouldin and Simon Houlton interviewed Samdhong Rinpoche in Dharamsala for Mandala. They conducted the interview primarily in English.

  Would Rinpoche please describe for us your impressions of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s concerns and wishes in relation to the preservation of the Gelug tradition now and after His Holiness has passed away?

His Holiness’ concern is for the preservation of the Nalanda tradition, which remains in the form of the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism, the complete teachings of the Buddha and includes the three yanas [the vehicles of the shravakas, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas] and the four classes of tantra. Buddhism exists in many countries, but many of the other countries have only the Shravakayana [Hearer Vehicle], which is the Buddhism preserved in the Pali language. The Pali canon contains only the sutras that belong to the Shravakayana and not a single Mahayana sutra has been included in the Pali canon nor anything specific about the Vajrayanatantras.

When we talk about the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism in this context, it should not be understood in terms of nation or country, but in terms of canonical language. The Tibetan canon has the largest amount of the Buddha’s own words – the sutras and the tantras – and also the commentaries written by the great Indian scholars, from Nagarjuna to Shakyashribhadra, including Atisha and so forth. The Kangyur [texts attributed to the Buddha] and Tengyur [canonical commentaries] in the Tibetan language form the largest amount of Buddhist literature available. Tibetan is a very authentic language for a Buddhist canon. The origins of the Tibetan-language canon are Sanskrit and whatever is expressible in Sanskrit is expressible in Tibetan because the nature of the two languages is very similar. In the history of Buddhist translation, the translation from Sanskrit, or any Indian language, into Tibetan is the best.

The Buddhism preserved in Tibetan is complete and without error, and benefits from the unbroken lineage of oral transmission. In addition, erudite Tibetan scholars have written enormous commentaries on the Indian literature. So therefore, if someone wants to study the entirety of Buddha’s teaching, then the Tibetan canon is the best source. Hence, it is very important to preserve Tibetan Buddhism if you wish to have a complete picture of Buddha’s teachings and not just a small segment of them.

Also, the Tibetan system of study – through logic and reasoning – includes study of the pramanashastras (epistemological treatises) of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. Logic comes first and then later comes the study of the other subjects such as Prajñaparamita, vinaya, abhidharma and Madhyamaka. This kind of tradition does not exist in any other country’s Buddhist tradition. Tibetan Buddhism is the comprehensive and complete form of Buddhism, which needs to be preserved for the sake of understanding Buddhism as a whole.

We usually say we have four schools of Tibetan Buddhism: the Nyingma, the Sakya, the Kagyü and the Gelug. The Gelug is the youngest one. All four traditions, generally speaking, are actually no different philosophically, their differences concern the lineage of teachers, the rites and rituals, and the emphasis on particular schools of thought, deities, tantras and shastras. His Holiness the Dalai Lama always says that all four traditions need to be preserved without any distortion.

As far as the Gelug tradition is concerned, it is the newest tradition because it came from the study of the earlier traditions. So we as Gelugpas have the essence of all the three earlier schools and whatever Lama Tsongkhapa synthesized as he studied and analyzed all these different traditions. For example, Tsongkhapa merged three traditions of Atisha – the Kadam Practice, Oral Instructions and Textual Lineages – into one. Similarly, Tsongkhapa synthesized the lineages of Manjushri and Nagarjuna (the Profound Dharma Lineage); Maitreya and Asanga (the Extensive Dharma Lineage); and Vajradhara and the mahasiddhas (the Practice and Blessings Lineage). And Tsongkhapa did not only study these lineages, he internalized them and then had the experience of them.

Lama Tsongkhapa himself said, “First I sought out vast, extensive learning. Next, all the textual traditions dawned as personal instruction. Finally, I practiced diligently day and night.” So Lama Tsongkhapa had the experiential understanding and was able to write 18 volumes; it is really monumental to understand the Buddha’s teaching comprehensively and without any error. So the Gelug tradition’s preservation is very important, not only for the sake of the Gelug tradition per se, but for the sake of the entire understanding of the Buddha’s teaching as a whole. It is very important.

When we were in Tibet, there was support for all of the traditions – no single tradition was threatened with degradation or extinction. Tibet is no longer in that position and the people are in diaspora. It is in India where the organized monastic learning tradition is most alive, which is indispensable. We cannot have such erudition in Buddhism without the monastic structure, where students can have qualified teachers and all the texts, and where they can debate day in and day out for several years, which is one of the very important instruments for learning the Dharma. Therefore, this monastic system needs to be preserved and survive.

The Gelug tradition in Tibet had its great centers around Lhasa – Drepung, Sera and Ganden Monasteries – and also TashiLhunpo, which was looked after by His Eminence the Panchen Lama. There were big monasteries in Amdo, such as Tashi Gomang and TashiKyil, which were patronized by the great scholars of Amdo. Each learning center had a kind of ensured security. There was no problem of finances or lack of incoming monks. However, in the diaspora, there are some concerns. At the moment, the Buddhists of the Himalayan region have been taking ordination in the monasteries, but the population of Himalayan-region Buddhists is limited. There is a possibility that the monasteries may become empty and the great scholars will gradually pass away without new ones taking their place.

When we were in Tibet, this kind of organizational thinking was not important. Teaching and learning were most important, and the organization came automatically. The monasteries now have to think about how to feed the monks and how to make sure that the monks will be able to survive day-to-day. Also, they have to take care to find suitable teachers to stay in the monasteries. The other Tibetan Buddhist traditions are doing this well. For example, the Sakyas have a very well organized, well established organization. The Nyingmas are not very consolidated, but they have many good teachers and very high lamas. And the Kagyüs, with their internal four sects, have their own organizations.

For the Gelugs, the Ganden Tripa always changes after seven years; it is a not a permanent position of leadership. It is very democratic, but the continuity and stability are not there. Ganden Tripas come and Ganden Tripas go, but there is no permanent institution looking after the entire Gelug tradition and this is why His Holiness is advising that there must be an institution of the Ganden Tripa, so that although Ganden Tripas come and go, there will be some administrative staff, such as a manager or director or some officer, who remains continuously within the institution. Then, whoever receives the post of Ganden Tripa can take over, work for seven years, and retire, but the organizational work of the office of the Ganden Tripa can be looked after by the institution itself. This is what His Holiness is thinking and advising. And now they are trying to implement it, and my hope is that it will be done according to His Holiness’ wishes.

Are there other ways that His Holiness has mentioned or that are being discussed to strengthen the authority of the office of the Ganden Tripa for setting policies and settling matters in the monasteries and in other Gelug centers?

When we were in Tibet, each monastery had their own constitution, called the “Great Rules and Regulations.” The Ganden Tripa had little administrative work and instead gave teachings and remained as the head of the Gelug tradition. Each monastery was self-organized and self-governed. They had endowment funds and were self-sufficient. This is not the case in India.

Unlike the other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Gelug monasteries were more dependent on the Dalai Lama because the first four Dalai Lamas were exclusively the head or the leader of the Gelug tradition. With the Fifth Dalai Lama [17th century], the position became the political head of the whole Tibet, but the tradition of appointing abbots and other functionaries in the Gelug monasteries was still being done by the institution of the Dalai Lama. From the Fifth Dalai Lama and onwards, if the Dalai Lama is not present or if the Dalai Lama is not old enough, whoever is the regent looks after the Gelug monasteries.

Today, the political responsibility of His Holiness has completely devolved. He has separated the Dalai Lama institution from the leadership of the Tibetan government and has no political responsibility. When His Holiness is no longer present, the Gelug monasteries will have no one to appoint the abbots and functionaries. So this is why His Holiness has said that now the Ganden Tripa and the two Chöjes – the ShartseChöje and the JangtseChöje – should have a kind of panel authority or committee and that they should do the appointments and oversee the examinations and all the other things that were previously looked after by the state or the head of state. Otherwise, there could be a power vacuum and confusion. It would be an absolute error for that to happen. Therefore, the institution, or office, of the Ganden Tripa needs to be developed and the future Ganden Tripa, the two Chöjes and the council of the abbots have to be well organized and have full authority.

A few years ago, I think it was 2008 or 2009, they adopted a charter for the Gelug sect and at that time those institutions were recognized and established. So the organizational side needs to be strengthened and is being strengthened gradually. And I think it will be well established in the near future.

 What is important for us Western students to do to support His Holiness’ wishes in this matter?


 I have not given much thought to this, but what comes to mind is that Western students should first of all recognize the institutions and the authorities that have been assigned to a particular institution, such as recognizing the Ganden Tripa as the supreme head of the whole Gelug tradition. The Ganden Tripa position is bestowed after completion of the “paramita study” [at Sera, Ganden, Drepung, or smaller monasteries like TashiLhunpo or Rato] and completion of tantra study at a tantric college. They become the abbots of either Gyuto or Gyume [the tantric colleges] and eventually become the ShartseChöje or JangtseChöje. This is well set tradition.

Also, whenever there is need of financial support, that is particularly the lay followers’ responsibility because they can do business and earn money. They should give necessary support to the institutions.

I feel these days, in order to make the central Gelug organization the institution of the Ganden Tripa, all the different Western Dharma centers should have some kind of affiliation or recognition from the Ganden Tripa or some such other central organization. Similarly, the learning programs can be done in many different ways, but they must have some kind of final recognition from one of the monasteries in India, Nepal or Bhutan, or in the future, possibly Tibet. A relationship between the Western centers and monasteries in Asia should be there.

 Could Rinpoche comment on how strengthening the office of the Ganden Tripa would relate to Gelug study and practice in Tibet itself?


 That is difficult to comment on. All the Gelug followers in Tibet would recognize and hold their allegiance to the office of the Ganden Tripa. And whoever is the Ganden Tripa would be in allegiance to them. But the Ganden Tripa cannot reach inside Tibet at this moment. And they cannot reach out to the Ganden Tripa directly; so this is political and therefore we cannot do much. Under Chinese control, I think they might have their own Ganden Tripa inside Tibet. And so the Chinese central government or local government appoints the abbots within Tibet. At this moment, reaching out to them is very difficult practically speaking.