Enlightenment: Budhism Vis-a-Vis Hinduism
Mr. Sridhar Rana
It must be understood that Hinduism and Buddhism had been sharing the same culture for the last 21500 years which means they share a common klanguage (Sanskrit of Pali). Because of this
historical situation there are many words used commonly by both which had led many scholars (especially Hindu scholar) to think that they mean exactly the same thing in Buddhism as in Hinduism, By extending this thinking one arrives at the wrong conclusion that Buddhism is another form or revision of reformation of Hinduism.
First of all it is wrong to say that Buddhism is either a branch or are a formation of Hinduism, Buddhism is actually a paradigm shift from not only Hinduism but also all other religious systems. Secondly words used commonly in both Hinduism and Buddhism do not mean the same thing, In fact very often they mean almost opposite and certainly at all times they point at two different paradigms.
I would like to elucidate some of these points which would effect the meaning in the two systems directly or in directly.
First of all we always find in the Hindu context that illusion is removed so that the Brahman can be revealed. Thus samsara is illusion and Brahman is the only thing behind the samsara or as the base of the samsara. Only when the illusion-samsara vanishes is the Non-dual Brahman manifest.
However in the Buddhist context the Illusion is not removed but rather seen as jnana itself-transformed into Jnana. And this Jnana is not something that is the support or base of samsara. It is the knowledge of the true mode of existence of samsara itself that is jnana. And furthermore samsara is not illusion which will vanish and only the Brahman will remain. In Buddhism samsaera is pratityasamutpanna like all illusion. So it is only like an illusion and cannot end. What ends is the wrong experience of it as really existing (skt. svabhava siddha). The jnana that is synonymous with liberation is not of an eternal unchanging Brahman beyond Samsara but rather of the true mode of existence of Samsara itself.
Difference between Advaya and advaita
Although both Jnana are called non-dual, here too they mean two different things. Non-dual (advaita) in the Hindu context mean (divitiyam nasti). There is no second substance except the Brahman is the only thing that exists. This should be called Monism rather than Non-dualism. The word eka vastu vada would be closed that advaita.
However Buddhism usually uses advaya (only sometimes is advaita used) and here it means 'not two' i.e. free from the two extremes (skt. dvaya anta mukta) of samaropa (the tendency to see things as really existing) and apavada (the tendency to see things as non-existing). Which would include the existence of the grahaka and grahya too. Advaya is not of a thing (the one and only thing) like Brhama but a description of the Svarupa of samsara. That is why the samsara which is like illusion transforms into Advaya Jnana in Buddhism whereas in Hinduism the illusory samsara vanishes and the true eternal unchanging Brhaman dawns. That is why Gampopa sans (May illusion dawn as wisdom...)
There are tow traditions of explaining advaya in Buddhism. One is called Vast lineage (skt. Vaipulay parampara) of Asanga-Vasubandyhu based on the Five works of Maitreya which emphasizes subject object (skt. grahaka-grahya) duality. But unlike the various forms of Vedanta they neither merge into one while or nor does the grahya vanishas illusion and only the eternal grahaka remain. Here they are found to be untenable. From the very beginning. And what remains is emptiness. This system had many great teachers like Dingnaga-Dharmakirti.
The second lineage called the Profound (skt. gambhira parampara) starts with Nagarajuna through famous teachers like Arya Deva, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shanti Deva and Atisha. There were many other famous teachers like santarakshit, Kamakashila, who also gave synthetic interpretations of Advaya using both traditions.
Any Buddhist hermeneutics must be based in one of these hermeneutics must be based in one of ehrese hermeneutics or their various branches like sakara yogachara, nirakara yogachara, yogachara sautrantic Madhyamik, Yogchara Svcatantric Madhymik. Prasangic Madhyamikl, and Svatanteric Madhyamika etc. Just because one Understands Sanskrit or Tibetan one cannot interpret the sastras as we like giving straight forward meanings to these sastras. Any interpretation must belong to one of these hermenenutical methodologies. Otherwise it becomes one's own private idea of what these sastra are teaching . That is why Many Hindu scholars have misinterpreted the Buddhist sastras and claimed that the Buddhist Sastras are teaching the same thing found in the Hindu Sastra. But it is unfortunate that even so called Buddhist scholars or those who are favourable to Buddhism but have not studied under any lineage masters belonging to any other the above hemeneutics have interpreted the Sastras simply on the basis of understanding he Sanskrit language. Such interpretation are personal ideas and not true Buddhist hermenutics and if analysed one will find many contradiction and inconsistencies.
There are some who say that they are meditators and they are not interested in such theories. Some say such theories are only Buddhi-vilasa and others say that the lineage of meditation land the lineage of sastra study have no relationship. Such statements prove that such so called Buddhism teachers are only half backed. First of all I would like to remind them that Asanga, Vasubandhuy, Nagrjuna, Chandrakirt, Santideveand Atisha wer all great meditators and they are considered as among the greatest Buddhist masters in history among the greatest Buddhist masters in history They and infinite the such masters believe that it was necessary to acquire the correct Darsan to be able to truely practice the Buddhist meditation. Of course, Urgyen Rinpoche says, this correct view can be had in the form of simple pith instructions from a qualified master instead of an elaborate detailed study of the sastra, but one must still listen and think about and discuss and finally understand clearly the import of the Pith instruction which is the same thing elaborated in the sastra, so to say to meditate and does not need to study at all is utter non-sense. It is only after having understood the view correctly that correct Buddhist mediation can take place. Otherwise their is no difference between Hindu-Sufi-Christian-Tao and Buddhist Meditation. Some Newar Vajracharya, think that just taking initiation Cakrasambhara doing its ,mantras and doing the nadi chakra yoga related to it is enough and their is no need to study, If that is so why does the Hevajra Tantra etc say very clearly that one must study first vaibhasika then sautrantic them Yogachara then Madhyamika then only should one be given Abhiseka. Secondly, if just doing Nadivayu-tilak yagia in enough to have Mahamludra siddhi then the all the thousands of Hindu Masters who practice Kundalini yoga are alos BUddhas. such statements as above completely contradicts the very basic concept found in Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana that Meditation progresses from Srutamayi to Cintamayi to Bhavanamayai, How can there be sruti and cintana without valid study of valid sastra.
Notice, I say valid study, valid study means study with valid lineage teachers (not just somebody who knows Sanskrit or Tibetan and happens to be alama or Vajracharya by caste as is found among Tamangs or Newars). Valid lineage Masters teach according to historically accepted Buddhist hermeneutics and do not give their won personal self contradictory interpretations. Such a Master had studied with someone who belongs to one or more of these hermeneutical lineage. Such study is not merely Buddhivilas but a proper base for srutamayi and cintanamayi Bhavana create the correct views, which itself would be the proper foundation of or proper Buddhist bhavana i.e the third Bhavanamaya avastha, Simply doing nadi-vayu-tilak yoga without such a base it the same as doing Hindu Bhavana even if it is part of Hevajra or Cakrasamvara or Vajrabhairava or Kalcakra practice.
It is true that there are different lineages for study and meditation but to say that they are not interrelated is simply to show ones ignorance.
Now I would like to deal with the concept of Sugatagarabha or Tathagatagarbha or Dharmadhatuor Dharmakaya. Many Hindu scholars think that these words prove that Buddhism is basically speaking about the Brahman of Hinduism. If one studies the Ratnagotravibhaga and the Srimala Sutra it is easy to see that they make it very clear that the Sugatagarbha and Sunyata are cognate words. Sunyata is the mode of existence of all dharmas including the Mind which knowns this whereas Brahmanis a separate entity altogether form all Dharmas. Brhaman is something that truly exist (Parmarth satta). Sunyata is not a thing of Super thing but her mode of existence of all things and therefor it is nonsense to speak of it as a knowable epistemologically but not as a thing ontologically except interdependently. the Brhaman is not existing interdependently it is parmaretha satta-the one and only truly existing substance. The Brhaman is svabhavasiddha whereas Sunyata is nisvabhavata, the Brhaman is svalaksana siddha whereas Sunuyata is a Laksanata. The Brhaman is Paramartha satta whereas Sunyata is the unfindability or a bhava of such a parmartha satta anywhere.
Since the Ratnagotra makes it clear that sugatagarbha is just a cognate word for sunuyata, the Sugatagarbha and Brahman cannot be the same. The confusion is often created by the statement the Sugata garbha the Buddha nature exists in all sentient beings. The word 'exists' is the perpetrator of confusion. The 'exists' is only conventional usage, or giving way to conventional usage. without its use here one cannot express the fact that his is the mode of abiding of the true nature of mind of all sentient beings. 'Exists' here is a synonymn for 'is the mode of abiding'. The mode of abiding. so 'exists' here does not mean abide' (skt. sthita) but rather' non abidingness (skt. asthita). This is into mode of abiding or the sugatagarbha present in all sentient beings. Even in this last sentence the 'present' can create the same confusion. 'Present' here would mean present of the absence of self-existingness or self- characteristicness etc. that is positively named 'sugatagarbha' which is said to exist in all sentient beings. this exists' is qualities rather than existential. It is also more epistemological whereas the Brahman is more ontologically truly existing. the Brahman is not non-abiding but rather ' kutastha' which mean self-abiding.
I have already elaborated on his difference between the Sunyata sugatagarbha and the Brhaman in my article in the Buddhist Himalaya Vol VI, 1994-95. the word Samantabhadraqs used in the Dzog chen tradition can often mislead people to believe that Samantabhadra is some king of a god in this system. However, there is no God in any form of Buddhism and great Buddhist Masters like Nagarjuna, Odianaya Acharya, Kalyana Rakshita have written books proving that such beliefs are only for children. So Samantabhadra cannot be some substitute for God. Samantabhadra is a poetic metaphoric expression for the enlightened state i.e. the sugatagarbha all sentien beings already possess. This is the way things really are, the way things really exist from the very beginning However, although this state is always there and never was not so because of which it is called primordial enlightenment, we sentient beings, have apparently wandered from the knowledge of that which is already there as our true mode of existence therefore we have to be re0enlightened i.e. come to recognize the primordial enlightened state already present in us and through practice become established in it.
Buddhism does not believe, and this applies to the Dzogchen which is considered a relatively quicker or sudden path, that simply because Samantabhadra- the primodial enlightenment is already present in us from the begining we can just recognize that fact and we become enlightened. we have to be re-enlightened because we have already wandered off the path and to be re-enlightened. One needs to remove the cause why we wandered. The cause is ignorance. Ignorance is basically cognitive but includes the conditioning produced by the cognitive mistake. These conditioning validates further the mis-cognition which further produces more conditioning. Conditioning is in two form: Kleshavarana and Jneyavarana. The refore, to have correct cognition i.e. true recognition of Samantabhadra requires clearing off of the conditionings to some extent. Since cognition itself is moulded by these conditionings, true recognition cannot take place unless the hold of the conditioning on cognition has been relaxed to some extent, Bud even this recognition can only become a pin-prick opening which will naturally be conditioned by the still extant conditioning. So it is only through years of clearing off the conditionings through accumulation of merit (skt: Punya sambhara) and glimpsing a6t the true nature over and over again through Jnanasambhara that one finally is re-established in the state of re-enlightenment. Just recognizing one's true unconditioned state is not re-enlightenment. This is the major difference between the teachings of Punja swvami, Raman Maharsi, Adrew cohen, Krishmurti, Nisargadutta Maharaja and Sadyo Vedantic Systems like Astavakra Gita, Jivan mlukta Gita etc. and Dzog chen. They believe that just recognizing that one's true nature is primordially unconditioned is enough to free man. as we have seen earlier no forms of Buddhism agrees with that concept. The glimpse is only of the seed of enlightenment and is not the full enlightenment or enlightened state itself. There is a difference in the Tathagatagharbha and the Tatha gata.But there is another difference too. What they call the unconditioned is the Atman as found in Shastras of Hinduism. What Dzog chen of the Nyingma, the Mahamudra of Kagyr and Lamdrey of Sakya, the texts of the 'Profound and Vast' tradition call the unconditioned is the Tathagatagharbha, the Samantabhadra, Emptiness, nighsvabhavata, Anatma, as we have seen these zare diametrically opposed paradigms.
There are however two schools concerning the Tathagatagarbha, some Nyingma and Dagyiu based in the 'Vast lineage(skt. Vaipulya) of asanga interprete it as present in full form (not in seed) form but the veils covering it is gradually unveiled through practice. some Sakyapas based in the 'Profound' tradition of Nagarjuna however, interprete that it is only in seed form and has to developed into its full form through practice.
So what can be said in Buddhist language is that people like Raman Masharsi and Krishnamurti have only the base but on path related to that base and therefore logically no fruit too. Many of these teachers tech and indifferent state which is choiceless to be the base or the enlightened state, It must be understood very clearly that, that is not the state of Mahamudra or Dzog chen. Toandy form of Buddhism such a state of choiceless Awareness (as taught in the shive asutyras and Kashmira shaiva school) is moha and not the enlightened state. Being indifferent and untouched by pain, happiness, anger and attachment, remaining in a king of choiceles Awareness in not Dzong chen or Mahamudra although they may sound very close teach other. Such a state is to a state of moha or delusion. Dzogchen or Mahamudra is free from not only attachment or aversion but also from the choiceless state which is indifferent to them, the world etc.
That is why the Mahapandita and Sioddha of the Sakya lineage, Sakya Pandit warned 'Every body speaks about Mahamudra, Mahamudra, but if one had no properly understood or experienced them with the help of a genuine lineage Master such a state (indifferent choiceless state of awareness) is a sure way to reborn as an animal'.
It is also not a question of merely eschewing all conceptuality and just remaining in a non-conceptual state. when non-conceptuality is use din the context of Dzogchen or Mahamudra it is the Yogi pratyaksa the unity of Sunyata Prabhasvara in which Sunyatra Prabhasvara and the consciousness become one like water poured into water.
This is the Tahtagatyagarbha which is very different from the non-conceptual experience of a choiceless awareness or a Brhaman or Parasamvit. Many is called teachers are confused by the word non-conceptual to describe their experience, it must be the same as what they believe is their non-conceptual states without realising the possibility of may kinds of non-conceptual states. Perhaps things get clearer of one understands that in the Buddhist context non-conceptual is synonymous with pratyaksa- especially Yogi pratyak,sa, Ahnd it is always and experience of something which becomes non-dualistically one with the experiencing consciousness. so it is not just a non-conceptual state that Buddhist traditions are talking about; but rather a particular type of non-conceptual yogi pratyaksa experience of emp6tiness or the Tathagatagrbha that they mean by non-conceptual (skt. avikapla or nisprapanca).
Concept of Trikaya :-
After having said that I would like to take up the concept of Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. One way of looking at it is Daharmakaya as Sunyata. Rupaka (Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya) is pratityasamlutpad. We can divide all the there doors (skt. kaya, vak, citta) into the three kayas each, a very god metaphor is the crystal ball. The crystal ball itself is colorless representing emptiness. Even though it is colourless itself. it has the capacity to reflect all the seven colours if the right causes and conditions are present. This capacity is the capacity emptiness to appear as interdependent origination. This is the Sambhogakaya and if the right causes and conditions appear i.e. if a torch light is flashed into the crystal ball multi- oloured light will project out of it and appear on the wall. This is the actual appearance of the empty Samsara. This is called Nirmanakaya.
It is of utmost importance to understand these three Kayas to fully understand what is meant buy enlightenment in Mahayana-Vajrayana Buddhism. we find the word enlightenment used by Hinduism an also by teachers such as Punja Svami, Andrew cohen, Nisargadutta, J. Krishnamurtyi and U.G. Krishnamurti but they do not mean the same enlightenment as the enlightenment of Buddhism. In Mahayana Buddhism enlightenment means full realisation and else is inferior state, Because of the popular Hindu definition of mukti as no more birth in samsara which is also found in Mahayana and Theravada many people confuse about enlightenment and Mukti. Mukti is no returning to samsara anymore. It is not enlightenment. A person who attains Mukti goes to one of the pure realms like Sukhavali etc. from where he is not born bake in this world until he become enlightened. But enlightenment means that he has realised total reality as it is (skt. Yathabyhuta) which means he has actualised all the three kayas. Actualising the three kayas means attaining the three Vajra Kayas. Dharmakaya being the relisation of emptiness (anatma) there is no birth and death any more because there never was one who had taken birth. It is not destruction of some really existing Atman. It is the realisation that there never was any Atman from the begining which means there never was anyone who took birth from the very begining. However, true and in-depth realisation of dharmakaya also means relisation of the Rupakaya. just as true realisartion of emptiness also entail true realisation of Pratityasamutpad. There fore even though there is no birth, through the proper causes and conditions of compassion etc. Nirmanakaya emanate continuously to help all sentient beings. it is this Nirmanakaya which is wrongly called Avatari lama by Nepalese Buddhists due to the influence of Hindusm. But technically they are no avataras but emanations Nirmanakayas are not personalities born again but rather emanated (skt. nirmita) from causes and conditions due to the innate capacity of Dharmakaya. This innate capacity is Sambhogakaya. A personality if reborn can be only one. Nirmanakaya can be infinite.
Only such a person who although never being born, emanations are continually emanating for the sake of sentient beings, had realised Totality. and only such a person is enlightened. People who have no manifested such capacities are merely conceptually enlightened not truly enlightened.
This is the meaning of the statement made but the Eight Kdrmapa when he was born. He turned around to his mother and stated, " I am the unborn Krmapa". The unborn is the empty Dhrmakaya, however the apparently born Karmpsa who made this statement is the Nirmanakaya of this very unborn empty Dharmakaya. If you have understood Madhyamika well and understood that pratityasamutpad itself is anutpada (un-produced ) you realise that there is no contradiction.
Sambhogakaya is the capacity of the unborn empty dharmakaya nature of enlightenment and consists of all the qualities like omniscience etc.
If a person does not possess the qualities, he ahs not manifested the Sambhogakaya, he has no truly manifested the Dharmakaya which means according to Mahayana Buddhism he is not truly enlightened.
There are many such Masters around especially in Hinduism or coming from Hindu background who later claim to be Buddhist masters but have no realisation of three Kayas. Such people cannot be considered as enlightened Buddhist Masters. some of them do not even have the faintest idea what the three Kayas are about. Those who what tot practice Buddhist practices and attain the Buddhist enlightenment must be sensitive to these issues and not get confused by sweet talk and oratorship.
There are many degrees of enlightenment in Buddhism. That is the significance of the concept of Ten stages (skt. Dasa Bhumi) A man in the first bhumi itself is already enlightened and there for every different from an unenlightened person. He already has begun to manifest the three Kayas to some extent. The actualisation deepens as he moves to Second stage, the thirds stage and so on to Seventh bhumi. From the first to seventh bhumi is still considered as impure, it is only from the eighth onwards that the Nirmanakaya begins to manifest more visibly. From the eight to the tenth are the pure bhumis. It is said that many devas are found from first to sevetn bhumi; but only Gurus are found from the eight upwards. It is only when a person crosses over the Tenth bhumi to the No-learning stage (skt6. asaiksapada) or Vajradharahood according to tantra that the person is fully enlightened. Often in Tantra we find 134th bhumi instead of ten but again this is only a question of categories which can be done in many ways.
But even a person who achieves the Vajradharahod is still only what is called a Chitta Buddha. Meaning his minds a full Buddha like shakyamuni but his body is not with 32 superior marks and 80 secondary marks like Shakyamuni. So although he can be called a Buddha and there is no difference between his mind and Shakyamuni or any other Buddha, he has no perfected the Rupakya yet. it is any after collecting vast amounts of merit by emanating countless emanations for the benefit of others that he will also have the perfect Nirmanakayha liked Shakymuni, Krakuchchanda, Kashyapa etc.
It is said that it took three asankhyeya Kalpas for Shakyamuni to collect enough merit to have the perfect Nirmanakaya. According to the Tantra if the Sambhogakaya is developed according to Tantra methods, countless emanations can be send to collect merit quicker and faster that in the Sutra system or method that Shakyamuni used.
If you understand the Buddhist enlightenment correctly based on what has been said, one begins to realise that ordinary people, nowadays, who have no such qualities and claim to be enlightened Master are like clowns sitting on the thrones of emperors caricaturing the emperor. However, people have the freedom the define enlightenment in other ways; but in such a cas4e it is not the enlightenment of Buddhist especially Mahayana-Vajrayana.
People like Milarepa, Longchempa, Marpa, Sakyapaandita of Tibet and Surata vajra, Humkaravajrea, Sasvatvajra, jVakvajra, Jamunagubhaju of Nepal and Naropada, Tillipade, Virupada, Nagarjuna, Atisha of India of the Vajrayana tradition and Linchi, hogen, Sungsan, to san unmen of chinga, Dogen, Haquin Banke of Japan are at least in one of the higher bhumi if not chitta Buddha.
All of these manifested the display of Sambhogakaya manifestations throughout their life and especially during death. the death process of an enlightened beings is a very special occasion to gauge his depth. If he is enlightened, there is no question but that Sambhogakaya manifestations will take place during and after his death. Rainbows in the sky are around the house of dead body. The body shrinking to the size of 8-16 years old or in very advanced cases the body either vanishing or transforming into light are some of the manifestations. Manras and statures of deities engraving in their bones, special forms like stupas etc. found in th ashes are others. Earthquakes, storms, animals and birds beings disturbed, some parets of the body remaining intact after cremation are some others manifestations. There have been may well known Gurus who have clamed to be Buddha's or enlightened in the near past whose death showed absolutely manifestation. Such people cannot be considered enlightened in the Buddhist sense. as Karme Chagmed put it, "the corpse of an ordinary many the bed of a great scholar Guru"
Faith and Devotion:
Since there is no god in Buddhism, Bhakti as found in Mahayana Vajrayana cannot mean the same thing as in the Bhakti cults of Hinduism. First of all Bhakti (devotion) ins always towards the Guru. But he Guru plays a very special role in Vajrayana. Unlike Theravada and Mahayan where the Buyres is only a Kalyanamitra i.e. some body that points the way, in Vajrayana the Guru is not merely a Kalayanamitra, he is also the way itself. This second role is more important in the role of a Guru in Vajrayana. The guru is the State of Enlightenment. but since unlike Sutrayana which are cause-vehicle he is not state of Enlightenment. But Since unlike Sutrayana which are cause-vehicle he is not just a representative of the goal, the ideal of the goal to de attained: he is used as the path itself. Vajrayana is also called effect-vehicle (skt. phalayana) because it uses the effect in the path instead of creating cause and conditions (skt. hetu-pratyaya) as in cause vehicle to attain the effect one day. since the Guru is the Enlightened state ( he beings enlightened), he is used as the Path and the Path. He reflects ones own true nature and all ones defilements (skt. Klesha) and obstructions (skt. avaranas).It is when one truly see the guru as Primordially pure that one has also recognised ones own primordial purity and seen that the Guru was always one's own primordially pure Sugatagarbha.
Therefor devotion here is dedication and devotion to the path conventionally and devotion, faith, dedication in ones own Sugatagarbha. That is why in tantra the Guru is not an individual who gives you abhiseka but the Buddha himself or even more accurately ones own Buddhata reflected in the personality of the initiation giver. This is very important for the tantric path which uses the principle of effect-vehicle (using the fruit itself in the path to make the path quicker). Devotion is therefore to one own Buddha-nature to be used on the path and the vehicle used to crystallise this devotion and the Buddha-nature towards which devotion is to be developed in the personality of the Guru. That is why it is the first samaya (law, rule, bond) to see the Guru as the Buddha no matter through what King of personality it may crystalize. And that is also why one must be very careful to make sure that the Guru is genuine.
A genuine Guru in Vajrayana does not depend on how his personality is because most of the personality we see in him are own characteristics, we see reflected on him which we have to use as out path. A genuine Master is someone who has received instructions from a genuine lineage teacher belonging to pure unbroken siddha lineage. Such a lineage is not decided by caste or family although families can preserve such lineage. Such a lineage must produce enlightened and learned masters in every generation. Than only can it be considered as pure and unbroken enlightened lineage.
After having received all the theoretical and practical instructions from such a lineage master he himself must have practised those teachings and experienced them in his own mental continuum and also must be certified by his own masters as a teacher as an Acharya or Vajracharya or Vidyadhara. Only such Master, no matter how his personality is, can be considered worthy of being called a Master in Vajrayana.
It is not necessary in Vajrayana Buddhism to have only one Guru. This concept of one guru only is Hindu concept and not Buddhist. But I have found most Newars and Guru. This is Hindu influence and such a concept is not found in true Buddhism. If we study the life stores of all the Indian, Nepalese and Tibetan masters we found the majority of them and many Gurus. Some of them even had 300 Gurus. It is also wrong and narrow minded thinking to think if your have a Nyingma Guru you should not have a Sakya Guru also. Nyingma and Sakya are names found only in Tibet. If you study the history of the lineages you find the same Indian or Nepalese Masters taught both Marpa Lotsawa, the founder of Kagyupa and Drogmi Lotsawa, the founder of Sakya lineage of Rva Lotsava, Nyingma.
To vagisvarakirti or Phamthinpa or Humkaravajra, the Guru of Padma Sambhava or Bharo Bajracharya, Nyingma, Kagyu. Sakya or Gelug had no meaning.
I would like to dedicate the article:
1) For th swift return of the Nirmankaya of my Mula Guru Urgyen Rinpoche
2) For ht long life of my Mula Gurus H. E. Chodbgye Trichen Rinpoche & Karma Thinley Rinpoche
3) For the development of lineage & long life of Ratna Raj Vajracharya of Patan and Badri Ratna Vajracharya of Kathmandu both of whom are my Gurus.
4) For the long life of my Gurus Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche, Chokling Rinpoche and Thrangu Rinpoche and Khenpo Migyur.
Back to top