The Drikung Kagyu Celebrating 800 Years

Lord Jigten Sumgon/Jigten Gonpo (‘bri-gung-pa-‘jig-rten -gsum-gon/‘bri-gung-pa-‘jig-rten-mgon-po); founder of the Drikung/Drigung Lineage

As many (most? All?) of you know, I don’t “play favorites”, I don’t root for teams, when it comes to religious traditions that I’m affiliated with. Across the Buddhist spectrum, this is many more times the case, but it doesn’t prevent me from my enthusiasms.

For many years, I’ve been and continue my affiliation with the Drikung Kagyu because, well, so many friends have been or are still monks in the lineage and because it really is the embodiment of a Tibetan practice lineage. Sure, I have my reservations about Buddhism in general and Tibetan Buddhism in particular; these have been articulated elsewhere. However, there’s much to commend the Drikung lineage in terms of application.

I seem to recall Lama Sonam many years ago was asked about what texts students at the center (now in Arlington, Massachusetts) would be studying and he replied (Lama-la, I hope you remember this); “We are practice lineage; we practice.”

This is historically the lineage’s approach. It’s arguable that the lineage produced anyone on the order of a Longchenpa, Tsongkhapa, or Gampopa in terms of scholasticism or intellectual stature. It’s arguable that not much has been seen in the way of evolution in the lineage from an epistemological perspective, but I don’t think that was ever the point. The Gong Chig has remained the ur-text of the lineage and little has come from his successors in the way of expansion on it. To be sure, Chenga Dorje Sherab provided commentary and laid a philosophical groundwork for the Drikung Kagyu, but by and large, innovation has come from the development of rigorous devotional practices. Indeed, the Fivefold Mahamudra of Jigten Sumgon was introduced to the Karma Kargyu with its attendant (and also rigorous) discipline and retreat commitment.

The Main Hall: many tormas with Shakyamuni Buddha and Jigten Sumgon looking over the proceedings; HH Chetsang Rinpoche is present while the other lineage head, HH Chungtsang Rinpoche is represented in absentia

This is not to say that the Drikungpa are intellectually disadvantaged compared to their colleagues in the other lineages. Indeed not. There is a syncretic approach that characterizes the lineage’s approach in terms of a kind of absorption of all views. Madhyamika, Yogachara, and just about every intellectual strain of Buddhism is at the disposal of the Drikung practitioner.

Pillar commemorating the 800th anniversary
of the Kyobje Drinkungpa's parinirvana

Tenzin Youdon Taksham rocking a chuba in
weather way to hot to be rocking a chuba. You may
want to visit her GoFundMe page to assist in raisng
funds for Taksham monastery (Www.gofundme.com/monasterygate)

Today was the second day of the celebration of the 800^th Anniversary of Jigten Sumgon’s Parinirvana in Dehradun. Devotees from across South Asia and the world are here and it’s turning out to be quite the do. This morning was taken up with lama dances, cham dances, and hanging out with Youdon Taksham (Boston represent!!! Okay, maybe I do root for a team…)

I spent some downtime in the Gompa, where I’ll spend more over the next few days. In the meantime, there is a series of full days ahead. After lunch, we were treated to exposition and debate. Normally, I snooze during these performances (and they are performative), but today my attention was taken by a group of nuns supporting the argument that all non-virtuous actions are non-virtuous at all times. The monks who proposed the opposite view argued from a basis that provides fuel for a fire that should be raging in Mahayana Buddhist ethics and soteriology (more now than ever). (1)

Nuns debating a panel of monks

In brief, the monks rebuttals were based on the perspective that under some circumstances, a non-virtuous action could be beneficial. They didn’t cite it, but the Upaya-Kausalya Sutra/Skill in Means Sutra came to mind; in it, Shakyamuni Buddha in a prior lifetime was a boatman ferrying a group of people among whom was a murderer. With his clairvoyant powers, the bodhisattva saw into the murderous passenger’s character and history and finished him off. The reasons are threefold. One, to save the lives of the other passengers who would be killed; two, to bring an end to the multiplication of the murderer’s karma and his own ripening misery by; three, the bodhisattva assuming the karma for killing and unselflessly accepting the burden of the murderer’s karma.

The monk’s didn’t take that specific tact, though. They simply argued that the bodhisattva and Vajrayana vows supercede and transcend the pratimoksha vows. This was fascinating because the non-virtuous actions are comprised of killing, intoxication, theft, lying, and sexual misconduct. It was this latter where the nuns did not back down. The monks fell back on the higher vows as a basis for “apparently” non-virtuous conduct and the nuns were having none of it (to be sure, they pointed out in all their other arguments that people are hurt by non-virtuous actions regardless of whether the intention behind those actions is motivated by compassion or wisdom that finds its basis in the so-called higher vows.)

I have to admit that I was a bit uncomfortable because I wasn’t sure if the monks really got it, or if they really do support the thesis that if your motivation is pure you can get drunk/indulge in sexual misconduct/kill, etc. The underpinnings of these vows are, I feel, untenable and unsupportable and I don’t believe that they have a place in Buddhism. Even in the example most used to defend the “it’s not non-virtuous if the motivation is pure” (just read that out loud…) of the Jataka tale quoted above, you mean to tell me that the Buddha in training couldn’t find another way to subdue the murderer? He’s a bodhisattva; he is possessed of greater powers, etc. This argument doesn’t hold water.

In terms of sexual misconduct, many are still reeling from the recent fallout from Sogyal Rinpoche’s misconduct (and we can point to many, many others); the point is that these actions – even if originating from a “pure” perspective are going to damage and cause suffering regardless.) You cannot kill, rape, steal, lie, or be an alcoholic without causing pain to someone else to some degree, lesser or greater (mostly the latter). I detest the idea of “just” wars or “justifiable” homicide; all these deeds stem from human limitations and our basest sides.

A justifiable killing might be one of self-defense, but I’ve known too many people from police officers to military personnel who have to wrestle with the demons of having killed another human being. They don’t talk about it and when they do it starts out with “I know the other guy may have had a family” or “all I know is it was me or him” but there’s something telling about the trauma that killing another human being sets in motion. Under no circumstances have I met anyone who felt good about this.

In terms of “sexual misconduct”, I was so proud of those nuns to continue that debate. Their voices need to echo across the monasteries (as they echo the voices of their lay sisters in the secular world). Real bodhisattvas are also fierce and righteous (although these nuns were pretty joyous throughout the debate!) and I wonder if the challenge these nuns presented is fully appreciated by the male monastics.

Short clip of nuns' debate.

The other debate focused on a point in the Gong Chig (the Single Intention; but it’s also been translated as “the holistic enlightened view” which is altogether more words than one needs to spend and also slightly misleading) in which Jigten Sumgon proposes that it’s the subtle obscurations to omniscience that need to be overcome first.

For the sake of brevity, I won’t recount that debate now, but essentially, the monk from Rinchen Ling in Kathmandu who presented the argument had that syncretism I’d mentioned above down to an art. He supported the thesis from a rang-tong (rang-stong) and shang-tong (zhang-stong) Madhyamika perspective, called on Tathatagharba doctrines and melded them into a solid argument. I will come back to this because I think it’s worth sharing.

Tomorrow His Holiness Chetsang Rinpoche will be granting the guru yoga empowerment called “Indestructible Bliss” (bde-ba’i rdo-rje); he is stressing that unless participants are really going to keep the commitment of practicing the sadhana every day, they should not take the empowerment. I concur, therefore, I’m sitting this one out. I may come for dinner and the enactment of Achi Chokyi Drolma, though.

It wasn't all heavy debate, there was some fun and games and plenty of stuff to do.

This older monk was tossing that frisbee with aplomb.

End notes:

1.       I’m assuming the basis is this point: “There is no allowance for non-virtues that do not bring forth evil.” Gong Chig IV.6. There are four additional slogans that Vajrayana practitioners may wish to keep in mind and that seem to go conveniently overlooked:

“In the practice of tantra, ethics are indispensable.

The obstructive nature of desire is the same in sutra and tantra.

The is no occasion where a non-virtue becomes a virtue in tantra.

            What is non-virtuous in Vinaya does not become virtuous in tantra.”

Ibid. V.21-24

Next up:

I'll recap the monk's support of Jigten Sumgon's proposition that the subtle obscurations should be overcome first, as well as a detailed guide to the principle tormas behind HH Chetsang Rinpoche

The large tormas behind His Holiness are worth taking a closer look at.