Many Buddhist traditions claim that they are reliable and authoritative because they inherit a lineage of realised masters dating back to prestigious teachers of the ancient past. That sounds impressive and appealing but the Buddha advised us to check out the truth of a teaching in our own experience. Perhaps the whole notion of lineage is a beguiling diversion from what Buddhist practice is really about
Authority is always a central issue in religious organisations because they ask individuals to trust them and believe their teachings. Religions cite include scripture, revelation, a teacher’s attainment or election as sources of authority. Sometimes claims are made explicitly (I am Enlightened, I know the truth), and sometimes they are implicit in the language that surrounds a religious leader, teaching or organisation: this is pure, uncontaminated, The Word of God/The Prophet/the Buddha, reality itself etc. The claims may or not be true; but the language that expresses them seeks to persuade us through its expressive power alone (that’s called rhetoric) rather than by exploring the truth for ourselves.
In this post I want to examine an authority claim that is especially important in Buddhism: lineage. These thoughts relate to my recent posts on succession issues in the NKT and the tulku system. Much else has been written, and I’ll mention a post on the Sweeping Zen blog Lineage Delusions: Eido Shimano Roshi, Dharma Transmission, and American Zen and a recent update here.
The more important authority claims based on lineage in Buddhist traditions include the following:
- Tibetan traditions stress the continuity of teaching from one generation to another as depicted in their Refuge Trees, showing how teachers derive their authority from a lineage stretching right back to the Indian masters and the cosmic Buddhas who inspired them. This continuity is especially important when tantric practices are passed on.
- The tulku system of reborn lamas is a unique variant within Tibetan Buddhism that avoids the difficulties of passing a teaching from one person to the next by claiming that they are, in fact the same person.
- Zen and Ch’an teachers are authorised ritually through Dharma Transmission, in which the successor is sanctified in a tradition said to date right back to the of the essential Dharma from the historical Buddha to his disciple Mahakasyapa.
- Monastic ordination as a bhikkhu/bhikkshu or a bhikkhuni/bhikkshuni is deemed legitimate when it is bestowed by monks who have themselves been duly ordained and are sufficiently senior, thus establishing a continuity of ordinations right back to the Buddha.
An approved lineage is, supposedly, a guarantee that a teaching is an authentic and reliable of Buddhist teachings. But here comes the paradox. When we look at the earliest sources for our understanding Buddha himself, he seems to have been wary of, or even hostile to, legitimisation through lineage. In the well-know teaching to the Kalamas the Buddha advises his listeners not to rely on anussava: (oral) tradition, repeated hearing and report; or paramparaa: succession, lineage or tradition. The mere fact that a teaching is ancient, he says, doesn’t make it true; it needs to be tested against experience. In the Discourses, the Buddha repeatedly ridicules the faith of Brahmins in their ancient lineages and tells Canki, for example, that they are like ‘a row of blind men, each holding on to the one in front of him: the first one doesn’t see, the middle one doesn’t see, the last one doesn’t see.’ (Canki Sutta MN 95). Our responsibility, he says, is to ‘safeguard the truth’ by discovering whether a teaching is associated with unskilful states of mind such as greed, hatred and ignorance, or with their absence.
Other incidents support this stance. Buddha refused to appoint a successor, not even his chief disciples, Moggallana and Sariputta, and in the account of his final days he tells Ananda that he did not even regard himself as a leader of the Sangha (DNII 101). Shortly afterwards he gives his famous advice that his followers should be self-reliant ‘islands unto themselves’.
This isn’t the whole story of the Buddha’s role in the Discourses. He is not merely a dispassionate dispenser of objective truth: he embodies it; and when he successfully communicates his insights to another person we witness an intimate and transformative meeting of minds. Many of his disciples referred their own wisdom to his own and said they were simply passing that on to others. In this way, we can see how a certain kind of lineage naturally develops. However, it’s easy to see how a lineage of inspiration and communication becomes a means of establishing institutional continuity and I think we need to distinguish the two.
The accounts of lineage that we find in the various traditions are myth, not history. As we can say nothing for certain about early Buddhist history, no one can trace their lineage back to the Buddha with certainty. We know that much of the account of the lineage linking Zen and Ch’an to Indian Buddhism is fictitious and much else is unverifiable. Referring to lineage is a way of escaping history. It is evident that the practices and teachings of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist traditions differ from those of early Buddhism. That doesn’t mean they are invalid: they may well add much that is only implicit in the early teachings. But accepting that means accepting that Buddhism changes as conditions change and insights often have to be worked out afresh.
Tibetan scholasticism is unaware that Tsongkhapa’s teachings differ from those of Indian masters or that Mahayana traditions in general differ from the teachings of the Discourses. Many followers of Japanese Buddhist traditions find themselves wedded to the view that the Lotus Sutra is the authentic teaching of the historical Buddha rather than a later composition, and they relate the effectiveness of their practices to this assertion. These views deny history. It is unsurprising when people in pre-modern societies do that, but it’s odd when westerners and others with a modern education do the same. In other contexts they would, but Faith intervenes.
I recognise the importance of ensuring that teachings aren’t watered down or fused, willy-nilly with other ideas that are actually quite different. But that requires a process of careful thought and exploration that is circumvented by ideas of lineage. Similarly, individual teachers who have realised the Buddhist teachings for themselves have always been very important, but the language of transmission (as if some ‘thing’ has literally been transmitted) elevates a teacher to an sanctified, magical super-human status, and it is hardly surprising when the feet of clay poke out beneath the robes.
It’s hard to go much further than these general comments about lineage in Buddhism because it takes so many different forms. I’ll just give a couple of examples.
Sangharakshita (my own teacher) argues in his book 43 Years Ago: Reflections on my Bhikkhu Ordination that in Theravadin Buddhism role of monks is central and the status of the monastic Order carries the authority of the past, right back to the Buddha. This is a version of lineage. However, it’s impossible to know that monks have been ordained correctly, according to the formal and technical criteria and therefore the whole basis of Theravadin spiritual life practice is compromised. He concludes that we must look beyond formal authorisation and base the spiritual life on the commitment that is expressed through going for Refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.
Finally, I’ll return to the NKT whose views of their own status seem to me a rather extreme instance of what I’m discussing here. NKT literature is peppered with claims that the organisation is passing on ‘the pure tradition of Mahayana Buddhism derived from the Buddhist meditator and scholar Je Tsongkhapa’. That denies the history and contingency not only of Tsonghkhapa’s teachings, but Geshe Kelsang’s as well. Individual practitioners must adapt themselves to the unquestionable authority of the practices and teachings they learn.
That way lies dogmatism. Strong authority claims on the part of spiritual teachers and organisations often turn out to be associated with the unethical use of power and turning a blind eye to abuses (think of the Catholic Church). Yes, this has sometimes happened in the Triratna Buddhist Community: my point is that we need to avoid the grand spiritual claims that sanctify abuses, and I think the TBC has done OK here.
Used strongly, this language invites an unquestioning reliance on a lineage, a teacher or a practice. No doubt, that appeals to some (at least for a while), but it lacks the balance of receptivity and self-reliance that I find in the early records of the Buddha’s teaching or in my own experience of healthy sanghas. The Buddha knew what to call it: a ‘wrong view’.
Read more Wise Attention Posts on Tibetan Buddhism
These are important observations. Whether one practices traditional or non-religious forms of Buddhism, nothing is more crucial than identifying one’s own wishful illusions and letting them go. Believing in the invincibilty of one’s own teachers and lineage is self-serving .. and self-deceptive.
So, what is your view of the FWBO/TBC use of lineage in, for example, the Refuge Tree with Sangharakshita at the bottom of it, the practice of Guru Yoga, or the widespread veneration of Sangharakshita’s Tibetan teachers (with photos on shrines etc) because of their links with Sangharakshita?
Hi Robert,
it’s a good question. What I’m criticising is the use of a lineage of past teachers to authorise the present ones. I would distinguish this from other ways of engaging with past generations that seem to me intrinsic to spiritual life and community: inspiration, education and communication. My understanding of the Triratna Refuge Tree, as Sangharakshita intends it, is that expresses these and doesn’t make authority claims (jinas etc = inspiration; teachers of the past = inspiration and education; teachers of the present = inspiration, education and communication).
I have some reservations about the Triratna Refuge Tree because it can be read as a source of authority, in the Tibetan manner. But I know it isn’t meant that way and I think it also expresses something valuable.
Sangharakshita’s teachers appeared on FWBO shrines long before the Refuge Tree was devised, and the same applies to how they are regarded. I hope they are regarded as sources of inspiration etc, and it is natural to feel a connection by way of a chain of individual relationships. However,anyone who believes that Sangharashita has authority to teach and interpret the Dharma because of his relationship with these teachers is misguided and probably heading for disillusionment. People who want that kind of legitimisation should really stick to a form of Buddhism that offers it through Asian precedents. The authority of Sangharakshita’s teachings can only rest on their intrinsic merits, and I think this is all he asks.
Thanks: I’m interested to see you express yourself thus clearly on this subject, Vishvapani. Personally I don’t have any problem with what people choose to use as a source of inspiration in private, but the public use of lineage-based devotional objects in the TBC is a real problem for me and I suspect others. If such pictures are used on public shrines it conveys an expectation that everyone will find them inspiring, whether they spontaneously do so or not – an expectation that is a claim of authority by stealth. You say you “hope” they are regarded as sources of inspiration, but what if they are not? And what about those who don’t feel it is “natural” to feel a connection by a chain of individual relationships, and thus feel public displays of lineage as an imposition from the group?
Hi Robert,
There’s no answer to those questions. I guess the point is that in public forums we need sensitivity to the variety of temperaments and preferences: high and low church, as it were. However, sensitivity never, sensitivity cuts both ways. Regarding other people’s preferences as an imposition might just be an unsympathetic interpretation.
I’m not very well learned on lineages, however, for my PhD one of my minors is Religion (my major is History) where I focus specifically on Buddhism. My advisor is very interested in lineages and wants me to start focusing on this concept as well, so I’m glad that I can turn to your readings to perhaps gain further insight. Thanks for this.
~Namaste~
Hi Vishvapani,
I take your point, but which is easier, for the lineage-celebrators to tolerate simplicity, or for those who prefer simplicity to tolerate the public celebration of lineage? I think the position is asymmetrical, and the default position ought to be one of simplicity and the limitation of assumptions about what everyone will find inspiring in public contexts. It’s rather like when vegetarians dine with meateaters: the meateaters might say that mutual tolerance cuts both ways, but actually there’s no reason why the meateaters shouldn’t eat the vegetarian food, joining together in the simpler option.
Dear Vishvapani,
I take your general point: lineage credentials do not guarantee authenticity, let alone infallibility. However, I think you portray a bit of a caricature of the way Tibetan Buddhists typically, and traditionally, evaluate their potential teachers. Clearly, there is often a strong dose of naiveté for many of us in the West, who may be swept off our feet by the exoticism of a tulku title of whatnot. However, traditional Tibetan presentations (such as the Lam Rim) include quite explicit guidelines for how the student should evaluate potential teachers. Numerous qualities are set out as being essential or desirable for somebody to be one’s guru, such as ethical conduct, compassion, skill in leading disciples according to their needs, scriptural knowledge, understanding and so forth. The person being a tulku or having some formal position in a lineage or institution are NOT among these criteria. The Dalai Lama has very often stressed the importance of evaluating spiritual teachers critically over a long period of time based on the Lam Rim criteria, as well as a more general open and questioning approach to studying Dharma. One also finds prominent texts from ‘old’ Tibet (Patrul Rinpoche’s ‘Words of my Perfect Teacher’ is a lovely example), effectively saying that the majority of established lamas and tulkus in Tibet were arrogant charlatans with no spiritual qualities whatsoever – so hardly a romanticised view, nor a guarantee that a tulku or lineage holder is an authentic spiritual teacher.
I do recognise the problems that you are talking about (particularly in the case of the NKT, whose rather absolutist approach to lineage is, in my experience, the exception rather than the rule among Tibetan Buddhists in the West). Many past and present students and teachers within Tibetan Buddhism have recognised such problems also (see for example Alex Berzin’s excellent ‘Relating to a Spiritual Teacher’ online). We know there is a need for reform. However, I think the solutions can be found within traditional Tibetan guidelines on the teacher-student relationship. As such, Tibetan Buddhism, even in its increasingly maligned ‘traditional’ forms, doesn’t have to be seen only as the source of the problem on this issue. It can provide solutions also. Indeed, the Dalai Lama could be seen to exemplify how a modern, non-sectarian approach to Dharma practice – one that is comfortable with religious pluralism, science, and so forth – is entirely possible without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
A second more minor point: I disagree with your characterisation of the tulku system as a kind of substitute for the oral transmission of teachings between generations. Although a line of tulkus might be called a ‘lineage’, this should not be confused with a teaching lineage. In other words, a tulku stills needs to receive all the relevant teachings, tantric empowerments, etc. of the lineage (often from students of their predecessors) before passing them on to others. Being a recognised tulku is not enough to establish someone as a holder of the lineage. This doesn’t make it a faultless system, and it may well have outlived its usefulness, but this is a separate issue from the broader notion of lineage.
Sam
Well said.
O Bodhisattvas!
Please help!
One thing in every Bodhisattva’s practice these days stands out: no matter how hard we practice, so that all beings, all beings without an exception, benefit, the conditions for life in this world continue to deteriorate at ever increasing pace.
What can be going wrong? Why isn’t the quality of life for all beings here and now improving?
The reason that things in this world generally are going from bad to worse is that we don’t have a clear idea, a clear thought in our minds of how should all life in this world be accommodated optimally, so that all beings exists in harmony with all others.
Or, perhaps, we, individually, do have ideas of what the ideal state of this world should be, but not a single one of our ideas is identical with the ideas of others, and we might not even be aware of this, since there is no proper way to compare our ideas that we might have on the subject with each other, and therefore we all direct our efforts towards sometimes even fundamentally divergent objectives, and, in the end, due to our working towards different objectives (because there is no clearly defined collectively held idea of what this world should be like at its optimum), there is no chance for conditions for all life here and now to become optimal ever.
What needs to be done is that we all agree on what actually the optimal conditions for all life on Earth should be. Then, while we work towards the same, by all of us agreed upon goal, not anymore sorting out our differences in real life (which is very costly in time, resources, and lives), we stand a much better chance of seeing the tide turning, and seeing the conditions for all life on Earth starting, actually, improving.
That all beings (with no exception) benefit optimally fully here and now is very important, because here and now is forever in all three times and all directions of space. If all beings don’t benefit by our actions here and now, they never will. Here and now is all we have ever. All beings have to benefit fully here and now!
Bodhisattvas! What kind of a world should the Earth be to accommodate all life optimally? How shall we unify, harmonize all our individual ideas about what this world should be like ideally so that we all work towards one clearly defined objective?
Some ideas how this could be done are presented at http://www.ModelEarth.Org .
May all differences, all controversies, all conflicts, and all complaints that there are in this world among all beings be resolved peacefully without any delays! May all these be prevented from ever arising by using what-so-ever expedient, skillful, effective, appropriate, and wholesome means! May this come to pass by the power of all true Bodhisattvas ever merit!
!OmManiPadmeHum!
May all beings, without an exception, benefit to the utmost by this action in all ways possible, spiritually and materially alike, starting with all beings that there are here and now.
May humans become fully and truly forever transparently sustainable for their own good and for the benefit of all beings!
Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone – http://www.ModelEarth.Org .
—
Relevant:
Creating Lasting Peace- http://www.ModelEarth.Org/peace.html
Mahayana: Philosophy for Sustainability- http://www.ModelEarth.Org/mahaecosoc.html
Why Prayers, Meditations, Wishes, and Any Such Don’t Help to Establish a Lasting Peace in the World- http://www.ModelEarth.Org/praypeace.html
This Paradise Earth: Philosophy in Practice- http://www.ModelEarth.Org/paradise.html
I can see that the NKT’s idea of strict adherence to lineage looks restrictive, but in practice the tradition’s teachers are very gentle and don’t ask students to do anything bad or dangerous, so however much the lineage may or may not have allowed teachings to develop and evolve it does seem to have consisted of people who tested the knowledge they were teaching and learning – and adapting – against the basic principles of Buddhism. The alternative, from the NKT point of view, would be to allow teachings to develop and evolve unchecked and, eventually, inevitably end up diverging from Buddha’s original intention.
Lineage-based traditions don’t just look at the last link in the chain and accept it blindly, but make a point of studying Buddha’s original teachings, and do their best to judge later teachings against his words. There is nowhere to go within Buddhism if we contradict his teachings, so he is really the ultimate dogmatist and lineage guru himself, isn’t he?