The Nonsectarian Movement

by John Powers

"When you study, study everything under the sun.
When you reflect, keep an open mind.
When you practice, do one practice and go deep."

– Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Thaye, 1813-1899

In spite of the many similarities in view and practice among the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, sectarian controversy has been a recurring feature in Tibet since earliest times. Every order has produced scathing attacks on its perceived rivals, and the history of Tibetan Buddhism is marked by oral debates between competing groups as well as persecutions and factional wars. In the late nineteenth century, several prominent lamas in eastern Tibet began a countermovement, commonly referred to as “Nonsectarian” (Ris med; pronounced “Rimé”). It was a direct challenge to the scholastic approach of the Gélukpa order, whose educational system mainly relies on textbooks (yig cha) that summarize key philosophical and doctrinal points. The definitions (mtshan nyid ) they contain are derived from Indian “root texts”; these are memorized by students and form the basis of their curriculum and examinations.
The Nonsectarian lamas, by contrast, required their students to study Indian sutras and philosophical texts, and much of the Nonsectarian literature consists of original commentaries on them. The philosophical basis of most Nonsectarian lamas is the “other-emptiness” (gzhan stong) view, which posits a self-existent ultimate reality that can only be understood by direct meditative perception. Another important aspect of Rimé is the vision of the great perfection developed by the “treasure discoverer” (gter ston) Jikmé Lingpa (1730–1798). His revelation of the Heart Essence of Longchenpa cycle of practice is one of the foundational sources of the movement.

His reincarnation Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo (1820–1892) became one of the leading figures in the Nonsectarian movement. Like other Nonsectarian lamas, he advocated a universalist approach to Buddhist teachings, according to which all were said to have value for particular practitioners. Students were encouraged to study extensively in various traditions, and as Gene Smith has pointed out, one of the key features of the movement was an encyclopedic orientation. Nonsectarian lamas produced a number of compendia of Buddhist learning, most notably Jamgön Kongtrül’s (1813–1899) Compendium of All Knowledge. Unlike some scholars of his time, who focused on certain works they regarded as normative and rejected others, Kongtrül and his students traveled throughout Tibet searching for texts, initiations, and oral lineages—both those that were widely popular and others that were obscure and local—and brought them together in huge collections. Contrary to those who claimed that one approach was superior to all others, they sought to make available as many teachings and practices as possible so that students could choose those that were most effective. Their sources were not limited to religious or philosophical texts, and they incorporated folk traditions and popular literature, including such classics as the Epic of Gésar of Ling.

By contrast, the Gélukpa scholars of the time tended to reiterate the paradigms that had been handed down to them and to engage in rote and unoriginal scholarship. There were some notable and original scholars among the Gélukpas, but the main monasteries of the order were generally bastions of dogmatic conservatism, and authors of the time mainly composed textbooks that elaborated on definitions and debates found in earlier texts. Many of these laid out possible debates and counterarguments in great detail, and these were memorized by students. They provided set refutations against potential opponents, and so students learned to simply identify a mistaken view and apply the appropriate label rather than examining philosophical positions on their own merits. The Rimé masters, however, urged their students to look at the Indic root texts and to take in the oral instructions of a variety of teachers in order to become acquainted with a range of perspectives. The emphasis was on direct understanding rather than repetition of established “correct” positions.

The Gélukpa tradition following Tsong Khapa sought to sift through texts, doctrines, practices, and opinions and discern the most philosophically cogent or normative ones. These were encoded in set definitions and debates, which were memorized by students. The Nonsectarian lamas took an eclectic approach that valued the multitude of tantric practices and lineages as suited to the proclivities of certain practitioners. Thus Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo—a Sakya lama who also practiced the Nyingma great perfection—and Jamgön Kongtrül, a Kagyupa, gathered tantric lineages from Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, Kadam, Jonang, and other sources. Kongtrül and his students compiled them in large collections. When the texts, empowerments, and oral instructions from various sources had been incorporated in one individual, he or she could then pass on the whole range of what they had received to students.

The Nonsectarian masters took a similarly open approach to religious practice. Many of the main figures of the tradition were nonmonastics, and some of the treatises associated with the movement disparage monks as plodding dogmatists of limited intelligence. Some Nonsectarian lamas moved between the state of ordination and that of lay tantrics (sngags pa), but others maintained monastic vows throughout their lives. The general attitude of Rimé practitioners was one that recognized the potential value of different modes of practice and lifestyles and that refused to categorically regard one as superior to another in all circumstances.
In keeping with its nondogmatic approach, the Nonsectarian movement was not a distinct school with fixed doctrines, nor did it create a distinctive monastic order with its own institutions. Instead, its proponents maintained allegiance to their own lineages, but adopted elements from the various Buddhist traditions available to them. No one approach to Buddhist doctrine and practice was dogmatically asserted, and the essence of the movement was an openness to different approaches.

Like Jikmé Lingpa, many of the great Rimé masters came from nonaristocratic backgrounds, and generally shunned institutional Buddhism. Because of the emphasis on lineage, there is generally a particularly close bond between lamas and students. Retreats are a core element of the tradition, and students are often guided by their teachers for extended periods of practice in solitude. The literature of Rimé emphasizes the beneficial results of long retreats and the importance of regular engagement in solitary meditation. Not surprisingly given this emphasis, biographies of the luminaries of the tradition emphasize visions, trances, revelations, and oral instructions. Many of the prominent Nonsectarian lamas were also treasure discoverers, and disclosures of new “hidden treasures” are an important aspect of its history.
Most contemporary lamas of the non-Gélukpa traditions are directly influenced by this important movement, and many of its practices have also found their way into the Gélukpa order. One key difference between Nonsectarian traditions and the Gélukpas is the doctrine of other-emptiness, which is a cornerstone of most Rimé practice, but is staunchly rejected by the Gélukpas. (Not all Rimé masters hold to this view, however; Mipam is a prominent example of a Rimé lama who adhered to the self- emptiness view.)

Other-Emptiness
As we have seen, the doctrine of emptiness figures prominently in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist thought. Questions regarding how emptiness should be interpreted have been a major source of debate between the various orders of Tibetan Buddhism, and they continue to generate controversy today.
The two most influential factions advocate respectively the doctrines of “other-emptiness” (gzhan stong; pronounced “shendong”) and “self-emptiness” (rang stong; pronounced “rangdong”). The latter position is held by the Gélukpa order, which follows the interpretation of Madhyamaka developed by Tsong Khapa. He contended that emptiness is a “non-affirming negative,” meaning that it is simply a radical denial of inherent existence (rang bzhin, svabh›va), a quality falsely attributed to phenomena by ordinary beings. From the perspective of an ignorant consciousness, phenomena appear to exist by themselves and are not viewed as composites of smaller parts created by causes and conditions and subject to decay, and persons appear to possess enduring selves that are independent of the vicissitudes of birth, death, and change. The Gélukpas deny that there is any enduring substance and hold that all phenomena are collections of parts that are constantly changing due to the influence of causes and conditions.

According to the other-emptiness interpretation, emptiness is the ultimate truth and is conceived as a self-existent, unchanging reality that pervades all phenomena. It is empty of what is other than itself—that is, the mistaken perceptions attributed to it by deluded beings. But it is not void of itself, since it is the final nature of all phenomena. The emptiness of the Gélukpas is said to be “dead emptiness” (bem stong) because it would be a state devoid of any qualities. Proponents of other-emptiness claim that it is in fact the repository of all the qualities of buddhahood and is inherent in all beings. It cannot be known by logic or conceptuality, and is only realized by advanced yogis through direct, nonconceptual insight. The Gélukpas denounce this position as an attempt to reify the Absolute and smuggle Indian substantialist notions into Buddhism.

One of the key debates between the Gélukpas and their opponents who advocate the “other-emptiness” position concerns how the doctrine of the “womb of the tathagata” (de bzhin gzhegs pa’i snying po, tath›gata-garbha) should be understood. This notion, found in some Indian Buddhist texts, holds that all sentient beings have the potential to become buddhas. Advocates of other-emptiness conceive of this potential as a positive, self-existent essence that pervades all existence and is made manifest through meditative training, but is not created by it.
Buddhahood is the basic nature of mind, and it is subtle, ineffable, and beyond the grasp of conceptual thought. It cannot be described in words, and can only be understood through direct experience. According to this position, all phenomena are of the nature of mind, which is a union of luminosity and emptiness. They have no substantial existence, and merely exist within the continuum of mind. Initiations by Rimé masters—particularly those who belong to the Nyingma and Kagyu orders, which emphasize the formless meditations of the great completion (dzogchen) and great seal (mahamudra) respectively—commonly feature oral instructions in which lamas “point out the nature of mind” to students, who are then instructed to cultivate a direct apprehension of this reality themselves. Those who succeed in grasping the nature of mind and perceiving all phenomena as emanations of luminosity and emptiness are able to attain buddhahood in a single instant of awakening.

Extract from "Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism" by John Powers, published by Shambhala publications.


John Powers has published twelve books, including Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. He received his PhD from the University of Virginia and specializes in Indian and Tibetan intellectual history. He is currently Professor of Asian Studies at Australian National University.