It must be understood that Hinduism and Buddhism have shared the same culture for the last 2500 years, which
also shared common language/s (Sanskrit or Pali). Because of this historical situation, there are many words
are used commonly in both traditions. This has led many scholars, especially Hindu scholars, to think that words
and symbols mean exactly the same thing in both the traditions. By extending this thinking, they arrive at the
conclusion, mainly that Buddhism is another form, or revision, or reformation of Hinduism.
First of all, it is wrong to say that Buddhism is either a branch or a formation of Hinduism. Buddhism is
actually a paradigm
shift from not only Hinduism but also from all other religious systems. Secondly, words used commonly in both
and Buddhism do not mean the same thing. In fact, very often they mean almost the opposite, and certainly at all
times they point at two different paradigms.
I would like to elucidate some of these points that will affect the meaning in the two systems directly
First of all, in the Hindu context, we always find the theory that if illusion is removed, Brahman will reveal.
is illusion and Brahman is the only thing behind samsara, or is the base of the samsara, that truly exists. Only
when the illusion-samsara vanishes, the Non-dual Brahman manifests.
However, in the Buddhist context, illusion is not removed but rather seen as knowledge itself - or is
transformed into knowledge.
And this knowledge is not something that is the support or base of samsara. It is the knowledge of the true mode
of existence of samsara itself. And furthermore, samsara is not an illusion which will vanish and only the
will remain. In Buddhism, samsara is interdependently arisen (pratityasamutpann), like all illusions. So it is
like an illusion and cannot end. What ends is the wrong experience of experiencing it as really existing (skt.
siddha). The knowledge (Gyana), that is synonymous with liberation, is not of an eternal, unchanging Brahman
samsara, but rather of the true mode of existence of samsara itself.
Difference between Advaya and Advaita
Although both experiences are called non-dual, here too, they mean two different things. Non-dual (advaita) in
context means non-existence of the second (divitiyam nasti). There is no second substance except the Brahman; it
is the only thing that exists. This should be called Monism rather than Non-dualism. The phrase 'eka vastu vada'
(one thingism) would be close to 'advaita'.
However, Buddhism usually uses 'advaya' (only sometimes is advaita used). 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
to see things as non-existing) - which include the existence of the grasper and the grasped (grahaka and grahya)
too. Advaya is not of a thing (the one and only thing) like Brahma but a description of the form of samsara.
is why the samsara that is like an illusion transforms into Advaya Gyana in Buddhism. In Hinduism, the illusory
vanishes and the true eternal, unchanging Brahman dawns. That is why Buddhist Gampopa says, "May illusion
There are two traditions of explaining 'advaya' in Buddhism. One is called the Vast Lineage (skt. Vaipulay
Asanga-Vasubandyhu. This is based on the 'Five Works' of Maitreya that emphasizes subject-object (skt.
duality. But unlike the various forms of Vedanta, they neither merge into one whole, nor does the grasper
vanishes, and the illusion and only the eternal grasper remains. Here, they are found to be untenable from the
beginning. What remains is emptiness. This system had many great teachers like Dingnaga-Dharmakirti.
The second lineage, called the Profound Lineage (skt. gambhira parampara), started with Nagarajuna, and was
passed down through
famous teachers such as Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Atisha. Other famous
like Shantarakshita and Kamakashila, gave synthetic interpretations of 'advaya' using both traditions.
Any Buddhist hermeneutics must be based on one of these hermeneutics or their various branches like
‘Nirakara Yogachara’, ‘Yogachara’, ‘Sautrantic Madhyamik’, ‘Prasangic
and ‘Svatantric Madhyamika’, etc. Just because one understands Sanskrit or Tibetan, one cannot
the ‘Sastras’ (texts) as one likes, giving straightforward meanings to them. Any interpretation must
belong to, or be in conformity with one of these hermeneutical methodologies. Otherwise, it becomes one's own
idea of what these texts are teaching. That is why many Hindu scholars have misinterpreted the Buddhist texts
claimed that they are teaching the same thing found in the Hindu texts. But it is even more unfortunate that
so-called Buddhist scholars or those who are favorable to Buddhism, have not studied under any lineage masters
to any of the above hermeneutics, and have interpreted the texts simply on the basis of understanding the
language. Such interpretations are personal ideas and not true Buddhist hermeneutics, and if analyzed, one will
many contradiction and inconsistencies.
There are some who say that they are meditators and they are not interested in such theories. Some say such
only intellectual pleasures, and others say that the lineage of meditation and the lineage of text studies have
relationship. Such statements prove that such so-called Buddhist teachers are only half-baked.
First of all, I would like to remind them that Asanga, Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Shantideve, and
Atisha were all
great meditators and they are considered among the greatest Buddhist masters in history. Such masters believed
it is necessary to acquire the correct philosophies to be able to truly practice the Buddhist meditation
Of course, H.E. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said that this correct view could be presented in the form of a simple
instruction from a qualified master, instead of an elaborate and detailed study of the religious texts. But one
still listen, think, discuss, and finally understand clearly the importance of the pith instruction, which is
same thing elaborated in the texts. So, to say that to meditate one does not need to study at all is utter
It is only after understanding the view correctly that correct Buddhist mediation can take place. Otherwise,
would be no difference between Hindu, Sufi, Christian, Tao, and Buddhist meditations.
Some Newar Vajracharyas think that just taking the initiation of Cakrasamvhara, chanting its mantras, performing
and chakra practice (nadi-chakra yoga) related to it is enough and there is no need to study. If that was so,
does the Hevajra Tantra, etc., say very clearly that one must study first the Vaibhasika, then the Sautrantic,
the Yogachara, and then the Madhyamika, then only be initiated?
Secondly, if doing just Nadivayu-tilak yog would lead to Mahamudra accomplishments, then thousands of Hindu
practice Kundalini Yoga, would achieve Buddhahood. Such thinking completely contradicts the very basic concept
in Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Meditation progresses from wisdom gained through hearing (Srutamayi), to
gained through contemplation (Cintamayi), to wisdom gained through meditation (Bhavanamayai). How can there be
and contemplation without a valid study of valid religious texts?
Notice when I say valid study. Valid study means study with valid lineage teachers, not just somebody who knows
or Tibetan and happens to be a lama or Vajracharya by caste, as is found among Tamangs and Newars. Valid lineage
Masters teach according to historically accepted Buddhist hermeneutics and do not give their own personal
interpretations. Such a Master has studied with someone who belongs to one or more of these hermeneutical
Such a study is not merely intellectually entertainment but is also a proper base for acquiring wisdom gained
listening and contemplation, and this creates an understanding of the correct view. This is the proper
for proper Buddhist meditation, i.e. the third wisdom gained through meditation. Simply doing 'nadi-vayu-tilak
without such a base is the same as doing Hindu meditation, even if it is part of Hevajra, or Cakrasamvara, or
or Kalacakra practice.
It is true that there are different lineages to study and meditate, but to say that the two are not
interrelated, is simply
Now, I would like to deal with the concept of ‘Sugatagarbha’, or ‘Tathagatagarbha’, or
or ‘Dharmakaya’. Many Hindu scholars think that these words prove that Buddhism is basically
about Hindu Brahman. If one studies the Ratnagotravibhaga, and the Srimala Sutra, it is easy to see that they
it very clear that Sugatagarbha and Sunyata (emptiness) are cognate words. Sunyata is the mode of existence of
phenomena, including the mind, which knows this; whereas Brahman is a separate entity altogether from all
Brahman is something that truly exists (absolutely existing / Parmartha Satta). Sunyata is not a thing or a
Thing’ but the mode of existence of all things. Therefore, it is nonsense to speak of it as knowable
but not as a thing ontologically except interdependently. The Brahman, according to Hinduism, is not existing
but truly existing – the one and only truly existing substance. The Brahman is svabhavasiddha (inherent),
Sunyata is nisvabhavata (non-inherent); the Brahman is svalaksana siddha, whereas Sunyata is a Laksanata. The
is Paramartha satta (ultimate existence), whereas Sunyata is the unfindability of such a parmartha satta
Since the Ratnagotra makes it clear that sugatagarbha is just a cognate word for emptiness (Sunyata),
Sugatagarbha and Brahman
cannot be the same. The confusion is often created by the statement that the Sugatagarbha or the Buddha nature
in all sentient beings. The word 'exists' is the perpetrator of confusion here. The ‘exists’ is only
for conventional usage, or giving way to conventional usage. Without its use here, one cannot express the fact
this is the mode of abiding of the true nature of mind of all sentient beings. ‘Exists’ here is a
of ‘is the mode of abiding’, so ‘exists’ here does not mean ‘abide’ (skt.
but rather ‘non abidingness’ (skt. asthita). This is the mode of abiding, or the sugatagarbha
in all sentient beings. Even in the last sentence, the word ‘present’ can create the same confusion.
‘Present’ here would mean presence of the absence of self-existingness or self-characteristicness,
What is positively named ‘Sugatagarbha’ is that it is said to exist in all sentient beings. This
is qualitative rather than existential. It is also more epistemological, whereas the Brahman is more
truly existing. The Brahman is not non-abiding but rather ‘kutastha’, which mean self-abiding.
I have already elaborated the differences of Sunyata Sugatagarbha and Brahman in my article in the Buddhist
VI, 1994-95. The word ‘Samantabhadra’ used in the DzogChen tradition can often mislead people to
that Samantabhadra is some kind of a god in this system. However, there is no God in any form of Buddhism. Great
Buddhist Masters like Nagarjuna, Odiana Acharya, Kalyana Rakshita, etc., have written books proving that such
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 sentient beings already possess. This is the way
things really are, the way things really exist from the very beginning. However, it is called primordial
because this state is always there and never was not. We, sentient beings, have apparently wandered from the
which is already there as our true mode of existence. Therefore, we have to be re-enlightened, i.e. come to
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 relatively quicker or sudden
simply because Samantabhadra - the primordial enlightenment already present in us from the beginning - we can
recognize that fact and become enlightened. We have to become re-enlightened because we have already wandered
the path and need to be re-enlightened. One needs to remove the cause of our wandering. The cause is ignorance.
is basically cognitive but includes the conditioning produced by the cognitive mistake. These conditionings
further the mis-cognition, which further produces more conditioning.
Conditioning has two forms: conceptual defilements (kleshavarana) and emotional defilements
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 conditionings has been relaxed to some extent; but even this recognition can only become a
opening, which will naturally be conditioned by the still extant conditionings. So it is only through years of
off the conditionings, through accumulation of merit (skt: punya sambhara), and having glimpses of the true
over and over again through accumulation of knowledge (jñanasambhara) that one is finally re-established
the state of re-enlightenment. Just recognizing one's true unconditioned state is not re-enlightenment. This is
major difference between the teachings of DzogChen and those of Punja Svami, Ramana Maharshi, Adrew Cohen,
Nisargadutta Maharaja, and Sadyo Vedantic Systems like Astavakra Gita, Jivan Mukta Gita, etc. They believe that
recognizing one's true nature is primordially unconditioned enough to free a man. As we have seen earlier, no
of Buddhism agrees with that concept. The glimpse is only of the seed of enlightenment and is not the full
or the enlightened state itself. There is a difference in the Tathagatagharbha and the Tathagata himself. But
is another difference too. What they call the unconditioned is the Atman as found in the texts of Hinduism. What
the DzogChen of the Nyingma, the Mahamudra of Kagyu, and Lamdre of Sakya, the texts of the ‘Profound and
tradition call the unconditioned, is the Tathagatagharbha, Samantabhadra, Emptiness, Nisvabhavata, Anatma. As we
have seen, these are diametrically opposed paradigms.
There are, however, two schools, some Nyingma and Kagyu schools, based in the ‘Vast Lineage’ (skt.
of Asanga, which interpret Tathagatagarbha as being present in full form (not as a seed), but the veils covering
it is gradually unveiled through practice. Some Sakyapas based in the ‘Profound’ tradition of
however, interpret it only in seed form, and it has to be developed into its full form through practice.
So what can be said in the Buddhist language is that people like Ramana Masharshi and Krishnamurti have only the
no path related to that base, therefore, logically no fruit too. Many of these teachers teach about an
state, i.e. choice-less, to be the base, or the enlightened state. It must be understood very clearly that this
not the state of Mahamudra or DzogChen. ‘Choice-less Awareness’ (as taught in the Shiva Sutras and
the Kashmiri Shaiva school), to any form of Buddhism is such a state of ignorance (skt. moha) and not an
state. Being indifferent and untouched by pain, happiness, anger, attachment, and remaining in a king of
Awareness’ is not DzongChen or Mahamudra, although, they may sound very close to each other. Such a state
a state of ignorance or delusion. DzogChen or Mahamudra is free from not only attachment or aversion but also
the choice-less state.
That is why the Mahapandita and Siddha of the Sakya lineage, Sakya Pandit, warned, “Everybody speaks about
but if one has not properly understood or experienced them with the help of a genuine lineage Master, such a
(indifferent, choice-less 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.
is used in the context of Dzogchen or Mahamudra, it is the Yogi pratyaksa, the unity of Sunyata Prabhasvara, in
Sunyatra Prabhasvara and the consciousness become one, like water poured into water.
This is the Tathagatagarbha, which is very different from the non-conceptual experience of a choice-less
awareness, or a
Brahman or Parasamvit. Many so-called teachers are confused by the word ‘non-conceptual’. When
their experience, they believe everything must be the same, without realizing that there are many kinds of
states. Perhaps things get clearer if one understands that in the Buddhist context, non-conceptual is synonymous
with pratyaksa- especially Yogi pratyaksa - and it is always an experience of something which becomes
one with the experiencing consciousness. So it is not just a ‘non-conceptual’ state that Buddhist
are talking about; but a particular type of non-conceptual experience of emptiness or the Tathagatagarbha (skt.
Concept of Trikaya
I would now like to take up the concept of Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. One way of looking at it is
is Emptiness, Rupakaya (Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya) is interdependent origination (pratityasamtpada). We can
all the three doors of body, speech and mind (skt. kaya, vak, citta) into the three Kayas. A very god metaphor
the crystal ball. The crystal ball is colourless representing emptiness. Even though it is colourless by itself,
it has the capacity to reflect all the seven colours, if the right causes and conditions are present. This
is the capacity of 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-coloured light will
out of it and appear on the wall. This is the actual appearance of the empty Samsara. This is called
It is of utmost importance to understand these three Kayas to fully comprehend what Enlightenment means in
Buddhism. We find Enlightenment used in Hinduism and also by teachers such as Punja Svami, Andrew Cohen,
J. Krishnamurti, and U.G. Krishnamurti, but they do not mean the same Enlightenment as the Enlightenment of
In Mahayana Buddhism, Enlightenment means full realization and anything else is an inferior state.
The popular Hindu definition of Enlightenment is Mukti, which means taking no more birth in samsara. This
definition is also
found in Mahayana and Theravada. Because of this, many people confused the Buddhist Enlightenment with Hindu
‘Mukti’ is no returning to samsara anymore. It is not enlightenment.
In Buddhist Mukti, a person who attains it goes to one of the pure realms like Sukhavati, etc. This is achieved
and some Mahayana practices. He is not born again in this world until he becomes enlightened. But Enlightenment
that he has realized total reality as it is (skt. Yathabhuta), which means he has actualized all the three
Actualizing the three Kayas means attaining the three Vajra Kayas. Dharmakaya is the realization of emptiness
/ non-self), and there is no birth and death anymore after it, because there never was one who had taken birth.
is not destruction of some really existing Self. It is the realization that from the beginning, there never was
Self. This means there never was anyone who took birth from the very beginning.
However, true and in-depth realization of Dharmakaya also leads to the realization of Rupakaya. Just as true
of emptiness also entails true realization of interdependent origination (pratityasamutpada). Therefore, even
there is no birth, through the proper causes and conditions of compassion, etc., Nirmanakaya emanates
to help all sentient beings. It is this Nirmanakaya which is wrongly called ‘Incarnated Lama’ by
Buddhists, due to the influence of Hinduism. But technically, they are not ‘incarnations’ but
Nirmanakayas are not personalities born again but rather emanated (skt. nirmita) from causes and conditions due
the innate capacity of Dharmakaya. This innate capacity is Sambhogakaya. A personality if reborn can be only
Nirmanakayas can be infinite.
Only such a person, who although is never born, emanates continuous emanations for the sake of sentient beings.
has realised Totality, and only such a person is enlightened. People who have not manifested such capacities are
merely conceptually enlightened not truly enlightened.
This is the meaning of the statement made by the Eight Karmapa when he was born. He had turned around to his
mother and stated,
“I am the unborn Karmapa”. The unborn is the empty Dharmakaya. However, the apparently born Karmapa,
who made this statement, is the Nirmanakaya of this very unborn empty Dharmakaya. If you have understood
well and understood that interdependent origination itself is un-produced (skt. anutpada), then you’ll
there is no contradiction.
Sambhogakaya is the capacity of the unborn empty Dharmakaya nature of Enlightenment. It consists of all the
If a person does not possess these qualities, he has not manifested Sambhogakaya. Therefore, he has not truly
the Dharmakaya, which according to Mahayana Buddhism is not truly enlightened.
There are many such Masters around, especially coming from Hindu backgrounds, who later claim to be Buddhist
they have no realization of the Three Kayas. Such people cannot be considered as enlightened Buddhist Masters.
of them do not even have the faintest idea what three Kayas are about. Those who want to practice Buddhist
and attain Buddhist Enlightenment must be sensitive to these issues. They must not get confused by sweet talks
There are many degrees of Enlightenment in Buddhism. That is the significance of the concept of the ‘Ten
(skt. dasha bhumi). A person who is in the First Stage is already Enlightened and they are very different from
unenlightened person. This person already has begun to manifest the Three Kayas to some extent. The
deepens as he moves to the Second Stage, the Third Stage, and so on until the Seventh Stage. The First to the
Stage are still considered impure. It is only from the Eighth onwards that the Nirmanakaya begins to manifest
visibly. From the Eight to the Tenth are the pure Stages. It is said that many gods (devas) who have taken
in Buddhism and have practiced according to Buddhist texts, are found between the First and the Seventh Stages;
only Masters are found from the Eight upwards. It is only when a person crosses over the Tenth Stage to the
stage (skt. asaiksapada), or the state of Vajradhara according to Tantra, that the person is fully Enlightened.
in Tantra, we find thirteen Stages instead of ten, but again, this is only a question of categories which can be
classified in many ways.
But, even a person who achieves the state of Vajradhara is still only what is called a Mind Buddha. This means
his mind is
the mind of full Buddha, like that of the Buddha Shakyamuni. His body, however, still does not possess the 32
and 80 secondary marks present in the body of Buddha Shakyamuni. So, although, he can be called a Buddha and
is no difference between his mind and the mind of the Buddha Shakyamuni, or any other Buddha, he has not
the Rupakaya yet. It is only after collecting vast amounts of merit, by emanating countless emanations, for the
of others, that he will also achieve the perfect Nirmanakaya, like Buddhas Shakymuni, Krakuchchanda, Kashyapa,
It is said that it took three uncountable eons (asamkhya kalpa) for Shakyamuni to collect enough merit to have
Nirmanakaya. According to the Tantra, if the Sambhogakaya is developed using the Tantra methods, countless
can be sent to collect merit. This can be achieved much quicker and at faster rate than by following the Sutra
or method that the Buddha Shakyamuni used.
If you understand the Buddhist Enlightenment correctly, based on what has been said, one begins to realize that
people, nowadays, who have no such qualities and claim to be enlightened Masters, are like clowns sitting on the
thrones of emperors caricaturing an emperor. However, people have the freedom the define Enlightenment in other
but in such a case, it is not the Enlightenment of Buddhism, especially Mahayana-Vajrayana.
People like Milarepa, Longchempa, Marpa, Sakya Pandita of Tibet; Surata Vajra, Humkara Vajrea, Sasvat Vajra, Vak
Gubhaju of Nepal; Naropada, Tillipada, Virupada, Nagarjuna, Atisha of India of the Vajrayana tradition; and
Hogen, Sungsan, to San Unmen of China; Dogen, Haquin Banke of Japan achieved at least one of the higher Stages,
not the Mind of the Buddhas.
All of them manifested the display of Sambhogakaya throughout their lives, and especially during death. The
of an Enlightened being is a very special occasion, and one can gauge his depth of realization. If he is
there is no doubt that Sambhogakaya will manifest during and after his death. Some of the many manifestations
rainbows appearing in the sky or around the house of the dead body, the body shrinking to the size of a 8 to16
old, or in very advanced cases, the body either vanishing or transforming into light. Mantras and statues of
engraved in their bones, special forms like stupas, etc., are also found in the ashes. Earthquakes, storms,
and birds beings disturbed, some parts of the body remaining intact after cremation are some others
There have been many well known Masters who have claimed to be Buddhas or Enlightened in the past whose death
absolutely no manifestations. Such people cannot be considered enlightened in the Buddhist sense. As Karme
put it, “the corpse of an ordinary man is the bed of a great Scholar Master”
Faith and Devotion
There is no god in Buddhism. Devotions found in Mahayana-Vajrayana are not the same as that of the devotional
cults of Hinduism.
First of all, a person in Vajrayana shows great devotion towards their Guru. This is because a Guru plays a very
special role in Vajrayana. In Theravada and Mahayana, a Guru is only a Kalyanamitra, i.e. some body that points
way. In Vajrayana, a Guru is also the way itself. This second role, teaching the way, is more important role of
Guru in Vajrayana. The Guru is the State of Enlightenment. But unlike Sutrayana, which is a cause-vehicle, he is
not just a representative of the goal; he is used as the path itself.
Vajrayana is also called effect-vehicle (skt. phalayana). It uses the effect in the path, instead of creating
conditions (skt. hetu-pratyaya), as in the cause vehicle to attain the effect one day. Since the Guru is the
state (he beings enlightened), he is used as the Path. He reflects one’s own true nature and all of
defilements (skt. Klesha) and obstructions (skt. avaranas). It is when one truly sees the Guru as primordially
that one recognizes one’s own primordial purity, and also sees the Guru was always one's own primordially
Therefore, devotion here is dedication and devotion to the path. It is devotion, faith, and dedication towards
own Sugatagarbha. That is why in Tantra, a Guru who gives you initiations is not an individual but a Buddha.
accurately, he is one’s own Buddha Nature, reflected in the personality of the initiation giver. This is
important for the path of Tantra, which uses the principle of effect-vehicle (using the fruit itself in the path
to make the path quicker). Devotion is, there, to one’s own Buddha Nature. That is why the first samaya
rule, bond) is to see the Guru as the Buddha, no matter through what kind of personality it may crystallize. 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 our
own characteristics we see reflected on him. We have to use this as our path. A genuine Master is someone who
received instructions from a genuine lineage teacher, belonging to pure, unbroken, realized lineage. Such
are not decided by caste or family, although families can preserve such lineages. Such a lineage must produce
and learned masters in every generation. Then, only can it be considered as a pure and unbroken enlightened
After having received all the theoretical and practical instructions from such a lineage master, he himself must
those teachings and experienced them in his own mental continuum. He must also be certified by his own masters
a teacher, or as an Acharya, or a Vajracharya, or a Vidyadhara. Only such a Master, no matter how his
is, can be considered worthy of being called a Master in Vajrayana.
It is not necessary in Vajrayana Buddhism to have only one master. This concept of one guru only is a Hindu
concept and not
a Buddhist one. But I have found most Newars have only one master. This is a Hindu influence and such a concept
not found in true Buddhism. If we study the life stories of all the Indian, Nepalese, and Tibetan masters, we
that the majority of them had many masters. Some of them even had up to 300 masters. It is also a wrong and
minded thinking to think if you have a Nyingma master, you should not have a Sakya master at the same time.
and Sakya are names found only in Tibet. If you study the history of the lineages, you find the same Indian or
Masters taught both Marpa Lotsawa, the founder of the Kagyupa, and Drogmi Lotsawa, the founder of the Sakya
To Phamthingpa or Humkara Vajra, Guru Padmasambhava or Bharo Bajracharya, Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya or Gelug had no
I would like to dedicate the article:
1) For the swift return of the Nirmanakaya of my Root Master Urgyen Rinpoche
2) For the long life of my Root Masters 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
both of whom are my Masters.