Chapter 5. The Sakya school¶

Sakya (Sa-skya, "gray-white earth," named for the color of the soil at the monastery's site) is the Tibetan Buddhist school with the greatest political influence in history. In the thirteenth century, the Sakya hierarchs drew on the power of the Mongol Empire to rule the whole of Tibet for a time. This relationship later became one of the historical precedents cited by China in claiming sovereignty over Tibet; its nature is examined in detail in Section 4. Sakya is also the school that places the greatest emphasis on logic and philosophical debate. It produced Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyaltsen, one of the most systematic philosophical thinkers in Tibetan Buddhist history.

This chapter begins with Sakya's origins and foundation. It then examines Sakya Paṇḍita's philosophical contribution and the development of Phagpa's political influence, before turning to Sakya's central teaching, Lamdré, the "Path and Result."

1. Origins: Drogmi and the Virūpa lineage¶

Sakya's Indian origins are traced to Virūpa (c. eighth to ninth centuries; the dates are highly uncertain). In the history of Indian tantra, he is revered as a legendary figure who went from meditation master at Vikramaśīla to great adept. The practice lineage of the Hevajra Tantra was transmitted chiefly through him. Stories of Virūpa's life, such as his pinning the sun in place while in a tavern, are typical legends of great adepts. This book treats the central figure as historically real and the miraculous details as instructive narratives.

Drogmi ('Brog-mi Śākya-ye-shes, born c. 990–1000; date of death unknown) studied in India, receiving the essential transmission of Lamdré (Lam-'bras, "Path and Result") chiefly from holders of Virūpa's lineage. He also translated the Hevajra Tantra and its commentaries. Among the disciples who studied scriptures and treatises with him after his return to Tibet, one of the most important was Konchok Gyalpo (dKon-mchog-rgyal-po, 1034 to 1102). In 1073, Konchok Gyalpo founded Sakya Monastery on the gray-white earth of central Tibet, giving the Sakya school its institutional beginning.

Konchok Gyalpo later abandoned celibacy and married. Sakya subsequently developed the tradition of succession to the monastery's leadership within the Khön family ('Khon). This is one of the most striking institutional differences between Sakya and most other Tibetan Buddhist schools. Other schools transmit leadership through reincarnation, or through teachers and disciples; Sakya transmits it through family. The Khön family has continuously held the throne for nearly a thousand years and continues to do so today.¹

2. The Five Sakya Founders and early development¶

Konchok Gyalpo's son, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo (Sa-chen Kun-dga'-snying-po, 1092 to 1158), completed Sakya's foundation and became the first of the "Five Sakya Founders." He systematically organized the Lamdré teachings and studied a wide range of tantras and non-tantric scriptures and treatises. His work made Sakya a tradition that gave equal weight to learning and practice.

3. Sakya Paṇḍita: epistemology and philosophical debate¶

Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyaltsen (1182 to 1251) had the most far-reaching philosophical influence of the Five Sakya Founders and was one of the most systematic philosophical thinkers in all of Tibetan Buddhist history. "Sapan" abbreviates "Sakya Paṇḍita." Paṇḍita denotes a scholar of the highest rank in the Indian tradition. From childhood he received rigorous training in both non-tantric and tantric teachings. He mastered Sanskrit and could debate Indian scholars directly in that language, a rare accomplishment among Tibetans at the time.

The Treasury of Valid Reasoning¶

Sakya Paṇḍita's systematic synthesis of the pramāṇa tradition, epistemology and logic, is one of the most important works on the subject in Tibetan literature. It rests chiefly on Dharmakīrti's epistemological system, but offers Sakya Paṇḍita's own interpretations and criticisms, including numerous corrections to earlier Tibetan understandings of Dharmakīrti.

The central position: Sakya Paṇḍita upholds the basic framework of Dharmakīrti's epistemology. There are only two kinds of valid cognition (pramāṇa): perception (direct apprehension) and inference (reasoning). Nothing else counts as valid cognition. He particularly criticizes certain misunderstandings of logic prevalent in Tibet at the time. The work established Sakya's authority in the study of logic and also decisively influenced its later development in Gelug, including the work of Tsongkhapa's disciple Khedrup Jé and others.²

A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes and philosophical criticism¶

A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes (sDom gsum rab dbye) addresses the relationship between three systems of vows: individual liberation vows, or monastic discipline; bodhisattva vows; and tantric commitments, or samaya vows. It argues that each has its own sphere of validity and that they must not be confused. Tantric practice must rest on monastic and bodhisattva vows. This position addresses the disorder in Tibetan tantric practice at the time and continues Atiśa's insistence on strict qualifications for tantra.³

Another criticism by Sakya Paṇḍita has an important place in philosophical history. He attacks the belief of certain Tibetans that merely stopping all thought can produce Mahāmudrā wisdom, regarding it as one of the gravest errors in Tibetan practice at the time. His judgment proceeds in two steps. First, he lowers its rank: even if there is nothing wrong with such meditation, it is at most a Madhyamaka practice. Madhyamaka practice is good in itself but extremely difficult to accomplish, requiring the perfection of the two accumulations over countless kalpas. Second, he identifies the proper path. True Mahāmudrā arises from the wisdom generated by empowerment and the generation and completion stages. There is no other way; those interested in Mahāmudrā should therefore practice according to tantric texts. He goes further, equating the Mahāmudrā then in circulation with the Chinese sudden path condemned in the Samye Debate. Apart from a change of name, he says, it has no substantial difference from the Chinese path of sudden practice.

The direction of this criticism resembles Tsongkhapa's later Gelug criticism of certain forms of Mahāmudrā practice, and Sakya Paṇḍita preceded him by about two centuries. They criticize similar practices, but advocate different paths. Tsongkhapa turns to the correct view; Sakya Paṇḍita turns to tantra.³

Debates with Indian scholars¶

Between about 1204 and 1214, Sakya Paṇḍita engaged in extensive scholarly exchanges with the elderly Indian paṇḍita Śākyaśrī (1127 to 1225) from Kashmir. Invited to Tibet in 1204, Śākyaśrī remained for ten years. Around 1208 he conducted Sakya Paṇḍita's full ordination and subsequently transmitted many scriptures and treatises. Tibetan tradition portrays this encounter as a landmark demonstration that Tibetan learning could now match the Indian tradition. Indian Buddhism was already declining (see Essay 8), and opportunities for direct dialogue with Indian scholars were diminishing. Sakya Paṇḍita used this occasion to demonstrate Tibetan Buddhism's scholarly independence.

4. Phagpa and the Sakya regime¶

Phagpa ('Phags-pa Blo-gros-rgyal-mtshan, 1235 to 1280) was the fifth of the Five Sakya Founders and one of the most politically influential figures in Tibetan Buddhist history. In 1244, he accompanied the elderly Sakya Paṇḍita to Mongolia, where he spent crucial years of his life.

The patron-preceptor relationship and the Imperial Preceptor¶

Phagpa taught Khubilai (1215 to 1294) and conferred tantric empowerments on him, establishing a "patron-preceptor relationship" (mchod-yon, the relationship of a donor to a field of merit). Khubilai provided material protection and political power; Phagpa provided religious services and spiritual authority. In 1253, Khubilai appointed Phagpa "State Preceptor," later promoting him to "Imperial Preceptor," the highest religious adviser at the Yuan court.

The Sakya regime (c. 1254 to 1354) was the direct political consequence of this relationship. The historical sequence is as follows. In 1239, Mongol troops entered Tibet to plunder. In 1244, Sakya Paṇḍita answered Köden's summons to Liangzhou, submitted on behalf of all Tibet, and wrote to Tibet's monastic and lay population urging acceptance. He was appointed regent and, remaining at the khan's court, issued orders to officials in Tibet. His nephew Phagpa (1235 to 1280) succeeded him and gained Khubilai's trust. Phagpa effectively became Tibet's ruler under Mongol authority, while Khubilai became a patron of Buddhism. From at least 1261, and possibly as early as 1254, the Sakya hierarchs held the authority of "kings of Tibet" and received the title Imperial Preceptor. Sakya thus became Tibet's effective political center for about a century. Yet the Mongols did not send their own officials to govern Tibet. They conducted tax censuses and established postal stations and units of "ten thousand households." In Tibetan tradition, the relationship is called donor and field of merit (yon-mchod), meaning patron and religious master. The relationship had no written contract and recognized no other basis. Its closeness varied with the two parties' relative strength and interests.⁴

Now consider its later use as a precedent. This relationship became one of the historical examples China cited in claiming sovereignty over Tibet. Tibetans and some Western scholars, however, appealed to its character as a relationship between "donor and field of merit" to argue that it did not constitute jurisdiction in the modern sense. Whether the Mongol-ruled Yuan dynasty counts in this dispute as a "Chinese central dynasty" is itself contested. This book records the historical events, makes no judgment on sovereignty, and does not adopt either side's retelling of events to suit its argument.

The Phagpa script¶

Another historical contribution of Phagpa was his creation of the 'Phags-pa script in 1269 at Khubilai's commission. This unified script could be used to write several languages, including Mongolian, Chinese, and Tibetan, and served as the Yuan dynasty's "national script." It served this political role for about a century and gradually fell out of use after the Yuan's collapse. Linguistically, it left important evidence by preserving information about the sounds of Yuan-period Chinese and Mongolian. In religious and cultural terms, it was a material symbol of Sakya's and Tibetan Buddhism's central place in the Mongol Empire.

The end of the Sakya regime¶

The conference at Gongkar in 1354 acknowledged Phagmodrupa predominance, marking the displacement of Sakya's political supremacy.⁴ Sakya did not disappear as a religious tradition when it lost political power. It returned to its position as a tradition of practice and learning.

5. Lamdré: Sakya's core teaching of practice¶

Lamdré (Lam-'bras, "Path and Result") is Sakya's most central teaching of practice and the most important tantric tradition distinguishing it from other schools.

Origins and central ideas¶

Lamdré's Indian origins are traced to the system of Hevajra Tantra practice transmitted by Virūpa. The Hevajra Tantra is an important scripture of Highest Yoga Tantra (Anuttarayogatantra), with Hevajra as its principal deity. Its system includes the generation stage (visualization of the deity) and the completion stage (practice with winds, channels, and drops).

Lamdré's central idea can be summarized as "the nonduality of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa." At the deepest level, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, suffering and bliss, are different manifestations of the same ground (gzhi). The key to practice is not escape from saṃsāra but recognition of the ground shared by saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. That recognition is the "result."⁵

Structure and transmission¶

Lamdré has two levels. The general path (spyi lam) is suitable for ordinary disciples and accessible without Lamdré empowerment. It emphasizes the foundations of the shared vehicles. The special path (khyad lam) is dedicated Hevajra Tantra practice and requires complete empowerment and transmission. It includes the generation stage, the completion stage, and teachings on recognition.

There are also two modes of transmission: Lamdré for the assembly (tshogs pa lam 'bras), taught to a broader group of disciples, and private Lamdré (gsang ba lam 'bras), taught privately to small groups and including deeper completion-stage material. These two modes reflect Lamdré's strict requirements concerning qualifications for practice and the timing of transmission. Compared with Kagyu's transmission through "direct pointing out by the teacher," Sakya's Lamdré lineage places greater emphasis on systematic preparation in stages.

6. Sakya's philosophical position¶

Sakya Paṇḍita established Sakya's central philosophical position. Dharmakīrti's theory of valid cognition provides its epistemological foundation. Madhyamaka, chiefly within the Svātantrika framework, is its highest philosophy. Its tantric practice follows strictly organized and regulated stages.

Sakya has a philosophical position markedly different from other schools, sometimes called "freedom from identity and difference": all phenomena are neither wholly identical nor wholly different. This is a distinctive way of describing the relations among phenomena and has been widely discussed within Tibetan philosophy. It differs subtly but substantially from Gelug's interpretation of Madhyamaka and forms part of the background to the dispute over "self-emptiness and other-emptiness" in 11.7.

7. Sakya today¶

Sakya's Khön family lineage is one of the oldest living lineages in Tibetan Buddhism. After nearly a millennium, the Khön family still holds the Sakya throne. Traditionally, succession alternates between two branches, the Phuntsog and Dolma family lines, whose members take turns as Sakya hierarch. This system continues today.

In 2017, Gendun Rinchen, the son of the current Sakya hierarch, was chosen as the candidate for the next hierarch. He later married a woman from outside the Khön family, who became the Sakya hierarch's consort. Sakya's system of family succession provides distinctive institutional support for the continuity of its lineage. It also presents modern challenges and possibilities different from those facing other Tibetan Buddhist schools.

The diagram's phrase "first incorporated under central imperial administration" should be read with Section 4's explicit limit: the book records the historical arrangements and competing later interpretations without deciding sovereignty. That section also treats the status of the Yuan as a "Chinese central dynasty" in this dispute as contested. The diagram retains Drokmi's old dates of 993–1050. The text follows Chapter 2's translator table and note, giving a birth around 990–1000 and an unknown date of death.

Further reading¶

• Matthew T. Kapstein. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. xviii–xxi, 79–81, 89–97, 119. (A comprehensive analysis of Sakya's historical context.)

References¶