In Tibet (and neighboring kingdoms), There are four major lineages (Five if you count Bon but that will be the topic two posts from now) of Buddhism and many sub-lineages therein. While they all share a great deal in terms of methods and terminology, they are also quite distinct from each other. In some instances the same term will have different or even opposite meanings. For example the term ‘ordinary mind’ is often used, in the Dzogchen Teachings of the Nyingma to designate the deluded mind of sentient beings as opposed to the True Nature of Mind. In the Mahamudra teachings of the Kagyu, which are in many ways very similar to Dzogchen, ‘ordinary mind’ refers to the mind without elaboration which is The True Nature of Mind.
Despite what can sometimes be seen as very different approaches, with sometimes conflicting postulates, the teachers of these different schools (for the most part) recognize the validity of the other schools as legitimate expressions of the Buddhas teachings and lineage. They all are capable of achieving the result(s) Buddhism is meant to achieve. The teachers are able to see this because of their understanding of the Principle of Two Truths. The differences are understood to correspond to the needs of different beings. The different schools have different styles, emphasis, and patterns of development to accommodate the different spiritual constitutions of sentient beings.
Not only are these Four Schools recognized as valid but so are many schools that took root in other regions such as Theravada, Chan, Zen and the Vajrayana Tradition that took root in Japan. It is important to note that doesn’t mean everything that calls itself Buddhism is automatically considered a functional expression of the Buddhist Teaching. There are views that are incorrect view in all Buddhist contexts (and in all contexts for that matter)
Because of this recognition of mutual validity among the schools in Tibet and neighboring regions, many masters become masters in more then one lineage. These masters are known as Rimay (Sometime written Rime) masters. Rimay is often incorrectly translated as eclectic. It literally means ‘without bias’. It is informative to know that Rimay masters don’t just mix them together or mix and match to their whim. Rimay is not new lineage that is the synthesis of the others but rather a more formalized acknowledgement of each individuals school functional validity and congruence with the overall Buddhist view. When a Rimay master performs a ceremony from a particularly tradition, He does it according to that schools postulates and style. One great Tibetan Rimay Master, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche also became a Zen Master. When doing Zen Ceremonies he didn’t bring out a dorje & bell (central ritual implements of Vajrayana Buddhism). This lack of haphazard mixing also comes from clear understanding of the Two Truths and how relative truths function. Just because something is functional in one context, doesn’t automatically mean it is functional in another.
This is not to imply that masters never blended elements of one tradition with another, because they did. However to do this in away that is functional one must at least have mastery of one system to the degree that you truly understand the function of each part and how the addition form another system will integrate with those functions. With something with such profound functionality as Vajrayana you would have to have very vast realization to add in method from one system to another to create something new.
In the next post I will discuss another Buddhist expression that shows how understanding of the Principle of Two Truths allows Buddhists to see functional truths outside of what is defined as Buddhism