Timeless Rapture: Inspired Verse from the Shangpa Masters

342 Timeless Rapture
own traditions became mere words written in history books.” (Ibid., pp.
592-593) Buddhist monks ruled Tibet according to secular laws and government
policies, which defined much of monastic life. This was not a
“Gélug problem” per se—any school that assumed power probably would
have developed in much the same way. Had things turned out differently,
it could have been the Shangpa lineage that became bloated with the
demands of running a country.
As it was, the Shangpa tradition avoided both worldly loss and gain. It
had no viable institutions of its own, thus its masters did not become targets
for violent repression after the Jonang monasteries were dissolved into
the Gélugpa system. On the other hand, the Shangpa connection to
Taranata protected the tradition from the curse of success, Tibetan style,
with its deadly mixture of politics and religion. My phrase, “deadly mixture
of politics and religion” reflects Shangpa lineage values; others in
Tibet’s Buddhist landscape openly and vigorously support the marriage of
church and state. The question is still hotly debated. The Shangpa lineage
texts themselves give no party line to follow on the subject, but it is difficult
to imagine that their attitude would be any different from that of Paltrul
Rinpoché who wrote these lines in The Words of My Perfect Teacher:
Nowadays we think we can practice Dharma alongside our worldly
activities, without the slightest need for determination or for hardship,
all the while enjoying comfort, well-being and popularity.
“Other people manage to do it,” we insist, and say admiringly,
“Now, that’s a good lama, he knows how to combine Dharma and
worldly life.”
But how could there be a way to marry Dharma with worldly
life? Those who claim to be doing so are likely to be leading a good
worldly life, but you may be sure that they are not practicing pure
Dharma. To claim that you can practice Dharma and worldly life at
the same time is like saying that you can sew with a double-pointed
needle, put fire and water in the same container or ride two horses
in opposite directions. All these things are simply impossible.
Could an ordinary person ever surpass Buddha Shakyamuni?
Yet even he found no way of practicing Dharma and worldly life
side by side. Could Milarepa really have been too hopeless to know
how to combine the two? (pp. 242-243)