GelugEdit
Gelug, also known as the Dge-lugs-pa (often rendered as Gelug or Yellow Hat school), is a major tradition within Tibetan Buddhism that emerged in the 14th century as a reform movement led by Tsongkhapa in response to what its proponents saw as excesses in earlier Tibetan Buddhist schools. Distinct for its emphasis on monastic discipline, rigorous philosophy and scholastic study, and a methodical approach to the lamrim (stages of the path), Gelug became the dominant religious force in historic Tibet and later shaped the religious and political landscape of the Tibetan world in exile as well. The school is closely associated with the distinctive yellow hats worn by its monks and with a strong tradition of institutional education centered in great monasteries such as Drepung Monastery, Ganden Monastery, and Sera Monastery.
Gelug is also known for its role in the political sphere, most notably through the Ganden Phodrang government established under the leadership of the Dalai Lamas, who were traditionally both spiritual leaders and temporal governors. This fusion of church and state helped solidify Gelug influence over Tibetan society for centuries and contributed to a distinctive model of governance that has continued to influence discussions about church-state relations in Tibetan communities in exile and in modern discussions of religious authority.
History
Founding and early development
Gelug traces its origins to the reforms of Tsongkhapa (c. 1357–1419), a prominent teacher who called for a revival of strict monastic discipline, systematic study, and a particular interpretation of Madhyamaka philosophy within Mahayana Buddhism. Tsongkhapa composed and organized key texts, and his ideas were adopted and elaborated by later scholars within the school. In time, his movement came to be recognized as a distinct lineage within Tibetan Buddhism with a formal monastic and scholastic infrastructure.
Rise to prominence and political power
The Gelug school achieved political ascendancy in central Tibet, culminating in the establishment of the Ganden Phodrang polity under the leadership of the Dalai Lamas. The Dalai Lamas became the principal religious authorities and de facto secular rulers, guiding state policy in concert with monastic leadership and lay elites. This period cemented Gelug’s influence over education, culture, and governance, shaping a Tibetan order of life that prioritized monastic scholarship, ethical discipline, and a centralized administrative framework.
In exile and modern status
Following the mid-20th century upheavals and the loss of centralized political control in Tibet, Gelug institutions and lineages continued to operate in exile and in diaspora communities. The present-day Dalai Lama remains a symbolic and moral figure for many followers, while Tibetan Buddhist education and monastic identities endure in monasteries and centers around the world. Notable regional centers maintain the Gelug tradition’s scholarly traditions, with attention to the Lamrim tradition and to the geshe system of advanced studies that mirrors the historic curricula of the great monasteries.
Doctrine and practice
Core teachings
Gelug emphasizes the Lamrim Chenmo and the systematic elucidation of the path to awakening, often synthesizing Madhyamaka philosophy with practical instructions for ethics, meditation, and wisdom. It maintains a strong commitment to the Vinaya (monastic code) as the foundation of monastic life and discipline. The school upholds a robust tradition of logical argumentation and debate as part of the scholastic culture that has long characterized Tibetan Buddhist education.
Lamrim and scholastic tradition
The Lamrim framework presents the stages of the path in a structured, graduated way, making scriptural and philosophical instruction accessible to students at different levels of spiritual development. The Gelug approach to Buddhist epistemology and pramana has shaped how adherents approach reasoning, ethics, and the interpretation of emptiness from the Madhyamaka perspective.
Monastic education and the geshe degree
A hallmark of Gelug is its rigorous monastic education system, culminating in the geshe degree. This scholarly credential marks a high level of mastery in Buddhist philosophy, debate, logic, and established texts. The education system has historically supported the broader social role of monastic centers as centers of learning, culture, and cultivation of leadership within Tibetan communities.
Institutions and practices
Gelug-built institutions such as Drepung Monastery, Ganden Monastery, and Sera Monastery have served as hubs of study, debate, and religious practice. Monastic ritual forms, meditation practices, and scholastic study converge in daily life, reinforcing a tradition that values discipline, erudition, and ethical conduct.
Institutions and culture
Gelug’s institutional footprint extends beyond spiritual instruction to encompass education, administration, and community leadership. Monasteries function not only as places of vow and meditation but also as schools and cultural guardians that preserve language, arts, and social norms. In diaspora communities, Gelug centers maintain these traditions while engaging with broader philosophical and public-discourse conversations about religion, secular education, and cultural continuity.
Notable topics frequently associated with Gelug institutions include the Lamrim tradition, the geshe system, and the maintenance of a coordinated monastic network that historically contributed to the governance of Tibet through the Ganden Phodrang framework. The Gelug emphasis on empirical study, ethical discipline, and a well-ordered monastic life is often cited by supporters as a stabilizing factor in society and a model of institutional longevity.
Controversies and debates
Political authority and church-state relations: Critics in some Western and non-Tibetan contexts have viewed the historic Gelug model of combined spiritual and temporal leadership as inherently undemocratic. Proponents, however, argue that the system created social stability, protected cultural heritage, and promoted a rule of law grounded in ethical conduct and scholastic merit. The modern era, including discussions around the Dalai Lamas’ political role in exile and changes in governance, has intensified debates about the proper balance between religious leadership and public accountability.
Dorje Shugden controversy: A recurring and heated debate within Gelug circles concerns the practice of Dorje Shugden. Some adherents maintain it as a protective practice, while others view it as sectarian and divisive within Tibetan communities. The controversy has had political ramifications inside monastic communities and among lay followers and has intersected with the broader conversation about religious liberty, unity, and the role of institutional authority within Tibetan Buddhism. See Dorje Shugden for more on the debate and related historical developments.
Gender and monastic ordination: Like many traditional Buddhist lineages, Gelug has faced criticism over gender equity in monastic life, particularly regarding female ordination and leadership roles. Advocates for reform emphasize the moral and social benefits of broader female participation, while defenders of tradition stress the importance of established monastic rules and training pathways. The discussion reflects broader debates about modernization, merit, and the preservation of long-standing monastic norms.
Tulku recognition and succession: The system of recognizing reincarnate lamas, or tulkus, is central to Gelug and Tibetan Buddhism more broadly, but it has also prompted questions about eligibility, transparency, and authority in the identification process. Critics point to concerns about political influence in tulku recognition, while supporters highlight the continuity of lineage and the preservation of doctrinal transmission.
Modern education and cultural preservation: In the modern era, Gelug communities face the challenge of integrating secular education and scientific literacy with traditional religious study. Supporters argue that Gelug institutions can adapt while preserving core doctrines and ethical commitments, whereas critics may worry about losing traditional practices or privileging scholastic over broader social engagement.
Woke criticism and cultural debates: From a right-of-center perspective, critics might argue that some liberal critiques misinterpret or undervalue the historical functions of Gelug institutions, especially their roles in social cohesion, education, and moral order. Proponents of traditional institutional authority would emphasize that centuries of governance, discipline, and scholarship have contributed to stability and cultural continuity. In this view, “woke” criticisms of religious authority are seen as overstating the case or neglecting the positive societal outcomes associated with established religious and educational orders.