Ri-med
Ri-med (ris med, pronounced ree-may) — the Tibetan for “without bias”.
Etymology
| Component | Tibetan | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| Ri | ris | bias, partiality, sectarianism |
| Med | med | not, absence, negation |
Literal: “not-biased” or “without bias.” Ris med is a privative construction — the negation of sectarian partiality, not the addition of an eclectic principle.
Key Points
- Not “eclectic” — Ch.5 explicitly corrects the common translation. “Ri-med is often translated as ‘eclectic’, but a more literal translation is ‘without bias’.” The distinction is doctrinally important: “eclectic” implies selecting elements from multiple sources and combining them into a new whole. “Without bias” implies mastering multiple traditions while preserving their characteristic styles.
- Origin: the 19th-century Tibetan movement that was “heralded as a renaissance of spirituality.” Associated with eastern Tibet (Kham), arising across Nyingma, Sakya, and Kagyüd schools.
- Paradigmatic figure: Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo (1820–1892), “famous throughout Tibet for the immensity of his wisdom and compassion.”
- Methodology: lineage-preserving mastery of multiple schools, with each transmission given in the school’s native style.
- Structural principle: “There was no blending of traditions but rather all traditions were taught by these masters in their characteristic style, without bias.”
Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo as Exemplar
Ch.5’s paradigmatic example:
“The great Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo was one such Lama and was famous throughout Tibet for the immensity of his wisdom and compassion. When he gave Tantric transmissions he always gave them in the exact style of the school of their origin. If it was a Nyingma transmission he would give it as a Nyingmapa, and if it was a Sakya transmission he would give it as a Sakyapa.”
Key practical rule: the style of transmission follows the lineage of the transmission, not the preferences of the transmitter. A master operating under Ri-med principles does not flatten the differences between lineages into a uniform teaching style; rather, the master preserves the characteristic idioms, emphases, and symbolic systems of each lineage when operating within it.
This is structurally important because it refuses the modernist syncretic impulse (“find what is common to all traditions and teach that”) and instead affirms lineage-particular particulars as load-bearing.
The Not-Blending Rule
“It is important to point out that the idea of the Ri-med movement was not to mix the schools but to treat them individually. There was no blending of traditions but rather all traditions were taught by these masters in their characteristic style, without bias.”
The Ri-med methodological rule:
- ✅ Master multiple lineages.
- ✅ Teach each lineage in its own characteristic style.
- ✅ Refuse partisan bias for or against any lineage.
- ❌ Do NOT blend, synthesise, or flatten lineages into a uniform teaching.
- ❌ Do NOT import elements from one lineage into another.
The Ch.5 symbolic-systems discussion frames the underlying principle: “These systems aren’t mutually exclusive, but if you attempt to mix or synthesise them; you merely distort them. They each work within their own context.” Ri-med is the ecclesiastical/lineage-management register of the same principle SoE Ch.5 applies to symbolic systems generally.
Cross-Tradition Extension (Buddhist-Bonpo)
“There were some lesser-known Buddhist Lamas who worked in the same way with the Bonpo, and vice versa. Venerable Geshe Damcho Yonten (a Lama of the Gelug School who lives near Raglan in Wales) once told me that monks of every school would come to his monastery of Sera Je to learn debate, because the monastery was famous for it. This was so much so that Bonpo monks would also come to study there, and leave sometimes having attained the highest degree of Lharampa Geshe.”
The Ri-med principle crossed the Buddhist/Bon divide — the most significant sectarian boundary in Tibetan religion. Buddhist Lamas mastered Bonpo material; Bonpo monks attained the highest Geshe degree (Lharampa) at Gelug institutions. Ch.5 uses this to disarm the assumption that Ri-med was only about ironing out intra-Buddhist differences.
Ri-med and SoE’s Symbolic-Systems Stance
Ch.5’s treatment of cross-cultural symbolic systems (Tibetan, Medicine Wheel, Chinese acupuncture, etc.) operates under the Ri-med principle:
KD: “Some people might think it’s possible to learn something from looking at the differences between these systems; but I’m afraid this would merely yield information. You can learn very little indeed from this kind of comparative study.”
“These systems aren’t mutually exclusive, but if you attempt to mix or synthesise them; you merely distort them. They each work within their own context. It’s not even a matter of choosing one — you can work with two or even more, if you’re that expansive, just not at the same time, in some dreadful stew.”
The generalised Ri-med rule: the practitioner can work with multiple authentic systems serially but not in combination. Synthesis produces distortion; parallel mastery produces realization.
Why the Eclecticism Mistranslation Matters
“Eclectic” connotes:
- Selecting from multiple sources
- Combining into a new whole
- Absence of fidelity to any single source
- Often: a dilettante or superficial quality
“Without bias” connotes:
- Absence of partiality
- Compatibility with deep fidelity to each tradition engaged
- Lineage-preserving
- Rigorous and demanding
The mistranslation would position Ri-med as a syncretic movement — which would contradict its actual methodology. The correct translation preserves the movement’s structural character.
Ri-med Today
Though Ch.5 does not develop this, the Ri-med approach has been carried forward by several contemporary lineage holders and teachers — including notably the late Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, both of whom have worked in multiple lineages while preserving each in its native style. The Aro gTér lineage itself operates within the broader Ri-med ethos: while doctrinally a Nyingma transmission, the teaching style is compatible with sustained engagement across Tibetan Buddhist schools.
Related
- Spectrum of Ecstasy - 10 Ch.5 Reading the Fields of our Energies — source: Ri-med introduction
- Symbol — the Ch.5 no-synthesis rule applied to symbolic systems operates under the Ri-med principle
- Nyingma — one of the schools participating in the Ri-med renaissance
- Aro gTér — a Nyingma lineage operating in the broader Ri-med ethos
- Vajrayana — the vehicle within which multiple Tibetan lineages operate