Buddhist tantra is not about techniques

The value of Vajrayana is an attitude—the spacious passion that unclogs energy—not technical intricacies.

“Not about techniques” is a somewhat unusual view.

Traditional teachers and texts do often—not always—define Buddhist tantra as a collection of esoteric practices.

For modernizers, too, it’s tempting to describe tantra as “advanced mental technology.” As an engineer, I find that an attractive proposition:

What we want out of Vajrayana, once we’ve stripped away the traditional superstitions, is a pragmatic manual of proven techniques for transforming consciousness.

I think this is a mistake, however. It’s not exactly wrong, but:

  • Thinking of tantra as techniques overlooks what I consider most valuable in it.
  • Many traditional techniques don’t work, and claims about the effectiveness of the ones that do are often exaggerated.
  • Viewing tantra as technology is, ironically, a roadblock to necessary innovations.
  • The technical view also risks aggressive self-aggrandizement.

Tantra is an attitude, not a technology

We often think of a religion as beliefs plus practices. From a naturalistic perspective, Buddhism’s beliefs are almost all wrong, so modern Buddhism drops them. That means its value must be in practices? Some value, yes, but I think actually Buddhist tantra is valuable mainly for its unique attitude toward life.

I have defined that attitude as “spacious passion,” and described the overall method of tantra as:

Uniting spacious freedom with passionate connections to unclog free-flowing energy, producing mastery, power, play, and nobility.

Tantra is about your relationship with everything in your life. If “tantric practice” is a technical procedure you carry out for an hour every morning, it may not do much. It’s the attitude that does the work, not the techniques.

Some Westerners may make slow progress with tantra because they have not been shown the attitude—and therefore don’t understand what it is for. They may have the idea that simply performing tantric techniques according to the manual is effective. That’s like “paint by numbers”—or like my guitar playing. I can hit the right notes at pretty much the right time, but due to my severe Rhythm Deficiency Disorder, it sounds nothing like music. “It don’t mean a thing, if it ain’t got that swing.” Spacious passion is the swing in tantric practice. It’s what makes it music, not a series of notes.

If you do have the tantric attitude, that by itself might be enough, even with no specific techniques at all. Ultimately, just maintaining the attitude is itself the practice of tantra.

The view that an attitude, not techniques, are what matter in tantra is somewhat unusual, but it is also traditional. This is the Dzogchen take on tantra, more-or-less. Kunjé Gyalpo, the earliest major Dzogchen text, criticizes tantra as artificial, conceptually complicated, gimmicky, and unnecessarily effortful. The best practice is simply to “remain in the state.”1

Don’t believe the hype

What tantric techniques can do is throw you into the attitude, intensify it, and help maintain it. Some can be extremely powerful, but we need to be realistic about what works and how.

I think tantric practices are over-hyped by the tradition. Its exaggerated claims get in the way of clear understanding and practical use.

Some reasons tantric techniques may not work for us:

  • Many are supposed to accomplish impossible, supernatural results, like raising the dead by magic, or walking on water.
  • Many are impractical in the West. For example, we can’t gather a hundred highly-trained monks to take all the necessary roles in a complex, ten-day-long ritual.
  • Many are culturally specific. They make no sense unless you have been brought up in that culture—or are willing to immerse yourself in it for several years.
  • Many were designed for slaves, monks, or bored aristocrats of the leisure class, and make no sense for free lay commoners.
  • Many were probably always feeble—some charismatic guy’s plausible idea that failed, but persisted because he became famous.

The tantric attitude guides innovations in techniques

My guess is that enough of the tradition is unworkable that future Buddhist tantra will need to innovate many new practices. In fact, it has innovated throughout its history—but perhaps more drastic and rapid change is needed than ever before.

If the value of tantra was just its techniques, or if we regarded them as sacred procedures to apply by rote, this would be impossible. They’d work however well they worked, and that would be that.

In fact, tantric techniques flow from the tantric attitude—not vice versa. This makes innovation possible. We can understand what traditional techniques accomplish, and why they work. That can guide adaptation, and the creation of new methods that promote the same attitude in a different context. I’ve described one such new practice, developed in America in the 1980s, that seems particularly suitable here and now—a “killer app,” even!

I suspect there is no particular class of techniques that are indispensable. For instance, yidam is perhaps the single most important tantric practice. I believe one could drop yidam altogether, and tantra would still function.

However, some technical methods do work here and now. Others can be made to work if adapted. I’m not suggesting one should drop yidam—it does work, and there’s nothing wrong with it—just that nothing is essential.

A technical orientation encourages self-aggrandizement

Some Westernizers promote tantra as “power tools for transformation.” This seems particularly common among people attracted to tantra’s promise of power.

This misunderstanding leads to a peculiar sort of arrogance. I see it too often in online Buddhist forums. Tantrikas engage in aggressive one-up-manship:

I’ve learned more advanced techniques than you have, my lama’s version is better than your lama’s version, plus you’re doing it wrong, and—(I’m properly humble in a Buddhist way, so I would never say so)—but you really need to know that my samadhi is much deeper than yours!

This probably gives onlookers the impression that Vajrayana is a religion for dickheads only.

Some Westerners believe they can use tantric techniques to dominate men and seduce women. This isn’t entirely false, but usually doesn’t go well. I discussed the pitfalls in “Black magic, transformation, and power.”2

Others interpret tantric power as a mental upgrade, resulting from mental technology. Talk of “self-transformation” encourages the fantasy that you can fix yourself up, eliminating your defects; construct a better, more attractive you; establish solid personal territory and gain confidence in your own power; and ultimately, perhaps you can save yourself from all suffering by attaining enlightenment. If you can just master the difficult mental techniques, all this is possible! (No, it’s not.)

This interpretation is an example of what I’ve described as the “psychologization strategy” for naturalizing Buddhism. “Psychologization” reframes supernatural external phenomena as psychological internal ones. These reinterpretations may be appropriate for Sutrayana, which is largely about the self (or supposed lack thereof). Psychologization can be misleading and dangerous when applied to tantra. Tantra is not mainly about the self. It is about relationships: connections and interactions.

It is the tantric attitude that transforms—and remember, that attitude is the union of spacious freedom with passionate connections. Those tend to dissolve arrogance, aggression, and self-aggrandizement. Tantric power comes from unclogging energy—not from collecting and concentrating it.

Process note

This page was to be a preface to a ten-page section of Reinventing Buddhist Tantra that explains how two key traditional tantric practices could be naturalized. They are yidam, often described as “deity yoga”; and tsa lung, or “energy practice.” Both are traditionally understood as supernatural, but I find them effective despite having a naturalistic worldview.

The point of this page was that the details don’t particularly matter, because techniques are not centrally important. I wanted to discourage readers from getting hooked on the hope that I would eventually deliver a practical manual, which I didn’t intend to do.

As I explained in my Imperfect Buddha podcast recently,
I abandoned Reinventing Buddhist Tantra several years ago. A re-presentation of Vajrayana for contemporary cultural conditions is conceptually straightforward, and I’ve worked a lot of it out in draft form. However, contemporary social conditions are not conducive. That is, the sorts of social structures required to support contemporary Vajrayana do not exist, and I don’t see how to create them.

So this page has sat dormant in the vast Vividness draft document for four years. However, by chance I’ve emailed the piece to several people over the past few months—for different reasons—and some spontaneously suggested I publish it.

Reviewing the draft document, the first page of the yidam section is nearly complete—so perhaps I will publish that as well! However useless it may be at this moment in history.

This page—and the series overall—were greatly improved by comments from Rin’dzin Pamo.

  1. This discussion is in chapter 8 of Kunjé Gyalpo, and is expanded on elsewhere in the book, and in later Dzogchen texts. I have taken the liberty of replacing “remaining in the state” with “maintaining the attitude” because the latter is rather more active in orientation. Kunjé Gyalpo is the main text of the Mind Section of Dzogchen, which later scriptures consider slightly too passive and inward. Rightly, in my view, for what little that’s worth! 
  2. There’s similar issues in Western occultism. “What is ‘dark fluff’?” is an insightful discussion. Occultism mostly doesn’t do anything, so people are always looking for something “more extreme” that might. But the kinds of specific, practical outcomes some people want simply aren’t available. Once they realize Western esotericism is mostly lame nonsense made up a few decades ago, many try to cross over to tantra as a time-proven set of more powerful techniques. That doesn’t work either, and often causes unnecessary annoyance for all concerned. 

Author: David Chapman

Author of the book Meaningness and several Buddhist sites.

10 thoughts on “Buddhist tantra is not about techniques”

  1. I would very much like to read the first page of the yidam section! I have a special interest in deity yoga.

    Here’s a random one for you. Coming from a pagan background (and I know you spent some time in that world too…) Do you think, from a Buddhist perspective, only Buddhist deity forms are worth working with because they arose from dharmic mindstreams (I had real trouble working out how to phrase that, and I’m still not happy with it – hope you get my meaning) instead of “unenlightened” deity forms of other paths?

  2. Wonderful writing as always. The emphasis of the attitude over the technique seems especially needed in some modern (or ‘Western’ or whatever) circles, where the potentially frenetic (such as myself) are only encouraged in the wrong direction by the dazzling display of potentially self-aggrandizing imagery. Also, that video of Gaga and Bennet is fantastic!

  3. Zac — That’s a question one of the pages in the yidam section was supposed to address (not the first one, though!). The answer is “I don’t know,” although it was going to take maybe 3,000 words to say that.

    James — Thank you very much!

  4. Excellent post as usual, many thanks. I actually think the times is right for modern tantra. Look at movements like Burning Man, Borderland, Syntheism, the many neo-Tantra schools and organizations… People are looking for a modern form of spirituality big time.

  5. That Tantra is not about technique is simply a truism. Carpentry isn’t about technique either. Of course to be a good carpenter one needs good techniques, but technique is never an end in itself. The same goes for anything: sport, business, scholarship, musicianship, socialising. If technique gets foregrounded then we know something has gone wrong. And wild talents with “poor” (or unsanctioned) technique often surpass the greatest technicians. Our founding Buddhist legends revolve around just such a wild talent!

    Of course techniques are regularly overvalued across all walks of life, but never for long. We all know that technique alone is bullshit and even if there is a delay, someone always calls bullshit on technocrats. Be it the interminable guitar wanking of 1970s rock, vapid 18th Century European portraiture, Hollywood movies, execrable 12 tone music, or angry young Buddhist men arguing on the internet. Bullshit is bullshit.

    Personally I’ve found Kūkai’s 9th Century accounts of Tantra and commentary that focussed directly on his writing (as opposed than modern Shingon) to be the most illuminating writing about Tantra. Tibetan accounts of tantra, in my limited experience are hopelessly obscure by contrast. With a little background reading Kūkai is lucid and fascinating. At one point I thought about going over to Shingon. It’s some years since I spent time with him, but it’s my background with Kūkai that allows me to understand and appreciate where you are coming from in this kind of post.

  6. Just wanted to add another encouragement to the pile — looking forward to whatever you continue to post on this topic!

  7. Hey, David! Hope you’re just fine!!


    Tantra is about your relationship with everything in your life.

    What do you think about the so-called “social meditation”?

    I know there’s nothing like that in Vajrayana, but it could have, since it uses the same principles and mechanisms both in technical and behavioral stances. The only difference to other types of Tantra maybe is just philosophical, so to say.

    Better said, in a modernized & naturalized Buddhist Tantra, why not use more tools such as active and social types of meditations??

    Actually, the Tsog Khorlo has some collective component, ain’t it?

    When you’re talking about Tsa Lung, do it comprises Trul Khor and Ku mNye or do you think that an universal practice – at least for the general public – could be just that of sitted breathing work???

  8. What do you think about the so-called “social meditation”?

    It’s conceptually interesting. I have no experience with it, so I can’t say more than that.

    Tsog Khorlo has some collective component

    Yes; so do all group rituals, to a greater or lesser degree.

    When you’re talking about Tsa Lung, do it comprises Trul Khor


    do you think that an universal practice – at least for the general public – could be just that of sitted breathing work?

    I think physical practices such as trulkhor and kumnye are important. I don’t know whether they’re absolutely necessary, but they’re certainly helpful.

  9. (1)

    It’s conceptually interesting. I have no experience with it, so I can’t say more than that.

    Would you give it a try? Not only conceptually, but I can say to you that this whole paraphernalia of active & social meditations are a promising camp to allow a spacious flux of passions and unclogg energies in a non-discursive or less surgeonically than sitted meditations. And it has a plus: there’s a whole room for innovation there when the principles and processes are understood, as well as merging with the Vajra and Dzogchen views and tools such as Tsa Lung Trul Khor.

    As you’re discussing the possibilities of a new Buddhist Tantra and this seems not closed to other techniques. Of course that this must come from the nature of mind, not just intellectual work. Maybe even use fictional stories as a carrier for a new Tantrik terma out of the thin air, much the way you’re doing with the vampos!

    (2) This is not a discussion just on techniques under a text on attitude: the practices are not mere cold techniques, as a scientist would see his tools on a laboratory, but as expressions of this attitude of vast nobility. Otherwise, they become just some sterile theatricality, not skillful means.

    (3) Dear Mr. David, do you think that this whole modernization you’ve been talking about has space to integrate techniques such as Qi Gong, Tai Chi and similar ones??

    (4) Another question regards the view that you presented somewhere on your blogs about some Lama’s (no need to name her) approach on Chöd as a therapeutical tool rather than in a genuinely Tantrik process.

    Could you elaborate further on that, please? I think that once we naturalize Tantra, there’s no turning back, it’s difficult to really believe that you’re summoning demons and we do not have Western charnel grounds. So maybe how would be a way to naturalize Chöd without turning it into a mere mental gymnastics??

    (5) I’m here humbly and eagerly asking that you turn the wheel and write another post, giving us a deeper dive on the Vajrayana and Dzogchen collective rituals, such as Cham and Tsog, to name a few, and a perspective of how they could be applied in a modernized Tantra.


    I think physical practices such as trulkhor and kumnye are important. I don’t know whether they’re absolutely necessary, but they’re certainly helpful.

    Physical drills are certainly necessary if we want to keep good health in order to sustain longer and longer periods of sitted practice and have stamina to sustain a good sexual intercourse. This is common sense.

    Maybe not trulkhor & kumnye, which in certain lineages are not even practiced. So, body work is necessary, but the way it comes is not essential.

    I don’t have any way to believe that my body will become made of light after death if I achieve some vague state of mind and sustain it until the final breath. So we need to take care of this body if we want a happy life.

    (7) I’d stop here, but that made me offer two more final questions revolving around one same subject: From a natural point of view, what is the natural mind (dzogchen)? How do you face this thing called Body of Light or Rainbow Body, what is this symbolizing??

    Once again, thanks for helping us so much with all this thoughts and reflections.

  10. Late again. This time I am wondering what give you the impression that Sutrayana is about the self and not relationships? Is this an intuition based on interacting with others or does it have some textual grounding? If the latter, primary or secondary material? Do we have to suppose dealing with self and relations are mutually exclusive territories?

    I ask this series of questions because the Tantra (or the “David Chapman’s ideas about Tantra”) that you describe strike a chord with me. I cannot tell if it is because you describe what Zen communicates (this is a poor choice of words) or because you describe something that includes and exceeds Zen.

    I suppose there is a further question lurking in all this talk of modernizing and naturalizing. It is the one encapsulated in the very idea of a post-traditional Buddhism or Western Dharma or speculative non-Buddhism or whatever. Why do we insist on policing demarcations between the traditions when it comes to theory/aesthetics? I could be wrong but I don’t think there is a single Madhyamaka in the West and yet everyone and his cat has read, read commentaries or heard of Nagarjuna.

    I’m rambling.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s