Comments on “Sutra, Tantra, and the modern worldview”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: Sutra, Tantra, and the modern worldview
I’m curious about your characterization of suffering in sutrayana. My understanding of the teaching of suffering is not that fabulous experiences don’t exist, but that even those are shot through with an awareness that they are transient and impermanent. Suffering is created by our constantly wanting to pin things down (primarily, and most pathologically, our selves). But perhaps I am just reflecting the modernized, psychologized Buddhism view of the day?
“I hope that modern Tantra can overcome both nihilism and eternalism through recognizing that sacredness is a stance toward the world, not an inherent quality of some bits of it; and that adopting the stance that everything is sacred generally leads to better outcomes than the stance that nothing is sacred.”
Hear, hear! Well done Dave for pointing out this much misunderstood point! Attitude and approach as the basis for living effectively in the world, rather than grasping at eternal, and usually romantic, truths. Anything to say on paradox, or the bringing together of dynamic opposites as sources of energy?
By the way, have you read David Abram’s ‘The Spell of the Sensuous’? It explores what I would consider an eminently tantric mode of engaging with the world through a welding of contemporary animism and Western philosophy. I think that some of Abram’s ways of describing a sacred stance to the world are extremely well formulated and could add to a discussion of the how of tantra in the modern world.
Another thought about this;
“The Sutrayana idea of a teacher as “spiritual friend” is comfortable; the Tantrayana concept of a teacher as an embodiment of enlightenment who gives you personalized instructions is not.”
Isn’t this issue such a sticking point in part because of the cultural baggage that comes with Tantric Buddhism, primarily Tibetan in the West, and the rather warped notions we generally have about enlightenment being a super-power-ranger state of ever-lasting awesomeness? Perhaps if it came down to this person being more awake than you and therefore is able to point out the way ahead as an individual that acts in part as an image maker, or example, of what’s possible, then maybe the Tantric model of teacher student could be salvaged in some form, could become more humanised as a working basis for dissemination of an ongoing, working relationship? I still believe strongly we need radical renovation of Buddhism in the West. We haven’t gone nearly far enough yet in making it anew and I for one am certainly more attracted to a vivid, dynamic mode of engaging with Buddhist techniques that is not dry Secular, Protestant style Buddhism.
I could ramble on further, but shall stop here.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with your statement that “Sutrayana is about rejecting and transcending the world, so if you don’t have revulsion for it, you can’t even start.” The monastic path of Sutrayana, sure– but if you look at the Buddha’s instructions to lay Buddhists in the Mahanama Sutta (AN8.25), for example, you see that it’s not particularly world-rejecting, or based upon revulsion. For laypeople, the immediate goal (on the path to cessation) is a favorable rebirth, one in which we will presumably be more amenable to rejecting the world. In other words, the stance is similar to St Augustine’s famous “Lord, grant me chastity– but not yet!”
As you know, the consensus/modernist Buddhism is the attempt to take the goal, the rhetoric and some of the practices of the monastic path and apply them to laypeople– and the result is more than a little incoherent.
Otherwise, I’m also not sure I’d agree that tantra has no ethics– but again, the sources I am relying on here may be atypical. I’d be interested to see what the sadhanas of other tantras and other traditions include in this regard.
Re:
Perhaps if it came down to this person being more awake than you and therefore is able to point out the way ahead as an individual that acts in part as an image maker, or example, of what’s possible, then maybe the Tantric model of teacher student could be salvaged in some form, could become more humanised as a working basis for dissemination of an ongoing, working relationship?
(from Matthew)
The relationship with a Tantric teacher has to start somewhere, so this might be a good approach. There’s nothing wrong with regarding a teacher as ‘a bit more awake than I am’ – but that’s the Sutric approach. (How else would you view a spiritual friend?)
For a tantrika (someone who holds Tantric vows), or someone preparing for that eventuality, the view of the teacher as fully awakened is what matters. Whether ‘fully awakened’ is a reality, or not, is irrelevant.
Few Tantric practitioners jump directly into viewing the teacher as awakened. That has obvious dangers. It can take many years to establish confidence in a teacher’s realization, and rushing that process is foolish. Being able to practice viewing the teacher as awakened without taking vows and with the option to walk away should probably be a a part of any approach to taking a Tantric teacher.
Seeing your teacher as awakened doesn’t mean regarding them as a non-human, transcendent saint – but there is an element of surrender there which is not necessary in the Sutric teacher-student relationship. You surrender your belief that your emotional responses and impetus to take particular actions are ‘right.’ Tantric practice develops your ability to see your personal patterns and to experience them as arbitrary – empty of non-contextual importance, or meaning. In Tantra, that doesn’t mean that you reject your personal patterning, so much as that you come to regard every situation as having many possible outcomes, way beyond those you feel, see or can even imagine. Ultimately, surrender to your teacher is the same as surrender to presence, in that your patterning is so loose that you can replace, with ease, one idea with another, or one action with another, if the present moment – or your teacher – suggests it.
If you continue to understand that your teacher is human, and can still view them as awakened – allowing the process I described above to occur – you become more responsible, not less. The idea that the Tantric teacher-student relationship invariably leads to moronic blind faith and guru worship is mistaken. That could happen – but it would be a distortion. Knowing that your teacher is human means you can discuss the reality and context of a situation with them – in fact, that you have a responsibility to do so – it doesn’t mean that you become a glassy-eyed imbecile waiting for instructions from the Holy Guru. Regarding them as awakened maintains your constant openness to experiencing reality, and behaving, differently. That is how the relationship is liberating.
David, I have been reading everything you post and trying to digest it as best and fast as my little brain can. I keep hoping you would address the concept and law of Samaya and how it binds us to the teacher or is used as a fear point to keep us in line. The path of Tantra is dangerous but many want to know why and how much. Do you think the role of Samaya is relevant here and is it at the heart of what makes Tantra risky and likewise important for absolute obedience to the Guru?
Excellent recap of many of your other fine posts. This “Sparks Notes” version was fun.
With the differences between Tantrayana and Sutrayana, it seems amazingly deceptive to pretend to meaningfully tack on the word “Buddhism” at the end. :-)
As if they share anything substantial in common except an accidental history.
It is a little sad to me that if Tantra gets meaningfully incorporated into Western Culture in a useful way in any significant, easily accessible way, I won’t be around to see that. It seems that at that time, people will look back in their history class and say, “You’ve got to read Chapman, if you want to see the origins of this movement.” :-)
David– you wrote “The Mahayoga/Anuttara scriptures themselves are often horrifying in this respect. Many of them recommend systematically performing the most hideously unethical acts imaginable. They go far out of their way to invent extraordinary new crimes. No one really knows what the point of that was.”
It may be worth noting that this aspect of tantra is older than Buddhism; in fact, one such Śaivite tantrika, Angulimala, makes a memorable appearance in the Pali canon, wearing his necklace of fingers.
And certainly this ritualized antinomianism is at the heart of most tantra, eating the banned substances, performing banned sex acts, drinking banned alcohols, etc. The question (for me, at least), is to what degree these are supposed to be practiced outside of the ritual context.
I’ll have to re-read my Samuel; I thought he posited a continuity between the pre-Buddhist Yoga tradition and tantra, but I could easily be misremembering.
I got the Angulimala/Śaivite connection from Gombrich; of course, even if he’s viewed as a parody, it implies that some kind of antinomian Śaivite behavior was happening at the time.
You’re right, of course, that the Gelug interpret the antinomian behavior metaphorically or as visualization– but are they atypical in this (besides the use of a physical consort)? I mean, for example, reading the list of substances called for in the Mahakala Tantra, would these be taken as written in the other schools? (We can take this offline to discuss restricted matters, of course.)
In the case of Mahakala, it is a bit more specific than cannibalism– for example, on the list is: the tongue of an untoothed child, the skull of a sweeper, the skull of a brahmin, a penis, and one’s sister’s discharge, making the collection procedure somewhat problematic, it would seem. I’m afraid I don’t know the tantra well enough to know if the infant should be purpose-killed, etc.
But again, if we limit ourselves to the five nectars and five meats– are these to be ingested routinely in daily life? Or only in ritual settings? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way: I don’t expect you to have an answer. But the question underlies much of our discussion so far.)
My underlying question is regarding the relationship between this antinomianism and standard Buddhist behavior/ethics. For example, you write “Tantra thinks pleasure (especially sex) is good, and enjoyment is the essence of the path.” But does it really think pleasure and enjoyment is generally good, or is the enjoyment/pleasure kept within the bounds of ritual? Are monks who are involved in consort practice having sex for enjoyment and pleasure generally, or are they only having sex in a ritual context, and channeling the pleasure toward a soteriological goal? Are they drinking alcohol and eating proscribed substances only in rituals, or getting drunk and eating meals for pleasure? Etc., etc.
And, just to repeat one more time– I’m really not arguing with you here; I’m just trying to understand.
David: When you write “So let’s forget about monks, and consider tantra practiced as it was originally meant to be, by lay people” you get to the crux of the issue I suppose.
I’m afraid I don’t know the textual tradition nearly well enough to feel comfortable making that leap into “was originally meant to be” in the face of the evidence of what it actually was. A fairly large percentage of the tantric literature I am acquainted with was written by monks, for monks. Tossing out a thousand years of Tibetan writings as atypical is a pretty radical move. (I’m not saying it’s not warranted- I’m just saying I haven’t myself the epistemological warrant to do so, yet.)
But I’m understanding better and better the context of your analysis, thanks. And sorry to hear about your recent difficulties.
Thanks again for the explication. Most of the texts related to tantra that I have read were written by monks, for monks– but they might not at all be a representative sample of the extant literature, and I’ve definitely been focusing on the tantra of the past and not the present.
I must confess; this is extremely unpersuasive. Your characterization of ‘Sutrayana’ is meaningless. Is this a ‘Tibetan’ concept? I am totally unfamiliar with this interpretation. The teaching of the Lotus Sutra (which I thought most Tibetans also saw as the highest teaching of the ‘Buddha’) is completely antithetical to your description of ‘Sutrayana.’ Interpreting the Lotus in ‘The Great Concentration and Insight’ Zhiyi says, “The ignorance and dust of desires are enlightenment, and the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana.” Nichiren said, “Suffer what there is to suffer, enjoy what there is to enjoy. Regard both suffering and joy as facts of life…” The middle way indicates that any view of life that does not take the whole of life into account is incomplete and unworthy of being taught. The Sutra says, “if there are good men or good women who, hearing this Lotus Sutra, respond with joy, what amount of blessings do they acquire?” and it explains, ” the benefits gained by even the fiftieth person who hears the Lotus Sutra as it is handed along to him and responds with joy are immeasurable, boundless asamkhyas in number.” I don’t read this as a prediction. I read it as a direction. If the insight of Tantra is that life is worth living then I really don’t see the need for it. This is not a teaching unique to Tantra. Tantra itself is not unique to Buddhism and seems grafted on to Buddhism and not in any way essential. Shouldn’t a teaching be open to every person? Tantra will always be inaccessible to most people because it depends on experiences that are never going to be easy to pass around (unlike the Lotus teaching.) If you try to gather the necessary amount of teachers to propagate Tantra (and to widely propagate it you would need many teachers because as you say a teacher is required) then you are going to run into the same issues that led Nichiren to say, “Zen is for devils!” (Personally I don’t want to police a church! No one needs that headache but look at the way some women have been treated in Zen. The Catholics also did a pretty crummy job of that and it was surely made worse by the fact that they required lay people to trust the priest so much.) The Bodhisattva path is not only much simpler. It is actually completely sufficient. The Lotus says,
<pre>At all times I think to myself:
How can I cause living beings
to gain entry into the unsurpassed way
</pre>
and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?
The phrase you wrongly attributed to Hitler is from Nietzsche and goes “Whatever is done out of love is beyond good and evil.” To me that is the very essence of the Bodhisattva path and the sole purpose of Buddhism. If I cannot see the Buddha in others then how will I ever see myself as the Buddha? In the Lotus, Taho Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha sit side by side in the treasure tower of our life. They are not two.
“I think his view is similar to that of Tantra in many ways. (Not all!)”
WOOOAH! Hey now. That needs to be explained. I see Nietzsche as being the dead opposite of Buddhism.
VERY interesting. I’m a Nietzschean turned Buddhist, who has always seen the two as completely incompatible. This response makes me look at your work with new eyes.
It feels funny to reply to a 27 month old comment. Ha. Perhaps this belongs on the Ethics page?
David wrote “For Nyingmapas, the Dzogchen concept of lhündrüp (spontaneous compassionate action) can be the basis for a positive ethical theory.”
On reading this, I think of the work of the Arbinger Institute (authors of “Leadership and Self-Deception” and “The Anatomy of Peace”), which has been very influential for me, both as a manager, a consultant, and in everyday life. I’ve formed my own personal ethical framework from this, combined with a contemporary take on the yogic yamas and niyamas (vows / observances / principles).
The Arbinger work teaches (in the guise of leadership development for managers, and also family-therapy-ish training) an approach to engaging with others that is a development of Martin Buber’s “I-You” vs “I-Thou” distinction.
A key part of the approach is the practice of becoming aware of a call to act compassionately in relationship to another in a given moment. And then, what you do with that awareness — they call this “the choice”: One choice is to honour the awareness (which might result in action, but might not). The other choice is to dismiss the awareness through self-justification, which they hold is an act of self-violence.
The awareness of a call to act compassionately is an indication of being “I-Thou” to the other, seeing the other as a whole person and an entity worthy of love and respect. The choice to honour the awareness maintains the “I-Thou”, while the choice to dismiss the awareness results in “I-You”, seeing the other as an object (say, an obstacle, a means of getting something, or an adversary), and as not worthy of love and respect.
Another part of the approach worth mentioning is “collusion”. This is the stance of that feelings that arise, intentions, and verbal/physical acts are part of a system. An example of collusion is when two people each hold that they are in conflict with each other, and are taking actions that seem (from their “I” of the “I-You”) totally reasonable. Yet, the actions just serve to dig each party further into the conflict. The collusion stance is that they are both collaborating to maintain their conflict, getting increasingly attached to their self-justifications (or “reasonableness”) as the energy feeding the system.
There are various techniques that help you to become aware of collusions in the system, so you can take spontaneous compassionate action to break the cycle, and restore an “I-Thou” stance.
My own experience is, this gives me a practical ethical framework that is better (for me, anyway) than following morals / laws in the form of “thou shalt (not)” that are about moral and immoral actions. It is also more useful and holistic than modern ethical frameworks based only on evaluating the consequences of decisions (like trolley-car dilemmas).
I don’t know how to describe my approach exactly. But it’s grounded in remaining aware (not sweeping awarenesses away for personal comfort), the invitation to look holistically at broader systems, and considering all people (including myself) as whole beings. All the while, being open to spontaneous action (or inaction) that won’t necessarily make sense at the time, but might in retrospect.
I just read the Aro Encyclopaedia entry on Karma. I found it congruent with what I was trying to describe in the comment above.
@David, have you made any strides in the Nietzsche-Tantra comparison since you posted this?
There’s some interesting and detailed material about that in Julius Evola’s “Riding the Tiger”. Also on other European philosophers, mainly existentialists. I think his views were based on Hindu Tantric yoga but am not sure anymore. (If you want to explore the furthest reaches of political incorrectness, Evola is a good start. He thought Mussolini’s Italy was not fascist enough. Too proletarian and bourgeois for a warrior-caste aristocrat like him.)
About the Tantric Buddhist vow not to denigrate women as a group:
I would like some clarity on that before I take Tantric vows. Does it also apply to any subset of women, such as blondes for example? I am concerned that I might not be allowed to tease my partner anymore, nor my (Vajrayana) meditation instructor.
On addiction:
Trying to quit reading your Tantra series, but can’t. Any advice? When is this series going to end?? I can’t see a hyperlinked table of contents and am secretely hoping that you dropped the project after the next post each time.
By the way in general - it seems your approach to theme be fresh and innovative. How to preserve this freshness in the context of last vajrayana teachers’ many scandals, sexual scandals in the modern Internet age and mass media (?). How to preserve this freshness while avoiding (conscious or not) socio-media campaign when someone might not like it (competition - other religions, politics, etc.)
[have you made any strides in the Nietzsche-Tantra comparison since you posted this?
[I’m sorry, no, I haven’t worked on that.]]
I’m also visiting this website from time to time in the hopes of finding some development of this line of thought. Very interesting!
Marketing Tantra
I started going through your writing from Meaningness, but kept on here because of dissatisfaction with secular mindfulness my Silicon Valley ADHD psych recommended (with an EEG mind reading headband and everything).
At first I was surprised because the meditation technique definitely does something, but their own reading material isn’t very impressive - it’s sensibly rational but a bit shallow, and when they try to expand the worldview a bit they get some random untrustworthy types like Deepak Chopra when I vaguely knew it came from Buddhism.
More importantly, the concept is sold with terms like “stress reduction” “relax” “calmness”, but what it produces is closer to “awareness” or “flow” along with other lessons (like that thoughts appear on their own without you deciding to think them). And that seems a lot more appealing personally. After everyone’s been stuck at home for a year or two, do we even want more relaxation? I’d rather learn to be more active.
Probably their “stress” is secularized samsara, and if so, that’d be a way to market the secular Tantra you’re writing about. Hopefully the audience wouldn’t see it as those “for men” brands that’s just the same thing with edgier labels.
Glad to see you return to this series on Tantra. Looking forward to it.