Comments on “Sutra and Tantra compared”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: Sutra and Tantra compared
With respect to the vows to renounce renunciation and reject “pure morality,” is the purpose primarily:
a) liminal, in that you’re breaking a taboo for the sake of breaking a taboo (in the way that some Indian yogis eat beef ritually - not very exciting if you’re not a Hindu)
b) hedonistic, in the sense that hey, these things are fun, go to town if you enjoy them,
c) ecstatic, in the sense that sex/drugs/rocknroll are nice aids to alterning your consciousness,
d) something else?
Of course I don’t mean this to imply that one has to be THE reason, or different reasons might be more or less prominent in different contexts - but it seems like something that would have an interesting answer, and a useful one, if you’re trying to figure out how to usefully interpret an enjoinment to reject pure morality.
Hi David,
I’m enjoying reading along and learning about a religion that I know very little about. Thanks for taking the time!
I have a question about Buddhism - I’ve read that there are some versions (sects or whatever they are called) of Buddhism that actually don’t believe in gods. Is this just really a misunderstanding due to the fact that all Buddhists believe in many gods but not a supreme God? Or are there actually some small groups within Buddhism that reject the idea of gods altogether?
Hey David,
Thanks a lot for the response! I’ve been looking over that site it almost sounds like humanism with some values taken from the Buddhist traditions.
Truth is I’m not so sure I am a naturalist. Possibilian is the best word I’ve come across to describe me. I have a hard time thinking that there are spirits or gods somewhere that are hiding but still wanting to interact with us, but something transcendent or beyond our human understanding (possibly even described as supernatural) isn’t something that I know either way on. That’s why I like exploring lots of different religions cuz I figure the more you know the closer you get to truth.
Thanks again,
Howie
Very interesting…very.I deeply respect the effort and due consideration embodied in your analysis.
I’m disinclined to invest a lot of effort in writing a response: should you be interested, I propose we discuss the analysis over a series of phone conversations.
My assessment, one of constructive criticism - not dissing.
First, sutrayana characterization unwarrantedly comingles hinayana and bodhisattva buddhisms. With respect to the latter, many points are readily subject to falsification. As such, recommendation is to move to a threefold model to better exemplify organic growth and evolutionary refinement of dharma.
Tantrayana is far too Tibetocentric. Vajrayana is by no means exclusive to Tibet, rather a movement encompassing Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia, and with deep historical evidence in China, Korea, and Japan. A generalized characterization of tantrayana of tibetocentric expression is simply unacceptable as reductionistic, mistaking the forest for the trees. Tibetocentricism is emic, while generalized summary characterization of vajrayana must chunk up to etic standards.
David: for what it’s worth, the Kalacakra vows prohibit sex. I’ll try to find the classification re: tantras and emptiness and get back to you. (Sorry to be so rushed– I’ll try to respond more fully when I have time. I find this fascinating…)
I found the reference I was thinking of– it is a footnote by the translator (Richard Barron) to the Autobiography of Jamgon Kongtrul, where he writes:
“Father tantras emphasize the lucidity aspect of mind and the transformation of anger and aggression; mother tantras place more emphasis on the aspect of emptiness and the transformation of desire and attachment; nondual tantra gives equal emphasis to both aspects of the nature of mind, and deals with the transformation of ignorance. The category to which a given tantra is assigned may vary from one school to another.”
Good direction, David.
I’ll pass one on heard in Japan on various occasions. Hinayana stands as a Mahayana critique, not a term used otherwise. Smaller vehicle (hinayana) carries the connotation of small minded or petty. Thus far haven’t heard that here in the West!
Also recommend a focus on not only the path (eg, dashabhumi or ten stages of Dashabhumikasutra), but also the pivotal minimal awakening marking entry into path - srottapana for T, bodhicitta for M. A point regularly missed in the West is with arising of bodhicitta, there’s also arising of purvapranidhan - key to the Vimalakirti as pranidhana (vow) to develop buddhakshetra, not obsession about enlghtenment., purvapranidhana is key to sukhavati buddhism (cf Schopen, IIJ, 1979, Rebirth in Sukhavati as the Generalized Goal of Indian Buddhism - that’s a profound paradigm shift for Western buddhology and TMZ buddhism, one it’s never been able to accept much less fly with.
Looking forward to those forthcoming pieces.
Do you have any versions of the Chinese wheel of life mandala (bhavacakra mandala)? The Indo-Tibetan form depicts the three toxins as rooster, snake and boar at center; however, the Chinese one changes the center to the character hsin (Mandarin) or shin (go-un reading) or kokooro (kun reading) in Japanese. That’s the so-called ‘heart radical’ . Usually rendered as ‘mind’ as in One Mind (for isshin, trans skt ekagracitta). Mind is half a translation since it means heart/mind - not as two distinct concepts as in English, but all rolled into one in Ch.
That mandala bears vajrayana importance. Shift from bodhicitta to vajracitta (kongoshin) is profound, a shift from preliminary 1st bhumi to adamantine irrerversibility of the 7th bhumia (avaivartika bhumi). So this is the killer app distinction between bosatsudo (opps - bodhisattva yana (yana gets rendered as Tao, Japanese Do (long ‘o’ with macron) and kongosatsudo.
Again, I’m afraid I have to be too brief here. Yes, I was referring to the “no ejaculation” clause, but it also makes clear that there’s to be no sex for pleasure, only in a ritual context, and only without ejaculation (and only in the completion phase, and the steps to get there are insane, as you know.) And, even then, as you note, the Gelug tradition strongly encourages that people not take physical consorts at all. So, my point is that we’re not that far off from the monastic ideal at all. Similarly, I’ve heard of tantric traditions that use alcohol in ritual settings, but I don’t know of any that call for social drinking– but once again, I stress, I am not an expert, and stand to be corrected.
Haha. Bring on Ikkyu, the taboo Red Thread koans, and hannya-to (prajna water - since monks were forbidden to eat beyond midday, some took to drinking their rice fermented as sake).
Trungpa knew all about hannya-to for a spell, prompting the sake manufacturer of his choice to send a representative to Boulder in order to determine what had cause runaway sales in a community traditionally a low consumer!
David: I’m definitely reading a lot of Gelugpa literature at the moment, so that is definitely coloring my perspective– but at the same time, if we are going to omit the Gelug tradition (as atypical) and the Kalacakra (as late and atypical), and if the exceptions continue to multiply, pretty soon we’re going to need to start talking about a particular subset of tantra rather than tantra per se.
There is a Drinking Song authored by Longchenpa. He humourously advocates the drinking of beer and takes a few side-swipes at monastic hypocrites. It’s found in ‘Sources of the Tibetan Tradition’ on page 474 here: http://books.google.fi/books?id=buDN9BdRkN8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA474#v=onepage&q&f=false
Unfortunately the whole thing isn’t there but it gives you a taste, so to speak.
David, A Hubbard: This is excellent, thanks. As I hope is clear, I am not trying to argue for any particular viewpoint here, Gelug or otherwise– if I point to counter-examples, it’s only to try to better understand the context.
Hi, David, I’ve read almost all of the posts here, very informative and insightful, coming from a Theravada perspective I found all this new information interesting, not only about Theravada but also about the “attitude” of Tantra.
I have two questions. First is about ethics- what is there in Vajrayana about morality, where are it’s imperatives and values, or is it nihilistic in that sense? Does it say somewhere e.g. that is wrong to inflict suffering on other, or something like that, does it give precepts? Second question is about the “attitude”, which is AFAIU it’s central tenet, is your proposal that Vajrayana should basically be striped of all it’s supernalism leaving only the attitude and things related to it, and that this attitude is what’s (or should be) the appeal of Tantra?
Thank you for the answer.
If you don’t anything better to do, I’d like to follow up :)
So, if Vajrayana’s ethics is pretty much just “be compassionate” how is that different/ better then the Consensus minimalist ethics of “be nice”? :)
Also, if this revised Vajrayana is to be about the “attitute” and methods for achieving and maintaining it, it seems to me that such a possible Vajrayana, that is stripped-down of it’s supernatural teachings, maybe wouldn’t have anything more to offer to a westerner then e.g. Cyrenaicism and other ancient Greek schools which were all happiness oriented and had various methods for achieving and maintaining it. Classics by Aristotle, Plutarch, Seneca and Cicero come to mind, especially the last two, and also books like Cicero on the Emotions by Margaret Graver and Emotion and Peace of Mind by Richard Sorabji which comment on the mentioned methods.
Again, thanks for the answer, great to have this exchange.
First I thougth that the “attitude” of Vajrayana is a central thing, thinking about some Socratic/ Stoic like notion of going trough samsara and never minding it, by redefining suffering so as to exclude pain, aging, illness and leave only not getting what you want and getting what you don’t want, which you can manage “simply” by changing your wanting, but then you suprised me by saying that it’s not really central. Now you suprise me again by saying that Vajrayana is not about happiness, it seems I understood everything wrong :)
I mentioned Cyrenaics exactly because of that, they advocated not mental pleasures of abstinence and ascetism like Epirueans and Stoics, but indulgence in bodily pleasures, the more the better, take everything you can, don’t calculate like Epicureans about future bigger pleasures, so they were proverbially hedonist, and their main technique for coping with pain and dissatisfaction (also used by Stoics in a lesser degree) is the so called praemeditatio malorum, forsigh (pre-meditation) of evils, thinking about all sort of painful and dissatisfactory things that can happen to you, because they believed that the greatest suffering comes if bad things are not expected, so if you expect them, you suffer much less when they happen, and there also other advice to reduce suffering even less or cancel it out altogether.
I have to say I don’t agree about living traditions, e.g. I was a Christian living very piously for a few years by reading various text from 2nd, 3rd and 4th century CE by Church fathers, so called Desert fathers, I practiced many ascetical rules, mental trainings and prayer practices based only on those books, I didn’t find anyone living practicing those things, and I found it great, I left Christianity based on theorical, theological dissagreement, so I don’t do those stuff anymore because I don’t any more think that God wants me to, but I have those days as good memories, I still practice some minor advice from there and draw some general lessons from those teachings.
I practiced different teachings of Sutric and Tantric Buddhism, Dzogchen, and other traditions, including contemporary psychotherapy :).
For me, my way is the pivot, the core. Many theories and practices - that I felt needed - I connected to this core.
I believe it was exactly so for Buddha Shakyamuni. He studied and practised methods that he met, and learned how did they fit his intention, how did they work in his life.
He investigated the world, to discover the true way.
So there is no real separation between “Zen”, “Dzogchen”, “Tantra”, “Sutra” etc.
Buddhist Tantra is not the opposite to Sutra, it’s only some set of methods. (More or less of specific kind).
I believe that most counterpositions between them are made out of ignorance.
Sources that you refer to are not absolutely reliable.
-
Namkhai Norbu may be a good practitioner of Dzogchen, but many of his views on Buddhism are wrong. (You know, people can’t embrace everything equally well: some are good meditators, but have not much understanding of principles; they are not so skilled in thinking. That is the case for Namkhai Norbu).
I mentioned some of his misconcepts e.g. in “Sutra and Dzogchen” thread on Zen Forum:
http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10628&start=20#p163628 -
Chögyam Trungpa, e.g., based his comparison of Zen and Tantra on a basis of his acquaintance with Shunryu Suzuki’s Zen. What Trungpa learned he described as Zen way.
But that was not Zen Way in general. That was Shunryu Suzuki’s Zen.
Other teachers have different versions of Zen. In the essence they can be the same, but approaches can differ. Thus I say: “Zen is only one in the essence, but there are as many Zens as Zen teachers”.
(The essence of Zen is the pure seeing here and now. The open wisdom. It’s rather the way to view the practice, than specific separate teaching. Maybe that’s why Dogen said there is no Zen as specific school [distinct from the rest of Buddhism]).
Thus, what Chögyam Trungpa compared as “Sutra” and “Tantra” were actually some views on Sutra compared to some views on Tantra. Do you see the difference?
It happens quite usually in such comparisons (and in criticism of different teachings). People think they criticize something in general, but actually they criticize only some particular cases or specific views on that.
Often their views are limited and do not really express the essence of what they try to criticize.
For example, let’s look at that table:
<h1>Path/overall method</h1>Sutra:
Renunciation of self, emotions, and the world
Tantra:
Transformation and liberation of energy
That is pretty common mistake of “Tantric” and “Dzogchen” thinkers. Actually, renunciation is not the whole path of Sutra, it’s only the starting point.
And it is a starting point for Tantric and other practitioners too! For any path. Because if you want to improve anything, it means to renounce something. Otherwise, why would you do any regular practice?
Maybe people from tantric schools tend to confuse Sutric teachings with starting level, because such is the usual progression in tantric schools (esp. Geluk). First you learn Sutra, only then Tantra. As a result, they think that the principles of the advanced stages belong to Tantra (which is not true).
Or, if these people didn’t learn well Sutra first, how could they compare? They don’t know the subject well enough.
For example, Vimalakirti Sutra expresses the same approach of freedom and non-formality that some attribute to Tantra.
Actually, saying that “Sutra Path/Overall Method” is “renunciation of self, emotions, and the world” is absolutely wrong. (Some would say, it’s demonic view and aspersion).
Buddha Shakyamuni started his first sermon from the First Noble Truth of suffering. “Beings do suffer”. Why did he start with that?
Because that’s why people practise.
He didn’t say “renounce self, emotions, and the world”. Actually he said quite the opposite: renounce overly ascetic practices and follow the middle way. Find the true self, the true emotions, the true world - instead of keeping yourself in suffering of battles between illusions.
Sutra:
Recognition of emptiness; suffering ended by elimination of defilements
Tantra:
Recognition of inseparability of emptiness and form (wholeness)
That’s just wrong opposition. There is no difference between “Recognition of emptiness” and “Recognition of inseparability of emptiness and form”.
Only people who misunderstand emptiness can think otherwise.
Besides, that inseparability is expressed in Sutric texts, such as Heart Sutra. So why attribute this to Tantra?
And, finally: yes, suffering ends by elimination of defilements.
It is true and it is not opposite to “recognition of wholeness”.
Rather, the contrary: while eliminating defilements, we progress in recognising the wholeness. And the progress in recognising wholeness helps to eliminate defilements.
I think, people who counterpose these are in some trap of battling the truth. They try to deny the need for eliminating defilements. They justify that by using undigested ideas about “the better way”.
But, actually, in order to use one truth, people don’t need to battle another truth.
In order to get freedom from “being obsessed with renunciation”, you don’t have to battle the idea of renunciation. Rather, you have to drop the attachment to the narrow view.
Reality is many-sided, it is called “absolute truth”.
“Relative truths” are many one-sided truths.
Practitioner should integrate relative truths together, then he could reach absolute truth.
Which means to see behind words and ideas.
Being obsessed with narrow ideas about freedom doesn’t conduct to real freedom.
Freedom comes when people can see the truth in both approaches - “emptiness” and “causality” - and follow them both in practice.
My advice:
Use principles that help you - that widen and deepen the view on practice. But let go “intellectual games” of sticking labels to things that you don’t really know.
What would be the result, then?
Not obsessed by renunciation, but not ignoring it when it’s needed.
Being “insane” only in a sense of dropping intellectual attachments, but not being insane to hold to emotional attachments.
Without eliminating defilements of intellectual and emotional turmoil, there could be no freedom. Only subjection to attachments, over-reactions and inability to follow your way in a stable manner.
> Since you agree that Buddhisms are diverse, I’m not sure why you want to to criticize the particular approach I take here.
Because you misinterpret Sutric Buddhism.
For example:
> Existence in Mahayana is still considered hellish.
I would agree if you’d say “my particular approach to Mahayana considers…”
But you speak about Mahayana in general.
I could explain further only to those who respects my advice and wants to learn to discern original views from interpretations.
What is the attitude of the two to jokes and humor? From the above, I guess that sutra lacks a good sense of humor (like some brands of Christianity) while I would guess tantra to be compatible with it. Don’t know if this is important, but the question just came up.
Hi David, there is no Drinking song by Dujom Rinpoche, this is a myth circulated by some folks from Aro who use it however they like. The text is actually beer offering text called “Offering of chang: Messenger of great joy” (chang mchod rab dga’i pho nya) it is found in volume 18 of Dujom Rinpoche’s collected works. It is an offering practice, where one can use drinking of chang as an offering. So it is not just some flamboyant drinking song that the author of the English translation that circulates among people tries to make it into. Also it is not something secret, but is publicly available in Dujom sungbum on TBRC web-site.
Hi David, this comparison table is awesome, many thanks for it! :) Are you going to create similar table that compares Tantra and Dzoghchen?
Thank you for sharing!
Thoughts
David, could you elaborate at all on thought being the essence of enlightenment in Tantra? Are they the essence of enlightenment insofar as all phenomena are the essence, or is there something special about thoughts?
Mahamudra
Thanks, that is interesting. Coincidentally, just after posting that comment, I remembered that I have a Mahamudra book called ‘Mind at Ease’ on my kindle and started re-reading it. I do recall from before that the chapter on insight practices mostly deals with observing the nature of thoughts.
Really excellent chart, David. There’s a lot of material there to digest.
I have two questions about the “Tantra” side of the equation, stemming from my own lack of expertise.
First: is the emphasis on “Wholeness” found in all tantras? Because I thought that there were some which emphasized emptiness, and some which emphasized wholeness.
Second:does tantric morality really “reject self-denial”? I’m thinking here of the the Bodhisattva vow rejecting “wasting time on frivolous actions such as carelessness, lack of pure morality, dancing, playing music just for fun, gossiping and also distracting others in meditation”, or, umm, certain elements of the Kalacakra vows. It seems to me that these call for a pretty significant degree of renunciation.