Duke University
Department of Religion
Latin Honors Thesis
April 30, 1997
HTML Version: May 17, 1997
The various schools of Buddhism
differ widely in their philosophical tenets and in their practices. For
example, the family of practices known as deity yoga is unique to Tantric
Buddhism and is very different from other types of Buddhist practice. Not
surprisingly, other schools of Buddhism often respond skeptically to the
practices of Tantra, to say the least. In the words of one Theravada bhikkhu
the author interviewed on this topic, I dont see the purpose.
Although the purpose of Tantra, as will be discussed later, may be well-defined,
viable objections remain as to the ontological status of the myriad forms
and beings that are visualized during Tantric sadhanas and as to the fruitfulness
of such practices as tools for attaining enlightenment. This paper will
explore the question, Is deity yoga Buddhist? and investigate
the philosophical foundations of Tantric practices as well as the objections
to them which have been raised by other Buddhist schools.
According to the Tibetan Mahayana,
the schools of Buddhism are classified according to the Triyana, or Three
Vehicles: the Hinayana or Individual Vehicle, the Mahayana
or Universal Vehicle, and the Vajrayana or Indestructible
Vehicle. In some systems of classification, the Vajrayana is considered
as a subgroup of the Mahayana, and Buddhism is separated into only two
main divisions: the Hinayana and the Mahayana. However, since the current
paper is concerned with the unique deity yoga practices of the Tibetan
Mahayana, the Triyana classification will be used as a basis for explanation.
Regardless of whether one considers the Vajrayana as a subgroup of the
Mahayana or as a separate division of its own, it is important to realize
the close historical and philosophical affiliation of the two.
The Hinayana
The Hinayana school of Buddhism
has been called the way of self-benefit and of negation. Adherents of the
Individual Vehicle of Buddhism engage themselves in trying to fix their
own shortcomings and in negative ascesis, that is, refraining from committing
acts which are considered to accrue bad karma for oneself. Hinayana practice
has been likened to refusing a cup of poison, that is, ceasing to commit
acts of body and mind which cause direct or indirect harm to oneself. The
goal of Hinayana practice is to reach the stage of an arhat, one
who has rid oneself of the defilements of ignorance (avidya), attachment
(raga), and aversion (dvesha) with the aid of a teacher.
The Mahasanghika, to which the rise
of the Mahayana is apparently deeply indebted, and the Sthaviravada, from
which the modern Theravada school arose, both were descended from a common
form of primitive Buddhism.1 The Hinayana that is often
criticized in the texts of the other two vehicles as having fallen into
the trap of reification of the dharmas is also descended from the Sthaviravada.
This criticism is specifically targeted at the Sarvastivadin school of
Buddhism, which had stagnated and petrified the Abhidharma into a list
of inherently existent dharmas. It is important to realize, however, that
the modern Theravada school of Abhidhamma developed independently and did
not fall victim to this reification. The Theravada system is an open-ended,
dynamic philosophy which does not reify the teachings of the Buddha as
information, but instead recognizes that the Buddha Dharma is transformation.
The Buddhas teaching of anatta (the lack of inherent self-existence)
is seen by the Theravada to apply to both the existence of the personal
self and to the existence of the dharmas.
The Mahayana
The Mahayana school of Buddhism
has been called the way of other-benefit and compassion. The culmination
of Mahayana practice is different from that of the Hinayana. The Mahayana
claims that becoming an arhat is only a partial achievement of the
goal characterized by an excess of wisdom and a lack of compassion. The
true goal, they say, is to become a Buddha, a self-enlightened one. To
do this, Mahayana practitioners take the Bodhisattva Vows to fully utilize
the three karmas (body, speech, and mind) to help others until all sentient
beings have been freed from samsara. This emphasis on compassionate benefit
of others is a key distinction between the Mahayana and the Hinayana.
Mahayanists maintain that since the
distinction between pure and impure or good and bad is a creation of dualistic
thinking, and since dualistic thinking is a manifestation of ignorance
of the true nature of reality, then this type of distinction must not actually
exist at the level of ultimate reality. The consequence of this is that
when the passions (kleshas) are viewed from pure perspective, no
distinction can be made between pure and impure. Thus, according to the
Mahayana, the negative ascesis (avoiding impure actions) of the Hinayana
serves to strengthen dualistic thinking and further mire the mind in samsaric
misperception of reality. The followers of Mahayana strive to strengthen
the modes of being known as wisdom (mahaprajña), which correctly
perceives the ultimate nature of reality, and great compassion (mahakaruna),
which strives to benefit all sentient beings. Because of this, the Mahayana
has been likened to taking sips of poison, that is, being able to use the
overriding principles of wisdom and great compassion to act skillfully
to benefit others, which may, at times, mean performing actions that the
Hinayanist would consider contraventions of the Vinaya rules regarding
moral conduct (shila). However, the positive rule of compassion
takes precedence over the negative prohibitory rules.
The Vajrayana
The Vajrayana school of Buddhism
has been characterized as stopping ordinary perception. If the Hinayana
and the Mahayana correspond to refusing a cup of poison and taking sips
of poison, respectively, then the Vajrayana corresponds to drinking poison
and transforming it into nectar. The practitioner of Vajrayana is able
to use the energy generated by the passions as an aid on the path to enlightenment.
This is done by adopting a standpoint of having already achieved the goal
and of ones already being a Buddha as opposed to striving along the path
towards enlightenment. Practices involving the adopting of the goal
as the path2 are called Tantrayana, or the Effect
Vehicle. Obviously, the practice of Tantra is not for everyone, as practitioners
must have a solid foundation in wisdom and compassion before attempting
to use passion in the path or they may experience negative consequences
such as rebirth in the Vajra hells, which are said to be below even the
Avici Hell (i.e. the Hell of Uninterrupted Pain). The practices of Tantra
are referred to as deity yoga because of the adoption of the viewpoint
of having already achieved the goal (i.e. ones already being a deity).
Bodhicitta: The Heart of the Mahayana and Vajrayana Teachings
To be able to understand the
controversy regarding deity yoga, the similarities and distinctions between
Mahayana and Vajrayana must be carefully examined. The heart of the teachings
of both schools is the practice of cultivating the two levels of enlightened
mind (bodhicitta), the conventional and the ultimate. The conventional
bodhicitta is the mind of great compassion (mahakaruna) that
is the desire to work for the benefit of all sentient beings. Recognizing,
however, that physical means of benefit are temporal and impermanent and
that only an enlightened being can provide lasting benefit by dispelling
ignorance, the conventional bodhicitta gives rise to the altruistic
desire to achieve enlightenment as the most expedient way of exercising
compassion. The ultimate bodhicitta is the bodhisattva wisdom cognizing
emptiness. The cultivation of conventional bodhicitta is requisite
for the attainment of ultimate bodhicitta. The ultimate bodhicitta
operates in a non-dual mode of perception in which good and bad, pure and
impure, or extra-samsaric and intra-samsaric do not have independent self-existence.
The ultimate bodhicitta perceives the emptiness (sunyata)
of inherent existence of all phenomena.
The doctrine of emptiness is one of
the most important teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and one of the most difficult
to understand fully. Madhyamika, the philosophy of the Middle Way, employs
a system of reductio ad absurdum which slips between all extremes
of this and that in order to show that emptiness
is the ultimate nature of reality. There are two standard lines of reasoning
by which one cultivates an understanding of emptiness.3
First, nothing has independent self-existence because everything is made
of parts. Since all things are dependent on their parts, they cannot have
independent self-existence. Second, nothing can be said to have independent
self-existence as a group of many individual things because all of the
component parts are shown not to have independent self-existence by the
first line of reasoning. If the parts of the whole are dependent upon their
parts, then the whole cannot be independently self-existent.
However, the philosophy of Madhyamika
does not deny the existence of things on the relative level. This misunderstanding
of the Middle Way teachings would lead one to assert one of two wrong positions.
The first is nihilism, in which one would have found nothing left on the
relative level of truth by which to recognize things and would dismiss
all conceptions or understanding of things on the relative level as being
untrue. This might lead one to conclude that emptiness, as misunderstood
to assert the lack of inherent, independent self-existence of things on
the relative level, was itself incorrect. According to the Mahasmrtyupasthanasutra,
abandoning sunyata would cause one to be reborn in the Avici Hell.4 The second wrong position would be to accept emptiness
on the ultimate level of truth, but to see all things on the relative level
as mere mental conceptions which are mistaken by the mind as being real.
This could cause one to abandon Dharma teachings and practices such as
meditation and taking refuge which bring good karmic effects. Both of these
positions are misunderstandings of emptiness and would lead individuals
to believe that they had attained everything when in fact they had attained
nothing at all.
A correct understanding of the teaching
of emptiness is the ability to hold both truths, the relative and the ultimate,
in the mind at the same time without seeing any contradiction between them.
Ashvaghosa has said, You should never ignore the relative level of
truth because of sunyata. Rather, you should understand that the relative
level of truth and sunyata on the ultimate level work in harmony with each
other.5 For this reason, the Madhyamika philosophy
is said to steer a middle course between eternalism and nihilism.
Nagarjuna, the dialectical master of
the Madhyamika school, uses a cyclic strategy to discredit the assertions
of his opponents and to support the doctrine of emptiness. He begins by
accepting the notion of own-being (svabhava) and then showing the
absurdities implicit in such a realistic view point. His attack
on these metaphysical propositions is that they do not provide the knowledge
they claim to. Nagarjuna shows that they cannot possibly fulfill their
promise because words and expression-patterns are simply practical
tools of human life, which in themselves, do not carry intrinsic
meaning and which do not necessarily have meaning by referring to something
outside the language system.6 By disproving all
extreme views of this and that without offering
a viewpoint of his own, Nagarjuna allows the wisdom of emptiness to manifest
itself. Since emptiness cannot be described due to the limitations of language
just mentioned, this method is the only way to truly share a profound understanding
of emptiness. By using this strategy, Nagarjuna consistently replaces apparently
common sense notions which are in fact highly metaphysical with apparently
metaphysical notions which are in fact common sense. For instance, Nagarjuna
responds to the following objection in the Madhyamikaprajnamula:
If everything were ultimately void of any true independent self-existent nature, then there would be no creation and no destruction, and it would follow that there would not be even the four noble truths. How do you explain that? In answer to this objection that if everything were ultimately void of any true, independent, self-existent nature, then there would be no distinction between those things binding you to samsara and those liberating you from it, I would say precisely the reverse. Both creation and destruction are dependent functions, arising from their causes according to the law of dependent arising. Therefore it is only if everything were not ultimately void of any true, independent, self-existent nature (in other words, it is only if things did have true, self-existence, independent of their causes) that it would follow logically that there would be no creation and no destruction of things and that there would not be even the four noble truths.7
Thus, it can be seen from this example that far from denying the existence of reality, emptiness actually saves reality from the brink of extinction! For without emptiness, conventional interdependent reality as we observe it could not exist. However, even the doctrine of emptiness has the danger of being reified as independently self-existent. To prevent this, one must apply the doctrine of emptiness to itself in order to remember the emptiness of emptiness. The enlightened mind holds the conventional and the ultimate truths of reality in mind simultaneously; there is no other way that the conventional bodhicitta (mahakaruna) and the ultimate bodhicitta (mahaprajña) could coexist simultaneously. Therefore the simultaneous cultivation of wisdom and compassion is the first step of Mahayana practice, and the perfection of this cultivation marks the culmination of Mahayana practice.
Two Truths: The Relationship of Samsara to Nirvana in Madhyamika
Philosophy
Important ontological dilemmas
arise as a result of maintaining this position of reality as ultimately
non-dual. Paramount among them is the question, if reality is non-dual,
how can samsara and nirvana be ultimately different? Nagarjuna makes the
following statements in his Mulamadhyamakakarika (MMK), the Fundamental
Wisdom of the Middle Way, regarding the ontological relationship
of samsara and nirvana:
Samsara is nothing essentially different from nirvana.
Nirvana is nothing essentially different from samsara.
The limits (i.e. realm) of nirvana are the limits of samsara.
Between the two also, there is not the slightest difference whatsoever.8
These eloquent couplets quickly
reject the validity of any attempt to discriminate ultimately between samsara
and nirvana. In fact, it is precisely the discriminating nature of mind
which creates the illusion of ultimate difference between samsara and nirvana
and hence creates conventional suffering. The basis of discriminating mind
is the tendency to attribute inherent existence to objects and phenomena.
For in order to say that two things differ, one must first establish a
set of properties which each inherently possesses and then must establish
that these sets of properties differ. It is in the first step that Nagarjuna
states that perception has erred and misperceived reality.
This must be understood, however, within
the context of emptiness, for as Nagarjuna states in a previous stanza:
Indeed, nirvana is not strictly in the nature of ordinary existence
for, if it were, there would wrongly follow the characteristics of old
age-death. For, such an existence cannot be without those characteristics.9 Therefore, when Nagarjuna says that there is nothing
at all different between samsara and nirvana, he is not characterizing
them as sharing some sort of mystical identity, or oneness. Instead, he
is saying that they are identical in the sense that they have the same
ultimate nature, that is, emptiness, the absence of inherent self-existence.
Therefore, one should not conceive of the world as empty and of nirvana
as some alternative inherently existent realm. Likewise, one should not
conceive of both as different inherently existing realms between which
one attempts to change residence, for if both were truly independent and
self-existent it would be impossible to pass from one to the other. Instead,
nirvana is attainable immediately and in ones current surroundings by
correctly understanding the emptiness of ones immediate circumstances
and current surroundings.
According to Madhyamika philosophy,
the tendency to perceive the duality of samsara and nirvana as ultimately
meaningful reflects a lack of understanding of the two truths regarding
the nature of reality (i.e. the conventional truth and the ultimate truth).
If samsara and nirvana were truly dual, then beings would have no hope
of ever reaching nirvana. However, if the two were ultimately identical,
there would also be no hope of achieving liberation from suffering. Therefore,
both of these views must be abandoned if one is to attain enlightenment
(i.e. awakening to the true nature of existence). Nirvana and samsara must
differ conventionally, but they must share the same characteristics of
emptiness enabling beings to attain nirvana from samsara.
The Doctrine of Tathagatagarbha
The doctrine of tathagatagarbha
(Buddha-essence) appears to have emerged independently of the Madhyamika
school of Mahayana, although its historical origins are not clearly understood.10 It is reasoned that the Truth Body (rupakaya)
of the Buddha is transcendent and eternal, yet must also be omnipresent
and immanent in every atom of limitless existence. Therefore, when viewed
from the perspective of a Buddha, all beings are seen to be immersed in
the realm of the truth body (dharmakayadhatu). They continue to
suffer, then, only because they fail to perceive their actual situation.
But because all beings are present in the dharmakayadhatu, all sentient
beings have within them the inherently pure Buddha nature, but it is present
in an obscured, tainted state. Thus, the cultivation of wisdom is, in fact,
the removal of the obscurations of the Buddha essence and the revelation
of the natural luminosity of the Buddha realm.11
The tathagatagarbha, translated tathagata-embryo or tathagata-womb,
is the essence within each being which makes enlightenment possible.
The tathagatagarbha writings
go further than Nagarjunas Madhyamika approach in asserting the oneness
of samsara and nirvana. The Srimaladevisimhanada Sutra refers to
the tathagatagarbha as the permanent, steadfast, and eternal substratum
of samsara.12 This ground of being is said to be the
dharmakaya when viewed from the enlightened perspective. The realization
of the inherent purity of this substratum is nirvana, while the appearance
of it as defiled is samsara. The existence of the tathagatagarbha
as intrinsically pure and never defiled despite its apparent defilement
being the cause of bondage is said in the Srimala Sutra to be a
mystery which can only be understood by the Buddhas and advanced bodhisattvas.
Thus, this sutra suggests that an element of faith is required from beginning
practitioners who hope to discover the nature of the tathagatagarbha.
Not all the schools of Buddhism
accept the doctrine of tathagatagarbha. The Gelugpa school and others
reject it as teaching monism and will approach it only in terms of the
two truths (i.e. the conventional and ultimate levels of understanding)
taught by Nagarjuna. The different interpretations of this viewpoint have
led to a division along the lines of those Buddhists believing the path
to enlightenment to be gradual versus sudden. This topic will be revisited
shortly after a comparison of the Mahayana and Vajrayana.
The Distinction Between the Mahayana and Vajrayana
The Vajrayana is often viewed
as part of the Mahayana since they have so much in common. Both share the
goal of Buddhahood as the fruit of practice, and the cultivation of bodhicitta
as just described is central to the teaching of both. The Mahayana and
the Vajrayana both differ from the Hinayana in terms of view and method.
In terms of view, the Hinayana can be said to teach the lack of inherent
existence (i.e. emptiness) of the self but the inherent existence of the
dharmas. The Mahayana and the Vajrayana teach the emptiness of the self
and of the dharmas. In terms of method, the Mahayana and the Vajrayana
teach the necessity of positive ascesis (i.e. actively benefiting sentient
beings) as opposed to the negative ascesis taught by the Hinayana.
However, significant differences exist
between the Mahayana and the Vajrayana, and it is viewed by the Gelugpas
as a third vehicle. In fact, the adherents of the Gelugpa school sometimes
speak of Buddhism as consisting of only two vehicles: Sutrayana and Mantrayana.
Sutra (or sutta) refers to the term used by all schools to refer
to the basic Buddhist scriptures, while Mantra refers to the secret, Tantric
teachings which are unique to the Vajrayana. The difference between the
Vajrayana and the Mahayana is said to reside in upaya, or skillful
means.13 The Mahayana and the Vajrayana both have
practices for achieving the dharmakaya (Truth Body) of a Buddha.
The dharmakaya is the culmination of the perfection of wisdom; therefore,
in order to develop the dharmakaya, one needs to follow a path of
wisdom in which one cultivates a similitude of the dharmakaya. This
is done by meditating on emptiness. According to the Vajrayana, however,
meditation on emptiness only removes the conception of inherent existence
and all the afflictions that are based on it. However, other practices
are needed to achieve the rupakaya (Form Body) of a Buddha. The
physical perfection of the Form Body must be established using vast
methods of meditation which cultivate a similitude of the rupakaya.
These practices, called Tantra (i.e. deity yoga), are not contained in
the method of the Mahayana. They are unique to the Vajrayana, who maintain
that the complete method for achieving Buddhahood quickly relies on the
cultivation of a path of deity yoga in which the pride of being a deity
is established.
Broadly, yoga means union,
and therefore deity yoga refers to forms of meditation in which the practitioner
experiences a realization of union with a deity. The deity represents the
goal, or effect, of Buddhist practice, and therefore, Tantra can be said
to take the goal as the path. It is therefore referred to as the Effect
Vehicle and contrasted to the Cause Vehicle in which the causes of enlightenment
are cultivated in order to reach the goal.
The importance placed upon the rupakaya
by Vajrayana practitioners is two-fold: first, its cultivation is essential
for the achievement of complete Buddhahood, and second, its capacity to
perform altruistic activities is limitless. According to the Mahayana,
wisdom cognizing emptiness must be joined with conventional bodhicitta
and practice of the perfections in order to achieve complete removal of
the obstructions to omniscience (i.e. the dharmakaya). The ten perfections
are giving (dana), moral conduct (shila), patience (kshanti),
vigor (virya), meditation (dhyana), wisdom (prajña),
skillful means (upaya), resolution (pranidhana), strength
(bala), and knowledge (jñana). When joined with wisdom
they produce the causal collection of wisdom. The causal collection of
method is produced through the practices of deity yoga which cultivate
the rupakaya. When both causal collections are complete the rupakaya
and dharmakaya are simultaneously attained. Neither can be obtained
singly since only a Buddha can possess them and because a Buddha possesses
both of them. At the attainment of Buddhahood, the collection of wisdom
formed from the practice of the perfections manifests as the achievement
of a Buddhas Form Bodies (rupakaya) which perform limitless altruistic
activities.
Of course, the duality between wisdom
and compassion only exists at the relative level of reality; at the ultimate
level, wisdom and compassion are inseparable. Nagarjuna made the statement,
Emptiness is the essence of compassion,14
showing the ultimate indivisibility of compassion and the wisdom cognizing
emptiness. In fact, it is the realization of this indivisibility that the
Tantric sadhanas attempt to engender in the organic symbolism of sexual
union. Indeed, at the ultimate level all absolutist dualities are seen
to be false: wisdom and compassion, the Truth Body and the Form Body, and
samsara and nirvana are all seen not to be ultimately different.
The doctrine of tathagatagarbha
seems to form a fundamental part of the foundation of Tantric practice.
Indeed, as shall soon be seen, the visualization of a mandala involves
elements of practice which actively cultivate a realization of the omnipresent,
immanent Buddha-nature. However, due to what will be argued to be political
motivations, some schools of Tantra deny the validity of the doctrine of
tathagatagarbha. Before examining such matters, though, one should
have an understanding of what exactly is involved in the performance of
a Tantric sadhana, or liturgy.
The Practice of Deity Yoga
Deity yoga in the Gelugpa and
Kagyu traditions will be discussed here since these schools share many
similarities in the Tantric practices. The Nyingma school has several significant
differences and will therefore not be discussed for the sake of space.
First and foremost, Tantric practice in the Gelugpa and Kagyu traditions
presupposes a firm foundation in the practices of shamatha, or mind stabilization.
Historically, the practices of Tantra have been guarded with extreme secretiveness,
and all potential practitioners must take extensive vows in which they
promise, among other things, to maintain the secrecy of the practices or
face rebirth in the Vajra Hells. To Westerners this religious secrecy may
seem incomprehensible or even offensive; however, it is rooted in very
sound reasoning. As has been mentioned already, the potential for karmically
harming oneself or others is very great if Tantric practice is not performed
properly. Because desire is used as an aid to the Tantric path, albeit
in a specialized and controlled way, there is always the risk that the
practitioner will lack the wisdom or upaya to keep it properly controlled.
Indeed, desire is an extremely potent force; it is held to be the root
force which keeps samsara going. In order to ensure, then, that desire will
be used for the purpose of bodhicitta and not for its own ends,
Tantric practitioners must complete lengthy training in meditation on emptiness
and compassion. These two elements of consciousness must be sufficiently
cultivated to ensure that the pride of being a deity which gives Tantric
practice its great potency is not misunderstood or misused. For if practitioners
are lacking in an understanding of emptiness, they may perceive themselves
to be inherently a deity and others to be inherently not deities. This
would lead to the arousal of a pride of ego-grasping which would only serve
to mire one further in the delusion of samsara. Likewise, a firm grounding
in the desire to benefit all sentient beings is required to make sure that
the enormous power of the deity is used for compassionate and not selfish
ends.
The preliminary practices which are
a prerequisite to receiving Tantric initiation are collectively known as
ñöndro, and consist of the Four Ordinary Foundations
and the Four Special Foundations. The Four Ordinary Foundations establish
a thorough revulsion with samsara and a strong sense of urgency for escaping
it. The Four Special Foundations consist of four sets of practices to be
performed 111,111 times each. The first practice is taking refuge and engendering
the bodhicitta. This grounds the practitioner solidly in the desire
to benefit all sentient beings. After repeating the first practice 111,111
times, the practitioner begins the second practice, the repetition of the
100 syllable mantra of Vajrasattva which purifies harmful deeds and removes
obscurations. The third practice is the mandala-offering which perfects
the two accumulations of merit and awareness. The fourth practice is called
guru-yoga and is a six-line prayer which rapidly confers blessing. After
completing the ñöndro (which can take years to do),
one is ready to receive initiation to perform the visualization of a mandala.
(In the Nyingma school, practitioners may begin their practice with the
mandala visualization.)
Kalachakra Tantra Sadhana15
There are many different Tantric sadhanas,
or means of accomplishment, which can be performed, each involving
the visualization of a different mandala (i.e. the palace of a deity).
In the Gelugpa tradition, there are four categories of Tantric practice:
Action Tantra, Performance Tantra, Yoga Tantra, and Highest Yoga Tantra.
These divisions differ in the way in which desire is used as an aid to
the path.16 The Highest Yoga Tantra division is the
highest division, reserved for the most advanced practitioners for whom
it is appropriate to use the desire generated by the touch of union. The
Kalachakra Tantra, one of the Highest Yoga Tantras, will serve as an example
to explore the structure of a typical Tantric sadhana. Before beginning
the sadhana, the practitioner must take the triple refuge, arouse the bodhicitta,
and receive the seven initiations.
The sadhana itself consists of two
stages, the generation stage and the completion stage. Broadly speaking,
in the generation stage, the practitioner generates himself as the deity
and makes offerings, and in the completion stage, he performs the six yogas
which culminate in complete enlightenment. The sadhanas presuppose an understanding
of the Tibetan system of anatomy. It would not be practical to explain
the system in detail here; in essence, the system consists of winds (prana)
which travel through the right, left, and center channels of the body and
modulate the various physical and psychological processes of the body and
mind.
The generation stage begins with the
performance of preparatory offerings and meditations and with the creation
of a protective circle. The protective circle is a purified (i.e. non-samsaric)
space in which the mandala can appear. It is during the generation stage
that one visualizes the mandala based upon the description given by the
teacher or based upon a painted depiction. A common error committed by
those not familiar with Tantra is to confuse the painted mandala with the
actual mandala. The painted mandala is a two-dimensional schematic figure
representing a three-dimensional visualization of the actual mandala. When
the visualization has been successfully performed, the actual mandala appears
of its own power. It is the antithesis of anything samsaric and is thus
non-referential; that is, it cannot be referred to in terms of having a
size or location. It is unconditioned reality.
After the mandala has been generated,
the practitioner generates himself as Kalachakra and his consort, Vishvamata,
in union representing the oneness of wisdom and compassion. These visualized
deities are called samayasattvas (pledge beings) and are not yet
real. The practitioner makes inner (i.e. imagined) and outer
(i.e. actual) offerings to the self-generation. This is accompanied by
the repetition of the 100-syllable mantra of Vajrasattva and certain verses
to increase the stores of merit and gnosis. The next step is called the
supreme victorious mandala in which Kalachakra/Vishvamata and
eight protective shakti deities are generated from the root syllable HAM
that is the mingling of the winds, the mind, and the white and red bodhicitta
drops. Then the remaining mandala deities are generated from the womb of
Kalachakra/Vishvamata. This is followed by the supreme victorious
activity in which occurs the dissolution of the jñanasattvas
(gnosis beings) into the samayasattvas, making the generation real
(i.e. non-samsaric).17 This is accompanied by the
five wrathful protectors being drawn down to grant all of the deities the
seven initiations.
This concludes the generation of the
visualization, and the practitioner now begins the yoga of the drops.
In the first step, the practitioner experiences the four joys as the white
(male) drop is melted by the heat of Kalachakra/Vishvamatas union, and
passes from Kalachakras crown, down the central channel, to the tip of
his vajra (i.e. in organic symbolism, penis). The subtle yoga
follows this in which the practitioner has an even deeper experience of
the four joys as the white drop is drawn back up the central channel to
Kalachakras crown. This concludes the generation stage. However, the divine
identity and destruction of the defilements which one has undertaken at
this stage are still held to be preparatory and symbolic.
A true, final, and nonimaginary transformation
of oneself into Kalachakra can only be brought about following a manipulation
of the subtlest winds found at the heart chakra. This manipulation is only
possible through the psycho-physical procedures that are mastered in the
completion stage, consisting of the six yogas which culminate in enlightenment
as an empty shell. The first step is the yoga of withdrawal
in which the practitioner dissolves the winds into the central channel
and generates a small semblance of the empty shell of Kalachakra/Vishvamata
at the forehead chakra. In the yoga of stabilization, the practitioner
concentrates on the empty shell with the divine pride of ones being that
empty shell. The yoga of breath control follows, in which the
practitioner moves the empty shell to the navel chakra. Through the use
of vajra-recitation and vase breathing, the vitalizing and downward-voicing
winds are brought together there. The winds ignite the inner fire (gtum
mo) which melts the white drop at the forehead. The melted drop moves
down the central channel, creating the experience of the four joys. During
the yoga of retention, the drop moves back up the central channel,
and the four joys are experienced as a basis for the realization of the
inseparability of bliss and gnosis. In the yoga of mindfulness,
an actual empty shell is generated at the navel. A real or visualized consort
is used to generate great bliss through the stabilization of the white
drop at the tip of the vajra and the red drop at the crown. In the final
yoga of samadhi, the 21,600 white (male) drops and the 21,600
red (female) drops are stacked in the central channel. The stacking of
each drop entails the experience of bliss and the cutting off of one of
the winds that form the basis of cyclic existence. When all the drops have
been stacked, one is enlightened; that is, one is a Buddha in the empty
shell aspect of Kalachakra/Vishvamata.
Objections of the Theravada
Reading this description of
a Tantric sadhana, it is not surprising that the Theravadins would respond
in disbelief to these Buddhist practices. First, it is recorded
in the Theravada scriptures that the Buddha, while preparing to enter parinibbana,
stated, I have not taught you with a closed fist, meaning that
there were no teachings or practices which the Buddha had kept a secret
from his followers. Clearly, the secrecy associated with Tantric practices
would cast doubt on their status as legitimate teachings of the Buddha
in the eyes of Theravadins. More importantly, though, the practices and
beings described in Tantric texts cannot be found anywhere in the Theravada
scriptures. Since the Buddha did not teach with a closed fist,
the Theravadins assert that the Tantric practices are a fabrication created
by others to look like teachings of the Buddha. They point to the deities
involved in the visualization as proof that these teachings are not authentically
Buddhist. According to the Theravada view, if these beings were liberated
they would not still be visible by beings in samsara. The fact that they
are still around in samsara is evidence that they are not Buddhas. Therefore,
the benefit to be derived from practices centered around such deities is
dubious at best; clearly it would be more beneficial for beings to devote
their energies to the genuine teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni himself.
This explanation is obviously an oversimplification,
as not all Theravadins would subscribe to the beliefs just enumerated.
In fact, when the Theravada tradition is examined, one discovers that it
contains some esoteric practices which bear many similarities to the key
features of deity yoga as just described. Obviously, the imagery found
in the Theravada scriptures is very different from that of the forms and
deities found in the Tibetan Tantric tradition. However, there exist allusions
in the Theravada scriptures to seeing the transformation of reality as
being full of light and color. For example, at the Buddhas birth and following
his enlightenment, it is recorded that vibrant lotuses sprang from the
ground beneath his feet as he walked. These events were referred to as
lokutara, meaning outside of this world, which seems
similar to the notion of their being extra-samsaric. In addition, some
of the physical marks of the Buddha clearly do not belong to ordinary samsaric
reality. In the Theravada tradition it is believed that people can see
the marks of a Buddha only if they know what they mean. Therefore, only
those people with sufficient development of consciousness can see these
marks, seen as though peeking through a mystical window to non-samsaric
reality. An example of such a physical mark is the urna, or eye
of Dharma that sees what is invisible to physical eyes and which
is depicted as an eye placed vertically in the middle of the forehead.
These references and others in the Theravada scriptures show that the seed
of an idea of there being something present in samsara other than desire,
suffering, and decay can be found in the Theravada tradition as well. However,
these ideas were not developed into a formal liturgy by the Theravadins
as they were by the Tantrikas (practitioners of Tantra). The Theravada
also does not usually take the philosophical next step and assert the ultimate
non-duality of samsara and nirvana as the Mahayana and the Vajrayana do.
Gradual Versus Sudden Enlightenment
The early forms of Buddhism
taught the attainment of enlightenment as a gradual process by which individuals
slowly ripen their mental continuums and overcome ignorance and the hindrances
bit by bit. Samsara was taught as here, the realm of suffering,
and nirvana was there, the goal which one strived to reach.
The early scriptures are replete with extensive hierarchical descriptions
of the meditative states of jñanic absorption and of the
levels of attainment through which one passes on the way to achieving the
final attainment. This understanding of the Buddhist path of spiritual
practices was primarily influenced by the law of cause and effect. Certain
practices were thought to be causes that were beneficial to the attainment
of enlightenment, while other practices were thought to be not beneficial
or to have harmful effects for the practitioners development. The concept
of the early Buddhist practitioner can be likened to that of an artist
or tradesman who works toward mastering a skill. The Buddhist practitioner
worked to master the skills of meditation and restraint and to use this
mastery to conquer ignorance and desire and to realize the truth of anatta,
or absence of the existence of an inherent self. Once one had become sufficiently
proficient at this practice, the individual was said to become an arahat
(Sanskrit: arhat), or Worthy One. This was viewed as the final endpoint
at which it could be said that one had achieved the goal.
With the development of Mahayana thought
came the criticism of early Buddhism for not emphasizing the compassionate
helping of others. Philosophically, it was claimed that the Hinayana notion
of Buddhist practice reified samsara and nirvana. The Buddha had taught
anatta (lack of inherent, independent existence) as being the true
nature of the self. If the personal self is not self-existent independent
of the dharmas, then it stands to reason that the dharmas are not independently
self-existing either. The Mahayana doctrine extended this personal absence
of inherent self to include all phenomena, renaming it sunyata in
the process. Thus the interdependence of all phenomena became a key feature
of a true understanding of reality. From this arose the importance of striving
to alleviate the suffering of others as if they were ones own, for indeed,
in some sense ones own suffering and the suffering of others are interrelated.
Thus, the arhats came to be viewed as selfish for being content
to merely alleviate their own suffering and to vanish from samsara leaving
the rest of all sentient beings behind to suffer. Furthermore, the claim
of an arhat to be enlightened was seen as fraudulent as no true
understanding of reality could allow one to be untroubled by the suffering
of others. Thus, the Mahayana came to view the enlightenment
of the arhat as a partial one resulting from a surfeit of intellect
(prajña) and a paucity of compassion (mahakaruna).
This radical reinterpretation of enlightenment
and the path to attaining it was a foreshadowing of the body of teachings
that would later develop into the Madhyamika school and the doctrine of
the two truths. Over time, the Mahayana supplanted all the Buddhist schools
except the Theravada, which had also extended the doctrine of anatta
to include the lack of inherent existence of the dharmas. Sometime during
this period, the doctrine of tathagatagarbha emerged in the Mahayana
tradition. Some schools, especially those developing in the Indian subcontinent,
rejected it as being monistic and turned instead to the Madhyamika or Chittamatra
(mind-only) explanations of samsara and nirvana. Other schools, primarily
those developing in China, absorbed it, and as a result their teachings
on the relationship of samsara and nirvana developed a radical new approach
known as Subitism, or sudden enlightenment.
The Subitist schools maintain that
if the dharmakaya pervades samsara, then all beings in samsara are
immersed in the Buddha-essence already. It is ultimately nonsensical, then,
for one to conceive of the path to enlightenment as a gradual process by
which practitioners attain a novel mode of consciousness or of being. Instead,
the attainment of nirvana is viewed ultimately as an awakening to the true
nature of ones existence, which is characterized by the Buddha-essence.
In this sense, then, enlightenment can be viewed as a sudden awakening
to ones true reality instead of a gradual transformation of it.
The Buddhist traditions of Mo-ho-yen
and early Dzogchen are characterized by this Subitist teaching of sudden
awakening. An examination of the similarities between these traditions
and of the apparent reversal of the later Dzogchen position on enlightenment
will be helpful in understanding the debate regarding the ontological status
of the Tantric mandala visualizations.
The Teaching of Mo-ho-yen
One of the most radical positions
on the side of sudden enlightenment in the sudden versus gradual enlightenment
controversy was that of the eighth century Chan Master Ho-shang Mo-ho-yen,
whose name means Mahayana Teacher. When a council was called in Tibet to
settle the debate over sudden versus gradual enlightenment, Master Mo-ho-yen
was called as the representative of the Subitist Mahayana schools. This
topic will be revisited later after the teachings of Master Mo-ho-yen have
been described.
According to Master Mo-ho-yen, good
and bad acts lead to rebirth in the heavens and hells, respectively, and
therefore, as long as one carries out good or evil acts one is not free
from transmigration. He likened acts to clouds which obscure the blueness
of the sky regardless of whether they are white or black themselves.18
Master Mo-ho-yen identified the root cause of samsara as the mental construction
of false distinction (vikalpa-citta). This type of thought is moved
by beginningless habits, and its movements affect our perceptions of the
world and our actions in it. In this sense, all sentient beings plus the
Buddhas are generated from vikalpa. According to Master Mo-ho-yen,
the way to stop samsara is to stop discriminating mind. He taught that
not thinking, not pondering, non-examination, and non-apprehension of objects
is the immediate access to liberation and is identical to the tenth bodhisattva
stage (bhumi).19
The path according to Master Mo-ho-yen
is understood to exist solely in the elimination of vikalpa. However,
according to the teaching of Mo-ho-yen, the abandonment of vikalpa
is not achieved by actively suppressing it, but rather by acknowledging
its presence.20 This practice is referred to simultaneously
as looking into ones mind and not thinking. Mo-ho-yen
defines the state of Buddhahood as the abandoning of the conceptions and
shows that the three poisons are perceptual modifications which all arise
from the root cause of conceptualizing. Therefore, Mo-ho-yen taught a method
of contemplating the mind which consists of turning the light
of the mind toward the minds source.21 It does not
involve reflection on thoughts, impermanence, emptiness, etc.
However, Mo-ho-yens position is so
radically non-dual that it would be impossible for him to not make concessions
for the realities of human psychology at some point. Therefore, he taught
that the gradual approach (of right conduct and right action) is appropriate
for those who cannot enter directly into this practice of not thinking.
He taught that those who are not able to practice not thinking
should dedicate their merit to living beings, so that all may attain Buddhahood.
Thus, in Mo-ho-yens system, the gradual schools were delegated to the
status of inferior disciples not capable of practicing the superior sudden
approach.
Early Dzogchen
The Tibetan tradition of Dzogchen
can be linked to the Chan tradition of China.22 However,
it also has several important conflicts with the Chan tradition as shall
soon be seen. One early Tibetan Dzogchen text of the Atiyoga tradition
is the Kyun byed rgyal poi mdo, the history of which cannot presently
be traced back beyond the eighth century at the earliest. This text presents
itself as a dialogue between Reality-As-It/He/She-Is and Vajrasattva. Reality-As-It/He/She-Is
is called The All-Creating Sovereign, Mind of Perfect Purity, and the Consummation
of All (Tibetan: chos thams cad rdzogs po chen po byang chub kyi sems
kun byed rgyal po).23 In general, the Tibetan
term byang chub sems corresponds to the Sanskrit word bodhicitta,
which is associated with the practice of compassion and the understanding
of emptiness. However, in the Kyun byed rgyal poi mdo, this term
differs significantly. The mind of enlightenment is something
that beings are implied to generate as they begin the bodhisattva path.
However, the All-Creating Sovereign says in the Kyun byed rgyal poi
mdo, My own being is the bodhicitta, and, Everything
is made, all is generated in the bodhicitta. Therefore, in the Kyun
byed rgyal poi mdo, bodhicitta is reality, and it could not
be generated by sentient beings. It is not dependent on anything and is
immutable and timeless.24 It is referred to as the
mind of perfect purity and is repeatedly said to possess ten characteristics:
The mind of perfect purity
is like the sky. This mind itself, i.e. the Reality, is like the sky and
therefore [it is said]:
(1) No doctrine is to be contemplated.
(2) nor vows to be observed.
(3) The salutary acts (phrin las)25 are without effort and
(4) pristine awareness is without obscuration.
(5) There is no practising of the [ten]
bodhisattva stages (bhumi) and
(6) no path to proceed on.
(7) Things are neither subtle (phra
ba chos med),
(8) nor dual, nor dependent.
(9) There is no sacred institution
firmly established except for that about the mind.
(10) There is no definition of the
instructions except that they are beyond praise and dispraise. This is
the [right] view of the great perfected mind of perfect purity.26
The expression All-Creating Sovereign is a metaphor to describe what is held to be the ground of the universe, i.e. an intelligent and intelligible potency.27 It is described as immutably one yet omnipresent in the many in the following passage:
This intelligent ground is called the one. It is one, yet manifest in all. This, however, does not mean that its nature is divided into many individual entities. Wherever it is (and there is nowhere it is not) it is there in its totality. Like the sky in its endless reach it encompasses all and permeates everything but remains the immutable one. The intelligent ground is self-originated pristine awareness (rang byung ye shes) which abides in its own lucid nature. It is not dependent on anything. The grounds oneness is its decisive characteristic but it presents itself in a threefold way. These two statements are not mutually exclusive but complementary. The intelligent ground is one, immutable and timeless, but it is present in all that exists in such a way that we humans can speak of its three aspects or three natures. Both statements are equally true and valid.28
The three natures or aspects are:
(1) The own being (rang
bzhin) of the intelligent ground as pristine awareness;
(2) the actuating force or essence
(ngo bo) inherent in the intelligent ground and which is the factor
responsible for the existence of the universe;
(3) compassion (snying rje)
which is the sole force determining the interaction among the different
components of the world.29
The first nature of own being leads to the absence of a path or practice leading to nirvana. The All-Creating Sovereign is non-spatial and non-temporal; it is present everywhere at all times. Therefore, the notion of a practice leading to its attainment is nonsensical. This is repeatedly stated throughout the Kyun byed rgyal poi mdo. For instance:
The true nature which is non-intelligible and transcends intelligibility. . . . . abides in [a state of] as-it-is, free of intelligibility. This leads to buddhahood via a path which cannot be walked on.30
Beside [this mind of perfect purity] there is neither a path to make progress on nor a place to exist in. No one ever walked the path of the sky by progressing.31
However, in addition to the own-being of the mind of perfect purity (which alone would make it imperceptible), it also has the nature of an activating potency. This potency is a force which arouses pristine awareness to become manifest, tangible, perceptible, and thinkable and, thus, creates the manifest universe. In a parallel manner, the no-practice used for coming to know the mind of perfect purity is not an absence of practice. Instead, it is a specialized practice of no-practice much as in the teaching of Mo-ho-yen. The following passages in the Kyun byed rgyal poi mdo explain the nature of such a no-practice:
The non-existence of wishing to seize anything is the best [way of] seizing meditation.32
The main point of not thinking (bsam du med pa) is to abide from the primordial in a sky-like [state].33
The practice of this no-practice
is what allows one to directly perceive the mind of pristine purity. This
practice does not teach a regimented set of prescribed morals such as that
encountered in the practice of the perfections because all attempts to
enumerate a system of ethics based upon the mind of pristine purity merely
obscure its third nature, that of a natural ethics of compassion. The Kyun
byed rgyal poi mdo states, Those who attempt to alter this suchness
will try to alter the mind of perfect purity. Those who try to alter the
mind of perfect purity will actually only achieve the samsara.34
This natural ethics is not a lack of ethics, but it cannot be described
by a system of precepts; it must be experienced by perceiving the mind
of perfect purity. Only then can one know its natural ethics of compassion.
The world view arising from an understanding
of the Kyun byed rgyal poi mdo is very different from the ordinary
Buddhist world view of suffering and impermanence. The mind of perfect
purity as the intelligent ground of existence leads one to view creation
as a wonder and a cause for joy. Thus, the enlightenment described by the
early Dzogchen is a sudden awakening to the ultimate immanence or nirvana
in the midst of what is ordinarily misperceived as samsara.
The bSam-yas Debate: Banishment of the Subitist Schools
The two methods of reconciling
samsara and nirvana have been described: the two truths of Madhyamika philosophy
and the tathagatagarbha doctrine of the Subitist schools. The divergence
of view ensuing based on the adoption of one or the other of these doctrines
has been shown to be extremely wide. During the reign of Khri-srong lde-btsan
in Tibet, Tibets contact with the Buddhist nations from the Indian subcontinent
and China intensified. The schools of Buddhism on the Indian subcontinent
had primarily developed along the lines of Nagarjunas Madhyamika school
and advocated a gradual path (lam rim) towards enlightenment while
those of China had developed along the lines of the Subitist approach and
advocated a sudden view of enlightenment. The wide disparity between the
two views resulted in the development of tensions between the masters of
the Indian subcontinent and their followers and the Chinese masters and
their followers. The tensions reached a climax in approximately 775 C.E.
when a debate was held between representatives of both camps at the first
Tibetan monastery at bSam-yas. Henceforth, the debate would be referred
to as the bSam-yas debate, and its impact on the development of Tibetan
Buddhism would be profound.
The Subitist representative to the
debate was the Chinese Chan Master Mo-ho-yen. Mo-ho-yen offered his first
thesis that as long as one carries out good or evil acts, one will not
be free from transmigration. Mo-ho-yens second thesis offered was his
alternative to the path of action: the no-practice of non-thinking
leading to immediate access to liberation. The Indian masters Kamalasila,
Srighosa, and Jñanendra, the spokesmen for gradual enlightenment,
took issue with both theses. For them, there could be no direct access
to liberation; to leap into a practice of no-thought was to
become indifferent and insensitive. They maintained that non-conceptualization
(avikalpa) was the result of specific causes which had to be cultivated
gradually. Further, they maintained that these causes must be able to be
discerned and rationally defined and must have distinct moral and practical
implications.35
The masters of the Indian subcontinent
were declared victorious in the debate, and the Subitist teachings were
banned throughout Tibet. It is said that Mo-ho-yen walked out of Tibet
barefoot, leaving his sandals behind as a symbol of the effect his teachings
had already had and would continue to have on Buddhism in Tibet despite
his banishment. For the school of Dzogchen, the outcome of the bSam-yas
debate resulted in the immediate need to either adopt the gradual viewpoint
or to face persecution. The teaching of Dzogchen following the bSam-yas
debate took on a markedly different character than the early teaching.
This matter will be examined shortly, but first it will be helpful to look
at two Subitist schools from later Japanese thought in order to see how
their teachings are similar to and different from those of Mo-ho-yen and
early Dzogchen.
The Buddhist traditions of Shin and
Soto Zen are descended from the Tendai tradition, which is the Japanese
transmission of the Chinese Tien-tai tradition. The Tendai and Tien-tai
traditions are compendiums of a large variety of Buddhist practices. The
Shin and Soto Zen schools are different responses to the overwhelming diversity
of doctrine and method contained in the Tendai tradition. These schools
selected the elements of Tendai Buddhism which they thought were the key
or essential practices or teachings of Buddhism and discarded the rest.
Shin Buddhism
The element of faith in the
tathagatagarbha doctrine was reinterpreted by Shinran (1173-1262
C.E.) who decided that it was this element that was central to achieving
enlightenment. For, if sentient beings are mired in samsara, they really
can have no hope of attaining nirvana, the complete removal of all of their
defilements. Samsara is characterized by defilements through and through,
and it would be impossible to remove these defilements using ones own
efforts alone. This vicious circle would be like trying to clean a glass
with muddy water; no matter how much the glass is washed with the muddy
water, it can never be made clean. Therefore, sentient beings must rely
on aid from the Buddhas who are already purified of all defilements to
purify them of the defilements. The Buddha Amitabha has the power to liberate
beings because of his taking of the Primal Vow (Japanese: Hongan)
or Bodhisattva Resolve when he was a brahmin named Dharmakara. The power
of the Hongan was established gradually through the long accumulation
of merit performed by Dharmakara Bodhisattva. The Hongan, then,
is viewed by Shinran as the grace of Amitabha Buddha itself by which beings
are liberated. According to Shinran, only this reliance on the other-power
(Japanese: tariki) of Amitabha Buddha is efficacious for achieving
enlightenment.
Nembutsu practice in accordance with
the Hongan was understood in a new way by Shinran. Prior to Shinran,
liberation was seen to occur as a result of the performance of the practice
of the recitation of the Nembutsu; however, this understanding of the Nembutsu
practice causes it to rely on self-power (Japanese: jiriki), and
thus Shinran saw that it could not be effective. Shinran realized that
the Nembutsu was identical with the Hongan itself so that, in fact,
all practice is actually performed by Amitabha. Therefore, the Nembutsu
symbolizes the non-duality of ones desire for enlightenment and Amitabha
Buddhas ability to liberate ones defiled mind. Since the teachings of
Shinran rely completely on other-power for achieving liberation, there
is said to be no attainment and no path. The moment of enlightenment is
described as:
Sudden, in contrast to gradual;
Crosswise, in contrast to lengthwise;
Leaping across, in contrast to fording.36
This does not mean that nothing
needs to be done, however, for the reality of sentient beings experience
of suffering is not denied. What is denied is the efficacy of striving
for a goal. Instead, what needs to be done is the no-practice
which aims for no-goal, that is, an abiding in the mind of
Amitabha Buddha.
According to Shinran, the practices
of striving towards a goal (i.e. the practices of the gradual enlightenment
schools which rely on self-power) are an upaya for those whose karma
is not properly prepared for the practice of Nembutsu. Thus Shinran speaks
of the One-Vehicle, the Buddhayana, the Hongan. All other practices are
said to prepare one karmically to engage in the Nembutsu, at which point,
the self-manifestation of reality is said to occur spontaneously.
In the Shin tradition, the element
of faith mentioned earlier in relation to the doctrine of tathagatagarbha
is reinterpreted as the total non-duality of Amitabha Buddhas pure mind
and the defiled mind of sentient beings. A notable feature of the Shin
Buddhist enlightenment is its depiction as a sideways leap as opposed to
a gradual progression forward. In the moment this leap occurs, the practitioner
does nothing, in the sense that the karmic preparations have
been made by the grace of Amitabha Buddha for the omnipresent Buddha-essence
reality to self-manifest of its own power to the practitioner. The practitioner
has not attained a goal; indeed, nothing at all has changed from the perspective
of Buddha-nature.
Soto Zen
The Tendai school of Buddhism
taught the notion of original awakening (hongaku) as opposed to
acquired awakening (shikaku). Original awakening is the doctrine
stating that everyone is originally enlightened. Tendai Buddhism rejects
the doctrine of acquired awakening at the level of the perfect
or round teaching, which is said to be taught in the Nirvana
and Lotus Sutras, because this doctrine necessarily implies that enlightenment
can only be acquired as a result of a sustained practice.
The young Dogen (1200-1253 C.E.), an
important Zen Master in the Soto lineage, doubted the validity of the Tendai
doctrine of original awakening. If all beings are endowed with Buddha nature
and are originally awakened to their nature, then why should the longing
for awakening arise in people, causing them to engage in religious practice
and discipline? Indeed, why did the Buddhas engage in ascetic practice?
However, as Dogen later realized, this line of questioning presupposes
a conceptualization of Buddha nature as inherently existent and beyond
the limitations of time and space. This is a different understanding of
Buddha nature than that of Buddha nature as the ground of awakening for
all sentient beings with resolve/practice being the indispensable condition
or cause for awakening.37 However, the latter understanding
of Buddha nature generates another question, that of how Buddha nature
can be fundamental if it requires resolution/practice as a condition.
With this dilemma seated squarely in
his mind, Dogen set out to China where he studied under many teachers and
practiced for many years before he overcame all idealization and conceptualization
of the Buddha nature. It was at this time that Dogen made the famous statement,
The practice of Zen is body and mind casting off. He realized
that the Buddha nature is omnipresent in every being, but without practice
it is not manifested, and without realization it is not attained.38
Thus, it can be said, that there is not the slightest gap between resolution,
practice, enlightenment, and nirvana (i.e. practice and attainment are
one). The relationship between practice and attainment is a dynamic one
because the Buddha nature is not realized as the Buddha nature unless one
becomes a Buddha, but at the same time only because one is already endowed
with the Buddha nature can one become a Buddha. Therefore the realization
of the Buddha nature and its attainment must occur simultaneously. Hence
Dogens statement that one sits not to become Buddha but because
one is Buddha already.
Both attainment (i.e. enlightenment
or the Buddha nature) and practice (i.e. discipline or becoming a Buddha)
are indispensable. However, the former is the indispensable ground or basis
whereas the latter is the indispensable cause or condition. In this sense,
the irreversible distinction between them can be seen: attainment is more
fundamental than practice but not the other way around. However, attainment
is not something substantial or objectifiable. Therefore, by realizing
the insubstantiality of its ground, practice as a condition is realized
as something real in terms of the ground.39 By going
beyond the irreversible relationship between attainment (Buddha nature)
and practice (becoming a Buddha), these two aspects come to be seen in
terms of a reversible identity.
As can be seen here, in the Soto Zen
tradition, the doctrine of tathagatagarbha is incorporated in a
different way than in Shin. Grace is not central to the practice of Soto
Zen as it is for the Shin tradition. Instead, the central practice which
Soto Zen distilled from the Tendai tradition was that of zazen (i.e. sitting
meditation). Through this practice, one potentiates the Buddha nature;
thus, one does not actually attain anything, and Soto Zen can be said to
share the goal of no-goal with Shin Buddhism. Soto Zen can
also be said to share a practice of no-practice with Shin,
for the practice of zazen is the dynamic abiding in the Buddha nature which
is already present; nothing is cultivated or pursued in this practice.
Is the Gradual Teaching an Upaya?
Having seen the different ways
in which the Subitist schools incorporate the doctrine of tathagatagarbha,
one is ready to return to the dilemma facing the Dzogchen school following
the bSam-yas debate. Faced with the choice of adopting the gradual viewpoint
or facing persecution, Dzogchen began to change the way in which it spoke
of enlightenment. Later teachings taught that the Great Perfection
was divided into three aspects: the base, the path, and the fruit. Although
the Great Perfection is said, in fact, to be the single great sphere,
the three aspects are spoken of for convenience.40
It seems quite possible that this adaptation developed to allow the Dzogchen
school to clothe their Subitist teaching in a protective shell that appears
to proclaim a gradual path. The path is spoken of as being a gradual one
involving the development of the skills of meditation; however, it is also
asserted that when the final stage is reached, the stages must be given
up. Thus, the gradual path is taught as an upaya for the realization
of an enlightenment which is ultimately sudden.
If it is true that the Dzogchen school
developed a form of gradual teaching as an upaya for their ultimate
doctrine of sudden enlightenment because their sudden teaching had been
misunderstood by the arbiters of the bSam-yas debate, then this creates
interesting implications for the interpretation of the gradual teaching
of the other Tibetan Buddhist schools. Is the situation faced by Dzogchen
following the bSam-yas debate not fundamentally the same as that encountered
by a Buddha who must explain enlightenment to beings who are not enlightened
and who will not be able to understand what he knows? Is it possible that
the gradual teaching as found in the other schools of Tantric Buddhism
is also an upaya for an enlightenment which is ultimately sudden?
To examine this possibility, it will
be helpful to limit ones analysis to one Tantric school and then to attempt
to extrapolate any conclusions drawn to the other schools. The logical
choice for this focus would be the Gelugpa school because it adheres most
staunchly to the view of enlightenment as gradual. If it could be shown
that the gradual teaching of the Gelugpa has elements of upaya in
it, then it would be reasonable to suggest that the other schools do as
well.
It must be remembered that upaya
refers to skillful means in teaching and to the need to tailor the teachings
one offers in order to make them suitable for the particular inclinations
and potentials of each individual. The notion of upaya arises from
the view that the primary objective of Buddhist teaching is the transformation
of consciousness as opposed to the transfer of information. Since reality
is ultimately indescribable, attempts to convey it by transmitting information
about it do not help the individual to directly grasp ultimate reality.
In fact, the transmission of information without the intention of producing
a transformation of consciousness which allows one to directly perceive
ultimate reality for oneself can even be detrimental since it may cause
the person to hold reified conceptual views. The most effective method
of achieving a transformation, then, is to force the individual to abandon
concepts and to reject their reified ideas.
The Vajrayana claims to do this as
shown by how it characterizes itself as stopping ordinary perception.
The Vajrayana path claims to enable practitioners to view reality from
pure perspective. At this level of perception, dualities are
seen to be ultimately meaningless. Thus, although the Gelugpa proclaims
the Vajrayana to be the supreme vehicle for realizing Buddhahood, at the
highest levels of practice one is required not to discriminate between
it and the other vehicles. Among the Root Tantric Vows taken by potential
practitioners is the vow against despising Sutrayana or making discriminations
between Sutrayana teachings and Tantrayana teachings.41
Violation of the Root Tantric Vows is said to result in ones rebirth in
the Vajra Hells.
The fact that at the higher levels
of practice one must not discriminate between the vehicles suggests that
the Gelugpa teaching of the Vajrayanas superiority must be taken as an
upaya intended for those with lesser ability to grasp the true relation
of the vehicles. Thus, when it is said by the Gelugpa school that the Hinayana,
the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana correspond to increasingly advanced levels
of practice through which practitioners progress as their understanding
becomes more developed, this gradual teaching cannot be said to be true
from the pure perspective. Therefore, one could argue that
elements of Subitist thought are embedded in the upayic structure of the
lam rim tradition.
This creates an interesting parallel
between the gradual and sudden traditions. It will be recalled that the
Subitist schools assert the usefulness of the gradual path as an upaya
for those who are not yet ready to enter upon the no-practice
of direct perception of the ground of reality. This leads to the conclusion
that the Triyana or other Buddhist divisions are not ultimately meaningful.
In the Shin tradition, it is stated:
In the great vehicle, there are no two vehicles or three vehicles. The two vehicles and three vehicles lead one to enter the One Vehicle. The One Vehicle is the vehicle of the highest truth. There is no One Vehicle other than the Buddha-Vehicle, the Vow.42
This is very much like the Root Tantric Vow taken in the Vajrayana tradition in which making distinctions between the vehicles of Buddhism is repudiated at the level of pure perspective. Thus, the Subitist and the Gradualist schools are seen to share two common traits. Both utilize the teaching of the path as upaya which must finally be given up, and both teach that the many vehicles to lead to a state in which there is seen to be ultimately only the One Vehicle.
The bSam-yas Debate: Philosophical or Political Confrontation?
The discovery of this partial
philosophical congruence of the Gelugpa and Subitist schools leads one
to wonder why the Subitist teachings were banished following the bSam-yas
debate. Could there have been other political elements at work in Tibet
during the time of increasing conflict between the Indian and Chinese masters?
Is it possible that the bSam-yas debate represented a political victory
for the lam rim schools more so than a philosophical one? Some credence
is lent to this possibility when one examines the Gelugpa school
more closely.
Certain objections have been raised
against the Gelugpa school by Stephen Batchelor following his eight-year
training as a monk in that tradition suggesting that political forces may
be deeply entrenched in the doctrines of the Gelugpa, preventing an honest
and open exploration of the Dharma.43 According to
Batchelor, reason is subordinate to faith in the Gelugpa tradition, and
the tradition of debate, far from being an analysis of the truth or falsity
of Buddhist and non-Buddhist propositions, is in fact merely a setting
out to prove what one has already decided to believe.44
The correct conclusion to arrive at in any Gelugpa debate is
inevitably the Prasangika-Madhyamika position; the weakness of the logic
used in reaching this conclusion is not so important as the conclusion
itself.
It appears that once the Gelugpa tradition
had decided upon the truth of Prasangika-Madhyamika philosophy, it thenceforth
forthrightly rejected all other doctrines or assertions not belonging to
that tradition. The doctrine of tathagatagarbha is a notable example
of this tendency. In rejecting the tathagatagarbha doctrine, the
Gelugpas may have believed it was aligned with the Subitists; however,
it seems to be implied in the Tantric mandala visualizations of the Gelugpas
themselves. The Tantric scriptures instruct the practitioner to cultivate
an awareness of all aspects of reality as manifestations of the bodhisattvas.
Thus, all sounds heard are to be perceived as emanations of the mantra
of the deity, all physical objects are to be seen as manifestations of
the mandala space, and all beings encountered are to be thought of as form
bodies of the deity. This practice could clearly be interpreted in terms
of the doctrine of tathagatagarbha as an awakening of ones consciousness
to perceive the Buddha nature which is present in every aspect of reality
or to perceive the omnipresent and immanent mind of perfect purity of the
early Dzogchen tradition.
However, the Gelugpa tradition refutes
any interpretation such as this which would suggest an affiliation with
Subitist teachings. In addition, the Gelugpa sadhanas lack formless meditations,
which are thought to be extremely important by other traditions in order
for one to gain a solid understanding of emptiness. Such an understanding
is crucial when performing deity yoga so that one intuitively bears in
mind the emptiness of the visualized forms. Thus, formless shamatha
(stabilization) meditation practice is an important prerequisite to Tantric
practice in the Dzogchen and Kagyu traditions. However, since formless
meditations were the methods employed by Subitist schools, the Gelugpas
interpreted them to be highly suspect following the bSam-yas debate. Thus,
the Gelugpas came to rely on debate instead of formless meditation to develop
an understanding of emptiness. According to the Gelugpas, debate teaches
the mind an intuitive insight into the emptiness of the forms visualized
during the Tantric sadhanas.
The Gelugpa school has been dominant
in Tibetan Buddhism since the time of the Mongols and the third Dalai Lama,
and its viewpoints have thus affected the other Tantric disciplines as
well. However, the Kagyu tradition managed to preserve a relic of formless
shamatha meditation. Following the mantra repetition section of
its Tantric sadhanas, the Kagyu practitioner is instructed to let the mind
rest in the mind. Although this practice appears to be influenced by the
Subitist schools, it is possible that it escaped attention because it is
located in the middle of the Kagyu sadhana. Based on this fact, the argument
for the upayic nature of the gradual path teaching is even stronger in
the Kagyu tradition than it is in the Gelugpa. In addition, the Kagyu tradition
preserved the shamatha practice of breath counting as an important
meditative training to be practiced before entering upon the Tantric path.
For the Gelugpa, however, shamatha was reinterpreted not as the
formless practice of stabilizing the mind on no object, but as the ability
to stabilize the mind on the pure form of the mandala visualization. Thus,
formless shamatha meditation has been lost from the Gelugpa tradition.
Conclusion: The Relation of Deity Yoga to Other Buddhist Schools
This paper has explored the
tensions between the deity yoga practices of the Vajrayana and the other
schools of Buddhism. In responding to the objections of the Theravada school,
it was seen that the presence of extra-samsaric elements within samsara
is a concept that dates back to the earliest forms of primitive Buddhism
which recorded the miraculous events of the Buddhas lifetime and the mystical
physical marks of the Buddha. In the end, many compatibilities can be seen
between the Theravada and the Vajrayana traditions (e.g. between anatta
and sunyata, between cittaprabhasa (shining mind) and clear
mind, and between the dharmakaya and the notion of nirvana as omnipresent).
However, the Theravada school might still maintain that the Tibetans have
distorted these ideas too much.
The later development of the doctrine
of tathagatagarbha created an organized framework explaining how
the extra-samsaric Buddha nature could be omnipresent and immanent within
samsara. This doctrine led to the development of a variety of schools of
Buddhism characterized by a teaching of enlightenment as a sudden awakening
to this true nature. The attainment of this enlightenment is, in fact,
no-attainment and the practice conditioning it is a no-practice.
However, for those who are not karmically suited for this no-practice,
the Subitists taught that the lam rim, or gradual path, practices
involving the development of the compassionate bodhicitta and the
practice of the perfections were helpful methods. The various vehicles,
though, were all seen to feed into the One Vehicle, the Buddhayana.
The Subitist schools which held these
beliefs, such as those of Mo-ho-yen and early Dzogchen, began to experience
tensions with the Gradualists who subscribed to the two truths of Madhyamika philosophy.
The Gradualists held that the relationship between samsara and nirvana
was not a monistic unity but a oneness of characteristics at the ultimate
level only. The consequence of this viewpoint was the teaching of the path
to be a gradual progression corresponding to the conventional nature of
reality. However, at the level of ultimate reality, the Gradualists say
that the stages have to be given up and discrimination between the vehicles
must be stopped.
Despite the many similarities between
these viewpoints, tensions developed between the Subitists and the Gradualists,
perhaps due to external political concerns. The bSam-yas debate was called
to settle the dispute and resulted in the Subitist teaching being banned
from Tibet. This appears to have resulted in the development of a Gelugpa
tendency to compulsively adhere to the Prasangika-Madhyamika viewpoint
and to deny any foundation of the Tantric practices in Subitist thought.
The Dzogchen tradition, on the other
hand, adopted an upayic shroud of lam rim teaching to conceal its
Subitist teaching of the mind of perfect purity. It appears that the adaptation
of the Dzogchen teachings can serve as a model by which to examine the
other Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. When this is done, it is seen
that the other traditions fit within a similar framework comprised of all
these elements. The practices of deity yoga share elements of Subitism
and Gradualism with the Mahayana schools. Underlying the Tantric sadhanas,
there appears to be a presupposition of the doctrine of tathagatagarbha,
but at the same time, the sadhanas are rooted in the Madhyamika doctrine
of the two truths which can also be seen in various teachings of the Mahayana
schools. Finally, the practices of deity yoga and the teachings of the
Mahayana schools reflect a non-dual view of the division of vehicles as
being simultaneously a meaningful division and one which ultimately collapses
into the One Vehicle.
References
1 Bareau, André.
Buddhism, Schools of: Hinayana Buddhism in Eliade, Mircea (editor).
The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company,
1987, Vol. 2, pp. 444-457.
2 Sopa, Geshe Lhundub,
Jackson, Roger, and Newman, John. The Wheel of Time: The Kalachakra
in Context. Madison, Wisconsin: Deer Park Books, 1985, pp. 94-95.
3 Batchelor, Stephen
(editor). The Jewel in the Lotus: A Guide to the Buddhist Traditions
of Tibet. London, England: Wisdom Publications, 1987, Ch. 3.
4 Ibid., P. 196.
5 Ibid., P. 198.
6 Streng, Frederick
J. Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning. Nashville, Tennessee:
Abingdon Press, 1967, P. 139.
7 Batchelor, pp.
199-200.
8 Inada, Kenneth
K. Nagarjuna: A Translation of his Mulamadhyamakakarika with an Introductory
Essay. Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1970, P. 158.
9 Ibid., P. 155.
10 Williams, Paul.
Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. New York: Routledge,
1989, P. 96.
11 Thurman, Robert.
Tathagata-garbha in Eliade, Mircea (editor). The Encyclopedia
of Religion. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1987, Vol. 14,
P. 355.
12 Williams., P.
101.
13 H. H. the Dalai
Lama, Tsong-ka-pa, and Hopkins, Jeffrey. Tantra in Tibet. Ithaca,
New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1977, pp. 115-116.
14 Thurman, P. 354.
15 This section
is heavily indebted to Sopa, pp. 113-115.
16 H. H. the Dalai
Lama, P. 162.
17 Sopa, pp. 120.
18 Gómez,
Luis O. The Direct and Gradual Approaches of Zen Master Mahayana:
Fragments of the Teachings of Mo-ho-yen in Gimello, Robert M. and
Gregory, Peter N. (editors). Studies in Chan and Hua-Yen. Honolulu,
Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1983, P. 70.
19 Ibid., P. 71.
20 Ibid., P. 76.
21 Ibid., P. 93.
22 Neumaier-Dargyay,
E. K. The Sovereign All-Creating Mind--The Motherly Buddha: A Translation
of the Kun byed rgyal poi mdo. Albany, New York: State University
of New York Press, 1992, P. 4.
23 Ibid., P. 51.
24 Ibid., pp. 28-30.
25 Phrin las
is the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit term sila, which is usually
translated into English as ethics or conduct.
26 Ibid., P. 73.
27 Ibid., P. 28.
28 Ibid., P. 30.
29 Ibid., P. 31.
30 Ibid., P. 125.
31 Ibid., P. 164.
32 Ibid., P. 167.
33 Ibid., P. 108.
34 Ibid., P. 141.
35 Gómez,
P. 71.
36 Ueda Yoshifumi
(editor). The True Teaching, Practice, and Realization of the Pure Land
Way: A Translation of Shinrans Kyogyoshinsho. Kyoto, Japan: Hongwanji
International Center, 1983, Vol. 1, P. 135.
37 Abe Masao. The
Oneness of Practice and Attainment: Implications for the Relation between
Means and Ends in LaFleur, William R. (editor). Dogen Studies.
Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1985, P. 101.
38 Ibid., P. 102.
39 Ibid., P. 106.
40 Bonpo Dzogchen
homepage of the Ligmincha Institute. http://www.comet.chv.va.us/ligmincha/educ/bondzog.htm
41 Kalachakra
Initiation, Madison 1981. Madison, Wisconsin: Deer Park, 1981, P.
76.
42 Ueda, P. 148.
43 See Batchelor,
Stephen. The Faith to Doubt: Glimpses of Buddhist Uncertainty. Berkeley,
California: Parallax Press, 1990.
44 Ibid., P. 12.
Additional Bibliography
Corless, Roger J. Beginning
at the End: No-Practice in Shin and Early rDzogs Chen. The Pure
Land, 12, Dec. 1995, pp. 253-265.
Corless, Roger J. The Vision of
Buddhism. New York: Paragon House, 1989.
Dge-dun-grub, Dalai Lama I and Mullin,
Glenn H. (translator). Selected Works of the Dalai Lama I: Bridging
the Sutras and the Tantras. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications,
1985.
H. H. the Dalai Lama, Tsong-ka-pa,
and Hopkins, Jeffrey. The Yoga of Tibet: The Great Exposition of Secret
Mantra - 2 and 3. London, England: George Allen & Unwin, 1981.
Hopkins, Jeffrey. The Tantric Distinction.
London, England: Wisdom Publications, 1985.
Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama. Hopkins,
Jeffrey (translator). Kalachakra Tantra Rite of Initiation, Revised
Edition. London, England: Wisdom Publications, 1989.
Shantideva, Acharya. Batchelor, Stephen
(translator). A Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life. Dharamsala,
India: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1981.
Author Note
Brian T. Hafer, Department
of Religion, Duke University.
I thank Dr. Roger J. Corless for guidance
in exploring this material, for reading the manusript, and for guidance
in making revisions. This manuscript was written in partial fulfillment
of the Latin honors thesis requirements of the Department
of Religion.