View Full Version : Tantra and the Buddha
If someone were to ask: 'Did the Buddha teach Tantra?'
How would my fellow Vajra brethren answer and help that person to understand that?
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gif
Pink_trike
14 Apr 10, 06:25
It's not important to me who taught tantra. I evaluate the practices and my teachers.
from post #3
Thanks Pink,
Very wise to hold this attitude toward practice... "test the practice..."
KoolAid900
02 Jun 10, 03:31
My answer would be "yes." I can think of two ways in which this is true which I will elaborate on in a minute. However, it is beneficial to realize first that Buddha Shakyamuni did not teach Tantra in the form of Siddhartha Gautama.
1. I read recently (from the Dalai Lama, but cannot remember the book) that while Shakyamuni Buddha was giving a certain set of teachings at one of the holy places he was simultaneously manifested inside of the stupa at that site teaching/giving transmission for the Kalachakra Tantra.
2. The blessing lineage of the Kagyupas can be traced back to Vajradhara through the mahasiddha, Tilopa. Tilopa also had human teacher (can't remember who now) but received the teachings on Tantra/Mahamudra directly from the Sambhogakaya Vajradhara. In Buddhist cosmology, especially Mahayana, there are many universes or world systems (I know some of you were reading Myriad Worlds, I saw the thread!). Our world system is headed Shakyamuni Buddha, meaning that he is the source of all Dharma here. So, even though it is traditionally said that the lineage came from Vajradhara, we can understand this to be another face of Shakyamuni Buddha. In fact, even though the person Siddhartha Gautama died 2500 years ago, all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of our world are actually manifestations of Shakyamuni Buddha. It is not that Shakyamuni Buddha died and left us while the other Buddhas & Bodhisattvas continued working for our benefit. He is still here continuously manifesting for our benefit, though we do not have the karma to see him in his supreme nirmanakaya form.
Are you thinking for yourself KoolAid...or simply repeating what you've been told ?
KoolAid900
02 Jun 10, 04:30
Honestly, I am dumbfounded that you asked that question! I put a lot of thought into my understanding of Dharma. I am hoping that maybe it is just the medium of communication (message board) that is causing confusion. I could see this happening since one cannot frequently read people well through only text. It is also possible that my understanding of Dharma, or personal application of it, differs enough from the board that the relationship may not be of mutual benefit. This would make me sad, but I'll move on as things could definitely be worse.
In general I am trying to share with others what has been beneficial to me. Some of that includes my own insights and some of that includes teachings that have been passed directly to me. Some of the teachings that have I received I fully understand and do not see any reason to modify. Some of them I do not fully understand, but this does not mean they do not benefit me or that they will not benefit others.
Specifically, in the example above in the first reason I am simply repeating what I heard from the Dalia Lama. I cite this as a source simply because I have a lot of confidence in what the Dalia Lama says (and perhaps erroneously assume others feel similarly here). He did not go into specific details in this particular instance, but he has so many times in the past and the reasoning is always solid. I do not see any reason to doubt what he said.
In the second instance, I cannot speak directly about this because I do not have personal experience with Vajradhara. What I shared above was paraphrasing something I recently read that I personally found very illuminating and clarifying. Since I cannot speak from personal experience I tried to keep it as true to the original as possible.
Hi KoolAid,
It was certainly not my intention to invoke an emotional reaction and to offend you - especially as this is the Mahayana forum. I was just asking a simple question.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif
Having been a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner for most of my life previously, I feel that it is unwise to accept absolutely everything literally with blind faith. Historical investigation is beneficial, as is logic and common sense.
When reading a text about someone receiving a teaching from a celestial Buddha, might it not be the case that that person was simply inspired to write some teachings themselves?
When its stated, for example, that Asanga was taken to the Tushita Heaven to be taught by Maitreya for many years and then came back and wrote down the Mahayana Uttara Tantra Shastra amongst other things....might not that have been a way to attach special importance to his works ?
Is it somehow wrong to mention and discuss these things sensibly? We are, after all, a discussion/debating group !
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
KoolAid900
02 Jun 10, 05:37
Hi KoolAid,
It was certainly not my intention to invoke an emotional reaction and to offend you -especially as this is the Tibetan Buddhist forum. I was just asking a simple question.
Having been a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner for most of my life, I feel that it is unwise to accept absolutely everything with blind faith. Historical investigation is beneficial, as is logic and common sense.
When reading a text about someone receiving a teaching from a celestial Buddha, might it not be the case that that person was simply inspired to write some teachings themselves?
When its stated, for example, that Asanga was taken to the Tushita Heaven to be taught by Maitreya for many years and then came back and wrote down the Mahayana Uttara Tantra Shastra amongst other things....might not that have been a way to attach special importance to his works ?
Is it somehow wrong to mention and discuss these things? We are, after all, a discussion/debating group !
Please feel free to ask questions http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif Sorry if I flew off the handle. I put a lot into what I posted and maybe had invested too much attachment as well. ;)
I agree with you out about not accepting on blind faith, but there are also many qualities that come from faith. I have no problem taking teachings in until they are digested unless they sit wrong, which does happen sometimes. Guess I could see why this looks like blind faith, but I have so much confidence in some of my teachers that I cannot help it.
No problem my friend ! http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif
Nice to chat with you. I have to go now...the non internet world calls. Back later.
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
srivijaya
02 Jun 10, 14:52
If someone were to ask: 'Did the Buddha teach Tantra?'
How would my fellow Vajra brethren answer and help that person to understand that?
Interesting question plwk. If we are looking at the historical Buddha and the tantra we know today, I would say no he didn't.
On the other hand, he did teach something not unlike tantra, to some disciples. For whatever reason this died out within the Theravada school (unless they're keeping it secrethttp://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )
DN 12
Lohicca Sutta
To Lohicca
The Mind-made Body
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, he directs & inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, the monk directs & inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. When a disciple of a teacher attains this sort of grand distinction, Lohicca, that is a teacher not worthy of criticism in the world, and if anyone were to criticize this sort of teacher, the criticism would be false, unfactual, unrighteous, & blameworthy.
DN 9
Potthapada Sutta
About Potthapada
"Potthapada, there are these three acquisitions of a self: the gross acquisition of a self, the mind-made acquisition of a self, and the formless acquisition of a self. 9 And what is the gross acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self. And what is the mind-made acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties: this is the mind-made acquisition of a self. And what is the formless acquisition of a self? Formless and made of perception: this is the formless acquisition of a self.
"I teach the Dhamma for the abandoning of the gross acquisition of a self, such that, when you practice it, defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter & remain in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for yourself in the here & now.
DN 11
Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta
To Kevatta
Translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
The Mind-made Body
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.
"This, too, is called the miracle of instruction.
I'll leave you to work that one outhttp://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif
Namaste
If someone were to ask: 'Did the Buddha teach Tantra?'
No, the Buddha did not teach "tantra".
from post #11
I wonder about the significance of the fact that all of those quotes are from the Digha Nikaya, a notoriously late addition to the Canon.
Blueseasparkling
03 Jun 10, 11:15
plwk wrote: "If someone were to ask: 'Did the Buddha teach Tantra?'
How would my fellow Vajra brethren answer and help that person to understand that?"
Could you post a definition and description of Tantra to consider the question more ... it seems there is more than one interpretation of it, so it might depend on which one people are considering, what their reply might be? It would be interesting to read the replies in relation to a description to learn more about where the schools of thought / values / philosophy start to divide and where they come together?
plwk hasn't posted here since April, so it would be unwise to wait for his reply. As he posted this topic in the Mahayana forum I will give a brief explanation of the word 'Tantra' from the glossary of 'Awakening the Sleeping Buddha' by H.E. 12th Tai Situpa (a Tibetan tulku):
"Literally, tantra means 'continuity', and in Buddhism it refers to two specific things : the texts that describe the practice leading from ignorance to enlightenment, including commentaries by Tantric masters; and the way to enlightenment itself, encompassing the ground, path, and fruition."
Here's another definition from 'The Dharma' by Kalu Rinpoche :
"Tantras - The root scriptures of Vajrayana Buddhism. The texts are ascribed to the Buddha Shakyamuni in various of his manifestations, and each usually describes the mandala and practice associated with a particular enlightened being. The word 'tantra' literally means 'thread' or 'continuity'."
My own personal opinion is that the historical Buddha didn't teach tantra and that it was an add-on by later teachers.
No, the Buddha did not teach "tantra".
As far as I know, Shiva as the way of devotion is at the root of tantrism but it is told that Saraha set the practice rooted in the mind and within the tibetan tradition.
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
srivijaya
03 Jun 10, 15:55
There are some interesting comparisons kaarine. Certainly much of the tantra we have today has iconic parallels within various Hindu traditions. The substance of the teachings is different though.
The whole subject is very interesting, as has been something I have investigated myself. There's very little 'tantric' material per se in the Shaivite works I've read but I suspect the Kapalika and Kaula traditions (which are esoteric and closed) are the connection.
which are esoteric and closed
Yes, I know about the esoteric and closed aspect of the tantra teachings. Maybe I will be wrong but the Vajrayana is supported by Tantrism and so Dzogchen. Dzogchen and Zen have very interesting paralelisms also. At the Dojo we have a very encouraging visit that speak us about this paralelism.
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
srivijaya
03 Jun 10, 16:49
Maybe I will be wrong but the Vajrayana is supported by Tantrism and so Dogchen
Vajrayana is tantrism but not all Dzogchenpas consider what they do to be the same thing. As far as I know they categorize it as a unique path, rather like Mahamudra (the non-tantric definition).http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
I understand Zen does have some common features with Dzogchen but I believe the Dzogchenpas have some methods which Zen does not.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif
from post #15
Tantrayana was taken to Tibet from India in the 9th Century by Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche) and the abbot Santaraksita.
Sahara lived in India in the 10th century and was one of the teachers of Marpa the founder of the Tibetan Kagyu lineage.(Marpa travelled to India several times to get teachings from his main teacher Naropa and from other teachers including Sahara)
I understand Zen does have some common features with Dzogchen but I believe the Dzogchenpas have methods Zen does not.
Yes, of course... I think so, but Dogchen is not at my practice so I can't tell to much about...
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
from post #20
Thanks Dazz,
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
Dzogchen is often introduced after preliminary tantric practices and is more usually associated with the Nyingma school (although there's Bon Dzogchen too, which wasn't considered Buddhist until fairly recently when eveything was put under a 'Tibetan traditions' umbrella for the west)
Ati yoga is said to be synonymous with Dzogchen.
from post #23
Dazz dear, is there any information anywhere about history of this?
Hiyah Kaarine dear,
There's a history of Tibet on the website of Thrangu Rinpoche here...this is part 1
URL (http://www.rinpoche.com/stories/tibet1.htm)
You may have to go back to the main website page to get parts 2 and 3
here: URL (http://www.rinpoche.com/inspstory.html)
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
from post #25
Thanks Dazz, http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
The word 'tantra' literally means 'thread' or 'continuity'."
That's a little bit interesting because l understand that the word 'sūtra' also means "thread"
londonerabroad
23 Aug 10, 08:26
Tibetan Buddhists and followers of Vajrayana Buddhism believe there is more than one Buddha. Guru Rinpoche - Padmasambhava - who brought tantra from India to Tibet is considered as another Buddha - a fully enlightened being.
But we all have Buddha nature and so in the ultimate reality are no different from Buddha - once we renounce the ego-clinging self and the delusions and duality coming from attachment to it and realise the interdependenc of all beings and that ALL beings want happiness and to be free of suffering.
Tibetan Buddhists and followers of Vajrayana Buddhism believe there is more than one Buddha. Guru Rinpoche - Padmasambhava - who brought tantra from India to Tibet is considered as another Buddha - a fully enlightened being.
But we all have Buddha nature and so in the ultimate reality are no different from Buddha - once we renounce the ego-clinging self and the delusions and duality coming from attachment to it and realise the interdependenc of all beings and that ALL beings want happiness and to be free of suffering.
Absolutely (without wanting to sound as an absolutist!). Increased awareness, and increased enlightenment (Buddha-hood) is not something to give up on too easily. To the contrary we must aspire to that. Every minute.
I read that the Buddha taught celibacy to average practitioners, but for particularly spiritually gifted individuals, he taught tantra. At the time, I suspected that this was a justification that an author of a tantric text came up with after the Buddha's time. But I've also heard that he taught rebirth to the masses, and not-rebirth (karma as a principle that operates within a person's lifetime) to the few. Does anyone know anything about these rumors that his teachings to the masses were one thing, but another to the select few?
Just a guess but wouldn't the Buddha adapt his teachings depending on the audience's level of understanding?
There's a reference in the Pali Canon about the Buddha giving different teachings to monks and laypeople and that the teachings given to monks were higher teachings (but not tantra).....but I can't remember which sutta it is.
To answer the question, do we believe the Buddha taught tantra, I'm leaning towards "no". I'd like to thank KoolAid for explaining how the Buddha manifested as Vajradhara and taught tantra, I've wondered about that. But I don't believe he manifested simultaneously inside a stupa to teach tantra, while he was outside the stupa teaching something else. This sounds like mythology, IMO.
I'd like to have a better definition of tantra than that it means "thread" and the like. This tells me nothing. My somewhat fuzzy understanding of tantra is that it involves visualizing oneself as a deity, it has a transformational aspect, for the purpose of empowering the practitioner in a variety of ways. But I'd further like to divide tantra into different categories, for the sake of this discussion. There are more ordinary tantras, such as (if I'm not mistaken) the Medicine Buddha empowerment, where one visualizes the Medicine Buddha for the purpose of healing oneself, and other empowerments. But there is also sexual tantra, where one utilizes sexual desire for the purpose of transforming it into spiritual bliss. Do I believe the Buddha taught the latter? No, I don't believe the Buddha taught sexual techniques. I think that came from a completely different tradition in India, but that a complex mythology was created around its origin by the time it arrived in Tibet.
The above is my answer to the OP's question. It's really not a very simple question, but it's an important one.
According to Kagyu and Gelug lore, the Buddha taught tantra when he was in the form of Vajradhara.
I'm not seeing anything in that quote that relates to tantra, or a tantric teaching. Am I missing something? (referring to post #11)
There's a reference in the Pali Canon about the Buddha giving different teachings to monks and laypeople and that the teachings given to monks were higher teachings (but not tantra).....but I can't remember which sutta it is.
Perhaps this? Anathapindikovada Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html)
Vajrayana teachings stress that ultimately everything is path. As far as visualization goes, I am not sure that 'transformational aspect' is as accurate as perhaps the term, 'revealing aspect' would be. In a sense, every day we visualize ourselves as ourselves constantly. But this refers to what is regarded as ordinary ignorance, what propels samsara, which is not fully realizing and experiencing that when confusion is cut through, what remains is enlightenment. My teacher has said that the true nature of mind is enlightened, which means free from suffering and this is what all beings are ultimately trying to find--happiness, peace of mind, ultimately fully buddha.
Anyway, visualization is not so much imagining oneself to be some other being - some enlightened diety, but is a practice of a rough visualization of one's own enlightened nature. When someone says "Buddha appeared as---so and so, Vajradhara or whoever, what does that really mean? I think that this has to do more with a level of understanding than it does appearing to one group and teaching one thing and appearing to another group and teaching something else. A great deal of Yab-Yum (male+female) visualizations or actual activity incorporate types of yoga that people were already familiar with in India at the time.
One of the effects of visualization practice is that dissolving the visualization at the end, realizing that it has all been a projection of one's own mind, helps the person doing it to directly experience how everything they imagine about themselves and the world as real is also a projection of the mind.
. A great deal of Yab-Yum (male+female) visualizations or actual activity incorporate types of yoga that people were already familiar with in India at the time.
So, did the Buddha teach that, or was it something that got incorporated into Buddhist tradition after the Buddha, from practices in India?
http://i52.tinypic.com/qowz12.png
http://i54.tinypic.com/2q2gzh3.png
So, did the Buddha teach that, or was it something that got incorporated into Buddhist tradition after the Buddha, from practices in India?
Tibetan Buddhism originates from the Vajrayana Buddhism which was practiced in India a long time after the death of the Buddha and it also contains aspects of the Bonpo shamanistic religion which was practised in Tibet before Buddhism and alongside of it.
The present day Bon religion we see imported in the west has now got aspects of Buddhism mixed in with it. (Just as an aside, I have a book of very old photos taken in Tibet in between 1880 and 1950 and there's a photo of a priest in a Bon temple with dead animals and human heads hanging from the ceiling)
The period of Indian Vajrayana Buddhism has been classified as the fifth,or final period of Indian Buddhism. Although the first tantric Buddhist texts appeared in India in the 3rd century and continued to appear until the 12th century, scholars such as Hirakawa Akira believe that the Vajrayana probably came into existence in the 6th or 7th century, while the term Vajrayana first came into evidence in the 8th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana
srivijaya
18 Mar 11, 08:06
I'm not seeing anything in that quote that relates to tantra, or a tantric teaching.(referring to post #11)
Hi Dragon,
Thanks for enquiring about my post. The answer to that is both yes and no - there is and there isn't. If we use a familiar definition of tantra, say Tibetan Vajrayana, then I agree that such a thing does not appear anywhere in the Pali suttas.
As Dazzle pointed out, they probably evolved in India and were eventually exported into Tibet etc. Also Buddha in the Pali suttas was very much against practices which we would associate with generation stage; mantra, deity stuff, mandals. The whole tone of the suttas is directed at experience and not speculation.
That said, the quotes I provided do indicate 'another' kind of means is being taught by the Buddha to some disciples. I don't claim that it's in any way superior or inferior but it would appear that it is there.
The creation of a mind-made body has parallels within certain completion stage tantric practices. I believe that this is akin to the Tibetan "father" class of tantras, like powah and so on. It is essentially the development of the dream body. I'm not claiming that it is the same thing, but that we may need to think out of the box on this one.
None of the dialogue I have ever seen on line or elsewhere addresses this issue. Whatever conclusions we arrive at are probably new territory.
I've never encountered tum-mo (kundalini) mentioned within the Pali, unless we interpret any mention of bliss to be such but I believe that this would be stretching a theory to make it fit.
In summary, I feel that whatever these guys were doing, it would have been a directly experiential yogic path and would not have "looked" like tantra as we know it. Yet, strip away the elaboration around tantra and the core completion practices are not too dissimilar. This makes sense, if we are looking at the commonality of subtle body experiences, rather than external ritual.
I seem to be a one-man band on this topic, as I've never found anyone who has yet expressed the least bit of surprise or interest in it.
Perhaps, that fact should tell me something.;)
Namaste
kris
I pasted some quotes from the book: Tantra In Tibet by H.H. the Dalai Lama, Tsong-ka-pa and Jeffrey Hopkins
I may be wrong but my vague recollection is this book discusses the origins of Tantra as being from the Hindu Indian householder tradition
With metta
:)
So, did the Buddha teach that, or was it something that got incorporated into Buddhist tradition after the Buddha, from practices in India?
Strictly speaking, nobody can say with 100% certainty exactly what the Buddha said or did not say; taught or did not teach. It is believed by Buddhists that everything he said was true, and over time this has also come to mean, for many, that everything which does not conflict with truth must have been taught by the Buddha. I have been a student of Tibetan Buddhism for over 25 years and I really doubt that the historical Sakyamuni delivered tantric teachings per se. There is not much evidence of what we would consider to be Tantric literature until many years later. However, symbols directly associated with vajrayana buddhism (such as the vajra motif), mostly inherited from Hindu traditions are found in ancient artifacts from Java, Sri Lanka and other areas in regions where Theravada Buddhism prevails or had prevailed. On the other hand, If we agree that the historical Buddha drew larger numbers of people to his teachings, and that he addressed their questions, it is quite likely that he found himself in philosophical discussions or debates with many hindu and tantric scholars, yogis and other holy men. Might this have happened? If so, could these have become a basis for Vajrayana Buddhism? This is all pure speculation, but I suppose it is possible.
Imagine if someone were to ask HH Dalai Lama his opinion of the Beatles, or what he thinks of Rock music, and he replies something like "as long as it brings people together peacefully and they are not causing harm, I see nothing wrong with it" ...now, fast forward a hundred years, and due purely to the immense popularity of rock, you find an entire Buddhist sect based on what its adherents believe to be the Dalai Lama's teachings on Rock Music. Commentary on these 'teachings' exceed thousands of volumes. Even in such an imaginary scenario, you can see how things develop over time.
As a sidebar to this discussion, I brought some Lao & Thai monks to see an exhibition of a huge collection of Tibetan artwork. When they saw the tantric paintings of various Buddhas 'in unison' with females, they laughed and snickered, each one pulling his brothers over to see painting after painting. There has been a lot of interaction where I live, between lamas and Theravadan Bhikkhus. One group of lamas doing a sand mandala tour to raise funds, stayed at the local Wat and even set up a sand mandala there. I am happy that with so many differences and variations, that mosts Buddhists are able to get along. this is something rare in the world today.
I am happy that with so many differences and variations, that mosts Buddhists are able to get along. this is something rare in the world today.Rare in the online world....more common in the real world...
I have been a student of Tibetan Buddhism for over 25 years
I was a student of Tibetan Buddhism for more than 20 years, as well as knowing some Tibetans when I was much younger. However I began having doubts about quite a few things - and gradually became very interested in investigating the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition......and the result was that I now consider myself a Theravadin.
Naturally I am still friends with the people I know who are involved with Vajrayana!
The present day Bon religion we see imported in the west has now got aspects of Buddhism mixed in with it. (Just as an aside, I have a book of very old photos taken in Tibet in between 1880 and 1950 and there's a photo of a priest in a Bon temple with dead animals and human heads hanging from the ceiling)
Lots of good info, good responses, thank you everyone.
"The present-day Bon religion we see imported in the West..."? Do you mean "present-day Vajrayana Buddhism"? I've never heard the imported Tibetan Buddhism practiced in the West referred to as "present-day Bon". Bon is now its own "sect" in Tibet. Please clarify what you mean, or maybe it was an error?
Wow--cool photo. Is there a date on it? I remember reading somewhere that the most "powerful" thighbone trumpets were made from the thighs of 16-year old girls. (There's some numerological significance to the number 16, I've read.)
Lots of good info, good responses, thank you everyone.
"The present-day Bon religion we see imported in the West..."? Do you mean "present-day Vajrayana Buddhism"? I've never heard the imported Tibetan Buddhism practiced in the West referred to as "present-day Bon". Bon is now its own "sect" in Tibet. Please clarify what you mean, or maybe it was an error?
Wow--cool photo. Is there a date on it? I remember reading somewhere that the most "powerful" thighbone trumpets were made from the thighs of 16-year old girls. (There's some numerological significance to the number 16, I've read.)
No, I didn't mean Vajrayana, nor I did I say Tibetan Buddhism was Bon.
Bon was the pre-Buddhist religion in Tibet and was originally a form of Shamanism. It existed alongside of Buddhism and over the centuries has been adapted to keep up with Buddhism. There are Bon centres outside of Tibet.
Regarding religion in today's communist ruled Tibet, I don't think any of it is allowed to survive in its original form.
The photo I mentioned says underneath it : "Temple at Tangpa, dedicated to Bon gods, with stuffed animals and human heads hanging from rafters, about 1930. As offerings to the gods, worshipers brought live animals to the temple, which were preserved after death."
The book of photos is called "Tibet - The Sacred Realm"
As for human thigh bone trumpets I once blew one myself which was being used by a group of us and a teacher in a Chod ceremony. Nothing particularly special about bits of a dead human's skeleton really....:flower:
http://i52.tinypic.com/qowz12.png
I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
;D
Thanks for the reference Element. ( for the benefit of other readers, it's under 'The Buddha's Deadly Sickness' at the link)
:hands:
http://i52.tinypic.com/qowz12.png
I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
;D
This is an excellent passage. One could certainly see where the notion of secrecy in Vajrayana would appear to contradict this. If Vajrayana teachings were not openly offered by authentic teachers to anyone who wanted to study them, this would certainly be the case. I have never known an authentic teacher who shut the door when it came to teaching Vajrayana practices & meditation. This doesn't mean that everyone who encounters it for the first time understands it immediately, or that it is the best approach for everybody, or that it can escape the possibility of being misunderstood.
This is an excellent passage. One could certainly see where the notion of secrecy in Vajrayana would appear to contradict this. If Vajrayana teachings were not openly offered by authentic teachers to anyone who wanted to study them, this would certainly be the case. I have never known an authentic teacher who shut the door when it came to teaching Vajrayana practices & meditation. This doesn't mean that everyone who encounters it for the first time understands it immediately, or that it is the best approach for everybody, or that it can escape the possibility of being misunderstood.
I may be misinterpreting your post fojiao2, but this isn't the same as my experience with Vajrayana. Teachers didn't just give the more advanced practices to beginners if they asked for them.
I can also recall being told not long after taking Refuge, that I shouldn't go to certain teachings being given at that time, because I wouldn't be able to understand them just yet.
There are different kinds of deity practice that aren't given to everyone even if they are more experienced.
Additionally some of the teachings and practices given to 3 year retreatants aren't offered to anyone else.. and not everyone is necessarily considered suitable for a long retreat.
So in my experience I would say that the quote " the Vajrayana is to be practised in secrecy and is not to be revealed to the spiritually immature " is correct for some of the practices and teachings.
There are always public teachings which are accessible to anyone of course.
:hands:
srivijaya
20 Mar 11, 10:09
I would say that the quote " the Vajrayana is to be practised in secrecy and is not to be revealed to the spiritually immature " is correct for some of the practices and teachings.
That has also been my experience. It is known as 'secret' mantra with good reason. The yab-yum component of Highest Yoga Tantra is wide open to misinterpretation and, as element pointed out, probably originated amongst non-sangha. It, therefore did not require a vow of celibacy.
There is no trace of anything like this in the Pali suttas btw. The 'mother' class of tantra arose in India at a later date. Some claim that it was adapted from Hindu practices but many modern Hindus are keen to reject this notion, as nowadays in India tantra has bad associations and is almost a byword for black magic.
In my opinion, some kind of synthesis occurred - at least in some places. I'm certain this happened in Kashmir, as the connection to certain Shaivite sects cannot be denied. But it's a terrifically complex subject and we are no way equipped to reach any final judgement on it.
:hands:
Well, I think the situation can be likened to medical school. Technically, anyone can go and train to be a surgeon. This doesn't mean that when somebody shows up and says "I want to be a doctor" that you hand them a scalpel and let them start hacking away. There are methods in Vajrayana for transforming very negative emotional states into wisdom. But without a proper foundation of understanding, without the proper context, these same methods could be harmful to someone. How? Suppose a person with very low self esteem, issues of insecurity and so forth comes across a teaching which involves imagining that you are taking on other peoples negativity and suffering. This is likely to cause that person more unhappiness, and complicate things for them. So, yeah, just by asking for advanced teachings doesn't mean you will get them.
All the same, your point of view is quite valid. I would not be surprised if some baggage from the idea of an elite Brahman priesthood has seeped into this. Also, there are some organizations propagating Tibetan Buddhism which are somewhat cultish, or who have attempted to systematize the teachings into a one-size-fits-all recipe.
Also, I know many lamas who don't want to just dish out all this stuff to crowds of people who, a year later, are not going to keep up with it. They have a few dedicated students, and they are likewise dedicated to their students. These are lamas hardly anyone has ever heard of, who you can't find on the internet, who haven't published any books.
I can certainly see where, compared with the Pali and Theravada traditions, this can seem exceedingly elitist, but a lot depends on perspectives and one's own projections. (by the way, it is so great to log on to the accesstoinsight website -thanks!) . I think it is a great misfortune that so many people who have, over the past 20 years or so, been drawn to Vajrayana Buddhism, that very few have read the Pali suttas. They are so rich, and have a sense of raw purity about them. When you read them, you really feel like you are there, listening to the Buddha teach.
I think it is a great misfortune that so many people who have, over the past 20 years or so, been drawn to Vajrayana Buddhism, that very few have read the Pali suttas. They are so rich, and have a sense of raw purity about them. When you read them, you really feel like you are there, listening to the Buddha teach.
I agree. Indeed I was one of those people myself until fairly recently.
This is a sutta which I find particularly poignant....
Lord Buddha said:
"Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.
"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
(SN 20.7 - Ani Sutta: The Peg)
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html
:hands:
That is a great quote. I say this as someone who's background is Vajrayana. I study that, and The Pali suttas, zen and even the Japanese Shin teachings. Each speaks to a different part of my understanding. I gotta tell you, when a lama came to my town as a personal guest of a friend, (and this lama is now my close friend and teacher - he teaches me Dharma, I teach him English and we communicate in Chinese) the first place he wanted to visit was the local Thai/Lao wat. He has sooooo much respect for these bhikkhus (also friends of mine) especially their adherence to the Vinaya. When western students only read from one tradition, even if they don't 'mix' them, it's too bad.
In my opinion, some kind of synthesis occurred - at least in some places. I'm certain this happened in Kashmir, as the connection to certain Shaivite sects cannot be denied. But it's a terrifically complex subject and we are no way equipped to reach any final judgement on it.:hands: According to Waddell, an early scholar of Tibetan Buddhism, Padmasambhava was originally from Odiyana, a "hotbed" of tantric practices, including Shakti (left-handed) rituals, if I'm not mistaken. He brought this brand of Buddhism to Tibet.
He brought this brand of Buddhism to Tibet.
In the 9th century, if I remember correctly.
He is said to have founded the Tibetan Nyingma School and there are many Tibetan legends surrounding his life story which are connected to magic and the supernatural.
It's not important to me who taught tantra. I evaluate the practices and my teachers.
This is how I usually approach it. I also try to find parallels in other traditions, (I.e. Theravadins don't have Chenrezig, but they do have practices to expand compassion) or try to understand the intent of the practice prior to actually practicing it.
I think it is a great misfortune that so many people who have, over the past 20 years or so, been drawn to Vajrayana Buddhism, that very few have read the Pali suttas. They are so rich, and have a sense of raw purity about them. When you read them, you really feel like you are there, listening to the Buddha teach.
It was after study of the Pali Canon and Theravada that I was able to see the validity of at least some Vajrayana teachings and practices and accept a Tibetan teacher. Fortunately, he is a Gelug geshe and doesn't place a lot of emphasis on tantra with his students. ;)
It was after study of the Pali Canon and Theravada that I was able to see the validity of at least some Vajrayana teachings and practices and accept a Tibetan teacher. Fortunately, he is a Gelug geshe and doesn't place a lot of emphasis on tantra with his students. ;)
While we like to highlight the differences in the various traditions, I have found the teachings in them point to the same thing. They just look a bit different from the outside. :hands:
HHDL: "In the Sutra view, many lifetimes of practice are required to accomplish this state of inner perfection."
The Buddha: ""Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either final knowledge right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging— non-return.
"'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Nibbana— in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
--MN 10, Satipatthana Sutta
So, where is HHDL getting this "many lifetimes" business from...?
So, where is HHDL getting this "many lifetimes" business from...?
Maybe his intentional popularity as the official spokesman of Tibetanism around the world... he presents himself as a result of a long dynasty of reincarnations...
srivijaya
23 May 11, 10:14
Maybe his intentional popularity as the official spokesman of Tibetanism around the world... he presents himself as a result of a long dynasty of reincarnations...
In this instance, I don't think that this has anything to do with it.
He is relating the standard Mahayana position regarding sutra and tantra. It comes down to how the 'liberation of a hearer' is contrasted with the 'enlightenment of a Buddha'. This is why there are two yanas Maha and Hina. As far as I remember they don't argue with the fact that a hearer can attain liberation within one lifetime.
To gain the state of full Buddhahood would require many lifetimes of practice on the path of sutra (as related in the suttas with Buddhas many past abidings) but is possible within one lifetime with the practice of Vajrayana. It comes down to how the goal is defined.
As far as I know, within the Theravadan tradition there is only one kind of final liberation - that of an arhat. Within the Mahayana, this is just one option.
This may also have some faint resonance, within the Pali, in the way Buddha described himself as the Tatagatha, as opposed to an arhat. One enlightened by his own efforts, the other liberated through hearing the discourse.
Hope this helps
:hands:
HHDL: "In the Sutra view, many lifetimes of practice are required to accomplish this state of inner perfection."
The Buddha: ""Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either final knowledge right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging— non-return.
"'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Nibbana— in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
--MN 10, Satipatthana Sutta
So, where is HHDL getting this "many lifetimes" business from...?
All this time, I have been arguing with an enlightened Buddha! :hands:
All this time, I have been arguing with an enlightened Buddha!
Interesting that you've been "arguing" rather than debating ! ;)
I think its erroneous to assume we can know the spiritual level of others on the
internet, or that we can afford to be sarcastic about their attainments, because
in a certain sense everyone is our :bow: teacher.
Interesting that you've been "arguing" rather than debating ! ;)
I think its erroneous to assume we can know the spiritual level of others on the
internet, or that we can afford to be sarcastic about their attainments, because
in a certain sense everyone is our :bow: teacher.
Well, I had hoped that it was only discussing and not debating but if it was debating then I perceived it as arguing. I find open-ended discussions to be much more beneficial than debates. Debates usually suggest that one person is (absolutely?) right and the other is wrong. I have rarely found this to be true.
My whole life, people have told me I was too sarcastic, so i will try to tone it down a little. But I think the reference is accurate. If Buddha said that a person can become enlightened in a week or two, and that is what is being presented, then I am going to give the presenter the benefit of the doubt and assume he or she is speaking from personal experience!!
"In the Sutra approach, one looks at one's shortcomings and inner weaknesses, and works on the methods for systematically eradicating them; and one looks at one's lack of enlightenment, and engages in the spiritual practices that cause the enlightened experience to arise. In brief, one sees oneself as as unenlightened person afflicted with the inner factors of the three emotional and cognitive distortions or poisons --anger, attachment, and ignorance of the true nature of the self --and regards the spiritual practices such as meditation and so forth as being the medicines for systematically curing these afflictions, until full enlightenment is attained. In the Sutra view, many lifetimes of practice are required to accomplish this state of inner perfection."
---The Dalai Lamas on Tantra / Glen Mullin / Snow Lion pub.
Yes, you are right. What HHDL states is very different from what you have presented, that anyone can become enlightened in one or two weeks.
The context in which HHDL is making this statement (and context sometimes matters!) is comparing the traditional Sutrayana view with the Tantrayana. What he is attempting to explain (although, evidently not clearly enough for every reader) is that people tend to look at their "shortcomings and inner weaknesses" as actual condintions of an actual "unenlightened" self, and employ various meditation methods in the same way one uses medicine to remove an illness, as a means to get rid of those conditions.
When he refers to the "true nature of the self", he means that the truth about what we ignorantly imagine to be a 'real' self isn't real at all. What he refers to as "the traditional sutra viewpoint" probably depends on the tradition, but he is describing the view that the defining characteristics of being uenlightened, the three poisons of anger, attachment, and ignorance, are traditionally seen as characteristics which must be systematically removed, so that an enlightened mind can be gradually developed.
In contrast, the view of Tantra (vajrayana) is that one merely needs to recognize that the kleshas (anger, attachment, and ignorance) are empty of any intrinsic reality, that this reveals the fact that the 'self' is also empty of any intrinsic reality. The inference is that once this fundamental truth is realized (experienced, not just intellectualized) the path to enlightenment becomes much shorter.
In other words, one point of view is that we are NOT already enlightened, but originally afflicted with the kleshas (anger, attachment, and ignorance) and need practice meditation to become enlightened, and the other point of view is that we ARE already enlightened, but becaue we don't see the kleshas as empty of intrinsic reality, we simply don't realize it. So, the methods appropriate to each approach are different.
The next paragraph goes on to discuss visualization practice. But HHDL is presenting these two points of view ahead of time so that the reader doesn't jump to conclusions. Personally, I think the two approaches are just different ways of going about essentially saying the same thing, because the kleshas are essentially what describes the deluded, unenlightened mind. What HHDL is suggesting is that if one regards the kleshas as 'real' the process of becoming enlightened will take much longer. I don't think this suggestion contradicts what the Buddha taught.
If Buddha said that a person can become enlightened in a week or two, and that is what is being presented, then I am going to give the presenter the benefit of the doubt and assume he or she is speaking from personal experience!!
That's ridiculous....example - I could talk enthusiastically about top of the range swimming and say that a respected swimming instructor says one can become a swimmer in a week or two. However if you then assumed I was a competent swimmer myself and speaking from personal experience, then you'd be wrong.
:peace:
If everybody involved was a devoted swimmer and at least two weeks had gone by, then I might still make that assumption, perhaps wrongly.
Stuka originally asked, "So, where is HHDL getting this "many lifetimes" business from...?" and I'll admit, I did not specifically address that question. I'm not defending that as a valid notion, nor am I implying that it is an idea that can be found in the Pali sources. Nonetheless, that idea persists and HHDL was addressing that idea in the context of preparing an explanation of tantrayana practice.
srivijaya
23 May 11, 14:52
So, the methods appropriate to each approach are different.
A pretty good summary.
If everybody involved was a devoted swimmer and at least two weeks had gone by, then I might still make that assumption, perhaps wrongly.
Getting back to the original point I was trying to make, the main purpose of having debate/discussion in the forums on the website is to discuss different points of view, rather than comment on the posters presenting those views.
OK, sorry for the interruption guys - back to topic ! ;D
Getting back to the original point I was trying to make, the main purpose of having debate/discussion in the forums on the website is to discuss different points of view, rather than comment on the posters presenting those views.
OK, sorry for the interruption guys - back to topic ! ;D
Hi Aloka-D,
I have only been here for a cup of tea, but it is quite apparent that Mahayana views are decidedly not welcomed here. I don't mean that to be nasty or anything, but it certainly seems that if a view can't be backed up by a quote from the Pali Canon, it will be crushed out. It's no biggie, really. Just a newcomers observation.
In the spirit of that idea, HDDL might have gotten the idea of past lives from somewhere like this:
Through the round of many births I roamed
without reward,
without rest,
seeking the house-builder.
Painful is birth
again & again.
It's from the Dhammapada (http://http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.11.than.html#dhp-153) :P
Good luck and thanks for practicing,
Keith
Hi Aloka-D,
I have only been here for a cup of tea, but it is quite apparent that Mahayana views are decidedly not welcomed here. I don't mean that to be nasty or anything, but it certainly seems that if a view can't be backed up by a quote from the Pali Canon, it will be crushed out. It's no biggie, really. Just a newcomers observation.
In the spirit of that idea, HDDL might have gotten the idea of past lives from somewhere like this:
It's from the Dhammapada (http://http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.11.than.html#dhp-153) :P
Good luck and thanks for practicing,
Keith
Not at all friend, everyone is welcome :)
We have a section for Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners :)
Not at all friend, everyone is welcome :)
We have a section for Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioners :)
I know..we are in it! :biglol:
I know..we are in it! :biglol:
So Mahayana views are more than welcome here :)
Back to topic
Hi Kris!
He is relating the standard Mahayana position regarding sutra and tantra. It comes down to how the 'liberation of a hearer' is contrasted with the 'enlightenment of a Buddha'.
Can you elaborate more about this? Is between them an important difference?
To gain the state of full Buddhahood would require many lifetimes of practice on the path of sutra
Why is this?
Are you guessing that following what the Buddha told in the Pali is not enough in a single lifetime?
Then, there should be rebirth, several of them... in each one some kind of "information" or skill should be kept in order to reach the state of Buddhahood after several rebirths? Aren't this skills a kind of "self"? That has gained experience so to, after a few lifetimes, reach enlightenment?
but is possible within one lifetime with the practice of Vajrayana.
So, how those this happens? If we do not practice with the Vajrayana tradition, we shall wait for many rebirths so to reach one day the a Vajrayana teacher and become a Buddha? Is this what the Buddhadhamma is about???
I am lost here... :(
That's ridiculous....example - I could talk enthusiastically about top of the range swimming and say that a respected swimming instructor says one can become a swimmer in a week or two. However if you then assumed I was a competent swimmer myself and speaking from personal experience, then you'd be wrong.
:peace:
Well, that settles it then. the only thing left to do now is to have a race. :rolling:
Hi Aloka-D,
I have only been here for a cup of tea, but it is quite apparent that Mahayana views are decidedly not welcomed here. I don't mean that to be nasty or anything, but it certainly seems that if a view can't be backed up by a quote from the Pali Canon, it will be crushed out. It's no biggie, really. Just a newcomers observation
Hi Keith,
Mahayana practitoners are very welcome here. I don't see gangs of members on the different forums telling them that they're not!
Its a group for all traditions, so people are likely to express different approaches to the Dhamma/Dharma, wheras the group you came from is entirely Mahayana.
This website also isn't run like the old E-sangha either, which I think is for the benefit of everyone.
We do have a report posts button however, and a complaints procedure which can be found in the Code of Conduct. The BWB team can also be contacted by PM.
I sincerely hope that you can feel more at ease with us in time....so why not relax a little and have another cup of tea?
Lets return to the main topic of the thread now, which is 'Tantra and the Buddha.'
With kind wishes,
A-D
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/dazz/cup_smilie.png
srivijaya
24 May 11, 08:39
Are you guessing that following what the Buddha told in the Pali is not enough in a single lifetime?
Hi Kaarine,
No, that's not the case. The distinction lies in the motivation of the individual (amongst other things). There are two categories of liberation. The first is entry into Nirvana, the path of a hearer. This can be accomplished in one lifetime.
The second is the path of the Boddhisattva who renounces entry into Nirvana in order to perfect the path to full omniscience for the benefit of all migrators as it is said that once a hearer passes into Nirvana he can be of no further benefit to samsaric beings.
Some info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva
So, how those this happens? If we do not practice with the Vajrayana tradition, we shall wait for many rebirths so to reach one day the a Vajrayana teacher and become a Buddha? Is this what the Buddhadhamma is about???
No, not at all. There is absolutely no need to practice tantra - even from a Mahayanist POV. All paths are fine, even that of a hearer.
Vajrayana offers different means, that's all.
:hands:
On that note, as the OP, having seen this topic run beyond its lifespan and sphere, may I request the venerable Mods/Admin for their kind assistance to have this thread closed. Thank you.
Dear friends.
Please read my new post about this forum in the Announcements section at the top of the forums page.
Thank you. Thread closed.
:hands:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.