Tantric Techniques (2 page)

Part Three is concerned with Bu-tön’s presentation of nine traditional ways of dividing the tantras into four groups—Action, Performance, Yoga, and Highest Yoga
a
—and Tsong-kha-pa’s critical acceptance of only two of them. In conclusion I make the suggestion that these grids for organizing tantras in classes are self-aggrandizing and to a large extent obscure the psychological techniques employed to effect a transmutation of mind and body.

The issues at the heart of the exposition are: Is the progression from S
ū
tra-style meditation to Tantric meditation necessarily a smooth transition? Does deity yoga have safeguards against psychologically ruinous inflation? How are afflictive emotions
b
used in the path? Is Tantra for higher or lower types of practitioners?

a
bya ba, kriy
ā
; spyod pa, cary
ā
; rnal ’byor, yoga; rnal ’byor bla med, anuttarayoga.

b
nyon mongs
,
kle
ś
a
.

Part One:

The Procedure of Deity Yoga

1. The S
ū
tra Mode of Meditation

Meditation on emptiness, discussed most vividly in S
ū
tra systems, is a powerful technique for transforming the ideational structures that underlie afflictive emotions, and, as such, it is said to be the very life of the tantric meditation of imagining oneself to be a deity, an ideal being. Therefore, both to communicate the importance of this facet of S
ū
tra meditation and to prepare the groundwork for an appreciation of tantric deity yoga, I will consider the S
ū
tra model of meditation on selflessness and subsequent reflection on appearances. To do this, I shall comment on the concise and lucid explanation of the perfection of wisdom in the Fifth Dalai Lama’s
Sacred Word of Mañjushr
ī
.
a

The Fifth Dalai Lama presents the process of cultivating the perfection of wisdom in two parts: “the practice of the selflessness of persons and the practice of the selflessness of [other] phenomena.”
b
He frames both practices around four essential steps:

1. ascertaining what is being negated
   

   

   a
   ’jam dpal zhal lung
   . Ngawang-lo-sang-gya-tso (
   ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho
   , 1617-1682), Fifth Dalai Lama,
   Instruction on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Sacred Word of Mañjushr
   ī
   (
   byang chub lam gyi rim pa’i khrid yig ’jam pa’i dbyangs kyi zhal lung
   ) (Thimphu: kun-bzang-stobs-rgyal, 1976), 182.5-210.6. For an English translation, see Jeffrey Hopkins, “Practice of Emptiness” (Dharmsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1974).
   

   Though not cited, Tsong-kha-pa’s five main texts on the S
   ū
   tra realization of emptiness form the background of the discussion. In order of composition these are his
   Great Exposition of the Stages of the Path
   (
   lam rim chen mo
   ),
   The Essence of Eloquence
   (
   legs bshad snying po
   ),
   Explanation of (N
   ā
   g
   ā
   rjuna’s) “Treatise on the Middle”: Ocean of Reasoning
   (
   dbu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa shes rab ces bya ba’i rnam bshad rigs pa’i rgya mtsho
   ),
   Medium-Length Exposition of the Stages of the Path
   (
   lam rim ’bring
   ), and
   Extensive Explanation of (Chandrak
   ī
   rti’s) “Supplement to (N
   ā
   g
   ā
   rjuna’s) ‘Treatise on the Middle’”: Illumination of the Thought
   (
   dbu ma la ’jug pa’i rgya cher bshad pa dgongs pa rab gsal
   ).
   

   b
   An earlier form of this exposition of emptiness yoga, without the Fifth Dalai’s text, appeared as chapter four in my introduction to Tenzin Gyatso and Jeffrey Hopkins,
   The K
   ā
   lachakra Tantra: Rite of Initiation for the Generation Stage
   (London: Wisdom Publications, 1985).
   

   14
   Tantric Techniques
   

   

2. ascertaining the entailment of emptiness
   

3. ascertaining that the object designated and its basis of designation are not inherently one
   

4. ascertaining that the object designated and its basis of designation are not inherently different.
   

First essential: ascertaining what is being negated

With respect to the selflessness of a person, specifically of oneself, the first step is to identify the way we innately misconceive the “I” to exist inherently. As the Fifth Dalai Lama says:

If both the self [that is the validly existent person] and [the self that is] the nonexistent object of negation are not intimately identified, it is like dispatching an army without knowing where the enemy is or like shooting an arrow without having sought out the target.

If we do not have a fairly clear sense of an inherently existent “I,” we will mistake the refutation as negating the “I” itself rather than a specific reification of the “I.” Sh
ā
ntideva’s
Engaging in the Bodhisattva Deeds
says:
a

Without contacting the superimposed existent, Its nonexistence cannot be apprehended.

If an image of the object of negation does not appear well to the mind, the meaning of the selflessness that negates it cannot be ascertained.

In what represents a shift of emphasis from Indian Buddhism and earlier forms of Tibetan Buddhism, the Ge-luk-pa school makes a
clear
differentiation between the existent self and the nonexistent self as it is posited in each of the four major Buddhist schools of tenets—Great Exposition School, S
ū
tra School, Mind-Only School, and Middle Way School.
b
The earlier lack of central emphasis on explicit identification of an existent self or person may have led to difficulties in the positing of moral responsibility, and thus a new approach of emphasizing the positing of an existent self emerged. The resolution comes through assuming a dual meaning to the term

a
byang chub sems dpa’i spyod pa la ’jug pa, bodhisattvacary
ā
vat
ā
ra,
IX.140.

b
bye brag smra ba, vaibh
āṣ
ika; mdo sde pa, sautr
ā
ntika; sems tsam pa, cittam
ā
tra; dbu ma pa, m
ā
dhyamika.

S
ū
tra Mode of Meditation
15

“self ”—the first, existent one is the person or “I” and the second, nonexistent one is a reification, an exaggeration, of the ontological status of any object, the reification here being inherent existence.
a
As the Fifth Dalai Lama says:

Therefore, [when a selflessness of persons is presented, the word] “persons” refers to [nominally and validly existent] persons, that is, common beings, Superiors, and so forth within the six types of transmigrators [hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, demigods, and gods] and the three vehicles [Hearer,
b
Solitary Realizer,
c
and Bodhisattva
d
]. The person’s mode of abiding as if able to establish it-self from its own side without being mentally imputed is called “self ” or “inherent existence.”

This distinction is upheld through the observation that when the “I” is apprehended, there are basically three possibilities with respect to how it is being conceived in relation to the other meaning of “self,” inherent existence:

1. One may be conceiving the “I” to be inherently existent.
   

2. Or, if one has understood the view of the Middle Way School, one may conceive the “I” as only being nominally existent.
   

3. Or, whether one has understood the view of the Middle Way School or not, one may conceive the “I” without qualifying it with either inherent existence or an absence of inherent existence.
   

   In this vein, the Fifth Dalai Lama says:
   

   Furthermore, consciousnesses innately apprehending “I”— which conceive an “I,” or self, based on the [nominally existent] person—are of three types:
   

   1. A conceptual consciousness [correctly] apprehending “I” that exists in a person who has generated the Mid-dle Way view in his/her mental continuum. This consciousness [correctly] apprehends “I” taken to be qualified as being only designated in the context of its basis
      

      

      a
      rang bzhin gyis yod pa
      ,
      svabh
      ā
      vasat
      .
      

      b
      nyan thos,
      ś
      r
      ā
      vaka
      .
      

      c
      rang rgyal, pratyekabuddha
      .
      

      d
      byang chub sems dpa’.
      

      16
      Tantric Techniques
      

      

      of designation [mind and body].
      

   2. An actual innate [consciousness mis]apprehending “I” taken to be qualified as being inherently existent. It is to be overcome through its antidote here on this occasion [of the path of wisdom].
      

   3. A conventional validly cognizing consciousness that establishes [the existence of ] “I.” This consciousness ex-ists [for example] in the continuums of those common beings whose mental continuums have not been affected by systems of tenets and who thus do not differentiate between nominal imputation and inherent existence. In this case, the “I” is not taken to be qualified as being either nominally imputed or inherently existent.
      

Though uneducated common beings do not
propound
either inherent existence or nominal imputation, the “I” appears to them to be inherently existent, and because they sometimes assent to that appearance—though without reasoning—they also have a conception of an inherently existent “I.” Also, they, like all other beings, even including those who have been educated in wrong systems of te-nets, have consciousnesses that do not engage in conceptions of inherent existence, such as when just conceiving of themselves without any particular attention. Therefore, it is not that all consciousnesses conceiving “I” in the continuum of a falsely educated person are wrong or that all consciousnesses conceiving “I” in the continuum of uneducated persons are right. Rather, both the uneducated and the falsely educated have the misconception of an inherently existent “I” as well as consciousnesses conceiving an “I” that is not qualified by being either nominally imputed or inherently existent.