Tantric Techniques (74 page)

a
spyod bsdus sgron ma, cary
ā
mel
ā
pakaprad
ī
pa;
P2668, vol. 61. Ke-drup is suggesting that Buddhaguhya would have known of
Ā
ryadeva’s remark.

b
Deity Yoga,
51-52.

c
Deity Yoga,
52.

312
Tantric Techniques

If the
Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi
and the
Vajrap
āṇ
i Initiation
are not considered to be Performance Tantras, it would be impossible to find one.

Thus, for Tsong-kha-pa, from the viewpoint of the tantras themselves these are Performance Tantras, not Action Tantras, whereas for Buddhaguhya the
Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi
and the
Vajrap
āṇ
i Initiation
could be Action Tantras depending on the practitioner.

We need to notice that:

Since neither the
Vajro
ṣ
h
ṇīṣ
ha Tantra
nor the
Vajravi
ḍā
ra
ṇ
a Tan-tra
were translated into Tibetan, that these have passages detailing self-generation is known only from Buddhaguhya’s commentary on the
Concentration Continuation Tantra
and commentary on the
Vajravi
ḍā
ra
ṇ
a Tantra.
a
Specifically, since the
Concentration Continuation
(Tsong-kha-pa’s source for the mode of meditation in Action Tantra) itself does not clearly explain deity yoga, only saying, “Flow to the bases, mind, and sound,” Buddhaguhya,
b
relying on the
Vajro
ṣ
h
ṇīṣ
ha Tantra
, explains “bases” as twofold—the deity generated in front and oneself generated as a deity, these being the bases of mantra letters that are set on a moon disc at the heart. Then, when the
Concentration Continuation
says, “Meditate with the mantra minds,” Buddhaguhya explains “mantra minds” as the six deities—the six steps involved in self-generation—based on the
Vajravi
ḍā
- ra
ṇ
a Tantra.

Hence, the two references to self-generation in the
Concentration Continuation,
Buddhaguhya’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s prime source for the meditative procedure of Action Tantra, are so unclear that outside explanations must be sought. Buddhaguhya’s justification for this is that the
Concentration Continuation
is “related” with the
Vajro
ṣ
h
ṇīṣ
ha Tantra,
this being taken as meaning that it is a continuation of the
Vajro
ṣ
h
ṇīṣ
ha Tantra
itself or an explanation of its further practice.

Since it appears that no one challenges that the
Vajro
ṣ
h
ṇīṣ
ha

a
For the citations, see
Deity Yoga,
55 and 109. The Translation of the Treatises (
bstan ’gyur
) contains Buddhaguhya’s commentary to the
Vid
ā
ra
ṇā
dh
ā
ra
ṇī
,
titled
Extensive Commentary on the Vajravid
ā
ra
ṇī
Retention: Precious Illumination
(
rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa shes bya ba’i gzungs kyi rgya cher ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba, vajravid
ā
ra
ṇā
- n
ā
madh
ā
ra
ṇīṭī
k
ā
ratn
ā
bh
ā
svar
ā
;
P3504, vol. 78).

b
Cited in ibid., 55.

Controversy over Deity Yoga in Action Tantra
313

Tantra
and the
Vajravi
ḍā
ra
ṇ
a Tantra
existed in India, Tsong-kha- pa and Ke-drup emphasize merely that these are accepted as Action Tantras.

That the reference to “bases” in the
Concentration Continuation
includes a reference to self-generation is also linguistically supported through a comparison with a similar usage of terminology in the
Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi,
a Performance Tantra:
a

“Base” is to imagine one’s own body As that of one’s deity.

That called the second base

Is a perfect Buddha [imagined

In front], the best of the two-legged.

As Tsong-kha-pa suggests, one would have to come up with a difference between the usages of the “base” in the two passages to say that the one does and the other does not include a reference to self-generation.

The rest of Ke-drup’s reformulation of Tsong-kha-pa’s argument can be summarized as nine contradictions in the assertion that Action Tantra and Performance Tantra do not involve self-generation:

1. Contradiction with scripture: To assert that Performance Tantras have no self-generation manifestly contradicts the presentation of such in the
   Vairochan
   ā
   bhisambodhi,
   given just above.
   

2. Contradiction with scripture and authoritative exegesis: To as-sert that Action Tantra has no self-generation contradicts the clear explanation of meditation by way of six deities in the
   Vajravi
   ḍā
   ra
   ṇ
   a Tantra
   and the mode of cultivating concentration by way of the four branches of approximation and achievement—one of the branches being the self-base—in
   Vajro
   ṣ
   h
   ṇīṣ
   ha Tantra
   and the explanations by both Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi that these are set forth in most Action Tantras in an unclear way.
   

3. Contradiction with a linguistic parallel: If the “base” mentioned in the
   Concentration Continuation
   cannot be taken as meditating on oneself as a deity, then the same would have to be said about the passage from the Performance Tantra, the
   Vairochan
   ā
   bhisambodhi,
   quoted above. Since the opposing scholars would
   

   

   a
   Deity Yoga,
   56.
   

   314
   Tantric Techniques
   

   

   then be forced into the position of asserting that Performance Tantra does not have deity yoga, this would contradict their assertion that it does.
   

4. Contradiction with an authoritative, scripturally based explanation of the procedure of the path: The master Varabodhi explains in his
   Clear Realization of Susiddhi
   a
   that if the pride of ordinariness is not reversed through meditating on oneself as a deity and if one does not meditate on the emptiness which is the final status of all phenomena, one will not achieve any of the feats of pacification and so forth. Also, the
   Vajrap
   āṇ
   i Initiation
   (a Performance Tantra) makes exactly this point. Hence, if there is no self-generation in Action Tantra, there would absurdly be no achievement of feats in dependence on it.
   

5. Contradiction with a wide tradition: Most descriptions of Means of Achievement for Action Tantra such as those composed by N
   ā
   g
   ā
   rjuna, Asa
   ṅ
   ga, Lak
   ṣ
   hmi, Ratn
   ā
   karash
   ā
   nti, and Jet
   ā
   ri as well as those in collections of Means of Achievement speak of self-generation and so forth. To say that Action Tantra does not have self-generation would contradict all of these.
   b
   

6. Contradiction with one’s own practice when giving initiation: In the process of initiation both master and student must imagine themselves as deities, and also the wisdom-being (the ac-tual deity) must enter the student imagined as a deity. Thus, even initiation would be impossible in Action Tantra if there were no self-generation. This would manifestly contradict the opposing scholars’ own presentation of the master’s and student’s self-generation, the placing of deities at important places in the body and so forth, in the initiation rites of the five guards and the like.
   

7. Contradiction with critical analysis of the difference between the Perfection and Mantra vehicles: If Action Tantra had no
   

   

   a
   Also called
   Means of Achievement of Susiddhi.
   

   b
   Tsong-kha-pa (
   Deity Yoga,
   58) admits that “the
   Ocean of Means of Achievement
   and so forth frequently treat rites of generation and so on for deities explained in Ac-tion and Performance Tantras like Highest Yoga,” but says that this is merely “in consideration of the similarity of the deities, such as M
   ā
   r
   ī
   chi, and their mantras, that are described in both Action and Highest Yoga Tantras.” Ke-drup, however, is speaking here about instances in those texts where actual Action Tantra rites are set forth, and since they speak of self-generation and so on, anyone who held that Action Tantra does not involve such would contradict these texts.
   

   Controversy over Deity Yoga in Action Tantra
   315
   

   

   self-generation, it would not have the full complement of the means for positing the Secret Mantra Great Vehicle as superior to the Perfection Great Vehicle, this being that it has a cause of similar type for a Buddha’s form body—deity yoga.
   

8. Contradiction with the universally accepted description of Mantra as taking the effect as the path: Action Tantra would not have the full complement of making the effect (Buddhahood) into the path because it would not involve meditation at present (while still on the path) in an aspect similar to the four marvels of the effect state—abode, body, resources, and deeds.
   

9. Contradiction with accepted statements in Highest Yoga Man-tra about the difference between the tantra sets: Action Tantra would not have the full complement of using desire in the path because whereas the
   Hevajra Tantra
   and the
   Sa
   ṃ
   pu
   ṭ
   a
   —in the context of associating four types of desire with the four tantra sets—speak of Action Tantras as using the mutual gazing of the male and female
   deities
   in the path, Action Tantra would not do so, since meditation on oneself as a deity would be unsuitable.
   

The evidence presented in this carefully framed argument requires that the statement in the
Wisdom Vajra Compendium Tantra
that in Action Tantra there is no pride of being a deity must be explained away. Ke-drup says:

With respect to the meaning of the passage in the
Wisdom Vajra Compendium,
it is not teaching that “In Action Tantra there is no meditation on oneself as a deity and no entry of a wisdom-being into that [deity].” Rather, it is indicating that in Action Tantra there is a mode of worshipping a deity in front [of oneself ] and receiving a feat [from that deity] without meditating on oneself as a deity and without mak-ing the wisdom-being enter oneself. For the
secondary
trainees of Action Tantra—those of dull faculties, a type whose minds cannot accommodate meditation of oneself as a dei-ty—a system of receiving feats upon meditating on a deity in front, without meditating on oneself as a deity, is described. [However,] whoever is a
specially intended
trainee of Action Tantra is necessarily someone for whom cultivation of self-generation was taught. It is as the master Buddhaguhya explains it.

This explanation implies that since the
majority
of trainees of

316
Tantric Techniques

Action Tantra are not able to practice deity yoga, they are not its
chief
trainees
a
or its
specially intended
trainees
b
but its
secondary
trainees.
c
As Tsong-kha-pa explicitly says:
d

Because such trainees are predominant in both Action and Performance, deity yoga is not manifest in them, and even those tantras that have it are not extensive. Nevertheless, the
chief
trainees of Action and Performance Tantras are not those who either do not like or are not able to cultivate one-pointedly a deity yoga by way of restraining vitality and exertion [breath and distraction], and so forth.

That the chief trainees are in the minority is the reason why so few Action Tantras clearly speak of self-generation. (That the chief trainees of a tantra set could be in the minority of trainees of that same tantra set is the bitter pill that has to be swallowed to maintain the point that Action Tantra, as a set, does indeed call for self-generation.)

Having shown that Action Tantra involves self-generation, Ke-drup considers briefly the remaining question of whether (1) entry of the wisdom-being (the actual deity) into oneself imagined as a deity and (2) visualizing the lineage lord at the top of one’s head, called impression with the seal of the lineage lord, are suitable in Action and Performance Tantras. The qualm revolves around the undisputed fact that Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi do not mention these, but Ke-drup explains that the mere absence of description by those two masters does not mean that these are not to be done and thus cannot serve as a proof that it is not suitable to do them. He says that since entry of a wisdom-being and seal-impression are branches making the yoga more wonderful (that is, powerful), they do not have to be done but could be done.