Tantric Techniques (76 page)

Others say that the mode of procedure in the deity yogas of the four tantra sets are for persons holding the views of the four schools of Buddhist tenets. Bu-tön disapproves of this tradition, as does his predecessor Sö-nam-tzay-mo
a
of the Sa-kya sect, whose exposition appears to have been the basis for Bu-tön’s elaboration. Sö-nam- tzay-mo shows his disapproval merely by reporting that this tradition
claimed
to be following N
ā
g
ā
rjuna, but Bu-tön makes his disapproval clearer, “Tibetan lamas have said this, but I have not seen a source for it.” The Druk-pa Ka-gyu master Padmakar-po is even more explicit:
b

Some Tibetan teachers have explained that [the tantras] are differentiated into four types based on accommodations to [four types of non-Buddhist] Forders
c
or based on four schools of Buddhist tenets. Since the sources that they cite do not appear in any texts, these explanations are only their own thoughts.

Let us state the assertion as reported in Sö-nam-tzay-mo’s
d
and Bu-tön’s
e
expositions together with Tsong-kha-pa’s reasoned refutation of it; the latter’s usage of explicitly delineated reasoning again shifts the emphasis from the presence or absence of sources to whether or not the presentation reasonably fits into a larger

a
bsod nams rtse mo,
1142-1182.

b
Presentation of the General Tantra Sets: Captivating the Wise
(
rgyud sde spyi’i rnam gzhag mkhas pa’i yid ’phrog
), Collected Works, vol. 11 (Darjeeling: Kargyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang, 1974), 16a.5.

c
mu stegs pa, t
ī
rthika.

d
Presentation of the General Tantra Sets
(
rgyud sde spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa
) (Gangtok, ’Bras-ljongs-sa-ngor-chos-tshogs, 1969), 30b.4-31b.5.

e
Condensed
version, 89b.6ff. Bu-tön does not give this particular presentation in his
Extensive
version.

Bu-tön and Tsong-kha-pa: The Four Tantra Sets
325

schematization of the path. About Action Tantra trainees, this tradition says:

Just as V
ā
ts
ī
putr
ī
yas and Aparantaka-Vaibh
āṣ
hikas assert truly existent external objects and an inexpressible self, so the rites of deity generation in Action Tantras involve lay-ing out a painting of a deity in front of oneself, arranging offerings, bathing, observing cleanliness, inviting a wisdom being [an actual deity] in front of oneself—corresponding to an external object—placing the mantra in the deity’s heart, and engaging in repetition within the context of viewing the deity as like a master and oneself as a servant. Just as these schools assert an inexpressible self, so the wisdom-being is neither the painting nor oneself.

As Tsong-kha-pa points out, the assumption that Action Tantras do not involve imagination of oneself as a deity but call only for meditation on a deity in front indeed has what appears to be a most reliable source, for it is based on the
Wisdom Vajra Compendium,
an explanatory Tantra of the Guhyasam
ā
ja cycle which, in paraphrase, says,
a
“One who practices without the excellent bliss of a wisdom-being and without pride in oneself as a deity abides in Action Tan-tra.” Tsong-kha-pa has a problem because although he can criticize scholars who present this same opinion, he cannot disagree with a statement in a bona fide tantra; thus, he must explain it away. Also, since Tsong-kha-pa holds that imagination of oneself as a deity is the central distinguishing feature of Tantra, he
must
find it somewhere in Action Tantra, and, indeed, as we saw above in chapter eleven, he presents an elaborate and cogent argument that such does occur in Action Tantra. Attempting to resolve the problem, Tsong-kha-pa holds that the statement in the
Wisdom Vajra Compendium
refers only to the lowest trainees of Action Tantras, who are frightened by meditating on themselves as a deity, and hence does not refer to the
main
trainees of Action Tantra who, despite being a minority within Action Tantra trainees, are fully capable of practicing self-generation. He has no source from the
Wisdom Vajra Compendium
for this apologetic; reasoned analysis alone is the arbiter that allows a re-reading of the tantra.

Tsong-kha-pa does not bother to mention what, in the face of

a
Cited also on 303 and 309 above.

326
Tantric Techniques

the fact that he and all other Tibetan scholars consider the tantric systems to be Great Vehicle in terms of the view of emptiness, is the most absurd aspect of this tradition—that is, that there could be a harmony of view on the nature of phenomena between a Tantric system and Lesser Vehicle tenet system such as V
ā
ts
ī
putr
ī
ya or Aparantaka-Vaibh
āṣ
hika.
a

About Performance Tantra trainees, this tradition similarly posits a correspondence with a Lesser Vehicle school:

Performance Tantras involving generation of oneself as a pledge-being and generation of a deity in front as a wis-dom-being were taught for Kashmiri Vaibh
āṣ
hikas and Sautr
ā
ntikas. Repetition is performed within the context of viewing the deity (the wisdom-being in front) and oneself (the pledge-being) as companions. This is similar to these schools’ assertion of ultimately existent subject and object.

As before, in the perspective of the developed tradition, the Mantra Vehicle is part of the Great Vehicle from the viewpoints both of tenet and of path, and since emptiness yoga is an integral part of deity generation, adherents of Lesser Vehicle tenets, who assert ultimately established subject and object that are different entities, are not the intended trainees of any tantra.

About Yoga Tantra, this tradition makes what perhaps is its most untutored comparison:

Yoga Tantras involving generation of oneself as a pledge-being and then causing the wisdom-being to enter oneself were taught for Solitary Realizers. This rite of deity generation is similar to Solitary Realizers’ assertion of conventionally existent object and subject.

Since all four schools of tenets—Great Exposition, S
ū
tra, Mind-Only, and Middle Way schools—present the path of Solitary Realizers, “Solitary Realizer” itself is not a school of tenets. As Tsong-kha-pa says:
b

Even [if one mistakenly imagined] a relation between

a
This tradition is likely just a fanciful creation by gurus or lamas untrained in philosophical systems but intent on pretending erudition by drawing parallels. Though it may stem from a time in the history of Tantra when trainees also came from Lesser Vehicle schools, the detail is crafted to make a pretense of scholarship.
b
Tantra in Tibet,
155.

Bu-tön and Tsong-kha-pa: The Four Tantra Sets
327

Solitary Realizers and the rites of generation in Yoga Tan-tra, Solitary Realizers are not a division of the four schools of tenets.

Tsong-kha-pa’s straightforward, understated refutation masks a huge guffaw.

About Highest Yoga Tantra the tradition says:

Highest Yoga Tantras were taught for the Great Vehicle Proponents of Mind-Only and Proponents of the Middle Way School who assert that neither subject nor object ultimately exists but exists only conventionally. These tantras involve generation of oneself as a pledge-being and the en-try of a wisdom-being, corresponding to their assertion of subject and object conventionally, but do not involve requesting the deity to leave, corresponding to not asserting either subject or object ultimately.

The correspondence is so superficially facile that it suggests that the main purpose of the tradition is to subsume the four Indian schools of tenets under tantra. Most likely, the tradition stems from teachers who knew little of the four schools of tenets but wanted to affect knowledge of them.