A summary of existing research
Reconciling practice and doctrine
Statements about
non-Tantric Buddhism
Canonicity and non-Buddhist religions
Buddhism underpinning efficacy
Eliade: coincidentia oppositorum
BuddhistBuddhist Tantrism[1]
draws its theology mostly from non-Tantric Buddhism, and its practices from
broader Tantric activity. This has led to conflicts: Tantric practices
contravened the injunctions of the PaliPāli canon and of Mahāyāna tradition. Here, I
outline some of the strategies which the authors of BuddhistBuddhist TantraTantras used to overcome
this divergence, and more widely to justify Tantric practices.
The size of the Tantric literature makes an
exhaustive study impossible. Most of the examples here are taken from the HevajraHevajra
tantraTantra,
the Guhyasamāaja
tantraTantra,
the vajrabhairavaVajrabhairava tantraTantra and the MVTMahāvairocanābhisaübodhi Tantra,
and their commentaries as appropriate. A thorough study of this limited corpus
has enabled me to assess the relative importance of the various strategies of
legitimation, and how the portfolio of strategies varies according to time,
school, and situation. I have also included examples from other Tantric texts,
taken either from the secondary literature, or from non-exhaustive readings of
the texts themselves. These sources illustrate a wider range of techniques, but
the price is that I cannot assess the importance of each technique.
I ask what these strategies of legitimation can
tell us about Tantric buddism and its environment. -audience, aims, knowledge
of Buddhist corpus. I also consider the
relations of my analysis with a wider literature discussing the intellectual
history of religion: how do Vajrayāna strategies of legitimation differ from
those used in other religions, and what do these differences tell us about the
nature and context of Tantric Buddhism? I conclude with a summary of my
findings, and an exploration of their implications for future research.
[outline order of the essay. Glossary for terms]
Some work on syncretism and conflict in Indian religions is relevant
to the topic at handTantric.
There has been considerable examination of
the historical development of Indian religion, and of borrowings between
traditions. Some of these have a bearing on the history of tantrismTantrism, such as the work
of Jean Przyluski [1950] on the development of goddess cults under the
influence of local and pre-Aryan religion, and the work of Bolle [1971:22-38] on the influence of pre-Aryan culture on various later traditions[2], and notes[1971:27-34] on the persistence within several traditions
of 'yakųas'[3],Tantric. However, even when these
studies have a bearing on the history of tantrismTantrism, they rarely give
much attention to the techniques used to legitimise it.
. However, Bethia Beadman [2003] has
recently analysed strategies of conflict resolution in Indian religions. She
finds three methods by which conflicts are resolved: individualism,
internalisation, and a dissolution of duality. Of these, the dissolution of
duality is the most prevalent in Vajrayāna texts, and will be discussed as part
of the strategy of reversal. Her other two concepts are, in Tantric Buddhism,
mostly approached by means of symbolism. They are quite commonly used tactics
in commentaries which are embarrassed by the transgressive rituals of their
root text, and so find an internalised meaning for them.
I also make some use of the work of Mircea Eliade [1985; see also Phillips,
1986]. Eliade is concerned with the comparative study of religion worldwide.
However, much of his work concerns India, and his theories are intended to be
universally applicable. In particular, I adopt his idea of the 'coincidentia
oppositorum', an mystical experience arising from awareness of the unity of
contradictory ideas. This provides a partial explanation for those texts which
highlight their contradictions with orthodoxy, rather than trying to explain
them away. David McMahon [1998] has also written on strategies of legitimation
in Mahāyāna Buddhism. However, he is mostly concerned with the transition from
oral to written texts, a shift which was less important to Tantric Buddhism,
since it had already taken place[4].
Studies of tantrismTantrism itself have
suffered from major impediments. Many key texts were not readily available, let
alone edited or translated. Moreover those which have been available are
frequently cryptic, since they assume that a guru will be available to
elucidate the text. More seriously, some practices have disagreed with the
sensibilities of more conservative scholars. So, B. Faddegon considered that
'we may regard this ÷aktism as an epidemic and social neurosis; as such it is
not without significance for neurology' [quoted in Bolle, 1977: 3]. EJ Thomas
was similarly nervous about the sexual content: 'It [tantrismTantrism] consists in
giving a religious significance to the facts of sex. Such a development, at
least in a certain stage of society, is not necessarily immoral. Its
discussion, however, belongs to medical psychology' [quoted in Bolle, 1977: 3]. The result was a lack of attention given to
Tantric studies.
The literature frequently considers two
intertwined questions which have a bearing on strategies of legitimation,
namely the origin of Tantric Buddhism, and the extent to which it diverges from
other forms of Buddhism.
As for origin, D RueggsRuegg [1964] has considered
the ways in which Buddhism was influenced by 'le substrat religieux' (sp?), a basis of
common, pre-existing practices which also influenced Hinduism. The twoBoth are: 'religions qui ploangent leurs raciness dans le mme fonds commun et dont les divinites peuvent par consequent avoir des noms et des nombreux traits
communs' [1964:84]. He notes that incorporation of alien gods was already
taking place in the PaliPāli Canon, where the lLalitavistara
and the Ddivyāvadana
incorporate non-BuddhistBuddhist deities. He goes on to analyse the Mma¤ju÷rãmålakalpa and the Kkāraõķanjåha (sp?,), and considers the
significance of Tantric iconography which shows trampled Hindu gods.
Poussin (1898:174-5) considers that BuddhistBuddhist tantrismTantrism was tantrismTantrism first, and then
became Buddhism. Snellgrove [1987:117] concurs, writing that 'the conversion of
Tantric rituals to orthodox BuddhistBuddhist use', was 'dependent on other Indian
religious movements'.
This
issue of origin is connected with legitimation strategies insofar as it affects
the audience. If Tantrism came first, we would expect to see more effort
devoted to justifying the incorporation of BuddhistBuddhist ideas within tantrismTantrism. Conversely, if
Buddhism came first, we would expect an attempt to justify Tantric practices to
a BuddhistBuddhist audience. In
practice, it may be hard to distinguish these two aims in a text. A clear
example of the latter would be the Ssona÷ri
commentary to the Vvajramahābhairava
tantraTantra,
which appears aimed at orthodox BuddhistBuddhists. As Siklos [1996:19] writes,
"it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Buddhicising of the texts is
as much a priority as its exegesis". The same tendency to make orthodox
appears in other commentaries. The root texts tend to be more ambiguous, but
show more concern about justifying Buddhism to Ttantrists than they do about
justifying tantrismTantrism to BuddhistBuddhists. This is, then,
weak evidence in support of the idea that BuddhistBuddhist ideas were added
to an existing Tantric framework, and that the resulting BuddhistBuddhist tantraTantras were made less
disturbing to orthodox BuddhistBuddhists by commentators. [todo: should
this go in the conclusion?]
Turning to the question of which aspects of tantrismTantrism can be considered BuddhistBuddhist, several scholars
have attempted to draw a line between doctrine which is BuddhistBuddhist and practice which
is not. Bolle [1971:39] argues that tantrismTantrism should be thought of as a religious
movement in history, rather than as a doctrinal system - that is, not as a religion, but as an
approach to religion. Alexis Sanderson makes a similar distinction,
although he considers the specifically BuddhistBuddhist element to be not doctrine as a
whole, but, more narrowly,
soteriology and cosmology. By
this more precise definition, Sanderson allows for the contradiction between orthodox and Tantric
Buddhism in terms of ethics. He writes:Doctrines of ethics, needless to
say, were completely overturned in Tantric Buddhism.
'My view is that everything
concrete in this system is non-BuddhistBuddhist in origin, that everything abstract
is of BuddhistBuddhist origin, and that
the whole is so constructed and encoded that is [sic] nonetheless entirely BuddhistBuddhist in its function,
even though the scope of what Buddhism can be expected to achieve for an
individual haahs
been extended in certain respects' [Sanderson, 1994:7]
"[Tantrism is] distinguishable from the rest
of Buddhism principally by its ritual character, only secondarily by
soteriological doctrine, and hardly at all by specific theories of ultimate
reality". [Sanderson, 1994:2]
This analysis is broadly supported by the
texts I have examined. However, it is not a complete explanation. The fact that aspects of early Buddhism have been incorporated
into Vajrayāna does not necessarily show their similarity. In many cases it
shows the opposite - the incorporation of elements of a rival school is a way
of showing its inferiority. Moreover, dDoctrine and practice are not two separate
spheres. Tantric rituals may involve sexual intercourse, the consumption or
sacrifice of human flesh, animal flesh [e.g. VMT:29],
and urine, or murder, in direct contravention of the doctrines laid out in the pāliPāli canon. Conversely,
practice is justified by its doctrinal content. Many rituals are intricate
blends of BuddhistBuddhist ideas and images,
with an aim such as perceiving the self as a Buddha.
Crucially, Tantric practices are often in
direct contravention of earlier BuddhistBuddhist doctrine. Consider how a Hhãnayāana BuddhistBuddhist would react to the
practices required by the YRMYogaratnamāla:
Food and drink should be had as
it comes and not be rejected by thinking in terms of what is acceptable and
what is prohibited. One should not perform the rituals of bathing and cleansing
or avoid vulgar behaviour....He should eat all kinds of meat....He enjoys all
kinds of women having a mind free of all trepidation....He must eat the Five
Nectars [5],
drink liquor made from molasses, eat the poisonous Neem and drink the placental
fluids. He must eat foods which are sour, sweet, bitter, hot, salty,
astringent, rotten, fresh and bloody liquids along with semen. By means of the
awareness of non-dual knowledge there exists nothing inedible. Obtaining
menstrual blood he must place it in a skull-cup and mixing it with phlegm and
mucus, the holder of the Vow must drink it.[6]
[FwM[Farrow/Menon, 1992:197-9[7]]
This is not an unusual passage - any number
of similar paragraphs could be extracted from the BuddhistBuddhist tantraTantras, enjoining murder,
lying, transgressive sexual intercourse, and any number of equally
controversial activities. I do not intend to debate the extent of the
contradiction between Tantric and non-Tantric Buddhism. I take it for granted
both that mantrayānaMantrayāna is in some way BuddhistBuddhist, and that it in
some way conflicts with non-Tantric Buddhism. My concern is with how mantrayānaMantrayāna texts and
practices negotiate that divide, and justify their status within the BuddhistBuddhist religion.
The tantraTantras themselves, and in particular their
commentaries, recognise and attempt to overcome this conflict with orthodoxy.
As an example, consider this worried statement in the YRMYogaratnamāla:
What is the reason for
uncertainties? They are uncertainties because the songs and dance are
considered as unrefined and prohibited [in orthodox BuddhistBuddhist traditions] [FwM[Farrow/Menon, 1992: 205]
[FwM:208]
I consider five main ways in which BuddhistBuddhist tantraTantras justify their BuddhistBuddhist status. The first
is an explicit approach, of loudly mentioning BuddhistBuddhist schools, BuddhistBuddhist doctrines, and BuddhistBuddhist practices, and
stating the superiority of Buddhism over other religion. Then there is the
attempt to find a place for the Tantric text within the BuddhistBuddhist canon, and among
the other schools. I do not consider here the history of the creation of the
canon, just the textual strategies used to demand a place within the canonit. A third tactic is to
sidestep the question of orthodoxy, and simply to claim greater efficacy in the
ease and speed of liberation offered, and in the granting of magical powers.
Even here, appeals to BuddhistBuddhist ethics and soteriology often lie in
the background, as explanations for the great efficacy of Tantric religion. The
fourth approach is, counter-intuitively, to emphasise the differences by
directly contradicting the teachings of orthodox Buddhism. I draw on three
sources to explain this paradoxical tactic. I adopt from David Snellgrove the
term 'Reversal', and an explanation based around the history of doctrinal
development. From Mircea Eliade I develop an explanation in terms of the
mystical experience of the 'coincidentia oppositorum', the reconciliation of
paradoxical ideas. And from NāgārjunaNāgārjuna I take the idea of the satyadvaya,
the two levels of truth (the only aspect of this triad which would have been
familiar to practitioners of Vajrayāna). Using these three explanations of
reversals, I show that a text involving reversals legitimises itself in three
ways. The fifth, and probably the most intricate, approach is that of
symbolism. Under this heading I consider the techniques used to create texts
which allow multiple simultaneous interpretations, and suggest meanings on many
levels through numerology, etymology, and the use of code languages. These
patterns of symbolism can be found not only in texts, but also in mantras, mandalamaõķalas, rituals, and
visualisation techniques, and have different features in each case.
......
[todo: what exactly is a 'strategy of
legitimation'?]
The easiest way to demonstrate that you are BuddhistBuddhist is to talk about
Buddhism. For the disciple, a reference
to Buddhism is an education in the theology doctrine which underlies Tantric ritual. To
the orthodox BuddhistBuddhist, it is a comforting confirmation of
the underpinnings of ritual in orthodox theology. Thus any mention of Buddhism
serves a function of legitimation, almost regardless of the actual content.
This is one aspect of all the allusions to Buddhism in the pages that follow,
and I will not comment on it in every instance. A more thorough approach might involve building a
concordance of references, and analysing the frequency with which particular
terms and ideas are used. Such an exercise would fall well beyond the scope of
this dissertation.
Discussions of Buddhist theology form
one subset of these references to Buddhism.
As a result, the tantras frequently mention schools,
doctrines and personalities of orthodox Buddhism. In one sense, at least, the
legitimation is achieved simply by mentioning things that are recognisably Buddhist. Thus a simple
concordance of references might be the best way to understand this aspect of
legitimation strategies. Unfortunately such a listing would not be possible
here, given the limitations of time and space.
Instead, I will simply give a
few examples, and analyse some of their secondary didactic functions. One such
function is education - mentioning other schools helps to elucidate the history
of the religion. Another function is to highlight the similarities between
Tantric and non-Tantric practice, or the place of Tantric Buddhism within the
Tantric world.
BuddhistOf the Buddhist schools and individuals mentioned
in Tantric literature, schools, and occasionally individual figures, are
mentioned in the tantras. Mahāyāna is easily the most prominent form of
Buddhism to be mentioned,. Others are not neglected, but they are given less
prominence and praised less vigorously although others are not
neglected. The hevajraHevajra
tantraTantra
contains a fascinating reference to the schools of Buddhism [FwM[Farrow/Menon, 1992:225]
The sthāvarã school is located in
the centre of creation, for the act of creation is constant and age-old. The
sarvāstivāda school is the centre of essential nature, for its viewpoints
originate from the doctrine regarding the nature of things. The saüvidã school
is in the centre of enjoyment, for the sensation of enjoyment is in the throat.
The mahāsaīghã school is in the centre of great bliss, for great bliss is in
the head [FwM[Farrow/Menon, 1992:225]