Vajrayana Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Tantricism

Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche

As both Hindu Tantra and Buddhist Tantra (also known as Vajrayana) are profound
subjects and I am neither a Siddha nor a Pandit, I have great trepidation in wri
ting about these topics. However, many writers have stated that both Tantras are
basically the same, when in fact they are very different. Hindu Tantra is based
on the Hindu Advaita which means view of one form or the other of Monism. Vajra
yana is based on Advaya or non-dual. This Buddhist tenet comes from the expositi
ons of Nagarjuna and his followers (known as Madhyamika), and the Asanga/Vasubah
ndu (Chittamatra) group. Hence, to extricate Vajrayana from the wrong views surr
ounding its meaning, I feel compelled to write.
The main point is not whether Hindu Tantra has influenced Buddhist Tantra or vic
e-versa. The cited influences have always depended on which school the writers b
elonged to. If the writer was a non-Tantric Hindu and felt uneasy with Hindu Tan
tra, he has written about Tantra entering Hinduism through Buddhism. If he was a
Hindu Tantric, he expressed that Vedas contain Hindu Tantra and the Buddhists c
opied them. If he was a non-Tantric Buddhist, he has written that later day Budd
hists copied Tantra from Hinduism. However, these are all hypotheses. No solid h
istorical proof exists to verify these claims.
Coming back to our main topic, since all spiritual systems can be divided into G
round, Path, and Fruit (Bhumi, Marga, Phala), we shall attempt to show how Hindu
Tantra and Buddhist Vajrayana are totally different from each other in these as
pects.
But first, let us examine the meaning of word Tantra. The definition itself is d
ifferent in the two systems.
The Hindu Tantra (as stated by Sir John Woodroffe and Dhana Shumsher) is etymolo
gically split up into tananat and trayate iti tantra. Tananat means to expand or
expansion. Trayate means to liberate or become free. Putting them together, the
meaning comes out as to become free or liberate by expansion.
Expansion of what? It is the expansion of the limited consciousness into the inf
inite Brahman, Chit, Chidshana, Chit Shakti, Mahamaya, Parasamvit, Paramshiva, P
arabindu and so on. In a very simplified form, a Jiva (being) is limited by the
various constrictions (Kancukas) and the eight bonds (called Asta pasa). When th
e consciousness of the Jiva breaks through these Kancukas and Pasas by expansion
, he becomes Shiva.
Pasa Yukta Bhavet Jiva
Pasa Mukta Sadashiva
He who is bound by Pasa (bond) is Jiva. He who is free of the Pasas is Sadashiva
. So this is the definition of Tantra within the Hindu network.
In Vajrayana Buddhism, the practice and teachings are not limited to Tantra alon
e. Vajrayana is also known as Upayayana, Guhyayana, and Mantrayana. Upayayana si
gnifies a way of skillful means. Vajrayana has infinite methods to suit each ind
ividual's temperaments, situations, conditions, and predilections in the attainm
ent of Buddhist Enlightenment. It includes non-Tantric (technically called Sutra
) and Tantric techniques also. So Vajrayana is not limited to the use of mantras
and deities only, as is sometimes implied. Methods and techniques of Sutra medi
tation are also found in Vajrayana, as well as Vipassyana meditations of all fou
r types of mindfulness as practiced in Pali Buddhism. But we also find Tantric V
ipassyana within Vajrayana, which uses mantra and deity visualization for Samath
a and Vipassyana practices.
Let us now examine the definition of Tantra as used in Buddhist Vajrayana contex
t. Buddhism uses the etymological meanings of the word Tantra, which is continuu
m or continuity. Sanskrit word for Tantra, i.e. continuum, is Santaan. The Tibet
an word for Tantra is rgyud, which also means continuum. The Guhyasamaja Tantra
defines Tantra as: a continuity and this is threefold: Ground, Path and Fruit.
The Guhyasamaja Tantra also calls Tantra - Prabandha. Though both Hindus and Bud
dhists use the word Prabandha, here too the meaning is different.
For Hindu Tantra, Prabandha means systematization.
In Buddhist Tantra, Prabandha means continuity and integration. Rong Zom Chokyi
(11th century Tibetan and a contemporary of Marpa), who was a Sanskritist, prefe
rred integration. He meant it in the sense of integrating into one whole (or hol
istic) the different aspects and processes of personality. However, continuum ha
s become the more popular term.
Within Buddhism, Tantra is so multi-faceted that a single word or meaning like i
ntegration or continuum cannot fully explain its true significance. It requires
multiple definitions.
Long Chen Rabjyam-pa (1308-1363), a great Nyingma Tibetan Master, in his Thegpai
Chog Rinpoche Zo (Uttama Yana Ratna Kosha) has written a series of definitions
of Tantra. In brief, it is:
In Svarupa (essence), Tantra means the presence of Vidya (Tibetan Rigpa)
In operation, it can be further divided into:
(a) Paratantra, which means the true nature (Swabhava) of the mind
(b) The literary works, which point out the fairness (Swarup) etc.
The great Master Jigme Tenpai Nyima defines Tantra as:
The attainment to be realized is Tantra of Ground - Bhumi or Base (Asraya).
That by which one realizes Bhumi through the use of skillful means (Upaya kausal
ya) is the Tantra of Path - Marga.
The goal which one perfects (siddhi i.e. Enlightenment.) is the Tantra of Result
- Phala.
In this way, Ground, Path, and Fruit are within the same continuum i.e. Tantra.
The Base (Bhumi) is primordially pure. This however is not Brahma or Parasamvit
of Hindu Tantra, described as something really existing. Nor is it beyond existi
ng and non-existing like the Brahma of Sankara. It is free of such concepts as e
xisting or non-existing (chatuskoti vinirmuktam). It is non-conceptual wisdom bu
t does not have an inherent existence (niswabhava siddha).
The Bhumi is also spoken of in terms of the Two Truths (satya dwaya), as expound
ed by Nagarjuna. These are the Ultimate Truth and the Conventional/Relative Trut
h. These Buddhist Two Truths are not the same as the two truths of Sankara. Sank
ara Ultimate Truth is an ultimate existent (Paramartha Satta), whereas in all fo
rms of Buddhism, there is no such ultimate existent. The Universe is baseless, g
roundless. This groundlessness is a more refined form of Anatma, as it is inclus
ive of Anatma.
The path is the skillful blending of means and wisdom (Upaya and Pragya) to actu
alize the Bhumi, which is groundless wisdom. This actualization of the groundles
s wisdom, also called Vidya (Rigpa in Tibetan), Sahaja Gyana (Lhan Chigkye Yeshe
in Tibetan), Prakrita Agrah Gyan (ma cho thamal gyi shepa in Tibetan) etc., is
the fruit (Phala).
As can be seen, the whole purpose of Hindu Tantra is to realize the basic ground
of Samsara. This is known by various names like Brahma, Parasamvit, Mahamaya. T
hey are all extensions of a belief in an Atma. Buddhist Tantra on the other hand
is geared towards the realization that Samsara and Nirvana both are groundless
or baseless. This is an extension of the belief of Anatma, also known variously
like Sunyata, Pragyaparamita, Nairatmya Devi. Thus, the definition and the usage
of Tantra in the Hindu and Buddhist systems are very different.
Difference in Base, Path and Fruit - Part I
We shall attempt to see how the two systems are very different from each other i
n their base, path and fruit.
The base of Hindu Tantra practice is of Non-dualism (advaitism) in one form or t
he other. The Kashmir Shaiva Tantra calls itself very clearly Shaivadvaita and t
he Shakta tantra calls itself Shaktadvaita. Needless to say, Hindu Tantra is not
all unanimous in vouching for Advaitavada. So there are forms of Hindu tantra w
hich border on the Visistadvaita (special non-dualistic) of Ramanuja and Dvaitav
ada (dualistic) of Madavacharya. But for lack of space we shall not deal with Vi
sistadvaita and Dvaitavada schools of Hindu Tantra as no effort is required to s
how that such forms of Hindu Tantra are totally different from Buddhist Tantra.
The base (Bhumi) of the Hindu Tantra can be summed up in the words Shiva Shaktya
tmakam Visvam i.e., Shiva and Shakti are the essence of the universe. In other w
ords Shiva Shakti is/are the base, the ground of the base. The Universe is the l
ila (play) of the two. The universe is based or grounded in Shiva Shakti, comes
out of Shiva - Shakti as its lila (play) and remains grounded in Shiva-Shakti in
the end. Anyone who knows the Advaita Vedanta can see that if Shiva-Shakti are
replaced by Braman - Maya, this view is not very different from the Advaita Veda
nta of Sankaracharya. Of course, since there are many forms of Hindu Tantra, lik
e Shakta Tantra, Shaiva Tantra and even within Shaiva Tantra there is Chumma Sam
pradaya, Pratyabhigya Sampradaya, Kuala Sampradaya, the Trika Sampradaya and wit
hin the Shakta Tantra there are the Dachinachara and the Vamachara and the Siddh
antachara and Kualachara, there are slight variations to the Base as given above
. But basically and broadly speaking they would all agree to Shiva-Shaktyatmakam
Viswam. So it becomes necessary to understand what Shiva and Shakti means.
Shiva is the static aspect of the Universe and Shakti is the dynamic in the micr
ocosmic sense. In the microcosmic sense Shiva is the basic awareness aspect of M
ind (as per Shiva Sutra) which in being only aware and not able to do anything e
lse but be a witness (Sakchi of the Upanishadas) is static. Shakti are the movin
g thought, emotions etc. of the Mind which is ever in movement (Spandana of the
Spandana Karika).
The base of man is the interplay (lila) of these two (Kama Kala Vilasa i.e., Ero
tic play of Kama-Shiva and Kala-Shakti).
Likewise, the base of the cosmos is the same Shiva-Shakti evoked in a macrocosmi
c scale. In the words of the Pratyabhiga Sastra the base of the ultimate reality
is Prakash - Vimarsamaya. Prakash is the eternal light without which nothing ca
n appear and it is Shiva. Vimarsa is the Shakti, the Swabhava (characteristic) o
f Shiva. It is so to speak, the mirror in which Shiva realizes his own grandeur,
power, beauty. Vimarsa is the Kartitva Shakti of Shiva. The ultimate reality is
cit or Parasamvit, the non-relational consciousness which is Kama Kala, Shiva S
hakti, Prakash-Vimarsa.
Whether the emphasis is given to Shiva or Shakti depends on whether one is seein
g the ultimate reality from the eyes of the Shiava Tantra or Shakta Tantra. So t
his is the ultimate reality ( the Paramartha Satta) of the Hindu Tantra which su
bstitutes only in the name the Vedantic Braman and is two rather than only one (
Brahma) as in the Vedanta. However, like the Braman, these two Shiva and Shakti
are actually one. Therefore they truly exist; otherwise they could not be the Pa
ramartha Satta, the ultimate reality.
The Buddhist Base is totally different. The Base (ground) of the Buddhist Tantra
can be described in various ways. The Sutra Mahamudra and the Mahasandhi tradit
ions define the Ground as Primordially Pure which is just a technical way of say
ing Primordially Empty which again in Theravada language would boil down to Anat
ma (no-soul). Of course Primordially Pure goes deeper than just Anatma, but agai
n this is another subject. In the Sakya tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, it is sai
d Sal tong zung juk rgyu yee chen key dang or in Sanskrit Prabhaswar sunyata yug
anadha cha sahaja hetu which means Clarity, emptiness and their two in one are t
he spontaneously born Cause-Base. Another term used is Groundless Awareness, whi
ch means Empty Awareness. What all the above words (and many others) mean is tha
t the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate reality/existent (Paramartha S
atta) that one can grasp or hold on to as something. It is exactly this non-gras
pability because there is nothing to grasp because everything is ultimately empt
y of real existence or that there is no Atman (truly existing self) whether in t
he personal (Pudgal Nairatmya) or in the phenomenal (Dharma Nairatmya) world tha
t is the ground of Buddhist Tantra.
So Hindu Tantra has a Paramartha Satta by the name of Parasamvit, which is the u
nion of Shiva and Shakti as its base, which is to be actualized, as its Phala (f
ruit). But Buddhist Tantra has Anatma or emptiness of real existence of all Dhar
ma and Pudgal. Including the mind which is technically in Tantric terminology ca
lled groundless or unity of Emptiness and Clarity, Emptiness and Appearance, emp
tiness and Bliss or Primodially Pure as its base to be actualized as its fruit.
In other words, Buddhist Tantra is based on the non-existence of any Paramartha
Satta and is geared towards the realization/actualization of this existential fa
ct, whereas Hindu Tantra is based on Paramartha Satta and its actualization.
It is obvious that the very ground or base (Bhumi) on which these two systems of
Tantra are based are diametrically opposed.
One on the realisation by a Wisdom Consciousness of the non-findability of any s
ort of Paramartha Satta (Ultimate Reality) anywhere and the other on the actuali
zation or realization of some Paramartha Satta (an ultimate reality that truly e
xists). Needless to say this is the basic difference between Buddhism and Hindui
sm as a whole.
Difference in Base, Path and Fruit - Part II
Since Vajrayana and Hindu Tantricism both use mantra and deities in their practi
ces, many people confuse this fact into thinking that their practices are basica
lly the same. This is, however, based only on the surface understanding of Hindu
Tantricism and Buddhist Vajrayana.
The very base, i.e., the foundation on which Hindu Tantric practices is based, i
s to realise the Ultimate Real / Existent (Paramartha Satta). The foundation of
the Buddhist Tantra, whereas, is to realise no Paramartha Satta. Anybody can see
that to realise these two diametrically opposed bases would require an almost e
qually diametrically opposed path.
Just because both happen to use mantras and deities, it is naive to state that t
heir practices are the same or even similar. To Buddhism, all other practices (m
editation, mantra-visualization), no matter what name you give them, are perform
to actualize some thing, be that for some material gain or for some subtle for
n/Atma of Vedanta, or the Shiva-Shakti of Shaiva, and Shakta Tantra. They are on
ly the extended versions of materialism. All of them are geared towards the achi
evement of one thing or the other, be it gross or subtle.
The strategy to free oneself from this sorrowful world by creating/fabricating (
Parikalpit) on Absolute/Really Existing/Eternal Unchanging is merely a subtle ve
rsion of the strategy of escaping from the problems and boredom of life with the
help of money or other such things. All of these are escapist strategies and ar
e thus labelled materialistic solutions. In Buddhism, spiritual materialism (Adh
yatmic Bhautikavada) isthe search for the Eternal Unchanging Atman/ Shiva Shakti
, and escaping to them from the sorrows of life.
The only true freedom is facing the actual situation of the world as it is (Tath
ata),without creating escapist dreams or fabricating dream realities unlike the
world, like believing in unchanging, really existing thing.
The whole of the Buddhist path is geared towards teaching or re-learning to face
the actual reality (Yathabhuta) and not to see the world according to a conditi
oned vision, whether they are ordinary human conditioning or conditionings learn
ed through religions, for example - an Eternal Atman of the Upanishadas. Accordi
ng to Buddhism, the whole Hindu Tantricism is geared towards the realisation of
a fabricated (albeit refined) dream like Atman.
Here, it is important to notice that it is possible that Hindu Tantricism, which
is based entirely in search of an Ultimate Reality separate from this Samsara,
can have the same practices as Buddhism. Hindu Tantric practices are based on th
e belief that the ten Mahavidyas (Ten great wisdom deities) really exist and by
continuousJapa of their Mantra, one will slowly get their grace through which on
e will slowly identify with them, become the Mahavidyas, and be liberated. The p
rogress of the practice starts from Dasoham (I am slave), where the practitioner
believes in the deity as his/her Master or Lord. With continuous Japa of the de
ity (as the saying goes, japad siddhi, japad siddhi, japad siddhi nasamasaya
is attained through Japa .... no doubt ) one slowly merges into the deity (like
Kali, Tara or Tripurasundari ) and becomes one with the deity. At this stage, it
is called Soham ( That I am i.e., I am Shiva/Kali etc.)
Then, with more Japa, or more accurately, more Japa of the Mantras in series cal
led Karma Dikcha, he/she becomes completely dissolved into Kali/Tripurasundari s
o that there is no I and only the deity is left. This stage is called Naham (no
s the Acme of Hindu Tantra where the personality has completely dissolved into o
ne of the ten (dasa Mahavidya) and what is left is the ultimate reality called b
y whatever name - Kali, Dhumavati, so on.
In Mahanirvana Tantra, its written: Karma dikcha yuttor devi, kramat sambhur bh
mes endowed with Krama Dikcha - serial mantra initiation, gradually he becomes S
hival.
The actual modus operandi begins when the disciple first receives the initiation
of one of the Mahavidya from a Guru. He learns the Mantra and Dhyana (visualiza
tion). He then does Japa Dhyana of the deity, i.e., he visualizes the deity in f
ront of him and repeats the Nyasa and Mantra. Nyasa is placing the deities in di
fferent parts of the body and varies with different Kramas. So one imagines vari
ous deities (who are part of the Krama of the Mula Devata, main deity) in differ
ent joints of the body with ones fingers and repeats the Mantra. Exactly how it is don
differs with the various Kramas. The rest depends on doing more and more Japa (a
s said above) and completely getting oneself absorbed into the visualized deity
until their unity. Finally, only the deity is left.
In Buddhist language, this is more and more Samatha (absorption) until identific
ation and loss of self occurs.
It has to be mentioned that all forms of Hindu Tantra are not unanimous in their
basic concepts, unlike all forms of Buddhist Tantra (who are all unanimous in t
heir basic concepts).
1. Some forms of Hindu Tantra ( Kashmir Shaivism) believe that Shiva is in ones own mi
, but the majority believe that deities exist independently and the personality
which is unreal dissolves into the Real Deity. All forms of Buddhist Tantra beli
eve the essence of all deities is ones own mind.
2. Whereas visualization and Mantras in Hindu Tantra are limited to the ten Mana
vidyas as the highest forms of deities, but in Buddhist Tantras these are relega
ted to the positions o only protectors of the Dharma (Dharamapalas) who can only
clear obscurations in a practitioners practice but not really give Enlightenment.
But besides these Dharamapalas like Mahakala or Mahakali, Buddhist Tantras also
have visualizations and Mantras of Gurus, Bodhisattvas like Manjushree, Avalokit
eswor, Vajrapani and Ista Devas. These, it is made clear especially the Ista Dev
as (called Yidam in Tibetan ) are your own Mind and not something separate. And
it is only the proper use i.e. Samatha - Vipassyana of Mind Deities (the word Yi
dam in Tibetan means Mind Bond) that can liberate. Simply repeating Mantras and
visualizing is not only said not to liberate automatically, but can also lead to
more subtle forms of Spiritual Materialism according to Buddhist Tantra.
Difference in Base, Path and Fruit - Part III
Hindu and Buddhist Tantras are not only diametrically opposed to each other in m
eaning given to the word Tantra, but they are also radically different in their
base or ground. The concept of eternally existing ground (Paramartha Satta) is t
he basis of Hindu Tantra, while Buddhist Tantra is based on the groundlessness o
f the Samsara, especially the mind, which is the basis of Samsara.
In the previous article, we dealt with the path of Hindu Tantra, which is basica
lly to actualize the Paramartha Satta (by whatever name it is called as per the
sub-schools). We also saw how Hindu Tantra is based in the Japa of Mantra, in wh
at is technically called Krama Dikcha (serial initiation). The practitioner slow
ly climbs up from Dasoham through Soham. Naham is the ultimate state where there
is no self but only the ultimate reality. This reality is the God (by whatever
name one gives it). It is called Dibyachara (the divine practice/conduct). Hindu
Tantra is fully theistic (believes and is based on the existence of a God who i
s the Ultimate Reality).
Now, we shall compare this with the Buddhist Path. First of all, Buddhist path i
s radically different in practice and theory from what I have written about Hind
u Tantra. Even the classification of Dasoham, Soham, Naham does not apply at all
to Buddhist Tantra. This classification is fully theistic (and akin to Jalaludd
in Rumis Hu al Haque, An al Haque, Haque), whereas Buddhism as a whole and Buddh
ist Tantra especially, is non-theistic. I beg for you to notice the use of the w
ord non-theistic rather than atheistic as that word is used for
imed itself to be the true spiritual system. Throughout the centuries, it has re
futed Hinduism and Jainism (which would automatically include all religious syst
ems) view as being spiritual materialism.
Buddhism does not have a God to cling to or grasp as a source of Ultimate Happin
ess. It also does not give any conceptual reality, i.e., some eternal Braman (et
ernal, unchanging existence - Saswat aparinami sat), or the concept of total not
hingness (Ucchedvada) after death to hold or grasp as the Ultimate Reality. All
these are considered different forms of materialism where one reaches out to or
pushes for something in hope or fear of achieving something. To Buddhism, the di
fference between pure materialism and these forms of spiritual materialism is th
e difference between an iron chain and a golden chain. Both are in effect chains
which bind one to conditioned existence.
Buddhism does not give any false hopes or dreams as the Ultimate El Dorado. Budd
hism teaches each man to see through his dreams and, in effect, shatters all con
ceptual dreams so that the man can face reality naked, or, as it is (Tathata, Ya
thabuta). Buddhist Tantra is geared to somersault the man, so that he can totall
y re-orient himself and land firmly on his feet, on the solid ground.
The only way to achieve this is to make each person re-learn to face the reality
as it is, without adding or subtracting his conceptual dreams, imageries, image
s to it. Man thinks his dreams are wonderful, but when a pin is pricked into the
bubble of his dream, he realizes that the actual world is grander and more marv
ellous than his wildest dreams. This is the importance of the poem by a famous Z
en Master of China.
How wonderful this is!
How marvelous!
I draw water! I carry fuel!
This poem encapsulates what Vajrayana means when it says Samsara and Nirvana are
not different (Khor de yer med in Tibetan; Samsara Nirvana Abhinnata in Sanskri
t).
How does Vajrayana do it? There are infinite methods that Vajarayana uses to ach
ieve the above non-achievement. But perhaps, we must first make clear, about Vaj
rayana especially and the Buddhism as a whole, that the only true achievement is
non-achievement. The only true meditation is non-meditation, the only true atta
inment is non-attainment. This is poles apart from the attainment of Braman.
Now, coming back to the path used by Vajrayana, as we have already said Vajrayan
a uses infinite methods to achieve this. The eight great practice lineages, whic
h still exist in Tibetan Buddhism and to some extent in Newar Buddhism also are:
Lam Dre (Sanskrit: Marga Phalam), Ch (Sanskrit:Chhedan ), Shi Je (Sanskrit:Shantika
rana), Naro Ch Drug (Sanskrit: Narapada Shad Dharma, i.e., The Six Dharmas of Naropa
), Nigu Ch Drug (The Six Dharmas of Niguma), Dzog Chen (The Great Perfection Yoga ,
Sanskrit: Mahasandhi), Chyag Chen (Sanskrit: Mahamudra), Uma Chenpo (Sanskrit: M
ahamadhyamika).
Needless to say, they are mostly various forms of Vipassyana of the Chittanusmri
ti categories. But the Six Yogas of Naropa and Niguma also use Vedananusmriti. I
t is not possible to go into all the details of these practices, but we shall ta
ke Deity Yoga (Deva Yoga) as an example of how Vajrayana does Samatha and Vipass
yana through the use of deities and mantras to arrive at the Phala, i.e., the ac
tualization of the ground, which as we have said is groundlessness.
First of all, all deities used in Deity Yoga are ones own mind and not something diffe
nt, and are, therefore, by nature luminous and empty. The practitioner takes one
of the deities from the Anuttara Tantra (there are six or four Tantra categorie
s in Buddhism according to the Old and the New schools respectively). The Anutta
ra Tantra means in Sanskrit, the Unexcelled Tantra, i.e., there is non-higher th
an this category of Tantra. The practitioner has to be initiated into it by a ma
ster who must belong to an unbroken pure lineage. Incidentally, there are four m
ajor schools of Vajrayana within Tibetan Buddhism. Their practices contain Eight
Major practice lineages, which have come from the great Indian University Monas
teries like Nalanda and Vikramashila. Within them, the lineages continue unbroke
n and in its pure form (as was practiced in these Indian Universities) till the
master living today. These schools are called the Nyingmapas, the Sakyapas, the
Kargyupas, and the newest school among them, the Gelugpas.
Back to the main topic, before we can understand how these deities of the Anutta
ra Tantra (or for that matter any other types of Tantra) are used, it is necessa
ry to understand four things.
What are deities in Vajrayana, their types, and how they are used How Vajrayana
in all its practice methods embraces what is called The Way of Transformation, i
.e., Parinama Marga How all of Vajrayana practices Samatha - Vipassyana How the
experiential aspect of Tantric practices is integrated in two ways called Rang T
ong (Sanskrit: Svabhava Sunya) and Shen Tong (Sanskrit: Parabhava Sunya). The su
bject of Rang Tong and Shen Tong is a big subject and needs to be dealt with sep
arately.
Difference in Base, Path and Fruit - Part IV
Among the Newars, the Hindu Newars priests are called Deobhaju, whereas Gubhaju
are the Buddhist Vajrayana priests. It shows clear difference in emphasis. To Hi
nduism, Devas are the supreme, and represent various forms of Gods, that is why
the priest is called Deobhaju. But in Buddhism, Devas are manifestations of the
mind, and the mind and the Guru are one. So the Guru is the supreme. He creates
the Devas and introduces them to the disciple. He and one's own mind are not rea
lly two.
Furthermore, there is no God (Ishwar) in Buddhism, so the question of the Devi/D
evatas in Vajrayana as manifestations of God (Ishwar) is completely out of the q
uestion. That is why the Vajrayana priests are called Gu(ru)bhaju. It is also no
t surprising that many western scholars called Tibetan Vajrayana as Lamaism. Alt
hough this is inaccurate and wrong, since there actually is no such thing as Lam
aism, it is however true that the word Lama means Guru and the Lama is Supreme i
n Tibetan Vajrayana.
Lama is the Tibetan word for the Sanskrit Guru. The Buddha himself in all forms
of Buddhism is the Supreme Guru and not by any means some sort of replacement fo
r God of the other religions. So the Devas are manifestations of the mind itself
, and given archetypal forms for quick purification and Samatha (called Shiney i
n Tibetan, i.e., to make the mind quite). They are never really independent of t
he nature of mind that in Tantric terminology is called Empty and Luminous. So a
ll the deities, their consorts, and sons are only metaphoric ways of expressing
manifestations. It is totally stupid to say, as some so called Vajracharyas infl
uenced by Theravad have written, that Vajrayana has created many Buddhas out of
the one Sakyamuni Buddha and given them wives and children. Vajrayana has not cr
eated replacements of the historical Sakyamuni. What Vajrayana has done is disco
vered two things: easier ways to purification, and perform Samatha through visua
lization of metaphoric forms of the Enlightened mind of Sakyamuni.
As I have already mentioned, Chittanusmriti, i.e., mindfulness of the mind, is t
he form of Vipassyana most common in Vajrayana. Visualizing of various Mandala,
like forms and spontaneous appearance of Devas in meditation, is found not only
in Vajrayana but also in the Theravad Buddhist traditions existing in the mounta
ins of Laos. So these Theravadin Vajracharyas who have tried to make fun of the
jrayana are also criticising their own Theravad traditions as practiced in the m
ountains of Laos. I believe this is breaking the Theravada tradition (creating d
isturbance in the Sangha).
Hindu Tantra certainly does not use the Devi / Devata in this way except in the
Kashmiri form of Shaiva Tantra as mentioned before.
As mentioned earlier, the ten Mahavidyas are the ultimate deities in Hindu Tantr
a, and they represent God or the Ultimate Reality, depending upon which Amnya(wa
y) of Hindu Tantra one follows. However, as already mentioned, in Buddhist Tantr
a none of the visualized represent either God or the Ultimate Reality (Paramarth
a Satta), and this has already been clearly explained in the earlier articles.
As already said, what they request is the Mind or the Guru (which are one). Ther
e are various classes of deities (visualizable forms would be more accurate in
whose concept of Devis/Devas is so drastically different from that of Hindu Tan
tra that they cannot in any way be called even remotely similar. The various cla
sses of forms used for meditation in Vajrayana are :
1. Gurus
2. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas
3. Istadeva (Yidam)
4. Dakinis and Dharmapalas
1. Gurus
Who represent the entire lineages from Sakyamuni till now. Since every teacher t
hat comes from an unbroken lineage represents every other in the lineage, their
Enlightenment being the same, it is not necessary that only Sakyamuni represents
the Guru. So in the Vajrayana tradition not only Sakyamuni but also Padmasambha
va, Naropa, Milarepa, Virupada, Karmapa and a host of others who represented the
Enlightenment of Sakyamuni are also used as Guru-Visualization. this is totally
non-existent in Hindu Tantra which has only Guru Puja which is done to ones own
Guru on certain days like Guru Purnima; but no meditations which uses the Guru
for Samatha-Vipassyana is found. Furthermore the concept of a pure lineage, unbr
oken so that any one living Gurus mind is the same as any other before him (which is a
echnical way of saying that they have all experienced the same true Enlightenmen
t and not different states as per each Guru and certainly does not mean they hav
e lost their individuality or identity) - such a concept does not exist in any f
orm to Hinduism except those influenced by Buddhism. What I and talking about is
the transmission from generation to generation of exactly the same Enlightenmen
t state without distortive changes, not transmission of concepts or ideas from g
eneration to generation which is found in Hinduism also. This concept of the sam
e (pure) Enlightenment state being transmitted generation to generation without
which would otherwise open up distortion) is very important for all forms of Bud
dhism which emphasizes meditation and the experience of Enlightenment, and espec
ially for Vajrayana which is one of the most practically oriented forms of Buddh
ism.
2. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas
Although Buddhas and Bodhisattvas technically came under the heading Guru, here,
we are talking about forms like the five Tathagatas (called by the misnomer pan
cha Dhyani Buddhas) and Manjushree. Avalokteshvara, Vajrapani etc. Of course all
of these represent the Guru too. The panch Tathagata represent the essence (whi
ch is primordially pure) of the five passions in us enumerated as Akshobhya for
krodha/aggression, Vairochan for moha/stupidity, narrow-mindedness, Amitabha for
Kama/passion/desire. Amogha Siddhi for paissunya/jeolousy. Ratnasambhava for ma
nas/pride. If these passion (kleshas) were not primordially pure (which can be s
een as either empty of real existence (Niswabhavasiddha) for begining less time
or as non-dual widsom (advaya jnana) from beginingless time, one could never be
free of them as they (the kleshas) would really exist eternally. This primordial
purity of each passion is represented by the five Tathagatas. The pancha Tathag
ata also represent the five skandhas in their true nature (not as how they appea
r to the deluded mind) which again can be called as non-dual wisdom or emptiness
(which, when understood, property are not contradictory but this is a subject b
y itself). It is also important to mark the use of the word advaya as opposed to
the Hindu advaita which are contradictory concepts and not the same at all - as
many Hindu and Buddhist scholars have believed. So coming back to the pancha Ta
thagatas, anybody can now see that they are not subdivisions of Sakyamuni nor ca
n you speak of them as personalities who have wives and children. The consorts a
nd sons are also equally metaphorical automatically. Furthermore these kinds of
devas (Bodhisattvas and Buddhas) are used again like the Gurus for specialized f
orms of Samatha- Vipassyana: and needless to say such methods are not found in H
indu.
3. Istadeva (Yidam in Tibetan)
The word Yi-dam translates something like Mana bandha in Sanskrit. All these die
ties are Mind-Bonds/Mind Bound. So evidently the use of the word Istadeva is not
the same as in Hinduism. Although in both Hinduism and Buddhism you can speak o
f Istadeva as personal deity, in Hinduism he is someone who is the god and maste
r above one and the one into which one dissolves ones little self whereas in Bud
dhism the Ista being a personal deity symbolizes ones own mind, the true nature
(svarupa nof the deity) is the same as the nature of mind on which one does vipa
ssyana of the chittanusmriti group. So Istadevas are merely ones own mind given
visualizable forms and vipassyana on them is therefore Chittanusmriti. Using wha
t is called the Utpattikrama and Sampannakrama (often translated into English as
generation and completion stage), creative stage which is the tantrik way of do
ing Samatha and uses the Buddhist meditative principle called devanusmriti (call
ed Devanussati in the Pali canons, and fulfillment/completion/perfection stage w
hich is doing vipassyana on the true nature of mind. This vipassyana on the true
nature of mind is the ultimate meditation in all forms of Buddhism-Theravada, M
ahayana Sutra or Mahayana tantra traditions.
Hinduism has no concept of practice similar to the Yidam practice of Vajrayana.
All Yidams (Istadevas) belong to the five families (pancha Kula) i.e. the family
of the five Tathagatas since the five Tathagatas are linked with the five predo
minant defilements practitioners are also divided into these five kulas.
So each person chooses an Istadeva out of the Kula he belongs to or is chosen by
his guru. The deity, his emotional tone, the practice related to him are suitab
le emotionally for that particular practitioner who belong to the same family. T
hat is why the Istadeva practice is very swift in ripening in the mind to make i
t ready to recognize or realize or actualize the nature of mind fully. Whereas i
n Hindu Practice, it is the deity that gives liberation through his grace, in Va
jrayana the Yidam (Istadeva) is the major support or aid for the spontaneous ari
sing of the actualization of the nature of mind and it is only the actualization
of the nature of mind that gives liberation. The various deities used for Yidam
practice depends on which of the four tantras (or six tantras as per the old sc
hools) is used to practice Samatha-Vipassayana. The six/four tantras are a topic
by themselves; but the fourth tantra called the Anuttara tantra (unexcelled tan
tra) is usually used as the quick way to enlightenment. Some of the Istadevas of
the Anuttara tantra are Kalachakra, Mahamaya. Guhyasamaja. Chakrasamvara, Hevaj
ra and so on, none of which are found in any Hindu tantric scriptures.
4. Dakinis and Dharamapalas
The fourth group of devas used are dakinis, dharmapalas and lokapalas. These dei
ties correspond to the devas found in Hindu tantra, Mahakala/Kali etc: but they
are used as protectors and clearer of obscurations on the path of enlightenment.
So the 10 Mahavidyas (with the exception of Tara) are not givers of enlightenme
nts, but rather helpers on the way who clear away obstacles to practice and enli
ghtenment in Vajrayana. So even with the group of devas (which seem to converge
and to a greater degree to Hindu dieties) their use is totally different. They a
re not even similar. But even Sri Lanka Theravada uses Indra as a Dharmapala (pr
otector of dharma), so such use of Hindu deity is found in all Buddhist traditio
n.