Tantric Techniques (73 page)

being, and so forth are described in other Means of Achievement which are based on Action Tantras such as the
Means of Achievement of Mah
ā
k
ā
ru
ṇ
ika
a
by the master Padmasambhava, the
Means of Achievement of the Eleven-Faced Avalokiteshvara
b
by Bhik
ṣ
hu
ṇī
Lak
ṣ
hmi,
c
the
Means of Achievement of Sit
ā
tapatr
ā
par
ā
jit
ā
d
which is said to be by Chandragomin, the
Means of Achievement of the Five Guards
e
by Ratn
ā
karash
ā
nti and Jet
ā
ri,
f
and the
Means of Achievement of Vimalo
ṣ
h
ṇīṣ
ha
g
by the Foremost Elder [Atisha], as well as the
Ocean of Means of Achievement,
h
the
One Hundred and Fifty Means of Achievement
,
i
the
Hundred Means of Achievement
,
j
and so forth.
k

Buddhaguhya and so forth assert that even the

Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi
and so forth are Action Tantras;

na
; P3555, vol. 79. This text is
based
on an Action Tantra, but it is doubtful that it can serve as a source of Action Tantra itself.

Tsong-kha-pa cites the remainder of this passage, in toto, up to but not including the last sentence, attributing it to “latter-day scholars” (
phyis kyis mkhas pa dag na re
). See
Deity Yoga,
53-55.

a
sems ngal so ba’i thugs rje chen po’i sgrub thabs, cittavi
ś
r
ā
ma
ṇ
amah
ā
k
ā
ru
ṇ
ikas
ā
dhana;

P3569, vol. 79.

b
rje btsun ’phags pa spyan ras gzigs dbang phyug zhal bcu gcig pa’i sgrub thabs, bha
ṭṭā
rak
ā
ryaik
ā
da
ś
amukh
ā
valokite
ś
varas
ā
dhana
; P3557, vol. 97.

c
dge slong ma dpal mo
.

d
gdugs dkar mo can gzhan gyis mi thub ma shes bya ba’i sgrub thabs, sit
ā
tapatr
ā
par
ā
jit
ā
- s
ā
dhana;
P3903, vol. 80.

e
bsrung ba lnga’i cho ga, pañcarak
ṣā
vidhi;
Ratn
ā
karash
ā
nti’s text is P3947, vol. 80; Jet
ā
ri’s are listed under five separate titles:
so sor ’brang ma’i sgrub thabs, pratisar
ā
s
ā
dhana; rma bya chen mo’i sgrub thabs, mah
ā
m
ā
y
ū
r
ī
s
ā
dhana; stong chen mo rab tu ’joms ma’i sgrub thabs, mah
ā
sahasrapramardan
ī
s
ā
dhana; gsang sngags chen mo rjes su ’dzin ma’i sgrub thabs, mah
ā
mantr
ā
nudh
ā
ra
ṇī
s
ā
dhana; bsil ba’i tshal chen mo’i sgrub thabs, mah
ā
s
ī
tavat
ī
s
ā
dhana;
P3940-3944, vol. 80.

f
These are separate texts with the same title.

g
gtsug tor dri ma med pa’i gzungs kyi cho ga, vimalo
ṣṇīṣ
adh
ā
ra
ṇī
vidhi;
P3901, vol. 79
.

h
sgrub thabs rgya mtsho, s
ā
dhanas
ā
gara;
P4221-4466, vols. 80-81, where the collection is also identified as
sgrub thabs kun las btus pa, s
ā
dhanasamuccaya
(Toh. 3400-3644).

i
phyed dang nyis brgya pa;
P3964-4126, vol. 80 (Toh. 3143-3304).

j
sgrub thabs brgya rtsa
; P4127-4220, vol. 80 (Toh. 3306-3309).

k
Bu-tön’s point is likely that it should be analyzed whether Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi mistook Means of Achievement
based
on Actions for presentations of Action Tantra.

Controversy over Deity Yoga in Action Tantra
307

therefore, it should be analyzed whether [their position that there is self-generation in Action Tantra] is founded on a mixing of Action and Performance Tantras. Or, perhaps [their position] is founded on explanations by other masters that it is suitable to apply the format of Yoga Tantra even to Action and Performance rites, as is taught in the
Compendium of Principles
[the root Yoga Tantra]:
a

The essence, seal, mantra, and knowledge Explained in the four sections [of this Tantra]

Are all achieved through whatever mode one wish-es,

[The rites of Yoga Tantra] itself or [the others].

Or, just as deities similar to [Highest Yoga ones] such as Pratisar
ā
, M
ā
r
ī
chi, and Par
ṇ
ashavar
ī
as well as their mantras, appear in Action Tantras, so Sa
ṃ
pu
ṭ
a,
b
and so forth, [usually associated with Action Tantra] also appear in Highest Yoga Tantras. Hence, it should be analyzed whether the thought of Highest Yoga is being carried over to Ac-tion Tantra or whether the latter has self-generation in its own right.

With respect to the phrase “who is not an object of the unusual practice” in the
Wisdom Vajra Compendium,
Shraddh
ā
karavarman
c
explains this as meaning that they are not objects of the activity of teaching the profound meaning explained in an intentional manner or as meaning that they practice with the activity of thoughts of faults with respect to the unusual sphere.
d

After presenting this detailed case of possible unfounded reasons

a
de kho na nyid bsdus pa, tattvasa
ṃ
graha;
P112, vol. 4; Toh. 479, vol.
nya.

b
The text (88.5) reads
sambhu
ṭ
a
.

c
ye shes rdo rje kun las btus pa’i rgyud las ’byung ba’i rgyan bdun rnam par dgrol ba, jñ
ā
navajrasamuccayatantrodbhavasapt
ā
la
ṃ
k
ā
ravimocana;
P2654, vol. 60.

d
In his second explanation, Shraddh
ā
karavarman combines “who is not an object of the unusual practice” and “who practices with thoughts on the features of defects.” Tsong-kha-pa (
Deity Yoga,
58) keeps the two separate, explaining them as meaning “who are not receptacles for using in the path deeds of desire—this being unusual or contrary to the world—and who achieve the path through practices involving thoughts on features of faults such as birth, aging, and so forth, in conjunction with the conception of true existence.”

308
Tantric Techniques

behind Buddhaguhya’s and Varabodhi’s assertion that Action Tantras involve imagination of oneself as a deity, Bu-tön leaves the is-sue with advice to analyze which side is right. He was content to be somewhat noncommittal, although the weight of his argument is on the side that Action Tantras do not themselves call for self-generation, when he says, “This both is clear in fact and is what earlier lamas have said.”

Reacting to Bu-tön’s presentation, Tsong-kha-pa, at the beginning of the section on Action Tantra in his
Great Exposition of Secret Mantra,
argues the case that indeed deity yoga is required for the main but not the majority of trainees of Action Tantra and refutes in detail the opposite position as presented by Bu-tön. His argument is conducted with such intense examination of the Indian sources that the broad movements of his case are often implicit and unclear, except when juxtaposed to Bu-tön’s text. This is perhaps the reason why Tsong-kha-pa’s disciple Ke-drup made a clear summary of the argument in his
Extensive Explanation of the Format of the General Tantra Sets
.
a

Ke-drup begins by citing the opposing opinion:

Earlier Tibetan lamas made a [mistaken] presentation in which they posit the four tantra sets by way of four different rites of deity generation and so forth:

In Action Tantra there is no meditation on oneself as a deity and feats are received from a deity meditated in front [of oneself ]; therefore [the mode of procedure for gaining feats in Action Tantra] is called “receiving feats from a deity who is like a master [giving a boon to a subject].”

In Performance Tantra, although there is cultivation of self-generation [that is, imagination of oneself as a deity], there is no bestowal of initiation upon having caused the wisdom-being [the actual deity] to enter this [deity as whom one is imagining

a
Though this has been translated by Ferdinand Lessing and Alex Wayman in their
Mkhas Grub Rje’s Fundamentals of the Buddhist Tantras
(The Hague: Mouton, 1968), 163-171, the rendering contains so many errors that the argument is obscured.

Controversy over Deity Yoga in Action Tantra
309

oneself ] and no implanting of the seal of lineage lord [that is, imagination of the deity who is lord of the particular lineage on the top of one’s head]. Al-so, without generating a pledge-being
a
in front [of oneself ], one invites a wisdom-being, who upon [arriving and] residing there is worshipped and from whom feats are taken. Therefore, [the mode of procedure of gaining feats in Performance Tantra] is called “receiving feats from a deity who is like a friend [in that both giver and recipient—the deity and oneself—are equally meditated as deities].”

In Yoga Tantra one generates oneself as a deity, into whom the wisdom-being is caused to enter; initiation is conferred; the seal of the lineage lord is implanted, and in the end the deity is asked to leave. Moreover, in Highest Yoga Mantra one generates oneself as a deity into whom the wisdom-being is caused to enter; initiation is conferred; and the seal of the lineage lord is implanted; at the end the wisdom-being is not asked to leave.

As a source [these earlier Tibetan lamas cite] the
Wisdom Vajra Compendium
(see 303 above)
,
an explanatory tantra of the Guhyasam
ā
ja [cycle which, in paraphrase, says], “One who practices without the excellent bliss of a wisdom-being and without pride in oneself as a deity abides in Action Tantra.”

Bu-tön Rin-po-che says, “The master Buddhaguhya says that Action Tantra has self-generation, [but] it should be examined whether [he says this] thinking that Action and Performance Tantras are not mutually exclusive…” However, he does not come to a decision.

The view of these “earlier Tibetan lamas” that the four tantra sets represent four different modes of deity generation is in brief:

1. In Action Tantra meditators do not imagine themselves as a deity and only meditate on a deity in front.
   

2. In Performance Tantra there is generation in front of oneself of
   

   

   a
   That is, an imagined deity which, like a pledge, does not deviate from serving as a basis for the entry into it of an actual deity or wisdom-being.
   

   310
   Tantric Techniques
   

   

   an invited actual deity, and there is self-generation but without imagining a small representation of the lineage lord on the top of the head.
   

3. In Yoga Tantra both generation in front and self-generation occur, and in addition the deity in front enters oneself after which the representation of the lineage lord is meditated on top of one’s head and initiation is conferred.
   

4. The difference between the generation rites in Yoga Tantra and Highest Yoga Tantra is that in the former the deity that has entered oneself is eventually asked to leave, this being at the end of the session (with an invitation to return at the next session), whereas in the latter the deity remains in oneself.
   

(The fourteenth-century Nyingma master Long-chen-pa puts forth a similar demarcation of the four tantras in his
Treasury of the Supreme Vehicles
.)

Ke-drup’s source, Tsong-kha-pa,
a
cites a tantra (the
Wisdom Va-jra Compendium
) and quotes or refers to three Indian scholars— Shr
ī
dhara, Jinadatta, and “Indrabh
ū
ti”—as Indian commentarial sources for this presentation. Then, Tsong-kha-pa presents the favored, opposite opinion of two Indian Action Tantra commentators, Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi, who hold that deity yoga (self-generation) is essential to the mode of procedure in Action Tantra.

As mentioned above, Bu-tön questions but does not resolve whether Buddhaguhya’s view that Action Tantras have deity yoga comes from conflating Action Tantra and Performance Tantra, when he lists the
Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi Tantra
and the
Vajrap
āṇ
i Initiation Tantra
as Action Tantras that have deity yoga. Ke-drup indirectly praises his own teacher, Tsong-kha-pa, for his decisiveness when he reports that Bu-tön says only that this matter should be examined and does not come to a decision. Whereas one of Bu-tön’s great contributions is a catalogue of traditions, one of Tsong-kha- pa’s is critical decisiveness, and Ke-drup, like his teacher, tackles the issue with analytical directness:

In our own system, it is asserted that Action Tantra has all of these—generation of oneself as a deity, granting of initiation upon causing the wisdom-being to enter oneself, and impression with the seal of the lineage lord. Therefore,

a
Deity Yoga,
48-49.

Controversy over Deity Yoga in Action Tantra
311

aside from the master Buddhaguhya’s quoting the
Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi
and the
Vajrap
āṇ
i Initiation Tantra
in the context of these being commonly established as Action Tantras, he did not quote them due to not having found explanations of self-generation that could be quoted. For, in his commentary on the
Concentration Continuation Tantra
he quotes statements on the mode of cultivating the six deities in the
Vajro
ṣ
h
ṇīṣ
ha Tantra
and the
Vajravi
ḍā
ra
ṇ
a Tantra
and explains them well. There is no one who does not assert that those two are Action Tantras, and, furthermore, [
Ā
ryadeva’s]
Lamp Compendium for Practice
a
says, “The
Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi,
a Performance Tantra, says…”

The evidence that at least some Action Tantras have self-generation is cogent, but each part of Ke-drup’s statement needs to be examined to appreciate the argument.

First, it is Tsong-kha-pa’s opinion that for Buddhaguhya certain tantras can be either Action or Performance depending on the trainee:
b

The master Buddhaguhya asserts that the deity yoga of the four-branched repetition and so forth is similar in both Ac-tion and Performance Tantras. He says that the
Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi,
for instance, can be an Action Tan-tra depending on the trainee; therefore, except for dividing Action and Performance Tantras by way of their trainees, he does not divide them from the viewpoint of the tantras themselves.

Therefore, Ke-drup’s explanation would more accurately reflect Tsong-kha-pa’s opinion if he indicated that for Buddhaguhya it was commonly established, that is, an opinion shared with many, that the
Vairochan
ā
bhisambodhi
and the
Vajrap
āṇ
i Initiation
could
be considered either an Action or a Performance Tantra.

This is how Tsong-kha-pa presents Buddhaguhya’s view, even though he disagrees with Buddhaguhya on this point, for just a little later, he says:
c