REHEARSING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VEHICLES

Because people are of different capacities, dispositions, and interests, Shākyamuni Buddha taught many different paths. He set forth Sūtra and Mantra, and within Sūtra he taught four different schools of tenets (Great Exposition School, Sūtra School, Mind-Only School, and Middle Way School) and within Mantra, he set out four different tantra sets—Action, Performance, Yoga, and Highest Yoga (literally “Unsurpassed Yoga”).¹

In each of the four schools of the Sūtra system he described three varieties of paths—for Hearers, Solitary Realizers, and Bodhisattvas. Each of the four schools also has internal subdivisions, and the four divisions of Mantra also contain many different types of processes and procedures of meditation. The result is that there are many different levels of commitment—ranging from the assumption of tantric vows down to the assumption of only the refuge vow—many different paths and many different styles.

To appreciate the special distinctiveness of Mantra, it is necessary to determine the difference between the Sūtra and Mantra vehicles, and to do that, first it is necessary to settle the difference between the vehicles in Sūtra—the Hearer Vehicle, Solitary Realizer Vehicle, and Bodhisattva Vehicle or Great Vehicle—and then consider the further division of the latter into its Sūtra and Mantra forms.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SŪTRA VEHICLES

“Vehicle” (Tib. theg pa, Sans. yāna) has two meanings:

1.  Since in Sanskrit yā means “to go,” and na indicates the “means” of going, a vehicle comprises those practices carrying one to a higher state—those practices that when actualized in the mental continuum cause manifestation of a higher type of mind.

2.  Somewhat unusually, “vehicle” can also refer to the destination—the place or state at which one is aiming. This is because just as a vehicle can bear or carry a certain load, so the state of Buddhahood, which is the goal of the Bodhisattva Vehicle, can bear or carry the welfare of all sentient beings, whereas the state of a Lesser Vehicle Foe Destroyer can bear much less.

Since “vehicle” has these two meanings, the distinction between the two Buddhist Vehicles—Hearer and Solitary Realizer (Lesser Vehicle) and Bodhisattva (or Great Vehicle)—must occur either within the sense of vehicle as the means by which one progresses or within the sense of vehicle as the destination, or state, to which one is progressing, or in both meanings.

In the exposition of the Lesser Vehicle and the Great Vehicle according to the Middle Way Consequence School, considered to be the acme of philosophical systems by most Tibetan schools, there is a tremendous difference between the two in the sense of vehicle as that to which one is progressing. In the Lesser Vehicle, practice culminates as a Foe Destroyer, one who has overcome the foe of ignorance but is not omniscient and thus is not a Buddha. Unlike a Buddha, a Foe Destroyer does not have the ability spontaneously to manifest in myriad forms in order to help beings. Since the states of being a Buddha and a Foe Destroyer are very different, there is a significant difference between the Great and Lesser vehicles in the sense of vehicle as that to which one is progressing—the respective goals of Buddhahood and Foe Destroyerhood.

With this difference in goal, there must also be a difference in the two vehicles in the sense of the practices by which one progresses to these goals. The difference between the Lesser and Great vehicles in terms of the means of progress can occur in only two places—method and wisdom, these two comprising the entire path, in that method mainly produces the Form Body of a Buddha and wisdom mainly produces the Truth Body, also called the Body of Attributes. In the Consequence School’s explanation, the Lesser and Great vehicles do not differ with respect to wisdom in that both require realization of the subtle emptiness of inherent existence of all phenomena such as body, mind, head, eye, wall, consciousness, and so forth. The Lesser and Great vehicles differ in terms of how wisdom is cultivated—Bodhisattvas using myriad reasonings for getting at the subtle emptiness and Hearers and Solitary Realizers using only a few reasonings to realize the same emptiness; however, in terms of the object of the mind of wisdom, the emptiness of inherent existence, there is no difference between the emptiness a Lesser Vehicle practitioner realizes and the emptiness a Great Vehicle practitioner realizes. In this sense there is no difference in wisdom. Tsongkhapa discusses this point in some detail in his commentary on Chandrakīrti’s Supplement to (Nāgārjuna’s) “Treatise on the Middle”2 and also indicates a nuanced way that there is a difference in approach:

To establish that even a single phenomenon does not truly exist, Great Vehicle practitioners use limitless, different reasonings as set forth in Nāgārjuna’s Treatise on the Middle, due to which their minds become greatly broadened with respect to suchness. Lesser Vehicle practitioners use only brief reasoning to establish suchness by valid cognition, and since they do not establish emptiness the way Great Vehicle practitioners do, they do not have a mind broadened with respect to suchness. . . .This difference arises because Hearers and Solitary Realizers strive to abandon only the afflictive emotions [the obstructions to liberation], and realization of a mere abbreviation of the meaning of suchness is sufficient for that. Great Vehicle practitioners are intent on abandoning the obstructions to omniscience, and for this it is necessary to have a very broadened mind of wisdom opened to suchness.

Bodhisattvas’ more extensive use of reasoning helps in achieving their greater aim of overcoming the obstructions to omniscience.

Since wisdom in the Lesser and Great vehicles does not differ in terms of the type of emptiness being realized, the difference between the two vehicles must lie in method. “Method” here specifically means motivation and the deeds that it impels. No matter how much compassion Lesser Vehicle practitioners have, their primary motivation is to release themselves from cyclic existence. However, in the Great Vehicle the primary motivation is the altruistic aspiration to highest enlightenment induced by great love and compassion in which one takes on the burden of the welfare of all beings. Thus, there is a significant difference between the Lesser and Great vehicles in terms of method, even though not in wisdom.

Hence, the Lesser and Great vehicles differ in both senses of vehicle, as the means by which one progresses as well as that to which one progresses.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PERFECTION VEHICLE AND THE MANTRA VEHICLE

In the Great Vehicle itself, there are two vehicles—the Perfection Vehicle and the Mantra (or Tantra) Vehicle. The Perfection Vehicle is the Sūtra Great Vehicle, and the Mantra Vehicle is the Mantra (or Tantra) Great Vehicle.

Do the Sūtra Great Vehicle and the Mantra Great Vehicle differ in the sense of vehicle as that to which one is progressing? The goal of the Sūtra Great Vehicle is Buddhahood, but the Mantra Great Vehicle cannot have another goal separate from Buddhahood as there is no attainment higher than the Buddhahood described in Sūtra as attainment of the Truth Body (Body of Attributes) and Form Bodies. Sūtra describes a Buddha as having removed all obstructions and attained all auspicious attributes, having no movement of coarse winds, or inner energies;3 thus such Buddhahood has to include the attainments of even Highest Yoga Mantra, the primary aim of which is to stop the movement of all coarse winds and manifest the most subtle consciousness—the mind of clear light—while simultaneously appearing in totally pure form.⁴ Hence, the Vajradharahood often mentioned as the goal of Mantra and the Buddhahood described in Sūtra are the same.

There being no difference between the Perfection Vehicle and the Mantra Vehicle in terms of the goal—the destination—they must differ in the sense of vehicle as the means by which one progresses. Therefore, they must differ either in terms of method or wisdom or both. If the difference lay in wisdom, there would be many problems because the Perfection Vehicle contains Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way teachings on emptiness, and there would have to be some other more subtle emptiness than that which Nāgārjuna establishes with many different reasonings in the twenty-seven chapters of his Treatise on the Middle, whereas there is none. Thus there is no difference between Sūtra and Mantra in the view, which here refers to the objective view, that is, the object that is viewed⁵—emptiness or ultimate truth—and does not refer to the realizing consciousness, since Sūtra Great Vehicle and Highest Yoga Mantra do differ with respect to the subtlety of the consciousness realizing emptiness. Specifically, in Highest Yoga Tantras such as the Guhyasamāja Tantra or the Kālachakra Tantra, more subtle, enhanced consciousnesses are generated to realize the same emptiness of inherent existence. Still, because the object realized is the same whether the consciousness is more subtle or not, the “objective view” is the same.

In this way, between the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles there cannot be any difference in the factor of wisdom in terms of the object understood by wisdom. Hence, the difference again has to lie in method. Nevertheless, in both the Sūtra and the Mantra Great Vehicles, the foundation of method is the altruistic intention to become enlightened for the sake of all sentient beings, and thus the motivational basis of the deeds of the path is the same. The other main factor of method has to do with the deeds induced by that motivation. In the Sūtra Great Vehicle these are the practices induced by that altruistic aspiration—the perfections of giving, ethics, and patience, and since these are also practiced in Mantra, the difference cannot be found there either. Furthermore, Mantra has an even greater emphasis than Sūtra on the deeds of the perfections in that a tantric practitioner is committed to engage in them at least six times during each day.

Moreover, the distinction could not be made on the basis of speed of progress on the path because within the four tantra sets—Action, Performance, Yoga, and Highest Yoga Mantra—there are great differences in speed, such as the possibility of achieving Buddhahood in one lifetime in Highest Yoga Mantra but taking at least two periods of countless eons in the other three, according to Tsongkhapa. Also, in the Sūtra Great Vehicle there are five different modes of progress, slow to fast, which are compared to an ox chariot, elephant chariot, sun and moon, magical creation of a Hearer, and magical creation of a One-Gone-Thus. In addition, the difference must not lie in some small or insignificant feature, but in an important one.

Tsongkhapa’s intricate comparison of the Perfection and the Mantra vehicles has shown how similar these two vehicles are in their basic structure in terms of goal, wisdom of emptiness, and altruistic motivation, thereby literally setting the stage for appreciating the central difference. He finds the profound distinction in the fact that in Mantra there is meditation in which one meditates on one’s body as similar in aspect to a Buddha’s Form Body, whereas in the Sūtra Great Vehicle there is no such meditation. This is deity yoga,6 which all four tantra sets have but Sūtra systems do not. Deity yoga means to imagine oneself as now having the Form Body of a Buddha; one meditates on oneself in the aspect of a Buddha’s Form Body, imagining oneself as presently an ideal, altruistically active being. This is the central distinctive feature of Tantra in that it occurs in all four sets, even though it does not occur in all tantras, due to which it is not a definition of tantra.

In the Perfection Vehicle there is meditation similar in aspect to a Buddha’s Truth Body/Body of Attributes—a Buddha’s mind of wisdom. A Bodhisattva enters into meditative equipoise directly realizing emptiness with nothing appearing to the mind except the final nature of phenomena, the emptiness of inherent existence; the mind of wisdom and emptiness are like water poured into water, undifferentiable. Even though, unlike their tantric counterparts, Sūtra Bodhisattvas do not specifically imagine that the state of meditative equipoise is a Buddha’s Truth Body/Body of Attributes,7 meditation similar in aspect to a Buddha’s Body of Attributes does occur in the Sūtra system in the sense that the state of meditative equipoise on emptiness mimics a Buddha’s pristine mind of wisdom in its aspect of perceiving the ultimate. However, the Sūtra Perfection Vehicle does not involve meditation similar in aspect to a Buddha’s Form Body. There is meditation on Buddhas and so forth as objects of offering and so forth, but there is no meditation on oneself in the physical body of a Buddha.

Such meditative cultivation of a divine body is included within the factor of method because it is mainly aimed at achieving a Buddha’s Form Body. In the Sūtra system the sole means for achieving a Buddha’s Form Body is, on the basis of the altruistic intention to become enlightened, to engage in the first three perfections—giving, ethics, and patience—in “limitless” ways over a “limitless” period of time, specifically three periods of “countless” great eons (“countless” being said to be a figure with fifty-nine zeros). Though the Mantra Vehicle also involves practice of the perfections of giving, ethics, and patience, it is not in “limitless” ways over “limitless” periods of time. Despite emphasis on the perfections in the Mantra Vehicle, practice in “limitless” ways over “limitless” time is unnecessary because one is engaging in the additional technique of meditation on oneself in a body similar in aspect to a Buddha’s Form Body.⁸ In other words, in the tantric systems, in order to become a Buddha more quickly, one meditates on oneself as similar in aspect to a Buddha in terms of both body and mind. This practice is significantly distinctive and thus those systems that involve it constitute a separate vehicle, the Mantra Great Vehicle.

In deity yoga one first meditates on emptiness and then uses this consciousness realizing emptiness—or at least an imitation of it—as the basis of emanation of a Buddha. The mind of wisdom itself appears as the physical form of a Buddha. This one consciousness thus has two parts—a factor of wisdom and a factor of method, or factors of (1) ascertainment of emptiness and (2) appearance as an ideal being—and hence, through the practice of deity yoga, one simultaneously accumulates the collections of merit and wisdom, making their amassing much faster.

The systems that have this practice are called the Vajra Vehicle because the appearance of a deity is the display of a consciousness which is a fusion of wisdom understanding emptiness and compassion seeking the welfare of others—an inseparable union symbolized by a vajra, a diamond, the foremost of stones as it is “unbreakable.” Since the two elements of the fusion, compassionate method and penetrating wisdom, are the very core of the Perfection Vehicle, one can understand that Sūtra and Mantra, despite being different, are integrated systems. One can understand that compassion is not superseded in Mantra but is essential to Mantra and that the wisdom of the Perfection Vehicle is not forsaken for a deeper understanding of reality in the Mantra Vehicle.

SUMMARY

To encapsulate the points made in Tsongkhapa’s argument up to here: The difference between the vehicles as explained in the Consequence School must lie in the sense of vehicle as that by which one progresses or that to which one progresses. The Lesser Vehicle differs from the Great Vehicle in both. The destination of the lower vehicle is the state of a Hearer or Solitary Realizer Foe Destroyer and of the higher vehicle, Buddhahood. Concerning “vehicle” in the sense of means by which one progresses, although there is no difference in the wisdom realizing the subtlest nature of phenomena, there is a difference in method—Lesser Vehicle not having and Great Vehicle having the altruistic intention to become enlightened and its attendant deeds.

Sūtra Great Vehicle and Mantra Great Vehicle do not differ in terms of the goal, the state being sought, since both seek the highest enlightenment of a Buddha, but there is a difference in the means of progress, again not in wisdom but in method. Within method they differ not in the basis, or motivation, of the deeds, this being the altruistic intention to become enlightened, nor in having the perfections as deeds, but in the additional technique of deity yoga. A deity is a supramundane being who is a manifestation of compassion and wisdom. Thus, in the special practice of deity yoga one joins one’s own body, speech, mind, and activities with the exalted body, speech, mind, and activities of a supramundane being, manifesting on the path a similitude of the state of the effect.

REASON AS THE ARBITER

The basic appeal throughout Tsongkhapa’s presentation of the difference between the vehicles is to a rational investigation of path structure, but it is not that he does not cite supportive Indian sources. For instance, in establishing that according to the Middle Way Consequence School even those who are of the Lesser Vehicle by path must realize the most subtle emptiness, he presents an abridged version of his own extensive argument on this in his commentary to Chandrakīrti’s Supplement to (Nāgārjuna’s) “Treatise on the Middle,”9 citing Chandrakīrti’s Supplement and Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland, Treatise on the Middle, and Praise of the Nonconceptual, as well as two Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras, and a Lesser Vehicle Sūtra. (That the Middle Way Consequence School’s view on the emptiness of inherent existence is needed in order to become a Foe Destroyer is controversial, as it means that no follower of the Great Exposition School, the Sūtra School, the Mind-Only School, or even the Autonomy School can complete the Lesser Vehicle path and become a Foe Destroyer by means of any of those paths alone.)

Considering counterarguments, Tsongkhapa makes reference to presentations in both Lesser Vehicle and Great Vehicle texts that propound the opposite, that is, that to get out of cyclic existence it is sufficient to have the fully developed wisdom understanding that the person is not substantially existent, which is a coarser type of selflessness. Again, the conflict is settled by reasoning through differentiating what is definitive and what requires interpretation. This not being a main subject of the Great Exposition of Secret Mantra, he leaves the matter with a brief admonition to learn how to make such distinctions—implicitly indicating the benefit of studying his The Essence of Eloquence10 where the dominant argument is that scriptural reference is not sufficient since a supporting scripture would require another which, in turn, would require another ad infinitum, and thus reasoning is necessary. The working principles revolve around showing that the conception of inherent existence is the root of cyclic existence and that some trainees are temporarily incapable of receiving teaching on such a subtle topic. Adjudication of the opposing scriptures is made:

1.  on the basis of the ontological fact, determined by reasoning, that the emptiness of inherent existence is the final mode of abiding of phenomena

2.  in the context of the existential situation of the epistemological needs of the trainees to whom the doctrines were taught

3.  in the face of reasoned refutation of opposing scriptures

Tsongkhapa resolves other seeming contradictions by taking into account the frame of reference of a remark. For instance, Kalkī Puṇḍarīka’s commentary on the Kālachakra Tantra, called the Stainless Light, explains the term “vajra” in “Vajra Vehicle” in the context of the Kālachakra Tantra, a Highest Yoga Tantra, in such a way that the meaning applies only to that class of tantra and not to all four classes. Tsongkhapa explains that since the three lower tantra sets do not have the paths necessary for the generation of a fusion of totally supreme emptiness (here referring to a form empty, or devoid, of material particles) and supreme immutable bliss (“immutable” here referring to nonemission), this explanation—in the Kālachakra mode—of “Vajra Vehicle” is too narrow. He adds that explaining “Vehicles of Cause and Effect” in this way is also too narrow for a general presentation. Rather, the general meaning of “Vajra Vehicle” must apply to all four classes of tantra, not just Highest Yoga. Tsongkhapa is making the point that the type of union of method and wisdom described in those texts applies only to Highest Yoga Mantra and that a meaning of “Vajrayāna” applicable to all four tantra sets must be found elsewhere. As explained above, he indicates that this is deity yoga, an indivisible union of method and wisdom.

Regarding scriptural authority for the distinction between the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles, Tsongkhapa quotes a passage from the Lady Sky-Traveler Vajra Tent Tantra, rejects the commentaries of Kṛṣhṇapāda and Indrabodhi, and critically uses the commentary of Devakulamahāmati, accepting some parts and rejecting others. Having established that deity yoga is the dividing line between the two Great Vehicles, he reinforces this with citations from or references to works on Highest Yoga Mantra by Jñānapāda, Ratnākarashānti, Abhayākara, Durjayachandra, Shrīdha ra, Samayavajra, Jinadatta, and Vinayadatta. The general drift is illustrated by a passage from Ratnākarashānti’s Commentary on (Dīpaṅkarabhadra’s) “Four Hundred and Fifty” as Tsongkhapa cites the title, or Commentary on (Dīpaṅkarabhadra’s) “Rite of the Guhyasamāja Maṇḍala” as it is listed in the Tibetan Tripitaka:11

If one cultivates only [a path] having the nature of a deity, one cannot become fully enlightened through that because the fulfillment of [yogic] activities is not complete. Or, if one meditates on the suchness of a deity and not on that deity, one will attain Buddhahood in many countless eons but not quickly. Through meditating on both, one will attain the highest perfect complete enlightenment very quickly because to do so is very appropriate and has special empowering blessings.

Since a Buddha has both a Truth Body/Body of Attributes and a Form Body it is very appropriate that on the path one cultivate both emptiness yoga and deity yoga, the former having as its main result the Body of Attributes and the latter, Form Bodies. In short, the path to speedy attainment of enlightenment must involve both deity yoga and emptiness yoga; one without the other is not sufficient. Furthermore, as Tsongkhapa points out, these two exist in one consciousness; thus, his assertion of the difference between the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles is made on the basis of the simultaneous union in one consciousness of the factors of method and wisdom, specifically the appearance of the divine form and ascertainment of its emptiness.

Having cited such passages in Highest Yoga Tantras and commentaries to show the distinctive presence of deity yoga, he makes brief citations for Yoga, Performance, and Action Tantras by referring to Shākyamitra, Ānandagarbha, and Buddhaguhya, skirting for the time being the considerable controversy over whether Action Tantra and Performance Tantra have deity yoga, since he tackles that problem at the beginning of the section on Action Tantra.

Despite Tsongkhapa’s many citations of tantras and Indian commentaries, it is clear that they are used only as evidence for his argument. Tradition is only supportive, not the final authority. The arbiter is reason, specifically in the sense of determining coherence and consistency within a path structure. Tsongkhapa refutes Ratnarakṣhita and Tripiṭakamāla, for instance, not because they differ from the aforementioned sources but because their presentations fail in terms of consistency with the path structure. By doing so, he moves the basis of the argument from scriptural citation to reasoned analysis of a meditative structure.

REFUTATION OF RATNARAKṢHITA

Tsongkhapa analyzes and refutes Ratnarakṣhita’s and Tripiṭakamāla’s presentations on the difference between the Perfection and Mantra vehicles (the first is not included in Butön’s presentation and the second is). In his Commentary on the Difficult Points of the Saṃvarodaya Tantra, Ratnarakṣhita explains that the generation stage, which he takes to be deity yoga, is the distinctive feature of Mantra. Ratnarakṣhita rejects meditation on emptiness as a distinctive feature because it occurs also in the Perfection Vehicle, and he rejects bliss because Bodhisattvas of the Perfection Vehicle are able to maintain a feeling of pleasure or bliss even in the midst of extreme torture.

In a typically laconic way, Tsongkhapa leaves many points unsaid or only hints at them. He merely says:

[Ratnarakṣhita] says this, thinking that all cultivations of deity yoga are included in the generation stage, that the yogas of channels, winds, and drops are for generating bliss, and that bliss is similar [in the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles].

Tsongkhapa is making several points important to his own system:

1.    Although all four tantra sets involve deity yoga, only Highest Yoga Mantra has a generation stage; Action, Performance, and Yoga Tantra do not. The reason is that the deity yoga of the generation stage in Highest Yoga Mantra must be modeled after the processes of death, intermediate state, and rebirth, whereas the three lower tantras, while using deity yoga, do not present deity yoga this way. Specifically, the meditation on emptiness that is at the beginning of deity yoga must, in Highest Yoga Mantra, include a mimicking of the eight signs of death:

four appearances

(1) like a mirage

(2) like smoke

(3) like fireflies within smoke, and

(4) like the flame of a butter lamp

the dawning of three subtler consciousnesses

(5) the mind of vivid white appearance

(6) the mind of vivid red or orange increase, and

(7) the mind of vivid black near attainment

and the dawning of the most subtle consciousness

(8) the mind of clear light

This is called “bringing death to the path as the Truth Body/Body of Attributes.” The yoga must also mimic the process of assuming an intermediate state through appearance as a seed syllable and then the process of rebirth through appearance in divine physical form. These latter two are called “bringing the intermediate state and birth to the path as the Complete Enjoyment Body and Emanation Body” respectively. Since the deity yogas of the three lower tantras—Action, Performance, and Yoga—do not involve such a patterning on the stages of being born in cyclic existence, they cannot fulfill the characteristics of a generation stage. Since the generation stage does not occur in three out of the four tantra sets, it cannot differentiate the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles, and thus Ratnarakṣhita is wrong to hold that the generation stage is the distinctive feature of Mantra in general.

2.    Just as meditation on emptiness occurs in Highest Yoga Mantra in both the generation stage and the completion stage, deity yoga also occurs in both stages. (The distinctive feature of the completion stage is that the three subtler minds and the fourth subtlest one are actually manifested through causing the winds to enter, dissolve, and remain in the central channel.) Therefore, Ratnarakṣhita is wrong in holding that all cultivations of deity yoga are included in the generation stage.

3.    The blissful minds generated in the completion stage in Highest Yoga Mantra are more subtle consciousnesses than any generated through Sūtra practice, and once generated, they are used to realize the emptiness of inherent existence. Hence, Ratnarakṣhita is wrong in holding that bliss is similar in the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles.

According to Tsongkhapa, when these points are not differentiated, the distinctive features of Highest Yoga Mantra are blurred. It can be seen that one of his aims in finely and critically delineating the difference between the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles is so that the uncommon techniques of Highest Yoga Mantra can be appreciated. The doctrine of the most esoteric system affects the presentation of the less esoteric.

REFUTATION OF TRIPIṬAKAMĀLA

The second position that Tsongkhapa examines is that of Tripiṭakamāla as found in his Lamp for the Three Modes. Though Tsongkhapa earlier cited the Lamp for the Three Modes as a source for the division of vehicles into three types—Lesser Vehicle, Sūtra Great Vehicle, and Mantra Great Vehicle—from the viewpoint of trainees’ interests (and abilities) and although he cites it later as a source for etymologies of the names of the four tantra sets, here he presents and refutes the Lamp for the Three Modes at length. Because Tripiṭakamāla’s presentation is central to the expositions not only of Butön and Longchenpa (as well as other major scholars in Tibetan orders), Tsongkhapa’s refutation of it is a radical and dramatic attempt to change the focus of tantric exposition. Let us consider the refutation in detail.

Tripiṭakamāla holds that the Mantra Vehicle is superior by way of four features: being for the nonobscured, having many methods, not being difficult, and being contrived for those of sharp faculties. Butön paraphrases Tripiṭakamāla’s own explanation of these, and Tsongkhapa condenses it (both without, to my sight, any warpage), and I shall condense it even further.

1. Being for the nonobscured. Tripiṭakamāla explains that those following the Perfection Vehicle try to complete the perfection of giving, for instance, by physical acts of charity that include, in dire instances, even giving away one’s own body. He says that followers of the Mantra Vehicle see that since “a perfection is the ability to fulfill a want of all sentient beings simultaneously” and since this cannot possibly be done by giving away one’s body, head, or the like, Māntrikas engage in the superior technique of meditatively satisfying the wishes of all beings. This lack of obscuration, according to Tripiṭakamāla, characterizes the trainees of the Mantra Vehicle as superior.

Tsongkhapa disagrees with Tripiṭakamāla’s basic notion of how the Perfection Vehicle describes fulfillment of a perfection. He cites Shāntideva’s description of the perfection of giving in his Engaging in the Bodhisattva Deeds,12 an unchallengeable treatise of Sūtra Great Vehicle:

If through eliminating the poverty of beings

A perfection of giving occurred,

Then since there are still poor beings,

How did the former Protectors achieve perfection?

Through an attitude of giving to all beings

All one’s possessions with their fruits

A perfection of giving is said to occur,

Thus it is just the mind.

According to Shāntideva, the perfection of giving is a matter of bringing the attitude of generosity to full development, not of satisfying the wants of all sentient beings. Otherwise, a perfection of giving never could have previously occurred, since obviously there are still beggars in the world. In that case, Shākyamuni Buddha could not have become enlightened, since he would not have attained the perfection of giving. Tripiṭakamāla’s description of this first feature of Mantra’s being for the nonobscured is, as Tsongkhapa says, “in trouble.”

2. Having many methods. Tripiṭakamāla explains that the techniques of the Sūtra system are all peaceful and thus “cannot take care of all sentient beings.” It might seem that he is suggesting that the achievement of activities of pacification, increase, control, and ferocity in Mantra is unique to Mantra, but he does not even mention this line of argument and, instead, speaks of the mental, verbal, and physical aspects of maṇḍala meditation for the sake of undermining a single afflictive emotion, such as desire. Tsongkhapa does not address this explanation, only mentioning that Tibetan explanations of this feature as referring to the four types of activities are not based on Tripiṭakamāla’s own words.

3. and 4. Not being difficult and being contrived for those of sharp faculties. Under these headings Tripiṭakamāla discusses four levels of capacity of Mantra trainees:

1.  The supreme of the supreme meditate on the Great Seal—an indivisibility of wisdom and method—without using either a meditated consort or actual one.

2.  The next beneath them use a meditated consort, called a Wisdom Seal.

3.  The next use a fully qualified actual consort, called a pledge seal.

4.  The next use an actual consort not necessarily endowed with all attributes.

If we add Jñānakīrti’s explanation,13 there is a fifth level, that of trainees of Yoga Tantra and below who meditate on the body of a deity that is given the name “Great Seal”—in other words, deity yoga without a consort.

The first four represent levels within Highest Yoga Mantra. According to Tripiṭakamāla, the supreme of the supreme trainees of Highest Yoga Mantra do not use desire for attractive visible forms, sounds, odors, tastes, and touches in the path; they do not make use of even a meditated consort, never mind an actual one. Tripiṭakamāla holds that those just below the very top rank meditate on an imaginary consort, and he posits the usage of an actual consort only for the third and fourth levels of practitioners. It is clear that he does not hold Tsongkhapa’s view that an actual consort is needed even by the very best of trainees in order to bring about a withdrawal of the grosser levels of consciousness as in the process of dying. It seems that he views the usage of a meditated or actual consort only as a technique for those distracted by desire. His thought is likely that by meditating on emptiness and so forth in the midst of ritualized sex, a practitioner could overcome the sense that sex is separate from the scope of emptiness and thereby could undermine sexual desire.

The psychological value of exposing oneself to one’s own inner desires, fears, and so forth in the midst of a different, intentional background in meditating on emptiness is unquestionable. However, it seems that Tripiṭakamāla was not cognizant of the doctrine of the levels of consciousness manifested in orgasmic bliss and thus did not even conceive of utilizing them in the path. He had a completely different notion of the purpose of using desire in the path; for him desire is brought to the path only by those whose meditation is disturbed by lustful thoughts.

According to Tsongkhapa, just the opposite is the case. Through using an actual consort a person proficient in the meditations of Highest Yoga Mantra manifests the three subtler and the final, subtlest consciousness, thereby enabling completion of the path—from the path of accumulation14 to the path of no-more-learning¹⁵—in one lifetime. Later in the Great Exposition of Secret Mantra Tsongkhapa explains this to be the system of the Guhyasamāja Tantra, and thus, from his point of view, it is totally mistaken to claim that the supreme of the supreme trainees of Highest Yoga Mantra do not use desire in the path; such a mistaken view misses what, for Tsongkhapa, is the most powerful feature of the Highest Yoga Mantra path. Also, it is self-contradictory (1) to claim that the Mantra Great Vehicle is superior to the Sūtra Great Vehicle due to not being difficult in the sense of using desire in the path and (2) then to hold that the supreme of the supreme trainees do not use desire in the path.

Again, Tsongkhapa is emphasizing the special features of Highest Yoga Mantra. As with his refutation of Ratnarakṣhita, this refutation of Tripiṭakamāla is primarily based on a difference of views on Highest Yoga Mantra; Tripiṭakamāla is indicted for being misinformed about the most profound form of the path. For Tsongkhapa, sense, coherence, and consistency are of utmost importance; thus, divergent views must be refuted; they cannot just be repeated.

The Nyingma master Longchenpa’s exposition of Tripiṭakamāla’s stanza is different in both style and content. He takes the “object” of the first line (“Though the object is the same”)—which Butön explains as referring to the fact that nondual omniscience is similarly the goal of both the Sūtra and Mantra systems—as indicating not that the goal of Buddhahood is the same, but that the basis, the essence of clear light, is similarly described in both systems. He takes the line as meaning that the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles similarly delineate this basis as well as the phenomena that depend upon it; thus, he incurs no self-contradiction when later he says that the goal of Mantra is higher than that of Sūtra. Longchenpa creatively comments on Tripiṭakamāla’s stanza in a way that fits his own system, without even hinting that Tripiṭakamāla himself explains this stanza differently.16

From Longchenpa’s explanation of the four distinctive features of Mantra, let us consider how Tsongkhapa and his followers might object to two of them—being for the nonobscured and not being difficult. Longchenpa says that those of the Perfection, or Definition, Vehicle are obscured with respect to the basis, paths, and fruits. He identifies the basis as the profound and the vast—the first being ultimate reality and the paths to it and the second being (1) the mode of procedure of the path of compassion and (2) the conventional phenomena in terms of which that procedure is carried out. He says:17

The Definition [Vehicle] has no more than only a profundity that is concerned with a basis fabricated by the mind, an ultimate truth known by determinative inferential valid cognition breaking down [objects] through reasoning.

His assertion that in the Perfection Vehicle the ultimate truth is known only inferentially would not sit well with Tsongkhapa who holds that in the Perfection Vehicle inferential realization is a necessary prerequisite to direct realization of the ultimate. Indeed, if there were no direct realization of emptiness in the Perfection Vehicle, it would contradict the assertion of ten Bodhisattva grounds, which are levels centering around direct realization of emptiness in meditative equipoise. Longchenpa’s view that the ultimate truth described in the Perfection Vehicle is a mere mental fabrication is diametrically opposite to Tsongkhapa’s who holds that inference incontrovertibly knows the actual ultimate truth, albeit by the route of a generic image¹⁸ and not directly. For Tsongkhapa, inferential realization leads to direct perception of the same emptiness. The change is epistemological, not ontological.

For Longchenpa, however, the ultimate truth as presented in Mantra or, more specifically, in Highest Yoga Mantra is actualized in the completion stage of the path of method in Highest Yoga Mantra through concentrating on special points in the body to induce the winds to enter the central channel so that the inner heat¹⁹ can be generated, melting the drops at the top of the head and causing their descent within the channel structure and the subsequent generation of the four empties, or four subtle consciousnesses.²⁰ He says:²¹

Mantra, however, delineates—as the ground—nonconceptual pristine wisdom unfabricated by the mind, the essence of the Body of Attributes, merely through concentrative emphasis on focal points of body, speech, channels, winds, drops of essential fluid, and so forth without depending on reasoning.

Here the procedure for getting at the ultimate truth is not reasoning but special techniques for inducing manifestation of pristine wisdom; a more profound means of perception realizes a more profound reality. When the mind of clear light is actualized and objects are seen as manifestations of it, one is beyond the need for discarding nonvirtues and adopting virtues as everything has become an appearance of this fundamental mind; everyone and everything of its own nature appears as divine. The style of the narrative itself is meant to yield glimpses of this hierophany in which everything, of its own accord, shines in self-established purity, divinity.

One can see how difficult it might be for those trained in Longchenpa’s and Tsongkhapa’s traditions to appreciate the other’s approach. Neither could find in the other’s teaching the particularly attractive taste that they find in their own—it would appear to be devoid of the most intriguing essence of their own path. Yet, for me, once this distinction of approach and of content is made, the two styles are more like two sides of a coin, without appreciation of which the whole picture might not be gained. I would suggest that to appreciate both styles, it is helpful to recognize the seeming contradictions and inconsistencies in each presentation when viewed from the other perspective.

With respect to Mantra’s feature of not being for the difficult, Longchenpa concludes that “achievement arises through using the attributes of the Desire Realm and so forth.” This specifically refers to making use of the pleasant visible forms, sounds, odors, tastes, and touches of a consort in the path. As we have seen, desire for these is used in or as the path22 in the sense that desire leads to a blissful consciousness realizing emptiness. Specifically, in Highest Yoga Mantra sexual union is used to manifest (in orgasm but without emission) the subtler levels of consciousness mentioned above.23 However, their mere actualization is not sufficient; those bliss consciousnesses, according to Tsongkhapa, must take the emptiness of inherent existence as their object, thereby eradicating desire. Longchenpa does not explicitly say such, but he would seem to hold that, far from merely arising from being fed up with the rigors of a wearying path, the practice of using desire in the path serves as a technique for highly qualified persons to proceed on the path more quickly.

In the three lower tantras—Action, Performance, and Yoga—desire is also used in the path, though not to generate subtler consciousnesses. However, Tsongkhapa is unwilling to hold that the usage of desire in the path is a distinguishing feature of Mantra because Sūtra Bodhisattvas are well known for using the afflictive emotions of desire and so forth to aid sentient beings, thereby accumulating merit,²⁴ which contributes to their eventual full enlightenment. As a source he cites the Kāshyapa Chapter Sūtra:

Just as the filth of city-dwellers

Helps the field of a sugarcane grower,

So the manure of a Bodhisattva’s afflictions

Assists in growing the qualities of a Buddha.

In his commentary, the Dalai Lama gives as an example a Sūtra Bodhisattva king’s using desire in the path in order to father children so that they can be of service to the kingdom. The implication is that desire is necessary for erection and orgasm; thus, even though the causal motivation²⁵ for such copulation is compassion and thus is nonafflicted, the motivation at the time of the act²⁶ is mixed with the afflictive emotion of desire.

As an amusing aside, let me cite the comment by the late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Gelug scholar Jamyang Shaypa²⁷ that Bodhisattva Superiors,²⁸ those who have reached the path of seeing29 and above, can have a “serviceable organ”³⁰ without an afflictive emotion being involved:³¹

If [Bodhisattva Superiors] are able to display endless emanations in actuality [and not just in imagination], what need is there to mention that they could emanate an actual serviceable organ!

Since Bodhisattvas on the first ground and above could magically display an erection, they would have no need to use such an afflictive emotion to father a child. More seriously, this calls into question the assertion that the scope of Sūtra Bodhisattvas’ usage of desire in the path would be limited to those on the paths of accumulation.

Hatred also is said to be used in the Sūtra Great Vehicle path, as in killing a highly injurious person who cannot be tamed in any other way. Again, the causal motivation is compassion (both for the evil person and for others oppressed by him/her), but does the act of killing have to involve hatred or does it just look like a hateful act? Among my Tibetan teachers, one lama said that hatred might be necessary to bring the act of stopping the other person’s life to completion, whereas another said it would not.³²

In any case, the Sūtra ways of using the afflictive emotions in the path in which negative emotions impel virtuous acts are not comparable to the tantric use of a bliss consciousness arising from desire to realize emptiness. Hence, there remains the question of whether the usage of desire in this particularly tantric way could be indeed a differentiator of the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles. Tsongkhapa briefly addresses this more refined position:

We must assert that the trainees of the four tantras each use pleasure in the path in dependence on the four types of desire for the attributes of the desire realm [gazing, laughing, holding hands, and union. The presence or absence of such an ability to use pleasure in the path] is suitable as a difference between persons who are initially entering the Mantra or Perfection Vehicles; however, such cannot distinguish the vehicles.

Is Tsongkhapa making the point that differences between practitioners of vehicles cannot determine differences in vehicles? This seems unlikely, since the difference in persons comes by way of an ability to practice a certain path, or vehicle. Or, is he saying that such a difference occurs with respect to trainees “initially” entering these vehicles but does not hold true throughout the practice of the vehicle and thus cannot distinguish the vehicles? If this is the case, then in Tsongkhapa’s system deity yoga would absurdly have to be practiced at every single point in the Mantra Vehicle, something that he himself does not assert. Rather, he seems to be admitting that the difference in the trainees of the respective vehicles indeed indicates a difference in the paths but is not sufficient to distinguish the vehicles since it is not central. The Dalai Lama speaks directly to this point:

Although it indicates an inequality in the capacities of the two types of persons, it is not the profound and complete distinction between the Perfection and Mantra vehicles.

This statement reinforces a focal point in Tsongkhapa’s basic argument, namely, that the difference between the vehicles must be significant in terms of the general structure of the path, this being in terms of method and wisdom, which are the chief causes respectively of the two aspects of the goal of the path—a Buddha’s Body of Attributes and Form Bodies. Deity yoga does indeed fulfill this criterion.

The special tantric way of using desire in the path can perhaps be subsumed under deity yoga, the special union of method and wisdom found only in Mantra, since it is performed within imagination of oneself and the consort as deities, whether the consort is an actual one or not. However, because the technique of using desire in the path is for the sake of enhancing the mind of wisdom realizing emptiness—not necessarily in the sense of generating a subtler consciousness realizing emptiness as is done in Highest Yoga Mantra but at least in the sense of generating a blissful consciousness realizing emptiness—it should be included within the factor of wisdom, in which case there would be a difference between the Sūtra and Mantra Great Vehicles in terms of how wisdom is enhanced, a difference not limited to Highest Yoga Mantra but also present in the three lower tantras. Still, for Tsongkhapa, this would not make the factor of wisdom the differentiator between the two vehicles since just as he recognizes the difference between the Lesser Vehicle and Great Vehicle modes of cultivating wisdom—the former by just a brief form of reasoning and the latter by “endless” reasonings—and yet he does not posit it as a sufficiently significant difference to be the central distinction between those vehicles, so here the difference in the usage of desire in the path in the two Great Vehicles is clearly for him not sufficiently significant. Rather, in Tsongkhapa’s system, the centrally significant distinguishing feature of Mantra is deity yoga—meditation on oneself as having a body similar in aspect to a Buddha’s Form Body.

Deity yoga involves an enactment in meditation of the pure condition of Buddhahood while still on the path. The abode, body, resources, and deeds of a Buddha are an Effect Vehicle33 in the sense of being that to which one is progressing. Because in Mantra the cause vehicle—the means by which one progresses to that state—involves using an imitation of the state of the effect in the path, it is also called an Effect Vehicle. Thus, the term “Effect Vehicle” has two meanings: (1) the actual state of the effect that is the goal of the path and (2) the means of progress (cause vehicle) that is called an Effect Vehicle since it involves a meditative imitation of the state of the effect. “Vehicle” as the goal of the path—Buddhahood—“proceeds” most likely in the sense of being able to carry or bear the welfare of limitless sentient beings.

The imagination of oneself in the body of a Buddha in an inestimable mansion with divine companions and articles and emanating radiance that purifies lands and the persons therein is mantra, which is understood as “mind-protection.” With man meaning “mind” and tra (taken to be trā34 with the final long vowel ā being dropped in the compound) meaning “protection,” mantra means to protect the mind from ordinary appearances and apprehension of oneself and one’s surroundings as ordinary. Clear appearance of the divine figure and so forth protects the mind from ordinary appearances of a usual body, house, resources, and activities, for the mental consciousness is involved in divine appearances to the point where the factors necessary to generate an eye consciousness, for instance, deteriorate for the time being and the sense consciousnesses do not operate. With clear appearance of pure mind and body there is a sense of being the divine “I” designated in dependence upon them; this counters the conception of ordinariness,³⁵ that is to say, being an ordinary person with an ordinary impure body of flesh, blood, and bone and with an ordinary impure mind.

This practice is found in all four tantra sets and occupies a significant place in the path as an enhancement of method. Since it is not found in Sūtra systems, it can serve as the central differentiator between the two Great Vehicles, Sūtra and Mantra, or Perfection Vehicle and Mantra Vehicle.