Until the recent military occupation of Tibet by the Chinese, the history of Tibetan thought is to all intents the same as the history of Tibetan Buddhism, which has greatly overshadowed the native Tibetan religion of Bönism. Buddhism was diffused in Tibet over a long period, from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries CE, generally subdivided by its historians into two phases. The first phase, dated approximately from the founding of the first Buddhist monastery at Bsam-yas in the late eighth century, involved influences from both India in the West and China in the East. This process was disrupted by the political disintegration of the country in 842 CE. It was only when stability returned with the establishment of a new royal dynasty towards the end of the tenth century that the ‘second diffusion’ of Buddhism in Tibet could begin. This phase differed from the first in that the influences were entirely Indian in origin.
This interrupted development has left its mark on Tibetan thought, chiefly in respect of the canons of scriptures accepted as authoritative by the various sects of Tibetan Buddhism which have evolved over the centuries. The most ancient sect, the rNying ma pa (the Old Ones, also called the Red Hats), who trace their history back to Padma-Sambhava, accept different scriptures from sects which arose during or after the second diffusion. Of these, the most important are the bKa’ brygud pa (Whispered Transmission school) of which Marpa and Milarepa are the most famous representatives, and the dGe lugs pa (the Orthodox or Reformed school, also called the Yellow Hats). This latter sect, though originating in the eleventh century, became dominant in Tibet only in the time of Tsong kha pa (1357–1419 CE). It is this school of which the Dalai Lama is the head.1 It should be stressed that in speaking of ‘sects’ or ‘schools’ of Tibetan Buddhism, what is intended is analogous to the relation of different religious orders (Franciscan, Dominican, and so on) within the Catholic Church, and not a difference as marked as that, for example, between Catholic and Protestant. The agreement as to fundamental beliefs between the schools is very considerable.
These fundamentals are drawn from the two great metaphysical systems of the Mahayana (T: theg chen), the Madhyamika and the Yogacara. (The ideas of the Theravada (T: theg dman) were never a living force in Tibetan life, being known of only as matters for study, not for lived religious practice.) From the Madhyamika school of Nagarjuna Tibetan thinkers take a fundamental thesis concerning the nature of reality. Nagarjuna argues that since all individual things arise dependently, i.e. come into being because of the causal interactions of other things, they are without essence or empty. Beingas-is or reality does not arise dependently, and its nature is voidness (S: sunyata), that is, a predicateless unity, not nothingness. From the Yogacarin school (cf. in this book the essay on Vasubandhu), is taken the assertion that although the phenomenal world of the samsara is unreal, yet the consciousness which produces this world is real. Thus, in a Tibetan text edited in the seventeenth century (CE) but whose doctrinal sources date from many centuries earlier, it is said:
Whatever be seen during sleep is not something apart from mind. Similarly, all phenomena of the waking-state are but the dream-content of the Sleep of Obscuring Ignorance [i.e. avidya]. Apart from the mind (which giveth them illusory being) they have no existence.2
This assertion is blended with the Madhyamika doctrine of the Voidness: ‘As waves are produced from water itself, so, in like manner, is to be understood how all things are the offspring of the mind, which, in its own nature, is Voidness.’3 This makes it clear that one must take care not to mistake the meaning of the term ‘mind’ in these texts by construing it in a western fashion: it is being-as-is, not merely individual consciousness as it is understood in western thought. The reason for the Yogacarin preference for this way of putting the basic metaphysical doctrine is perhaps, as Edward Conze suggests, that it makes clear where reality is to be sought, i.e. within us, in the deepest recess of our own consciousness, a point made repeatedly in the Tibetan texts.4
In the Tibetan context, these beliefs are combined with further ideas and practices from the esoteric form of Buddhism called Tantrism (T: rGyud), also called the Vajrayana or Diamond Vehicle (T: rDo rje theg pa). The relationship of the Vajrayana to the Mahayana is the subject of debate, some holding that Tantrism is a sub-school of the Mahayana, others that it is a third, distinct, major form of Buddhism. The scriptures of this school are called tantras as distinct from sutras, the usual generic term for such writings in Buddhism, and Tantrists maintain that their scriptures contain doctrines even more advanced than those to be found in the Prajnaparamita (S: Perfection of Wisdom) Sutras of the Mahayana. Tantric Buddhism is a subject in itself, its doctrines and practices being both intricate and complex. The remarks that follow address only a few points which are taken for granted by the thinkers to be considered, and do not pretend even to be an outline of the subject as a whole.
First, in common with adherents to a number of other esoteric forms of religion, Tantrists maintain that their founder (in this case, of course, the Buddha himself) put forward more than one set of doctrines: the exoteric, for those of lesser spiritual ability, and the esoteric or secret for spiritual adepts. These esoteric doctrines and practices are not transmissible by means of the written word alone; they can be realized by the aspirant (S: shishya) only in the context of study with a master or guru (T: bla ma), and full transmission of the Tantric insights occurs only in this context. Not surprisingly, the role of the guru is central in Tantric practice, and the guru/shishya relationship is of the first importance. Once the shishya has been accepted by the guru, the student must submit entirely and unquestioningly to the teacher’s direction, however harsh or perverse it may appear. The guru will gauge the shishya’s progress towards the goal, will suggest suitable practices, and will gradually unfold the deeper Tantric mysteries as the shishya becomes fit to receive them. (For an analogous attitude to the master/student relationship, and of face-to-face transmission of doctrine, cf. the essays on the Zen thinkers Dogen and Hakuin.) The relationship of Milarepa to his guru Marpa is the most famous example of such in Tibetan thought. It will be no surprise that all the leading thinkers in the Tibetan tradition have the title ‘guru’ or ‘great guru’, as is the case with Padma-Sambhava.
Second, although the metaphysics underlying Tibetan Tantrism is that of the Mahayana, it has been blended with further beliefs and practices from more popular types of Buddhism. Thus Tantrism has taken over the Buddhist pantheon of one hundred deities, and construes them as personifications of spiritual forces which can be mobilized as aids on the road to enlightenment. Further, the means by which the assistance of the deities can be secured are highly evolved, partly by dance and ritual gesture, and partly by the use of mantras (T: sNags). ‘Mantra’ is the Sanskrit for ‘spell’ (from man = mental process, and tra = protect), and the theory underlying the construction of these incantations is a science on its own. The syllables used are held to have the power to put the aspirant in touch with cosmic forces by addressing their personifications. Each mantra corresponds symbolically to a divine plane, itself symbolically represented by a deity. The essence of a god Can be expressed by a pure sound, and the syllables contain this essence. The best known in the West is probably ‘Om-Mani-Padme-Hum’, a mantra very widely used in Tibet.
Third, the blending of the doctrine of the Voidness with the Buddhist pantheon results in Tantric meditation being based on beliefs and practices not found elsewhere in Buddhism. The use of mantras permits the meditator to conjure up the deity in question. As the meditation proceeds, a conception of the external form of the deity is formed in the mind, this appearance following a specification hallowed by tradition and set down in the texts known as the Sadhanas (c.500 CE). As a further aid in this phase of the meditation, mandalas may be used, a mandala being a depiction, circular in form, of the deity in question. However, it follows from the Mahayanist metaphysics that the deities thus invoked must be unreal or empty, since being-as-is is a divisionless, predicateless One. Tantrism is made consistent by the thesis that the conjured deities are created by the conjuration, having no being independent of it. Thus it is held that in the advanced stages of meditation, meditator and deity become one: this is possible because both are empty. This condition, in which deity and worshipper are one, constitutes samadhi for the Tantrist. In the present context, the point to fix on is that references to multiple deities are not to be construed in a polytheistic fashion, which would contradict the underlying Mahayanist nondualism.
One further term needs to be clarified before approaching the Tibetan thinkers themselves, and that is yoga (T: rnal ’byor). Many major Tibetan works have titles incorporating this term, e.g. The Yoga of the Great Symbol, The Yoga of the Six Doctrines, The Yoga of Consciousness Transference, and the like. The most commonly accepted etymology for the term ‘yoga’ is to derive it from the Sanskrit ‘yuj’ meaning to join or to unite (cf. the English verb ‘to yoke’) and thus a yoga is defined as a practice designed to bring about a union of human nature with divine nature, such that the divine guides and transforms the human. The classic text is the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (first century BCE?), from which all other treatises are ultimately derived. Most western readers confronted with the term ‘yoga’ probably think of certain basic exercises and recommendations for the control of breathing, and these are indeed among the elementary exercises of the first stage in yogic practice, termed Hatha Yoga. It is important to note, however, that such practices are only the first steps on a long path designed to lead the practitioner to no less a goal than the Other Shore itself, i.e. enlightenment. Hatha Yoga is only one yoga among many. A yoga is a technique to assist spiritual development: thus the practice of zazen or the use of koans by Zennists are yogas, though not usually so described. The yogas to be discussed in the following pages, and which are described here only in their philosophical aspect, are of the most advanced kind, their final results being achievable if at all only after many years of training.
1 For reasons of space, Tsong kha pa cannot be considered in this book. His best-known works are Lam rim chen no, a work summarizing his version of Tantrism, and sNags rim, a study of Tantras recommended for study to aspirants.
‘Dalai’ is the Mongolian word for ‘ocean’, and the title was first bestowed by a Mongol Khan in the sixteenth century. All Dalai Lamas are regarded as incarnations of the god Avalokitesvara.
2 The Yoga of the Great Symbol, in W.Y. Evans-Wentz (ed.), Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1958, p. 146.
3 op.cit., p. 148.
4 Edward Conze, Buddhism, Oxford, Bruno Cassirer, 1957, p. 166