Table Of ContentT
ANTRIC BUDDHIST ApOLOGETICS
OR
ANTINOMIANISM AS A NORM
Isabelle Onians
Z,
e
March 28,2003 "2001..1 ( Lf"~ ~
Tnntric Buddhist Apologetics
or
AntinomianiJm as Norm
II
sublnitted by Isabelle Onians
ofWolfiol1 College, Oxford
for the Degree ofD . Phil. in Triniry Term 2001 [, "- ~oo 1-)
A
BSTRACT: This thesis poses the question of Tantric Buddhist apolo
getics: how did the authors of that tradition, named and anonymous,
respond to the need felt to justify [heir religious practices, inasmuch as those
appeared anomalous within the larger context of Buddhism in India?
'fhe subtitle signals my ancillary theme herein, on the nature of the Tantric
Buddhist system: to what extent can it be described as antinomianism as a
norm?
In addition to the undated scriptural Tantras themselves, our principal
Sanskrit sources belong to the culmination of Indian Higher Tantric Bud
dhist exegesis between the tenth and twelfth centuries AD. One previously
unpublished text, the Abhifekanirukti, particularly ilnportant for its rare
analysis of the problematic sexual initiation, is translated in full as an Ap
pendix. Also studied are the Tibetan translation of the Nayatrayapradipa, a
work which is not known to survive in Sanskrit, as well as the famous Bo
dhipathapradipa (with auto-commentary, both preserved only in Tibetan),
composed on the request of a Tibetan king.
In the Introduction I set the scene for the main topics with a presentation
of related issues in the early Buddhism of the PaJi Canon and in the Maha
yana, historically intermediary between 'early' and Tantric Buddhism.
Part I assesses the relationship of these three Buddhisms, from the point of
view of proponents of the later developments: did they, and can we, perceive
aunt ry in the whole?
With Part II the central paradigm of my thesis is broached. How did
Tanrric Buddhis[ commentators describe the function of their sexual ini
tiations; were they considered essential to the religion; and if so, how to
proceed when the candidate is a monasric, a priori celibate?
The Conclusion rerurns to the two ritle phrases and reconsiders their
aptness for representing this dissertation's aims and results.
Figure I: These reliefs precede my dissenation because they graphically illusnare [he
way that sensual relationships were long incorporated a( the heart of even monastic
Buddhist insirurions. Erotic (maithuna) carvings are everywhere in the artistic deco
ration of temples and monasteries, in the cicy-state of Nagarjunakonda, for example
(DuTT 1962, plate 6), or at Ajanra (GHosH 1967, plate M). The sculpture above is
from the left-hand door-jamb of a monastic cell in me southern suire of Monasrery
45 at Sanchi (photo author; cf. DUTT 1973:53-56).
Figure II: The above sculpture is from the right-hand door-jamb of the ante
cp~ber of the inner satlc[um of Temple 45 at Sancru (photo author).
Co Iltents
8
INTRODUCTION
Buddhist Core Moralit), 17
/v/nhii)'iillll Et/Jics 20
Ethic,,1 ProblelllS 27
Olltolog), tlnd EtiJics 29
Sujfirillg lInd iII Opposite in Ear6' Bllddhisnl 32
Happiness 011 the Pllth 36
Happiness as the Goal 42
Sellsttal Pleasure
~
Desire for Hnppiness 54
I.
MANTRANAYA, MAHAYANA AND BUDDHISM:
UNITY IN DIVERSITY?
Ge1leral Apologetic 63
Buddhologies 65
Tanrric Buddhisms 68
The Historical Buddha's Tantric Enlightenn1ent 73
The Buddha, Author of the Higher Tantras 82
Apologetic 86
C01Jl1Jlellf(1I0rS
The Tattv/,rohliivali and the SlIbhii.sitaJar!1gr./hn 86
Tripi~akamalaJs NayatraYllprndipa 91
The Greatness of the Mahayana 92
The Four Distinctions of the Manrranaya 96
Lack of Confusion 97
~/fultipliciry of Means 107
Lack of DifficuJry 113
Four Divisions of Practitioners 123
For Those of Keen FacuJ ties 131
Tsong kha pa conh-a Tripi~akama]a 136
The StbitislllJlIlCcllya 138
lvlahama[i on [he piikinivajrflplliijllrlltfllltrfl 146
Ratnakarasan ti on the Hevajrfltllntrll 153
(I.
TANTRIC BUDDHISM, SEXUAL INITIATION AND MONASTICISM:
ARE
THEY COMPATIBLE?
Introduction 163
Four Initiations 17
1
Tantric Buddhism and Women 177
Ivionasricism and Celibacy 190
Is Sexual Initiation Required ill Talltric Buddbisrn? 195
Three Ritual Manuals 197
The Abh~sekaJliTllkti 202
The Dharmakaya Alone 206
The Dharmakaya \vith the Means
for irs AccompJishmenr 213
Four Limbs of l\1eans 216
\~orship 216
Subsidiary Means 222
~eans 224
Great Means 227
All Three Bodies Separately 23 I
Against a BlissfuJ Goal 235
The Goal is Bliss 242
Arisa Initiation 252
Oil
Are j\1onks £flgible for Sexual Initiation? 259
Atisa on Ivlonasricism 259
A Kiilacakra commentary on the Hevnjra tan tra 265
\Xlisdom is Morality 268
The VnjriivnlT
271
The Sal!lkfiptiibhifekauidhi 279
The Vnjriiciiryl1lal!!I1!lavidbi 289
Is Tal1tric BuddlJisll1 for Monks? 300
A Ivfoor Point 300
CONCLUSION
TanITic Buddhist Apologetics 304
Alltinoll1il111isl11I1S 11 Nornl 306
SexullIlnitilltioll 315
APPENDIX
Sujll)'lIiriguprflS AbJJJ!ekllll irllkt i
Translation: 'The E..;plllllatioll ofI nitiation' 322
Sanskrit Text: Ab"~st'kfllljruktj 349
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Prinlar}, Sources 370
Secondar}' Sources 377
Introduction
I BUDDHIST' may be the best understood and least problem-
atic of the three words in the title of this work, 'Tantric
Buddhist Apologetics'. In indigenous Indian etymological terms
the analogous Sanskrit bauddha is analysed as 'the teachings of
the Buddha' (tena proktam; ~rAdh 4-3-101), or with ,reference to
a person, 'one who studies or knows the sam~' (tad adhite tad
veda; A~rAdh 4.2.59, with 4,2.60: proktau luk), Our Buddhism is,
however, based on revelations granted not so much bySiddhartha
Sakyamuni in the fifth century but on scripture revealed later
BC,
and in the form ofTantras by a large cast of Buddha-beings.
'Tantric Buddhism' is then a special instance of Buddhism.
'Tantric' is not the transcription of a native term, but a rather
modern coinage, if not totally occidental. For the equivalent San
skrit tiintrika is found, but not in Buddhist texts. Tiintrika is a
term denoting someone who follows the teachings of scriptures
known as Tantras, but only in Saivism, not Buddhism (although
cf. the single known occurrence in a copper-plate inscription
from Naianda made in the name of the Javanese king Devapa
la in the ninth century AD: tantrikabodhisattvagarzasya:1 SIR
CAR 1983:11.37-38; ref. provided by SANDERSON). Indeed, Alexis
SANDERSON has noted that it is usually used of followers of an
other tradition, by proponents of the Trika of practitioners of the
Bhairava tantras, for example, and thus with a slightly pejorative
tone, unlike the simple noun tantra (personal communication).
Tantric Buddhism is a name for a phenomenon which calls it
self, in Sanskrit, Mantranaya, Vajrayana, Mantrayana or Mantra
mahayana (and apparently never Tantrayana). Its practitioners
are known as mantrins, yogis, or siidhakas. Thus, our use of the
anglicised adjective 'Tantric' for the Buddhist religion taught in
Tantras is not native to the tradition, but is a borrowed term
tantrika- corr. cd.: transcribed tarptraka-
III/rodll,1 ion 9
\\'hich serves irs purpose. Furthermore, there is a series of types
of Buddhist Tantras, \vhich have been c1assified differendy over
[i,ne (cE belo\\' p.68lf.)) so thar 'Tanrric' is srjH an exceedingJy
broad grouping.
\X'hat the above \vorking tide in fact does is to triangulate an
area of study, \vith J\pologerics' as the third and key signifying
paranleter. Apologetics is both the question and the answer. I ask
\vhether practitioners of-fantric Buddhism were conscious of the
difficulry many \vithin their o\vn religion and without would have
\vith particular practices, and whether such consciousness did in
turn compel the formulation ofa reasoned defence against charges
of delinquency. I let them speak for themselves, presenting such
Tantric Buddhist justification. This is their apologetic indeed, but
far fronl in the sense of 'regretfully acknowledging or excusing an
offence or failure' (OED. s.V., nleaning I).
If Tantric Buddhisln is compromising enough for its beliefs
and praccices need apologetic j usrifieation- whether d: reeted
[0
to\vards outsiders, or practitioners themselves-, then those .e~na
ordinary aspects, othef\vise il1icir, can in certain respects be argued
to be essential to the religion's sysrem. which in turn means that
the phenomenon may also be described as one of antinomianism
as a norn).
h is certainly (he case that strands of the apologetic are what
might be caBed 'strong' antinomianism. This is something quite
orher than \veak' antinomianism, which only seeks to make one
exempt from [he conventions of society, even those encoded in
a ruJe of Ja\v, immune to rerriburion and free to perform any
J
nefarious act. The strong form is different, for it goes further and
insists on antisocial behaviour, thereby enraiJing the paradox of
a rule of la\vlessness. The deJnand is that one break totally with
convention, going our of one's way to offend, and necessarily
doing \vhat in other contexts is wrong (cf. HAYES 1999).
Tantric Buddhist Apologetics
10
All of this begs the question: which rules are being rejected?
Laws are not universal, nor presumably is the morality d,ey are
intended to enshrine. Even within one local culture there may
be different prescriptions for adults and children, for men and
women, for citizens and outsiders. We will consider the situation
for monks on the one hand, and lay practitioners on the other,
leaving aside the notion of (hypothetical) natural human law,
i.e. that which we here and now perhaps share with both the
preceding sets, where the shock value of an action or idea may be
most violent.
study has two axes of interest: the scale between strong and
OUf
weak antinomianism; and the range from specialised discipline
to the most general morality.
To a certain extent such research is circular, but not viciously
so. Tantric Buddhism will have to justify contravention ofs pecific
rules of monastic law only if monks wish or are wished to become
practitioners; and moreover, one would only be forced definitively
to demonstrate the lack of culpability in illegal behaviour if such
action is itself unavoidable according to the tradition, i.e. if we
have a case ofs trong antinomianism. That is to say that two of my
major themes will be to assess to what extent Tantric Buddhism
was a monastic phenomenon in medieval India, and, on the other
axis, in how far Tantric Buddhism was antinomian. In this way
I intend to argue that the study of theoretical positions about
what is or is not to be done will reveal a picture of what was
or was not done. It is, for example, a familiar historical method
to deduce that what is proscribed is what was happening. The
circulariry is that our knowledge of the historical situation will
at the same time be invaluable for understanding contemporary
debates about theory.
Yet so far we have not discussed what shape the abnormalities
of Tantric Buddhism take. We will begin by assessing what the
