Good Friends:
Vajrayana Buddhist is a strong presence in the west today. I can understand why it is attractive to many. It is colorful, exotic, with the promise of significant secret teachings (and who doesn't like to get in on a good secret?). There is also a significant philosophical aspect to Vajrayana which attracts people inclined to analysis (like myself).
Over the years, though, I have become more and more sceptical about the Vajrayana tradition. Under the title "Vajra Sceptic" I plan to post some of my observations that have led to this feeling of scepticism. Here's my first observation on this subject:
Imagine a Jewish tradition that ignored the Torah and just studied Talmud and later commentary. Or, try to imagine a Confucian tradition without the "Analects". Or a Christian tradition that left out Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but for some reason accpeted John.
From our perspective, such traditions would have crucial aspects of their traditions missing. It isn't that there would be nothing profound in such traditions, but their relationship to their own stream of spirituality would be tenuous and everything they say would be somewhat askew.
When I discovered that the Vajrayana traditions, in its Tibetan forms, never translated significant sections of the Buddhist Canon I was surprised. This is because Tibetan Buddhists often refer to their own Canon as the "most complete" or "largest" collection of Buddhist scriptures. But this does not seem to be the case. The portions not present in the Tibetan Canon(s) are things like the "Long Discourses", "Middle Length Discourses", etc. That is quite a lot. It is virtually the entire Pali Canon, or the Sarvastivada Canon.
In contrast, the Chinese Canon contains all of this material in the Sarvastivada version. In addition, when Japan became aware of the Pali Canon, they translated that Canon into Chinese, so that it could be incorporated into their overall studies of the Dharma.
This may seem like an abstract and merely scholarly concern; but I think it has practical implications. Just as a Jewish tradition absent the Torah would be a tradition that persistently presented a kind of distorted Judaism, so also I think Vajrayana presents a consistently distorted kind of Dharma because it is simply not grounded in the basic teachings present in the Nikayas and Agamas.
Note that I am not saying that one should become a Theravadan or Sarvastivadan. What I am indicating is that these basic teachings are a part of the body of the Dharma and that without them it is difficult to form a complete picture of the teachings. A good example is Nichiren who refers to these teachings to contrast them with the Lotus Sutra. But without those teachings such a contrast, and therefore the illuminating of the meaning of ultimate teachings like the Lotus Sutra, would be more difficult. There are many examples like this.
More to come.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim
Yes, as my friend Jay Garfield said to me once, "They won't even look at a text unless it has a commentary." Jay's own masterful commentary on Nagarjuna is very puzzling to the Tibetans because they cannot understand how anyone can write a commentary who has not been initiated into its understanding by a master in a lineage tracing back (purportedly, at least) to the original author of the text.
I, too, appreciate the colorful exoticism (a sort of Buddhist theme park) as well as the magnificent scholastic and intellectual tradition, but this form of Buddhism is not well adapted to lay practice, and it includes some very, very odd things. - Brian
Posted by: Brian at August 18, 2004 11:56 AMHi Brian:
I was under the impression that Garfield was a Vajrayana practitioner? For some reason I thought he was a Gelug. Do you know anything more about his specific affiliations?
I like his translation and commentary to the MMK because he ties in references to the western philosophical tradition which helps me to comprehend what Nagarjuna is getting at (which, to be honest with you, is not always clear). I have noticed, though, that some Tibetan Buddhist practitioners dislike his commentary for exactly that reason. I've never quite understood why.
Best wishes,
Dharmajim
I actually do not know what or if Jay has any personal practice. When we were in grad school together, our practice was rating the relative merits of different bourbons, something we enjoyed again when he was in town a couple of years ago. (Among reasonably priced brands, Rebel Yell and Wild Turkey were our favorites.)
Anyway, his chief contacts are indeed Gelug, and he has discussed issues of interpretation with the top guys in Dharamsala, where he brings a group of undergrads to study for a month every year, while he teaches the monks western philosophy. Best - Brian
Posted by: Brian at August 19, 2004 06:37 AM