Feudalism, samaya and living in a tube

Vajra Bros. Sogyal Lakar and Namkhai Norbu

“There appears no exception to the rule that, when the Mantrayāna becomes culturally important outside India, it is principally through the agency of official patronage, either aristocratic or imperial. Given these circumstances, it would be extraordinary if the military and political culture of early medieval India had not shaped esoteric institutions, doctrines, literature, rituals, and iconography, at least to some degree.

In fact, the degree is compelling, and central aspects of esoteric Buddhism came to embody directly and unequivocally the structure, aesthetics, and ideology of medieval Indian feudalism. In short, esoteric Buddhism is the form of medieval Buddhism that internalized, appropriated, reaffirmed, and rearranged the structures most closely associated with the systems of power relations, ritual authentication, aesthetics, gift-giving, clan associations, and sense of dominion that defined post-Gupta Indian politics."

“Fortunately we only need read the texts and examine the rituals to determine that Mantrayāna has built into it a sustaining metaphor, one that has been somewhat neglected by both traditional and modern scholars outside India. Yet it appears that the central and defining metaphor for mature esoteric Buddhism is that of an individual assuming kingship and exercising dominion. Thus the understanding of such terms as tantra in Buddhist India would invoke, first and foremost, the idea of hierarchical power acquired and exercised through a combination of ritual and metaphysical means. Based on this power, the varieties of understanding and of personal relationships become subsumed to the purposes of the person metaphorically becoming the overlord (rājādhirāja) or the universal ruler (cakravartin). It is the Buddhist version of the early medieval feudalization of divinity seen in the Purāņas and elsewhere, applied to the Buddhist path by its ritual enactment in which either monks or laity may participate.” (Ron Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, A Social History of the Tantric Movement, p.115, p. 121) 

 

In Leh, Ladakh, India on 1st August 2017, the Dalai-lama declared:

“I feel some of these lama institutions have some sort of influence of the feudal system. That is outdated and must end - that feudal influence. Then eventually a lama institution creates lama politics [DL laughs heartily]. That’s very bad. An individual lama’s disgrace doesn’t matter, but it gives a very bad impression about a monastery or a monk. Very bad. So we must pay more attention. You should not say, “This is my guru. What guru says I must follow.” That’s totally wrong! Buddha himself mentioned, “You must examine my teaching”. Similarly if one particular lama says something, you examine whether this goes well according to Buddhaʻs teaching or according to the circumstances in society. Then you must follow. If the lama says something; if you investigate and it’s not proper, then you should not follow the lama’s teaching. Even Dalai Lama’s teaching; if you find some contradiction you should not follow my teaching.”

The outdated “feudal influence” must be ended, because it’s very bad. What has happened in 

regard after the Dalai-Lama’s declaration in 2017, in the aftermath of the Sogyal/Rigpa Affair? Has this “feudal influence” indeed ended, or is it still going on creating “very bad” vibes?

It is clear through the Dalai Lama’s explanation above that the feudal influence is linked with a certain attitude towards the guru: “What guru says I must follow”. This attitude comes forth from sets of tantric vows called “samaya”. Samaya is a sanskrit word that means “meeting” or “conjunction”. It is also found in a feudalistic context where it means "conventions" or "rules", e.g. conventions with vassals (sāmanta). 

Sam van Schaik[1] defines samaya as the embodiment of the wisdom being (jñānasattva) in a samaya being (samayasattva), serving as the support or the holder of the wisdom being, i.e. the deity that is inseparable from the Guru. The “conjunction” is realised through an empowerment (abhiṣeka), given by the teacher. And this “conjunction”, or sacramental bond, is maintained through the tantric vows of samaya. As long as the vows are kept, the samaya is “unbroken” and the “conjunction” maintained. In the opposite case, a Dunhuang manuscript specifies as follows:

“If the samaya deteriorates, then while you live your complexion will deteriorate, your mind will become unclear, you will be subject to many illnesses and your wishes will go unfulfilled. Innumerable spirits and demons will wound you like an animal. When you die, your senses will become clouded, your tongue will stick [to your palate], you will smell unpleasant, and you will die vomiting blood. You will be escorted [from this life] by innumerable malicious demons.[2]”

 

A lucky snake coming out through the upper end

Sam van Schaik adds:

“This presentation of the samaya has continued through to the present day. Contemporary Tibetan lamas often like to compare someone who holds the samaya vows with a snake inside a tube of bamboo. For the snake, there are only two ways out of the tube; similarly for the samaya holder, there are only two results: enlightenment or the deepest hell.” (Limits of Transgression)

The highest glory or the deepest hell, respectively for those maintaining the samaya and those not maintaining or breaking it (dam sri). This is as close as Tibetan Buddhism gets to apostasy. Those who are considered “samaya breakers” need to be avoided (ostracism) by the other members of the social group, so as to not expose themselves to their bad influence.

The main vows that need to be maintained, and that are still currently taught as essential, apart from the the injunction to secrecy:

“(i) to regard and respect the vajra master as if he were a buddha,
(ii) not to generate negative thoughts about, and to remain harmonious with, one’s vajra brothers and sisters[3],”

Whatever happens in the Gurukula stays in the Gurukula. The Guru, who is inseparable from the deity, is like a Buddha for the students that received the empowerment. Since co-students received the same empowerment, they too were invested with the “wisdom being” by the same Guru. In order to maintain sacred outlook (dag snang) and sacrament, the sacramental vows (samaya) need to be upheld. If the Guru does seemingly reprehensible things, the students are not to consider them as such, because Lama knows (bla ma mkhyen no), and should not be criticized, since he is a Buddha and his activity is always awakened and skillful.

"So, how does pure perception [dag snang] work? As a Vajrayana student, if you look at Sogyal Rinpoche and think he’s overweight, that is an impure perception. To try to correct your impure perception you might then try visualizing him with the body of Tom Cruise, but that is still not pure perception. One of the Vajrayana’s infinite number of skilful methods that are used to deconstruct and dismantle impure perception, is to visualize Sogyal Rinpoche with a horse’s head, a thousand arms and four legs. But even this technique must ultimately be transcended in order fully to realize pure perception." Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse, Guru and Student in the Vajrayana

Similarly, if co-students and co-initiates do seemingly reprehensible things, to entertain negative thoughts on their behalf would not be inductive to sacred outlook. These rules are added to the overall injunction to secrecy and sacred outlook. They constitute the tube in which a snake is stuck, until coming out at either end, the upper or the lower. In this case “stuck” specifically refers to the impossibility to speak out (or even think) freely about seemingly reprehensible things, done by the Guru or co-students. To speak out would imply disrespect towards the vajra master and negative thoughts projected onto co-students.

Practitioners of Atiyoga, the highest form of Dzogchen, have one single vow: to remain “in the sphere of the infinite supreme bliss” without discrimination, i.e. “to be beyond the concepts of maintaining or not maintaining a vow”. One’s Guru, who “naturally remains in the sphere of the infinite supreme bliss” can’t be evaluated and judged through lower sets of samaya vows and their injunctions and prohibitions “restraining certain kinds of behaviour”.

These are the rules for the empowered ones of a social group. The rules are different for those who would like to follow a teacher in his quality of a Guru. These searchers are invited to examine their future Guru most critically and for a long period, before they decide to go any further on the path to liberation, and to become their student, as well as a co-student of the other students of the Guru. A thorough investigation is quite impossible, though, because a Guru tends not to be equally accessible to non-students, and doesn’t act as a Guru during public gatherings, but rather as an ordinary spiritual teacher trying to reach out to the largest audience possible. Only when admitted into the inner circle, a future student could see and witness the Guru in everyday life behaving as a Guru “in the sphere of the infinite supreme bliss”. One can’t really inquire about a candidate Guru by asking future co-students about their opinion, because they are unable to criticize their Guru, because they are already stuck inside the tube. The same is true for asking other Gurus about their enlightened opinion, because they themselves are likely to be co-students of the candidate Guru. So, frankly, the whole preliminary Guru assessment is a lame argument that simply tries to put all the responsibility on a student.

The authors of Sex and Violence in Tibetan Buddhism[4] talk about “red robes mafia” and write the following about the publication of the Open letter by eight former students of Sogyal Lakar:

“The corruption that had been festering under the carpet for decades was publicly exposed. The Buddhist version of omerta was blown wide open.”

The “festering under the carpet” is the direct result of the injunction of secrecy and sacred outlook regardless of the reality. Instead of producing an enlightened community, it produced corruption and abuse. Not only in Sogyal’s Rigpa but also in Trungpa’s Vajradhatu and Shambala. 

In his recent book Splendeurs et misères du bouddhisme tibétain, Olivier Raurich, a former French translator of Sogyal, quotes from a mail that Namkhai Norbu sent in the past as an answer to one of his students that asked him about Sogyal’s behaviour.

“I received your letter about Sogyal Rinpoche. As you know, I am a Vajrayana practitioner, and in Vajrayana the most important thing is the samaya. Sogyal Rinpoche is my Vajra brother. Of course, I must also respect my Vajra brother for my own realisation. So I try to do everything to the best of my ability[5].” (translated from the French with DeepL, not the original English wording)

Olivier Raurich comments rightly so:

“The most astounding passage is: "for my own realisation [spiritual fulfillment]"! He's afraid for his samaya, for his personal salvation, so he hides the truth... and admits it. A surprising attitude for a spiritual master! Matthieu Ricard and the Dalai Lama, for their part, leave the denunciation [“make public!”] to the disciple; they themselves refrain from making any criticism that might damage their samaya. This shows the profound alienation to which the entire community is subjected by the almost medieval belief system of Tibetan Buddhism.[6]”

Medieval or feudal. Tibetan and Western Gurus can’t speak out about corruption and abuse by their colleagues, because this would go against their vows of samaya, “the most important thing” in Vajrayāna according to Namkhai Norbu, since one’s own spiritual fulfillment depends on it. Remember the snake in the tube and the choice between the greatest glory and the deepest hell. Even heroic bodhisattvas always go for the glory. When will we see a tantric messiah ready to take on all the broken samaya of the world and free sentient initiates from all their sins?  

This email from Namkhai Norbu to a student is not about a Guru humble bragging, but rather a Guru gaslighting his student. Namkhai Norbu is not talking about his own obligations as a Vajrayana practitioner, but wants to indirectly remind his students of their obligations. As a Vajrayana practitioner a student ought to scrupulously respect the same samaya vows as Namkhai Norbu, and even more so. Namkhai Norbu is showing himself to scrupulously respect samaya towards a Vajra brother, Sogyal Lakar, not to mention Namkhai Norbu’s respect for his own guru. For the sake of the students’ own realisation, or in order to avoid the deepest hell, they ought to mind their samaya regarding secrecy and towards their Guru and Vajra brothers ... and sisters.

The Dalai-lama may be doing the same by asking students, who claim they were abused, to denounce their Gurus themselves. Why? Because he too may be bound by samaya. And so are the members of the inner circle of a Guru (Vajra brothers and sisters), who often are senior teachers and hold positions of responsibility in Buddhist centers and/or in national or transnational Buddhist Unions. They are all bound by samaya, “the most important thing” in Vajrayāna. 

Showing oneself openly to not follow samaya is to disqualify oneself as a Vajrayana practitioner. I think if we wanted to find some sort of “feudal influence”, looking into samayait would be a good place to start. How would “we” end that “feudal influence”? That’s for Vajrayāna practitioners and Gurus to decide. Nothing has happened since 2017. Or rather, it, the secrecy, the omerta, the silence has never ceased to happen.

This article has also been published on Open Buddhism.

***

[1] “If these three samaya do not deteriorate, then your body, speech and mind will be transformed into the vajra nature. While you live your hopes will be fulfilled, while at the time of death you will have a clear mind, untroubled by the sickness of the defilements. [Your body] will have a pleasant odour, you will not forget the instructions, and the deities will come as escorts.”

Van Schaik, Sam. (2010). ‘The Limits of Transgression: The Samaya Vows of Mahāyoga‘. In Matthew Kapstein & Sam Van Schaik (Eds.), Esoteric Buddhism at Dunhuang: Rites and Teachings for This Life and Beyond (pp. 61-83). Leiden: Brill. Quoted from a Tibetan manuscript from the library cave at Dunhuang IOL Tib J 718 r. 11.

[2] Ibid. Quoted from a Tibetan manuscript from the library cave at Dunhuang IOL Tib J 718 r.12.

[3] Dunhuang manuscripts. Van Schaik, p. 68

[4] Finnigan, Mary & Rob Hogendoorn. (2021). Sex and Violence in Tibetan Buddhism: The Rise and Fall of Sogyal Rinpoche (Revised and Updated).. Portland: Jorvik Press, p. 93.

[5] “J’ai reçu votre lettre au sujet de Sogyal Rinpoché. Comme vous le savez, je suis un pratiquant du Vajrayana, et dans le Vajrayana le plus important est la samaya. Sogyal Rinpoché est mon frère du Vajra. Bien sûr, je dois aussi respecter mon frère du Vajra pour ma propre réalisation. Ainsi, j’essaye de tout faire au mieux.”

[6] “Le passage le plus renversant est : « pour ma propre réalisation [accomplissement spirituel] »! Il a peur pour sa samaya, pour son salut personnel, donc il tait la vérité... et il l’avoue. Étonnante attitude pour un maître spirituel ! Matthieu Ricard et le Dalaï Lama laissent quant à eux le soin de la dénonciation au disciple, ils s’abstiennent de porter eux-mêmes une critique qui risquerait d’endommager leur samaya. On voit là l’aliénation profonde que fait subir à toute la communauté le système de croyances quasi moyenâgeux du bouddhisme tibétain.” Splendeurs et misères du bouddhisme tibétain

Un ermite à Roquebrune-sur-Argens chantant le Bouddha

Frère Antoine (photo : Denis Billo)

“Né Louis Chauvel en 1923, originaire de la Mayenne, Frère Antoine est un ancien novice cistercien, qui s'est établi comme ermite dans une grotte du Rocher de Roquebrune-sur- Argens, dans le Var, depuis 1966. Il a effectué de nombreux pèlerinages en Inde où il soutient des projets médicaux destinés aux enfants. Sa spiritualité, inspirée principalement des traditions chrétienne et indienne, prône l'ascèse, la prière et la méditation constantes. Il a collaboré à plusieurs ouvrages, dans lesquels son humour y tient une place essentielle.” (Frère Antoine, Ermite de l’Ordre du Jour, Martine le Cam).

Louis Chauvel est mort en 2021.

LA CHANSON DU BOUDDHA (enregistrement)

Il poussa l'oreiller à la place de lui 

Dans les bras de sa belle au milieu de la nuit, 

Embrassa son enfant, sauta par la fenêtre, 

Laissant tout son savoir sans perdre un poil de l'être.

Ayant quitté souliers de diamants tout cousus, 

Les gouttes de rosée ornèrent ses pieds nus, 

Vidant ses intestins des viandes de la veille, 

Il s'embauma de fruits, de santal et d'oseille.

Chantai-je là les faits d'un homme de jadis ? 

Chantai-je là les faits d'un homme d'autrefois ? 

Non non non pas du tout, je chante à pleine voix 

Le meilleur de moi-même et le meilleur de toi.

S'étant penché pour boire à même le ruisseau 

Vit pendre à ses oreilles ses énormes joyaux. 

Il se les arracha d'une poigne si peu molle 

Qu'elles traînent depuis jusque sur ses épaules.

Son ceinturon en or tomba dans le ravin 

Mais pour le ramasser il n'y descendit point. 

Ouvrant ses deux grands bras pour tout perdre et tout fuir 

L'univers se jeta dedans pour les remplir.

Chantai-je là les faits d'un homme de jadis?

Chantai-je là les faits d'un homme d'autrefois ? 

Non non non pas du tout, je chante à pleine voix

Le meilleur de moi-même et le meilleur de toi.

Il s'assit sous un arbre et vit passer un gueux 

Et se dit enfin un qui pourrait être heureux.

Il vit porter un mort et dit c'est naturel 

Tout c'qu'on m'a dit avant là-d'ssus était cruel.

Il vit passer ses gens, ses chars, ses domestiques

Lui demandant s'il n'avait pas vu Siddharta. 

Mais comme il répondait d'un sourire anarchique

Nul ne le reconnut dans son nouvel état. 

Chantai-je là les faits d'un homme de jadis?

Chantai-je là les faits d'un homme d'autrefois ?

Non non non pas du tout, je chante à pleine voix 

Le meilleur de moi-même et le meilleur de toi.

Combien de gens voudraient la paix de l'éveillé 

Sans quitter le château, la belle et l'oreiller. 

Mais c'est en quittant tout et ce n'est qu'à ce prix 

Qu'on a le nirvana coincé dans le nombril!

Chantai-je là les faits d'un homme de jadis ? 

Chantai-je là les faits d'un homme d'autrefois ? 

Non non non pas du tout, je chante à plein voix 

Le meilleur de moi-même et le meilleur de toi.

Sculpture par Frère Antoine (photo : Martine Le Cam)

REINCARNATION (enregistrement)

En me donnant le jour, Mère

M'a dit : « tu es éphémère »

Par quel miracle ai-je pu

Depuis en avoir tant eu ?

C'est un orgueil qui m'apeure

De croire aux vies antérieures,

et vouloir s'en rajouter,

C'est insatiabilité.

S'étendre tant dans l'histoire,

C'est vraiment beaucoup s'en croire,

Quand on peut se contenter

D'un jour complet bien compté.

C'est mesquine ladrerie

Que d'errer de vie en vie,

Quand dans son calepin on a

L'adresse du nirvana.

Ne nous plaçons pas parmi

Ceux que nirvana vomit,

Se réincarner est pure

emission de vomissure.

Dieu sur notre gré s'acharne,

Pour qu'en nos coeurs il s'incarne,

et que nous abolissions

toute autre réincarnation.

About Avadhūtipa, Damarupa and missing links

Damarupa & Avadhūtipa, Treasury of Lives, Sakya Ngor, 1400 - 1499, Rubin Museum of Art

Damarupa, or Ḍamarupa, who is part of the Lamdré (lam ‘bras) transmission of the Sakya school is considered a mahāsiddha, and a student of Khāṇapa, who is considered a student of Virūpa. Khāṇa(pa) is part of the 84 mahāsiddhas, but not Damarupa. Damarupa is instrumental in the upward attribution of the 'Vajra Verses' to Virūpa. The Indian transmission of the “whispered lineage” going down to the Tibetan Drokmi lotsāva (992? - d.1043/1072) is said to have reached him going progressively back in time via Gayadhara (10-11th century), Avadhūtipa, Damarupa, the Lamdré Khāṇapa and the Lamdré Virūpa. Five of the 'Vajra Verses' are said to have been brought out from Oḍḍiyāna by Lamdré Khāṇapa later on[1].

From: Taking the Result as the Path (Cyrus R. Stearns, Tibetan Classics 4)

For clarity, and if that wasn't clear until now, I myself belong to the category of sentient beings with afflictions and impure appearances.

In Taking the Result as the Path (Cyrus R. Stearns, Tibetan Classics 4), the “Vajra Verses” of Lamdré Virūpa are attributed to a Virūpa having lived in the 7-8th century). Compare with Gayadhara’s lifetime (10-11th century) and with the trio Lamdré Avadhūtipa, Damarupa and Lamdré Khāṇapa to fill up a gap of 300 years… Lamdré Avadhūtipa and Damarupa carry a heavy responsibility in maintaining the lineage uninterrupted, but since it is a “whispered lineage”, there is a lot of leeway for instructions through visions, dreams, travels to Oddiyana , heavenly ascents etc. Frankly we don’t know where or when the “Vajra Verses” were written, but it’s safe to assume their final version in Tibetan translation dates at the earliest from the time of Sachen Nyingpo and his sons (12th-13th century), which is already quite a bit closer to the Virūpa of the Amṛtasiddhi.

Gayadhara and Damarupa (detail HA352)

Do we know Lamdré Avadhūtipa and Damarupa from other sources than Sakya literature? Representations of this duo seem to date from the 15th-16th century onwards. Nothing in Mahāsiddha hagiographies. Even the website The Treasury of Lives can’t do better than to publish a thangka with the both of them (see above).

I was hoping to discover more about Damarupa’s life from the website Maṇḍalas Life, but nothing there either. I haven’t looked into Tibetan sources, apart from TBRC not listing him as an author. The Sakya Research Center mentions three works (13th-16th century) in which Damarupa is mentioned[3]. I admit it’s not a thorough search, but I have a hunch it may not be worth the effort. Drop me a line if you know more about Damarupa in more ancient settings. The best bet is Taranatha's Life of Krsnacarya-Kāṇha (David Templeman, LTWA, 1989), where Damarupa seems to have been inspired by a certain Dhumapa (p. 53-54), but that hagiography dates from the 16th century. 

Lamdré Avadhūtipa, top right (detail HA352)
Vajradhara, Nairātmyā and Lamdré Khāṇapa at the right

Next step is to look into Lamdré Avadhūtipa, who at least must have met or seen Damarupa to receive the transmission. There are mixed results. Dīpamkara Śrījnāna Atiśa (982-1054) is said to have studied with a tantric yogi Avadhūtipa from the age of 11 years onwards, and during 7 years, studying Madhyamaka and Tantric practices.

“ Historical information for Avadhūtipa is elusive in that there are at least four individuals with this name in works preserved in the Tibetan Tengyur. Tibetan historians writing after the fourteenth century also provide varied accounts of his life and his relationship to Atiśa. therefore limit the references about Avadhūtipa and his teachings to works written by Atiśa, the early Kadampa biographies of Atiśa, and the early Kadampa commentaries on Atiśa’s Middle Way.” Jewels of the Middle Way: The Madhyamaka Legacy of Atisa and His Early Tibetan Followers, James B. Apple

From this Avadhūtipa, Atiśa received “the special instruction (upadeśa) of apratiṣṭhita [madhyamaka] darśana”[5]. So this one shared the same view as "Advayavajra Avadhūtipa". They seem pretty close.

“In another work translated while in India, Atiśa’s Open Basket of Jewels directly cites Avadhūtipa three times. The first citation emphasizes the nondifference between gnosis and the dharmadhātu, the second citation advocates practicing the vehicle of secret mantra and attaining Mahāmudrā, and the third citation prescribes not judging others while continuously meditating on emptiness. As we shall see, the nondifference between gnosis and the dharmadhātu (the realm of reality) will be a major source of controversy between Atiśa and his students trained in Tibet.” (Jewels of the Middle Way)

James B. Apple published fragments of translations from Atiśa’s Open Basket of Jewels in his article Atiśa’s Open Basket of Jewels: A Middle Way Vision in Late Phase Indian Vajrayāna, 2010. Atiśa’s Avadhūtipa seems to be the “Advayavajra Avadhūtipa” who met Śrī Śabaripāda.

“My lama, the great venerable [one], the lord of yogis, Avadhūtipa[6] [Nāropa?!], with previously acquired supernatural cognition, had a vision and heard [Nāgārjuna’s] teaching, seeing him while dwelling on Śrī-Parvata. A disciple of the Ārya, the Venerable Nāgābodhi, who is renowned as Śrī Śabaripāda, also always listened to the dharma.”

This small passage of Atiśa could well have led to the many spin-offs about Maitripa and Śrī Śabaripāda. Avadhūtipa is not really a name and can simply design anyone living like an avadhūta. Any association with Lamdré Avadhūtipa? We find yet another (?) Avadhūtipa in the Kālacakra milieu.

“Kālacakrapāda the Elder had many students, among whom were three known as Kālacakrapāda the Younger: Avadhūtipa, Śrībhadrabodhi and Nālandāpa; also Nāropa, Sādhuputra, Ratnakaragupta, Mokṣakaragupta, Vinayākaramati, Siṃhadhvaya and Anantajaya.” (Kalacakra.org)

Avadhūtipa is also sometimes said to be another name of Maitripa/Advayavajra, and Marpa is said to have met with Avadhūtipa.

“Mar pa is said to meet him again during his second, and last, journey to India, when Nāropa was in the practice and unavailable.656 At that time, Maitripa was in the charnel ground of the Mountain Blazing like Fire, in the east of India. The text states that it was at that time that Maitrepa–called Avadhūtipa–accepted Mar pa as his disciple; he gave him the same transmissions as before and induced in him profound meditation experiences. 656 Tāranātha & Templeman, 11-13.” (A Lineage in Time : The Vicissitudes of the rNgog pa bka’ brgyud from the 11th through 19th centuries, Cécile Ducher, 2019, p. 182)

I looked in the English translation of Tāranātha’s The Seven Instruction Lineages, but the name “Avadhūtipa” is not to be found there on the indicated pages. I believe Padma Karpo[7] does mention it, but the name given to Maitrīpa by Śavaripa was “Advayavajra Avadhūtipa”. So it may not be the same individual as Lamdré Avadhūtipa. A more likely candidate would be an Avadhūtipa in Nepal, whose disciples hung out with members of the Bharo clan. This Avadhūtipa is also called “Paiṇḍapātika the Great” (bsod nyoms pa), a kṣatriya native from Eastern Bengal (BA p. 390-391), specialised in Vajravārāhī (phag mo gzhung drug)[8]. That was in the 11th century. But we would still have only Damarupa and Lamdré Khāṇapa to bridge the gap with Lamdré Virūpa from the 7-8th century. “Paiṇḍapātika the Great” or one of his students could make a likely candidate for Lamdré Avadhūtipa. Interestingly, texts on Kālacakra have been written both by Kālacakrapāda (many) and by Paiṇḍapātika (one).

Atiśa’s and Marpa’s Avadhūtipa seems to correspond more or less to Advayavajra/Maitripa. But does Lamdré Avadhūtipa, especially when he’s associated with Damarupa? There also is the story of Gayadhara impersonating Maitrīpa, pretending to be Maitrīpa to 'Gos Khug pa Lhas-btsas (11th), a student of Atiśa, while trying to sell instructions to him (Luminous Lives, Cyrus R. Stearns, p. 95[9]). If hagiographs themselves give away this sort of information, we better be careful. Who can trust Gayadhara? Or according to Tāranātha (1575-1634), who can trust "the silly Tibetans"? 

"After that, the Tibetans, when recounting the story of the debate with Śāntipa, give the meaning quite incorrectly and in Aryadeśa there are not even any oral accounts of it. The following is said about Tibet—“Bhotā Svana Bāktya Sāmaya Coteka Siddhi Sādhaka Kya,” which means, “What the Tibetans say is like the sounds of dogs barking, or like the sound of a Siddha or Sādhaka who has abandoned his vows". One should know how the common lies of the silly Tibetans have been thus compiled." The Seven Instruction Lineages

Gayadhara and Drokmi (detail HA18330)

What to do with Damarupa? Frankly the Lamdré lineage looks quite “interrupted” to me, if it has to go all the way back to Lamdré Kāṇhapa[10] and to his guru, Lamdré Virūpa, in the 7-8th century. Iconographically Damarupa & Avadhūtipa could be brothers and they even look a lot like Virūpa, but the gap… the gap. Especially with interdisciplinary projects like the Haṭhayoga Project, academics specializing in Tibetan matters really ought to look more seriously into ways of dating Tibetan texts and considering apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, revelations and their attributions, because otherwise anything attributed to a 7-8th century Virūpa, a Padmasambhava (or rather his or king Trisong Detsen’s “direct students” or “translators”) etc. in Tibetan materials would always or often predate Indian, Chinese, Nepalese, Mongolian etc. materials.

Lamdré lineage going all the way back to Lamdré Virūpa (HA352)

***

[1] The Life of Mahasiddha Virūpa, Lama Choedak Yuthok, Sakya Losal Choe Dzong, Canberra, Australia.

[3] sna tshogs thob pa'i gsan yig [2007] (557) lam 'bras lam gsan yig [2007] (139), attributed to 'phags pa blo gros rgyal mtshan/ (1235–1280)

bde stong mchog gi sgra sgrog Da ru pa gong dkar lam 'bras bla brgyud [dig], attributed to theg chen chos rje kun dga' bkra shis/ (1349–1425)

DA ma ru pa gong dkar ba rnam thar I_B1 [xyl] (38a) attributed to rgya ston byang chub dbang rgyal/ (1470–ca. 1540/50s)

Also: David Templeman, Taranatha's Life of Krsnacarya-Kāṇha, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives (1989)

"[Dhumapa] also performed the ācārya's offices and also took the time to beat the drum known as a pataha and to blow the various musical instruments. He became known as Dhumapa due to the sound of the music he made. It is said that by meditation on the yoga of Vajranairātma, he was able to attain the very highest state, and that supported by the Hevajra Tantra he attained siddhahood." (p. 53-54) 

[5] Colophon to the Sūtrasamuccayasañcayārtha, from Jewels of the Middle Way

[6] James Apple adds the note : "Jo bo rje’i gsung ’bum (806.18) adds nā ro pa". The original text seems to mention only Avadhūtipa. This needs to be looked into further.

[7] Pad ma dkar po 1527-1592) in his 'Brug pa'i chos 'byung.

[8] Passed on to lDong ngar ba, who bestowed it on Paiṇḍapātika junior, that we know from the Bharo clan, where he was a house priest.

[9] “At that point, Lord Gayadhara was staying in Gro mo. They met on the banks of a river and ['Gos, Lo tsa ba] asked about his story. [Gayadhara] replied, "I am the Victor Maitrīpa." Since he was expert in Dharma and also had great oral instructions, ['Gos Lo tsa ba] was pleased, and invited him. On the path as they traveled to Tibet, the translator heard the news that all the Mon people from before were waiting along all the paths, saying, "All those we said were ghosts passing by last year were a Tibetan translator carrying much gold. He invited a paṇḍita, and is returning."

When the translator and his attendant discussed it, [Se] Shes rab smon lam, who was a disciple of Mgos, said, "If the masters, the translator and the paṇḍita, do not live it would be like the eyes of all Tibetans being blinded at the same moment. I will go impersonating the master." The translator and Se both exchanged clothes. It is said that the translator escaped by impersonating a beggar, and that Se escaped without being killed due to the force of his devotion to the master and his fine awakening of the enlightenment mind.

In general, there has been no one in Tibet except Se Shes rab smon able to sacrifice his life for the sake of the master. So it has been stated.

When the translator and the paṇḍita reached Tibet, they met all the previous disciples of Lord Gayadhara in 'Go yul, and [it was revealed] that he was not the Son of the Victors, Maitripa. Mgos said, "The master has lied to me." The lord replied, "Don't you want the Dharma? I am more expert in the Dharma than Maitrīpa." And Mgos was also extremely pleased with the Dharma.”

[10] “The dating of Kṛṣṇācārya is full of problems, few of which are capable of a final resolution. According to the Western tradition the Buddha's Parinirvāṇa was approx. 560 B.C. According to the Tibetan tradition it was 948-947 B.C. (See Roerich, G. The Blue Annals p.22). According to the Tibetan reckoning Kṛṣṇācārya’s birth was approx. 475 A.D. which is far too early to be consistent with the internal references in this text,_e.g. the consecration of Somapurī . If the Western dating were adopted (and the Tibetans certainly do not) this would bring his birth to about 1060 A.D. which is a more workable date, but still not consistent with the dating of certain internal references such as the aforementioned Somapuri consecration, King Devapala, the fact that Maitrīpa (n. 178) is said to be a rebirth of Kṛṣṇācārya (n. 179) and that Maitripa's dates are 1007/1010-1085 A.D. See Snellgrove, D.L. The Hevajra Tantra, Pt.I, p.13, n.4.” David Templeman, Taranatha's Life of Krsnacarya-Kāṇha, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives (1989)

"Or else, whatever girl one finds"

Dancing Vajravarahi/Vajrayogini, Densatil Monastery, c. 15th century, Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

Follow-up to Tantric Libertism

A recurrent theme of the author(s) of the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa Tantra seems to be one of “killing the father” (Oedipus complex). The father being “the son of Māyādevī” and his value system. This is yet another evolution and expression of a project that started with esoteric Buddhism, and more specifically the higher yogatantras, where “the son of Māyādevī” is only one of a long series of Buddhas to be sent with a mission to convert those that are not yet ready for the most secret precepts of esoteric Buddhism. For esoteric Buddhists the ultimate authority, or the highest instance behind the initiative to send avatars down here with both exoteric and esoteric missions is Vajrasattva, who has many different names in various esoteric religions. He is the unmoving cosmic conscience behind every creation, emanation and manifestation, which activities are managed by his goddess, who goes under many names also, but is here called “the goddess of the Vajra Realm” (Vajradhātvīśvarī). Our authors leave this Divine couple untouched and remain under their esoteric authority.

"Achala with Consort Vishvavajri", Metropolitan Museum of Art

Let’s call them the God and the Goddess of the Vajra Realm. They are very much like Śiva and Śaktī. Just like Siva, Vajrasattva, through the Goddess of the Vajra Realm, can freely (svatantrya) assume any form in order to convert those to be converted. In the case of this specific tantra, those to be converted are the “insatiable lovers”. Therefore Vajrasattva needs a form, a discourse and means that are totally different from those taught by the form of “the son of Māyādevī”. For this mission, he picks the form of the Fierce Great Angry one, Caṇḍa-mahā-roṣaṇa, or Caṇḍa (tib. gtum po, Fierce One) in short, the narcissist with the Oedipus complex… His female part is Caṇḍī (tib. gtum mo), also a Fierce One. It’s a form that already existed as A-cala (the Immovable One), usually sealed or crowned by Akṣobhya with his female part Māmakī, Acala's spiritual parents so to say, of whose dispassionate influence our Fierce One wants to rid himself from, in order to go where his lust will carry him. All these divine entities are couples where the “male part” has the ultimate agency, or will. Caṇḍa is also called “the Sole Hero” (Ekallavīra). It’s part of the esoteric principle, under which the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa Tantra too will remain.

"Mandala of Achala, Chandamaharoshana (with consort)", detail HA90915

In order to create their brave new world or maṇḍala, Caṇḍa (with Caṇḍī) first will have to "kill his father" and his old fashioned value system. A wonderful scene! When the maṇḍala starts to be created and the Divine parent couple appear, Akṣobhya in union with Māmakī, the following quotes are from the CMT translation by the 84000 Dharmachakra Translation Committee.

4.15 The lord of yogins should enter there,
Through the crown aperture of Akṣobhya,
By the method of a shooting star,
Intent on the bhaga of Māmakī.

4.16 Having then become the essence of semen,
He should fall inside her bhaga.
However, he should subsequently emerge from there
In the complete form of Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa.

4.17 One should kill Akṣobhya, the father,
With the sword, and later eat him.
One should then visualize him
Being eaten also by Māmakī.

4.18 Then, having seized Māmakī, the mother,
One should make love to her.
One should visualize oneself embraced by her,
In her form of Hatred Vajrī.

Caṇḍa and Caṇḍī are Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa (black Acala) and Hatred Vajrī (mother Māmakī) in the center, declined in four directions, colours ("varna") and passions. The goddesses represent the negative passions (considered as such in the "old value system"). Nothing new here, passions are represented by female forms, and most welcome... Black Hatred Vajrī, White Delusion Vajrī, Yellow Calumny Vajrī, Red Passion Vajrī and dark green Envy Vajrī. All embracing Acalas of different colours in four directions, who each in turn appear in the center of the maṇḍala with their respective Vajrī, to be killed as well and replaced by the yogin himself as the Sole Hero. Dispassion goes out, passions are welcomed and recycled through Acala’s maṇḍala. The Vajrīs/Passions ask Acala to abandon the dispassionate nature of emptiness (śūnyatā) and enter into a world of passion.

4.30 If you consider me, youthful as I am,
The view of the void is fruitless .
Abandon the nature of void!
Please make love to me!’

The different Acalas with their respective Vajrī are placed in the center of the maṇḍala and receive the same treatment as the Divine parent couple: the Acala is killed and the Vajrī embraced. The Vajrī/passions are unbridled and available. Yogins of different colour, complexion, should meditate on the Acala of their colour.

4.37 A yogin of white complexion
Should meditate on White Acala.
A yogin of yellow complexion
Should meditate on Yellow Acala.” etc.

The same for the women.

4.39 A woman who is of black complexion
Should meditate on Hatred Vajrī.
A woman who is of white complexion
Should meditate on Delusion Vajrī.”

Different activities (and castes) are associated with these colours (“varṇa”), where some old “values” may shine through.

4.44 Black color is for killing and hatred;
White is for the tranquility of mind.
Yellow is for paralyzing and enriching;
Red is for enthralling and attracting.

The musician is black, the brahmin is white

4.46 “[Yogins] of white nature should make love to a white girl”, etc.

4.47 Or else, whatever girl one finds

In fact, the setting of the brave new Vajra world has many aspects of the old Brahmanist world with its values, but with some very specific concessions regarding purity in a caryā context[1]. The old world remains present in the very terms of the transformations that are wished for. Male practitioners are yogins, and there are no female practitioners mentioned as such, only women and girls, that serve as their ritual sexual objects. A clay effigy will also do (CMT 25.11). The yogin should not feel any disgust for any of the prescribed actions, body fluids or substances. Will that indeed “liberate” the yogin and from what? All the “woman-friendly” aspects (in effect to preserve the duality...) of the tantra seem to be merely collateral benefits of the yogin’s path as set out by the CMT.

To notice the difference between the treatment of men and women, even in a “woman-friendly” text such as the CMT is sometimes said to be, one only needs to look at Chapter 3 where the Empowerment (abhiṣeka) of a male yogin and his queen of the night is described. There is no equivalent “full” version for women. Women/girls, or rather copulation with them and the experience this produces in the yogin, are one of the objects of the empowerment. The Guru is the center, not the Guru and his wife, like in the Divine couple. The full empowerment takes place between the Guru and the yogin. The Crown empowerment of the CMT has a different version for yogins and women. The yogin is visualized as a universal emperor (cakravartin) and a crown is put on his head. At the same stage of the empowerment women receive the Vermillion empowerment and are visualized as “the fierce great goddess” (Hatred Vajrī). A knife is placed in her right hand and a human skull in her left hand. For the Secret empowerment the yogin offers a young and beautiful girl to the Guru.

‘This girl that I offer you
Grants all the pleasures of love;
Accept her for the sake of your pleasure.
Please have compassion, O lord.’ (CMT 3.18)

The yogin leaves the room, while the Guru “satiates the wisdom consort”, consecrates the mystical substances, summons the yogin back and places the substances on the yogin’s tongue, who recites “Āḥ, pleasure”. The Guru then offers the girl back to the yogin to serve as his “delightful supporter”. No specifications are given for the empowerment of a female “yogin” apart from being a “delightful supporter”. The yogin probably came with his wife/a concubine and, the woman/girl received the empowerment in that quality. With this in mind, the following passage from Nāropa’s hagiography will no doubt be more clear.

“Again Tilopa acted [sat silent and motionless] for one year as before. When Nāropa made his maṇḍala and venerated him with folded hands, Tilopa glanced once at him. Nāropa prayed and asked for instruction. 'If you want instruction, give me your girl (shes rab ma)!' When Nāropa did so, the girl turned her back to Tilopa, looked at Nāropa, smiled and cast sidelong glances at him. Tilopa beat her (phyag rgya mo) and said: 'You do not care for me, you only care for Nāropa.' Nāropa did not lose faith in the propriety of his Guru's action, and when he sat there happily without the girl, Tilopa asked him: 'Are you happy, Nāropa?'

And Naropa answered:

Bliss is to offer the Mudrā as fee
To the Guru who is Buddha himself, unhesitatingly.

Tilopa said:

You are worthy of bliss eternal, Nāropa,
On the path of infinite Reality.
Look into the mirror of your mind, which is Mahāmudrā,
The mysterious home (gsang ba’i gnas) of the Ḍākinī.”[2]

Within the context of an initiation (including the CMT), a woman/girl can be offered forth and back. She can be beaten by the Guru, when behaving inappropriately, and this is to be taken with good grace.

To come back to the “Vermillion empowerment” for women, to replace the “Crown empowerment” for the male yogin, the Guru places a knife in the right hand of the empowered woman/girl and a human skull in her left hand. The woman/girl is then “invited to assume the goddess’s posture”. Naked and perhaps wearing bone ornaments.

“[The Guru] should recite, ‘Oṁ, blessed Hatred Vajrī, you are an accomplished being ! Hūṁ phaṭ!’ In this way, with the names of the five yoginīs according to the division of colors starting with the black, one should anoint women.”

A group of five women/girls seems to be needed here for the initiation (also see Tantric libertism, the passage on Paiṇḍapātika junior from Blue Annals, p. 393-394). Were they invited as mudrās to be offered to the Guru by the to be empowered initiates? Five, because of the number in the maṇḍala? One figuring as the principal goddess and the others as the four other Vajrīs?

Remember the posture assumed by the woman during the “Vermillion empowerment”. There is an interesting passage in The Biographies of Rechungpa[3], where Rechungpa travels to Kathmandu with a group of Tibetans following the Dzogchen master Kyitön (Kyi ston). Rechungpa, in spite of his alleged previous training under Milarepa, seems unaware of the practices he will discover in Nepal. The hagiography was authored by Gyadangpa (13th century). While listening to his new Dzogchen master, Rechungpa meets Bharima and her female servant. Peter Allen Roberts retells the anecdote:

“Kyitön’s presence in the narrative serves as an opportunity for an attack on Dzogchen practice. Kyitön gives some Dzogchen teachings that Rechungpa attends. Rechungpa notices a Newar woman who initially listens respectfully to Kyitön, but becomes displeased and stops listening. She tells Rechungpa that Dzogchen is a practice found only among Tibetan yogins, and is erroneous because it denies the existence of deities or demons, which are the source, respectively, of siddhis and harm.

Rechungpa asks Bharima what her own secret practice is, but she, shocked that he would even ask, refuses to tell. Undeterred, Rechungpa bribes her female servant, who mimics the pose of Vajrayoginī. This apparently inconsequential episode is in fact integral to the narrative structure, for Bharima will turn out to be a pupil of Tipupa, and be of crucial importance to Rechungpa on his return journey.”

The female servant mimics the pose of Vajrayoginī. She knows, she's been there, done that... Rechungpa will discover through Barima and her Guru Tipupa the Teachings of the Bodiless Ḍākinī (lus med mkha' 'gro skor dgu S. ḍāka-niṣkāya-dharma), that Tilopa/Tillipa is said to have directly received from Vajravarāhī, and will bring them to Tibet.

Also on the topic of “Equality of Women”, Gedün Chöpel explains the following, from his own experience:

“In Nepal even if a man takes a woman forcibly and acts out his passion, when he finishes she rises, touches her head to his feet, and goes. First, she struggles, saying, "No," and afterwards bows saying, "Thank you." Thinking about it, one bursts out laughing; it is even said those who do so have good behavior.”[4]

A Wife Beating her Husband, Bartholomeus Molenaer
(photo)

Diana J. Mukpo writes in Dragon Thunder: my Life with Chogyam Trungpa:

"As much as I appreciated my husband, I wasn't always accepting of his behavior. When we were first married, Rinpoche told me that it was normal for Tibetan men to beat their wives. I told him this was barbaric, but he said that it was just common practice. In the first few months of our marriage, he tried -not very convincingly- to slap me a couple of times when we were arguing. I said to him, "What do you think you're doing?" And he said to me, "This is just what Tibetans do." I felt that this was definitely not okay. I waited until he was asleep one day, and I took his walking stick and began hitting him as hard as I could. He woke up, and he was quite shocked, and he said, "What are you doing?" I said, "This is just what Western women do." He got the message, and it was never an issue again."

What to take from all this? It is clear to me that conservative (Brahmanist) class values never disappeared from and/or crept back into (esoteric) Buddhism. Furthermore, antinomianist aspects from Buddhist and non-Buddhists tantras had to be concealed, when practised by the higher classes of society, that at the same time continued to follow mainstream forms of religion in public[5]. Tantric consort practise was conceived for men. There was no “Equality of Women” (see the chapter with this title in Tibetan Arts of Love). The CMT also shows that the split between original Buddhism and its esoteric forms has grown further and is openly referred to (reflected in hierarchies of Buddhist vehicles, please don’t refer to sources from a Neo-Ancient 8th century Padmasambhava...). The Kathmandu valley, rather than Mahāsiddha India, seems to have played a major part in the spread of a development of more “libertine” aspects, followed by a sort of mythological Bovarysm or Quixotism in Tibet, where mortal humans wanted to become like gods or mahāsiddhas through imitating them. Has this sort of treatment of women, or even “ḍākinīs”, somehow, sometimes been carried over to the West by some Tibetan teachers? Not in public teachings, but in more private settings? Do those lamas somehow feel justified in this by tradition? Supported by colleagues, by senior students, by the silence of academics? This is one “transmission” we didn’t need in the West. We already had and still have our own, that we have great trouble getting rid of. If metaphors shape our lives, the way we think and act, we should be careful in choosing the ones we want to hold onto and live or "practise" by.

***

[1] Gedün Chöpel said about this :

“The followers of the master Bābhravya say that there is no fault in doing it with another's wife if she is not the wife of a Brahmin or a Guru. This is deception with shameless lies; as most authors of tracts used to be Brahmins, they wrote this way. If an intelligent person challenges the presentations in such deceitful tracts with scriptural quotes, [the truth] will be known. It is clearly said in the Kalachakra Tantra that Brahmins have a black disposition for their wives.” Tibetan Arts of Love, Sex, Orgasm & Spiritual Healing, Jeffrey Hopkins, Snow Lion, p. 53-54

[2] Translation by Herbert v. Guenther. See my blog Dare to know - Sapere aude

[3] The Biographies of Rechungpa, The evolution of a Tibetan hagiography, Peter Alan Roberts, Routledge

[4] Tibetan Arts of Love, Sex, Orgasm & Spiritual Healing, Jeffrey Hopkins, Snow Lion, p. 51

[5] Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, Āgamaḍambara

Tantric libertism

"What's on a man's mind?" (optical illusion)

Reading the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa Tantra was an eyeopener to me, for many reasons. It probably is a fairly late tantra that appeared in the Nepalese Newar Buddhist milieu, but had been translated into Tibetan and incorporated in the Tibetan Canon (Kagyur) as spoken by the mouth of (a) Buddha (buddhavacana)[1].

“Of the more than one hundred extant manuscripts of the CMT, ranging in date from 1380 up to the twentieth century, all were written in Nepal, as were the only two known manuscripts of the CMT commentary, the Padmāvatī(nāmapañjikā).” 84000[2]

The author, or the person committing it to writing is unknown, although some think that he may be the same person as the author of the only extant commentary. I personally wouldn’t think so simply from a reader’s point of view, because it undermines the strength (élan) of the commented text. For the same reason I am not convinced that the whole Tantra was composed by the same singular author(s). The Tibetan translation was completed at the monastery of Sakya in the 13th-14th century with the help of an “Indian scholar” named Ratnaśrī[3] and Grags pa rgyal mtshan[4]. The deity Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa “is a sort of upgrade”[5] of the better known god Acala. Further interesting observations by Grimes & Szántó:

“Mahāsukhavajra severely attacks those who would think that the sexual imagery is merely symbolic, so he is well aware of tantric initiates who treat such practices in a subliminal and non-literal way. The vehemence of his tone suggests to us that he may have lived at a time when those with antinomian interpretations of the tantras were being pushed out by those taking a symbolic approach, perhaps as a compromise to social norms. If this was indeed the case, but we should stress that this only our impression, Mahāsukhavajra may have been a ‘purist’ attempting to revive and maintain disappearing practices.”

Mahāsukhavajra is the author of the Commentary, not of the Tantra. The latter speaks with more confidence as can be expected, since he identifies with “Lord Vajrasattva, having entered the absorption of Black Acala”. But “Lord Vajrasattva” impersonating “Black Acala” does indeed advise a “Taqiyyah” sort of attitude to his readers, with a “public” and “secret” level of training. This also seems to have been the attitude of the higher classes of Nepalese society (BA p. 394), more about that later. This attitude somehow lessens the appeal of Black Acala’s self-confidence and outspokenness, or his practicing a yogi’s identification with the deity…. A Heruka only in the evenings...

“That which has just been taught is the outward conduct;
Now, however, the secret practice will be taught.” (CMT 13.14)[6]

One may be used to the outspoken antinomian and injunctionary language of yogatantras, but the CMT is yet something else IMO. There is a certain playfulness and humour, that makes it almost look like a parody of a tantra or a pastiche, even though other tantras may share some of this too. It has all the characteristics of a tantra, sometimes against its own internal logic. I see a creative author at work, and a libertine at that, who loves women, i.e. sex with women. This could be Rabelais, Casanova, the Marquis de Sade, or another blaspheming libertine, writing under the pseudonym “Black Acala”.

Just like Daniel Defoe who tells the “true story” of Robinson Crusoe, the author of the tantra will do everything to make it look like an authentic tantra. And that’s why I can’t stop grinning reading it. The opening setting, the threats to keep it secret “To hell will he, the evil one, be led, Even if he is protected by buddhas.” Buddhas don’t box in the same category as yogis in this tantra as its readers will discover. Śākyamuni is named “The son of Māyādevī” who “abandoned his 84,000 wives and his entire harem”, “only for the sake of others”, because “it was in the female quarters, that the Buddha, Experiencing pleasure in the company of Gopā, became accomplished”, not on bank of Nairañjanā[7]. Black Acala declares:

“10.28 It is from the union of the vajra and the lotus
That true pleasure is derived.
Awakening is attained through pleasure,
And there is no pleasure in being separated from women.”

Black Acala’s partner Lady Prajñāpāramitā, who never heard of the Buddha and of his wife, inquires “Who is that blessed one, the son of Māyādevī, and who is Gopā?” she is answered by the confident Black Acala:

“10.32 I am the son of Māyādevī,
Who has now become Caṇḍaroṣaṇa.
And you are the blessed lady Gopā,
In the form of Prajñāpāramitā.”

The son of Māyādevī had to act out the twelve acts of a Buddha, because of the ignorance of  “people [ ] devoid of faith”. In other words, if the Buddha wouldn’t have behaved like a sort of saint, people wouldn’t have had faith in him.

“They do not turn their minds to the truth
I [the Buddha], for my part, have concealed it very well.”

And he did indeed, for about 1500 years, until finally the concealed “real” truth started coming out. To begin with the Guhyasamāja Tantra, the Hevajra Tantra, etc., and later “Virūpa” and his pneumatic method of liberation, claiming that without this, his method, even a Buddha would remain a simple sāṃsārika[8].Pneumatism, internal alchemy with genetic “mystical substances”, without which “full Buddhahood” was said to be impossible. And here, in the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa Tantra, without lust, love and women (any women)[9], and his harem of 84.000 women, the son of Māyādevī would never have been a Buddha. Buddhadharma has been amended through the ages, until Buddhist modernism or Protestant Buddhism of course, because that would be taking things much too far...

That being said, the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa Tantra, “taught for the sake of insatiable lovers[10]” is a very interesting text in itself. Obviously, I don’t take it as a buddhavacana, nor would I follow its method scrupulously, weighing every word like in Mahāsukhavajra’s Commentary. It’s an expression of freedom, quite creative and I am sure intentionally funny. I think the author(s) and his/their friends must have enjoyed creating an authentic tantra, including in it everything a Tantra is expected to include, and even quoting from a text about the Arts of love such as the Kāmasūtra. It is a bit ambiguous in that it mixes elements of internal alchemy (white and red bindu), usually controlled through pneuma and mind, and simple Arts of love, erotic and even pornographic material. Within the Tantric Buddhist alchemist context white (especially) and red bindu are one of the purest “concealed essences” in the Buddhist cosmos, even though conventionally considered as impure substances.

Its core message seems to be that Lust rules! Desire is indestructible, whatever the son of Māyādevī had to say about it in his day job. Therefore desire (and the pleasure arising from it[11]), is what we really are, it is the only path to liberation. Let’s not beat about the bush.

“A lover must not abandon lust,
Lest he would be living a lie.
By living a lie, evil is incurred;
And from evil, a rebirth in hell.

“He who lives a lie will meet his death,
There is no doubt.
Through this lust alone, accomplishment is won—
Only through lust—by the sons of the victorious ones. (CMT, 10.18-10.19)”

The union of Wisdom and Means, is the vajra in the lotus[12] (and not only once), a penis and a vagina and everything collateral to it. Mahāsukhavajra can get real upset in his Commentary, when people who don’t seem to get that simple message try to interpret it away. Black Acala gives it to us straight. Why not listen to him?

The author(s) of the CMT are obviously not the hoi polloi and belong to Nepalese aristoi circles, jetsetters with gold mines in Tibet (true). They are not dwelling in caves and in solitude, eating nettles and drinking water. That’s for the followers of the son of Māyādevī!

“In all the realms of the world,
Wherever one may happen to be,
There palaces will arise for him
With all desired things.

“Delightful, heavenly women,
Adorned with beauty and youth,
As numerous as stars in the sky,
Will without doubt be his. (CMT 9.13-9.14)”

His as in he and him. And don’t interpret things away, please. "Women" (mind the plural), not for women’s sake of course, but because women make his lust and desire rise, and are his (the Tantric libertine’s) sole opportunity to liberation[13]. Chapter 19 of the CMT gives all the required magical recipes to attract women and keep the desire going. Recite, rinse, repeat.

“One should blend together donkey’s semen and lotus filaments, rub this onto one’s penis, and make love to a woman. Then she will become enthralled.” (CMT, 19.4)

The Marquis de Sade preferred the Spanish fly... The Tibetan translation of this text was made at the monastery of Sakya in the 13th-14th century by a Drakpa Gyeltsen (Grags pa rgyal mtshan). The son of Sachen Kunga Nyingpo perhaps? The “monastery” of Sakya was very busy with writing and translating in those days. ”Monastery”, because a specific feature of Buddhist vihāras was that they could be administered by dynasties of important lay upasākas. The monks in the vihāras would be practicing the public teachings of Māyādevī’s son, whereas their administrators would rather turn to his secret and concealed teachings, as was the case for the Brahmin upasāka Ratnavajra in Srinagar. His seems to have been also a model for some Tibetan vihāras. One of the main sources of the Sakya tradition was the scribe (kayastha) Gayadhara[14]. It’s with him that Drokmi is said to have translated all the texts of the Mārgaphala (lam ‘bras) cycle that are attributed to “Virūpa”. Gayadhara required gold for his transmissions and so did Drokmi, ask Marpa (BA p. 208). From another teacher, Prajñāgupta or GuhyaPrajñā, “the red master”, Drokmi learned “the karmamudrā practices of Indrabhūti's Phyag rgya'i lam skor (The Cycle of the Path of the Mudrā), which is one of the Lam skor dgu”[15]. GuhyaPrajñā was a student of Ratnavajra. This text is “the most detailed and explicit explanation of mudra practice”[16] But all these were said to initially be “oral transmissions", only to be revealed, written down and made public at the monastery of Sakya, at the time of Sachen Kunga Nyingpo and his sons (12th-13th century).

To come back to the gold that was exchanged for the transmissions and the writing, editing and translating. The Bharo clan prospected gold in Tibet. During the 13th century Bharo gTsugs ‘dzin, born in Yam bu ba (or Yam bu, Kantipur or Kathmandu) left for Tibet in order to find gold and became a student of Guru Chos dbang or Chos kyi dbang phyug (1212- 1269/1270). The Bharo clan was an important Newar family devoted to Tantric Buddhism. The one-armed Bharo (tib. bha ro phyag rdum) was a famous yogi. As was the Newar Ha mu dkar po/Varendraruci (Bsod nams 'byung gnas bzang po), the “white mantrika”. These rich and devout Bharo clan members are thought to have played a big role in a transmission of Vajravārāhī (phag mo gzhung drug)[17], a method bestowed by king Indrabhūti’s sister Lakṣmīṅkārā “on the venerable Virūpa”[18], that was spread by “the great Avadhūti-pa or Paiṇḍapātika, the Great (bsod nyoms pa, alms-gatherer)”, a kṣatriya (aristoi) from Eastern Bengal. There is some confusion about the exact identity of the Paiṇḍapātika teaching the Bharo clan, because the Blue Annals mention a senior and a junior Paiṇḍapātika, the junior being called Jinadatta. Paiṇḍapātika junior is invited with an attendant by Ma he Bha ro, a member of the Bharo clan, to become the house priest, and while staying there, he met with a student of Advayavajra: Devākaracandra/ Śūnyatāsamādhivajra, another wealthy aristoi (BA p. 392-393).

This Devākaracandra met our paṇḍita Ratnaśrī (mentioned above) “and studied under him the Sampuṭa Tantra (toh. 381)" and the Hevajra Tantra. During one of the Tantric salons of the Bharo clan, Devākaracandra and Mahe Bharo required initiations from Paiṇḍapātika junior, during which many miracles occurred. After this Paiṇḍapātika junior was also invited at the home of the white mantrika Ha mu dkar po to bestow the same hot topic, the initiation with “secret precepts” to himself and a group of friends (BA p. 393-394).

“During the initiation rite, five girls were compelled to attend the rite with the help of mantras and they were made invisible (in order that) the wife of Ha mu might not see them. The wife saw only cups of wine suspended in the air and did not see the girls (who were holding the cups). She asked the teacher: "How could this be?" "I have blessed them!" replied the teacher.
At that time, in the country of Nepāl, five had gathered, four disciples sTong nyid ting ‘dzin [Devākaracandra], Ma he Bha ro, Ha mu dkar po and Buddhadatta [Paiṇḍapātika junior’s attendant and nephew), and the teacher [Paiṇḍapātika junior]. Ha mu presented five golden srangs.”

“Girls” tend to appear and disappear at will as we also learn from the story of Dampa Kor/Nirūpa (skor chung ba) and his stay in Nepal with the yogi Rwa ru can, who was proud of being the richest man in Nepal, and who organised secret initiations by himself and his wife, by maid-servants, and banquets, etc. (BA p. 851). A sort of Jeffrey Epstein? Dampa Kor/Nirūpa was then sent to the suburb of an Indian town “to practise secret Tantric rites”.

“Inside a chapel (mchod-khan) he found a painted banner (thang-ka) hanging, in front of which were placed the five kinds of offerings. He spent some time there, (and saw) a man dressed as a monk (bhikṣu) holding his alms-bowl and his staff (gsil-byed) coming from the town on a begging round, he (the monk) said to him: "You are probably the disciple of the yogin mDa'-gžu-'dzin-pa ("Holder of bow and arrow"). Then at night, the monk removed the painted image, behind which he opened a small door, out of which came out numerous mudrās possessing marks and adorned with bone-ornaments. In their company, the monk performed various Tantric rites, and the (feeling) of Bliss increased. In the morning the monk again hid the mudrās, closed the door, and covered it with the painted image (thang-ka). After that the monk went on a begging round and told him: "We Indians practise the secret Tantric rites in this manner". A strong faith was produced in [Dampa Kor] and for six months he practised secret Tantric rites.”

Reading these anecdotes recounted by ‘Gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal (1392-1481), one gets the impression that these practices occurred in small privileged circles of aristoi or of libertines. The arrival of the Indian Paiṇḍapātika junior seemed to have been quite a buzz in town. The Ratnaśrī that Devākaracandra met in Nepal, could have been the one who later helped to translate the CMT at the Sakya vihāra in Tibet. These are not materials for the average monk in a Buddhist monastery, but for privileged “insatiable lovers” (CMT 6.9). These are no longer pneumatic or alchemist practises done in order to produce immortality, or out of love for women, devotion to a goddess, etc., but simply for desire, lust, in order to lead the yogin to “libération”. Even the physical body of a woman or girl is not required, and a prop or a love doll may be used instead. After having been telestically consecrated (pratiṣṭhā, rab gnas) through mantras.

[...] a skilled practitioner Should find a girl[19] from his own spiritual family or that of another, And meditate while holding her.
“Through this, there is no doubt That a yogin will succeed by means of a consort.

Alternatively one should make a lifelike effigy And do practice with ‘her’—made of clay and so on. “Immersed in absorption of innate Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa, One should recite the mantra, with one-pointed mind.

“And these are the respective mantras to be recited:
‘Oṁ, Viśvavajrī, come, come! Hūṁ svāhā!’
‘Oṁ, Vajrasarasvatī, come, come! Dhīḥ svāhā!’
‘Oṁ, Vajradhātvīśvarī, come, come! Vaṁ svāhā!’
‘Oṁ, Kurukullā, come, come! Hrīṁ svāhā!’
‘Oṁ, Tārā, come, come! Tāṁ svāhā!’ (CMT 25.11-25.13)

And if there is no clay left, the yogin could use “the hand-consort (karamudrā) (i.e. masturbation)” mentioned in Mahāsukhavajra’s commentary[20].

Yet, this Tantra is often quoted for its woman-friendly quotes, which obviously do exist. But these are mere words, like non-Tantric Buddhism, the Buddha and the Buddha’s life and teaching are mere words destined for those not ready to hear the real truth: only lust saves!

So yes the CMT does declare:

‘The foul-mouthed ones, steeped in evil acts,
Who out of enmity, revile, in this world,
A woman, the sole mother of the three worlds,
A gentle giver of true pleasure, “
‘They, because of this alone, will remain
In a far-off, deep hell called Terrible,
Tormented forever, crying ,
Their bodies burned by many fires, for three eons. (CMT 6.33-6.34)

More words, like previous forms of Buddhism would, through the karma-proxy, send off to hell and to miserable rebirths those not complying with its doctrine and practice. And in order to reassure Tantric libertines:

“Since everything is only mind,
And its duration is only momentary,
Who is it that goes to hell,
And who is it that goes to heaven?” (CMT, 8.30)

On the other hand, the CMT also declares the yogin should make love to “The mother, and also the daughter, The younger sister, the niece, Or any other female relative, [...] Or another woman, as available” (CMT 6.4-6.6). As the Commentary explains, this is not open for interpretation (see above)[21]

The CMT is outspoken and so is the Commentary. There also are accounts of  the behaviour of Tantric yogis and their tulkus in the past and still nowadays. Who exactly misunderstands what the CMT and the Commentary seem to be conveying? Why is Tantric Buddhism so easily "misunderstood"? According to hagiographical sources, initiations and “secret precepts” of Vajrayoginī transmissions seem to have been instrumental to lay or religious aristoi practising with young women, or girls, from a lower social status (caste) in a secret setting, away from daylight.

“One of the hallmarks of Tantra is the honor that is accorded to women in its philosophy and practice. This gynocentrism is gaining recognition in scholarship on Hindu Tantra (Gupta 1991), and I contend that this holds true for Buddhist Tantra as well.”

“The prevailing Western view has been that the women of Tantric Buddhism were dominated, marginalized, and exploited by their male cohorts. Earlier scholars pronounced female Tantrics to be prostitutes, sluts, and witches, while more recent scholarship has temporized that they were low-caste unfortunates who were used by male Tantrics in sexual rituals. The corollary of this view is that the Tantric Buddhist goddesses have been relevant only for male psychology and religiosity.”

“For example, the generic term ‘Tantric practitioner' might be rendered as 'yogi' in an English translation, followed by gratuitous use of the pronoun ‘he’, creating a false impression of the male exclusivity of Tantric texts.”[22]

I really doubt that those same Tantric yogins, e.g. Ha mu dkar po and the men of the Sakya and other dynasties, would allow their wives to practise with young men, or young boys, from a lower social status (caste), and what would be the religious frame of such practice? This is not what Tantric Buddhism was about in those days and even nowadays. As far as I can see it is not even adaptable, because of the very dualistic and essentialist foundations, with a thin layer of emptiness. Even “emptiness” and “Clear light” won’t convince any Tantric lama to change anything. Even Śiva’s freedom and sovereignty wouldn’t go as far as to concretely inverse roles. Or God and Nature, “his” creation. It is probably too much ingrained in religion, and any change on that level would cause the Baby and Bathwater veto to be spoken.

And yet, it seems to me there is a bit of spark of freedom and creativity in the CMT (4.16-4.18), that instead of faithfully following (or "practising") what it says, could inspire some to take the same freedom, in order to create something very different, without simply inverting roles or using the same theocratic structure but this time for women, or other categories. The son of Māyādevī is used to it, he wouldn’t mind. I certainly tried...

***

[1] Toh 431 Degé Kangyur, vol. 80 (rg yud ’bum, nga), folios 304.b–343.a.

[2] Introduction by the 84000 Dharmachakra Translation Committee.

[3] The commentary Padmāvatī was written by one Mahāsukhavajra. “For now we must work with the assumption that he was a Nepalese scholar active in the 13th century CE.” Grimes & Szántó. Mahāsukhavajra would be bDe chen rdo rje in Tibetan.

[4] Tibetan Renaissance, Ronald M. Davidson, p. 166

[5] Mahāsukhavajra’s Padmāvatī Commentary on the Sixth Chapter of the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra: The Sexual Practices of a Tantric Buddhist Yogī and His Consort, Samuel Grimes & Péter-Dániel Szántó 2018

[6] 13.12 “One should not kill living beings
Or take another’s property.
One should never steal another’s wife
Or speak untruthful words.”

13.13 For the sake of abandoning the vices of the world,
A wise one should never drink wine.
It is with decorum that one should take up
This public level of training.”

[7] Compare with hagiographical quotes attributed to Saraha, after having practiced with a young fletcheress. From Dreaming the Great Brahmin, Kurtis R. Schaeffer

“Until today I was not a Brahmin,
From today onward I am a Brahmin”
(Karma Trinlaypa, Do ha skor gsum Tika ‘bring po sems kyi rnam thar ston pa me long, Druk Sherig Press, 4.2-8), and

“Until today I was no monk,
Today at least a monk I am.
The real monk is magnificent monk;
Glorious Heruka is the monk supreme.”
(Kunga Rinchen (1475-1527), Bka’ rgyud bla ma rnams kyi rnam thar rin chen gser phreng, Leh, 1972, pp. 4-7

[8] Amṛtasiddhi: 32.3ab tāvad buddho 'py asiddho 'sau narah. sām.sāriko matah. |

[9] “Women are heaven, women are the Dharma, And women are truly the supreme austerity.
Women are the Buddha, women are the Saṅgha, Women are the Perfection of Wisdom. (CMT, 8.14)”

[10] CMT, 6.9

[11] “Merit is acquired through passionate affection; Sins are acquired by indifference.
There is no greater evil than the absence of passion, And no merit greater than pleasure." (CMT, 6.90)” - Therefore accumulate merit, lots of it!

[12] “It is from the union of the vajra and the lotus That true pleasure is derived.
Awakening is attained through pleasure, And there is no pleasure in being separated from women.” CMT, 10.28

[13] “[The śrāvakas] all abide in the realm of desire— Those who are called listeners and so forth.
They do not know the path to liberation And always see the woman as an ordinary being.” (CMT, 10.35)

[14] “Gayadhara was a tantric lay practitioner, not a monk. The late Sde gzhung Rin po che, Kun dga' bstan pa'i nyi ma, used to humorously tell me how some Tibetan critics had said Gayadhara just came to Tibet to get gold with which to feed his many children back in India. The historian Dpa bo Gtsug lag phreng ba (1504—66) also specifically noted that Gayadhara was a layman, and in several surviving paintings he is depicted wearing the white robe of a lay Indian master.2'9 Furthermore, several sources state that Gayadhara was the father of the Indian master known as Ti pu Gsang sngags sdong po, a disciple of both Naropa and Maitrlpa who later became one of the teachers of Ras chung Rdo rje grags pa.” Luminous Lives, Cyrus R. Stearns

[15] Luminous Lives, Cyrus R. Stearns

[16] Malcolm Smith, Translation's Introduction of the text as presented in Jamgön Kongtrul’s Damngak Dzö (Volume 6 (ཆ་) / Pages 119-136 / Folios 1a1 to 9b3)

[17] From Blue Annals, p. 389 onwards

[18] Who bestowed it on the great Avadhūti-pa or Paiṇḍapātika, the Great (bsod nyoms pa), a kṣatriya from Eastern Bengal. BA, 390 I recommend reading his whole story…

[19] CMT 13.17
“One should attach to one’s head the five strips of colored cloth
And shave off one’s hair and beard.
One should procure a girl who is older than ten years
And embark upon one’s practice.”

In Tibetan: “One should perform secret conduct with a twelve-year-old girl.”

[20] Samuel Grimes & Péter-Dániel Szántó

[21] Samuel Grimes & Péter-Dániel Szántó

[22] Is Vajrayogini a feminist, A Tantric Buddhist Case Study, Miranda E.Shaw, In Alf Hiltebeitel and Kathleen M. Erndl, eds., Is the Goddess a Feminist?