Vajrayana is not Tibetan Buddhism

[Questionsdharma]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/vividness. ... dhism/amp/

That's what this guy claims about karma kagyu.is this true?

[heart]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/vividness. ... dhism/amp/

That's what this guy claims about karma kagyu.is this true?

He don't seem to claim anything about the Karma Kagyu, there is just a quote from Shamar Rinpoche?

/magnus

[Fortyeightvows]

Blah blah blah...
Was this a written assignment for buddhism 101?

[Ayu]

Maybe the other way round it makes sense:
Tibetan Buddhism is not only Vajrayana.

[florin]

D. Germano on the same subject:
"In Tibet, however, a brilliant renaissance of Buddhism began around the same time as the final flowering of Buddhist India, driven by a massive importation of literature, practices, and ideas from India across the Himalayas. Uniquely for Buddhist Asia, Tibetans imported and actively developed the full spectrum of
tantric traditions from their early roots in the ritual life of Mahayana through their radicalization in yogini tantras to their final systematization within the Kalacakra literature. One of the most interesting aspects of this was the emergence of
esoteric Buddhism as a vehicle for vital philosophical discourses and innovations. From the eleventh to fourteenth, a series of thinkers and traditions in Tibet pursued central philosophical issues in a systematic and rigorous fashion within
a specifically esoteric discursive terrain. Working within different evolving sectarian configurations across a huge geographical area, and often in quite marked disagreement, these thinkers developed a profoundly philosophical transformation of tantra that included distinctive positions on most of the great Buddhist
philosophical motifs – consciousness, emptiness, purity, the nature of the path, the relationship between saÅsara and nirvaja, and perception. This new philosophical literature at times was purely tantric in its citations and frame of reference, while at other times explicitly integrative through detailed references
to exoteric literature and debates. While much of it in form explored the boundary between poetry and philosophy, other texts were formally characterized by the evolving norms of Tibetan scholastic literature, including syllogistic argumentation."

[jet.urgyen]

Evidently Vajrayana is not Tibetan Buddhism.

Edit: i mean, tibetan buddhism have tibetan cultural components wich are not buddhism: tulkus for example.

[Matt J]

I would agree that Vajrayana is not synonymous with Tibetan Buddhism, but I would not trust most of the article. TB teaches Vajrayana, but not all Vajrayana is Tibetan. I don't think this is controversial.

What is more controversial is this author's penchant for identifying traditions, making bold claims of having a final realization, and then modifying said tradition to cut out the cultural debris. Based on this practice, I would imagine that he may have set his sights on Vajrayana as the next tradition he will treat in this manner. Accordingly, I feel his article is likely tainted by his desire to undermine the elements of Tibetan Buddhism that would stand in the way of his goal. I treat claims to enlightenment (especially self-applied) with a fair amount of cynicism--- claims to enlightenment inevitably lead to problems. If the claim is true, the teacher's statement doesn't help the student who is not enlightened. And if false, it is poisonous to the teacher and student.

I'm also not following the equivalence of Tantra with sex.

It is not reflected in the article, but I believe he was also "enlightened" by Andrew Cohen at one point (which would add the "tradition" of Papaji style neo-Advaita).

More here (most of his old sites have been discontinued):

http://www.spiralnature.com/culture/wor ... n-barford/

[tingdzin]

Worthless. The only valid points he makes in the article are already well-known among those who study the subject in any depth. Another self-appointed expert with an axe to grind trying to make a reputation for himself.

[dzogchungpa]

It is not reflected in the article, but I believe he was also "enlightened" by Andrew Cohen at one point (which would add the "tradition" of Papaji style neo-Advaita).

More here (most of his old sites have been discontinued):

http://www.spiralnature.com/culture/wor ... n-barford/

That is Alan Chapman, the article linked to in the OP is by David Chapman. Totally different chap, man.

[Snowbear]

@javier.espinoza.t, Yes, but keep in mind the context.

Vajrayana is a synonym for Highest Yoga Tantra (HYT). Most of Tibetan Buddhism is not HYT (to those fortunate to be practicing HYT within Tibetan Buddhism, you are in the truest sense "Vajrayana practitioners"). HYT in Tibetan Buddhism was not only inhereted from India but is virtually unchanged from its Indian heritage - preserved quite true to the original - hence the author's argument that it isn't the "property" of Tibet or Tibetan culture.

The rest is the author's arguments, whatever they are worth, to wrestle Vajrayana from Tibetan Buddhism (because it is now the sole inheritor and protector of the Vajrayana, but "really" isn't Tibetan) and "modernize" it - whatever that means.

The motivation for the article seems to be an attempt to justify a personal project of his to create a new modern western tantra (which I think he eventually abandoned anyway).

[Worth noting that Chapman is from an Aro gTer background]

That is, really, all there is to the article.

[Snowbear]

@Questionsdharma, You need to get in touch face to face with a Lama. Internet is not a suitable source for Dharma.

[jet.urgyen]

@javier.espinoza.t, Yes, but keep in mind the context.

Vajrayana is a synonym for Highest Yoga Tantra (HYT). Most of Tibetan Buddhism is not HYT (to those fortunate to be practicing HYT within Tibetan Buddhism, you are in the truest sense "Vajrayana practitioners"). HYT in Tibetan Buddhism was not only inhereted from India but is virtually unchanged from its Indian heritage - preserved quite true to the original - hence the author's argument that it isn't the "property" of Tibet or Tibetan culture.

The rest is the author's arguments, whatever they are worth, to wrestle Vajrayana from Tibetan Buddhism (because it is now the sole inheritor and protector of the Vajrayana, but "really" isn't Tibetan) and "modernize" it - whatever that means.

The motivation for the article seems to be an attempt to justify a personal project of his to create a new modern western tantra (which I think he eventually abandoned anyway).

[Worth noting that Chapman is from an Aro gTer background]

That is, really, all there is to the article.

cultures are necessary

[Snowbear]

Not necessary. Helpful for context and understanding.

[Varis]

Vajrayana is a synonym for Highest Yoga Tantra (HYT). Most of Tibetan Buddhism is not HYT (to those fortunate to be practicing HYT within Tibetan Buddhism, you are in the truest sense "Vajrayana practitioners").

Yep, Vajrayana is HYT and Mantrayana is Kriya and Yoga Tantra. Although I would add that Vajrayana exists in Newar Buddhism aswell.

[florin]

Vajrayana is a synonym for Highest Yoga Tantra (HYT). Most of Tibetan Buddhism is not HYT (to those fortunate to be practicing HYT within Tibetan Buddhism, you are in the truest sense "Vajrayana practitioners").

Yep, Vajrayana is HYT and Mantrayana is Kriya and Yoga Tantra. Although I would add that Vajrayana exists in Newar Buddhism aswell.

So mantrayana and vajrayana are different then ?

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nine_yanas

[Lingpupa]

The linked page says:

In the 1970s, Tibetan pioneers like Tarthang Tulku, Lama Yeshé, and Chögyam Trungpa developed modern presentations of Vajrayana. Around 1990, the Tibetan power structure put a stop to that.

I'm baffled - does anybody know what he's talking about? Quite apart from the fact that he's just wrong - there is no "power structure" that's cohesive enough to do that. But presumably he's built this idea on something - possibly as part of the pitch he's developing. But what?

PS: Varis' claim that

Vajrayana is HYT and Mantrayana is Kriya and Yoga Tantra

is novel. Where did that come from?

[heart]

The linked page says:

In the 1970s, Tibetan pioneers like Tarthang Tulku, Lama Yeshé, and Chögyam Trungpa developed modern presentations of Vajrayana. Around 1990, the Tibetan power structure put a stop to that.

I'm baffled - does anybody know what he's talking about? Quite apart from the fact that he's just wrong - there is no "power structure" that's cohesive enough to do that. But presumably he's built this idea on something - possibly as part of the pitch he's developing. But what?

PS: Varis' claim that

Vajrayana is HYT and Mantrayana is Kriya and Yoga Tantra

is novel. Where did that come from?

David Chapman, I stopped read what he write long time ago and I always seen mantrayana and vajrayana as synonyms.

/magnus

[Grigoris]

Quite apart from the fact that he's just wrong - there is no "power structure" that's cohesive enough to do that

You have never heard of VOG: Vajrayana Occupation Government? Not surprising, they are even more secretive than ZOG!

[Varis]

So mantrayana and vajrayana are different then ?

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nine_yanas

I should correct myself.
Tibetans use the words Vajrayana and Mantrayana as synonyms but AFAIK the former term doesn't appear in Kriya and Yoga Tantra because it's a later development, hence why East Asian Buddhists don't use it.
I think it's a case of Mantrayana being regarded as a subcategory of Vajrayana in later developments. Of course East Asian Mantrayana traditions would not recognize this categorization.

Also, Kalachakra was initially referred to as its own yana, Kalachakrayana, though considered a subcategory of Vajrayana.

[Mantrik]

Always understood Vajrayana as the Yana of Tantra, or 'Secret Mantra'.
Is there some authoritative scripture which shows a separate 'Mantrayana' being followed?
It would seem perverse to separate out the one yana into different yanas according to the level of Tantra so where has this idea originated?

In terms of the thread title, they are not synonymous, I don't believe. Every region has cultural accretions within its Buddhism, but in Tibet we also have the Bon and Shang Shung elements which arguably are not Tibetan 'Buddhism' but may be seen as part of Vajrayana, except when they are being seen as part of shamanism .......... and on we go.

Tantra, of course, is far more diverse in its expresssion across the world.