Hindu and Buddhist Tantra

[Guest guest]

As a Shakta my understanding deepened and Tantra became clearer for me when

I learned that the Buddhist Vajrayana or Mantrayana simultaneously maintains

2 views of emptiness, the Rentong and the Shentong. Put briefly the Rentong

is understood as empty-of-self (shunyata) and the Rentong is empty-of-other

(purnyata, my word), and they are considered complimentary not exclusive. An

understanding of emptiness needs to be based on them together. I think the

real problem here is that shunyata is usually only understood as

empty-of-self. Certainly that¹s the view most Hindus have and ascribe to the

Buddhists.

 

Earlier, I often thought of the difference between Hindu and Buddhist Tantra

as being between purnyata (my word) and shunyata as the view points. Hindus

liked fullness and Buddhists liked emptiness. Note, this is the kind of

fullness that can be subtracted from without being lessened and of course

this is the kind of emptiness that is potentially everything, go figure?

 

If we think of the terms of fullness and emptiness / self and other /

subjective and objective we see that they are concepts pointing at the

inexpressible. Both approaches are trying to express the same idea from

different standpoints. As concepts, 100% fullness/self/subjectivity is as

meaningless as 100% emptiness/other/objectivity. They both point to our

being, prior to consciousness, where they dissolve, not one, not two. Our

affinity for one or the other view is based on genes and conditioning, our

karma.

 

As a Shakta I knew that my Mother was both gunashrayai and gunamayai, so

when I thought about the Prajnaparamita as Mother, I contented myself by

remembering that though empty my Mother was infinite potentiality, She gave

birth to everything. How wonderful that the Shentong affirms that Mother is

empty of everything that is not Her. As a Shakta this was the piece that was

missing in my understanding of Buddhism (shunyata).

 

It is on this point/purpose in Tantra, where the futility of conceptual

thought is demonstrated/embraced, that Hindus and Buddhists (all

spirituality) are one.

 

I¹d like to speak to the discussion of the Devi Mahatmayam that was running

some time back. For me the central meaning of the Chandi is that this

reality, abiding at the core of whatever I identify as myself, dissolves all

concepts. How can there be a real battle between opposites when they are

always complimentary? How can they not be complimentary if they both are Her

manifestations, except as we think they are not? The Chandi demonstrates the

severing of the root of ignorance, ego.

 

But in practice we sever the root of ego, ignorance. Only a deep

understanding that Mother is the only volition can sever the ignorance of

ego because there is no expression of ego that is other than Her. I believe

that this concept of severance and pacification was developed and taught by

the Mahasiddhas and became the practice of Chöd at the hands of Machig

Labdron in Tibet.

 

Of course the collective-ego (being dualistic) co-opting the Chandi to

further it¹s own agenda would have us believe that She is one and not the

other and invents all kinds of dos and don¹ts.

 

Call Her demon, call Her god, to Her I bow. Mother may I lovingly care for

you in all forms, free of fear and and free of desire.

 

Uddhava Saradadasa