Talk:Vajrayana/Archive

Shouldn't this page be unified with Tibetan Buddhism and Lamaism? -- Error 00:17 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on this school as it doesn't particularly interest me at present, however I've just started working on some related projects (Himalayan studies) so should be able to shed some light in the near future! Just noticed from your link here that Lamaism was very disjointed, so I kind of hacked it back together.  As for Vajrayana / Tibetan Buddhism, I think the former is a subset of the latter but I don't know if it warrants a seperate wiki.  -- prat


 * No! It should not be unified with Tibetan Buddhism. Vajrayana Buddhism is Indian in origin even though this is not brought out in the article. Tibetan Buddhism just happens to be the best known variation on the Vajrayana, but Shingon Buddhism in Japan is equally Vajrayana (and they would say a purer form of it). mah&#257;b&#257;la 12:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW Lamaism is a very archaic and now abandoned way of referring to Tibetan Buddhism. It is an example of western 'orientalism' at it's worst, because inherent in the term is the assumption that Tibetan Buddhism is not a form of Buddhism at all. This was informed by a western (mostly academic) bias which saw Theravada as the standard of orthodoxy.mah&#257;b&#257;la 12:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Mahabala is right on both points here. Moreover, there is plenty of Tibetan Buddhism which is not Vajrayana. (20040302 08:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Suggestion(s) on what should go on what pages
I've just moved a lot of detail on Tibetan Buddhism from the Vajrayana page to the Tibetan Buddhism page. If no one objects I will do the same thing with the Shingon section in a few days -- right now it contains more and better info on Shingon than the Shingon Buddhism page itself which seems odd. The Vajrayana page will then be fairly brief -- where it fits in Buddhism, what is unique about it and then a short description of Tibetan and Shingon Buddhism with links to them -- that's about it. But others may have a different view -- any comments? technopilgrim 18:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, most of the Tibetan Vajrayana originates from the Nalanda traditions and the Udyana traditions of Vajrayana, neither of which were located in Tibet. (20040302 08:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Vajrayana and tantric sex
A previous version of the article contained the claim that ''the sensational techniques of tantric sex are not widely attested by outside observers of Vajrayana, nor reported by practitioners. Thus we must conclude they are not an element of Vajrayana.'' This is not true: while tantric sex has little to do with mainstream Vajrayana, the left-hand path has (and perhaps even is) practiced esp. in Tibetan Buddhism, and there was even a short-lived cult in Japan as well. But since the left-hand path almost by definition breaks all societal taboos, it has been hounded out of existence wherever it pops up too publicly... Jpatokal 05:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is still practiced in Tibetan Buddhism. Of course, one has to be "initiated."

Fire Star 06:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it? I was under the impression that all the current Tibetan sects are quite firmly right-handed...  at least in public. Jpatokal 08:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Vajrayana (certainly in Tibet) does not use the distinction of left-handed and right-handedness as a general rule. Secondly, there is no doubt that sexual intercourse is identified as an essential, required feature of the completion stage. The point that is made by Tibetans (repeatedly over the centuries) is that there are very few practitioners who reach a stage advanced enough to require sex for their practice, as one generally uses it for the last six months or so at the very end of the path (six months before achieving Buddhahood).


 * What we can say is that sex is not used indiscriminately within the Vajrayana tradition, and it is certainly far from the common notion of recreative sex done in a kinky indian yoga position. (20040302 08:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC))

The few Gelug-pa Lamas whom I am familiar with (from a very well-known school led by a nephew of the Dalai Lama) teach what they call "The 64 Arts of Love" to their initiates as part of their Tantric curriculum. Fire Star 21:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a recognition of sexual metaphor, but the lamas that you know do not take practical lessons in this! I hope you appreciate that there is a big difference between reading about sex and doing it. (20040302 14:26, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I don't know if it is left-hand, right-hand, metaphorical or not (being uninitiated), but that is the language that they use to present it, so I assumed they meant what they said. I did get the impression from them that it was something only addressed after many years of study, what they considered high level. Personally I don't see the point, I'm interested in Buddhism, not Tantrism. Whether it was Tantrically motivated or not, the students that I did know from the Tibetan school in question were certainly all over each other like rabbits! Cheers, Fire Star 19:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it's time to 'pull rank', and to say that, being fully initiated and having completed all the retreats according to the highest and most secret of the tantric colleges of the Gelukpa, I can tell you that what you are talking about has nothing to do with the Gelugpa school, and certainly had nothing to do with Vajrayana as it is actively practiced, regardless of whether or not some guy was the nephew of the Dalai Lama! (20040302 19:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I'll admit that it is entirely possible that they were pulling my leg about the whole thing. As you could probably tell, I wasn't favourably impressed by them, to say the least. Fire Star 01:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Clearly these people were not Gelugpa or even 'legitimate' Vajrayana practitioners, Fire Star. (By legitimate, I mean with an unbroken guru lineage). I think that someone possibly told you that stuff to get you to their Swinging party. It just goes to show that it's best not to critisise others, right? (20040302 10:12, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC))