This table compares, point by point, Sutrayana (traditional non-Tantric Buddhism) and Buddhist Tantra.

Is this a caricature?

You might not recognize this “Sutrayana” as similar to the non-Tantric Buddhism you practice. It may seem like a caricature or straw man, and therefore an unfair or meaningless comparison. I’ll discuss how Sutrayana relates to actual Buddhisms, such as Theravada and Zen, in upcoming posts.

Differing views of this relationship

Everything in the table is a mainstream tantric view. (I mention this because some of what I write about tantra is unusual, eccentric, or personal.)

The view here is from the yogic Nyingma branch of Tibetan Buddhism. Other Tibetan Schools have different views on a few points. Some tend to deemphasize the differences between Sutra and Tantra, and to blur the boundary. Therefore, their proponents may quibble with details, although overall there are few significant disagreements. Areas of controversy may be:

the exact role of renunciation in Sutra and Tantra

whether Sutra and Tantra have the same end-point

the role of ethics in Tantra

whether ritual is central or peripheral

I don’t know enough about the non-Tibetan Vajaryana schools to say much about their views. However, what I have read about the exoteric (Kengyo) vs. esoteric (Mikkyo) distinction in Japanese Shingon corresponds reasonably closely to the Sutra vs. Tantra distinction I’ve presented here.

Further reading (and a video)

Systematic, point-by-point comparisons of Sutra and Tantra are rare and murky. (This seems odd. I suspect it’s because making the relationship too clear causes political problems.) The best I have found (in order of reading difficulty) are:

For a quick, clear but incomplete summary of Sutra vs. Tantra, here’s a video with Shenphen Rinpoche (a white Geluk lama):

Please share: Reddit

Facebook

Twitter

Like this: Like Loading... Related