Tantra vs Sutra Emptiness

[CedarTree]

There has been some discussion that Tantra provides a deeper understanding of Emptiness than Sutra.

I thought it would be of benefit to contrast how Sutra and Tantra handle emptiness and broaden our understanding of Dharma.

To those that are knowledgeable about Mahamudra and Dzogchen please elaborate how emptiness is detailed/broadened in your tradition.

[jkarlins]

oh I want to hear what people will say too!

[Thomas Amundsen]

This topic directly touches something I've been pondering lately. I recently read Establishing Appearances as Divine by Rongzom, and there is extensive commentary from the translator. So, apparently Rongzom said that the tantric view was superior to sutra. However, the main distinction he makes is that the tantric view holds the two truths as inseparable.

The author speculates that Rongzom's Madhyamaka is actually Svatantrika Madhyamaka and that he may have never read Chandrakirti. The issue is that Chandrakirti's Madhyamaka, the Prasangika, expounds the inseparability of the two truths, seemingly no different than the tantric view. So it seems most modern scholars hold sutra and tantra view to be mostly the same, although there are still some reasons why the tantric view is superior, although I don't know what those are. I think its about the purity of the relative, but I'm not positive. The main thing that is unclear to me is how Madhyamaka went from Svatantrika to Prasangika and whether both are based entirely on sutras or if Prasangika is a later shastra development.

[kirtu]

The sutra approach does not go beyond the mind and conceptuality. It is an object of reasoning. This reasoning can be very close actually but it isn't the exact same thing. It's a concept although it has liberative effect.

The tantric approach to emptiness uses the sutric approach beginning with Cittamatra and proceeds to Madhyamika (in truth the tantric approach usually begins with the Sautantrika view of emptiness and works up - but one can begin tantric practice with the Cittamatra view) but goes beyond (conceptual) mind and results in the direct experience of emptiness.

In a way the sutric approach can be seen more on the side of the accumulation of merit and some wisdom while the tantric side is the massive accumulation of merit, deep refinement of wisdom and results in the blossoming of direct realization. As far as method goes, tantra just has more methods, like a massive treasury of method but the method and wisdom are not actually separate although we perceptive them that way for now. And the tantric approach introduces a completely different view of the body, environment, etc. But these things need to be learned from the lama.

Kirt

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

From "if we are Buddhas are we the 3 kayas" thread:
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f ... rt#p380568

....you are an advocate of an inert emptiness. But that is not the profound view of mantrayāna.

[CedarTree]

Maybe Malcolm will come in and really detail the difference

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Maybe Malcolm will come in and really detail the difference

Just wanted to get him started off on the right foot.

[CedarTree]

Maybe Malcolm will come in and really detail the difference

Just wanted to get him started off on the right foot.

What can I say your the best

[Empty Form]

Perhaps the difference is that tantra should result in seeing the stong gzug 'empty forms' so emptiness is directly cognised with eyes and is not conceptual/philosophical anymore?

[fckw]

The sutra approach does not go beyond the mind and conceptuality. It is an object of reasoning. This reasoning can be very close actually but it isn't the exact same thing. It's a concept although it has liberative effect.

I am not sure what you mean by "the sutra approach", but I can tell you for certain that at least the understanding of emptiness you gain in Therevada Vipassana practice is non-conceptual and thus definitely not an "object of reasoning". But maybe you had something else in mind, it's often somewhat unclear what Vajrayana pracitioners mean when they talk about "Sutra practice".

[Malcolm]

There has been some discussion that Tantra provides a deeper understanding of Emptiness than Sutra.

I thought it would be of benefit to contrast how Sutra and Tantra handle emptiness and broaden our understanding of Dharma.

To those that are knowledgeable about Mahamudra and Dzogchen please elaborate how emptiness is detailed/broadened in your tradition.

The mind that apprehends emptiness is held to be more subtle in Vajrayāna -- at least this is how the Gelugpas explain the difference.

The Nyingmapas, Sakyapas, and Kagyupas argue that the nature of the mind is introduced experientially and nonanalytically in Vajrayāna; whereas the analysis used in sutra is coarse and overly conceptual.

[Matt J]

The sutra approach is more of a Tibetan teaching tool than an actual assessment of other traditions. The idea is you read sutras and use logic to reason your way to the truth.

The issue with vipassana is that the view of emptiness presented is not as thorough as TB--- for example, the self is discovered to be empty, but there are atomic dharmas that are not empty (or so I was taught).

The sutra approach does not go beyond the mind and conceptuality. It is an object of reasoning. This reasoning can be very close actually but it isn't the exact same thing. It's a concept although it has liberative effect.

I am not sure what you mean by "the sutra approach", but I can tell you for certain that at least the understanding of emptiness you gain in Therevada Vipassana practice is non-conceptual and thus definitely not an "object of reasoning". But maybe you had something else in mind, it's often somewhat unclear what Vajrayana pracitioners mean when they talk about "Sutra practice".

[Tsongkhapafan]

There is no difference between the meaning of emptiness in Sutra and Tantra

[Tolya M]

There is no difference between the meaning of emptiness in Sutra and Tantra

If only the "inert" does not relate more to the practice of samatha. Besides more than forty kinds of emptiness in the sutra, in Vajrayana apparently they also developed their matrixes, which do not directly intersect with the sutric. It depends on tradition, of course.

[Malcolm]

There is no difference between the meaning of emptiness in Sutra and Tantra

There is however a great difference in how they are realized. If this were not the case, there would be no difference between Sutra and Vajrayāna.

[climb-up]

The Nyingmapas, Sakyapas, and Kagyupas argue that the nature of the mind is introduced experientially and nonanalytically in Vajrayāna; whereas the analysis used in sutra is coarse and overly conceptual.

Beautiful, thank you.
That was my understanding, but parts of the discussion had me doubting.

[Tsongkhapafan]

There is no difference between the meaning of emptiness in Sutra and Tantra

There is however a great difference in how they are realized. If this were not the case, there would be no difference between Sutra and Vajrayāna.

Of course, but there's no difference in the object.

[Malcolm]

There is no difference between the meaning of emptiness in Sutra and Tantra

There is however a great difference in how they are realized. If this were not the case, there would be no difference between Sutra and Vajrayāna.

Of course, but there's no difference in the object.

There is actually a difference in the object: sūtra emptiness is the coarse emptiness, realized by a coarse, analytical mind. Vajrayāna emptiness is a subtle emptiness, realized by a subtle, nonanalytical mind.

[Bakmoon]

There is actually a difference in the object: sūtra emptiness is the coarse emptiness, realized by a coarse, analytical mind. Vajrayāna emptiness is a subtle emptiness, realized by a subtle, nonanalytical mind.

Are they different emptinesses, or are they the same emptiness being perceived in a coarse way and a subtle way? ('perceived might not be the best word to use but I'm not sure other word to use).

[Malcolm]

There is actually a difference in the object: sūtra emptiness is the coarse emptiness, realized by a coarse, analytical mind. Vajrayāna emptiness is a subtle emptiness, realized by a subtle, nonanalytical mind.

Are they different emptinesses, or are they the same emptiness being perceived in a coarse way and a subtle way? ('perceived might not be the best word to use but I'm not sure other word to use).

Emptiness is not an objective thing. Therefore, its subtly or coarseness depends on the mind that realizes it.