![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusReworking my thesis question.
Tantric Buddhism is widely misunderstood by western scholars due to a text bias and tendency to decontextualize tantric rituals. On the one hand, tantric texts have been commodified for the appetites of orientalist scholars, who represent them as preserving a mystical tradition from eighth century India like a bug in amber, unchanged for 1,200 years. On the other hand, these same texts have been demonized as a corruption of early Buddhism by comparative religion scholars and historians, who point to sexual tantric elements and hold tantra responsible for the demise of Buddhism in India. A third, if not truly middle ground, has diced, sliced and pureed tantric Buddhist rituals, stripping them of Buddhist beliefs in order to mine them for traces of Mongolian shamanism or Hinduism according to the researchers' aims. Lost in the mix has been the living tradition of tantric practitioners themselves.
These various researchers have sought answers to questions that have little to do with tantra as it is, and more to do with the mindsets and aims of the researchers as they are. These mindsets have been reflected in the research without taking into account a post-modernist awareness of the researcher's lens. Or to phrase it in a Buddhist manner: who is the watcher? And who is watching the watcher? Only in this way could such diametrically opposed representations of tantra emerge: a sacred Buddhist mysticism, versus a corruption of Buddhism, versus an alternate religion with merely a Buddhist facade. They can't all be equally true. [How does one begin to formulate a credible approach that will accurately reflect tantric Buddhism and not simply create one more perspective, worth no more than the next?]
Given that the Buddhist definition of even scripture emphasizes the meaning over the words, and that all methods—tantric and otherwise—act as a disposable Dixie cup for direct experience, the living practice tradition is far more important than the texts. Yet divorcing ritual performance from its meaning to the practitioners renders it empty. One must examine Buddhist ritual within the context of its meaning to the participants.
There exist endless numbers of tantric Buddhist rituals to examine. Some are popular; some obscure. Some are simple; others esoteric. Some can be performed by a single individual in under twenty minutes. Others require multiple participants and a month or more to complete. However, abhiseka or initiation is the gateway through which all must pass to be authorized to do tantric practice. On the surface, abhiseka is an often elaborate ritual involving images of meditational deities, symbolic gesture, sculpted ritual offerings, and musical accompaniment such as bells, hand-drums, and wind instruments. The teacher uses directed visualization, symbolic imagery, meditation, and recitation, to introduce the entire tantric path in condensed symbolic form to the mind of the initiate. Therefore analyzing the ritual performance and meaning of abhiseka should give a clear-eyed look at an essential tantric Buddhist ritual that has not been studied, and through sheer contrast throw the misconceptions about tantra into stark relief.
Tantric Buddhism is widely misunderstood by western scholars due to a text bias and tendency to decontextualize tantric rituals. On the one hand, tantric texts have been commodified for the appetites of orientalist scholars, who represent them as preserving a mystical tradition from eighth century India like a bug in amber, unchanged for 1,200 years. On the other hand, these same texts have been demonized as a corruption of early Buddhism by comparative religion scholars and historians, who point to sexual tantric elements and hold tantra responsible for the demise of Buddhism in India. A third, if not truly middle ground, has diced, sliced and pureed tantric Buddhist rituals, stripping them of Buddhist beliefs in order to mine them for traces of Mongolian shamanism or Hinduism according to the researchers' aims. Lost in the mix has been the living tradition of tantric practitioners themselves.
These various researchers have sought answers to questions that have little to do with tantra as it is, and more to do with the mindsets and aims of the researchers as they are. These mindsets have been reflected in the research without taking into account a post-modernist awareness of the researcher's lens. Or to phrase it in a Buddhist manner: who is the watcher? And who is watching the watcher? Only in this way could such diametrically opposed representations of tantra emerge: a sacred Buddhist mysticism, versus a corruption of Buddhism, versus an alternate religion with merely a Buddhist facade. They can't all be equally true. [How does one begin to formulate a credible approach that will accurately reflect tantric Buddhism and not simply create one more perspective, worth no more than the next?]
Given that the Buddhist definition of even scripture emphasizes the meaning over the words, and that all methods—tantric and otherwise—act as a disposable Dixie cup for direct experience, the living practice tradition is far more important than the texts. Yet divorcing ritual performance from its meaning to the practitioners renders it empty. One must examine Buddhist ritual within the context of its meaning to the participants.
There exist endless numbers of tantric Buddhist rituals to examine. Some are popular; some obscure. Some are simple; others esoteric. Some can be performed by a single individual in under twenty minutes. Others require multiple participants and a month or more to complete. However, abhiseka or initiation is the gateway through which all must pass to be authorized to do tantric practice. On the surface, abhiseka is an often elaborate ritual involving images of meditational deities, symbolic gesture, sculpted ritual offerings, and musical accompaniment such as bells, hand-drums, and wind instruments. The teacher uses directed visualization, symbolic imagery, meditation, and recitation, to introduce the entire tantric path in condensed symbolic form to the mind of the initiate. Therefore analyzing the ritual performance and meaning of abhiseka should give a clear-eyed look at an essential tantric Buddhist ritual that has not been studied, and through sheer contrast throw the misconceptions about tantra into stark relief.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 11:01 am (UTC)Also I don't know what "abhiseka" is, so yeah.
How one begins to formulate a credible approach is kind of a meta question -- in that section you are criticizing the way the entire subject has been approached in the past, which sounds interesting to me; even compelling...
And then you pick out a chewable bite to focus on for your purposes, and explain why that would be meaningful and why it would shed new light.
Works for me!
But again -- I'm so out of the loop these days, and out of my own area of study, that that might not be very useful to you. in any case I'm cheering for you!
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 11:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 08:13 pm (UTC)However, abhiseka or initiation is the gateway through which all must pass to be authorized to do tantric practice. On the surface, abhiseka is an often elaborate ritual involving images of meditational deities, symbolic gesture, sculpted ritual offerings, and musical accompaniment such as bells, hand-drums, and wind instruments. The teacher uses directed visualization, symbolic imagery, meditation, and recitation, to introduce the entire tantric path in condensed symbolic form to the mind of the initiate.
This was very helpful.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 09:21 pm (UTC)But I would imagine it would be fascinating to focus on what the practitioners themselves say they get out of it, rather that focusing on the outside researchers.
and i would imagine that your teachers would be interested in your critique of the way the subject has been approached in the past -- arguing with previous research methods is always interesting and a good thing to do, i deem.
glad if kicking it around here clarified things for you; it sounds like a fascinating topic. I know very little about Buddhism but have read a little and am fascinated by comparative religion in general, so i'll be following your degree progress with great interest.