. Controversy over Deity Yoga in Action Tantra

Is meditation on oneself as deity actually to be found in Action Tantras themselves, or is it brought over from other tantra sets? Butöna catalogues conflicting opinions on the topic, but does not come to a conclusion. His presentation of the argument against there

being deity yoga in Action Tantra is strong, and thus he seems to side with the position that there is no deity yoga in Action Tantra; however, in explaining the path procedure of Action Tantra, b he presents the system of those who say there is. The

apparent selfcontradiction is perhaps explained by the encyclopedic nature of his work, built on an intention to include a wide range of systems and viewpoints.

Bu-tön introduces the topic by citing a passage in the Wisdom Vajra Compendium,c an explanatory Tantra in the Guhyasamāja cycle and thus a Highest Yoga Tantra, that indicates that there is no imagination of oneself as a deity in Action Tantra:d

Those who are terrified and are very cleanly, who lack the excellent bliss of a wisdom-being and lack pride in themselves as a deity, who are not an object of the unusual practice, and who practice with thoughts on the features of defects abide in Action Tantra.

Bu-tön elaborates on the meaning:

“Those who are terrified and are very cleanly” are terrified of the profound meaning [of reality].f The meaning of “who lack the excellent bliss of a wisdom-being and pride in themselves as a deity” is that they do not generate [that is,

a Extensive Presentation of the General Tantra Sets, 86.6-88.7. b Ibid., 54.5-61.7. c ye shes rdo rje kun las btus pa zhes bya ba’i rgyud, vajrajñānasamuccaya-nāma-tantra; P84, vol. 3. d Extensive Presentation of the General Tantra Sets, 84.4; cited by Tsong-kha-pa, Deity Yoga, 47. e Extensive Presentation of the General Tantra Sets, 86.5.

Tsong-kha-pa (Deity Yoga, 58) identifies “One who is terrified” differently as referring to “several types of trainees of Action Tantras who are frightened and terrified by the activity of single-pointed cultivation of deity yoga.”

imagine] themselves as deities and do not [perform the practice of ] the wisdom-being [that is, the actual deity] entering into themselves. This is clear in fact and also is what earlier lamas have said. Also, such is explained in Shrīdhara’s Commentary on the Difficult Points of the “Yamāri Tantra”: Innate Illuminationa as well as a commentary on the Vajrapañjara Tantra,b and so forth. However:

. Buddhaguhya in his Commentary on the “Concentration Continuation” says:c The Glorious Condensed [[[Tantra]] of ] Imaginations d teaches familiarization with the selflessness of phenomena and deity yoga in a great many passages; therefore, I will not cite them here. In such tantras the bodies of deities and the repetition that is

performed priore to the secret mantra concentrations on sound [that is, before the concentrations of abiding in fire and in sound] are described. Those [[[rites]] of deity yoga] that were not described in whatsoever [[[tantras]]] due to [the mental

outlook of ] trainees were set forth in the Questions of Subāhuf which is a tantra containing the rites of all tantras,g the Glorious Condensed [[[Tantra]] of ] Imaginations, and so forth. [ Buddhaguhya uses as his sources the Condensed Tantra of

a gshin rje gshed kyi rgyud kyi dka’ ’grel lhan cig skyes pa’i snang ba, yamāritantrapañji- kāsahajāloka; P2781, vol. 66. Tsong-kha-pa cites the passage; see Deity Yoga, 48. b

As mentioned in an earlier note, there are three commentaries—by Devakulamahāmati (P2326), by Kṛṣhṇapāda (P2325), and by Indrabodhi (P2324), the last being Indrabhūti according to the Tohoku catalogue.

bsam gtan phyi ma rim par phye ba rgya cher bshad pa, dhyānottarapaṭalaṭīkā; P3495, vol. 78. Tsong-kha-pa cites the first two sentences of this passage; see Deity Yoga, 51. d rdo rje khro bo’i rgyal po’i rtog pa bsdus pa’i rgyud, vajrakrodharājakalpalaghutantra; P319, vol. 7. e

bsam gtan du byas (87.2) should read bsam gtan sngon du byas in accordance with Buddhaguhya’s text (P3495, vol. 78, 71.1.5).

dpung bzang gis zhus pa’i rgyud, subāhuparipṛcchātantra; P428, vol. 9. g The Questions of Subāhu is a general Action Tantra, applicable to all lineages of trainees, as opposed to Tantras spoken only for a specific lineage, and thus contains “the rites of all tantras.”

Imaginations, the Vairochanābhisambodhi Tantra,a the Vajrapāṇi Initiation Tantra ,b and so forth. Also, he describes deity yoga as being generation of oneself as a deity by way of the six deities. Moreover, his description is similar in his Commentary on the “Vajraviḍāraṇa Tantra.” c

2. The master Varabodhi, in his Condensed Means of Achievement of Susiddhi describes generation of oneself as a deity:d Do not think that the stages of the yoga of achieving a deity are not taught in Action Tantras. Though the Supramundane Victor did not teach these in most [[[Action Tantras]]], they are taught as main subjects in the Vajrapāṇi Initiation and

the Entry to the Ten Principles.e In brief, all feats depend on a secret mantra deity and on suchness; if these are deficient, activities of pacification and so forth will not be achieved. Hence, these should be understood through a guru’s explanations and through a little analysis of the features of tantras. Thus, a divine body is to be generated through these stages. These two masters do not speak of the entry of a wisdombeing [that is, an actual deity entering into the imagined deity].

The master Nāgārjuna speaks of self-generation and entry of a wisdom-being as well as initiation in his Means of Achievement of the Retention of the Thousand-Armed Avalokiteshvara.f Also, self-generation, entry of a wisdom-

rnam par snang mdzad chen po mngon par rdzogs par byang chub pa rnam par sprul ba, mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhivikurvatī; P126, vol. 5. Tsong-kha-pa holds that this is a Performance Tantra. lag na rdo rje dbang bskur ba’i rgyud chen po, vajrapāṇi-abhiṣekamahātantra; P130, vol. 6. Tsong-kha-pa considers this a Performance Tantra.

rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i bzungs kyi rgya cher ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba, vajravidāraṇi [or vidāraṇa] nāmadhāraṇīṭīkāratnābhāsvarā; P3504, vol. 78. The tantra itself is not extant in Tibetan, nor has the Sanskrit

been located to date. d Tsong-kha-pa cites the same passage, except for the last sentence; see Deity Yoga, 52. Varabodhi’s text is legs par grub par byed pa’i sgrub pa’i thabs bsdus pa, susiddhikarasādhanasaṃgraha; P3890, vol. 79. de kho na nyid bcu la ’jug pa, *daśatattvātara.

spyan ras gzigs dbang phyug phyag stong sgrub thabs, sahasrabhujāvalokiteśvarasādha- being, and so forth are described in other Means of Achievement which are based on Action Tantras such as the Means of Achievement of Mahākāruṇika a by the master Padmasambhava, the Means of Achievement of the ElevenFaced

Avalokiteshvara b by Bhikṣhuṇī Lakṣhmi,c the Means of Achievement of Sitātapatrāparājitād which is said to be by Chandragomin, the Means of Achievement of the Five Guards e by Ratnākarashānti and Jetāri,f and the Means of Achievement of Vimaloṣhṇīṣhag by the Foremost Elder [[[Atisha]]], as well as the Ocean of Means of Achievement,h the One Hundred and Fifty Means of Achievement,i the Hundred Means of Achievement,j and so forth.k

Buddhaguhya and so forth assert that even the Vairochanābhisambodhi and so forth are Action Tantras;

This text is based on an Action Tantra, but it is doubtful that it can serve as a source of Action Tantra itself.

Tsong-kha-pa cites the remainder of this passage, in toto, up to but not including the last sentence, attributing it to “latter-day scholars” (phyis kyis mkhas pa dag na re). See Deity Yoga, 53-55. a sems ngal so ba’i thugs rje chen po’i

sgrub thabs, cittaviśrāmaṇamahākāruṇikasādhana; P3569, vol. 79. b rje btsun ’phags pa spyan ras gzigs dbang phyug zhal bcu gcig pa’i sgrub thabs, bhaṭṭārakāryaikādaśamukhāvalokiteśvarasādhana; P3557, vol. 97.

dge slong ma dpal mo. d gdugs dkar mo can gzhan gyis mi thub ma shes bya ba’i sgrub thabs, sitātapatrāparājitā- sādhana; P3903, vol. 80.

bsrung ba lnga’i cho ga, pañcarakṣāvidhi; Ratnākarashānti’s text is P3947, vol. 80; Jetāri’s are listed under five separate titles: so sor ’brang ma’i sgrub thabs, pratisarāsādhana; rma bya chen mo’i sgrub thabs, mahāmāyūrīsādhana; stong chen mo rab tu ’joms ma’i sgrub thabs, mahāsahasrapramardanīsādhana; gsang sngags chen mo rjes su ’dzin ma’i sgrub thabs, mahāmantrānudhāraṇīsādhana; bsil ba’i tshal chen mo’i sgrub thabs, mahāsītavatīsādhana; P3940-3944, vol. 80.

These are separate texts with the same title.

gtsug tor dri ma med pa’i gzungs kyi cho ga, vimaloṣṇīṣadhāraṇīvidhi; P3901, vol. 79. h

sgrub thabs rgya mtsho, sādhanasāgara; P4221-4466, vols. 80-81, where the collection is also identified as sgrub thabs kun las btus pa, sādhanasamuccaya (Toh. 34003644).

i phyed dang nyis brgya pa; P3964-4126, vol. 80 (Toh. 3143-3304). j sgrub thabs brgya rtsa; P4127-4220, vol. 80 (Toh. 3306-3309). k

Bu-tön’s point is likely that it should be analyzed whether Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi mistook Means of Achievement based on Actions for presentations of Action Tantra.

therefore, it should be analyzed whether [their position that there is self-generation in Action Tantra] is founded on a mixing of Action and Performance Tantras. Or, perhaps [their position] is founded on explanations by other masters that it is suitable to apply the format of Yoga Tantra even to Action and Performance rites, as is taught in the Compendium of Principles [the root Yoga Tantra]:

The essence, seal, mantra, and knowledge Explained in the four sections [of this Tantra] Are all achieved through whatever mode one wishes, [The rites of Yoga Tantra] itself or [the others].

Or, just as deities similar to [[[Highest Yoga]] ones] such as Pratisarā, Mārīchi, and Parṇashavarī as well as their mantras, appear in Action Tantras, so Saṃpuṭa,b and so forth, [usually associated with Action Tantra] also appear in Highest Yoga Tantras.

Hence, it should be analyzed whether the thought of Highest Yoga is being carried over to Action Tantra or whether the latter has self-generation in its own right.

With respect to the phrase “who is not an object of the unusual practice” in the Wisdom Vajra Compendium, Shraddhākaravarmanc explains this as meaning that they are not objects of the activity of teaching the profound meaning

explained in an intentional manner or as meaning that they practice with the activity of thoughts of faults with respect to the unusual sphere.d

After presenting this detailed case of possible unfounded reasons

de kho na nyid bsdus pa, tattvasaṃgraha; P112, vol. 4; Toh. 479, vol. nya. b The text (88.5) reads sambhuṭa.

ye shes rdo rje kun las btus pa’i rgyud las ’byung ba’i rgyan bdun rnam par dgrol ba, jñānavajrasamuccayatantrodbhavasaptālaṃkāravimocana; P2654, vol. 60. d In his second explanation, Shraddhākaravarman combines “who is not

an object of the unusual practice” and “who practices with thoughts on the features of defects.” Tsong-kha-pa (Deity Yoga, 58) keeps the two separate, explaining them as meaning “who are not receptacles for using in the path deeds of desire—this being unusual or contrary to the world—and who achieve the path through practices involving thoughts on features of faults such as

birth, aging, and so forth, in conjunction with the conception of true existence.” behind Buddhaguhya’s and Varabodhi’s assertion that Action Tantras involve imagination of oneself as a deity, Bu-tön

leaves the issue with advice to analyze which side is right. He was content to be somewhat noncommittal, although the weight of his argument is on the side that Action Tantras do not themselves call for selfgeneration, when he says, “This both is clear in fact and is what earlier lamas have said.”

Reacting to Bu-tön’s presentation, Tsong-kha-pa, at the beginning of the section on Action Tantra in his Great Exposition of Secret Mantra, argues the case that indeed deity yoga is required for the main but not the majority of trainees of Action Tantra

and refutes in detail the opposite position as presented by Bu-tön. His argument is conducted with such intense examination of the Indian sources that the broad movements of his case are often implicit and unclear, except when juxtaposed to Bu-tön’s text. This is

perhaps the reason why Tsong-kha-pa’s disciple Ke-drup made a clear summary of the argument in his Extensive Explanation of the Format of the General Tantra Sets.

Ke-drup’s summation

Ke-drup begins by citing the opposing opinion:

Earlier Tibetan lamas made a [mistaken] presentation in which they posit the four tantra sets by way of four different rites of deity generation and so forth:

In Action Tantra there is no meditation on oneself as a deity and feats are received from a deity meditated in front [of oneself ]; therefore [the mode of procedure for gaining feats in Action Tantra] is called “receiving feats from a deity who is like a master [giving a boon to a subject].”

In Performance Tantra, although there is cultivation of self-generation [that is, imagination of oneself as a deity], there is no bestowal of initiation upon having caused the wisdom-being [the actual deity] to enter this [[[deity]] as whom one is imagining oneself ] and no implanting of the seal of lineage lord [that is, imagination of the deity who is lord of the particular lineage on the top of one’s head]. Also, without generating a pledge-being in front [of oneself ], one invites a wisdom-being, who upon [arriving and] residing there is worshipped and from whom feats are taken. Therefore, [the mode of procedure of gaining feats in Performance Tantra] is called “receiving feats from a deity who is like a friend [in that both giver and recipient—the deity and oneself—are equally meditated as deities].” In Yoga Tantra one generates oneself as a deity, into whom the wisdom-being is caused to enter; initiation is conferred; the seal of the lineage lord is implanted, and in the end the deity is asked to leave. Moreover, in Highest Yoga Mantra one generates oneself as a deity into whom the wisdombeing is caused to enter; initiation is conferred; and the seal of the lineage lord is implanted; at the end the wisdom-being is not asked to leave. As a source [these earlier Tibetan lamas cite] the Wisdom Vajra Compendium (see 303 above), an explanatory tantra of the Guhyasamāja [cycle which, in paraphrase, says], “One who practices without the excellent bliss of a wisdom-being and without pride in oneself as a deity abides in Action Tantra.”

Bu-tön Rin-po-che says, “The master Buddhaguhya says that Action Tantra has self-generation, [but] it should be examined whether [he says this] thinking that Action and Performance Tantras are not mutually exclusive…” However, he does not come to a decision. The view of these “earlier Tibetan lamas” that the four tantra sets represent four different modes of deity generation is in brief:

1. In Action Tantra meditators do not imagine themselves as a deity and only meditate on a deity in front.

2. In Performance Tantra there is generation in front of oneself of an invited actual deity, and there is self-generation but without imagining a small representation of the lineage lord on the top of the head.

3. In Yoga Tantra both generation in front and self-generation occur, and in addition the deity in front enters oneself after which the representation of the lineage lord is meditated on top of one’s head and initiation is conferred.

4. The difference between the generation rites in Yoga Tantra and Highest Yoga Tantra is that in the former the deity that has entered oneself is eventually asked to leave, this being at the end of the session (with an invitation to return at the next session), whereas in the latter the deity remains in oneself.

(The fourteenth-century Nying-ma master Long-chen-pa puts forth a similar demarcation of the four tantras in his Treasury of the Supreme Vehicles.)

Ke-drup’s source, Tsong-kha-pa, cites a tantra (the Wisdom Vajra Compendium) and quotes or refers to three Indian scholars— Shrīdhara, Jinadatta, and “Indrabhūti”—as Indian commentarial sources for this presentation. Then, Tsong-kha-pa presents the favored, opposite opinion of two Indian Action Tantra commentators, Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi, who hold that deity yoga (selfgeneration) is essential to the mode of procedure in Action Tantra. As mentioned above, Bu-tön questions but does not resolve whether Buddhaguhya’s view that Action Tantras have deity yoga comes from conflating Action Tantra and Performance Tantra, when he lists the Vairochanābhisambodhi Tantra and the Vajrapāṇi Initiation Tantra as Action Tantras that have deity yoga. Ke-drup indirectly praises his own teacher, Tsong-kha-pa, for his decisiveness when he reports that Bu-tön says only that this matter should be examined and does not come to a decision. Whereas one of Bu-tön’s great contributions is a catalogue of traditions, one of Tsong-khapa’s is critical decisiveness, and Ke-drup, like his teacher, tackles the issue with analytical directness:

In our own system, it is asserted that Action Tantra has all of these—generation of oneself as a deity, granting of initiation upon causing the wisdom-being to enter oneself, and impression with the seal of the lineage lord. Therefore, aside from the master Buddhaguhya’s quoting the Vairochanābhisambodhi and the Vajrapāṇi Initiation Tantra in the context of these being commonly established as Action Tantras, he did not quote them due to not having found explanations of self-generation that could be quoted. For, in his commentary on the Concentration Continuation Tantra he quotes statements on the mode of cultivating the six deities in the Vajroṣhṇīṣha Tantra and the Vajraviḍāraṇa Tantra and explains them well. There is no one who does not assert that those two are Action Tantras, and, furthermore, [[[Āryadeva’s]]] Lamp Compendium for Practice says, “The Vairochanābhisambodhi, a Performance Tantra, says…” The evidence that at least some Action Tantras have selfgeneration is cogent, but each part of Ke-drup’s statement needs to be examined to appreciate the argument.

First, it is Tsong-kha-pa’s opinion that for Buddhaguhya certain tantras can be either Action or Performance depending on the trainee:b The master Buddhaguhya asserts that the deity yoga of the four-branched repetition and so forth is similar in both Action and Performance Tantras. He says that the Vairochanābhisambodhi, for instance, can be an Action Tantra depending on the trainee; therefore, except for dividing Action and Performance Tantras by way of their trainees, he does not divide them from the viewpoint of the tantras themselves. Therefore, Ke-drup’s explanation would more accurately reflect Tsong-kha-pa’s opinion if he indicated that for Buddhaguhya it was commonly established, that is, an opinion shared with many, that the Vairochanābhisambodhi and the Vajrapāṇi Initiation could be considered either an Action or a Performance Tantra.

This is how Tsong-kha-pa presents Buddhaguhya’s view, even though he disagrees with Buddhaguhya on this point, for just a little later, he says:c If the Vairochanābhisambodhi and the Vajrapāṇi Initiation are not considered to be Performance Tantras, it would be impossible to find one. Thus, for Tsong-kha-pa, from the viewpoint of the tantras themselves these are Performance Tantras, not Action Tantras, whereas for Buddhaguhya the Vairochanābhisambodhi and the Vajrapāṇi Initiation could be Action Tantras depending on the practitioner.

We need to notice that:

• Since neither the Vajroṣhṇīṣha Tantra nor the Vajraviḍāraṇa Tantra were translated into Tibetan, that these have passages detailing self-generation is known only from Buddhaguhya’s commentary on the Concentration Continuation Tantra and commentary on the Vajraviḍāraṇa Tantra.a Specifically, since the Concentration Continuation (Tsong-kha-pa’s source for the mode of meditation in Action Tantra) itself does not clearly explain deity yoga, only saying, “Flow to the bases, mind, and sound,” Buddhaguhya, b relying on the Vajroṣhṇīṣha Tantra, explains “bases” as twofold—the deity generated in front and oneself generated as a deity, these being the bases of mantra letters that are set on a moon disc at the heart. Then, when the Concentration Continuation says, “Meditate with the mantra minds,” Buddhaguhya explains “mantra minds” as the six deities—the six steps involved in self-generation—based on the Vajraviḍāraṇa Tantra.

• Hence, the two references to self-generation in the Concentration Continuation, Buddhaguhya’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s prime source for the meditative procedure of Action Tantra, are so unclear that outside explanations must be sought. Buddhaguhya’s justification for this is that the Concentration Continuation is “related” with the Vajroṣhṇīṣha Tantra, this being taken as meaning that it is a continuation of the Vajroṣhṇīṣha Tantra itself or an explanation of its further practice. • Since it appears that no one challenges that the Vajroṣhṇīṣha

For the citations, see Deity Yoga, 55 and 109. The Translation of the Treatises (bstan ’gyur) contains Buddhaguhya’s commentary to the Vidāraṇādhāraṇī, titled Extensive Commentary on the Vajravidāraṇī Retention: Precious Illumination (rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa shes bya ba’i gzungs kyi rgya cher ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba, vajravidāraṇānāmadhāraṇīṭīkāratnābhāsvarā; P3504, vol. 78). b Cited in ibid., 55. Tantra and the Vajraviḍāraṇa Tantra existed in India, Tsong-khapa and Ke-drup emphasize merely that these are accepted as Action Tantras.

• That the reference to “bases” in the Concentration Continuation includes a reference to self-generation is also linguistically supported through a comparison with a similar usage of terminology in the Vairochanābhisambodhi, a Performance Tantra: “Base” is to imagine one’s own body As that of one’s deity. That called the second base Is a perfect Buddha [[[imagined]] In front], the best of the two-legged.

As Tsong-kha-pa suggests, one would have to come up with a difference between the usages of the “base” in the two passages to say that the one does and the other does not include a reference to self-generation.

The rest of Ke-drup’s re-formulation of Tsong-kha-pa’s argument can be summarized as nine contradictions in the assertion that Action Tantra and Performance Tantra do not involve selfgeneration:

1. Contradiction with scripture: To assert that Performance Tantras have no self-generation manifestly contradicts the presentation of such in the Vairochanābhisambodhi, given just above. 2. Contradiction with scripture and authoritative exegesis: To assert that Action Tantra has no self-generation contradicts the clear explanation of meditation by way of six deities in the Vajraviḍāraṇa Tantra and the mode of cultivating concentration by way of the four branches of approximation and achievement—one of the branches being the self-base—in Vajroṣhṇīṣha Tantra and the explanations by both Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi that these are set forth in most Action Tantras in an unclear way. 3. Contradiction with a linguistic parallel: If the “base” mentioned in the Concentration Continuation cannot be taken as meditating on oneself as a deity, then the same would have to be said about the passage from the Performance Tantra, the Vairochanābhisambodhi, quoted above. Since the opposing scholars would then be forced into the position of asserting that Performance Tantra does not have deity yoga, this would contradict their assertion that it does. 4. Contradiction with an authoritative, scripturally based explanation of the procedure of the path: The master Varabodhi explains in his Clear Realization of Susiddhi that if the pride of ordinariness is not reversed through meditating on oneself as a deity and if one does not meditate on the emptiness which is the final status of all phenomena, one will not achieve any of the feats of pacification and so forth. Also, the Vajrapāṇi Initiation (a Performance Tantra) makes exactly this point. Hence, if there is no self-generation in Action Tantra, there would absurdly be no achievement of feats in dependence on it. 5. Contradiction with a wide tradition: Most descriptions of Means of Achievement for Action Tantra such as those composed by Nāgārjuna, Asaṅga, Lakṣhmi, Ratnākarashānti, and Jetāri as well as those in collections of Means of Achievement speak of selfgeneration and so forth. To say that Action Tantra does not have self-generation would contradict all of these. 6. Contradiction with one’s own practice when giving initiation: In the process of initiation both master and student must imagine themselves as deities, and also the wisdom-being (the actual deity) must enter the student imagined as a deity. Thus, even initiation would be impossible in Action Tantra if there were no self-generation. This would manifestly contradict the opposing scholars’ own presentation of the master’s and student’s self-generation, the placing of deities at important places in the body and so forth, in the initiation rites of the five guards and the like. 7. Contradiction with critical analysis of the difference between the Perfection and Mantra vehicles: If Action Tantra had no self-generation, it would not have the full complement of the means for positing the Secret Mantra Great Vehicle as superior to the Perfection Great Vehicle, this being that it has a cause of similar type for a Buddha’s form body—deity yoga. 8. Contradiction with the universally accepted description of Mantra as taking the effect as the path: Action Tantra would not have the full complement of making the effect (Buddhahood) into the path because it would not involve meditation at present (while still on the path) in an aspect similar to the four marvels of the effect state—abode, body, resources, and deeds. 9. Contradiction with accepted statements in Highest Yoga Mantra about the difference between the tantra sets: Action Tantra would not have the full complement of using desire in the path because whereas the Hevajra Tantra and the Saṃpuṭa—in the context of associating four types of desire with the four tantra sets—speak of Action Tantras as using the mutual gazing of the male and female deities in the path, Action Tantra would not do so, since meditation on oneself as a deity would be unsuitable.

The evidence presented in this carefully framed argument requires that the statement in the Wisdom Vajra Compendium Tantra that in Action Tantra there is no pride of being a deity must be explained away. Ke-drup says:

With respect to the meaning of the passage in the Wisdom Vajra Compendium, it is not teaching that “In Action Tantra there is no meditation on oneself as a deity and no entry of a wisdom-being into that [[[deity]]].” Rather, it is indicating that in Action Tantra there is a mode of worshipping a deity in front [of oneself ] and receiving a feat [from that deity] without meditating on oneself as a deity and without making the wisdom-being enter oneself. For the secondary trainees of Action Tantra—those of dull faculties, a type whose minds cannot accommodate meditation of oneself as a deity—a system of receiving feats upon meditating on a deity in front, without meditating on oneself as a deity, is described. [However,] whoever is a specially intended trainee of Action Tantra is necessarily someone for whom cultivation of self-generation was taught. It is as the master Buddhaguhya explains it.

This explanation implies that since the majority of trainees of Action Tantra are not able to practice deity yoga, they are not its chief traineesa or its specially intended traineesb but its secondary trainees.c As Tsong-kha-pa explicitly says:d Because such trainees are predominant in both Action and Performance, deity yoga is not manifest in them, and even those tantras that have it are not extensive. Nevertheless, the chief trainees of Action and Performance Tantras are not those who either do not like or are not able to cultivate one-pointedly a deity yoga by way of restraining vitality and exertion [[[breath]] and distraction], and so forth.

That the chief trainees are in the minority is the reason why so few Action Tantras clearly speak of self-generation. (That the chief trainees of a tantra set could be in the minority of trainees of that same tantra set is the bitter pill that has to be swallowed to maintain the point that Action Tantra, as a set, does indeed call for selfgeneration.)

Having shown that Action Tantra involves self-generation, Kedrup considers briefly the remaining question of whether (1) entry of the wisdom-being (the actual deity) into oneself imagined as a deity and (2) visualizing the lineage lord at the top of one’s head, called impression with the seal of the lineage lord, are suitable in Action and Performance Tantras. The qualm revolves around the undisputed fact that Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi do not mention these, but Ke-drup explains that the mere absence of description by those two masters does not mean that these are not to be done and thus cannot serve as a proof that it is not suitable to do them. He says that since entry of a wisdom-being and seal-impression are branches making the yoga more wonderful (that is, powerful), they do not have to be done but could be done.

song-kha-pa’s treatment of this last issue comes at the end of his critical inquiry into the arguments into whether Action Tantra has self-generation and is much more dramatic than Ke-drup’s distillation. Tsong-kha-pa uses the issue as a means to make his main point—that deity yoga is at the very heart of tantric practice:e

a ’dul bya’i gtso bo. b ched du bya ba’i ’dul bya. c ’dul bya phal pa. d Deity Yoga, 59. e Ibid., 60-62.

Although the two masters Buddhaguhya and Varabodhi do not describe entry of a wisdom-being into oneself [in their commentaries on Action Tantra and Performance Tantra], such entry is suitable, for it is described by many Indian scholars and adepts. Were it unsuitable, it would have to be because [trainees of these tantras] hold themselves and the deity—the wisdom-being—as separate and do not believe in holding them as one. However, this is not the case, for it is said that through the power of believing one’s own body, speech, and mind to be undifferentiable from the deity’s exalted body, speech, and mind, all one’s physical actions and movements are seals and all one’s speech is mantra. In this way the Vajrapāṇi Initiation Tantra says: …If mantra practitioners believe in this way that these are undifferentiable, they attain purity of mind. At those times when they have a pure mind, they always view in all ways their own body to be the same as the deity’s body, their own speech to be the same as the deity’s speech, and their own mind to be the same as the deity’s mind; then, they are in meditative equipoise.…

This is also similar in Action Tantra because, when generation of oneself as a deity occurs, one must apply the pride that is the thought that one is the actual deity being generated, whether it is Vairochana or any other.

Therefore, to view one’s body as a deity, one’s speech as mantra, and one’s mind as absorbed in suchness is not a distinguishing feature of Highest Yoga. It is definitely required also in the lower tantra sets.

Tsong-kha-pa emphasizes the importance and centrality of imagining oneself as a deity for all four tantra sets, refuting claims about Highest Yoga Mantra that denigrate central features of the other tantra sets. By doing so, he brings to the fore what he considers the actual special features of Highest Yoga Mantra.

His cogent analysis created a new approach to a complex received tradition by absorbing it in a coherent and consistent fashion into a high tradition of training in compassion and wisdom, showing how these remain the foundation of tantric practice. Tsong-kha-pa did this largely through noticing and emphasizing certain of the tradition’s own features, and thus he could view his own work as exposing a system integral to it rather than creating a new one.