Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro
The distinction between Sutra and Tantra lies mainly in the methods used to realize emptiness. Although the overall goal of realizing emptiness is the same, the methods differ greatly.
How is emptiness realized in the Sutra tradition? In the Pure Land school, recitation of the Amitabha’s name is regarded as the main method for realizing emptiness (upon rebirth in the pureland). The Chan school is primarily for practitioners of exceptionally sharp faculties, so its methods appear very simple and lack a complete and systematic approach from the preliminary practices to the main practice.
An example is how the Sixth Chan Patriarch Huineng attained realisation — for most people, the process through which he attained realisation is not really considered a “method” at all. However, for someone with such fully matured spiritual capacity, it is indeed a valid path to realization.
Other Sutrayana methods of realizing emptiness depend on pramāṇa (logic and reasoning). For example, we clearly see that a vase exists, yet it is composed of many tiny particles and is not a single, unified entity. These particles can be further divided until what remains is emptiness.
This does not mean that the vase has turned into emptiness; rather, it has never been anything other than emptiness ever. Our biological eyes cannot perceive this emptiness so we use logical inference to reach a conceptual understanding.
Take a wool shirt as another example. If we take it apart, it becomes a bunch of wool yarn—so where did the “shirt” go? Did it disappear? What am I actually wearing — it is a shirt or just yarn? The yarn itself is derived from sheep’s wool—so am I wearing shirt, yarn, or wool? If the wool is divided into its finest particles, where has the original shirt gone to? Was I initially wearing just particles?
Sutrayana uses such similar reasoning to understand emptiness. This is one way of approaching emptiness but it remains purely theoretical without direct experiential insight.
How can one transform conceptual understanding into realization? This requires a very long period of practice. During that time, one must accumulate merit and purify karmic obscurations. When these conditions are completed, conceptual understanding can be transformed into wisdom. All Sutrayana schools other than Chan use this approach to realize emptiness.
Then, is the Chan school not also Sutrayana? To my thinking, realizing mind nature in Chan should be regarded as both Sutra and Tantra, in other words, Chan may be said to be neither completely Sutra nor completely Tantra. It is a practice that combines elements of both and is in fact part Sutra and part Tantra. Since Chan does not involve empowerments or visualization, it is classified as Sutrayana, yet its method of realization differs from that of usual Sutrayana schools.
Aside from Chan, all other Sutrayana traditions rely solely on reasoning to realize emptiness. Nāgārjuna’s Six Treatises, for instance, first dismantle our existing attachments, then we practice based on a conceptual understanding and after a very long time, one begins to have some direct insights into emptiness. This is the Sutrayana method of realizing emptiness.
Tantra has outer and inner levels. We will not discuss the outer tantras here. The inner tantra refers to the Highest Yoga Tantra. In Tantra, there are two methods for realizing emptiness. The first is the practice of channels, winds, and drops (nāḍī, prāṇa, and bindu). Non-Buddhist traditions, such as Taoism or qigong, also have similar-sounding practices. Although the methods sound similar, the inner essence and meanings are very different.
In Tantra, the cultivation of channels, winds, and drops ultimately leads to the realization of emptiness—something which is not found in Sutrayana. This is not because the Buddha was unaware of this method when teaching Sutrayana. Buddha taught the Dharma according to the capacities of beings.
Realizing emptiness through channels, winds, and drops is extremely fast. To give an analogy, if you spend a long time visualizing a headache, your head will eventually start to hurt; but if you strike your head with a stick, the pain arises immediately. The difference between Sutra and Tantra is like this.
When one practices emptiness based on conceptual understanding, the view is more vague and unclear, so a longer period of practice is required. Practicing through channels, winds and drops, however, forcibly brings up the experiences of emptiness. Although the final result is the same as that in the Sutra path, the difference in method produces a dramatic difference in speed. This is the general tantric approach.
The second method is the practice of Dzogchen (Great Perfection). Dzogchen does not emphasize channels, winds and drops; nor does it rely on logical reasoning. Dzogchen regards these both as indirect or roundabout paths.
Some aspects of Dzogchen resemble Chan, but Dzogchen contains practices that Chan does not teach, thus Chan is not Dzogchen. If we speak only about realizing emptiness, the two methods are very similar. Dzogchen can also directly point to the nature of mind without using other methods.
“Directly pointing to the nature of mind” means that an enlightened master can enable a disciple with sufficient faith to directly realize Dzogchen wisdom. The wisdom in Dzogchen is essentially the same as Chan’s realization of the nature of mind and the Madhyamaka realization of emptiness.
Buddha nature is an important concept in Chinese Buddhism and “Buddha nature” is what Dzogchen calls “primordial or natural wisdom”. The “mind’s nature” referred to in Chan is the Buddha nature and Dzogchen practice also realizes the Buddha nature. Therefore, in all the paths, the final realization is the same.
However, Dzogchen can directly introduce the nature of mind without requiring complex visualization or analysis. Only the preliminary practices (ngondro) are needed. Other tantric practices involve many visualizations, while Dzogchen requires none of these to reach realization. This is its unique feature.
Some people ask about “dual cultivation” in Tantra. In Sutrayana, there is no such thing. Even if “dual cultivation” is mentioned in Sutra, it refers to the dual accumulations of merit and wisdom, not a male–female union. In Tantra, dual cultivation is a practice involving channels, winds, and drops, but generally speaking, it is mainly symbolic for ordinary practitioners. For example, the male form in Buddhist iconography represents luminosity or appearance, while the female form represents emptiness. Their union symbolizes the non-duality of appearance and emptiness.
The Heart Sūtra says, “Form is emptiness.” Here, “form” can be understood as all male Buddhas and bodhisattvas. It also says, “Emptiness is form”. “Emptiness” can be understood as all female Buddhas and bodhisattvas. “Form is not different from emptiness; emptiness is not different from form”—this is dual cultivation. Ordinary practitioners should understand it in this way.
Is the actual dual cultivation of male-female union required to practice Tantra? Dzogchen does not require it at all. Those who misunderstand think that all paths in Tibetan Buddhism require dual cultivation, but this is not the case at all.
Practices of channels, winds, and drops occupy only a small part of Tantra, and even this small section is not meant for ordinary practitioners. For ordinary practitioners, it is not even considered a possible method.
Dzogchen does not require dual cultivation. From the preliminary practices to final realization, one does not even need to practice channels, winds, and drops. Dzogchen regards these practices as unnecessary for realisation because Dzogchen has superior methods for realizing emptiness. If one later has the opportunity to formally study Tantra and read Tibetan Buddhist treatises, one will develop more clarity about this and be more confident that this is the right view.
Tantra has acquired an air of mystery due to certain seemingly mystical practices. This has been a breeding ground for numerous misunderstandings. Some people who are unwilling to keep a pure discipline seize upon these excuses to engage in shameful behavior, bringing a bad reputation to Tantra.
Of course, ordinary beings are not perfect. But the wrong behavior of ordinary beings should be attributed to ordinary beings, not to the teachings of Tantra. For most people, dual cultivation is not necessary, nor do they have the spiritual capacity to do this practice; it is not required even at higher levels of practice because better methods exist.
In summary, realization of emptiness is the common goal of both Sutra and Tantra, but their methods differ. Sutrayana methods are not as skilful as tantric methods while Tantra in general cannot compare to Dzogchen. Thus, the path progresses upwards level by level, with Dzogchen at the pinnacle as the most supreme teaching due to its unique characteristics.
