Kevin Yang 106 Meghan Howard 4/6/15

Tantric practices and beliefs are central to tantric Buddhism in India. However, the accounts and

descriptions given by differing parties, in this case Lama Yeshe and Anthony Tribe, are drastically distinct

from each other. Although seeped in the same studies and practices, Lama Yeshe and Anthony Tribe

present very different pictures of the nature of tantric practices.

The main difference is that while Tribe presents tantric Buddhism in pieces for a more “tricky,

technical mind” to understand, Yeshe culminates all those aspects into a more abstract whole. As with

most Western inspections of Oriental practices, Tribe presents a very clinical, dissected, and categorized

study of tantric Buddhism. As Lama Yeshe puts it, it is easier for westerners to digest the information in

this form. Tribe cleanly separates distinct aspects of tantric Buddhism, including significant features,

texts, and tantras. However, it is important to note that even Tribe recognizes the shortcomings of this

method. “Attempts to specify the nature of tantric Buddhism in any detail quickly run into difficulties

since it proves hard to formulate a definition without excluding or including too much”(Reader 462).

Tribe settles with a categorical method but this mainly leaves out a personal understanding and

experience that helps the reader understand the “why” behind the nature of the tantric practices, unlike

Carrither’s accounts of forest dwelling monks, for example, in which he categorized aspects of forest

dwelling monk beliefs and practices which were supported and elucidated by his documentation of

Anandasiri. As a result Tribe presents a neat, understandable, but faulty image of tantric Buddhism

which is exactly what the 2nd paragraph of Yeshe’s commentary warns against, understanding simply by

reading or seeing. In a sense, Yeshe’s commentary on tantric Buddhism is both more and less fulfilling

than Tribe’s essay. Yeshe presents a more interpersonal image of tantric Buddhism, focusing on the

meanings behind practices and goals but is much more abstract and therefore harder to understand as a

whole. It is difficult from a Western, and by association an outsider’s, perspective to understand the

quality of “becoming divine” or transforming ordinary actions into divine ones simply by immersion

because most Western religions do not incorporate personal apotheosis; humans are inherently flawed

in some way and hierarchy dictates a standing or power difference. Therefore, Yeshe’s commentary

presents a less technical and more abstract form of tantric Buddhism because the mindset that he has in

approaching tantric Buddhism is incomparable to what Tribe neatly dissects into significant aspects,

beliefs, and practices.

As with most religious concepts, tantric Buddhism is difficult to understand simply by analysis of

practice and beliefs alone. Tribe presents tantric Buddhism as such, and while it is helpful on a more

insular level Lama Yeshe’s commentary reveals a practitioner’s interpersonal accounts, albeit more

abstract and difficult to comprehend.