Tantric Buddhism has long been one of the most misunderstood and debated traditions in religious history. At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental question: Should its texts and practices be interpreted literally or symbolically? One of the most influential figures in this debate was Jñānākara, an 11th-century scholar who championed a symbolic interpretation of tantric scriptures, countering those who advocated for a literal approach to tantric rituals.[1]
The Tantric Dilemma: Symbolism or Literalism?
Tantric texts often contain vivid imagery of sexual union, wrathful rituals, and the consumption of taboo substances. Some Buddhist practitioners and scholars understood these descriptions as directives for actual practices, while others saw them as metaphors for deeper spiritual principles.[2]
- Literal Interpretation: Some tantric teachers and traditions argued that rituals involving sexual union, the consumption of alcohol and other taboo substances, and even violent imagery were meant to be physically enacted as part of the spiritual path. These practitioners believed that by transcending conventional morality, they could directly attain enlightenment by confronting and transforming base emotions like desire and aversion.[3]
- Symbolic Interpretation: Jñānākara strongly opposed this approach, insisting that such texts were meant to be understood allegorically, not literally. In his Mantrāvatāra, he systematically argued that sexual union symbolized the merging of wisdom and compassion, and that tantric rituals were meant to take place on a mental and meditative level rather than in the physical world.[4]
Jñānākara’s Critique of Literal Tantra
For Jñānākara, the rise of literal interpretations was a dangerous trend that risked undermining Buddhist ethics, particularly monastic discipline. Many monks had taken vows of celibacy, and engaging in literal sexual rites contradicted their commitments. He believed that those who promoted physical tantric rituals were misunderstanding or distorting the true intent of tantric texts.[5]
To support his argument, Jñānākara drew upon hermeneutical techniques established by earlier scholars like Candrakīrti. He emphasized that tantric texts contained twilight language (sandhābhāṣā), meaning they were meant to be decoded through metaphor rather than taken at face value.[6]
For example:
- Sexual imagery in tantric texts represents the union of wisdom (prajñā) and skillful means (upāya), rather than physical intercourse.
- Killing and wrathful acts do not endorse violence but symbolize destroying ignorance and negative mental states.
- Consuming taboo substances represents transcending dualistic notions of purity and impurity.[7]
The Opposition: Advocates of Literal Tantra
While Jñānākara and like-minded scholars, including Atīśa, promoted a restrained, symbolic approach, other tantric masters argued that direct experience through literal practice was essential for transformation. These practitioners contended that symbolic interpretations diluted the raw power of tantra, which aimed to cut through illusion in an immediate, experiential way.[8]
Figures such as Abhayākaragupta and Darpanācārya argued that all Buddhists, monks and laypeople alike, should be allowed to engage in tantric consecrations, including sexual initiation rites. They maintained that direct engagement with desire, fear, and social taboos could accelerate spiritual awakening.[9]
Subjection Rites and Ritual Violence in Tantra
Despite Jñānākara’s emphasis on symbolic interpretation, some tantric traditions in Tibet, including those that largely followed his approach, continued to engage in subjection rites, sometimes involving ritualized acts of violence. The Cakrasaṁvara Tantra, for instance, describes rituals meant to subjugate, bind, and even kill enemies, with wrathful deities acting as enforcers of divine justice.[10]
There is evidence that in Tibet, “live kills” (srog sgrol) were practiced into the 20th century, and possibly still occur today in some secretive circles. These rites were believed to be means of neutralizing obstacles, whether internal (psychological enemies) or external (political or spiritual threats). Even among those adhering to Jñānākara’s symbolic reading, subjection rites continued in a ritualized form, where the target of destruction was seen as a demonic force rather than an actual person.[11]
While some Tibetan tantric lineages attempted to justify these practices as symbolic acts of internal transformation, historical accounts suggest that physical executions and ritualized killings did, at times, occur as part of certain tantric sects’ secretive rites. These practices remain highly controversial and are rarely discussed openly by modern Buddhist authorities.[12]
Conclusion
Even today, different schools of Vajrayāna Buddhism hold varying interpretations of tantra. Some Tibetan Buddhist traditions, such as the Gelugpa school, maintain a strongly symbolic approach, while others, particularly some Nyingma and Kagyu traditions, acknowledge the historical presence of more literal practices in certain contexts.[14]
The controversy surrounding tantra highlights a larger question in religious traditions: Who gets to decide how sacred texts should be read? Jñānākara’s conservative stance on symbolic interpretation shaped Tibetan Buddhism in profound ways, steering it toward a more ethical, monastically compatible form of tantra. [15]
Ultimately, Jñānākara’s legacy reminds us that how we interpret texts matters as much as what they say. His approach demonstrates the lasting power of hermeneutics, how the meaning of a text is shaped by the needs, ethics, and priorities of those who read it.
Footnotes:
- Lopez, D. (1998). Prisoners of Shangri-La. University of Chicago Press.
- Davidson, R. (2004). Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement. Columbia University Press.
- Wenta, A. (2018). The Making of Tantric Orthodoxy in the Eleventh-Century Indo-Tibetan World: Jñānākara’s Mantrāvatāra. Springer.
- Gray, D. (2007). The Cakrasamvara Tantra: A Study and Annotated Translation. Columbia University Press.
- Wedemeyer, C. (2013). Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions. Columbia University Press.
- Sanderson, A. (2009). The Śiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śivism During the Early Medieval Period. Brill.
- Snellgrove, D. (1987). Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors. Shambhala Publications.
- Newman, J. (1987). The Outer, Inner, and Secret Biography of Padmasambhava. Oxford University Press.
- Gray, D. (2016). Subjugation and Ritual Violence in Buddhist Tantra. Oxford University Press.
- Karmay, S. (1998). Secret Visions of the Fifth Dalai Lama. Serindia Publications.
Tantric Deception 