Yanas, contradictions, and understanding
Image of duck boat courtesy Wikimedia Commons
“Yanas” are approaches within Buddhism. Different yanas appear to contradict each other. On this page, I discuss some implications of that.
If you are unfamiliar with the three yanas Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen, I would recommend the page “An uncommon perspective” on the Aro web site. (It uses the word “yana” only at the end, but its topic is their differing principles.) For a more extensive explanation, I have found this book exceptionally useful.
“Yana” means “vehicle.” A yana takes you from one place to another, spiritually. Which yana you should use depends on where you are and where you want to go. A submarine is a good way to get from shore to the bottom of the ocean. It is a bad way to get from Denver to Chicago. An airplane would be better. You can use an airplane to get to the bottom of the ocean, but I don’t recommend it.
In the same way, yanas are incompatible. They are all valid, but you can only use one at a time. Each yana has a few fundamental principles, which are entirely different.
When you read a Buddhist book or web page, or hear a Buddhist talk, it is critical to know which yana is acting as the framework of the discussion. A statement based on the principles of one yana often appears false or nonsensical if you try to understand it using the principles of another yana. This leads to serious confusion, or even yana shock.
violently insane . . . spaced-out blather
This is especially true when a student understands Sutra (general Buddhism) but not yet Tantra or Dzogchen. Tantra and Dzogchen each have their own beautiful logic. If you do not understand the logic of Tantra, it is likely to sound violently insane. Almost everything in Tantra is forcefully opposite to Sutra. If you do not understand the logic of Dzogchen, it is likely to sound like the spaced-out blather of a stoned hippie.
In order to understand Vajrayana (Tantra and Dzogchen), it is necessary to understand the relationship between truth and methods in Buddhism. The Buddhist perspective is that the contradictory statements of the various yanas are not a problem, because they are methods, not ultimate truths. It is also necessary to understand the principles that underlie each yana.
why it all makes sense
Aro Lamas frequently explain how specific teachings relate to the principles of particular yanas. This is one of the most distinctive features of the Aro teaching style, in my experience. I have found it enormously helpful in getting to understand how the whole of Buddhism fits together and why it all makes sense.
The Aro Lamas teach all the yanas, but especially concentrate on Dzogchen. (On another page, I explain why this emphasis on Dzogchen is important to me.)
fake, crazy, or evil
Lamas of all traditions generally teach mainly one yana. This can lead to unfortunate hostility between students of different Lamas. If one Lama teaches mainly Sutra, his students may understand mainly only Sutra. If another Lama teaches mainly Tantra, her students may understand mainly only Tantra. When students of the two Lamas meet, they cannot understand each other. Practically everything one of the Lamas said appears to contradict what the other one said. Soon the students may be hurling insults at each other and accusing each others’ Lamas of being fake, crazy, or evil. The Lamas themselves might have complete respect for each other, because they understand the principle that yanas do not actually conflict.
Aro teaches mostly Dzogchen, which is the least widely understood yana. That is one reason some people are confused about it. They do not understand that statements by Aro Lamas are perfectly accurate—as Dzogchen—even though they contradict Sutra or Tantra.
Vehicles
You remark,
[. . .] yanas are incompatible. They are all valid, but you can only use one at a time.
That is not the general understanding in at least one of the major schools of Tibetan Buddhism, in which it is regularly claimed that (1) all three vehicles, far from being incompatible, are to be practised simultaneously -- the lesser vehicle outwardly, the greater vehicle inwardly, and the mantra vehicle secretly, and (2) vajrayana differs from mahayana only in its methods (and thus in the time it takes to reach buddhahood, thereby), not in its view. I do not say that those claims are correct -- only that they are believed by a goodly number of Tibetan Buddhists.
Whether dzogchen is subsumed under vajrayana, or is a discipline separate from it, is another, and vexed, question.
Various views
Thank you very much for your comments.
Yes, anyone apart from a Buddha must practice the lower yanas (as well as, possibly, higher ones). I was perhaps imprecise in saying “simultaneously”—one certainly could practice any number of yanas on the same day, or even minute-by-minute. And, the inner/outer/secret formulation you cite is indeed widely held.
The understanding of Dzogchen, however, is that Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen have fundamentally different principles, so that they could not be practiced in the same instant. When an object gives rise to an afflictive emotional response, one can renounce the object, transform the klesha, or instantaneously liberate the interaction—but not all at once!
Each yana has a different view of the relationship between the yanas. From point of view of mahayana, vajrayana is subsumed within mahayana (as “esoteric mahayana“). That is valid as mahayana view. That is perhaps the point of view from which it is valid to say that vajrayana and mahayana differ only in method, not in view. I know little of Geluk doctrine, but my impression is that vajrayana is taught that way in that School. Perhaps that is the one you refer to?
From point of view of Tantra, Dzogchen is a part of Tantra. That is valid, as Tantra. But from point of view of Dzogchen, it is a separate vehicle, whose principles are entirely different from Tantra. This point is made rather forcefully in the Kunjé Gyalpo, which is the root text of Dzogchen Sem-dé.
Perhaps the lesson is that it is nearly impossible to generalize about Tibetan Buddhism. Any time someone says “in Tibetan Buddhism, X,” there will be some School, lineage, or scripture that says the opposite.