PROBLEMS OF LANGUAGE IN BUDDHIST TANTRAwherever religious discourse is found. We call attention also to the features of
the problem as they emerge elsewhere; as will be seen, the features isolated by
Thomas Aquinas appear in similar form within the discussion of Buddhist
tantric language. But the larger context and similarities of treatment serve to
show a peculiarity of the Buddhist discussion. We suggest that while the
problem of language is important for religious discourse in general, Buddhist
discourse seems to be peculiarly self-conscious of the problem. We find, for
example, in Pali Buddhism, that famous king Milinda and the monk Nagasena
debating how one should take the words "chariot" and "Nagasena" in order to
grasp the central doctrine on iitman. Nearly every parable in the influential
Saddharma-pwJc/.ar!ka of Mahayana Buddhism takes up the issue of how the
Lord could justifiably utter statements about three vehicles when in reality there
is only one. And then there is the trenchant critique of language by Nagarjuna
and his follower Candrakirti in their Madhyamika philosophical formulation of
the Mahayana.
We shall see that tantric Buddhism continues this concern for the problem
of language, but we could expect this from the outset. On the one hand,
Mkhas-grub-rje tells us in his Fundamentals of the Buddhist Tantras that all
Tantras have a philosophical base which is Madhyamika-Prasangika and thus-
so we might conclude--contain that school's critique of language in some
form.^2 On the other hand, given the sweep of the Buddhist tradition on this issue,
we would find it surprising if the "third turning of the Wheel of the Doctrine"
lost rather than gained sophistication in the uses and interpretation of religious
discourse-unless, of course, we assume a "degenerate" break with tradition.
The assumption can be made and is no doubt behind La Vallee Poussin's vision
of "disgusting practices both obscene and criminal, including incest" within the
Tantras.^3 Yet George has recently translated, apparently without much disgust, a
substantial portion of the Cal)Qa-maharoi;iana Tantra upon which the great
French scholar himself had once worked. The difference, George observes, lies
in a favorable change in the "intellectual climate" over the past thirty years. We
probably should not take this to mean that modem intellectuals have become
less sensitive to their materials or more cordial toward criminal practices and
incest. Rather, we should understand that a different answer has been found to
the question, How are we to take what is being said?
It must be obvious that our problem is a fundamental one for the study of the
literature of Buddhist Tantra. Scholarship, therefore, has not failed to address it
although the scope of attention has varied. Tucci mentions in a note a distinction
between "literal" and "allegorical" meaning in the Guhyasamaja Tantra;^4
Govinda treats briefly of a type of Tantric parlance called "twilight language"
which is said to bear a double meaning, the "ordinary" and the "mystic."^5
Much more fully, Eliade and Bharati discuss this "twilight" feature-preferring
the translation "intentional language"-and develop arguments on such issues
as its double purpose, namely, its secrecy and also its power to induce certain
states of consciousness.^6 The Sanskrit for this particular facet of the problem,