‘Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism’ by C.K. Wedemeyer
Review: Christian K. Wedemeyer, Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions. New York: Columbia University Press 2013, ISBN: 9780231162418
In Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions, Christian K. Wedemeyer attempts to move elucidation of tantric discourse – and in particular its antinomian elements – beyond the traditional dichotomy of literal versus figurative that dominates scholarly exegesis since the inception of these studies. Grounding his methodology in Roland Barthes’ connotative semiotics (in itself based on, and enlarging upon, the work of Louis Hjelmslev), Wedemeyer suggests that the traditional linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and its preoccupation with “natural” language, which he sees as a dominant trend within the Western scholarship on Tantra, needs to be replaced by a “second order” analysis in order fully to grasp the intentions behind tantric textual descriptions of transgressive practices. In order to illustrate his argument, I will somewhat simplify Wedemeyer’s exposition and suggest that what he proposes as the interpretative tool does not consist of asking “what do these instructions mean (denote)?” but rather “what do they imply (connote)?”
For example, if a text tells us that the practitioner needs to eat, drink, or offer to the Buddhas what are ordinarily understood as polluting substances (such as feces, urine, and sexual fluids) – which is something that occurs frequently in tantric literature – according to Wedemeyer it is of no use to ask whether this is meant literally or symbolically. So, if questions of this kind are a red herring, what is the advantage of connotative semiotics and in what manner does its application solve ethical conundrums of this kind? In short, what these antinomian passages, interpreted connotatively, suggest is the ability to enter into a non-dual state of mind that does not distinguish between categories of pure and impure and all the related dichotomies. This is predicated on Nagārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s ritual instructions – structurally and functionally present as the foundation of all Buddhist tantric rites – that contain the sequence (simplified here) of first establishing the pure spot for practice, developing the state of compassion, understanding the nature of universal emptiness, and then entering several times into the “maṇḍāla of ultimate reality” i.e. death – and finally re-emerging into this world and performing enlightened activities (p.117). In such a context, assuming the “omnipotent ritual identity” (p.118), the practitioner reaches the ultimate goal “in which the deluded perceptions of things as having an intrinsic nature (pure or polluting, good or evil) is transcended” (p.122).
Wedemeyer acknowledges that the emphasis on non-dual understanding of reality and the concomitant practice predicated upon such understanding were already recognized as hallmarks of this system within the academic study of Hindu Tantra (in particular in the exemplary and superb work of Alexis Sanderson). It is his contention that the studies of Buddhist Tantra are lagging behind in this respect. Generally speaking, Wedemeyer’s study is primarily oriented towards the subject of tantric language and what it entails. In the process, he is also able to make some substantial comments related to the social context in which tantric texts were produced and put to practical use.
In this respect, again, Wedemeyer advances insightful interpretations based on his general argument that the texts need to be understood connotatively. He thus suggests that stories about wild ascetics roaming freely throughout the country engaged in transgressive practices in fact exemplify what he calls “contrived marginality.” The proposal here is that for the most part those who were engaged in such extraordinary practices did so within the larger context of monastic culture, were supported by the social environment, did so only occasionally (as a sort of an intensive meditational and ritualistic retreat), and were typically literate and erudite monks or what he calls “professional” (as opposed to “amateur”) lay disciples. In such a context, Wedemeyer’s contention is that however transgressive-appearing on the surface many of these practices may be, in reality what they achieved was a conservative role of supporting both the orthodox views and the conventional social practice based on the observance of classical Buddhist precepts.
The book already received an American Academy of Religion (AAR) Award for Excellence in the Study of Religion (Historical Studies). It is a dense, erudite, and insightful study that should be of interest to all who are interested in the academic study of Tantra and in particular to those who want to understand wider implications and intentions behind the transgressive discourse that dominate some forms of theory and practice in certain religious, and not only tantric, traditions.