[Viability1936]

To be frank, they are entirely different religions. Vajrayana is essentially Tibetan bon mixed with Hinduism.

Some of the most obvious differences are the rules for the monks. In vajrayana once you reach a certain state of enlightenment or convince your followers, you've reached a certain state. You essentially can do whatever you want and claim it's for the benefit of the students. In the pali canon, an arahat would follow the same rules as a monk who had been ordained for one day. Which would be no inconvenience to them, because there would be no desire to break any of the rules. Which is a direct contradiction. In vajarayana, a monk could have sex with his student as a means of helping them. According to the historical Buddha, that person is immediately no longer a monk. They essentially dismiss the entire pali canon as a lower teaching.

They also think that personal enlightenment/arahatship is a bad thing and that you should keep being reborn to help others. There are entire books written about why that doesn't make sense, but it's against the entire purpose of what the Buddha taught.

There are also a lot of teachings about the self that are categorically listed as wrong view in the pali canon.

I don't want to come of like I'm hating on the school or anyone who practices in it, but it's far from 'Buddhism' in a historical context. There are still many wise and compassionate people who have dedicated their lives to it.

[skissane]

> They also think that personal enlightenment/arahatship is a bad thing and that you should keep being reborn to help others. There are entire books written about why that doesn't make sense, but it's against the entire purpose of what the Buddha taught.

That's a Mahayana belief, not an exclusively Vajrayana one. You aren't making a clear distinction between Mahayana and Vajrayana here.

> Vajrayana is essentially Tibetan bon mixed with Hinduism.

"Bon" is an ambiguous term. It refers to the pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet, which apparently was a form of shamanism or animism. It is impossible to know much about it with any confidence – although there are some references to it in Tibetan Buddhist texts, we can't really know how accurate they are. However, whatever it was, it is likely rather different from contemporary "Bon". Contemporary "Bon" claims to be historically independent of Buddhism, even a continuation of that pre-Buddhist religion, but most scholars don't accept those claims. Rather, most scholars think it is actually an unusual derivative of Tibetan Buddhism, in which the core beliefs and practices were kept, but the names/symbols/geography/etc were intentionally altered to give it the appearance of being a separate religion with an independent history. Given that, rather than Tibetan Buddhism being based on Bon, it is actually the other way around. Most of Vajrayana – including all the elements you object to – can be traced back to India, and the obvious similarities (and mutual influence) between Tantric Buddhism and Tantric Hinduism

Also, criticising Mahayana and Vajrayana for being influenced by Hinduism ignores how much Theravada was influenced by Hinduism. Consider all the stories about Hindu deities in the Pali canon – which Theravada traditionally accepts as really existent conscious supernatural beings, albeit mortal and limited in power

[mtalantikite]

Thanks for your answer, I appreciate it.

> In vajarayana, a monk could have sex with his student as a means of helping them. ... According to the historical Buddha, that person is immediately no longer a monk.

I don't think a monk would be able to if they're ordained and would similarly lose their status in most Tibetan lineages, but a ngagpa could. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen of course and there's definitely a lot of abuse happening. A teacher I took some karmamudra training from wrote a book about these topics that I found very interesting [1].

I'd love to read more about the atman/anatman contradictions, I'll have to do some searching -- thanks!

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40000465-karmamudra

[nequo]

I don’t know Vajrayana, only have some familiarity with the Pali canon. From that perspective, everything that you’re saying sounds true.

> There are also a lot of teachings about the self that are categorically listed as wrong view in the pali canon.

Do you remember what exact things they teach about the self that is in contradiction with the Pali canon? Asking out of curiosity.

One thing that I cannot quite square with the Pali canon is the idea of Buddha mind, and the related concept of the “true self” and the “small” vs. “big ego” that certain Zen lineages talk about. According to the Pali canon, these are all wrong views because of there being no self whatsoever (anattā). Perhaps Zen and Vajrayana folks see these concepts as falsehoods that still help with practice and are thus skillful means (upāya).