gregkavarnos wrote:So are you saying that the shared (let's say ritual) similarities between Buddhist Tantra and Hindu Tantra (for example) are not an example of a shared methodology: a "Tantrism", or "Tantric" approach, if you wish? (let me add you kicked off the use of the word in this thread, I made no such mention previously).
PS I am not being argumentative, I am trying to understand.
gregkavarnos wrote:Why was it not the way all Indian religious or spiritual movements practiced per se (because it seems to have been a "fringe" thing).
gregkavarnos wrote:Got it in regards to the "fringe" thing! Thank you!
Still some nagging doubt about the -ism bit. What is it about the practice of tantra (or tantric practice) in Hindu and Buddhist religion that does not make it an -ism?
Malcolm wrote:gregkavarnos wrote:Why was it not the way all Indian religious or spiritual movements practiced per se (because it seems to have been a "fringe" thing).
Subsequent to British Colonialism, forms of religion deemed offensive to the British were largely purged by Western Educated Hindus. Hence what we now think of a "fringe" thing was the dominant religious form among Hindus until the 17th century i.e. the so called Shakti traditions.
Malcolm wrote:There are no real objective accounts, just sectarian annals on both sides.
Jikan wrote:this may be the exception that proves the rule: think about Aurobindo Ghose's integration of shaktism & advaita along lines suggested by English idealism. Aurobindo was committed to Shaktism; his very long epic poem Savitri (much of which is stunningly beautiful) describes this in detail.
deepbluehum wrote:Shakti is a flame. Buddha blows it out.
underthetree wrote:deepbluehum wrote:Shakti is a flame. Buddha blows it out.
No. That's not true at all.
deepbluehum wrote:Funny how in Buddhist tantras you have Buddhist deities stepping on the faces of Hindu deities, but not the other way around.
Malcolm wrote: That is a pretty unfounded statement. Did you forget Shankaracarya? Navy Nyaya?
Straw man. I never said that there are no differences, I said that there are no boundaries, or to be exact:Of course none of this would have happened if the differences between their respective religions was 'non-existent'.
gregkavarnos wrote:If there are boundaries, they must be pretty bloody porous (to the point of being non-existent).........This does not deny the existence of seperate religions.
Red Faced Buddha wrote:That doesn't make much sense considering several Buddhist deities are based on Hindu gods.Buddhist gods usually trample on beings who are personifications of ignorance,lust,etc.
Red Faced Buddha wrote:Anyway,is Vajrayana and Buddhist tantra the same thing?
Casuistry... that's a good one! Thank you for teaching me a new word Raksha! I'll be sure to add it to my arsenal!Raksha wrote:Such casuistry! You have missed your vocation as a lawyer, Greg