Shaivite and Buddhst Tantra. Which came first?

[Red Faced Buddha]

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.

In the Buddhist pantheon, the notion is the deities are "enlightened forms," of Hindu deities. For example, Avalokiteshvara is thought to be the enlightened form of Mahadeva, aka, Shiva. Lokeshvara is an epithet for Shiva.

Actually,it's the other way around,Shiva is considered an emanation of Avalokiteśvara.

[gregkavarnos]

Basically, let the transparent energy flow.

Like whoa, dude! That's so Southern Cal'.

images.jpg (13.16 KiB) Viewed 660 times

[Rakshasa]

Dharma-svāmin, the Tibetan scholar who visited Bihar in the thirteenth
century, tells us that the Buddhists had put an image of Śiva in front
of Buddha’s image so as to protect it from the wrath of non-Buddhists

From Jha's "Looking for a Hindu identity". Footnotes for it read [G. Roerich, Biography of Dharmasvāmin, Patna, 1959, p.64]

From the same book:

"A Tibetan tradition has it that the Kalacuri king Kar a (eleventh century) destroyed many Buddhist
temples and monasteries in Magadha; and the Tibetan text pag-sam-jon-zang refers to the burning of the library of Nalanda by some
“Hindu fanatics.”
"
Footnote for it says:

B.N.S. Yadava, op. cit., p.346. It has been generally held that
Bakhtiyar Khalji destroyed the university at Nalanda. D.R. Patil, however,
categorically states that it was destroyed by the Śaivas (Antiquarian
Remains of Bihar, Patna, 1963, p.304). This view has been discussed at
some length by R.S. Sharma and K.M. Shrimali (A Comprehensive History of
India, vol. IV, pt.2 [A.D. 985–1206], forthcoming, chapter XXV(b):
Buddhism, footnotes 79–82)


*****

Raksha seems to be right in saying that Hindus used the method of appropriation to win over rival religions.

Thus Benoytosh Bhattacharya in his Introduction to Buddhist
Esoterism. has come to the conclusion, "it is possible to declare. without
fear of contradiction, that the Buddhists were the first to introduce the
Tantras into their religion, and that the Hindus borrowed them from the
Buddhists in later times, and that it is idle to say that later Buddhism
was an outcome of Saivaism", (p.147)

-- Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya

http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/retrieve/63 ... _01_02.pdf

**

Regarding Shankara's Advaita, it is well known that his grand teacher was greatly influenced by Nagarjuna's Madhyamika karika and Shankara himself studied under Buddhists for some time. So it is interesting that after everything he disparages Buddha as someone who deceived people by showing a heretic path. Most of Shankara's work is related to propagating Hindu caste system with the superiority of Brahmins (which he himself was). He was also a worshiper of Shiva. This could be an evidence of the method of appropriation.

[Namgyal]

Dear Greg, please accept my apologies for getting a bit shirty with you on this thread. Seeing things wrong in others is of course a reflection of one's own failings, with little or no basis in reality. I'll try to observe myself more mindfully in the future.
R.

[deepbluehum]

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.

In the Buddhist pantheon, the notion is the deities are "enlightened forms," of Hindu deities. For example, Avalokiteshvara is thought to be the enlightened form of Mahadeva, aka, Shiva. Lokeshvara is an epithet for Shiva.

Actually,it's the other way around,Shiva is considered an emanation of Avalokiteśvara.

Not so. But you are free.

[deepbluehum]

Basically, let the transparent energy flow.

Like whoa, dude! That's so Southern Cal'.

images.jpg

It's quite NorCal too. And also NorHimalayan. One time I was walking with Drubpon Rinchen Dorje at Disneyland, in the line for space mountain. I was griping about the crowds... "Rainbow..." No, I mean look at how crazy this place is. "No. A rainbow." Then, I saw this beautiful rainbow over yonder. I looked in his eyes and knew he'd spotted my inner devil, and I did too.

[deepbluehum]

Dharma-svāmin, the Tibetan scholar who visited Bihar in the thirteenth
century, tells us that the Buddhists had put an image of Śiva in front
of Buddha’s image so as to protect it from the wrath of non-Buddhists

From Jha's "Looking for a Hindu identity". Footnotes for it read [G. Roerich, Biography of Dharmasvāmin, Patna, 1959, p.64]

From the same book:

"A Tibetan tradition has it that the Kalacuri king Kar a (eleventh century) destroyed many Buddhist
temples and monasteries in Magadha; and the Tibetan text pag-sam-jon-zang refers to the burning of the library of Nalanda by some
“Hindu fanatics.”
"
Footnote for it says:

B.N.S. Yadava, op. cit., p.346. It has been generally held that
Bakhtiyar Khalji destroyed the university at Nalanda. D.R. Patil, however,
categorically states that it was destroyed by the Śaivas (Antiquarian
Remains of Bihar, Patna, 1963, p.304). This view has been discussed at
some length by R.S. Sharma and K.M. Shrimali (A Comprehensive History of
India, vol. IV, pt.2 [A.D. 985–1206], forthcoming, chapter XXV(b):
Buddhism, footnotes 79–82)


*****

Raksha seems to be right in saying that Hindus used the method of appropriation to win over rival religions.

Thus Benoytosh Bhattacharya in his Introduction to Buddhist
Esoterism. has come to the conclusion, "it is possible to declare. without
fear of contradiction, that the Buddhists were the first to introduce the
Tantras into their religion, and that the Hindus borrowed them from the
Buddhists in later times, and that it is idle to say that later Buddhism
was an outcome of Saivaism", (p.147)

-- Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya

http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/retrieve/63 ... _01_02.pdf

**

Regarding Shankara's Advaita, it is well known that his grand teacher was greatly influenced by Nagarjuna's Madhyamika karika and Shankara himself studied under Buddhists for some time. So it is interesting that after everything he disparages Buddha as someone who deceived people by showing a heretic path. Most of Shankara's work is related to propagating Hindu caste system with the superiority of Brahmins (which he himself was). He was also a worshiper of Shiva. This could be an evidence of the method of appropriation.

There's always another scholar with an opposite quote.These days the tradition of Maha Yoga/Siddha Yoga originates by some accounts with Gorakshnatha or by others from Shankara. The masters of these lineages have great guru devotion and high realization. They are have nothing disparaging to say about 84 Mahasiddhas. It is good to scrutinize the texts and history. Keep at it. See where it gets you. Most people on the path will let it go at some point.

[plwk]

Actually,it's the other way around,Shiva is considered an emanation of Avalokiteśvara.

Yes I recall reading this in the Karandavyuha Sutra...

http://www.fodian.net/world/1050_01.html
Eliminate-Obstructions Bodhisattva then said:
"Bhagavan, what were the mighty sacrosanct power, merits, and virtues of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva Mahasattva that you had heard about?"

The Bhagavan said: "Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva gave birth to the sun and the moon from his eyes, gave birth to the Great unrestricted God (Mahesvara) from his forehead, gave birth to the Brahma heaven God from his shoulder, gave birth to Narayana from his heart, gave birth to the Great eloquence God (Sarasvati) from his teeth, gave birth to the god of wind from his mouth, gave birth to the god of earth from his navel, and gave birth to the god of water from his stomach.

Having given birth to those gods from his body, Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva said to the Great unrestricted God:
'At the Dharma ending age in the future, in the realms of sentient beings, there will be some living beings attaching to the erroneous views, saying that you are the great dominator from the beginningless of time and can create all sentient beings. At that time, those living beings, who have lost the Way of Bodhi, are ignorant and perplexed, they will say that:
The universe is a vast body,
and the earth is his throne.
All realms and sentient beings,
were born from this body.'"

[deepbluehum]

Actually,it's the other way around,Shiva is considered an emanation of Avalokiteśvara.

Yes I recall reading this in the Karandavyuha Sutra...

http://www.fodian.net/world/1050_01.html
Eliminate-Obstructions Bodhisattva then said:
"Bhagavan, what were the mighty sacrosanct power, merits, and virtues of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva Mahasattva that you had heard about?"

The Bhagavan said: "Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva gave birth to the sun and the moon from his eyes, gave birth to the Great unrestricted God (Mahesvara) from his forehead, gave birth to the Brahma heaven God from his shoulder, gave birth to Narayana from his heart, gave birth to the Great eloquence God (Sarasvati) from his teeth, gave birth to the god of wind from his mouth, gave birth to the god of earth from his navel, and gave birth to the god of water from his stomach.

Having given birth to those gods from his body, Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva said to the Great unrestricted God:
'At the Dharma ending age in the future, in the realms of sentient beings, there will be some living beings attaching to the erroneous views, saying that you are the great dominator from the beginningless of time and can create all sentient beings. At that time, those living beings, who have lost the Way of Bodhi, are ignorant and perplexed, they will say that:
The universe is a vast body,
and the earth is his throne.
All realms and sentient beings,
were born from this body.'"

This doesn't contradict what I said, btw. The tantric account of these matters differs significantly.

[gregkavarnos]

Basically, let the transparent energy flow.

Like whoa, dude! That's so Southern Cal'.

The attachment images.jpg is no longer available

It's quite NorCal too. And also NorHimalayan. One time I was walking with Drubpon Rinchen Dorje at Disneyland, in the line for space mountain. I was griping about the crowds... "Rainbow..." No, I mean look at how crazy this place is. "No. A rainbow." Then, I saw this beautiful rainbow over yonder. I looked in his eyes and knew he'd spotted my inner devil, and I did too.

That's a nice story!

Just that the statement on it's own wasn't at all comprehensible. Even with the anecdote it still makes no sense at all.

Why transparent energy and not opaque? Flow from where, to where, via what?

It's just a little too vague, cryptic and new agey (sounding) as far as statements go.

So just chill dude coz you're ruining my vibe!

images.jpg (12 KiB) Viewed 580 times

[Rakshasa]

Funny, how the same website has another article treating in detail the historical analysis of Buddhist tantras and it comes to the conclusion that Buddhists were first to absorb Tantras and Hindus modeled their Tantras largely on Buddhist tantras.

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/misc/bauddhatantra.html

To summarize, we have sufficient reasons to hold that the Hindu tantras were introduced on the model of the Buddhist Tantras and the Hindus borrowed many customs, practices, deities, and mantras. The very kulAchAra seems to have been originally conceived by the Buddhists and probably the forefathers of a large number of kaulas today were direct disciples of Buddhists in the tAntric age. DombI formulates that the worship of Kula is the most important in tAntric religion and it appears this is the first connotation of the word kula in this context. Without it no success can be achieved, but with it great success is possible of attainment. While explaining the word kula, he says, they are five in number and they originate from the dhyAni Buddhas: akShobhya, vairochana, amitAbha, ratnasambhava and amoghasiddhi and this is the reason why they are called kuleshas. The thunderbolt family originates from akShobhya, the Lotus family from amitAbha, the Jewel family from Ratnasambhava, the Disc family from Vairochana and the Action family from Amoghasiddhi. From this word kula the words kulAchAra, kaulika are derived. The kaulas declare themselves to be Tantric Hindus. From the literature of the extant Kaulism, the meaning of the word Kula is not consistent. Moreover, the large number of interpretations shows definitely that the Hindu counterparts were not certain about the meaning of the word. But the meaning in the Buddhist sense is quite clear and unequivocal; they give not more than one interpretation of the word. The kaulas according to them, mean the worshippers or the followers of the originators of the five families, namely of the five dhyAni Buddhas.

Is the article linked in the first post of TS written by the same author as the one linked here?

[deepbluehum]

It's just a little too vague, cryptic and new agey (sounding) as far as statements go.

"The Yoga of the Continuously Flowing River," a very specific dharma term, that you should learn more about.

[deepbluehum]

Funny, how the same website has another article treating in detail the historical analysis of Buddhist tantras and it comes to the conclusion that Buddhists were first to absorb Tantras and Hindus modeled their Tantras largely on Buddhist tantras.

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/misc/bauddhatantra.html

To summarize, we have sufficient reasons to hold that the Hindu tantras were introduced on the model of the Buddhist Tantras and the Hindus borrowed many customs, practices, deities, and mantras. The very kulAchAra seems to have been originally conceived by the Buddhists and probably the forefathers of a large number of kaulas today were direct disciples of Buddhists in the tAntric age. DombI formulates that the worship of Kula is the most important in tAntric religion and it appears this is the first connotation of the word kula in this context. Without it no success can be achieved, but with it great success is possible of attainment. While explaining the word kula, he says, they are five in number and they originate from the dhyAni Buddhas: akShobhya, vairochana, amitAbha, ratnasambhava and amoghasiddhi and this is the reason why they are called kuleshas. The thunderbolt family originates from akShobhya, the Lotus family from amitAbha, the Jewel family from Ratnasambhava, the Disc family from Vairochana and the Action family from Amoghasiddhi. From this word kula the words kulAchAra, kaulika are derived. The kaulas declare themselves to be Tantric Hindus. From the literature of the extant Kaulism, the meaning of the word Kula is not consistent. Moreover, the large number of interpretations shows definitely that the Hindu counterparts were not certain about the meaning of the word. But the meaning in the Buddhist sense is quite clear and unequivocal; they give not more than one interpretation of the word. The kaulas according to them, mean the worshippers or the followers of the originators of the five families, namely of the five dhyAni Buddhas.

Is the article linked in the first post of TS written by the same author as the one linked here?

What was going on was a dialogue between traditions. The earliest tantras are exceedingly ancient and related to Shiva, i.e., the Darmar Tantra. What you are calling "tantric" relates to a group of texts and practices that started around the 7th-8th Centuries (roughly). What you have cited is just one "scholars" opinion. Other credible scholars have taken the opposite view. From a purely objective standpoint, there is absolutely no basis to determine who is correct. From the standpoint of a practitioner, perhaps you are working on your doubts so you have this drive to make Buddhism number one. Buddhism is not about being number one. Buddhism is about being unselfish.

[pueraeternus]

Funny, how the same website has another article treating in detail the historical analysis of Buddhist tantras and it comes to the conclusion that Buddhists were first to absorb Tantras and Hindus modeled their Tantras largely on Buddhist tantras.

Yes, and I think the most salient point of the article is this:

The origin of tAntric mantras thus can be traced through the successive stages of the Buddhist literature; when, however, we turn our attention to Hindu literature, we are surprised to find that the tAntric mantras suddenly make their entry without showing many traces of the earlier and crude stages of development. To our mind, this seems to be a sufficient reason for believing the Hindu mAntric system to be later than the Buddhist vajrayAna and for holding that they were incorporated into Hinduism bodily from Buddhism.

[deepbluehum]

Funny, how the same website has another article treating in detail the historical analysis of Buddhist tantras and it comes to the conclusion that Buddhists were first to absorb Tantras and Hindus modeled their Tantras largely on Buddhist tantras.

Yes, and I think the most salient point of the article is this:

The origin of tAntric mantras thus can be traced through the successive stages of the Buddhist literature; when, however, we turn our attention to Hindu literature, we are surprised to find that the tAntric mantras suddenly make their entry without showing many traces of the earlier and crude stages of development. To our mind, this seems to be a sufficient reason for believing the Hindu mAntric system to be later than the Buddhist vajrayAna and for holding that they were incorporated into Hinduism bodily from Buddhism.

You think that's a salient point? It's stupid. The Hindu mantra system is way older than Buddhist originating in the Rg Veda.

[pueraeternus]

Funny, how the same website has another article treating in detail the historical analysis of Buddhist tantras and it comes to the conclusion that Buddhists were first to absorb Tantras and Hindus modeled their Tantras largely on Buddhist tantras.

Yes, and I think the most salient point of the article is this:

The origin of tAntric mantras thus can be traced through the successive stages of the Buddhist literature; when, however, we turn our attention to Hindu literature, we are surprised to find that the tAntric mantras suddenly make their entry without showing many traces of the earlier and crude stages of development. To our mind, this seems to be a sufficient reason for believing the Hindu mAntric system to be later than the Buddhist vajrayAna and for holding that they were incorporated into Hinduism bodily from Buddhism.

You think that's a salient point? It's stupid. The Hindu mantra system is way older than Buddhist originating in the Rg Veda.

You are confusing mantra with tantric practices.

[deepbluehum]

You think that's a salient point? It's stupid. The Hindu mantra system is way older than Buddhist originating in the Rg Veda.

You are confusing mantra with tantric practices.

I think maybe you are. Anyway this is very slippery terminology. Seriously. There is no factual basis for believing one came before the other. No point really.

[pueraeternus]

You think that's a salient point? It's stupid. The Hindu mantra system is way older than Buddhist originating in the Rg Veda.

You are confusing mantra with tantric practices.

I think maybe you are.

Haha! Perhaps so. Oh you are funny.

[pueraeternus]

Anyway this is very slippery terminology. Seriously. There is no factual basis for believing one came before the other. No point really.

I think the author's point that Buddhist tantra has a clear path of development, whereas the Hindu ones do not seem to exhibit such developmental characteristics, is interesting. At least from a textual analysis POV, there is merit to think so.

You don't agree obviously, but that is ok. Perhaps more research will come to light that will change either of our views.

[gregkavarnos]

"The Yoga of the Continuously Flowing River," a very specific dharma term, that you should learn more about.

Yes, well, if you are going to post stuff on a public board that only those that know about it, will be benefited by it, it doesn't really do much good does it? How about posting a link to an explanation of the practice rather than being a cryptic mystical snob?

Compassion for the ignorant is something you should learn more about.