invisiblediamond wrote:The Nath lineage is Hindu. So how could it be Vajrayana? I don't believe he has an unbroken Vajrayana lineage. Unless he got it from the Tibetans. Indians love to play with their alphabet soup. It seems he's founds ways to mix and match terms. Somehow he managed to leave out Saraha as the root of tantric teachings. That's an obvious sign something's wrong here. Also he mixes up Samkya with Vajrayana. That's another one. There are many. There's no unbroken Vajrayana lineage in India or Nepal, except with the Tibetan folks.
Yes, the modern Goraknathi orders are what you may call as 'Hindu'. However, it has been debated by scholars that the pre Gorakthnathi teachings, i.e. the Matsyendranath lineage was purely ''vamachari'' and could have been a mix of Saivite-Buddhist tantrism. In his voluminous book entitled ''The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India'', David Gordon White has also stressed on this aspect which many modern Nath yogis may not be aware of or completely ignore them. Scholars have also pointed out the influence of the Saiva-Kapalika Bhairava tantras on the 'Yoginitantras'. Now, Saiva-Kapalikas were no way 'Hindu', because they were non-Vedic and non-Puranic in origin. It is funny that the modern definition of 'Hinduism' makes people believe that it is a singular religion like Christianity or Judaism. Modern scholarly research has already shown that there were innumerable traditions within the Indian sub-continent, both Vedic and non-Vedic in origin. The word 'Hindu' itself is of Persian origin and it didn't come in prominence until the Mughal rule was completely established in India. Hindi as how we know it today is also a historically recent language, which has its origin in Khariboli dialect of North India and it used to be a mix of Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic language during the Islamic rule in India (it was called 'Hindustani' during that era).
The tantric system as how it originated in India was always considered as 'veda bahya' (outside the pale of Vedas) and its followers were condemned by the Brahmanical orthodoxy. It was only later due to the reforms made by Abhinavagupta that the Saivic tantric system was 'sophisticated' and presented as a mixed tradition. Narendra Nath Bhattacharya in classic book 'History of the Tantric Religion' has criticized the modern proponents of this mixed Vedic Tantrism like Gopinath Kaviraj and even John Woodroffe, and was one of the first modern scholars to bring light on this discrepancy in the Indian academic scenario.
Today I was going through the book ''Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement'' which was posted in this thread. The author Ronald Davidson has stressed on the aforementioned topics with more eloquence than other researchers. He has also explained how the Kapalika tradition was co-mingling with the Buddhist tantrikas.
Kulavadhuta may or may not belong to an authentic unbroken lineage of Indian Vajrayana but it may be weird to assume that this native Indian tradition is completely extinct in land where it first came into prominence. The original Charyapada or Charyagiti, which is the collection of the 'Dohas' or mystic songs of the Mahasiddhas was written in pre-Modern Bengali and Oriya languages. It was because the Mahasiddha tradition has its roots in Bengal and the neighboring areas. The Sahajiya cult of Bengal was also a Buddhist tradition before the rise of the Vaishnava Sahajiya movement. Refer to Shashibhushan Dasgupta's ''Obscure Religious Cults'' for more information on this.
The origins of the Nath cult is shrouded with mystery and thus far no authoritative scholarship has been correctly able to state its starting points. It must be noted that I am not talking about the mythical origins of this sect; the scholars too aren't bothered much on establishing proper claims based only on mythological events. Due to the simultaneous existences of the Mahasiddha and the later Nath Siddha traditions in Bengal and its neighboring areas, scholars do come to a common point that there may have been religious exchanges between both the cults. My discussion on Kulavadhuta was also based on this idea, and he is indeed respected as an Indian Vajrayani scholar and yogi in India. As I stated in my original post, it would be better to ask him directly about any questions which you might have regarding to the Vajrayana tradition he has claimed to be a part of.