Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions

[Malcolm]

Well I've heard something along the lines of that the Upanishads were originally composed by Dravidian Tantrikas, and then later on the Vedics tacked them onto the Vedas thereby trying to claim the Upanishads as their own.

Nonsense, the Upanishads themselves refer to the Vedas.

[Lhug-Pa]

Could the Vedics have altered the Upanishads?

Anyhow, it seems to me that there is a strong case for the likelihood that Tantra in India originated with the Dravidians. Perhaps some of the said Dravidians are the Black Buddhas referred to in the writings of Godfrey Higgins.


Or we could also—per the title of this thread—say that Enlightened Beings have appeared to Jains, Naths, Dravidians, Bonpos, Buddhists, etc. according to their respective capacities.

[Nemo]

So when a certain mantra is done in the context of Hindu Japa it is mundane, but if I do it Buddhist style it becomes supermundane. Same mantra but different being. Sounds unlikely.

Tara mantra is just about the only mantra I know of that is shared between both traditions. But the mahavidyā tradition in Hinduism is quite different in its approach to Tara practice than Tara practice as it exists in Buddhism. Here is a clear example of a popular Buddhist deity being appropriated by Hinduism.

This is the point of the view of the Mahavidyā tradition:

"Tantra is accepted as the authoritative proof then and then only when it contradicts not the Vedas. Whatever goes clearly against the Vedas can in no way be accepted as a proof. In matters concerning Dharma, the Vedas is the Sole Proof."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk11ch01.htm

Buddhists do not accept śruti i.e. Vedic authority.

N

Tara is a bad example. IMO I think they are different. But there are many more mantras in common.

Lets take Jambala. A minor Hindu deity and Buddhist Protector. He was a student of the Buddha of the previous age. If memory serves Kashyapa Buddha. He took vows and has been a full time Bodhisattva long before recorded history. Perhaps parts of Hinduism are remnants of teachings of Buddhas of past ages. To say there was no Dharma prior to the historical Buddha in 500 BC and that only humans have access to Dharma seems doctrinaire. Many of the Gods were taught by the historical Buddha and received prophecies on their eventual Buddhahood. Some were also taught by previous Buddhas. To speak as if we invented Tantra shocks me. It sounds like the Deities are imaginary. Which is much more heretical than my musings. I see the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Protectors as sentient being who live to help all being everywhere. Will Jambala not bless Hindu devotees?

[Malcolm]

So when a certain mantra is done in the context of Hindu Japa it is mundane, but if I do it Buddhist style it becomes supermundane. Same mantra but different being. Sounds unlikely.

Tara mantra is just about the only mantra I know of that is shared between both traditions. But the mahavidyā tradition in Hinduism is quite different in its approach to Tara practice than Tara practice as it exists in Buddhism. Here is a clear example of a popular Buddhist deity being appropriated by Hinduism.

This is the point of the view of the Mahavidyā tradition:

"Tantra is accepted as the authoritative proof then and then only when it contradicts not the Vedas. Whatever goes clearly against the Vedas can in no way be accepted as a proof. In matters concerning Dharma, the Vedas is the Sole Proof."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk11ch01.htm

Buddhists do not accept śruti i.e. Vedic authority.

N

Tara is a bad example. IMO I think they are different. But there are many more mantras in common.

well, the mantra of both Taras is the same i.e. om tare tuttare ture svaha.

Lets take Jambala. A minor Hindu deity and Buddhist Protector. He was a student of the Buddha of the previous age. If memory serves Kashyapa Buddha. He took vows and has been a full time Bodhisattva long before recorded history.

Jambhala is not a Hindu deity.

Perhaps parts of Hinduism are remnants of teachings of Buddhas of past ages. To say there was no Dharma prior to the historical Buddha in 500 BC and that only humans have access to Dharma seems doctrinaire.

I did not say any of this.

Many of the Gods were taught by the historical Buddha and received prophecies on their eventual Buddhahood. Some were also taught by previous Buddhas.

Receiving a prediction does not make you awakened.

Will Jambala not bless Hindu devotees?

They don't practice Jambhala. They practice Kubera. Same type of deity, to be sure. But not identical.

N

[Nighthawk]

What is Lakshmi seen as?

[Malcolm]

What is Lakshmi seen as?

In Buddhism, Laxmi is called Vasudevi.

[Adamantine]

Ok, so let's begin to list the deities the two traditions both share devotion to and are thus
awakened wisdom beings or powerful oath-bound guardian dharma-students:

Laxmi (Vasudevi)

Saraswati

Tara

Chinnamasta

(wisdom beings)
________________

Ganesha

(some say wisdom being, some say worldly protector)

_________________



Shiva (Mahadeva) & Paravati (Mahadevi)

(worldy protectors)

I am sure there are more. . . please add

[Adamantine]

Namdrol, your version and belief still confuses me. You say that Kali was subjugated by Vajrayogini, and as such they are not the same. But in another response, you paint a portait of her as an afflicted being who is harmful and takes payment in blood. If she was indeed subjugated by Vajrayogini, she should then be at the very least an oath-bound guardian at this point, if not a devoted and realized Dharma practitioner. So how would she be taking payment in blood, in a mercenary fashion as you imply? Please clarify your points.

Similarly, what is the status of Bhairava, if he has been subjugated? As referred to in another thread, many Tibetans, including Lamas, visit Bhairava statues and temples in Nepal and see them as Mahakala, or maybe it is the Hindus calling Mahakala Bhairava.. it is hard to keep track.

[Nemo]

Will Jambala not bless Hindu devotees?

They don't practice Jambhala. They practice Kubera. Same type of deity, to be sure. But not identical.

N

Jambala is Kubera's brother in some accounts. There are practices for both. I believe they also lived together when Kubera got kicked out of Sri Lanka by his half brother Ravana. Jambala has always lived in the Himalayas. History this old is always a bit vague of course. Many Hindus interchange the two.

[dakini_boi]

I am sure there are more. . . please add

Simhamukha - Pratyangira Devi

[Lhug-Pa]

Now that this topic has it's own thread...:

Lhug-Pa wrote:
Rangjung Yeshe Wiki: Mahakali

http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/rang_byung_rgyal_mo

If Rangjung Gyalmo is not Kali specifically, could we say that Shiva (Kala/Bhairava) and Kali belong to a specific class of beings, that class of beings being known as something like Kala's/Kali's (the same class of beings that Mahakala and Vajrabhairava happen to be of as well) ?

gad rgyangs wrote:
Chinamasta/Chinnamunda, who is a form of Vajrayogini (her attendants are named "Vajravarnaniye" and "Vajravairochaniye" after all), is sort of a cousin of Kali, so maybe thats where the confusion comes from.

Lhug-Pa wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavidyas

Lhug-Pa wrote:

Mahakalas/Mahakalis

[Karma Dorje]

Not all tantric traditions accept shruti, particularly the Kaula. Tantra is from a much earlier agamic strata that informed the puranic literature, particularly the Yamala class of literature of which very little is extant. While we can locate texts such as the Chandi within the puranic corpus, it is most likely embedded from earlier sources rather than derived from other puranic lore.

The Golden Dharmas of the Sakya have a strong Hindu element: Tinuma whose mantra is an obvious derivative of the Shri Vidya, Ganapati, Garuda, Vasudhara, etc. This is also true of some of the Jonangpa collections like the Rinjung Gyatsa, where we find Mahalakshmi, Rakta Ganapati, Pratyangira, etc. The bija of Sri Kalachakra is the same as the mantra of Anandabhairava. The list goes on.

However, I think a couple standpoints are being confused. I would never argue that the traditions are identical. They are not. As Malcolm points out, there are teachings such as togal that are explicit in buddhist teachings that are not at all explicit in Hindu teachings where they exist at all. The entire bodhisattva ethic, while not absent from Hinduism is at best nascent. I think that there is a larger point that bears greater investigation: regardless of stated viewpoint, is the actual realization of the great masters of these various teachings different? My experience of this is that it is not. Different conceptual frameworks are used to convey the experience but both Hindu and Buddhist approaches have both via positiva and via negativa approaches that are used at different times to purify the aspirant of grasping to doctrine as definitive.

[Lhug-Pa]

He was a student of the Buddha of the previous age. If memory serves Kashyapa Buddha. He took vows and has been a full time Bodhisattva long before recorded history. Perhaps parts of Hinduism are remnants of teachings of Buddhas of past ages. To say there was no Dharma prior to the historical Buddha in 500 BC and that only humans have access to Dharma seems doctrinaire.

This is precisely why I think that the Black Buddhas that Godfrey Higgins—type his name in the Dharmawheel search bar for some interesting quotes I've posted—(and even H.P. Blavatsky) wrote about could very well refer to pre-Shakyamuni Buddhas (and I mean actual Buddhas—whose names may or may not be found in extant Sutras or Tantras—not proponents of mere worldly Dharma).

Not all tantric traditions accept shruti, particularly the Kaula. Tantra is from a much earlier agamic strata that informed the puranic literature, particularly the Yamala class of literature of which very little is extant. While we can locate texts such as the Chandi within the puranic corpus, it is most likely embedded from earlier sources rather than derived from other puranic lore.

A question I would ask in light of this, is how do the Mahavidya, Nath, and Kaula traditions relate to the Dravidians?

I've stumbled upon some threads at another forum where there are discussions between a former Dharmawheel member and others about Dzogchen (or Dzogchen-like) methods supposedly found in 'Hindu' traditions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... 0.0.&mvs=0

Who here thinks (or knows) that the '"Indo-Aryan" invasion of Dravidian India' theory (that the Mahabharata is said to describe) holds any weight?

[Karma Dorje]

The question I would ask in light of this, is how do the Mahavidya, Nath, and Kaula traditions relate to the Dravidians? Who here thinks (or knows) that the '"Indo-Aryan" invasion of Dravidian India' theory (that the Mahabharata is said to describe) holds any weight?

The so-called Aryan invasion theory has been thoroughly debunked in modern academia. While there are a number of full length works, this article provides a decent synopsis of the main arguments against it:

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/a ... awley.html

The theory was developed by 19th century Eurocentric philologists with absolutely no archeological evidence to back it up. The earliest strata of Indian culture remains that centered on the Indus and the (now dry) Sarasvati rivers in North India, with later development on the Gangetic plain. It's nonsensical that a people would come to a land from their homeland making up their religion as they go along with no mention of where they came from. The geography of the Vedas is distinctly Indian.

One must be careful not to confuse Dravidian, which is a language family with a particular ethnic group. Linguistic study also indicates that there was likely a very long shared history between Indo-European and Dravidian languages in the subcontinent and not simply a conquest by nomads from the steppes.

As to the association of the various tantric traditions to Dravidian sources? It's unlikely to be fruitful- the agamas and tantras are all Sanskritic.

[Lhug-Pa]

Well apparently many Chandalas, Dalits, Sudras, etc. are just as convinced as the '19th century Eurocentric philologists' that barbaric Caucasian so-called Aryans invaded the Black Aboriginal Dravidians.

Who knows for sure though, the "bunkers" and "debunkers" could both go on forever refuting one another with just as apparently valid points as the previously given one (I've read convincing perspectives—such as the David Frawley one you posted—from both sides). So I think the best method to settle these things once and for all, would be to gain the meditative clarity to view the 'Akashic Records', so to speak, for oneself, as Buddhas of various levels are said to be able to do (see appendix 7 or 8 of Jigme Lingpa's Treasury of Precious Qualities). Nothing necessarily wrong with having an interest in these topics before achieving such powerful clairvoyance though.

The Druid and Master Mason Godfrey Higgins who I've quoted a number of times was a 19th Century European, and I wouldn't consider him Eurocentric. In fact, many people consider him to have been somewhat Afrocentric lol. Although from what I recall he didn't make a whole lot of explicit references to the '"Aryan" invasion theory'. His writings regarding the ancient Black Buddhas who built Stonehenge, Round Towers, and other Cyclopean monuments around the world, are very interesting though (like I said, look him up in the Dharmawheel search box).

[Norden]

well, the mantra of both Taras is the same i.e. om tare tuttare ture svaha.

This is why many said it is a Hindu Buddhist. Not to mention the visions of high lama etc.

[Karma Dorje]

well, the mantra of both Taras is the same i.e. om tare tuttare ture svaha.

That's not true. The mantra of Hindu Tara is not the same as the Buddhist.

[Malcolm]

I think that there is a larger point that bears greater investigation: regardless of stated viewpoint, is the actual realization of the great masters of these various teachings different? My experience of this is that it is not. .

I guess you consider yourself a great master. It must be so since you are arguing from experience.

[Karma Dorje]

I guess you consider yourself a great master. It must be so since you are arguing from experience.

How terribly patronizing. The experience I argue from is my interaction with masters, particularly my tsawai lama that held lineages from both traditions.

[Malcolm]

The question I would ask in light of this, is how do the Mahavidya, Nath, and Kaula traditions relate to the Dravidians? Who here thinks (or knows) that the '"Indo-Aryan" invasion of Dravidian India' theory (that the Mahabharata is said to describe) holds any weight?

The so-called Aryan invasion theory has been thoroughly debunked in modern academia.

No it hasn't. Havn't you read Witzel's debunking of the Hindutva nationalist origins theory? Especially Frawley's tepid presentation?

The best and most balanced book on the subject is The Quest for The Origins of Vedic Culture by Edwin Bryant, Oxford, 2001.

While there are a number of full length works, this article provides a decent synopsis of the main arguments against it:

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/a ... awley.html

You can read Frawley getting owned by Michael Witzel back in 2002 in a number of exchanges involving the two of them as well as others. In order to access these articles you need to go here:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/op/arcop.htm

And access them by date.

1/22/02 N.S. Rajaram : Historical divide: archaeology and literature

1/29/02 M. Witzel Indus Civilisation and Vedic society

2/5/02 Clarence Maloney : Vedic-Indus debate: save Indian civilisation today


2/19/02 N.S. Rajaram: Theory and evidence

3/5/02 M. Witzel : Harappan horse myths and the sciences


3/12/02 R. Nagaswamy: Harappan horse


5/21/02 M. Witzel (assisted by Richard Meadow): Horses, logic, and evidence


6/18/02 David Frawley: Vedic literature and the Gulf of Cambay discovery

6/25./02 M. Witzel : A maritime Rigveda? — How not to read ancient texts

7/2/02 R. Nagaswamy : From Harappan horse to camel


7/9/02 Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet : Cosmology in Rigveda — the third premise


7/16/02 D.,Frawley: Witzel's vanishing ocean


8/6/02 M. Witzel Philology vanished: Frawley's Rigveda — I


8/13/02 M. Witzel: Philology vanished: Frawley's Rigveda — II


8/20/02 D.Frawley: Witzel's philology