Is there any identification of Tonpa Shenrab with Kashyapa?mutsuk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 5:09 pm This narrative is total nonsense. There are no old sources proving these assertions. These are just post-12th century developments. Even the ZZNG is post-dynastic and may not be earlier than the late 11th century.
To have an historical understanding of who Tonpa Shenrab was, one ought to read the documents from the dGa' thang bum pa stupa. The Bellezza paper on the subject is free online.
On a whim, I recently purchased Ermakov's book. I was appalled at a) how poorly it was manufactured b) how messily organized it was, and c) how replete it was with discredited theories about an arctic ancestral homeland for Indo-Europeans, etc. I am amazed that he was ever given any credit in the academy at all.mutsuk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:17 pm No, obviously not. Bon's narrative about its existence in pre-dynastic and dynastic Tibet is a fantasy elaborated backwards in order to compete (on historical, philosophical, and doctrinal grounds, etc.) with the Nyingma and the newer schools.
Belllezza's paper is here :
http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/colle ... _29_07.pdf
See also on TBRC : https://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=W8LS66509 .
No evidence for it, in fact there is a bunch of evidence to the contrary, that many Bonpo scriptures are taken directly from Buddhism. Of course there are parts of Vajrayana likely coming from the Bon tradition too.gelukman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:29 am Hello
Is this claim true? Where can we find evidence?
I told that this claim will just reap negativity and
wanted it to be removed. As this did not happen.
Maybe then we try to research into it?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/bonposo ... SEARCH_BOX
https://yungdrungbon.co.uk/shakyamuni-s ... g-rigdzin/
Interesting. Who is giving him credit? I'm curious, as I try to read, to the best of my abilities, whatever academic work is published on Bon, and I've not seen Ermakov quoted anywhere by the "big names" (Karmay, Blondeau, Kvaerne, and al.) in Bon so far. His approach is outdated, looks like pre-1960s "oriental studies" and his lack of knowledge of classical tibetan is a big problem...not to mention that he does not read cursive (when 95% of Bon texts are in cursive...).
Supposedly he was mentored by Charles Ramble, according to his own account:mutsuk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:17 pmInteresting. Who is giving him credit? I'm curious, as I try to read, to the best of my abilities, whatever academic work is published on Bon, and I've not seen Ermakov quoted anywhere by the "big names" (Karmay, Blondeau, Kvaerne, and al.) in Bon so far. His approach is outdated, looks like pre-1960s "oriental studies" and his lack of knowledge of classical tibetan is a big problem...not to mention that he does not read cursive (when 95% of Bon texts are in cursive...).
"I then went on to study Tibetan at Oxford University with Prof. Charles Ramble (2009-2010) becoming his research assiatant and, as well as having articles published in both English and Russian, has been invited to lecture in Oxford, London, St. Petersburg, Vilnius, Cagliari, Budapest etc. In 2011 I was invited to speak at 'Bon, Shangshung, and Early Tibet' conference where I delivered a paper 'Bön as a multifaceted phenomenon: looking beyond Tibet to the cultural and religious traditions of Eurasia' which since has been published as a multimedia presentation on Foundation for the Preservation of Yungdrung Bön's website and can also be watched in the Video section of this Author Page.
Many writers have sought to establish a link between the Bön religion of Tibet and the shamanic traditions of Siberia. These attempts are largely unsystematic and piecemeal, and the results have been unconvincing. This remarkable book is the most thorough attempt to date to explore these connections. On the basis of wide-ranging scholarship as well as a long and close association with the most eminent exponents of the traditions he explores, the author presents the richness of Tibetan Bön and Buryatian Bө Murgel, discerning beneath the distinctive features of these systems a matrix of beliefs and practices in which they have their origins. Written from an "emic" perspective of sympathy with the tenets of Bön and Bө Murgel, this fascinating and provocative book is sure to stimulate interest and debate concerning the religious heritage of Inner Asia.'
No.
The second onejavier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:28 pm where this idea came from? it is supposed that the text is just author's research? this is yet another bonpo complex?
I think It comes from so many years of religious competition between Vajrayana and Bon, basically. There are whole Bon philosophical works produced sort of "in response" to Buddhsim, so there are all kinds of "alternative history" ideas like this. Like I said, I found it nagging enough that I couldn't really devote myself to learning from Bon teachers the way I would Buddhist ones, some of the claims are just too out there.javier.espinoza.t wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:28 pm where this idea came from? it is supposed that the text is just author's research? this is yet another bonpo complex?
Which one did you have in mind? Classical or modern?tingdzin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:09 am I think Ramble was just being provocative or polite with his blurb, or both. Ermakov's magnum opus (now about 20 years old) has a lot of interesting and valuable information on Siberian shamans that he gained first-hand, but the work as a whole is not very scholarly and is never cited by Tibet scholars. Still, as an exercise in showing how weak the received assumptions on Bon/Buddhist relationships are (the "authoritative" account that has been repeatedly relied on by Tibetan scholars is a tissue of falsehoods), the work is worth reading if you have a lot of time and take it with a shakerfull of salt.
Sorry, which one what? If you're talking about "authoritative account" of Bon history, I had in mind the one that was promulgated by Drigung Paldzin long ago, and more recently taken up by Sumpa Khenpo, which was still taken as gospel in many quarters of Tibet up to 1950, and I think it was Helmut Hoffmann's main source for his account of Bon (not sure of that, though). A lot of scholars such as Samten Karmay and Dan Martin have devoted some attention to unravelling this account.
