RongzomFan

I posted a book by Sam van Schaik. Did you click on the link?

Noone really knows. Basically just some funerary rituals.

You mention Bon. But Bon comes way after Buddhism. http://books.google.com/books?id=La1CWinaDR4C&pg=PA99&dq=Tibet+Sam+van+schaik+In,+fact+the+Bonpo+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JpQWUeW-No2v0AHL94H4Bg&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Tibet%20Sam%20van%20schaik%20In%2C%20fact%20the%20Bonpo%20religion&f=false

In my opinion, no

And?

10-12 are pre-Buddha? That sounds a little high

Weird statement. Indian universities such as Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc. taught Vajrayana. All the root tantras are clearly Buddhist. Atisa etc. wrote all about Vajrayana. Its not something foreign to be absorbed into Buddhism. We have many commentaries from professors at Vikramsila etc. on specific tantras.

These Upanishadic concepts are later than Buddha. Some of the key Upanishads show strong Buddhist influence.

I don't believe in that bullshit, and yet I still believe in Mahayana. Mahayana is merely a reaction against Abhidharma. Nothing mystical about it.

Check out Johannes Bronkhorst.

Do you have a reference?

He should of said the Mahasamghika developed the Mahayana.

What he said was pretty basic. A bunch of old dudes wanted to add rules to the original Vinaya. They thus broke off from the majority Mahasamghika. See A Concise History of Buddhism by Skilton

He said Mahasamghika, not Mahayana. Although the two are associated.

.Swami Prabhupada is a terrible source of information.

atman just means identity. Its the sanskrit word for identity. Vedism at the time was quite restricted in India. I can quote many scholars, but for now I'll reference Lal Mani Joshi (scroll down a little): http://books.google.com/books?id=RvuDlhpvvHwC&pg=PA10&dq=The+Buddhist+Visnu+Religious+Transformation,+Politics,+And+Culture++Sakyas,+Mallas,+or+Licchavis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QVoUUeGiG8iK0QH1xoDwBQ&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Buddhist%20Visnu%20Religious%20Transformation%2C%20Politics%2C%20And%20Culture%20%20Sakyas%2C%20Mallas%2C%20or%20Licchavis&f=false

Maybe thats what Malcolm says, but several scholars disagree with that.

I don't think Buddha ever heard of Upanishadic concepts.

What do you expect? Most of the Upanishads come after Buddha.

Are you saying the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhas? By the way, Vajrayana is based on Madhyamaka since India. Noone is claiming that Buddhism is "the word of the Buddha". Buddhism is the word of the Mahasiddhas too.

Are you saying the teachings of the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhism? Are you saying the Mahasiddhas are not Buddhas?

yes

Only Madhyamaka is definitive in Mahayana. This is based on the opinions of the great Indian masters such as Atisa.

Its some New Age stuff of Jeff's

Simply put, Mahayana arose as a reaction to the crypto-realism of Hinayana Abhidharma.