Apech

I dug out some interesting quotes from this: The idea that Tantra is a practice approach which goes beyond religious context. Saiva Tantra predates Buddha Tantra (although only just) - and I think we need to bear in mind that Buddhism was entering a long period of decline and as the Vajrayana was embedded in Mahayana already had a fully developed world view - Hinduism was being rejuvenated and reformed - so they were in very different places in this historical period. Nice! If the goal and highest aspect is recognised as beyond conceptualisation then differences at any other level become less significant.

vulture peak

A light touch but surprisingly clear presentation I found on youtube:

Horus!

frying

beer

@Jeff Sure the transmission of dharma to Tibet came from this same period in India - i.e. 500 - 1200 AD in various phases - and as it was from both the Mahasiddhas and the monastic tradition (e.g. Atisha) that's why they ended up with the 'mix' that they have.

Yeah I've read that. Good book. But again not the subject I wanted to discuss. If you want to talk about the Chinese influence on Tibet and Buddhism generally - that's an interesting subject too

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menngagde Well I know very little about Dzogchen so I'll leave that subject for the very many Dzogchen threads that exist I was trying to say that Dzogchen has its own lineage and so on - and what i was trying to discuss was the emergence of Vajrayana in 7th century CE and where exactly it came from. Where Dzogchen came from is a different and probably an even more opaque question.

It has its own terminology and is not tantric as such.

Dzogchen is a bit different i think. What is R&D?

You and your shifts

I think that is his dates more or less. I think probably there are inner and outer causes - or indeed another about effectiveness. Inner causes could include the realisations of the masters who became called the Mahasiddhas - including that they communicated their realisation of say, emptiness by breaking taboos and so on - to show to people that realisation is not ultimately dependent on pratimokshas and so on - i.e. not about purity per se. - also demonstrating 'magical' powers etc. They did this of course because people needed it to break free from indentification and so on. Outer causes lie in the social conditions which dictate how a tradition has to survive. After the fall of the Guptas patronage to Buddhist monasteries changed and the trade guilds more or less collapsed (with which the sangha had had a symbiotic relationship). The way in which monastic funding worked meant the closing of many local centres and the forming of a few 'super monasteries' where power and learning was focussed. The laity were turning to reformed Hindu traditions and emerging bakhti traditions - so support for Buddhadharma was collapsing - and continued to do so from 500/660 AD till 1200 when the Muslims invaded and sacked Nalanda - which was the end basically of Buddhism in India. The Mahasiddas were not monks and lived on the edge of society sometimes with travelling troupes of entertainers (circuses basically) and their lives reflect this by being bohemian and picaresque. I know this seems very 'outer' - but compare the spread of Tibetan Buddhism to the west post 1950s and the Chinese invasion - the dharma and Tibetan culture had to survive and they needed funds - so they courted at first Hippies, then Yuppies and so on who could provide income for building centres in the US, Canada, UK , France etc. The style of teaching reflects this. The last point is that while the fundamental truths behind the teachings are timeless - a style of practice has a shelf life - over time the number of realised practitioners declines and there have to be periodic revivals/renewals which may present themselves as 'back to basics' but are actually newly formulated to meet the conditions of the present. Just some thoughts

The Nondual School of Kashmir Śaivism integrated elements of both the transgressive nondualistic traditions and the more orthodox dualistic Śaiva Siddhānta. The end result was a nondualistic system in which the transgressive elements were internalized and hence rendered less offensive to the orthodox. This from same website . Seems that what we know as KS these days is a bit later than Vajrayana. The older stuff being magical, sexual, 'violent' rituals and so on which are actually contemporary with Buddhist Kriya Tantras which are similarly worldly.

I read somewhere that Tilopa (the teacher of Naropa) and a Mahasiddha is included in a list of Hindu Tantric masters - which might also suggest that the sharp distinction between Hindu and Buddhist was not always clear. I know nothing about KS and I guess I should read up on the origins of that as well.

ment

j

Quotes from here: http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-59 which sums the current academic understanding.

I'm more interested in the historical narrative than the details of the practice but you may well have a point.

c

Written by monks of course. Mind you the Dalai Lama is a monk and he does Tantra.

Currently under research and any ideas appreciated: why is a vajra both the thunderbolt and a diamond ... and also why it is shaped like it is? Any suggestions/facts appreciated.

Instantly a 100 DBs rush to the bathroom mirror to check their sheaths

well yes. And also making Vajrapani appear above his head suggests a kind Mahasiddha activity.

Just as a matter of interest - in that same Sutra, a Brahmin comes to check if the Buddha has the 32 marks which are the indication of being a Great Man. He can see all but is unsure of two: Sheathed genitals is interesting! Some English euphemistic translations talk about 'wrapped in cloth' or similar - but of course this cannot be a mark of birth - other translations talk about a 'retracted penis' - which may be the result of internal cultivation and the DBs favourite subject of not ejaculating - or the sheathed penis may be an extra large foreskin. Some people have even suggested that Buddha was hermaphroditic. Note - he uses psychic powers to show himself - is this euphemistic to avoid the idea of the Buddha flashing in public ha ha. Now licking his ear , nose and forehead - well apart from meaning his tongue was enormous! it makes one think of a cow licking its own head. What this means I have no idea. You see there are lots of strange things in the Sutras which are normally glossed over or dismissed.