Aryans and Dravidians

[R.Mayer at ukc.ac.uk]

I take Jonathan Silk's point, but what we can say is that
Tantra as we have it is Aryan in the sense of Brahmanic.
Jonathan Silk's view requires an hypothetical very early
Tantra of which no travce remains. Tantra itself claims
Aryan or Brahmanic origins. It seems to function sociologically
as a part of the Brahmanic ideology. The case of Tibetan Bon
is very similar to that of Taoism: in bith these cases, an in
indigenous religion did exist prior to Buddhism, but early
on began to borrow so heavily from Buddhism that they began
to look like mere crypto-Buddhism. Tantra could not be
more different: it is NOT a separate religion. It is
the most widespread form of Hinduism, worshipping the same
gods. Bon has its own canon; Tantra accepts all the Veda, 
but adds more of its own special elite revelation on top.
It does not have its own canon. Taoism has its own canon.
So Taoism & Bon are separate from Buddhism, but Tantra
simply is a version of Hinduism. No tantrist rejected the 
Veda outright: they only sought to add to it in the
"true" spirit of the Vedic revelation. Or so I see things.
More debate, anyone?
Rob