the logic of the argument

[R.Mayer at ukc.ac.uk]

Jonathan Silk is of course quite correct: it is not
logically impossible that Tantra pre-existed Hinduism.
All I am saying is that while Bon and Taoism maintained
their distinctive canons, deities and distinct social
existence, Tantra never left any trace as an independent
religion. It only exists as Hindu, Buddhist or Jain
tantra, not as Tantra in itself. So many people have
inferred that it is a tendency in Indian religion,
not a separate religion like Bon or Taoism.
But I must take issue with Jonathan: tantra emerges
pretty late in Indian religion if we stick to hard
evidence rather than speculation. Of course, there
is no logical reason why it could not be as old or
older than the Vedas. But the evidence we have is
late, and most tantra only really gets into full
swing in medieval times. So there is a lot to be
said for looking at it as atendency within Indian
religious culture, not as a separate ancient
faith like Taoism.
Perhaps the most comprehensive survey of Tantric
literature written so far is the volume by
Teun Goudriaan and Sanjukta Gupta, entitled
Hindu Tantric and Sakta Literature, published
in 1981 in the "orange series" edited by
Jan Gonda. Goudriaan sums up his massive
survey of tantric literature as follows:

The early development of (tantric) literature
was probably due to the need among Saiva
religious thinkers for formulation....
of esoteric truths...It was not based upon
a popular movement, but was the outgrowth
of the specialistic functionaries from
the upper classes, as a rule Brahmans.

The last sentence is very significant. Goudriaan's
outlook is shared by Alexis Sanderson, now Professor
of Sanskrit at All Soul's, Oxford (he recently
won Bimal Matilal's old chair, the Spalding Chair).
This is significant because Sanderson has dedicated
the greater part of his professional life to
reading Sanskrit tantric texts with a view to
understanding problems of origins rather than
metaphysics. So his even firmer insistence
than Goudriaan's on Brahmanic origins in the
not-so-distant past must carry some weight.

The reason I have tried to open this debate is
that while I am primarily a Tibetanist existing
in a field where Sanderson's views have simply
never been heard of, my knowledge of Tantrism
comes precisely from Goudriaan, Gupta, Sanderson,
Gombrich, Biardeau, etc; all of whom are unread
by Tibetan experts on Tantra. Hence, for example,
Geoffrey Samuel's recent masterpiece "Civilized
Shamans" proceeds as though the views of 
Goudriaan et. al. never existed. My wish is
to create dialogue between the likes of Samuel
and Sanderson, to connect up the two quite
separate areas of my intellectual life.