Tibetan Origin of Tantrism and Siva

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op donderdag, 14-jan-99 schreef Samar Abbas:

SA> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
SA>> It's a very peculiar point of view, taken into account the fact that
the
SA>> Chinese never accepted the typical tantric rites, because they were
SA>> shocked by it.

SA> That goes for Confucianism. We are talking about mainly Tibet and
perhpas
SA> Taoism. Taoism does not display the attitudes you mention.

Taoism is about making an immortal body not about getting liberated from
samsara.

SA>> It would also appear very strange that
SA>> quite a few Tibetans took many pains and gave lots of money to Indian
SA>> tantric adepts in order to be initiated in the secrets of tantra.

SA> But the first Indian Tantric, Vasistha, learned Tantra in Tibet (cf.
the
SA> first post in this thread). Moreover, Japanese scholars go to the USA
to
SA> study Christianity. That does not imply that the USA is the home of
SA> Christianity. It is possible that East Indics further developed
Tantrism,
SA> and were hence in great demand in Tibet. They were not in such great
SA> demand in India, from the exodus to Tibet, and otherwise they would not
SA> have gone.

In the USA you can study christan sects, not christianity, you need to go to
Rome, Paris or Istanbul for that. So the reasoning by analogy is false.
It's not even an recognisez pramaa.na on ths list for that matter. You
don't see the point, do you. In all the biographies of Tibetan yogi's wich
have been kept in the Tibetan monastries there's allways question of the
unavailability of teachings and teachers in Tibet.

SA>> Tantra was
SA>> unknown in Tibet before the middle of hte 8th century, still the
SA>> Guhyasamaaja tantra has been dated before the sixth century.

SA> Again, this is based on dating etc. and is subject to revision.  Many
of
SA> the Tantras survive only in Tibetan and in no other language.

Anyhting is subject to revision, what kind of an argument is this?

SA>> What the old
SA>> Bonreligion was about is still open for speculation, because we no
SA>> documents from the kingdom of Zangzung have been found.

SA> As per legend, the ancient Bon dieties were subjugated into the
Buddhist
SA> pantheon. It is only natural to assume that the rites with which they
wer
SA> worshipped also entered Tibetan Buddhism in this way. Budhism in Tibet
SA> did not eradicate the pre-Buddhist deities, it subsumed them, and in
turn
SA> got modified. Thus, one still can reconstruct the Bon religion.

You never saw a Bontexts, did you. If so you would know that the Tibetan
gods were all local nature spirits

SA>> The new Bon was
SA>> nothing but a reversed copy of the existing buddhist practices in
Tibet.

SA> Bon pre-dated Buddhism. It experienced late revivals after Buddhism
came.

And this Old Bon was probably nothing more then a variant of central Asiatci
sjamanism. The so called founder of Bon came from Tajikistan


SA>> The older tantras say nothing about mahacina.

SA> That depends on the dating of the Tantras, and the survivability. I can
SA> always say that the older ones are lost, and we will reach a stalemate
in
SA> this. Those that survive mention Tibet as the source.

you can write what you want, but if yoy really want others to take you
seriously, you shouldn't start with 'I can always say'



SA>> The passages you
SA>> refer to are not convincing since they are the only ones among a vast
SA>> body of tantric litterature.

SA> Would like to see some quotes stating that the 5th Veda fell somewhere
SA> outside Tibet, and that Vasishta travelled to somewhere other than
Tibet
SA> to learn Tantra. The vast body of literature has so far not furnished
us
SA> with any other sources.

SA>> I suggest you ask tibetologists and sinologists for established facts
SA>> before you make all too bold statements.

SA> Any Tibetologists are welcome to contribute their learned opinions.

SA>> And last but
SA>> not least: the taoist ideas about sex are very different from those I
SA>> read in the tantras.
SA>> I've never read in tantras that you have to copulate with
SA>> as much people of the other sex in order to strengthen you lifeforce.

SA> There are several similarities, the technique of retention, for
instance.

There's quite a difference in the theories about retention actually. Even
the tantra's have different opinions about it. BTW, you speak of tantra's
as scientific works, but the oldest are really nothing more then a yogi's
travelling notebook, with dialogues, recipees, rituals and what else he
didn't want to forget.

SA> The postures prescribed are also very similar.

Well this can be caused by the limitations of the human body.

SA> Then Shiva-Shakti is the same as Yin-Yang.

This is pure nonsens yin and yang are not antropological concepts, but more
like the gu.na's in saamkhya. Originally they were the shady and the sunny
side of a mountain.


SA> This is based not just on a similarity of Sivas. There is
anthropological
SA> and genetic proof of the unity of Dravidian and African peoples.

I simply don't believe that, since the languages are not related

Austronesians are not Africans

 If the
SA> Dravidians came from Africa, then they may have brought their religion
SA> along as well.

I studied some African religion in my time, but it's very different from
other religions, certainly from hinduism and it certainly is not a unity.

Regards
--
erik


 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
  Erik Hoogcarspel           <    jehms at kabelfoon.nl     ><
Boerhaaveln 99b     >
                             <    tl+31.(0)104157097    ><       3112 LE
Schiedam    >
                             <    fx+31.(0)842113137    ><       Holland
        >
 *===================================================================================*