bones and flesh

[Paul Kekai Manansala]

Venkatraman Iyer wrote:
>
> >>For instance, the fact that it is a view held by Santal groups in
> >>Orissa is difficult to relate to a direct tibetan influence.  It could,
> >>however, imply a old (2000 yrs ago?) buddhist influence on Santal
> >>religion...
>
> >I am interested in the Santals and their neighbouring Munda people
> >though the information I need seems sparse.  I suspect that these
> >people directly or indirectly had a strong influence on certain later
> >forms of tantric Buddhism.  The influence, if any,  upon the Tibetans
> >would via this route.
>
> Dear Shri. Hodge,
>
> Tamil siddha vaidhya works and siddha poetry also talk of bones
> and flesh in the same way. We don't have to invoke Munda influence
> alone since the concepts appear to be pan Indian.
>

What's wrong with "invoking Munda influence?"  Is it any different
than invoking Dravidian or "Aryan" influence?

The fact that the beliefs are pan-Indian shouldn't have any weight
on considering Munda or any other type of influence.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala

--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/