bones and flesh

Paul Kekai Manansala kekai at JPS.NET
Fri Nov 19 00:47:15 UTC 1999

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.

Paul Kekai Manansala

Check out

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list