No. All mahasiddhas are tantrikas and not vedantins.
In fact, even in Hindu tantras you can find very bad opinions about the vedas themselves.
tp.
No. All mahasiddhas are tantrikas and not vedantins.
So they are Nath or Kaula, the point remains the same.
Yes.
The traditional association of Goraksanath and Matsyendranath appears a bit unusual because historically Goraksanath wasn't alive during the time of Matsyendranath; and Goraksanath rejected the practices of Mastyendranath's Yogini Kaula school in his writings.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:58 pmGoraksanatha was his disciple.
It does not in fact apply, since these Hindus and Bonpos actively sought to harm Buddhadharma, or so it is told.Adamantine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:35 am How does all of this history of Buddhist tantrikas battling Hindus or Bonpos in debate, winning and apparently humiliating them.. jive with the 12th root downfall of the 14? "To cause those beings who have faith
To grow disillusioned is the twelfth.", as I was taught this applies to those with faith in other traditions, not just other Buddhists...
Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:20 amIt does not in fact apply, since these Hindus and Bonpos actively sought to harm Buddhadharma, or so it is told.Adamantine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:35 am How does all of this history of Buddhist tantrikas battling Hindus or Bonpos in debate, winning and apparently humiliating them.. jive with the 12th root downfall of the 14? "To cause those beings who have faith
To grow disillusioned is the twelfth.", as I was taught this applies to those with faith in other traditions, not just other Buddhists...
Osho the greatest non-buddhist master of all timeamanitamusc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:07 am Since we are talking Mahasiddha's.Osho had a sweet tooth for Tilopa.
https://www.amazon.com/Only-One-Sky-Tan ... 0525474404
ford_truckin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:17 amOsho the greatest non-buddhist master of all timeamanitamusc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:07 am Since we are talking Mahasiddha's.Osho had a sweet tooth for Tilopa.
https://www.amazon.com/Only-One-Sky-Tan ... 0525474404
And once that stage is set...
He had a sweet tooth for anything that would make him money...amanitamusc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:07 am Since we are talking Mahasiddha's.Osho had a sweet tooth for Tilopa.
https://www.amazon.com/Only-One-Sky-Tan ... 0525474404
One of the greatest modern spiritual capitalists, definitely.ford_truckin wrote:Osho the greatest non-buddhist master of all time
Aside from that, there is the fact that 12th samaya only applies to Buddhists. It has nothing to do with nonbuddhists at all, despite what you may have been told.Adamantine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:46 amMalcolm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:20 amIt does not in fact apply, since these Hindus and Bonpos actively sought to harm Buddhadharma, or so it is told.Adamantine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:35 am How does all of this history of Buddhist tantrikas battling Hindus or Bonpos in debate, winning and apparently humiliating them.. jive with the 12th root downfall of the 14? "To cause those beings who have faith
To grow disillusioned is the twelfth.", as I was taught this applies to those with faith in other traditions, not just other Buddhists...
I see. So that’s a context for one type of exception..
I see.. I’ve heard mixed things probably here on dharma forums... upon reflection I actually don’t recall if I’ve heard this downfall elaborated by any of my own teachers... possibly not. Alexander Berzin makes it even more specific: as regarding other practitioners of Tantra:Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:56 pmAside from that, there is the fact that 12th samaya only applies to Buddhists. It has nothing to do with nonbuddhists at all, despite what you may have been told.
(12) Deterring those with faith
This refers to purposely discouraging people from a particular tantric practice in which they have faith and for which they are fit vessels, with proper empowerment and so forth. If we cause their wish to engage in this practice to end, this root downfall is complete. If they are not yet ready for such practice, however, there is no fault in outlining in a realistic manner what they must master first, even if it might seem daunting. Engaging others like this, taking them and their interests seriously rather than belittling them as incapable, actually boosts their self-confidence to forge ahead.
One of the benefits of studying various systems is that one’s view will be heavily refined and one will be free from doubt. In another word, other systems will show your view in the mirror. There is nothing wrong about learning the other systems. Checkout the Pramanavartika; he could not show the flaw on other systems if he had not well versed in narratives of those indian philosophical systems. Otherwise, your position is like the modern days Buddhist teachers who believe that Atama goes from one life to another (i.e. they believe it is Advait Vedanta view). So it is better to check out the interpretation of their systems from the authentic lineage.
On the other hand, considering that his self-"branding", if you will, is strictly Vedantic (i.e., purporting to represent the inner or final significance of the Vedas) it's utterly in his self-interest to demonstrate his fitness in refuting accusations of being influenced by Buddhism. Therefore all his denials of being a pracana-bauddha are suspect. Even if he were not influenced by Buddhism, he'd have to deny it -- and if he were influenced, he'd have to deny it even more.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:42 pm
The main claim for Buddhist influence on Shankara comes from the fact that his paramaguru was a guy named Gaudapāda, the fourth chapter of whose Agamaśastra seems to borrow heavily from Madhyamaka and Yogacāra arguments, somewhat indiscriminately, to refute Samkhya and Vaiśesika scholars, and to propose ajativāda. However, given that Shankara does in fact go to great lengths to forestall the criticism of being a crypto-Buddhist, this should perhaps lead us to conclude that he wasn't a crypto-Buddhist,, and that his opponents such as Vijñāna Bhikṣu, Ramanuja, and so on, were all just a bit lazy in their thinking.