> > > vainAshika > > > > perishable L. ; believing in complete annihilation... > > > > Vaj: > It was an entry from a Sanskrit dictionary to help you > understand the word you were responding to. > Thanks, but the word 'Tantra' in the phrase 'Vainashika-Tantra' still remains undefined.
What kind of 'Tantra' was Shankara referring to? So, apparently Shankara got mixed up. He wanted to discredit the Tantric Buddhists, but he was forced to adopt the Buddhist Vajrayana notion of 'Consciousness Only. And why? Because it is a logical hypothesis, based on tantric practice. Notes: The only texts that Shankara could have read on palm leaves would have been the Buddhist Sutras, which support the momentary theory. In fact, before the invention of writing, all the tantric practices were esoteric, so Shankara could hardly have been able to know anything about secret Esoteric Buddhist tantric practices. That is, unless Gaudapapda, Govindapada, and Shankara were in fact, Tantric Buddhists themselves! Not only did the Hindu Tantrics turn the feminine/male iconography topsy-turvy, they didn't even realize that they were Buddhists on the path to spiritual enlightenment. Bhattachary gives an example of how mixed up the Tantric Hindus apparently were. One of the chief tantric texts of the Hindus is the 'Mahanirvana' Tantra (Bhattacharyya pg. 79). The use of the term 'nirvana' indicates that this tantra may have been used by the Buddhist tantrics (Bhattacharyya pg. 84). So, Shankara called the Budhists 'annihilationests'. But, the term 'nirvana' doesn't mean 'annihilation' - Nirvana means 'devoid of own being', just like the Brahman absolute of Shankara (Murti pg. 152). Go figure. Works cited: 'History of the Tantric Religion' A Historical, Ritualistic and Philosophical Study By Narendra Nath Bhattacharyya South Asia Books, 1982 'Central Philosophy of Buddhism' By T.R.V. Murti George Allen and Unwin, 1955
