Buddhist literary borrowings from shaiva texts are quite clear. However that does not invalidate the idea of a common yogic cultural sphere which went both ways. Yogins often do not mind mixing dharmas since they are concerned primarily with what works.
The Bon dharma appears to synthesize the pre-tantric Buddhism of Zhang Zhung with Trans-Himalayan, native shamanism. So what? That is no reason to indulge in doctrinaire attributions. Tibetans like to do that why ape them? Khachab Rinpoche took Bon Dzogchen teachings from Lopon Tenzin Namdak and personally verified their authentic nature along with their correspondences to Nyingma Dzochen. His sister was a Bonpo practitioner married to a Mongolian Lama. He has real knowledge about their teachings and practice. Considering your many Shaiva contentions here on FFL, I would expect you to agree that Shaiva MahaBhairava traditions influenced Buddhist Tantric practices rather than try to mystify it all into Tögal bindus. Same for Tertons. They don't need to be puffed up into Vedic rishis since they already possess a profound set of teachings transmitted directly by rigpa yeshe. . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > Hi William: > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 7:28 PM, emptybill wrote: > > > My reply: > > > > Apparently you only gave a cursory look at Sanderson's Webpage. He > > has plenty of material demonstrating Buddhist textual borrowing > > from Shaiva tantric texts. > > > > About 5 years ago or so, before Sanderson's page came up, a group of > ngakpas with authorizations in the tantras and mahasandi, one of who > works for a major library, acquired and had about a half dozen of > Sanderson's papers digitized. We spent a couple of months going over > them and periodically reviewed new ones we hadn't seen. We also > reviewed papers which countered Sandersons theories. It's probably > been a year or so since I've looked at the web site, but yes I am > familiar with Sanderson's papers and found them very interesting. > > What you may not be aware of is the opposite theory of transmission > already existed prior to Sanderson's theories - that transmission of > certain tantric materials, sadhanas, etc. had come from buddhism and > bon into Hinduism. In fact certain specific togal practices can be > found in later shaivite texts, after their bonpo originals. Current > lineholders are familiar with the historical trend. You can also see > the same trend in Kashmir. It's helpful to keep in mind that the > traditional abode of shiva and parvati, Mount Kailash, is a within > the ancient kingdom of Zhang Zhung. This ancient kingdom had lines of > "pre-buddhist" (pre-shakyamuni) buddhas, which one of these may > represent the historical figure known today as the "god" shiva. Since > these lines still exist, you can find lamas who will discuss the > transmission of bonpo tantric and bonpo dzogchen into other vehicles. > > Various practices in these systems also contain practices relating to > rishis, some of which were Vedic rishis. This is interesting because > very little of the Vedic religion has survived. But practices of the > rishis are found in other systems and a number of Vedic rishis may > represent prior (pre-shakyamuni) buddhas. Thus, to this day, you can > visit temples in Tibet which show the vedic rishis, side by side with > "later" buddhas. > > Probably the most obvious example of sharing of these ideas is the > kalachakra-tantra itself, which actually contains within it the Hindu > kalachakra, the shiva-swarodaya. But it would be a hard argument that > the "arising of letters" in one is really that different than "the > arising of letters" in the other. It's really the View that varies. > > > Your explanation is almost a New Age syncretism. Oh so sorry but > > > > No, It's always important to point out (IMO) that while sadhanas and > bases like chakra systems may be the same or similar, since the View > varies the way they are seen may differ dramatically. Since View > determines Fruition, differences in View may translate into different > forms or styles of awakening. > > > Pss - it's not really all one. > > > That's right. That why I consider perennialism a false view of reality. >
