tantrism vs hinduism etc - to Satish

[Guest guest]

, "Satish Arigela"

<satisharigela> wrote:

> Thanks for the references.

>

> But what is "mainstream" of hinduism? In what ways is it

different from tantra?

 

I meant that hinduism, which is called "sanatani". Dharma that is

based on smarta-shastras, puranas and itihasas. If U concider

beliefs of general hindus, that will be what i speak of. "Karma-

Dharma, samsara, Atman-Brahman, yoga" :-)))

We can say that tantra is in many ways different from smarta-dharma,

pauranika-dharma, 6 darshanas incl. yoga and vedanta etc. Of course,

it shares much common as well - cultural base and language were the

same, but differences are more significant.

 

 

Do you mean vedanta by "mainstream" of hinduism? If so

> vedanta is only one part of hinduism.

 

Yes, this is true. Funny thing, when ppl speak about hinduism, they

usually speak of shankara's vedanta. As if there's nothing esle in

hinduism deserving our attention...

>Tantra is a great part of hinduism.

>From social point of view there's no doubt in this. However in its

doctrine and soteriology it differs from common hindu beliefs

sometimes very much.

>When one says hinduism it also includes tantra.

 

It depends. For example, when i spoke of vamachara in ambaa_l group,

those kind people had thrown me out of their group :-))). No doubt,

that group is mostly hindu...

>A major portion of rituals followed by current hindus are from

tantra.

 

No, not at all. Correctly speaking, U mean agamic rituals, but it is

not equal to tantric. Most pancharatra- and vaikhanasa-agamas of

vaishnavas and siddhanta- and raudra-agamas of shaivas has nothing

to do with tantrism. And they are the base of ritualism etc. Yes, in

some temples tantric worship was conducted SECRETLY, like in

Vishvanatha of Kashi and Jagannatha of Puri.

>Even some vedic rituals show some strong tantric influence.

 

It is some tantric rituals have vedic influense :-). Vedas are much

older. Curious enough, vaidika-dharma share again more common with

tantrika, than with common smarta...

>So I am not sure what are you referring to by word *mainstream of

hinduism*.

 

Did i clarify enough this point?

> Is tantra closer to some esoteric forms of

Christianity ,Kabbalah, Sufism or is it closer to mainstream

versions or those religions

 

Kabbalah is esoteric side of judaism, as sufism - of Islam.

Christianity i mean spiritual/gnostic one, not orthodox. Thou

something common is even there.

 

There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.

 

A.

[Guest guest]

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> I meant that hinduism, which is called "sanatani". Dharma that is

> based on smarta-shastras, puranas and itihasas. If U concider

> beliefs of general hindus, that will be what i speak of. "Karma-

> Dharma, samsara, Atman-Brahman, yoga" :-)))

> We can say that tantra is in many ways different from smarta-

dharma,

> pauranika-dharma, 6 darshanas incl. yoga and vedanta etc. Of

course,

> it shares much common as well - cultural base and language were

the

> same, but differences are more significant.

 

 

Many tantras speak of themselves as essence of Veda. They say that

they are based on veda. It is also important to remember the

Atharvana Veda- tantra connection. Kularnava says that a yogini is

pleased by only those who follows vedas. Numerous tantras recognise

veda as an authority. Some tantras talk about dharma too. Ex:

Mahanirvana tantra. The dharma spoken of in Mahanirvana for the most

part is similar to the dharma as spoken as in Smirti-Shastra.

Tantras do talk about samsara,yoga,bhoga, dharma,Brahman/Atman.

 

As for differences, they exist in darshanas itself. Each darshana

differs from one another. So what is different or significant about

tantra having its own differences from others?

 

> From social point of view there's no doubt in this. However in its

> doctrine and soteriology it differs from common hindu beliefs

> sometimes very much.

 

Am not convinced about this. That which is tantric doctrine is a

type of hindu doctrine. That doctrine and soteriology of KSh is

Hindu.

Ex: Abhinava says moksha is thru Jnana and Shankara says the same.

They differ in the technique of how Jnana occurs. So do

Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya differ.

 

> It depends. For example, when i spoke of vamachara in ambaa_l

group,

> those kind people had thrown me out of their group :-))). No

doubt,

> that group is mostly hindu...

 

You werent thrown out. You are still a member there and can make

postings, though moderated.

 

Ambaa-l is a devotional group. One of the many objectives for ambaa-

l is to make devotional literature on Devi and Shiva accessible to

kids(ppl aged below 15). I am sure you dont want to talk about

vamachara concepts like maithuna and bali(as someone else posted

there about offering eyeballs to Devi) with kids. That is one of the

reasons posts on vamachara get deleted there.

 

Your postings there are moderated only by 5 members. Their rejection

does not speak anything of hinduism in general.

 

>

> >A major portion of rituals followed by current hindus are from

> tantra.

>

> No, not at all. Correctly speaking, U mean agamic rituals, but it

is

> not equal to tantric. Most pancharatra- and vaikhanasa-agamas of

> vaishnavas and siddhanta- and raudra-agamas of shaivas has nothing

> to do with tantrism. And they are the base of ritualism etc. Yes,

in

> some temples tantric worship was conducted SECRETLY, like in

> Vishvanatha of Kashi and Jagannatha of Puri.

 

 

Schloars both traditional and western speak of pancharatra as

Vaishnava tantra.

Agama is Shaiva tantra.

Pancharatra/Vaikhanasa is Vaishnava tantra.

Hence it will be still correct to say that a major portion of

rituals are from tantra.Temple worship in Kerala is mostly tantric.

Sri Sankara Menon can clarify/correct me here. Likewise a good

number of North Indian temples seem to follow procedures as

described in tantras.

 

> >Even some vedic rituals show some strong tantric influence.

>

> It is some tantric rituals have vedic influense :-). Vedas are

much

> older. Curious enough, vaidika-dharma share again more common with

> tantrika, than with common smarta...

 

 

Both are true. One needs to see the vaidika karmas being performed

traditionally and see for themselves how much of tantric influence

is there in current vaidika karma.

 

 

SA.