10-13-2006, 12:11 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 12 2006, 12:56 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 12 2006, 12:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->13. Many schools of Buddhism, that of Bhutan for example, are tantric.
Tantra is an inalienable component of the Veda mantras. If the author of the
Manimekhalai claimed that the Buddhists are vaidikas, he was correct. After
all, mantras are very central to Buddhism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]58984[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even the Nath sampraday (of Sri Goraksha Nath and Sri Matsyendra Nath) either originated from, or deep rooted in, or heavily influenced by Tantrik Buddhism. Does that mean Nath practiceners are not Hindu?
Good writing by KV. Where do you find his posts, Rajesh?
Tantra is an inalienable component of the Veda mantras. If the author of the
Manimekhalai claimed that the Buddhists are vaidikas, he was correct. After
all, mantras are very central to Buddhism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]58984[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even the Nath sampraday (of Sri Goraksha Nath and Sri Matsyendra Nath) either originated from, or deep rooted in, or heavily influenced by Tantrik Buddhism. Does that mean Nath practiceners are not Hindu?
Good writing by KV. Where do you find his posts, Rajesh?