Post 1/3
This stuff belongs in this thread only for point 3 below (post 3). The rest of this serial spam is the impetus, and response, and other inevitabilities (and unwarranted digressions).
rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/quick-notes-apostates-medileaks.html
The situation's more complicated. See at end of post 2. Post 3 is about why Taoism is a good independent system for comparison.
1. But before I get to that, first the basics: why does Buddhism get equal let alone any credit for the Skt terms employed above - "brahman, rta, lila, karma, samsara" - or the conception behind them? Several of them are Hindu-specific, and those that aren't, are still borrowed from Hindu religion into Buddhism (and some of those got revised meanings, i.e. replacement theology).
Kaku was in a way correct - though for different reasons, IMO - that Buddhism cannot by itself explain cosmology in physics (and hence he ended up invoking an odd combination of both Buddhism and christianism: and even in combination it was still a very poor match for physics cosmology), whereas both Hindu religion by itself and Taoism by itself have provided parallel cosmological explanations that can find very decent matches with physics cosmology. (See post 106.) Though the ability of the former (Hindu cosmology) to match becomes suspect for another reason.
First, Hindu religion has cosmological views built-in that are particularly non-existent (even rejected) in Buddhism/Jainism.
Pre-emptively: there's no point pointing to Tibetan "Buddhist" Yab-Yum to declare that one form of Buddhism agreed to and therefore posseses the Hindu cosmological view "too": No, Buddhism doesn't. Since Yab-Yum is obviously a [poorly and badly] masked Uma-Shiva, and - what is more relevant in this instance - Buddhism was naturally forced to mask the obvious Hindu cosmological significance, since it would otherwise not only have betrayed the Hindu origins of Yab-Yum imagery and identity but also since the Hindy cosmology is at odds with Buddhism [and Jainism] at a fundamental level. Yab-Yum's meaning has been changed to just compassion and Buddhist wisdom, and hence has no real place and the "father-mother" reference loses its meaning, being just vestigial (having been pointlessly taken over from Hindu religion).
[As an aside, that Yab-Yum is to mean father and mother is intriguing. In Mandarin and I think Taiwanese too, Abba and Amma are the reference to what's Pitaa and Maataa in Sanskrit, aka Appa and Amma in Tamizh etc or Papa and Mama in NL. In Japanese, at least a Tokyo dialect uses Appa and Amma [ICHTS/OW], while in Korea the words are Appa and Omma/Amma. So Chinese is the closest to Yab-Yum then. Then again, Sino-Tibetan are supposed to be related.]
Now to backtrack: Yab-Yum [Father-Mother] imagery in Tibet is a (Bad) Masking of Uma-Shiva in divine romantic union.
It is another case of *Bad* Masking by Buddhism, because the depiction makes sense only in Hindoo religion - where it furthermore makes perfect sense - since *theistic* (i.e. the original, Vedic, pre-Classical) Sankhyam explains cosmology, whereas the later Classical, non-theistic Sankhya does *NOT* have a view of cosmology, but simply assumes the sankhyan enumeration is true (without questioning its origins) and proceeds to draw conclusions on the state of life/consciousness and what is to be done about it etc.
Look here, official quote (by a Hindoo, same source as the quoteblock here):
Whereas the original, i.e. pre-Classical Samkhya starts with cosmology, and is founded on it. I.e. the Vedic sankhyam view is Da Only Indic tradition that shows proof of derivation, i.e. shows its working on how/where the understanding of the Sankhya view is derived. All other Indic traditions and religions that merely imported/inherited sankhya do NOT have the cosmological view (only the theistic, pre-Classical=Vedic Sankhya does), and instead just start from the assumption that the Classical Sankhyan view is more or less the case, with or without a few alterations.
Specifically, the non-theistic Classical Sankhya does not question how the assumed status quo came to be, it just assumes/accepts this is the case, and tries to propose solutions. Classical sankhyam dumped the cosmological part, since theism was regarded as an unnecessary extra variable and origins were too distant to prove anyway and not considered relevant to the "problem" of the situation at hand. Classicial Sankhya does not resolve the question of where its assumption derives from/why it must be. That is, no proof is given: what is thought to be the status quo in Sankhyam is simply assumed, before it largely repeats the rest of the sankhyan view derived from Vedic tradition.
(And Buddhism and Jainism consequently also never took over or accepted the Hindoo cosmological part of the original, Hindoo sankhyam perception. Besides, the Hindoo cosmological view would be militating against Buddhism and Jainism at a fundamental level, so Buddhism and Jainism simply can't encroach on that part.)
What has all this got to do with the Yab-Yum seen in Tibet? Well, in the exclusively-Hindoo, pre-Classical, theistic Sankhya, Prakriti and Purusha are 2 uh 'parts' or stages or whatever of the puruShottama/ishwara. And the origins of the universe is explained with the combination of Purusha and the Prakriti part/side of Purushottama - Ardhanareeshwara. Remember the Hindoo Gods refer to themselves as both Father and Mother, and refer to Prakriti as the Mother of all that came to be, and moreover refer to Prakriti as their own Shakti aka Yoni aka Maya aka Devaatmashakti etc. That is, Prakriti is itself of Ishwara/PuruShottama, the two are not separate and Prakriti is a part of/aspect (or whatever the word) of puruShottama.
Since the technical terms used in the Vedic (incl Upanishadic) literature on the original=theistic=pre-Classical=Vedic Sankhyam include specifically Yoni and Lingam (the latter as IIRC the join pt) and represent not just the Kosmos - all that came to be - but its origins, the image of what is specifically referred to as mAtA-pItA being joined in this romantic union (which is true at multiple levels) is a reference only to the original theistic=cosmological Hindu Sankhyan view. That is why Yab-Yum imagery logically cannot have Buddhist antecedents (let alone any independent one); but then, it's already known that it is derived from Hindoo religion. More than merely derived, it is badly masked and the imagery ultimately makes no sense in Buddhism.
[Also, some Yab-Yum Tibetan "Buddhist" imagery seem to show the Mother half almost like it's emerging from the Father and joining in divine romantic union, which only further underlines the fact that it's in origin a Hindu depiction: Shakti/Prakriti is an innate ...feature of Purushottama itself (not a separate entity) and when combined with the puruSha part of the puruShottama, the cosmos/All is created of which Shiva and Shakti have become its Parents - officially referred to as such as per SL, IIRC. This is also echoed in the carnatic song Seetamma Maayamma where the composer declares knowingly that Rama is their Father and Seetaa their Mother. Etc.]
Buddhism clearly didn't know what to do with the Yab-Yum depiction and, despite continuing the charade that this would be "Avalokiteshwara" and his Buddhist female counterpart (the Bauddhified Tara), Buddhism could not actually explain the image (forget its origination) other than excusing it away as being "Buddhist tantra". (Which is actually another thing that was in many respects just a meaningless port into Buddhism, with revised views. And let's not start on the rites Buddhism stole I mean lifted from Daoism.) Buddhism has only kept one part of the original Hindu explanation: the Father part as "compassion" and the Mother as "wisdom". While Uma was always brahmavidyA in Vedic literature - the knowledge of mukti - and Shiva is naturally karuNAnidhi and hence grants mukti (shivaanugraham, one of the five acts of Ishwara) - though in Buddhism that is not what the compassion refers to and wisdom refers to Buddhist knowledge and specifically not brahmavidyA - Buddhism just cannot explain the actual depiction and why it is. Why should compassion be in romantic union with wisdom. Buddhism fidgets at this point and declares this is a "deep tantric view" - i.e. the usual excuse Buddhism gives to mask Hindu origins.
But it *only* makes sense for 1. the *Hindu* Gods to be depicted in romantic divine union AND 2. for such depictions to thus specifically be called Father-Mother depictions, because the image actually is that Father-Mother generated the Kosmos and that its being in existence is a product of them. <= I.e. the exclusively *Hindu* cosmological view of the original theistic (Vedic) Sankhyam, a.o.t. that of the later non-theist Sankhyam* and Buddhisms and Jainisms, which Do Not Have this view.
[Classical sankhyam merely didn't care to assume the cosmological part of the fuller original pre-Classical sankhyam view of Hindoos' Vedic religion. In contrast, Buddhism and Jainism spun out with entirely different yet nevertheless derived cosmological views. E.g. even the whole "Sakala Purushas" of Jainism shows not only that its view of the post-kaivalya state remains of eternal distinction not only of individual puruShas, as with classical sankhyam, but that it was never originally joined in any one thing/a singular state (i.e. Jainism gives no cosmological origin for sankhyan views that it imported from Vedic religion) and never will be joined either, and - fundamentally - that there is no Ishwara in Jainism. Jainism and Buddhism copied a lot from Hindoos religion (and the direction of copying is obvious and demonstrable as it happened at a certain stage of sankhyam re-formulation), but nevertheless their copying was with important limitations. The most obvious being that they don't have the Hindoo cosmological view.]
BTW:
It is absurd for modern Indians to conclude, as they seem to do these days, that because of superficial similarities in form - which were entirely plagiarised by Buddhism from Hindu religion - that there is any actual, true relation or connection between Shaivam/Shaktam (and Hindoo tantra) and Buddhist tantra. Choosing to draw connections for such superficial reasons makes about as much sense as declaring that Vedanta and Buddhism are saying the same thing (which is that other nonsense). Hindus don't seem to realise that the reason Tibetan Buddhism looks similar to any degree (and the extinct Indian Mahayana Buddhism looked similar to any degree) to Hindu religion is *because* these Buddhisms were doing replacement theology of Hindu religion: Buddhism took over outward forms but then gave its own novel, Buddhist cosmological and theological meanings to pre-existing Hindoo matters, replacing the proper, original views. Instead of today's Indians knowing to recognise what is important - i.e. the fundamental differences, the substance - modern Indians prefer to be taken in (e.g. as I used to be) by the outwardly similar appearance of some Buddhisms - which similarity was deliberately assumed for missionising purposes by the way - and which are entirely owing to Buddhist inculturation and plagiarism on Hindu religion (the outer form, the style). Such modern Indian tendencies to conflate or group inculturating Buddhism with Hindu religion because of these aspects is serving to both fuel further Buddhist attempts at missionising on Hindus and to further cement the modern Buddhist theory that it is all equally and originally Buddhist, no different from how christian inculturation is used to missionise and to declare that all inculturated things were equally/originally christian.
This stuff belongs in this thread only for point 3 below (post 3). The rest of this serial spam is the impetus, and response, and other inevitabilities (and unwarranted digressions).
rajeev2004.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/quick-notes-apostates-medileaks.html
Quote:Heisenberg and The Tao of Physics: Heisenberg was well aware of the emphasis on interconnectedness in Eastern thought. However, he had been unaware of the dynamic aspect of the Eastern world view and was intrigued when I showed him with numerous examples from my manuscript that the principal Sanskrit terms used in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy-brahman, rta, lila, karma, samsara, etc.-had dynamic connotations. At the end of my rather long presentation of the manuscript Heisenberg said simply: "Basically, I am in complete agreement with you."
The situation's more complicated. See at end of post 2. Post 3 is about why Taoism is a good independent system for comparison.
1. But before I get to that, first the basics: why does Buddhism get equal let alone any credit for the Skt terms employed above - "brahman, rta, lila, karma, samsara" - or the conception behind them? Several of them are Hindu-specific, and those that aren't, are still borrowed from Hindu religion into Buddhism (and some of those got revised meanings, i.e. replacement theology).
Kaku was in a way correct - though for different reasons, IMO - that Buddhism cannot by itself explain cosmology in physics (and hence he ended up invoking an odd combination of both Buddhism and christianism: and even in combination it was still a very poor match for physics cosmology), whereas both Hindu religion by itself and Taoism by itself have provided parallel cosmological explanations that can find very decent matches with physics cosmology. (See post 106.) Though the ability of the former (Hindu cosmology) to match becomes suspect for another reason.
First, Hindu religion has cosmological views built-in that are particularly non-existent (even rejected) in Buddhism/Jainism.
Pre-emptively: there's no point pointing to Tibetan "Buddhist" Yab-Yum to declare that one form of Buddhism agreed to and therefore posseses the Hindu cosmological view "too": No, Buddhism doesn't. Since Yab-Yum is obviously a [poorly and badly] masked Uma-Shiva, and - what is more relevant in this instance - Buddhism was naturally forced to mask the obvious Hindu cosmological significance, since it would otherwise not only have betrayed the Hindu origins of Yab-Yum imagery and identity but also since the Hindy cosmology is at odds with Buddhism [and Jainism] at a fundamental level. Yab-Yum's meaning has been changed to just compassion and Buddhist wisdom, and hence has no real place and the "father-mother" reference loses its meaning, being just vestigial (having been pointlessly taken over from Hindu religion).
[As an aside, that Yab-Yum is to mean father and mother is intriguing. In Mandarin and I think Taiwanese too, Abba and Amma are the reference to what's Pitaa and Maataa in Sanskrit, aka Appa and Amma in Tamizh etc or Papa and Mama in NL. In Japanese, at least a Tokyo dialect uses Appa and Amma [ICHTS/OW], while in Korea the words are Appa and Omma/Amma. So Chinese is the closest to Yab-Yum then. Then again, Sino-Tibetan are supposed to be related.]
Now to backtrack: Yab-Yum [Father-Mother] imagery in Tibet is a (Bad) Masking of Uma-Shiva in divine romantic union.
It is another case of *Bad* Masking by Buddhism, because the depiction makes sense only in Hindoo religion - where it furthermore makes perfect sense - since *theistic* (i.e. the original, Vedic, pre-Classical) Sankhyam explains cosmology, whereas the later Classical, non-theistic Sankhya does *NOT* have a view of cosmology, but simply assumes the sankhyan enumeration is true (without questioning its origins) and proceeds to draw conclusions on the state of life/consciousness and what is to be done about it etc.
Look here, official quote (by a Hindoo, same source as the quoteblock here):
Quote:in classical Samkhya, the analysis of Prakriti into categories does not seem to have much of a cosmological significance. It is primarily soteriological [...]
Whereas the original, i.e. pre-Classical Samkhya starts with cosmology, and is founded on it. I.e. the Vedic sankhyam view is Da Only Indic tradition that shows proof of derivation, i.e. shows its working on how/where the understanding of the Sankhya view is derived. All other Indic traditions and religions that merely imported/inherited sankhya do NOT have the cosmological view (only the theistic, pre-Classical=Vedic Sankhya does), and instead just start from the assumption that the Classical Sankhyan view is more or less the case, with or without a few alterations.
Specifically, the non-theistic Classical Sankhya does not question how the assumed status quo came to be, it just assumes/accepts this is the case, and tries to propose solutions. Classical sankhyam dumped the cosmological part, since theism was regarded as an unnecessary extra variable and origins were too distant to prove anyway and not considered relevant to the "problem" of the situation at hand. Classicial Sankhya does not resolve the question of where its assumption derives from/why it must be. That is, no proof is given: what is thought to be the status quo in Sankhyam is simply assumed, before it largely repeats the rest of the sankhyan view derived from Vedic tradition.
(And Buddhism and Jainism consequently also never took over or accepted the Hindoo cosmological part of the original, Hindoo sankhyam perception. Besides, the Hindoo cosmological view would be militating against Buddhism and Jainism at a fundamental level, so Buddhism and Jainism simply can't encroach on that part.)
What has all this got to do with the Yab-Yum seen in Tibet? Well, in the exclusively-Hindoo, pre-Classical, theistic Sankhya, Prakriti and Purusha are 2 uh 'parts' or stages or whatever of the puruShottama/ishwara. And the origins of the universe is explained with the combination of Purusha and the Prakriti part/side of Purushottama - Ardhanareeshwara. Remember the Hindoo Gods refer to themselves as both Father and Mother, and refer to Prakriti as the Mother of all that came to be, and moreover refer to Prakriti as their own Shakti aka Yoni aka Maya aka Devaatmashakti etc. That is, Prakriti is itself of Ishwara/PuruShottama, the two are not separate and Prakriti is a part of/aspect (or whatever the word) of puruShottama.
Since the technical terms used in the Vedic (incl Upanishadic) literature on the original=theistic=pre-Classical=Vedic Sankhyam include specifically Yoni and Lingam (the latter as IIRC the join pt) and represent not just the Kosmos - all that came to be - but its origins, the image of what is specifically referred to as mAtA-pItA being joined in this romantic union (which is true at multiple levels) is a reference only to the original theistic=cosmological Hindu Sankhyan view. That is why Yab-Yum imagery logically cannot have Buddhist antecedents (let alone any independent one); but then, it's already known that it is derived from Hindoo religion. More than merely derived, it is badly masked and the imagery ultimately makes no sense in Buddhism.
[Also, some Yab-Yum Tibetan "Buddhist" imagery seem to show the Mother half almost like it's emerging from the Father and joining in divine romantic union, which only further underlines the fact that it's in origin a Hindu depiction: Shakti/Prakriti is an innate ...feature of Purushottama itself (not a separate entity) and when combined with the puruSha part of the puruShottama, the cosmos/All is created of which Shiva and Shakti have become its Parents - officially referred to as such as per SL, IIRC. This is also echoed in the carnatic song Seetamma Maayamma where the composer declares knowingly that Rama is their Father and Seetaa their Mother. Etc.]
Buddhism clearly didn't know what to do with the Yab-Yum depiction and, despite continuing the charade that this would be "Avalokiteshwara" and his Buddhist female counterpart (the Bauddhified Tara), Buddhism could not actually explain the image (forget its origination) other than excusing it away as being "Buddhist tantra". (Which is actually another thing that was in many respects just a meaningless port into Buddhism, with revised views. And let's not start on the rites Buddhism stole I mean lifted from Daoism.) Buddhism has only kept one part of the original Hindu explanation: the Father part as "compassion" and the Mother as "wisdom". While Uma was always brahmavidyA in Vedic literature - the knowledge of mukti - and Shiva is naturally karuNAnidhi and hence grants mukti (shivaanugraham, one of the five acts of Ishwara) - though in Buddhism that is not what the compassion refers to and wisdom refers to Buddhist knowledge and specifically not brahmavidyA - Buddhism just cannot explain the actual depiction and why it is. Why should compassion be in romantic union with wisdom. Buddhism fidgets at this point and declares this is a "deep tantric view" - i.e. the usual excuse Buddhism gives to mask Hindu origins.
But it *only* makes sense for 1. the *Hindu* Gods to be depicted in romantic divine union AND 2. for such depictions to thus specifically be called Father-Mother depictions, because the image actually is that Father-Mother generated the Kosmos and that its being in existence is a product of them. <= I.e. the exclusively *Hindu* cosmological view of the original theistic (Vedic) Sankhyam, a.o.t. that of the later non-theist Sankhyam* and Buddhisms and Jainisms, which Do Not Have this view.
[Classical sankhyam merely didn't care to assume the cosmological part of the fuller original pre-Classical sankhyam view of Hindoos' Vedic religion. In contrast, Buddhism and Jainism spun out with entirely different yet nevertheless derived cosmological views. E.g. even the whole "Sakala Purushas" of Jainism shows not only that its view of the post-kaivalya state remains of eternal distinction not only of individual puruShas, as with classical sankhyam, but that it was never originally joined in any one thing/a singular state (i.e. Jainism gives no cosmological origin for sankhyan views that it imported from Vedic religion) and never will be joined either, and - fundamentally - that there is no Ishwara in Jainism. Jainism and Buddhism copied a lot from Hindoos religion (and the direction of copying is obvious and demonstrable as it happened at a certain stage of sankhyam re-formulation), but nevertheless their copying was with important limitations. The most obvious being that they don't have the Hindoo cosmological view.]
BTW:
It is absurd for modern Indians to conclude, as they seem to do these days, that because of superficial similarities in form - which were entirely plagiarised by Buddhism from Hindu religion - that there is any actual, true relation or connection between Shaivam/Shaktam (and Hindoo tantra) and Buddhist tantra. Choosing to draw connections for such superficial reasons makes about as much sense as declaring that Vedanta and Buddhism are saying the same thing (which is that other nonsense). Hindus don't seem to realise that the reason Tibetan Buddhism looks similar to any degree (and the extinct Indian Mahayana Buddhism looked similar to any degree) to Hindu religion is *because* these Buddhisms were doing replacement theology of Hindu religion: Buddhism took over outward forms but then gave its own novel, Buddhist cosmological and theological meanings to pre-existing Hindoo matters, replacing the proper, original views. Instead of today's Indians knowing to recognise what is important - i.e. the fundamental differences, the substance - modern Indians prefer to be taken in (e.g. as I used to be) by the outwardly similar appearance of some Buddhisms - which similarity was deliberately assumed for missionising purposes by the way - and which are entirely owing to Buddhist inculturation and plagiarism on Hindu religion (the outer form, the style). Such modern Indian tendencies to conflate or group inculturating Buddhism with Hindu religion because of these aspects is serving to both fuel further Buddhist attempts at missionising on Hindus and to further cement the modern Buddhist theory that it is all equally and originally Buddhist, no different from how christian inculturation is used to missionise and to declare that all inculturated things were equally/originally christian.
Death to traitors.