A blogger writing under the name of 'Durga Bhakti Tāraṅgiṇī' has published an article in which Vajrayāna Buddhism is directly accused of outright plagiarising deities and theological concepts from the Śākta and Śaiva streams of Āgamic Hinduism. According to the author, Vajrayāna did not merely absorb superficial cultural elements. It is accused of deliberately lifting and distorting core elements of the Āgamic traditions. To quote directly from their article - > Vajrayāna, a later Buddhist sect was influenced by Śaivism and > Śaktism. Rather than influencing others, it stole many concepts from > Āgamic cultures. Ancient Buddhism didn't observe Āgamic culture. Upon > entering Eastern India, it became influenced by Āgamic sects ( > Ḍāmarika, Kāpālika, Śākta, Kaula, Śaiva). They started to worship > various Devatās and Devīs. Thereafter they tried to destroy real > Āgamic rituals, sculptures and concepts. Here are some evidences of > their destructions. And further: > **the concepts of Pañca Dhyānībuddhas (Vajrōcana, Akṣobhya, > Ratnasambhava, Amitābha and Amoghasiddhi) came from the five forms of > Sadāśiva (Īśāna, Sadyojāta, Tatpuruṣa, Aghōra and Vāmadeva). They > destroyed the Rudra Khaṇḍa of Śivaliṅga and made the idols of Pañca > Dhyānībuddhas on the Yonīpīṭha or Gaurīpaṭṭa**. The author includes the Bodhisattva Tārā in this purported list of deities involved in iconographic plagiarism. > Vajrayānī Buddhists worship a different iconography of Tārādevī. She > is green in color and she has two hands. Except her, they also worship > 21 forms of Goddess Tārā. But the ironic fact is, the Green Tārā > iconography was also stolen from Śākta Śāstras This line of argumentation, which is not without precedent in polemical literature, raises significant questions for those versed in the historical evolution of Vajrayāna doctrine and praxis. The article cites a number of scholars and textual references to support its thesis of ideological and artistic borrowing. I would respectfully request insight from those deeply familiar with the doctrinal, historical, and ritual development of Vajrayāna Buddhism and comparative theology to offer clarification or rebuttal to the above claims based on historical sources and textual references.

I have a question regarding the early texts the question is : am I right to say that the Pali Canon is exclusively considered the Thervada text, while the Agama is the Mahayana Sutras or am I wrong maybe the Agama is also considered Thervadin. Do Thervadin scholars accept Agama as part of Thervada??. Thank you I appreciate your answers.

what's the emptiness, 空, in 3rd jhana of STED 4 jhana formula in agamas? https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/12/whats-emptiness-in-3rd-jhana-of-sted-4.html excerpt: The 4 jhanas standard formula in the agamas of MA, match up very closely with the pali STED 4 jhana formulas. There's a striking difference in the 3rd jhana though, which is not in the pali. There's a sunyata/kong/空 on this part of third jhana: 聖所捨、念、 樂住、 shèng suǒ shě, niàn, lè zhù the noble’s equanimity (捨), mindfulness, happy (樂) abode, 空，kōng and emptiness. 得第三禪成就遊， dé dì sān chán chéngjiù yóu He attains the accomplishment of the third meditation.