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.

One of my main problems with Indian religions has always been cult-like and occult-like practices that is present in it, especially Hinduism. I thought Buddhism, given what Buddha taught, would be immune to it but it doesn't seem so. Vajrayana consists of weird mantra chantings, doing of taboo stuff like alcohol and sexual orgies. Many Buddhists online seem to say "Oh no no, it is not just about sex. Westerners are misinterpreting it!" but sex DOES seem to be a huge part of tantra and therefore Vajrayana. Whereas Buddhism teaches self-restraint, Vajrayana teaches doing sexual orgies and chanting mantras and remembering aweful looking deities while doing it. The practices are esoteric and has to be done under the guidance of a guru. This is seriously cult 101. You can study anthropology and religious studies, almost every single cult revolves around these kind of practices. A lot of abuse happen under these things - there are gurus who pretend that the illicit sex they are having with disciples or consorts or children are not bad but part of the 'path to enlightenment' and in the process simply use their influence to get sex and rape/groom people. One of the reasons despite being born in a Hindu family I distanced myself from Hinduism was the, what Abrahamic religions would call, 'demonic' practices - strange rituals, gods who are immoral and make people do immoral things, leads to insanity, frauds and immorality, esotericism, etc. Abrahamics already have a very negative view of Hinduism and Buddhism, and things like tantra and Vajrayana are definitely not helping. Why is such a school of practice allowed in Buddhism?

I have been practicing Buddhist meditation for a few years, mostly from reading translations of the Buddha's original discourses, as well as some Prajnaparamita sutras from Mahayana Buddhism. I've always been intrigued by Vajrayana, but most of the source texts don't seem to have quality English translations, especially the more esoteric Tantric practices. Are there any good texts that go into detail about the principles and practices of Vajrayana, preferably with translations of source texts? So far I've read the Robert Thurman book, which was a bit underwhelming in terms of practical value.

Buddhism although doesn't address the path of the gods for enlightment, it is seen that they are largely addressed for their existence. There are entities - dakinis, pisachinis, etc that are negative demons and are acknowledged. In Hinduism, there are methods in *tantra* to invoke *kavacchas* (or shields) to protect the physical self and materialistic self from those negative entities. They largely require deities who take part in shields and project their fellow human being. Are there any alternative practices in Buddhism too - to prevent or stop negative entities (if they exist) from being a burden on the spiritual journey of enlightenment? Like invoking shields in Hinduism or anything parallel?

Namaste, Namo Buddhaya. I'm here in my personal pursuit to understand *death* and *soul* from various perspectives. A few days back I was reading texts on life, death, and reincarnation and got to know that there exist some meditations that cause *OBEs* (Out-of-body Experiences), an important part of NDEs (Near-death Experiences). Biologists and doctors while simulating NDEs in labs concluded that a very large portion of people recall OBE experiences. The official Wikipedia page on NDEs does mentions that: > A three-year longitudinal study has revealed that some Buddhist > meditation practitioners are able to willfully induce near-death > experiences at a pre-planned point in time. Unlike traditional NDEs, > participants were consciously aware of experiencing the > meditation-induced NDE and retained control over its content and > duration. The Dalai Lama has also asserted that experienced > meditators can deliberately induce the NDE state during meditation, > being able to recognize and sustain it. So there are certain medications that can induce OBEs (or roughly, NDEs) too. In the meantime to further research I found a few links on such meditations, one by a Hindu Guru Swami Sivananda : > During the course of practice, one day you will feel that you have > separated yourself from the body. You will have immense joy mixed with > fear, joy in the possession of a new, light, astral body, fear owing > to the entry in a foreign, unknown plane. At the very outset, the new > consciousness is very rudimentary in the new plane, just as in the > case of a pup with newly opened eyes in the eighth or tenth day on the > physical plane. where he tells the experiences of OBEs. Unfortunately, he doesn't elaborate on the details of the meditation. I assumed it was particularly meditation on a point between eyebrows and after a month of practice, I don't see any progress particularly here. I just wish to know what form of meditation in Buddhism (apart from Yoga Nidra Tantra in Hinduism which is basically just hypnosis from sleep) causes OBEs? If my efforts are in the right place.

I've seen variations on some of the last few chakras as white instead of violet or purple, so I'm wondering what are the official/original - from Sanskrit (?) - colors?

I am starting to explore [Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra](https://wisdomcompassion.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Luminous-Essence-A-Guide-to-the-Guhyagarbha-Tantra.pdf) , where in the first section on the "title", says: > All phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are inseparable with the enlightened state; **they dwell primordially as the eternal wheel of adornment of enlightened body, speech, and mind**. Not knowing much Tibetan buddhism (yet), what is meant by the "wheel" exactly? And by the wheel of "adornment"? Finally, what does it mean to dwell **primordially**, what is the actual word used that is translated to primordial from Tibetan? Same with the word wheel, what is the Tibetan word for it and also what is it talking about more specifically?

The [Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra](https://wisdomcompassion.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Luminous-Essence-A-Guide-to-the-Guhyagarbha-Tantra.pdf) says "This universal tantra of the great **Magical Net** is a secret among secrets". Later it says: > Accordingly, mahāyoga teaches the complete nature of the ground, path, and fruition of the entire mantra vehicle. It is, therefore, essential to develop certainty regarding all aspects of mantra practice based on mahāyoga. Mahāyoga belongs to the inner tantras of secret mantra, and can itself be divided into an infinite number of categories. These all come about through the play of wisdom of the **magical net**. Later they refer to "the wheel of the magical net." In several other places "magical net" is mentioned. What is the magical net? Is that literally the etymology of "Guhyagarbha"? Searching the web reveals [mayajala](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/mayajala) , but no insight is to be gained easily looking at that word.

I am starting to explore [Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra](https://wisdomcompassion.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Luminous-Essence-A-Guide-to-the-Guhyagarbha-Tantra.pdf) , where in the first section on the "title", says: > All phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are inseparable with the enlightened state; they dwell primordially as the eternal wheel of adornment of enlightened body, speech, and mind. Th is is what is meant by the term _secret_. It is referred to as such because **those who are obscured and unfit to receive these teachings do not realize this**, although it is **genuinely realized** by the profound wisdom mind of the victorious ones. It is secret in the sense that the three bodies go unrecognized due to the veils of temporary obscurations, though they are present within. Moreover, the profound views that reveal this presence are not known through one’s own power, nor are they pointed out by another, and, even if they are, they are hard to realize. In this way, they are hidden. Furthermore, unless this special view, meditation, and conduct are concealed from those who are unfit to receive these teachings, **the seal of secrecy will be broken and they will be misconstrued. Therefore, it is not taught to such individuals and must be concealed.** In this way, it is secret, both in the sense of being unseen and concealed. _(bold added by me)_ What are they saying exactly here? Why must it be concealed exactly? What is at risk? To me it sounds like they are saying, trying to describe the teachings of this Tantra to someone who is not ready or capable of hearing it will just make it even harder for them to understand its meaning, because they will not realize what you are saying and it will harden them in their own stance in disbelief of the teachings. So it is better to just keep it a secret and let them discover it for themselves. I could be way off, I know very little about Tibetan Buddhism so far, but I would like to explore what they are saying and not sure the full impact of what they mean when they talk about "the secret".

When you first learn about mandalas, you learn about [sand paintings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala) : But in the Guhyagarbha tantra, outlined in [Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra](https://wisdomcompassion.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Luminous-Essence-A-Guide-to-the-Guhyagarbha-Tantra.pdf) , it is said: > The _subject matter_ of this tantra is the **maṇḍala of the ground**, the ultimate natural state of all phenomena, which is primordially of an enlightened nature within great purity and equality. Moreover, the tantra also shows the path, the various means that allow one to actualize this ground either directly or indirectly. Finally, the tantra reveals the maṇḍala of the fruition—perfect, total purity. In short, the tantra teaches the profound realization of mantra, as subsumed within ground, path, and fruition. Where can I find more information on this deeper meaning of mandala. What is the mandala of the ground?

I am a total outsider not well-versed in the Buddhist tradition, and apologize in advance if some of the terms/names I'll write are placed out of context or misused. To cut the story short, I am looking for a transcription (and possibly translation into English) of a certain Tantric overtone singing (Rgyud Skad) [fragment](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hg7c1ty973k403o/fragment.wav?dl=0) , used as a sound effect at the end of each level in Painkiller 2004 videogame. According to my research, I believe it to be a sample from Yamāntaka mantra as performed by Gyütö Monks on [this](https://www.discogs.com/en/Tibetan-Institute-Of-Performing-Arts-Dhama-Suna-%E0%BD%96%E0%BD%A2%E0%BD%98%E0%BD%A6%E0%BD%A6/release/1327226) album, [4th track](https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1av0jtonl5epo2/mantra.mp3?dl=0) , starting at 0:32 time mark. I tried to make sense of the chanting by reading [Meditation on Vajrabhairava](http://lit.lib.ru/img/i/irhin_w_j/vadjrabhajrava/victory-over-evil.pdf) and attempting to "sync" the text by looking at the places where performers play the bell — obviously, I have little to no idea of what I am doing and that didn't ring any bells (pun intended) :)

I've read here , that: > As Dza Patrul Rinpoche candidly says (AKC 15): Ritual sessions four > times a day without the generation and completion stages, pounding > drums and clashing cymbals without reminding ourselves of pure > perception, droning mantras without any concentration: all that gets > us no further on the path to liberation. What is meant by "pure perception"? As I understood it, it means recognize Shunyata – but to recognize this, you need to be enlightened (?). **As a lay practitioner at the beginning of the path what is meant by "pure perception"?**

This stack exchange actually lead me towards the path of finding a lama and becoming a Buddhist. Thank You! This got me thinking, what would you tell sentient beings new to the path of Buddhism? Is there something you wish you knew when you started down it? Conversely is there something that could've been better explained now that you have been pursuing the path? **EDIT:** Given the great responses thus far I want to open this up to all forms of Buddhism. Not just Tibetan, I think there are valuable learnings in all approaches.

Is it true that sakadagami can have sex that is pure so between a wife and husband. how can one gain the attention of a wise man who intends to marry and upholds The Way of Noble Ones.

I recently read an introductory book on Tibetan Buddhism and intrigued by Tantra & Kalachakra practice. I have been practicing meditation for the last 2-3 years but not under the guidance of a guru. After struggling for 2-3 years I have finally realized the need of a guru so that I can start practicing seriously. Next year, I have 3-month vacation and I'm thinking about going to a monastery in India/Tibet (I live in India) where I can be initiated into tantric practice. **Which are some of the places in India and Tibet where Tantra/Kalachakra initiation is possible ?**

I always thought that "Vajra Posture" and "Lotus Posture" were simply two names for the same thing. But recently somebody told me that Vajra Posture is for males and Lotus Posture for females, though without explaining any physical difference. Searching turns up mostly interchangeable usage, and a few instances that confirm the male/female difference, though without explanation -- for example https://goo.gl/fxIi2Y and https://goo.gl/U0KKb1 Anybody know the story? Is there a male vs female difference? If so, is it the same physical posture, differing only in the gender of the practitioner, or is there an actual physical difference? Does it vary by tradition? (I suspect the difference is mainly found in the Tibetan / Vajrayana tradition, where the vajra symbolizes a male genital organ and the lotus a female organ.) -------------------- Addendum 8/30/2015. I wonder if what's called "half lotus position" in yoga is lotus position in Buddhism. In other words, in Buddhism vajra position is both feet up on opposite thighs, lotus position is just one foot up with the other on the mat. Evidence for this comes from this web site -- http://www.himalayanart.org/pages/glossary.cfm -- which is associated with the Rubin Museum (http://rubinmuseum.org/) -- this entry: > Asana (Skt.): seated or standing postures of which there are a variety > of prescribed forms arising from iconographic descriptions found in > religious texts. The names of the postures differ between religious > traditions. For example the lotus posture in Hatha Yoga is called > vajra posture in Buddhism. The half yoga posture in Hatha Yoga is > called the lotus posture in Buddhism. A problem here is that the term "half yoga posture" is not a standard yoga term (according to a web search). But perhaps they meant "half lotus". Here, by the way, is a site showing both, using the names from yoga: lotus and half-lotus -- http://www.wildmind.org/posture/lotus . If my conjecture is correct, these are what's known in Buddhsim as vajra and lotus position respectively. Even if this is correct, however, it does not address the gender connection. Maybe that is just a Vajrayana (Tantric) convention -- male figures use the vajra position and female figures the lotus position. But even if so, I'm sure there is a story behind it.

Where can I find the English / Chinese translation of the Kalachakra Tantra? (not commentary) Thank you.

Under what conditions is it proper for Buddhists of one tradition to try and proselytize Buddhists from another tradition? Under what conditions is it improper? What harm can be done? What fruits can be gained? Can cross-tradition debate be a good thing? Is it ever a bad thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful? Is it desirable to grant a modicum of respect for all traditions? How should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful dialogue and how can/should the line be drawn? Note: I'd prefer if these questions are not used to proselytize or engage in debate about Buddhist doctrine... but rather to answer the questions above. ... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

Wikipedia includes [this (unreferenced) sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81ramit%C4%81#Tibetan_Buddhism) : > According to the perspective of Tibetan Buddhism, Mahāyāna practitioners have the choice of two practice paths: the path of perfection (Sanskrit: *pāramitāyāna*) or the path of tantra (Sanskrit: *tantrayāna*), which is the Vajrayāna. Would you say a bit more about that (for someone who hasn't been taught Mahāyāna practice or Tibetan Buddhism)? For example, some related questions include: - Is the quoted sentence more-or-less true? - Is this a good high-level view of (introduction to, or taxonomy of) Tibetan Buddhism? - What are *pāramitāyāna* and *tantrayāna*: - What is the goal of each? - What is the purpose of each (do they tend toward the goal)? - What (or how) is the practice of each (how, for example, is the purpose implemented)? - To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?

Lama Atisha famously brought the teachings of Nalanda back to Tibet and authored his famous, A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment upon which the new translation schools were founded. This seminal text is the foundational document of the lamrim upon which all subsequent lamrims are based. Atisha did not seem to mention guru devotion in his lamrim. Spiritual teachers are mentioned only in the course of explaining how to properly receive the Bodhisattva vows and to receive Tantric initiations. Nowhere can I find the idea that guru devotion is the root of the path to enlightenment. Je Tsongkhapa on the other hand listed guru devotion towards the very beginning of his lamrim and it is widely taught in new translation schools that guru devotion is the root of the path to enlightenment. Why is this? Why would something so important and fundamental be left out entirely by Lama Atisha from his seminal text? Also, this is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said about guru devotion in *Questioning the Advice of the Guru*: > It is frequently said that the essence of the training in guru yoga is > to cultivate the art of seeing everything the guru does as perfect. > Personally I myself do not like this to be taken too far. Often we see > written in the scriptures, “Every action seen as perfect.” However, > this phrase must be seen in the light of Buddha Shakyamuni’s own > words: “Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst > buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith in me.” The problem with > the practice of seeing everything the guru does as perfect is that it > very easily turns to poison for both the guru and the disciple. > Therefore, whenever I teach this practice, I always advocate that the > tradition of “every action seen as perfect” not be stressed. Should > the guru manifest unDharmic qualities or give teachings contradicting > Dharma, the instruction on seeing the spiritual master as perfect must > give way to reason and Dharma wisdom. > > Perhaps you will think: “The Dalai Lama has not read the Lam Rim > scriptures. He does not know that there is no practice of Dharma > without the guru.” I am not being disrespectful of the Lam Rim > teachings. A student of the spiritual path should rely upon a teacher > and should meditate on that teacher’s kindness and good qualities; but > the teaching on seeing his or her actions as perfect can only be > applied within the context of the Dharma as a whole and the rational > approach to knowledge that it advocates. As the teachings on **seeing > the guru’s actions as perfect is borrowed from Highest Tantra and > appears in the Lam Rim mainly to prepare the trainee for tantric > practice**, beginners must treat it with caution. As for spiritual > teachers, if they misrepresent this precept of guru yoga in order to > take advantage of naive disciples, their actions are like pouring > the liquid fires of hell directly into their stomachs. Emphasis mine. If preparing the trainee for Tantric practice is the reason for adding it to the Lamrim, then is it true that guru devotion is not of such importance for those studying sutra only? In other words, can it be said that for those practicing *sutrayana only* that guru devotion is not the root of the path?