Many Hindus and "scholars" say that Tantra evolved much later than the Vedas and Hinduism. They will tell you that Tantra is a "response" to some of the formalism found in Hinduism.
Tantrics, however, would suggest that just the opposite is true. I would contend that Tantra--or more accurately, proto-Tantra as Tantra evolves--came first and Hinduism evolved out of it. This is a highly heretical view to many Hindus, practically being offensive.
Just recently I obtained a copy of the book, "Secrets of Mantra, Tantra, Yantra, and Rudraksha" by Dr. Jaiprakash Sharma. In it he writes:
"Although it is generally believed that Hinduism stands on the tripod of the three (first) Bedas viz Rik, Saam and Jajur [more frequently translated as Rg or Rig, Sama and Yajur, respectively], the fact is that Hinduism's norms and worship-styles owe their origin to Tantra. For the principal deities of the Vedas are Prajapati, Agni, Indra and Varuna, the are no more an integral part of modern Hinduism. There are now hardly any specific temples dedicated to these deities. Now the dominant deities are Vishnu, Shiv, Shakti (Durga), Hanuman, etc. who are also the most revered deities of the Tantra disciplines."
In my opinion, this is both a surprisingly simply and surprisingly telling argument indicating that Tantra predated Hinduism. Why could it not be that Tantra came later and the deities common to Tantrics superseded those of the Vedas? Because that makes no sense. If that had occurred, the common faith in India would be Tantra and not the ritualized, bowdlerized, and sanitized version of Tantra that is called "Hinduism" today.
What do YOU think?
Namaste!
Tantrics, however, would suggest that just the opposite is true. I would contend that Tantra--or more accurately, proto-Tantra as Tantra evolves--came first and Hinduism evolved out of it. This is a highly heretical view to many Hindus, practically being offensive.
Just recently I obtained a copy of the book, "Secrets of Mantra, Tantra, Yantra, and Rudraksha" by Dr. Jaiprakash Sharma. In it he writes:
"Although it is generally believed that Hinduism stands on the tripod of the three (first) Bedas viz Rik, Saam and Jajur [more frequently translated as Rg or Rig, Sama and Yajur, respectively], the fact is that Hinduism's norms and worship-styles owe their origin to Tantra. For the principal deities of the Vedas are Prajapati, Agni, Indra and Varuna, the are no more an integral part of modern Hinduism. There are now hardly any specific temples dedicated to these deities. Now the dominant deities are Vishnu, Shiv, Shakti (Durga), Hanuman, etc. who are also the most revered deities of the Tantra disciplines."
In my opinion, this is both a surprisingly simply and surprisingly telling argument indicating that Tantra predated Hinduism. Why could it not be that Tantra came later and the deities common to Tantrics superseded those of the Vedas? Because that makes no sense. If that had occurred, the common faith in India would be Tantra and not the ritualized, bowdlerized, and sanitized version of Tantra that is called "Hinduism" today.
What do YOU think?
Namaste!
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
-
Re: Which Came First?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 7:13 AMAnthropologically speaking....
Religions around the world can be traced back to physical needs that were mysterious and somewhat frightening to our ancestors, the biggest being, of course, sex and childbirth. With this in mind, it makes no sense that highly stylized and ritualized religious icons as we find in Hinduism would supersede Tantra, which is itself concerned with the purpose for sex beyond procreation.
I can't really figure out why Hinduism would be considered to supersede Tantra, as Hinduism isn't overly concerned with any physical needs that could not be explained otherwise.
I hope this makes sense....it's still early here.
