Annnon Posted Wednesday at 09:46 PM The title is a quote from this comment I found on the Reddit about Tantra, the person who did the post said the following: "There is nothing such as Vajrayāna Buddhism, it is Cināchāra with Buddha-Pādukā, Buddhism has nothing to do with Vajrayāna. Just because Buddha-Pādukā is present, doesn't mean it's origin is marked by buddhism. The whole Vajrayāna Flourished as A part of Sahajayāna of Kaula dharma. Whatever these fanatic Modern day Buddhists believe does nothing to us Nepalese Following Sarvāmnāya. I bet these Rascals "Buddhists" doesn't even know what āmnāya they follow as well. Hypocrites" I'm new to the "Tantra world", I understood Vajrayana Buddhism as being a form of "Tantric Buddhism", but it seems like the majority of the deities there comes from Indian Tantric Systems and he says that Vajrayana is not even buddhist. Anyone who knows more about this or disagrees, feel free to share your opinion. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted Wednesday at 10:14 PM The exact origins of Vajrayana are hard to pin down historically. However I think it is fairly safe to say that the form of Buddhism which was transmitted to Tibet in two waves mainly in the 8th and 10th Centuries was the same as what was being practiced mainstream in Northern India at the time. And thus is actually Buddhism and not some kind of strange hybrid which the person is suggesting. I suspect the poster is Nepalese Hindu and thus is anti- Buddhist in some way which is uncertain. Those are my thoughts anyway. 3 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stirling Posted Wednesday at 10:51 PM In terms of what is Buddhist or not Buddhist there are a few things I like to keep in mind: The teachings of the Buddha weren't set down in writing until 500 years after his death, and were captured by disciples generations later. How pure are they to the intent of Gautama Buddha? We will never know. We do know that they have led many students to realization, and that should be the litmus test on which they are judged. Indian Buddhism and tantric Shiavism travelled to China and intermixed with the VERY compatible Dao, Tibetan folk/Vajrayana, and Ch'an practices creating Tibetan Buddhism, Daoism, and Zen. Teachers didn't really keep these separate as "schools" until MUCH later. We do know that they have led many students to realization, and that should be the litmus test on which they are judged. An enlightened teacher will tell you that ALL of these (and let's add Sufi poets, Patanjali, the Upanishads and MUCH MORE) point to the same things, and that their practices works from different aspects to illuminate the students. What matters is that the authors of these works and the teachers that teach them UNDERSTAND what is being said. We do know that they have led many students to realization, and that should be the litmus test on which they are judged. My opinion is that Buddhism isn't about Guatama Buddha, it is about ALL Buddhas, including the ones at your local Tibetan Buddhist center. - Food for thought: Buddhism of any kind, and in fact any set of practices, has nothing to do with enlightenment. Holding this question in your mind might even be what "enlightens" "you". 2 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard Posted Thursday at 09:27 AM 11 hours ago, Annnon said: Anyone who knows more about this or disagrees, feel free to share your opinion. Basically another iteration of "my kung fu is better than yours." Ignore them all but embrace this philosophy: "Many paths lead to the top of the mountain." 4 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salvijus Posted Friday at 09:06 AM (edited) Vajrayana is maybe 10% buddhism 90% everything else. It's a bit cringe that "buddhism" is their front cover title to me. You might aswell call them druids or shamans or christians or satanists and you'll be just as accurate. Edited Friday at 09:06 AM by Salvijus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted Friday at 11:55 AM 2 hours ago, Salvijus said: Vajrayana is maybe 10% buddhism 90% everything else. It's a bit cringe that "buddhism" is their front cover title to me. You might aswell call them druids or shamans or christians or satanists and you'll be just as accurate. I practice Vajrayana and it is 100% Buddhist. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve Posted Friday at 11:59 AM 2 minutes ago, Apech said: I practice Vajrayana and it is 100% Buddhist. I practice Vajrayana and it is 100% Bön. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted Friday at 12:06 PM (edited) 3 hours ago, Salvijus said: Vajrayana is maybe 10% buddhism ... 11 minutes ago, Apech said: I practice Vajrayana and it is 100% Buddhist. 7 minutes ago, steve said: I practice Vajrayana and it is 100% Bön. Cry emoji. What's up with that? Please don't confuse the little children Spoiler i.e. learner me Edited Friday at 12:07 PM by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted Friday at 12:44 PM 32 minutes ago, Cobie said: Cry emoji. What's up with that? Please don't confuse the little children Reveal hidden contents i.e. learner me I can’t speak for Bon but in the case of Buddhism it is deep in its central core and very flexible to outer social and cultural norms. That is why you have so many forms of Buddhism which seem very different outwardly but are all genuinely Buddhist. What is and is not Buddhist is defined by the Four Dharma Seals which are as follows: all compounded phenomena are impermanent. attachment of self to phenomena leads to suffering. Nirvana is perfect peace. all phenomena are pure beyond elaboration. Hope this is helpful. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted Friday at 12:58 PM (edited) 28 minutes ago, Apech said: ... Buddhism it is deep in its central core and very flexible to outer social and cultural norms. That is why you have so many forms of Buddhism which seem very different outwardly but are all genuinely Buddhist. What is and is not Buddhist is defined by the Four Dharma Seals ... Thanks, that makes sense to me. Quote ... the Four Dharma Seals ... : all compounded phenomena are impermanent. attachment of self to phenomena leads to suffering. Nirvana is perfect peace. all phenomena are pure beyond elaboration. ... Ok, I think I understand the first three. The last one, "all phenomena are pure", what does that mean? Edited Friday at 01:13 PM by Cobie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salvijus Posted Friday at 01:28 PM 31 minutes ago, Apech said: all compounded phenomena are impermanent. attachment of self to phenomena leads to suffering. Nirvana is perfect peace. all phenomena are pure beyond elaboration. That's not buddhism. That's just a universal truth. What makes buddhism is the lineage of masters that belong to that family. There are lineages like spokes from a wheel extending outward to samsara. Each soul has a lineage somehow that belongs to them. I have doubts classical buddhism and vajrayana lineage are from the same family. But who knows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lala Nila Posted Friday at 02:19 PM On 2025-08-13 at 5:46 PM, Annnon said: The title is a quote from this comment I found on the Reddit about Tantra, the person who did the post said the following: "There is nothing such as Vajrayāna Buddhism, it is Cināchāra with Buddha-Pādukā, Buddhism has nothing to do with Vajrayāna. Just because Buddha-Pādukā is present, doesn't mean it's origin is marked by buddhism. The whole Vajrayāna Flourished as A part of Sahajayāna of Kaula dharma. Whatever these fanatic Modern day Buddhists believe does nothing to us Nepalese Following Sarvāmnāya. I bet these Rascals "Buddhists" doesn't even know what āmnāya they follow as well. Hypocrites" I'm new to the "Tantra world", I understood Vajrayana Buddhism as being a form of "Tantric Buddhism", but it seems like the majority of the deities there comes from Indian Tantric Systems and he says that Vajrayana is not even buddhist. Anyone who knows more about this or disagrees, feel free to share your opinion. Hi, I just asked my Ācharaya this question because I'm also not certain lol. His response is as follows "Vajrayana isn't Buddhism, this is a very popular misinterpreted notion because in the present day, only the Nastika (Atheistic) Varjrayana is provided a spotlight, but if one traces back, it's origins is from the very land of Bengal. Vajrayana has two parts, one of which follows the vedas, the other does not. We belong to the one that does. This lineage is one of the Nathas where Vajrayana is one of the parts." He then goes on the explain that there are subtle differences and once I'm less ignorant (my words), I will understand the those differences. He also made point that I should not be debating anyone at this stage because I'm not educated and I will embarrass myself (which is true). Just focus on studying and all will be revealed in time. So, based off the above I guess you could make the interpretation that each lineage will claim certain things and as another poster above eloquently stated it's a display of "my kung fu is better than yours." Which in my experience is always the case no matter the lineage. So, maybe for now don't worry about it and focus on studying whatever it is your Acharaya has instructed you to do so. Be humble, patient, have an open heart and hands. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted Friday at 04:37 PM 3 hours ago, Cobie said: Thanks, that makes sense to me. Ok, I think I understand the first three. The last one, "all phenomena are pure", what does that mean? It means they are empty ( shunya ) . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted Friday at 04:41 PM 2 hours ago, Lala Nila said: Hi, I just asked my Ācharaya this question because I'm also not certain lol. His response is as follows "Vajrayana isn't Buddhism, this is a very popular misinterpreted notion because in the present day, only the Nastika (Atheistic) Varjrayana is provided a spotlight, but if one traces back, it's origins is from the very land of Bengal. Vajrayana has two parts, one of which follows the vedas, the other does not. We belong to the one that does. This lineage is one of the Nathas where Vajrayana is one of the parts." He then goes on the explain that there are subtle differences and once I'm less ignorant (my words), I will understand the those differences. He also made point that I should not be debating anyone at this stage because I'm not educated and I will embarrass myself (which is true). Just focus on studying and all will be revealed in time. So, based off the above I guess you could make the interpretation that each lineage will claim certain things and as another poster above eloquently stated it's a display of "my kung fu is better than yours." Which in my experience is always the case no matter the lineage. So, maybe for now don't worry about it and focus on studying whatever it is your Acharaya has instructed you to do so. Be humble, patient, have an open heart and hands. This is a very big subject which will give rise to different interpretations and points of view. I would follow your teachers advice even though I don’t totally agree with it. In the end I just express what I have learned and make no claims to authority. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lala Nila Posted Friday at 04:53 PM Just now, Apech said: This is a very big subject which will give rise to different interpretations and points of view. I would follow your teachers advice even though I don’t totally agree with it. In the end I just express what I have learned and make no claims to authority. I totally agree with your assessment and just because not all teachings are in agreement with each other doesn't mean we can't have a respectful and lively discourse, which is important as all parties can learn from each other regardless of lineage. Having a wide perspective and trying to understand from someone else's point of view is a great skill to have and hone. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted Friday at 05:05 PM 3 hours ago, Salvijus said: … What makes buddhism is the lineage of masters that belong to that family. There are lineages like spokes from a wheel extending outward to samsara. Each soul has a lineage somehow that belongs to them. … Which “lineage of masters” Buddhism do you practice? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted Friday at 06:00 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, Apech said: It means they [phenomena] are empty ( shunya ) Where’s the ‘Joie de Vivre’? Is Buddhism entirely [to use a @Nungali term] ‘black school’? Edited Friday at 06:02 PM by Cobie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted Friday at 06:14 PM 12 minutes ago, Cobie said: Where’s the ‘Joie de Vivre’? Is Buddhism entirely [to use a @Nungali term] ‘black school’? Knowing that things are empty is a great release from suffering and leads to great joy. what does ‘black school’ mean? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted Friday at 06:37 PM (edited) 25 minutes ago, Apech said: … what does ‘black school’ mean? “ The Three Schools of Magick: you have the yellow school, the black school, and the white school. … The Black School … everything is heading towards nothing … it's best that you find some way of escaping the situation. … the origin of the blackness itself as ignorance. … the situation you find yourself in is an illusion. “ ( https://barbarouswords.substack.com/p/illuminated-magia-9-the-three-schools?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ) Edited Friday at 06:39 PM by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted Friday at 06:41 PM 4 minutes ago, Cobie said: “ The Three Schools of Magick: you have the yellow school, the black school, and the white school. … The Black School … everything is heading towards nothing … it's best that you find some way of escaping the situation. … the origin of the blackness itself as ignorance. … the situation you find yourself in is an illusion. “ ( https://barbarouswords.substack.com/p/illuminated-magia-9-the-three-schools?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ) In that case no it’s not a black school. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted Friday at 06:44 PM 1 minute ago, Apech said: In that case no it’s not a black school. why not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted Friday at 06:50 PM (edited) I might have misunderstood and hence misrepresented what the site said (re.schools of Magic). Edited Friday at 06:51 PM by Cobie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted Friday at 07:03 PM 12 minutes ago, Cobie said: I might have misunderstood and hence misrepresented what the site said (re.schools of Magic). Surely not. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted Friday at 07:24 PM (edited) . Edited 7 hours ago by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
心神 ~ Posted Friday at 07:36 PM 6 minutes ago, Cobie said: “ The Three Schools of Magick: you have the yellow school, the black school, and the white school. … The Black School … everything is heading towards nothing … it's best that you find some way of escaping the situation. … the origin of the blackness itself as ignorance. … the situation you find yourself in is an illusion. “ ( https://barbarouswords.substack.com/p/illuminated-magia-9-the-three-schools?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ) From the author's description: Quote I'll describe what the black school is first then. Now the colour black represents the darkness of ignorance as the primary principle for understanding the nature of the world. Maybe it's best expressed in terms of the Buddhist principle of the first noble truth: Everything is sorrow. Existence itself is sorrow. Everything sucks. I think the author misunderstands the first noble truth (or maybe I do), which is that suffering exists. Or depending on the translation, reads: "The truth of suffering (dukkha)." I understand that to mean that there is a truth about the nature of suffering (and therefore exists), which the rest of the noble truths elaborates on. That's quite different from the idea that everything is suffering. From the author on the white school: Quote Christianity is what would be considered a white ritual that's been covered over with black doctrine, so that it started off a certain way, but then it's gone in a different direction. It's been hijacked. Now, the core principle of the white school is - actually I'll read a little quote: We may define the doctrine of the White School and its purity in very simple terms. Existence is pure joy. Sorrow is caused by failure to perceive this fact. But this is not a misfortune. We have invented sorrow, which does not matter so much after all, in order to have the exuberant satisfaction of getting rid of it. Existence is thus a sacrament. From the "Christian" perspective, fear and sorrow can be released in the way suffering can be released, by realizing the nature of suffering in light of the true and transient nature of all things, thus making way for inner joy and peace. Sounds pretty Buddhist. Isn't the failure to perceive the fact that existence is pure joy... ignorance and illusion? The defining feature of the black school? In that sense, shouldn't Buddhism be considered a "white" school? Or is Christianity actually a "black" school? I guess I disagree with the categorization, and I'm not sure how it's very useful. I interpret Lao Zi, Buddha, and Christ to have been explicit that the highs and lows of joy and sorrow exist, both caused by our own inner turmoil, and that there is a way to free oneself and find equanimity by meditating on the illusory nature of the human experience from the eternal perspective. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites