Before Buddha became a Buddha, he was a Yogi.

Via on May 29, 2011

I am quite familiar with the story about  Buddha’s enlightenment under that fateful banyan tree in Bodh Gaya. But until recently, I was much less familiar with his wandering ways before he became Sakyamuni Buddha. Here’s a brief history about yoga in context of the life and time of Buddhism’s founder.

But first a few familiar terms, followed, perhaps, by a few unfamiliar interpretations, to give this article some context:

Tantra: a spiritual path and practice; in its early form also called Shaivism; the yogic practices developed by the indigenous non-Aryans of India related to mantra meditation, kundalini, pranayama, asanas dharana, dhyan, etc,; the various schools and movements of Tantra, such as Pashupatha, Kaula, Shakta, Kashmiri, Vaishnav, Kapalika, Ajivika, Aghora, etc.

Yoga: a spiritual path and practice originally based on Tantra which blended with the Vedic tradition and this Tantric/Vedic synthesis produced the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, Samkhya, Vedanta, the Yoga Sutras, Today, we often use the term yoga as a general umbrella-term to refer to all of these schools, paths, and philosophies.

Veda: a sacred tradition based on religious rituals brought to India by the Aryans; there are four Vedic scriptures and Indian civilization is largely a blend of the Tantric and Vedic traditions

RELIGION VERSUS DHARMA

If we define religion as a belief system that people faithfully and often blindly follow, then spiritual teachers, be they Buddhist, Hindu, or Sufi Muslim, are not religious. They are awakened masters of the soul who embody their awakened state through practice; by walking the talk. Enlightenment comes first, then the philosophical interpretations, then the doctrines and dogmas, then the religion, then the faithful—and lastly the fanatics with their heavens and their hells.

These exceedingly rare mystics, yogis, and shamans of the soul, they follow the path of human nature, the path of dharma. This path is not just one straight path for all, but a curvy, sundry, many-legged walk up the cloudy but ultimately sunny vista of enlightenment.

These self-inspired teachers do not ask us to simply believe in the dharma. They do not ask us to create a religion. They do not sit in front of fires, or stand in front of alters performing the rites for us. They ask us to practice the dharma ourselves and then to follow the inner challenges of its awe-inspiring revelations. Buddha was such a spiritual mountain climber. Buddha was such a yogi.

BUDDHA AND THE YOGI MYSTICS

“The pre-Aryan civilization, which in proto-historical times had extended its influence as far as Western Europe, had not been annihilated by the invaders and had to a great extent continued to exist parallel to Vedism. The ancient concepts of Shaivism, Tantrism, Shaktism, and Yoga, together with the ancient Samkhya philosophy, lay beneath the surface and continued to reappear at every level and in every period.”

–Alain Danielou, from Shiva and the Primordial Tradition

Danielou is here claiming something uncommonly heard in Western yoga circles: that yoga and Tantra existed independent of the Vedic tradition and then blended into it, just like the colors of Mayan shamanism has blended with Catholicism, but even stronger, much stronger.

If we use the same analogy as above between religion and mysticism, then Aryan Vedism represent religion and Tantric Yoga represent mysticism and yogic dharma as practice. Two archetypes, two icons, are revealed: the priest and the yogi. Or these: the interpreter and the mystic, the believer and the practitioner.

For the sake of historical and psychological simplicity—for in reality the priest and yogi, at least in India, are often various psychological and cultural aspects of the same person—we will assume that the priest is a Vedic Brahmin and the yogi a Shaiva Tantric.

So, this is what mystic and historian Alain Danielou is driving at: Indian sacred tradition is largely made up of these two archetypes, just like the Christian tradition is made up of priests and mystics, religious firebrand dogmatists like Jerry Falwell and spiritual ecstatics like St. Theresa. And sometimes these archetypes emerge as a Tex-Mex of attributes and behaviors, as in the case of some priests and  believers.

Danielou is also reminding us that yoga is much older than Patanjali’ sYoga Sutras (200 BC), that it did not originate in the Vedas as most scholars and contemporary yogis believe, and that yoga is inherently not a religion or belief but a set of practices and a philosophy to live by.

Yoga, just like Christian mysticism, has been heretical wisdom, percolating from the forest ashrams, the mountain caves, an untamed awareness trickling up and into the mainstream Vedic society from the poor, even the outcasts, the Dravidyan shudras, for thousands of years. The young Buddha was often seen wandering among these yogi outcasts.

BUDDHA, TANTRA AND THE VEDIC PRIESTHOOD

“Every educated Hindu have looked upon Tantra as running parallel and in close interaction with (rather than merely in opposition to) the Vedic heritage. They distinguish between Vedic and Tantric—vaidika and tantrika—currents of Hindu spirituality.”

–Georg Feuerstein, from Tantra: The Path of Ecstasy

“After the Vedic Aryans came into India, two types of practice used to take place side by side: one the one side, the sacrificial fires of the rishis…and on the other side, the non-Aryans’ Tantra sadhana, the practice of self-control and attainment of divine knowledge.”

–Shrii Anandamurti, from Tantra and Indo-Aryan Civilization

These two sacred rivers of India stretch far back into historical antiquity and have often had a rocky relationship, much more rocky than Feuerstein and the Western yoga community acknowledges.

Before the Buddha became the Buddha, the Enlightened One, he was a yogi, a mystic wanderer, a Shaiva Tantric. Moreover, together with his friend Mahavira, later recognized as the founder of Jainism, he spoke out against the excesses of the Vedic priesthood: the animal sacrifices, the caste system, the opulence of the temples. And these protests makes  sense, given that the Buddha had spent his young adulthood among the heretics of Vedic society–the yogi tantrics.

In other words, the Buddha, after leaving behind his life as a prince, became a yogi quite familiar with the various practices of Tantra: mantra meditation, kundalini awakening, asana practice, fasting, the smearing of the body with ashes, the begging of food from a human skull.

“Owing to a historical aberration, there has been a tendency to present [the] re-appearances [of Tantra and Yoga] as new developments, except when they have been envisaged solely in relation to Vedic civilization.”

–Alain Danielou, from Shiva and the Primordial Tradition

Just like the Christian priesthood eventually closed the book on Jesus’ revolutionary revelations and encased them as the final “word of God” in the Bible, so has the Indian Brahmin priesthood claimed the often heretical wisdom of yoga as their own.

HOW OLD IS YOGA? VERY OLD!

This is particularly so in the case of Tantra, which according to Yoga Journal and most Western scholars is no more than 1500 years old, because that’s when the Tantric texts were written down.

That’s like claiming Shamanism to be no older than the first book on shamanism.

“Tantra is widely said to be based on the Vedas. That is, however, very disputable for there is much evidence to suggest that the root of Tantra predates the writing of the Vedas…” –Swami Satyananda Saraswati

“Yoga, which is the paramount factor in spiritual practices, is itself based on Tantra.”

–Shrii Anandamurti

Buddha came of age as a wandering monk with this kind of insight. He, like so many of his contemporaries did not distinguish between Yoga and Tantra. And many years after his death, the Buddhist and Hindu Tantras would cultivate similar meditation practices, and utter many of the same philosophical ideas.

According to Danileou, as an oral tradition Tantra had been alive and well since at least 6000 BC as an outgrowth of shamanism. This oral history and genealogy was passed down through antiquity and eventually written down in the various Puranas.

The philosophy was eventually written down in the many Tantras and the Agamas, and some of the practices in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika amd the Gerandha Samhita.

Tantra was certainly alive and well a thousand years earlier than the Tantric texts from the Middle Ages, during the time of Buddha (ca 500 BC). Indeed, the Buddha was not just a contemporary of Tantra, he practiced it, he was a yogi.

But, what else is new? History has been written for and about those in power—the priests, politicians, kings, and merchants—for as long as there have been minstrels, bards and scribes with the ability to tell stories and write them down on sheets of bark, hide, and banana leaves. And that’s why the history of yoga has also, in large part, been written by those in power: the Vedic Brahmins. And today it is written by those Western scholars who emulate their point of view.

BUDDHA AND SOME OF HIS YOGI TEACHERS

After Buddha, or Gautama, renounced his life as a prince, he joined various groups of wandering yogis and Shaiva tantrics. One of these yogis was named Makkhali Gosala.

The figure of Gosala is very important, for in presenting a different version of the old culture, until then ignored and rejected by [Vedic] Aryan society as the superstitions of despicable slaves, he attracted those, such as Mahavira and Gautama, who were dissatisfied with Vedic rigidity, and he aroused a sudden interest in the antique pre-Aryan philosophy [Shaiva Tantra] within the good society of the period. Mahavira traveled with Gosala for six years, and Gautama joined them for three or four years. The commentary on the Avashyaka Sutra by Jina Dasa, which gives a rather complete picture of the life of Mahavira, contains the story of his travels in the company of Gosala. Gosala finally argued with his two disciples over points of doctrine, and they separated.” –Alain Danielou, from The Play of the Gods

Their argument: is our life predestined or do we have free will? Gosala argued that human beings were under the complete control of a cosmic principle while the two young rebels, Gautama and Mahavira, argued that, through yoga, one was no longer under the spell of determinism. One could, through yogic practice and ethical behavior, get one leg up on one’s karma—and be free!

Gautama was not a slacker monk. He was not just hanging out in the shade of the ashram walls smoking hashish and waiting for another bowl of rice and dal. He had intense spiritual ambitions.

He knew how to fast and sit in lotus position for days on end without losing his concentration, without moving his body. This we learn through his encounter with two other yogic teachers, namely Arada Kalapa of Magadha and Rudraka Ramaputra of Vaishali.

Sage Kalapa taught the coming Buddha a yogic practice enabling him to finally enter a state of no-thing-ness (akimcanya-ayatana). Indeed, the young Buddha-in-the-making entered these trance states with ease and Kalapa soon asked him to share the leadership with him in his order of yogis. But the young, former prince declined his offer.

He then joined the order of sage Rudraka Ramaputra, whose teachings held within its nondual vision the prediction of new heights of spiritual evolution. Through these new practices the young spiritual athlete became intimately familiar with a state of “neither consciousness nor unconsciousness” (naiva-samjna-asmajna-ayatana).

Still, the fierce yogi’s thirst for enlightenment was not quenched. He was not convinced he had attained the spiritual plateau of permanent awakening. He picked up his begging bowl and moved onwards.

BUDDHA, TANTRA AND ENLIGHTENMENT

“When Siddhartha was moving about in Bihar in search of Truth, he met Sanjaya, a great Tantrist near present Gaya, and was initiated by him into Tantra Sadhana.” –Lalan Prasad Sing, from Tantra: Its Mystic and Scientific Origins

Little is known about the exact practice Buddha embarked upon, but it is commonly accepted that he ended up meditating under a banyan (fig) tree.

“According to the accepted Tantric belief and usage, the banyan-tree is one of the five trees recognized as Kula-trees. It is therefore not without any reason that Siddhartha performed his Sadhana [spiritual practice] under the famous banyan-tree near Gaya and attained spiritual enlightenment. (Buddhahood).” –Lalan Prasad Singh

When I lived in an ashram in Nepal, I was initiated into the practice of Dhyan Sadhana of Tantra, which is also the 7th limb of the Asthanga Yoga of Patanjali. The practice–which culminates after performing the other 3 meditation lessons of this well known eight-limbed path, namely pratyahara, pranayama, and dharana—involves using an internal image as a point of concentration and gateway to the nondual realm.

As Tantra embraces opposites, one employs the paradoxical practice of form to reach the formless. The practice of thing-ness to reach no-thing-ness. One also uses longing to reach a state of no-longing.

Some years later, I picked up a copy of Andrew Harvey’s excellent book Journey to Ladakh in which he describes in detail a Buddhist Tantric practice of this technique which is stunningly similar; down to a tee similar.

Which is to say, these practices are nearly as old as the Himalayan hills; they are generally not taught by Vedic priests (unless in those rare circumstances they have taken Tantric initiation and serve the dual role of yogi-priest). They are taught by yogis, often in secret. They are also not generally described in books or sutras, not even in the Yoga Sutras.

Moreover, with some variation, they are also taught in Buddhist Tantric circles. Indeed   the Buddha himself must have practiced and taught similar practices to his disciples.

“Some scholars think that Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamika school [of Buddhism], is the real exponent of Buddhist esotericism. [In] our view it is the Buddha himself who is the founder of Tantrism in Buddhism.” –Lalan Prasad Sing

In other words, when looking at a Buddha statue you not only get a glimpse of the form of the formless shine of enlightenment, you also get a glimpse of the inner Yoga, the inner Tantra of enlightenment. For Buddha, no doubt, was a yogi both before and after he became the Buddha.

Just take a look at how beautifully he positions his lotus feet, holds his mudra hands, closes his eyes….a Mahayogi, a Great Yogi, no doubt.

About Ramesh Bjonnes

Ramesh Bjonnes was born in Norway and lived for nearly three years in India and Nepal learning directly from the masters of tantric yoga. He has written extensively on tantra, yoga, culture and sustainability, and his articles have appeared in books and numerous magazines and newspapers in Europe and the US. His forthcoming book on Tantra will be published by Hay House India soon. He is currently contributing editor of New Renaissance and a columnist for Fredrikstad Blad, a Norwegian newspaper. He lives in an eco-village in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Visit his blog here: Eight Fold Path. His book Sacred Body, Sacred Spirit: A Personal Guide to the Wisdom of Yoga and Tantra can be purchased here.

6,414 views

Like this article? Leave a tip!

(We use PayPal but you don't need an account with PayPal.)

Elephriends - Mindful Affiliates

39 Responses to “Before Buddha became a Buddha, he was a Yogi.”

  1. integralhack says:

    I appreciate you getting the word out about Buddhism and Tantra, Ramesh! Of course, as you know, Buddhism got caught up in monasticism and scholasticism that sometimes detracted from the "Tantric core" of Buddhism.

    I see two strains of Buddhists emerging: those that are trying to reconcile Buddhism with scientific materialism and those that are trying to get back to the tantric roots that Buddhism, Taoism, yoga and other spiritual traditions share. In many ways, this is an exciting time.

    BTW, I think my hero Nagarjuna would agree with Lalan Prasad Sing's statement above. Nagarjuna held Sakyamuni Buddha in highest esteem.

    • Ramesh says:

      Matt, you said in a a few succinct lines what I had to write a long article about, and more. Well done. It is interesting you mention Taoism as well, because all of these paths comes from the same tree–which is Tantra in the broadest sense, the empirical path of yoga, the practice.

  2. Rob rGyatso says:

    Hi Ramesh, Rob rGyatso here.

    I am going to be a bit scholarly – nit-picky, here, I hope you will forgive. And I have no problem with Siddhartha being a yogi, no doubt there.

    In your definition of Tantra, you mentioned it was the same as Shaivism, which ignores the rich Vaishnava Tantra traditions.

    There is much to think about in your post, and the arguments are not new. I remember most of these discussions in the 70's when I was studying with the Western and Indic scholars around Tartang, Deshung, and others, as well as traditional Sankara and Vedanta scholars. The problem then, and I think now, is that most of the assertions made in the sources you quote are hard to definitively and evidentially trace to the *very early times, that is, before Ashoka .. Of course, it is easy to make presumption on the basis of "it *MUST have been this way," and write it up as fact, when it may be far from it. (I am not suggesting you are doing this, but I feel that your sources may stand some scrutiny in this regard.) It may well be that it actually truthfully IS the way that it was, but the actual evidence has to be there too. One can make some suppositions on the basis of a couple of Harrapan seal stamps that suggests some sort of yogic practices existed in pre-Aryan, pre-Vedic India, but until the script is deciphered, they can only be a tantalizing breath of fevered imagination amongst the less disciplined scholars and practitioners. (And I have plowed fruitlessly through an entire monograph by a well-meaning and enthusiastic scholar who felt that he was "translating" the Mohenjo Daro script.)

    As well, it is likely that the environment that gave rise to the Veda and the Avestan works, as described in the Hymns, is the great post-glacial paradise of the lakes and grass lands of Central Asia (until the droughts began in about 4000 BCE). But other than devotion and praise, there is not much that can be deciphered of the Vedas, Brahamanas, or Upanishads, that indicates the more psychologically intense basis of the Tantra-yogas. And this does not disprove it either, just saying it isn't there in what we can definitely date.

    I would also like to see the original material, if any, on which Danielou bases his assertion that Siddhartha was a fellow student with Mahavira. That is new to me, all the actual evidence that I had heard of to date indicated quite the opposite. Contemporaries, yes, it can be supposed that they may have even met each other, but no evidence that can be relied on to assert mutual study.

    Danielou and a couple of your other sources also seems to almost equate yoga and tantra or claim it was early and contemporanious. Again, there are overlaps, but there are distinct differences in approach to technology. The Rajas-yoga and the philosophy of the Upanisads do not have the tone of the later tantra works, to put it politely. Nor do any of the early Buddha-Dharma works.

    I think that in terms of documents, the Teacher-Student relationship in Buddhism, so apparent under the Mahasiddhas, so necessary in the safe practice of Buddhist Tantric Yoga, can so far only be traced to the Council of Vaisali, where the monastic community was condemned for holding more than one group practice within the same "parish" area, due to the monks' preference in favouring one teacher over another.

    I appreciate your overview of the topic and bringing forward some of the popular views, these speculations are quite exciting, but may in the end be not provable. But this should not matter too much to the practitioner, since it is the immediate validity of the transformation and the integration that is important, and not the history of it.

    Blessings,

    Rob

    • Ramesh says:

      Rob, thank you for taking the time to read, contemplate and respond in such nit-picky detail. You are right, exact dating in trems of Indian history, especially Indian antiquity is problematic. I agree. But we do have some facts to go on. We do know, for example, that the Vedic Aryans arrived in India much earlier than presently held by most scholars. The genetic research by Dr. Spencer Wells suggest they arrived around 5000 BC or earlier. These findings correspond with the time line Danielou and others have deciphered from Puranic genealogy, but differs from the two other main theories: 1) the standard academic one which is that they arrived around 2000 BC and destroyed the Indus Valley (Harppan and Mohenjodaro) civilization of the Dravidyans. 2) Feuerstein and Frawley who claim that the Aryans have always been indigenous to india, but also are open to the possibility that they arrived much earlier, because there seem to be no evidence they actually destroyed the Indus valley–it was destroyed by a changing climate instead.

      So, yes, there is not agreement here, but theory number 2 and the one I put forth here are at least reconcilable.

      You are right about Tantric Vaishnavism and that I did not mention it, but it deserves to be mentioned. Compared to Shaivism, it is a late comer and grew out of the Bhakti oriented Tantra. Broadly, we have Bengali, South Indian and Kashmiri Tantra in terms of regions–then within these regions, many schools developed.There are many schools and movements of Tantra as well: Shakta, Saora, Kaula, Kapalikas, Natha, Kashmiri, etc. But in this article, I have used the term broadly and merely in distinct contrast to the Vedic tradition (see Feuerstein's quote above, etc) and that the two broadly define Indian sacred tradition and then from those two many schools and traditions evolved over time.

      You are correct about the Indus Valley script–it has yet to be deciphered, although some not-so-scholarly folks have claimed to do so.

      In terms of Yoga and Tantra: I am using the terms broadly here and mainly in terms of practice, not philosophy, but as "core practice." Much the same way we loosely use the term yoga today. In other words, the practice of yogic meditation, asana, pranayama, the science of kundalini, chakras, mantra, etc–that is tantric practice. This is broadly understood to be distinctly differemt from the Vedic tradition.
      And again different from the various schools of yoga and philosophies that evolved from people who practiced tantra.

      There are various accounts of the relationship between Mahavira, Gosala and Buddha, and in some, it is Gosala that appears as a disciple of Mahavira. So It is difficult, perhaps, to know what is 'fact". But the purpose of the article was more about outlining broad lines and trends than absolute fact–mainly that Buddha, unlike other sages like Ramana Maharishi whose enlightenment evolved rather spontaneously, was an intensely practicing and seeking tantric yogi prior to his enlightenment.

      Rob, I agree: in the end, practice and the integration of it into our lives is what counts, not historical fact or speculation.

  3. Open Source says:

    The original article contains one or two inaccuracies that set out to confirm the authors bias. With a little more care many of the valid points made elsewhere would carry more weight. Weaving a compelling philosophical argument into a boys comic whose demograph is probobably coterminous with the Cosmopolitan audience is a challenging task so commendations all the same. You will find the freewheelin YJ universalists couldn't care less though – after all yoga is for EVERYONE -right?

    • Ramesh says:

      OpenSource, thanks for your comments. Perhaps you could point out those "one or two inaccuracies set out to confirm the authors bias."

  4. Well done, Ramesh. Another fine contribution to the Elephant Yoga dialog.

    Posting to Elephant Yoga on Facebook and Twitter.

    Bob W. Yoga Editor
    Like Elephant Yoga on Facebook
    Follow on Twitter

  5. Rene Carlos Ochoa says:

    When someone posts a point of view which is different from one shared by a reader of the post, why is it often referred to as a "bias," with all of the negative connotations associated with the term? Why can it not be simply taken as a different point of view?

  6. Ramesh says:

    Good point and question, Rene Carlos!

  7. Padma Kadag says:

    Maybe not such a small point…the Buddha or "Awakened One" was never a Buddhist nor did he teach that in any teaching. If we are to assume that he was a Yogi, but one that goes beyond being a mere Yogi, then a Yogi is what he remained as until his parinirvana. Of course that is his outer display. Having attained enlightenment and going beyond any kind of having to rely on any method to maintain his enlightenment…there was no need for a "school". He taught, yes. But even so his teaching it is said never took place. Trying to pinpoint the footsteps of the Buddha can be fun but we will miss the point. I like the effort you have made in tracing the Buddha's life. But he never was a Buddhist.

    • Ramesh says:

      Yes, very good point Padma. I agree and should probably not have used that title. Likewise, Jesus was never a Christian….

      • Ramesh says:

        Padma: I just changed the title. I hope you like this one better!

        • I actually think your second to last sentence would make the most intriguing and probably most accurate title of all:

          …Buddha…was a yogi both before and after he became the Buddha.

          • Ramesh says:

            Good point, Bob, but are you truly suggesting I change it to that? Again? just let me know, editor in Chief!

          • No, I wouldn't change it now. But I would have chosen it originally.

            I think the idea that Buddha remained a Yogi after his enlightenment, an idea I had not ever heard expressed just that way, is actually even more intriguing than the fact that he was one beforehand.

            Bob

          • Ramesh says:

            Bob, that is a great ides for a follow-up article… I will contemplate this some more and see what comes up…

  8. NotSoSure says:

    Ramesh-Love the post but using Danielou as a reference may have been a huge mistake. Danielou was a firm believer and defender of the cast system. He also was not know, in some circles, for accuracy in his writings. Pasted is a critique of India, a Civilization of Differences by Danielou.

    Danielou (1907-94) was a musician, scholar, and convert to Hinduism best known for his interpretations of Hindu texts. This volume consists of works unpublished at the time of his death but written (according to the preface) over a huge span of time, from 1938 to 1991. The theme is caste, or, more precisely, Danielou's belief that Hindu society reflects a timeless "sacred order" that can only be good. The author's apologia for caste is a string of ahistorical, undocumented, and highly suspect assertions. He argues, for example, that the "Pariahs" of the caste system have only themselves to blame and that those who criticize the caste system (including Gandhi) are crude materialists who do not understand the value of each "race" or type keeping to its own niche. These ramblings of an Orientalist romantic may be of some interest to historians tracing European encounters with India. As a source of information about India, however, the work is appalling nonsense. Not recommended.-Lisa Klopfer, Eastern Michigan Univ. Lib., Ypsilanti (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

    • Ramesh says:

      NotSoSure,
      Danielou's support of the caste system is disturbing and unforgivable, but that does not mean he is not of value as a writer in so many areas. I have been well aware of this fact for the past 10 years or so, but i till find much of value in his writings. Every writer makes mistakes and if we use that as a criteria for not reading them, we would not be reading many books. What is important about Danielou is that he uses sources many other writers have ignored. He lived in India for many years, was a close friend of Rabindranath Tagore, for example.
      The greatest Norwegian writer of all time, Knut Hamsun, also termed the father of the modern novel, was a Nazi symphatizer. Still i read his books, in fact I love them; he was a great writer, but his political views were detestable. The world is complex, I also strongly disagree with Georg Feuerstein and David Frawley in their whitewashing of caste and the Aryan vedic institutions of caste, but I still read their books. indeed I think their writings are mostly great. But they are (at least indirectly) apologists for the caste system b y ignoring and glossing over this fact of Indian history in their book In Search of the Cradle of Human Civilization, in which they claim to have "proven" there was never an invasion. Not surprisingly they do not like Danielou's writings as he disagrees on that and many other points. So this is complicated. But thanks for your thoughtful points.

      • NotSoSure says:

        His defense of the caste system is a moral failure but the critique of his defense is that his academic chops are suspect. He used academics and Indian history as the cornerstone of his support of the caste system.

        Obviously, you do not have the same concerns as I do about his research. So, be it. Even if I discard all references to Danielou in your post the post still raises interesting issues. What I like about your writing is that your assertions ignite the desire in me to learn more.

        • Ramesh says:

          NotSoSure,
          no writer on the history of India and its many philosophical schools have the whole story. But there are certain broad trends, and it is in part those broad trends that I have studied, written and lectured about in the past half dozen years or so. After studying many writers on this subject, I have picked from many sources, but I do not claim that what I am presenting is the complete story or the complete "truth." So, as for you, the assertions of many of these writers have also inspired me to learn more.
          The yoga community in the US have largely adopted the worldview of Georg Feuesrtein and David Frawley; I have taken upon myself to share the history of India from the point of view of writers, mostly Indian, who tell a different side of this complex tale.

          Yes, there are some scholarly problems with Danielou's writings, but we need specifics, not just wholesale condemnation.
          In terms of the broad trends about Tantra and early Shaivism his views are shared by many Indian and non-indian writers.
          My own teacher, Anandamurti, who spoke out against the caste system, among other oppressive things Indian, and paid bitterly for it, nevertheless paints a similar picture of India as Danielou in many regards,. What is ironic about Danielou is that he accepts the Vedic imposed caste system, the very system which oppressed the Shaiva tantrics.. But that is not uncommon in India., peple live in both worlds and there are many unspoken shadow sides to life. very complicated. if you spend time in India, over a year or more and live among the people, you will understand how complex it is and how so many just goes along, even otherwise progressive people. When did you hear Deepak Chopra speak out against the caste system?
          Thanks for your continued intellelctual curiosity and vigilance.

  9. Just posted to "Featured Today" on the Elephant Yoga homepage.

  10. Padma Kadag says:

    Ramesh and Bob….geez…these buddhist discussions are always so …."touchy"? haha My comment in regard to the Buddha and his being a Yogi was intended to draw attention to what Ramesh had described about Siddhartha's years of aesceticism and not being satisfied with those states of consciousness he had achieved; knowing that there was something more beyond "consciousness" no matter how "high" he had gone. He was a Yogi. But my point is that when he achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree every kind of consciousness was destroyed and his karmas were completely purified.Here, it would appear, he ceased being a Yogi….as he no longer required a yogic method. He did not need a method to maintain his enlightenment. Buddha was Buddha. Awakened.

    • Padma Kadag says:

      Bodhicitta ofcourse was the cause of his enlightenment…

      • Ramesh says:

        Or, perhaps, the result. Bodhi-citta in the yogic tradition is the "enlightenmnet mind" the awakened mind and thus the result of the yogi's search and practice. The liberated being, or jiivan mukta, in Tantra, is similar, and signifies someone whose search has ended in the effulgence of the enlightened state–no practice is allegedly needed, one has arrived.

        While on may say that a yogi is someone who is searching for enlightenmeent, one may also with equal philosophical correctness say that a jivanmukata or a liberated is a yogi who embodies enlightenment, the awakened state. In other words, one does not stop being a yogi because one is enlightened, indeed, one has actually attained yoga, union.

        These subjects can easily be 'touchy' and abstract and full of semantic argumentation, but, at least in the yoga and tantra tradition, what I am saying above is common terminology.

        A word of caution; the danger here is that someone who is not fully awakened may claim to be so and thus misuse an otherwise noble and rare state of mind.

        • Padma Kadag says:

          My use of the concept of Bodhicitta being the cause of the Buddha's enlightenment is true as his motivation to sit and not move under the Bodhi Tree was to end suffering for all sentient beings. He vowed never to move until he found the way out for all sentient beings. He was beyond any concept of enlightenment only for himself. Of course his attainment was "ultimate bodhicitta". In regard to the being a Yogi…Siddartha was a yogi…the Buddha is Buddha. As I mentioned before, those who could not recognize his attainment perceived Buddha as a yogi. A yogi is on the path and therefore still subject to karma and dependent upon yogic methods. The Buddha was fully awakened with no residue of karma and in no need of yogic method. There have been countless Buddhas and Siddhatha was not the first, last, or only. The Buddha, as we know him, was pure display and appeared to different beings in different capacities at different times and manners in order to facilitate the teachings of the dharma and the path of liberating one's self from samsara.

          • Ramesh says:

            Like many others, I perceive the Buddha as both a Buddha and a Yogi, and I also think it is important to be open to that, even for Buddhists. Being a yogi does not reduce his Buddhahood in any way. But since the true nature of the Buddha and any enlightened being is beyond language, it does not really matter….

          • Padma Kadag says:

            My thoughts and opinions may at times seem hard and fast…in this case and in the case of many Buddhist discussions, my comments are not in opposition to your article and really are written to give another view which is more Buddhist leaning. In a world where one only needs to read a book on yoga to begin to call one's self "yogi", a differentiation should be made. Yes the Buddha is inherent and the life blood of Ngakpa Yogis. You emulate the Body, speech, and mind of the Buddha. As I stated, and I think important to understand is that the Buddha was fully awakened as Siddhartha, as aescethic yogi, though he appeared to attain enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree. This attaining of enlightenment from the struggle of Siddartha and yogi was all done as wisdom display in order to tame the minds of beings and put them on the path and to completely liberate all beings.

          • Ramesh says:

            Padma, are you then saying that the Buddha was enlightened from birth?

          • Padma Kadag says:

            Yes !…but not from birth, as the Buddha was beyond birth and death. Birth and death was and is his wisdom display in order to tame the minds of beings. Of course the theravadans will argue he was a human and only so until he attained enlightenment. If you want we can apply the same concept to ourselves…that we are inherently "Buddha" and all is wisdom display. It would make no sense that "enlightenment" only came into being as a result of a human in the form of Siddhartha "discovering it! Siddartha arose from wisdom display because of the great bodhicitta inherent in the Buddha realms.

          • Ramesh says:

            In the yoga and tantra tradition, there are two types of enlightenment claims; Gurus who are enlightened by birth (sometimes called Avatars, but this term is often loosely used, does not seem plausible, and was not used in such cases as Ramana Maharshi whose enlightenment was natural and seemingly effortless) and gurus who become enlightened by their own effort and practice. The cause of enlightenment at birth is thus "good karma" from deep spiritual work in previous lives.

          • Padma Kadag says:

            Ramesh…if you are now citing "yoga and tantra", in the tradition of the "Hindu" path, to analyse the Buddha it will not stand up. Yes you can discuss similarities and differences, but why? It accomplishes nothing. If you do not understand that the enlightenment of Siddartha was wisdom display, as predicted before his birth and enlightenment, and that all of this was accomplished to tame the suffering minds of beings then so be it. This is why I practice Buddhism and you practice what it that you practice. Enlightenment for yogis is a goal and achievable through innumerable paths with no limits. No matter how many texts say otherwise. Once again…Siddartha's enlightenment was no more illusory or less illusory than samara or nirvana. It is a path only needed to liberate the minds of beings. His path to enlightenment was a compassionate wisdom display.

  11. Padma Kadag says:

    According to the teachings the Buddha was already the Buddha even while being Siddartha and an aescetic. That everything was percieved as his path for those that need a path to follow to enlightenment. To some he remained to appear as a yogi after his enlightenment because they were not able to recognize his awakening and they themselves needed a master yogi to follow. We could go on and on about how some say the Buddha never taught, etc but that only confuses people and I myself am not qualified to even really talk about it as I do not completely understand it.Thanks for the article

    • Ramesh says:

      Not being a Buddhist, and not having enough knowledge of the Buddhist stories and philosophies, it would not be fair to argue about your assertions or interpretations above, but from a yogic and tantric point of view a yogi is someone bot on the path and someone who has arrived. Thus all the great teachers in the yoga tradition, enlightened or not, are yogis. Hence, from the point of view of yoga and tantra, Buddha was a yogi before and after his enlightenment.

    • BoepSaFrankJude says:

      Padma, I must respectfully remind you that not at all do ALL Buddhists believe this idea that the Buddha's enlightenment was simply "wisdom display." You tend to speak as if you speak for all Buddhism, and this is both inaccurate and a bit arrogant.

      metta,
      frank jude

  12. Just posted to "Popular Lately" on the Elephant Yoga homepage.

    Bob W. Yoga Editor
    Like Elephant Yoga on Facebook
    Follow on Twitter

  13. [...] despite my own idea that the featured aspect of my classes was adherence to what I considered to be “yogic authenticity”. Through her lens, she saw me in a different light than I saw [...]

  14. [...] Before Buddha became a Buddha, he was a Yogi. [...]

  15. rosestone says:

    Buddha came from the sramana tradition of north-east India. So too did Mahavira, the most important of the Jain teachers. The sramana tradition influenced Hinduism. There are six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy. Yoga was influenced by sramana beliefs and practices, and the Sankhya school which is linked to yoga. Vedanta was also influenced by the sramana tradition, possibly by Buddhism more than anything else.

Leave a Reply