Talk:Amritasiddhi

Schaeffer does not state "that it is a Shaiva text"
What he actually writes in the mentioned article, right at the beginning, is: "A number of Indian religious traditions have passed to Tibet that cannot be comfortably classified as either Buddhist or non-Buddhist. Such traditions challenge assumptions about the variety of religious complexes that passed from the Indic plains to the Tibetan highlands, and about what can be defined as “Buddhist” in Tibet. The teachings known as Am.rtasiddhi, or the Attainment of Immortality, are one instance of this."

Later (at the end of the first page of the article) he adds: "Avadhu ̄tacandra’s work is part of a hybrid tradition of yogic theory and practice. It shares its vocabulary primarily with the ha.thayoga teachings of the N ̄atha Siddhas, and yet it is presented in its Tibetan manifestation as a teaching of Buddhist origins. The work thus embodies the shared traditions of praxis and teaching that occurred between these two groups, and as such can provide a focal point for developing a history of Buddhist-N ̄atha interaction in India" (unsigned comment added by User:Vliperdius at 19:47 on 15 May 2021)


 * The claim was added by User:Dandin006, citing not the first page of that article but pp517-523, i.e. starting on the third page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * But also later in his article Schaeffer only states that the compiler of the Amritasiddhi was probably initated in the Nath order, never that his sectarian affiliation was Saiva. The Nath order was predominantly Saiva, but not exclusively so - many Nath Siddhas were revered both by Buddhists and Kaula-Saivas and there were probably also Vaishnava, Jain and later even Muslim members, see for example "The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India" by David Gordon White. Schaffer explicitely states at the end of his article on page 525 that the goal to become a second Siva and Buddhist faith was not a contradiction among this mulieu: "Thus for Pad ma ‘od zer and other readers of Avadhu ̄tacandra’s work, to be a Buddhist was, among other things (and perhaps only in the context of this practice in particular), to strive to be S ́iva, lord of yogins." But today there is a l tendency by some to counterfactually claim that the Nath Order as exlusively Hindu, often motivated by a Hindu nationalist agenda. Be that as it be, I didn't find a quote throughout Schaeffers article that justify the claim he sees the Amritasiddhi as a Shaiva text. Vliperdius (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Then you'd best rewrite the claim. Schaeffer clearly has something important to say about the text, and readers should hear an accurate report of what that claim is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your encouragement, I did so. Vliperdius (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you know more?
Who here understood this before finding it here? 2600:1700:7409:9680:93F5:BA9B:EE86:D7DF (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The scholars involved and their books and articles are named and cited in the article. Do I have Mallinson's book? Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)