Was the Gorakhnath Math Originally Buddhist?

The Forgotten Buddhist Links of the Nath Tradition and the Complex History of Gorakhnath

Who does the Gorakhnath Math in Gorakhpur really belong to? Has it always been a centre of the Hindu Nath tradition? Or did the Gorakhnath tradition emerge from a wider spiritual world in which Buddhist Mahasiddhas, Vajrayana Buddhism, Shaivism, Tantra and Yoga interacted with one another?

These questions have increasingly moved beyond the realm of historical scholarship into the domains of religious identity, cultural ownership and politics. One side presents the Gorakhnath tradition as an exclusively Hindu-Shaivite institution. Another points to Buddhist texts in which Gorakhnath and Matsyendranath appear as Siddhas and argues that the roots of the tradition lie partly in the Buddhist Mahasiddha tradition.

Neither position, however, adequately captures the complexity of history.

The historical evidence suggests something more nuanced. The Gorakhnath Math in its present form is unquestionably a major centre of the Hindu Nath-Shivaite yogic tradition. At the same time, the historical world from which the Nath tradition emerged was deeply connected with Buddhist Vajrayana, the Mahasiddha tradition, Shaiva and Shakta Tantra, Kaula practices and various forms of Yoga.

Therefore, the real historical question is not simply, “Was it Buddhist or Hindu?” It is: How did Buddhist and Shaiva traditions interact in the formation of the Nath tradition?

Gorakhnath Math: Its Present Identity Is Clear

The first distinction is essential.

The official history of Gorakhpur district identifies the Gorakhnath Math as a monastery belonging to the Nath monastic tradition. Gorakhpur itself is associated with Gorakhnath, one of the most important figures of the Nath tradition. The district’s official website describes Gorakhnath as a prominent yogi and identifies the Gorakhnath temple as an important Nath religious centre.

Thus, if the question is whether the present-day Gorakhnath Math is a Hindu Nath institution, the answer is clearly yes.

But that does not settle the question of the deeper historical origins of the Nath tradition.

Gorakhnath is generally placed by scholars in the medieval period, probably around the 11th–12th centuries, although the precise chronology of his life remains uncertain. Much of the biography surrounding him developed through later hagiographical traditions.

That distinction between the historical figure and the legends that subsequently grew around him is crucial.

The Buddhist Connection: Gorakhnath and Matsyendranath as Siddhas

One of the most important figures in the history of the Nath tradition is Matsyendranath, regarded by Nath tradition as the guru of Gorakhnath.

The remarkable fact is that Matsyendranath is not confined to Hindu Nath literature. His name and legends also occur within the wider Buddhist Siddha and Vajrayana traditions.

The medieval Buddhist tradition of the 84 Mahasiddhas contains figures whose names and identities overlap with the Siddha and Nath traditions. Goraksha/Gorakhnath and Matsyendra/Mina are associated in different textual traditions with this wider world of accomplished tantric adepts.

This is historically significant because the Siddha tradition was not neatly divided along the religious boundaries that exist today. The same spiritual master could be remembered as a Shaiva yogi in one tradition, a Buddhist Mahasiddha in another, and a local deity or culture hero in yet another.

The Nath tradition itself preserved Matsyendranath as the guru of Gorakhnath. Buddhist traditions, particularly in the Himalayan region, preserved Matsyendranath in their own religious vocabulary.

This does not automatically prove that Gorakhnath was personally a Buddhist.

It does, however, demonstrate that the Nath and Buddhist Mahasiddha traditions existed within an overlapping religious and intellectual environment.

That is an important distinction.

The Buddhist Evidence of the Swayambhu Purana

One of the most important pieces of literary evidence in this discussion comes from Nepal.

French anthropologist Gérard Toffin, in his 1990 research article published in the prestigious journal Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, examined the political and cultural history of the Matsyendranath tradition in Nepal.

The article is: Gérard Toffin, “L’usage politique du mythe au Népal. Une lecture ethno-historique du dieu Matsyendranâth,” Annales, Vol. 45, No. 4, 1990, pp. 951–974.

The article is particularly important because Toffin examines the written sources surrounding Matsyendranath and discusses the Buddhist Swayambhu Purana as an important textual source for the Matsyendranath legend.

The significance of this evidence should not be underestimated.

It means that the Matsyendranath tradition was not preserved exclusively within Nath or Shaiva literature. A Buddhist literary tradition in Nepal also incorporated Matsyendranath into its sacred narrative.

This provides strong evidence for the historical interaction between the Nath/Shaiva and Buddhist religious worlds.

But it is equally important not to overstate the evidence.

The existence of Matsyendranath in a Buddhist text does not by itself prove that the Gorakhnath Math in Gorakhpur was originally a Buddhist monastery.

What it demonstrates is that Matsyendranath—who occupies a foundational position in the Nath tradition—was also incorporated into Buddhist religious literature and practice.

That distinction is fundamental to responsible historical writing.

Annales: A Hindu-Buddhist Religious Crossroads

Toffin’s research becomes even more significant because he does not treat Matsyendranath simply as either a “Hindu god” or a “Buddhist god.”

Instead, he examines Matsyendranath as an extraordinary example of the interaction between Tantric Buddhism and Tantric Hinduism in Nepal.

This interpretation is supported by earlier scholarship, including:

• John K. Locke, Karunamaya: The Cult of Avalokitesvara-Matsyendranath in the Valley of Nepal (1980)
• Mary Slusser, Nepal Mandala: A Cultural Study of the Kathmandu Valley (1982)

These works document the complex religious identity of Matsyendranath in the Kathmandu Valley.

In the Newar Buddhist tradition of Nepal, Matsyendranath is associated with Karuṇāmaya and Avalokiteśvara, the Bodhisattva of compassion.

Thus, the same figure appears in different traditions in strikingly different forms:

For the Nath tradition: Matsyendranath is the great guru and predecessor of Gorakhnath.

For Shaiva-Tantric traditions: he is an important Siddha and yogic master.

For Nepalese Buddhist traditions: he is associated with Karuṇāmaya and Avalokiteśvara.

This is not an isolated curiosity. It is evidence of the extraordinary religious fluidity of medieval South Asia.

Was the Nath Tradition Hindu?

Yes—but the answer requires qualification.

The Nath tradition, in its developed and institutional form, is fundamentally associated with Shaivism, Yoga and Hindu religious culture. Shiva is revered as Adinath, the primordial Nath. Gorakhnath occupies a central place in the guru lineage. Nath yogis developed and transmitted important traditions of Hatha Yoga, meditation, bodily discipline, breath control and tantric practice.

Therefore, saying that the Nath tradition is completely outside Hinduism would be historically inaccurate.

But calling it simply a conventional branch of orthodox Vedic Hinduism is equally misleading.

The Nath tradition developed within a much broader Siddha-Tantric-Yogic environment in which Buddhist Vajrayana, Shaiva Tantra, Shakta traditions, Kaula practices and Yoga interacted over centuries.

The Nath tradition therefore cannot be understood properly without acknowledging this wider intellectual and spiritual environment.

Its later identity became strongly Shaiva and Hindu, but its formative historical environment was much more interconnected.

The Crucial Question: Was Gorakhnath Math Originally a Buddhist Monastery?

This is where historical discipline becomes essential.

At present, there is no sufficiently conclusive archaeological or epigraphic evidence establishing that the Gorakhnath Math in Gorakhpur was originally a Buddhist monastery that was subsequently converted into a Hindu institution.

Such a claim would require evidence such as:

• archaeological remains of a Buddhist vihara;
• inscriptions identifying the site as a Buddhist institution;
• contemporary Buddhist records;
• architectural evidence demonstrating an earlier monastery;
• or an unbroken documentary chain linking an earlier Buddhist establishment to the present Nath Math.

The existence of a strong Buddhist presence in the broader Gorakhpur region does not, by itself, establish that the present Gorakhnath Math was once Buddhist.

Nearby Kushinagar is one of the most important Buddhist sacred sites in the world, and the wider region has a rich Buddhist history. But regional Buddhist influence cannot automatically be converted into proof of the Buddhist origin of a specific later monastery.

Therefore, it would be historically irresponsible to state as an established fact:

“The Gorakhnath Math was originally a Buddhist monastery and was later taken over by Hindus.”

There is presently insufficient direct evidence for that conclusion.

But the Buddhist Connection Cannot Be Dismissed Either

The opposite claim—that the Nath tradition has absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism—is equally difficult to sustain.

The evidence points in the other direction.

First, Gorakhnath/Goraksha is associated with the Buddhist Mahasiddha tradition.

Second, Matsyendranath appears in both Nath and Buddhist Siddha traditions.

Third, Buddhist literature in Nepal incorporated Matsyendranath into its sacred narratives.

Fourth, the Swayambhu Purana provides an important Buddhist literary source for the Matsyendranath tradition.

Fifth, Nepalese Buddhist tradition associated Matsyendranath with Karuṇāmaya/Avalokiteśvara.

Sixth, Gérard Toffin’s Annales study explicitly interprets the Matsyendranath tradition as an example of interaction between Tantric Buddhism and Tantric Hinduism.

These facts make one conclusion difficult to avoid:

The Nath tradition did not develop in an isolated Hindu vacuum. It emerged within a wider medieval Siddha and Tantric world in which Buddhist and Shaiva traditions interacted deeply.

History Is Not a Property Claim

The modern debate often asks: “Who owns Gorakhnath?”

That may be a politically powerful question, but it is not necessarily a useful historical one.

Medieval India was not divided into watertight religious compartments. Yogis travelled. Gurus crossed regional boundaries. Tantric practices moved between traditions. Local deities acquired new identities. Buddhist and Shaiva practitioners adopted similar forms of meditation and bodily discipline. The same Siddha could be claimed by different religious communities.

Matsyendranath is perhaps the clearest example.

He belongs to the Nath guru tradition.

He appears in Buddhist Siddha traditions.

He is connected with the Buddhist cult of Karuṇāmaya/Avalokiteśvara in Nepal.

He stands at the intersection of several religious worlds.

This is not evidence of historical confusion.

It is evidence of historical interaction.

Conclusion: Beyond the Hindu-Buddhist Binary

The historical evidence allows us to make a nuanced conclusion.

The Gorakhnath Math in Gorakhpur, in its present institutional form, is a Hindu Nath-Shaiva monastery.

At the same time, the intellectual and spiritual history of the Nath tradition is deeply intertwined with the Buddhist Mahasiddha and Vajrayana traditions.

The presence of Gorakhnath and Matsyendranath in Buddhist traditions, the Buddhist literary evidence surrounding Matsyendranath, the Swayambhu Purana, the Nepalese association of Matsyendranath with Karuṇāmaya/Avalokiteśvara, and Gérard Toffin’s analysis in Annales all point towards a complex process of religious interaction.

But none of these, by themselves, proves that the present Gorakhnath Math in Gorakhpur was originally a Buddhist vihara.

Therefore, two extreme claims should be rejected.

“Gorakhnath Math was originally a Buddhist monastery seized by Hindus” remains an unproven historical claim.

But equally, “the Nath tradition has no historical relationship whatsoever with Buddhism” ignores substantial literary and cultural evidence.

The historical reality is far more fascinating.

The Nath tradition became a powerful Shaiva-Hindu yogic tradition, but it evolved within a medieval Indian religious world in which Buddhist Mahasiddhas, Vajrayana Tantra, Shaiva Tantra, Kaula practices and Yoga were in continuous interaction.

Gorakhnath is therefore not merely a figure belonging to one modern religious category. He represents a much older and more complex Indian spiritual landscape.

The real question is not:

“Whose Gorakhnath is he?”

The more meaningful historical question is:

“What kind of shared spiritual world produced Gorakhnath?”

The answer points to a civilisation of crossings rather than walls—a civilisation in which Buddhism and Shaivism did not merely compete, but also borrowed, transformed and influenced one another.

History has no single owner. It has many inheritances.

And Gorakhnath stands at one of the most fascinating crossroads of those inheritances.