Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Two excerpts relevant to a matter I was trying to bring up recently. Seems that - for now at least - even wacky admits to some basics:



1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_(Buddhism)

Brahmā (Buddhism)



Brahmā in Buddhism is the name for a type of exalted passionless deity (deva), of which there are several in Buddhist cosmology.





Origins

The name Brahmā originates in Vedic tradition, in which Brahmā appears as the creator of the universe. By contrast, early Buddhist texts describe several different Brahmās coexisting in the same universe; some of them think they are "all powerful" creators of the world, but they are corrected by the Buddha. The myths, characters, and functions of these Brahmās are distinct from those of the Vedic Brahmā.[1] However, at least one of the Buddhist Brahmās is identified as being the object of worship of pre-Buddhist brahmins. The Buddha described the Vedic Brahmā as a misunderstanding, or mistaken remembrance, of one or more of the Buddhist Brahmās, as explained in the Brahmajāla-sutta (Digha Nikaya 1).



There is no identity between the Buddhist Brahmās and the Hindu conception of brahman as an all-encompassing divine force.



[...]



Non-Buddhist views refuted in early texts

The old Upanishads largely consider Brahman in the masculine gender (Brahmā in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahmā") to be a personal god, and Brahman in the neuter gender (Brahma in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahman") to be the impersonal world principle.[3] They do not strictly distinguish between the two, however.[4] The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahmā: first, he has light and luster as his marks; second, he is invisible; third, he is unknowable, and it is impossible to know his nature; fourth, he is omniscient. The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahman as well.[3] In the Buddhist texts, there are many Brahmās. There they form a class of superhuman beings, and rebirth into the realm of Brahmās is possible by pursuing Buddhist practices.[5] In the early texts, the Buddha gives arguments to refute the existence of a creator.[6]



In the Pāli scriptures, [color="#800080"]<... snipped further such Buddhist notions.>[/color]

2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakra_(Buddhism)

Åšakra (Buddhism)



Jump to: navigation, search For other uses, see Sakka.

For the Vedic god, see Indra.

Śakra (Sanskrit: शक्र) or Sakka (Pāli) is the ruler of the Trāyastrimśa Heaven according to Buddhist cosmology. His full title is Śakro devānām indraH (शक्रो देवानं इन्द्रः; Pāli: Sakko devānaH indo "Śakra, lord of the devas".[1] In Buddhist texts, Śakra is the proper name and not an epithet of this deity; conversely, Indra in Sanskrit and Inda in Pali are sometimes used as an epithet for Śakra as "lord".





Indra (alias Sakra) and Shachi Riding the Divine Elephant AiravataIn East Asian traditions, Śakra is known as Dìshìtiān (帝釋天) or Shìtí Huányīn (釋提桓因) in Chinese, and also as Taishakuten (帝釈天) in Japan. In China, Śakra is sometimes compared to the Taoist Jade Emperor (Yùhuáng dàdì 玉皇大帝 often simplified in Yùhuáng 玉皇); both share a birthday on the ninth day of the first lunar month of the Chinese calendar (usually in February).

(True that this was yet another occasion when Buddhism tried to misuse *Hindu* religion to encroach on Daoism and subvert it. But Buddhism never succeeded in this particular instance: the Jade Emperor is one of the Daoists Gods that Buddhism burnt its hands on when Buddhism tried to subjugate him to their religion, in order to subjugate I mean convert Daoists to their religion.

In any case, as Daoists continue to point out, Buddhism does not have and never had the Jade Emperor, and therefore Buddhists do not worship him. A further comment after this wacky excerpt.)



The name Åšakra "powerful" as an epithet of Indra is found in several verses of the Rigveda. In Buddhist texts, Åšakra's myth and character are very different from those of the Vedic Indra. According to G.P. Malalasekara, "Sakka and Indra are independent conceptions. None of the personal characteristics of Sakka resemble those of Indra. Some epithets are identical but are evidently borrowed, though they are differently explained."[1]

(:handig: Hindus may -should- hold Buddhism to it.

Note that the Buddhist "borrowing" of personal names and epithets of Hindu Gods as well as of matching surface but *defining* descriptions, followed by Buddhist reinventions of their characters admits to Buddhist *fictions* based on real Hindu originals.

But that's not all that Buddhism sto... I mean "borrowed" from Hindu's religion and then utterly reinvented for Buddhism: mark how the following para mentions not just the area of Vasava's rule and of Sumeru/Meru - cloned again for Buddhism - but that Buddhism even encroached on all of the Vedic tridasha: again, cloning them for Buddhism - aka obvious fictions created by Buddhism - all while Buddhism hypocritically hissed at the pre-Buddhist Hindu=Vedic religion. In other words, when Daoist and Hindu Gods can be undermined to Buddhism - by being placed in Buddhist cosmology/theology - they become acceptable to Buddhism. But as long as these same Gods are viewed from the original [i.e. traditional] Daoist, Shinto and Hindu perceptions respectively, the Gods are deemed unacceptable to Buddhism. This is *why* Buddhism encroaches on and subverts others' Gods. As also observed by non-Hindu heathens.)



The Trāyastriṃśa heaven that Śakra rules is located on the top of Mount Sumeru (cf. Meru), imagined to be the polar center of the physical world, around which the Sun and Moon revolve. Trāyastriṃśa is the highest of the heavens in direct contact with Earth. Like the other deities of this heaven, Śakra is long-lived but mortal. When one Śakra dies, his place is taken by another deity who becomes the new Śakra. Buddhist stories about Śakra (past or present) are found in the Jātaka stories and in several suttas, particularly in the Saṃyutta Nikāya.



Śakra is married to Sujā,[2] daughter of the chief of the Asuras, Vemacitrin (Pāli Vepacitti). Despite this relationship, a state of war generally exists between the thirty-three gods and the Asuras, which Śakra manages to resolve with minimal violence and no loss of life.



Śakra is mentioned in many Buddhist sūtras, and is often shown consulting the Buddha on questions of morality. Together with Brahmā, he is considered a protector of the Buddhist religion.

1. Note that while I do consciously bring up Indra - the devaraja of Hindu Swarga - when mentioning the Jade Emperor of Daoist Heaven, clearly I would only ever do this to a Hindu audience in case they may not already be familiar with the Jade Emperor. And I *only* do so in order to (hopefully) convey the sort of exalted and central position that the Jade Emperor has in Daoism and among Daoists. That is, Hindus know who Indra is to Hindus. If Hindus have not heard of the Jade Emperor, you can sort of "explain" to Hindoos what he means to Daoists by saying superficially-acceptable - because relatable - things like "the Jade Emperor is to Daoists 'sort of' what Indra is to Hindus".

But - like Daoists - of course I certainly don't confuse the *Hindu* Indra aka Shakra (one of his titles in the Vedas, I imagine hearing) with the Daoist Jade Emperor.

And I most certainly don't believe in the Buddhist invented clone called Shakra, which Buddhism used to encroach not just on the Hindu Indra but also on the Daoist Emperor. Fortunately they failed, but the Daoists explain this better.



Hmmm. That just reminded me of some rather interesting stuff on Daoism that I still need to post.





2. The reason for posting the above excerpts, from wackypedia though they be, is that they are very convenient: they admit to the Buddhist cloning process, which consists of Buddhism often copying the names and titles and even primary descriptions of Hindu Gods and then using these to construct/invent Buddhist fictional characters which diverge from the Hindu orignals. (And to be clear: these Buddhist clones *are* fiction. <- That's what the admission in the reference to Buddhist 'borrowing' from pre-Buddhist religion is all about.)

Most importantly the two excerpts above - the one on BrahmA and the other on Indra (and the rest of the tridasha) - admit that the Buddhist clones are not the same as the Hindu originals which they were based on. I.e. the Hindu brahmA and indra are NOT the same as the false Buddhist copies of these. The very characters were changed: they were turned into upholders "protectors" of Buddhism, instead of being upholders of the Vedic religion, which is what the originals by the name of Brahma and Indra are. (Though obvious, it is even more important to state vehemently that the Jade Emperor - one of the core Gods of Daoism - is an upholder of the Daoism. He is not remotely a "protector of the Buddhist religion" - being indeed in no way related to Buddhism - and therefore can't be confused with the fictional Buddhist "Shakra" cloned from the original Hindu Indra aka Shakra.)



[color="#0000FF"]INSERT x-post:[/color]

The Hindu Maara aka Manmatha, the PuShpabaaNa, is obviously also unrelated to the Buddhist Maara who is likewise said to be with Pushpabaana:

[quote name='Husky' date='22 December 2012 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1356191879' post='116358']

These original Hindu Gods have as much in common with the Buddhist pseudo-copies made from them, as the original Hindu God Manmatha has to do with his Buddhist cloned "counterpart" - who also retains the name Maara and who is also still described as puShpabaaNa (e.g. in the Dhammapada, IIRC), but who has been dubbed Da Evil One of Buddhism. <- Buddhism doesn't just mean this theoretically/symbolically (though even dubbing him "evil one" for symbolic reasons just because his work/ways were then seen as an impediment to [Buddhist] nirvaNa is still going too far IMO), but it also additionally promotes a literal view on the matter.

In contrast, the Hindu Maara is of course not remotely evil, but is in fact praised in various stotras ...[/quote]





If there were no Hindu, Daoist, Shinto etc originals <=> there'd never have been Buddhist clones of these. <- Take away the LHS and there IS NO RHS, thus showing that the RHS is an invention dependent on LHS.

What is it about missionary religions that they always have to either/or 1. encroach on pre-existing religions (Gods and practices) and 2. at best can only invent further fictions of their own. That is, why do they never seem to have *real* Gods of their *own*?

E.g. Buddhism tries such tricks on Daoist and Shinto Gods in China and Japan, and the only actually Buddhist 'novelties' tend to be of the obvious fictional types such as Avalokiteshvara (though itself a Buddhist clone of and replacement for the Hindu Maheshwara, hence dependent on pre-existing Hindu religion for fashioning the Avalokiteshwara concept too) and Vajrapani (partial replacement for the real i.e. Vedic Indra, e.g. seen in the transfer of Indra's famous Ayudha).





So what was that about the Vedic religion and those who would preserve it being a "swindle" again?

When clearly Buddhism stole Hindu (not to mention Others') Gods - after hissing at Hindus etc for these very things - and then Buddhism spun Buddhist inventions off these (and Buddhism *knows* very well they were spin-offs) only to next peddle these fictions on lay heathen populations in order to make converts using their pre-existing attachments.



I note the shoe fits the accusers: *Swindlers*.



"Oeeeeee.... Dat gaf groot gedonder!

't Werd haast 'n handgemeen

Maar ik bleef er nuchter onder

en ik riep er dwars doorheen:

Hou maar op, ik blijf erbij!"

<rest is N/A>





Anyway, at the least: the Hindu brahmA and indra (and Manmatha and all of the Hindu tridasha/koTi) are not be mistaken for their Buddhist copies. -> Different characters, different cosmologies = different identities, even for those Hindus who wish to believe in the existence of the late, quaint Buddhist clones of the real Hindu originals.

Oh and shouldn't forget the tiny print: the *Hindu* stotras, mantras and ritual practices on these and all *Hindu* Gods are exclusively about the *Hindu* Gods (and not about the Buddhist clones), therefore. These things being *Hindu* not Buddhist religion. Meaning: non-shareable/non-transferrable. <- Actually, I like how the Daoists draw that line: thick, dark, unmistakeable, non-negotiable...





ADDED:

Though this next is taken from a book I wouldn't otherwise ever have chosen to grab quotes from, this bit seems relevant to the matter of there having existed a dedicated following for (the Hindu) BrahmA among Hindus:

There is evidence of sects devoted to Brahma in the 4th century BC.

I guess that means it's known that *at least* as late as the 4th century BCE (and probably for some time later, even though no specific evidence is mentioned), the *Hindu* Brahma had specifically *dedicated* followers among Hindus, the way there are still dedicated followers for the other 2 Gods of the Trimoorti (Vaishnavas and Shaivas).



Also from the same source, which shows the sort of important Hindu texts from which Hindus' ongoing perception of the Hindu brahmA derives:

[The Satapatha Upanishad] says that Brahma is Swayambhu or self-existent: he had no beginning and no end. Brahma and the gods rose out of the waters before the creation of the world as it is now. From him descended all the rishis (sages).

[...]

The older part of the Mahabharata describes him [BrahmA] as the original deity from whom all the world is born. He is the all-inclusive Being ' the Source of the Universe, presiding over all Creation, preserving like Visnu, destroying like Shiva' (Markandeya Purana).

There's a rather interesting question that can be posed from some of the stuff pasted in this post. (<- Ooo, accidental alliteration. Gah, it's becoming terminal.) Where was I? Oh yes: 'interesting' question. Or rather, interesting direction of inquiry off a commonly-asked question.