In the rather late Chinese Buddhist fictional novel (JttW), Buddhism repeated the same behaviour pattern: it decided that Daoist characters would accompany a bodhi-something (bodhidharma?) to India, and that they needed bauddhification. One of these is a very famous and well-loved Daoist God, who's highly placed in the Daoist pantheon.
Buddhism conspired that this God (as other Daoist characters) would need a great fall from grace. So the Buddhist novel declared he was lecherous and had intimidated a Daoist Goddess, who had appealed to Daoist Heaven for help, and that he was thereupon punished for his lecherous pursuit of the Goddess by Daoist Heaven with a reduction in his status (no longer a God) and kicked out of Heaven. (This is why Buddhism started representing this God with the head of a pig.) Having thus written him out of the Daoist pantheon, Buddhism's next lie was to make it so that some Buddha entity got all compassionate about him and redeemed him, and that he thus became a Bauddhified bodhisattva type character. Buddhism's great hope was to thus subvert the Chinese laity (who were always Daoist) into seeing their great Daoist God as a lecherous entity that needed Bauddhistic "salvation" (i.e. conversion) in order to still be respectable. In essence Buddhism, with its lying (sorry, fictionalising) scored for itself moral points: apparently Daoism could not prevent lechery, not even in the ranks of Daoist Gods. Daoist Gods did not have the compassion of the (many fictional) Buddhas and hence could not redeem those who turned out subpar. That Buddhism had what it took to create divinity. Thus finally leading to the false Buddhist conclusion that Buddhism, and not Daoism, is what generates and possesses Divinity. The other false notions that Buddhism wanted to instill into the Chinese populace was that this Daoist God (whom the Buddhist cloning-and-mangling process reinvented as lecherous) was not worthy of popular worship.
Note the 'cleverness': it was *Buddhism* that implicated Daoist Gods and Heaven using fictions that never took place. It was then Buddhism that declared itself superior. These are not 2 subsects of the same native religion trying to outdo each other. It's an alien, invasive religion, attacking the native religion of a populace, trying to replace it (or its head) with itself.
The prequel to the novel, using typical Buddhist techniques of using consciously-invented fiction* as propaganda against native religion, had already declared Buddha superior to the Jade Emperor and all of Daoist Heaven.
[* Note: not even pseudo-history, but openly-acknowledged fiction. This is a unique feature of Buddhism. Christianism pretends its propaganda against other religions is history, i.e. fact. Buddhism never bothered. It churned out openly fantastical and implausible stories, which it never pretended were history but admitted were mere parable containing moral lessons - usually on the superiority of Buddhism 'compassion' - but nevertheless deliberately created and used these parables/fictions as propaganda against native heathen religions.]
Despite Buddhism's desperate attempts at subverting the heathen perceptions of the Chinese laity in this matter, it only partially succeeded in its aims.
Buddhism did not manage to de-popularise worship of the Daoist God despite its desperate tactics, but succeeded in another - unexpected aspect - the laity (subverted by such Buddhist lying) do indeed continue to worship the God despite Buddhism's scheming against him, but some laity now worship him as having the head of a pig: something which he does not have and never had, apparently. Traditional Daoists have been working hard to rectify the error. IIRC, I recently even read that Daoists are ensuring the elimination of the false statues where he is represented with the head of a pig, so that Daoists aren't duped by the Buddhist lies into buying those anymore, but would instead acquire (or create) the correct vigrahas: where he has the original head of the God. Note that it's not that Daoists have anything particularly against pigs, but this God simply does not have the head of one.
(As I understand, it seems even the confused laity didn't accept that he ever chased after the Moon Goddess. Rather they appear to read this as a fantastical 'feature' of the Buddhist novel.)
IN REALITY - i.e. beyond the late, fraudulent Buddhist lying against Daoism (and the Buddhist author very much had it in for Daoism) - it turns out that, as traditional Daoists explain:
- the Daoist God was never lecherous, he was ever of noble and perfect character (in case you couldn't work that out)
- never had the head of a pig
- these Gods never got kicked out of Daoist Heaven, but remain part of it still
- they never met any Buddha - not the historical one or fictional ones - never learnt the 'compassion' of Buddha and never became bodhisattvas
- they have nothing to do with Buddhism
The lesson that the Chinese laity should have learned (and many did indeed learn - even before these late novels, which is why in early centuries, the Chinese had tried to kick Buddhism out of their country) is not that their native religion had any faults, but that Buddhism has a tendency to lie damnably against other religions. Buddhism couldn't catch on in a population as much as its peddlers wanted it to (or pretended it could). So Buddhism latched onto popular Gods, and tried to claim them for Buddhism (often by mangling them first).
Just like the Hindu Indra and BrahmA are real and have nothing to do with their fictional, bauddified 'Buddhist' clones, the original Daoist Gods alluded to in this post are real and have nothing to do with their late, fictional, bauddified 'Buddhist' clones either. No matter that late Buddhist fictionalising tried to project its narrative into earlier Daoist history.
The moral that Hindus - and everyone heathen really - can take from this, is that if Buddhism ever describes a heathen God as behaving unGodlike, it must be Buddhist fictionalising at work again, rather than taking the Buddhist spin at face value. (Same conclusion as when Buddhism declares a heathen God is magically a bodhisattva/part of Buddhist cosmology.)
On another matter, but still concerning the same geography, Buddhism had invented a special Buddha (i.e. one of the many fictional Buddhas) which it declared was appointed specifically for the conversion - I mean (bauddhific) salvation - of the Chinese*. Sort of like how christianism had invented the fictional santa thomas and declared said fiction was appointed specifically for the conversion of Asians like Indians and Chinese. Buddhism had written this role for their character for the same reason that christianism wrote the same sort of role for thomas: as a banner (and excuse) for conversion to the new religion.
This Buddha and the purpose conveniently invented for him were yet another Buddhist Swindle <- to use that common Buddhist accusation against others. Not my words, right? They started it. And they knew exactly what they were doing. (But heathens are going to finish it - the difference is that heathens don't need to lie against Buddhism, the way Buddhism has continuously lied against its perceived competition, in order to reveal the real swindling. No, it's not okay. If it had stopped centuries ago, it might have been forgivable. But it keeps going and going and going, since people never actively put a stop to it. Instead silly Indians in love with the notion that Buddhism=compassion - and nothing else is - peddle even the most frightful Buddhist fables about as fact: down to anti-heathen fables, including even ones that encroach on heathenisms to donate these to Buddhism. This has to stop.)
[* I could be confusing myself with other buddhist characters, but I think this particular concocted Buddha was called Manjushri?]
Buddhism conspired that this God (as other Daoist characters) would need a great fall from grace. So the Buddhist novel declared he was lecherous and had intimidated a Daoist Goddess, who had appealed to Daoist Heaven for help, and that he was thereupon punished for his lecherous pursuit of the Goddess by Daoist Heaven with a reduction in his status (no longer a God) and kicked out of Heaven. (This is why Buddhism started representing this God with the head of a pig.) Having thus written him out of the Daoist pantheon, Buddhism's next lie was to make it so that some Buddha entity got all compassionate about him and redeemed him, and that he thus became a Bauddhified bodhisattva type character. Buddhism's great hope was to thus subvert the Chinese laity (who were always Daoist) into seeing their great Daoist God as a lecherous entity that needed Bauddhistic "salvation" (i.e. conversion) in order to still be respectable. In essence Buddhism, with its lying (sorry, fictionalising) scored for itself moral points: apparently Daoism could not prevent lechery, not even in the ranks of Daoist Gods. Daoist Gods did not have the compassion of the (many fictional) Buddhas and hence could not redeem those who turned out subpar. That Buddhism had what it took to create divinity. Thus finally leading to the false Buddhist conclusion that Buddhism, and not Daoism, is what generates and possesses Divinity. The other false notions that Buddhism wanted to instill into the Chinese populace was that this Daoist God (whom the Buddhist cloning-and-mangling process reinvented as lecherous) was not worthy of popular worship.
Note the 'cleverness': it was *Buddhism* that implicated Daoist Gods and Heaven using fictions that never took place. It was then Buddhism that declared itself superior. These are not 2 subsects of the same native religion trying to outdo each other. It's an alien, invasive religion, attacking the native religion of a populace, trying to replace it (or its head) with itself.
The prequel to the novel, using typical Buddhist techniques of using consciously-invented fiction* as propaganda against native religion, had already declared Buddha superior to the Jade Emperor and all of Daoist Heaven.
[* Note: not even pseudo-history, but openly-acknowledged fiction. This is a unique feature of Buddhism. Christianism pretends its propaganda against other religions is history, i.e. fact. Buddhism never bothered. It churned out openly fantastical and implausible stories, which it never pretended were history but admitted were mere parable containing moral lessons - usually on the superiority of Buddhism 'compassion' - but nevertheless deliberately created and used these parables/fictions as propaganda against native heathen religions.]
Despite Buddhism's desperate attempts at subverting the heathen perceptions of the Chinese laity in this matter, it only partially succeeded in its aims.
Buddhism did not manage to de-popularise worship of the Daoist God despite its desperate tactics, but succeeded in another - unexpected aspect - the laity (subverted by such Buddhist lying) do indeed continue to worship the God despite Buddhism's scheming against him, but some laity now worship him as having the head of a pig: something which he does not have and never had, apparently. Traditional Daoists have been working hard to rectify the error. IIRC, I recently even read that Daoists are ensuring the elimination of the false statues where he is represented with the head of a pig, so that Daoists aren't duped by the Buddhist lies into buying those anymore, but would instead acquire (or create) the correct vigrahas: where he has the original head of the God. Note that it's not that Daoists have anything particularly against pigs, but this God simply does not have the head of one.
(As I understand, it seems even the confused laity didn't accept that he ever chased after the Moon Goddess. Rather they appear to read this as a fantastical 'feature' of the Buddhist novel.)
IN REALITY - i.e. beyond the late, fraudulent Buddhist lying against Daoism (and the Buddhist author very much had it in for Daoism) - it turns out that, as traditional Daoists explain:
- the Daoist God was never lecherous, he was ever of noble and perfect character (in case you couldn't work that out)
- never had the head of a pig
- these Gods never got kicked out of Daoist Heaven, but remain part of it still
- they never met any Buddha - not the historical one or fictional ones - never learnt the 'compassion' of Buddha and never became bodhisattvas
- they have nothing to do with Buddhism
The lesson that the Chinese laity should have learned (and many did indeed learn - even before these late novels, which is why in early centuries, the Chinese had tried to kick Buddhism out of their country) is not that their native religion had any faults, but that Buddhism has a tendency to lie damnably against other religions. Buddhism couldn't catch on in a population as much as its peddlers wanted it to (or pretended it could). So Buddhism latched onto popular Gods, and tried to claim them for Buddhism (often by mangling them first).
Just like the Hindu Indra and BrahmA are real and have nothing to do with their fictional, bauddified 'Buddhist' clones, the original Daoist Gods alluded to in this post are real and have nothing to do with their late, fictional, bauddified 'Buddhist' clones either. No matter that late Buddhist fictionalising tried to project its narrative into earlier Daoist history.
The moral that Hindus - and everyone heathen really - can take from this, is that if Buddhism ever describes a heathen God as behaving unGodlike, it must be Buddhist fictionalising at work again, rather than taking the Buddhist spin at face value. (Same conclusion as when Buddhism declares a heathen God is magically a bodhisattva/part of Buddhist cosmology.)
On another matter, but still concerning the same geography, Buddhism had invented a special Buddha (i.e. one of the many fictional Buddhas) which it declared was appointed specifically for the conversion - I mean (bauddhific) salvation - of the Chinese*. Sort of like how christianism had invented the fictional santa thomas and declared said fiction was appointed specifically for the conversion of Asians like Indians and Chinese. Buddhism had written this role for their character for the same reason that christianism wrote the same sort of role for thomas: as a banner (and excuse) for conversion to the new religion.
This Buddha and the purpose conveniently invented for him were yet another Buddhist Swindle <- to use that common Buddhist accusation against others. Not my words, right? They started it. And they knew exactly what they were doing. (But heathens are going to finish it - the difference is that heathens don't need to lie against Buddhism, the way Buddhism has continuously lied against its perceived competition, in order to reveal the real swindling. No, it's not okay. If it had stopped centuries ago, it might have been forgivable. But it keeps going and going and going, since people never actively put a stop to it. Instead silly Indians in love with the notion that Buddhism=compassion - and nothing else is - peddle even the most frightful Buddhist fables about as fact: down to anti-heathen fables, including even ones that encroach on heathenisms to donate these to Buddhism. This has to stop.)
[* I could be confusing myself with other buddhist characters, but I think this particular concocted Buddha was called Manjushri?]