Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

A Tamizh-origin Buddhist on-fire for Buddhism and peddling it about as hard as he can, and who I see never wastes an opportunity to kick at Hindus (and with blatant falsehoods too), is yet hosting the following 3 pages (no, I'm not linking to him):

- the bauddhified Shiva aka the fictional Buddhist clone of Shiva

- the bauddhified Vishnu aka the fictional Buddhist clone of Vishnu

- and a page on Kamadeva with Hindu mantras to him and Tamizh Hindu materials at links on Kama, despite that Buddhism hisses at Kamadeva as a great evil. But clearly the blogger wants his blog to be popular so he gives access to Hindu mantras of Hindu Gods to the new agey alien clique that no doubt invades his otherwise dull "Buddhism Ra Ra" pages.



Essentially the dude is using Hindu Gods to peddle Buddhism (nothing new I suppose), even while he engages in that hobby of knocking at Hindu religion.



In the comments section of the Bauddified-Shiva page, someone brought up some tantra where a Buddha kills "Shiva" and revives him and then that "Rudra" converts to Buddhism. All magically, of course.



Obviously this is the usual and typical Buddhist fiction invented by Buddhism, and does not concern the real Hindu Gods (just as the fine print for fiction movies say about "no resemblance to real characters intended", though in Buddhism's case, it did *intend* the resemblance for missionary purposes.) And it's very comparable to the fictional Buddhist story of a bad Buddhist clone of a Taoist God getting turned into a pig for a crime the real Taoist God never committed, and then the clone magically and predictably converted to Buddhism - which the Taoist God never did of course. Etc etc. Same essential story, different geography.



The blog owner, the Indian Buddhist, responded Ueber Lamely to the comment mentioning the Buddhist 'tantra' that, as it concerned a "tantra" text, it therefore "must have" an esoteric meaning that needed "deep" study, and ended it there. Clearly he was not comfortable, and even less comfortable with such shady dealings of Buddhism vis-a-vis Hindu Gods coming to light, especially as these comments were on an article about how lovey-dovey Buddhism supposedly feels about Shiva and how (therefore) Shiva will [at least eventually] be declared as belonging "equally" to Buddhism.* No. Buddhists etc have clones of Hindu, Daoist, ([color="#0000FF"]correction:[/color]) Shinto and Greek Gods. And that's *all* they have.

[*Ok, to be honest, I really didn't read his article on 'The Buddhist fiction named after Shiva' in full, but I've seen the same encroachment pattern elsewhere.]



But the exact same Buddhist tactic used on the Taoists in the example mentioned above (and covered in just slightly more depth in an earlier post) was a mere Buddhist "story" not a tantra, so that had someone brought *that* up, then the blog host surely wouldn't have been able to hide behind the Mere Excuse that "it's a tantra, it needs deep study". Instead, he'd probably have dismissed it with "it's a mere classic, Buddhism didn't mean it (aka we need to look for the deeper moral)." Oh it *meant* it alright.



Anyway, it's only missionary religions that would elevate these petty things to "tantras" and "classics/morals" (insinuating other people's Gods of course).





When I googled on the long name of that tantra I found the following stuff which I have stolen/copied to paste here. Makes for uncomfortable reading, but it's Oh So Typical.



manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/the-anti-shaiva-rants-of-the-nastika-s/

The anti-shaiva rants of the nAstika-s

The below may offend Hindus; Hence viewer discretion is advised.



Both the bauddha and jaina nAstika-s saw shaiva-s of all hues as major competitors. It is interesting to note that despite the popularity of pA~ncharAtra tantra-s much of bauddha hate is particularly directed at the shaiva-s rather than vaiShNava-s. While shuddhodana-putra (=Buddha, Shakyamuni) was a subversionist**, he cannot be described as having special hate for his Astika rivals. But his successors definitely had a considerable hate for Astika-s in general and shaiva-s in particular. In contrast, we do not see this level of directed spite and hate on the Astika side. The unidirectionality of it suggests that the nAstika-s indeed had an inferiority complex and were vigorously competing with Astika-s and did everything to absorb key elements of their new innovations. So it not at all surprising when we hear of tales of nAstika-s oppressing Astika-s. The lurid and obscene details of the nAstIka hate for Astika-s has often been concealed from audiences due their sheer repulsiveness. However, we felt that some of this may be made public for the sake of information. It must be mentioned that some of the promulgators of these nAstika shAstra-s were brAhmaNa-s with a new convert’s zeal. But in practical terms I was reminded of R1’s father’s special experience in Nepal in the form of the mantra-battle he had fought in his youth, which I described earlier.



[color="#800080"](** Oh duh, I finally get it - or so I imagine: the word subversionist is used to translate Pashanda. Makes sense. I would have gone with the general meaning "impiety" a la how impiety and atheismos had a meaning in Roman religion even before christianism, and then naturally got tagged onto christianism when the aberration appeared. But subversion is a good choice from another angle. Though I never used Buddhism/etc as a "subversion" in that sense. With that last word I just meant the twisting of pre-existing stuff - i.e. plainly - and did not have Pashanda in mind for it. Hmmm. Deep.

Tsss, as if I will ever be using these words with any frequency anywhere anyway. Besides, I probably misunderstood the whole thing.)[/color]



1) sarva-tathAgata-tattva-saMgraha; 6th paTala

The buddha vairochana seated on the top of meru asked the bodhisattva vajrapANi to enter his maNDala. He said he would not enter until he had subjugated all the Astika devatA-s. So vairochana started uttering incantations to bind and drag all devatA-s before his abode on meru. He also dragged the terrible maheshvara and his gaNa-s there, whom the other tathAgata-s had till then failed to conquer. The devatA-s were commanded by vajrapANi to accept the nAstika-vrata-s and convert to the bauddha-mata. mahAdeva was enraged and declared that he is the supreme deity and source and end of the universe, who will not take orders from a mere yakSha like vajrapANi. vajrapANi retorted that he who eats corpses and whose clothes, bed and food are funeral ashes should surrender. But maheshvara refuses and displayed his terrifying mahArudra and mahAbhairava forms. Upon seeing those awful forms of rudra, vairochana uttered the mantra “OM nisumbha vajra huM phaT” and vajrapANi utters a loud “hUM”. rudra is killed by this mantra and the other devatA-s beg the buddha and bodhisattva to spare them. They declared that they did not understand the bauddha-dharma and it would be un-bauddha of a merciful bodhisattva to kill them. So vajrapAni restored them and made them his attendants. He then uttered “vajrAyuH” and brought mahAdeva back to life but he refused to convert and declared that he would die rather than convert to the bauddha-mata, and again showed his terrifying mahArudra form. There upon vajrapAni bound him and his shakti umA with his mantra-s and tramples them under his left and right foot respectively uttering the formula “OM vajrAvisha hanaya traM traT. He then laughed loudly, even as the three worlds declared vajrapANi the victor. By the touch of the feet of vajrapANi and the power of vairochana’s mantra “OM buddhamaitri vajrarakSha hUM” acting on mahAdeva he became a new buddha known as bhasmeshvara-nirghoSha. He became the presiding buddha of the realm known as bhasmAchChanna in a distant universe from this triloka. Then vajrapANi trampled successively nArAyaNa, kumAra, brahmA and indra and they too were transformed into tutelary deities of the maNDala after being given *new names*.

(New names? Oh but of course. "Calling all clones.")



2) guhyagarbha, 15th paTala

maheshvara starts propagating tantra-s that negate the concepts of shUNyata and anAtman. He was sent to different naraka-s for this by the tathAgata but he escapes and emerges as rudra who terrorizes the world with diseases. In order to “rescue” rudra from the ocean of saMsAra the tathAgata spawns a kulA~nganA named krodheshvarI. As a result of their coitus a host of devatA-s is born to conquer rudra and his gaNa-s. Then the tathAgata himself assumes the form of heruka with 3 heads, six hands and four legs and tramples rudra and umA under his feet. But rudra and chaNdikA escape and return to take control of the triloka. So he becomes an even more dreadful heruka with 9 heads, 18 hands and 8 legs and with his host seizes rudra and his gaNas and disembowels them. Then he cuts their limbs to pieces and eats their flesh and drinks their blood. Then he uses their skulls as ritual bowls and bones as ornaments. He digests rudra and his host but discards their hearts and sense organs and finally excretes them into a giant ocean of crap that is then drunk up by his attendant uchChuShma-krodha. Then maheshvara and his gaNa-s are revived and seated as attendant deities in heruka’s yantra. The wives, daughters and mothers of rudra and his gaNa-s are given to heruka, uchChuShma-krodha and others as sexual partners for their kula rites.



3) A rant of the old school Tibetan Lama Bu ston from around 1300 CE

maheshvara at the head of asuras, nAgas, yakShas and rakShas takes control of 24 holy pITha-s of bhAratavarSha. As mahAdeva was in maithuna with his shakti kAlarAtri he asks his hordes to set up and worship 24 li~Nga-s. The bodhisattva vajradhara assumes the form of heruka on meru and emanates 24 DAkinI-s and vIra-s with whom he subjugates the devatA-s and crushes the li~Nga-s at the 24 pITha-s. In their place he introduces the practice of the bauddha-kaula doctrines.

Conclusion w.r.t the Tamizh Buddhist's excuse: Oh yes, #1 (and the rest) is a really "deep" esoteric tantra text. Requiring "deep" study to get at its "real" meaning. arcasm: Sort of like the "real" and "deep" hidden meaning behind the uh eminent Buddhist what's-his-name in Tibet hissing plainly at Bon religion (round about the period the latter got persecuted into extinction by Buddhism, by some great ...coincidence).





But yeah, of course Shiva etc belong "equally" to Buddhism. arcasm-again: And if anyone "Hindu" believes that, then please convert to Buddhism already.





Found another. Wish I found this one earlier too, would have been additional supporting evidence. But certainly remains a Very Handy Summary.



manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/some-anti-astika-stories-of-the-jaina-s/

Some anti-Astika stories of the jaina-s

The nAstika-s, smarting from their poor performance relative to the sanAtana-dharma, resorted to several distinct tactics: imitation, appropriation and distortion. But one of the problems they faced was that their hard-won converts tended to lapse back into the Astika ground state – this was especially so when the nAstika-s started imitating and appropriating the Astika traditions. Thus, even the virulent anti-Astika polemicist, the jaina yogin haribhadra sUri, concedes that the jaina-s might worship Astika deities, or even the tathAgata, in addition to the nagna. But still they needed mechanisms to keep their flock from dropping the ford-makers or the tathAgata-s from their respective pantheons because that was the most likely outcome. In particular, the itihAsa-s being the most important vehicle of the sanAtana-dharma across all socio-genetic strata they focused their attack on them. Thus, we hear buddhaghoSha proscribing the saugata-s from listening to the mahAbhArata and the rAmAyaNa. The jaina-s in contrast also created their own distorted versions of these texts in which the original heroes are down-graded and made to give way to promulgators of jina doctrines. Another approach was to insert tales into traditional collections of stories or invent new story collections to show the original deities and traditions of the sanAtana-dharma in poor light or as being ineffective. We review below some such creations of the jaina-s, which also throw some light on the sociology of the era. One such is from the jaina bR^ihatkathA of hariSheNa – massive work from the first half of the 900s of CE that was printed in the 1940s (kathA 54):



...

The rest is at link. (Didn't read the remainder myself - feeling a bit queasy, so saving it for another day, I mean, what if it contains more Yuck? But in theory I don't need to read it: have read enough Bauddhising fictions on Daoism and Shinto - and even Hindu religion - and also know enough on Jain rewrites and inserts into Hindu religion too to guess it will be Yet More Of The Same.)





On these two lines from the quoteblock above:

(manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/some-anti-astika-stories-of-the-jaina-s/ again)

The nAstika-s, smarting from their poor performance relative to the sanAtana-dharma, resorted to several distinct tactics: imitation, appropriation and distortion. But one of the problems they faced was that their hard-won converts tended to lapse back into the Astika ground state – this was especially so when the nAstika-s started imitating and appropriating the Astika traditions. (i.e. inculturating)

This is *exactly* true of the stunt Buddhism pulled on Shinto and Daoism etc. (And it's beyond amazing how many Daoist, Shinto, Bon etc religious stuff Buddhism magically gets credited with. "Oh look how great Buddhist culture/civilisation is." "Except uh, that was lifted/plagiarised/hijacked straight from Daoism and that was stolen from Shinto" etc, etc.)

Missionary religions. Bah.



Even today, many lay "converts" to Buddhism in the east tend to revert to their ethnic, ancestral Gods/religion. (Who can resist the Shen or the Kami, after all.) The Bauddha Sangha is quite active against this though.





Hindus are pretty easy going about the kind of tripe they had to put up with (leastways I am/was, maybe because we eventually had the upper hand; and to survive against missionary ideologies and develop immunity is to win, after all). But if Hindus only knew the details of what went down further to the east, and Buddhism's modus operandi there, I'll bet Hindus would never look at Buddhism the same way ever again. I can't. (The only difference I can see is that - fortunately for E/SE Asia - Jainism didn't really make it out of the backyard.)