Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddha and Vishnu
Hey everyone,
I am wondering how many people know about this and what are your opinions ?
In the Maha-samya Sutta there was an occasion when the devas from almost all the planes came to see the Buddha when he was dwelling in the Great Wood together with 500 bhikkhus, all of them arahants. The Buddha introduced their names to the monks, Vishnu was one of those present. The Buddha mentioned him by the name Venhu.
The Venhu Sutta shows Vishnu as one of the young devas who came to visit and talked with the Buddha:
At Savatthi. Standing to one side, the young deva Venhu recited this verse in the presence of the Blessed One: " Happy indeed are those human beings attending on the Fortunate One. Applying themselves to Gotama's Teaching, who train in it with diligence."
The Blessed One said: "When the course of teaching is proclaimed by me, O Venhu," said the Blessed One, "Those meditators who train therein. Being diligent at the proper time. Will not come under Death's control."- The Connected Discourse of the Buddha" A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi ,page 432)
According to "Hinduism and Buddhism An Historical Sketch" (Vol. 2 page 746) , Sir Charles Elliot who was a British diplomat mentioned that this correlates with the Rig Veda text before Hinduism started. Both texts mentioned that Vishnu and Shiva are minor deities instead of the Lords of the Universe as popularly known by worshippers:
" Vishnu and Rudra (Shiva) are known even to the Rig Veda but as deities of no special eminence. It is only after the Vedic age that they became , each for his own worshippers, undisputed Lords of the Universe…..The Pali Pitakas frequently introduce popular deities , but give no prominence to Vishnu and Siva. They are apparently mentioned under the names of Venhu and Isana, but are not differentiated from a host of spirits now forgotten. ….The suttas of the Digha Nikaya in which these lists of deities occur were perhaps composed before 300 B.C. "- Sir Charles Elliot
I am wondering how many people know about this and what are your opinions ?
In the Maha-samya Sutta there was an occasion when the devas from almost all the planes came to see the Buddha when he was dwelling in the Great Wood together with 500 bhikkhus, all of them arahants. The Buddha introduced their names to the monks, Vishnu was one of those present. The Buddha mentioned him by the name Venhu.
The Venhu Sutta shows Vishnu as one of the young devas who came to visit and talked with the Buddha:
At Savatthi. Standing to one side, the young deva Venhu recited this verse in the presence of the Blessed One: " Happy indeed are those human beings attending on the Fortunate One. Applying themselves to Gotama's Teaching, who train in it with diligence."
The Blessed One said: "When the course of teaching is proclaimed by me, O Venhu," said the Blessed One, "Those meditators who train therein. Being diligent at the proper time. Will not come under Death's control."- The Connected Discourse of the Buddha" A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi ,page 432)
According to "Hinduism and Buddhism An Historical Sketch" (Vol. 2 page 746) , Sir Charles Elliot who was a British diplomat mentioned that this correlates with the Rig Veda text before Hinduism started. Both texts mentioned that Vishnu and Shiva are minor deities instead of the Lords of the Universe as popularly known by worshippers:
" Vishnu and Rudra (Shiva) are known even to the Rig Veda but as deities of no special eminence. It is only after the Vedic age that they became , each for his own worshippers, undisputed Lords of the Universe…..The Pali Pitakas frequently introduce popular deities , but give no prominence to Vishnu and Siva. They are apparently mentioned under the names of Venhu and Isana, but are not differentiated from a host of spirits now forgotten. ….The suttas of the Digha Nikaya in which these lists of deities occur were perhaps composed before 300 B.C. "- Sir Charles Elliot
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
When we come across gods of the vedic pantheon in the sutras, I suggest that we are expected to read an allegory rather than an actual manifestation. Indeed, they represent archetypes immediately recognisable at the time but which we have to research.
The fact that 'minor' gods move into positions of eminence can be observed in all polytheisms, of which Hinduism and Egyptian religions are prime examples. In the West, this process is mythologised in the story of Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus: a bloody family saga worthy of Dynasty. Even Christianity has a similar process in the evolution of the notions of the Son and the Spirit.
Thanks for sharing. I wonder why there is a tendency to turn a minor deity into an imaginary all powerful creator and worship.
The other thing is involving the Buddha in it by turning him into a small version /avatar of that minor deity. In the process not allowing Buddhist to be a recognized religion in India.
About devas :
I believe the Buddha didn't deny the existence of devas in polytheistic religion. If we look at the 31 planes of existence or rebirth in samsara, they are mostly found in the Kama-loka. Only Brahma is found in the Rupa-loka. All the other devas in the the higher Arupa-loka and the Pure Abodes are unknown in polytheistic religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Cosmology_%28Theraveda%29
The Buddha said in the suttas that many of his past lives are in these realms. The only thing is in Buddhism all these planes are still considered to be within Samsara and beings are subject to rebirth, rather than seeing beings in the brahma realm as the ultimate creator without having to be born in a lower realm ( human, animal, etc.) again . That is why although there is the existence of various deva planes but there is no emphasis on setting these planes as the ultimate goal of the holy life.
I believe the article I posted at the beginning just shows that Vishnu and Buddha are two separate being. Buddha is not the avatar of Vishnu.
Peace,
Me, I just read, and absorb.
It's the simple life for me.
If it engages and makes sense, I go with it.
If it doesn't I just leave well alone.
I have enough on my plate chewing over and digesting the Four, the Eight and the Five.
I have no room for dessert, and besides, it generally fills you up with stodge, and leaves you unnecessarily bloated.
Maybe its just me, but it seems that in stead of trying to discuss a Buddhist topic, its just pointing fingers at Hindu's, saying that the gods they venerate the most, aren't qualified for that veneration.
Much love
Samten
I don't think that we are disrespecting Hindu beliefs. The fact is that Vedic deities are mentioned and even addressed by the Buddha - and we should find a valuable lesson on how to engage with venerated deities, whether they be Hindu, Christian or the new deity Agora.
Peace,
Indeed true, dharma. That having been said we mus, at some point, come to ask ourselves what we mean by "Buddha".
Yes, regarding this the Buddha said " One who see the Dhamma sees the Tathagata. One who see the Tathagata sees the Dhamma."
One thing for sure, Tathagata does not refer to beings in any of the 31 planes of existence ( ie.. brahma). The reason is that in any of these planes, beings exist dependent on a certain aggregates ( khandas). All five aggregates are non-self. To identify with any aggregate as self is considered wrong view. Even in the 31st plane called the "Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non Perception", beings in this plane only have mind and no physical body. But still mind is considered one of the aggregates, and to identify with any aggregate as an eternal self is wrong view. For "Stream Entry" (1st stage of Awakening) this view needs to be abandoned.
Peace,
Now it is a truism in religion that the god of the old religion becomes the devil of the new. Look at the image of Pan Pangenitor and the way he has become the image of the devil in modern Christianity. You can see the same thing in philosophy. Look at the idea of 'turiya' or the fourth state of consciousness beyond waking, dream and deep sleep. Over time, a new concept called 'turiyatita' or "beyond the fourth" was introduced to overcome the tendency of people to hypostatize turiya into an actual thing. As such, an evolution in religious concepts and even iconography is healthy. The point of it all is realization, not doctrinal consistency, no?
The inconsistencies only shows that the doctrine is imperfect and unreliable, just like the people that wrote them. And should be taken with proper discernment. Inconsistencies can also shows that changes have been made by someone.
Just look at the later idea of Buddha being the avatar of Vishnu whose teaching was only meant for "demons" and to mislead them. Does this mean that Buddhist are "demons". If you look at a lot of Buddhist , they are just like everyone else. There are hardly any substantial basis to this claim except some excerpt from later Hindu texts that are inconsistent with the other texts to begin with. This theory sounds more like a desperate attempt to discredit the Buddha through false indoctrination because of the inability to debunk the concepts in his teachings. It is not at all plausible.
According to the Buddha's teaching, he didn't become a god after Awakening, much less an "avatar" or an incarnation of that god. Awakening is transcending all the 31 planes of existence, which includes the god or deva planes. There is no identification with any past indentity in these planes or entity found in these planes as self. Also there is no coming back to take up a role or identity in these planes of samsara for a Buddha.
Why are you quoting a book written in 1921 by a Englishman? There is a considerable amount of indigenous archeology, history, indology and religious studies done in the later half of the 20th century. No scholar of today would rely on such works as Eliot's. If you want to be taken seriously and not merely regarded as a mere polemicist, you need to actually test your claims rather than just rely on a single flawed text by someone far outside the traditions under the microscope. I suggest you could sympathetically read some of Muller-Ortega's work on Trika Shaivism or Danielou's 'Shiva and the Primordial Tradition". Of course if you don't care for the verity of your claims and simply want to cheerlead for a team, please feel free to ignore the facts and continue on your way.
If you are going to consider a doctrine to be imperfect and unreliable, then at least become learned in it enough to actually engage it on its own terms as all of the great pandits of Nalanda did, for instance (particularly when your own viewpoint can die by the same sword). There are a myriad of apparently conflicting viewpoints in Buddhism. These are not flaws but in fact are skillful means to engage beings of many different backgrounds and capabilities. As to whether changes have been made, I don't give a damn whether changes are made in a religion if they are made by a realized being. At the same time, I don't give a damn how old something is if those who teach it are not realized. Lineage comes from awakened mind, not merely history.
This is the same sort of foolish polemics from the Hindus that you want to encourage on the Buddhist side. Whenever there are cheerleaders for a cause, this sort of drivel occurs. It is irrelevant to the considerable engagement of the philosophical traditions with each other. Have you ever actually read Adi Shankara? Gaudapada? Abhinavagupta? Buddhists and Hindus influenced each other over the ages. This is a good thing, not a bad one. You don't get brownie points for picking the religion that wins the debates. The only real litmus test is whether one can realize one's own mind. You don't need to be either a Buddhist OR a Hindu to do so.
That is not a viewpoint commonly held across all buddhist traditions. In fact, in most Mahayana traditions, Shakyamuni Buddha descended from the Tushita heaven already enlightened to display the 12 acts. You can agree with that or not, depending on what tradition you practice but you would have to make the same criticism of Buddhism as you are levelling against Hinduism.
I don't think it is substantial to discredit the authenticity of a book based on the year it was written. The Pali Canon was compiled around 300 B.C. , does that mean that it is out of date , or does it mean that it is less authentic than later Buddhist literature ? Can you be more specific than merely naming a list of books that has a different year number. In other words , what exactly is wrong with the quote from the "Englishman" written in 1921.
I studied and practiced Hinduism before. The doctrine has been refuted by the Buddha as recorded in the Pali Canon. Which aspects in particular do you want to discuss.
How do know for sure if the changes have been made by a realized beings. If two pieces of writing contradicts each other, shouldn't one wonder why is it the case? If both contradict each other, then which is authentic and which is not. Why would anyone wants to blindly accept scriptures without discernment, especially when contradictions exists.
What about these texts. Have you read the Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Khuddaka Nikaya ?
You mean the over emphasis on rituals and tantra ?
According to "Hinduism and Buddhism An Historical Sketch ", in 747 relations with China were bad, so the King of Tibet turned towards India and invited a Pandit named Santarakshita, who advised them to send for Padma-Sambhava ( an Indian tantric sage) :
When the other monks told the Buddha about this monk's view , he called the monk to him and said :
Today when it comes to sexuality in monastic life, the Dalai Lama said :
"Nowadays, unfortunately, we have a new vocabulary -- a monk with a wife. This is wrong. A monk is celibate. Those who dress like a monk, with a wife, they are not monks. Of course, it's the individual's right. You can always give up a monk's vows, and then change your dress." - Dalai Lama
According to the Pali Canon, there are numerous suttas where the Buddha discourages Brahmins from the practice of rites and rituals. Virtue ( ethical conducts) is a requisite in meditation practice. In other words, purity in words, thought , and action is crucial in the path instead of rites and rituals. In the Kutadanta Sutta of the Digha Nikaya , the Brahmin Kutadanta went to see the Buddha for advice on how to best conduct a sacrifice. The showed him a way that doesn't involve taking life if he's going to carry out a sacrifice. The Buddha also points out some spiritual practices that are much more beneficial than rites and rituals:
2. The Buddha told him of the traditional practice of offering the four requisites to bhikkhus of high morality.
3. Less troublesome and more profitable again was donating a monastery to the Order of Bhikkhus. Better still were the following practices in ascending order of beneficial effects:
4. Going to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha for refuge;
5. observance of the Five Precepts;
6. going forth from the homelife and leading the holy life, becoming established in morality, accomplished in the four jhanas, and equipped with eight kinds of higher knowledge resulting in the realization of extinction of asavas, the sacrifice which entails less trouble and exertion but which excels all other sacrifices.
In the Pali Canon, the Buddha always say " While I was still an unenlightened bodhisattva" when telling about his story before Awakening under the Bodhi Tree. This includes the time when he was still living at home and while still practicing in that very life as Siddharta. Only after Awakening under the Bodhi tree does he considers himself as Enlightened, or refer to himself as a Fully Enlightened Buddha or Tathagatha.
In the Mahasaccaka Sutta , when speaking about the days before he leaves the household life as a prince he said:
“Why not, Aggivessana? Here, Aggivessana, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisattva , I thought: ‘Household life is crowded and dusty; life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy, while living in a home, to lead the holy life utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. Suppose I shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from home life into homelessness.’
In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta the Buddha said:
" This noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed': thus, monks , in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, penetration, and light........
"So long, monks, as my knowledge and vision of these Four Noble Truths as they really are in their three phases and twelve aspects was not thoroughly purified in this way, I did not claim to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world."
The Pali canon is not a scholarly work of comparative religion. By your logic we should use medieval medical manuals as guides to modern surgery. You go with that and let me know how it works out for you. The Eliot book is rife with inaccuracies. I have already given you some grievous examples: Shiva was well known in the Vedas as evidenced by the Namakam-Chamakam being part of both the Rg and Yajur Veda. I am not going to waste my time going through a line-by-line refutation when he gets such basic things wrong.
Let's start with exactly what it is that you studied and practiced before. Hinduism is not a monolithic philosophy or religion. If it is true that you studied and practiced it, you would easily seen the problem with Eliot's claims. However, prove me wrong. Who were your teachers? What was their sampradaya?
What is currently called Hinduism didn't exist at the time of Lord Buddha. How could he have refuted it? Gaudapada and Adi Shankaracharya were profoundly influenced by Buddhist thought-- indeed often being called crypto-buddhists.
That's a straw man. I am not suggesting blindly accepting scripture. Why should you blindly accept that Shakyamuni Buddha was enlightened? You have not met him, nor do you know what he actually said. Your claims of veracity are just as suspect as anyone else. At a certain point one has to say "I accept that these are the words of an enlightened buddha". For you, perhaps there is only one such being. For me, there are many and I have had the great fortune to meet several in my lifetime. I don't ask you accept the same things I do. The amazing thing about the Dharma is that it is so diverse to meet the diverse needs of sentient beings.
You did not answer my question. Did you actually read any of the things you claim has been refuted? I am not setting out to disprove the Nikaya literature. I accept it as the words of the Buddha.
Spoken like a true bigot. You don't need to accept what I believe, nor do I have to try to invalidate what you believe in order to make progress on the path. I am very happy that you have found the Dharma. I am saddened that you are using it as a bludgeon rather than an umbrella or a medicine.
There is no point in me replying further to your invective. I am not here to debate with you about my beliefs. You are welcome to continue your jihad against forms of Dharma that don't meet your standards. I prefer to delight in the religious practice of others that leads them to increased compassion and wisdom, however they term that path and its result.
I have found no scriptural source anywhere in Buddhist thought that condones smug putdowns of the religious and philosophical viewpoints of others. It may make you feel righteous and pure, but it does little to convince others of your viewpoint (if that is your concern). If you want to convince, you have to actually know what you are talking about. That starts with actually reading source material and trying to understand it before refuting it. All of the great masters did. Lord Buddha himself practiced many different approaches before his experience of enlightenment. He didn't try to pass himself off as an expert without actually studying.
Buddha studied the popular spiritual practices of his country of his time in search for answers and when he did not find the answers in these religions, he abandoned their practices in order to search for the truth using his own methods.
Whether any of his followers were named after Hindu gods, I can not tell you. Perhaps there were people with such names, as I imagine naming people after Gods would have been a popular practice of the time as it still is in some countries.
However, I personally find it unlikely that his followers were actually the Hindu Gods and it will take more than an reference in an old book to convince me.
I imagine that the Buddha's teachings were very controversial during his time, just as Jesus's teachings were very controversial during his time.
I imagine that his teachings were opposed by the leaders of the oppositional faiths quiet enthusiastically, as they are still today by some.
It would not surprise me to hear that some one along the way has written Hindu Gods into the Buddha's life story. Perhaps they are the Gods that taught him all the wisdom!....as surely all that wisdom could not have come from any other source!...hmmm. Skeptical.
I would also not be surprised to hear that the same claim has been found on a "new Scroll" that proved that one of Jesus's disciples was misnamed, and his real name was Krsna. I find claims of this nature all a bit taxing really.
I am afraid that if you meet someone who argues such a claim, that you will likely not be able to argue with them as idealistic dogmatic devotee's will not hear your words (if you have ears, hear....well, i am afraid they have no ears when it comes to anything that doubts their idealistic dogmatic beliefs...they will not hear).
Of course, I know that Buddha was really the Hindu God Krsna in disguise, deliberately preaching teachings that are the opposite to that which the Hindu's Gods teach, just for fun........No I don't.
My advice. Use books only for reference and remember that books can be wrong. Many Books are wrong. Perhaps all books are wrong. Perhaps some contain useful info.
Trust your own experience. Do your own experiments.
What you choose is your choice, what ever you base your opinion on, your choice.
Whether others agree. This is their choice. (at least in many of the western countries).
No need to fight them.
Buddhists must not lose sight of their practice goals.
Unconditional Compassion/love.
If someone decides that they believe in the Mr. Men as the creators of the Universe based on an idiosyncratic opinion. Then so be it. Let them. You may think their nuts to do so, so be it.
Give knowledge if people are receptive. If they are not. Then do not.
Love to all.
According to " Introduction to Buddhism" from Cambridge University Press the Pali Canon is the only completely surviving early Buddhist canon, and one of the first to be written down.
It was stated that later form of Indian religion came from earlier Brahmanism, whose theories were refuted.
” No temples or images remain to illustrate the first growth of Hinduism ( as the later form of Indian religion is commonly styled) out of the earlier Brahmanism……..we have evidence that in the fifth or sixth century before Christ the Vedic or Brahmanic religion was not the only form of worship and philosophy in India. There were popular deities and rites to which the Brahmans were not opposed and which they countenanced when it suited them. What takes place in India today took place then. When some aboriginal deity becomes important owing to the prosperity of the tribe or locality with which he is connected, he is recognized by the Brahmans and admitted to their pantheon, perhaps as the son or incarnation of some personage more generally accepted as divine. The prestige of the Brahmans is sufficient to make such recognition an honor, but it is also their interest and millennial habit to secure control of every important religious movement and to incorporate rather than suppress. “- Sir Charles Elliot
I never stated that I accept everything without analyzing if something was a later addition or not.
Based on the assumption that the Buddha only came to teach the meaning behind the Vedas , leaders of other religion went further to assume that the Buddha did not intends to establish a new religion. Instead, his teaching is supposed to be a part of Brahmanism or Hinduism. And that the Buddha's own disciple who have been trained directly under him are mistaken in considering his teaching to be different or independent from Hinduism. As a result, there have been attempts to place Shiva linga and other Hindu gods in Buddhist temples and shrines, including the most holy Buddhist shrine called the Maha Bodhi Temple. This is the place where the Buddha became enlightened under the Bodhi Tree. Before passing into parinirvana, the Buddha encouraged his followers to take pilgrimage to this place for their " well being and happiness for a long time".
I came across the above information which shows that Buddha is neither an incarnation of Vishnu, nor is he Hindu. Therefore there is no reason to insist on putting shiva linga inside Buddhist most holy shrine where the Buddha became enlightened, the Maha Bodhi Temple therefore wanted to share it.
You are entitled to your personal interpretation .
Calm down. How is name calling going to do any good. You should address others point rather than resorting to calling the other person "bigot" or " jihad". I can call you by many names , but that would just become like a useless food fight.
Do you also have the name of Thubten Namgyal on this site? I recall that some time ago, Thubten Namgyal was also using the name 'Karma Dorje' elsewhere.
Kind regards,
Dazzle
.
Yes, that explains why i wasn't able to log in as Karma Dorje when I first tried. I could have sworn that is what I used as my login name here. Thubten Namgyal is my refuge name, Karma Dorje is the name my late guru gave to me.
All the best,
Dorje
if you wish to continue this discussion, kindly do so via PMs. The Forum is not the place to have this kind of exchange. Either keep it civil, or keep it private.
I care little what kind of speech you see fit to resort to between yourselves.
When you debate on forum - be civil, be respectful, accept that others have differing views based on differing sources, and make your exchanges productive and constructive.