r/Buddhism • u/NoMuddyFeet • 1d ago
Question Since Buddhism adapted to local beliefs and customs, why do we seem to so often take these beliefs and customs literally in 2024 with our broad global and historical perspective on these matters?
For example, many of the beliefs, deities and dharma protectors were originally from previous non-buddhist traditions. The concepts of rebirth in different realms, hell, and samsara existed before Buddhism. Buddhist literature modified these preexisting ideas.
I've read the idea that the Buddha incarnated where he did because it was the ideal culture best suited to his teachings. And then there were 2 more turnings of the dharma wheel which continued to incorporate local beliefs of India, China, Japan, Tibet, etc. into Mayahana and Vajrayana traditions.
What is your well-reasoned explanation for why you believe these things literally rather than believing the ideas were a mental framework to yoke people's minds into different outlooks by using ideas they were already familiar with?
A sort of bonus question might be considering why Buddhism seems to have stopped incorporating local beliefs in any official way since spreading out to the rest of the world. Not only have I seen no evidence for it, but whenever there is any hint of it out there, it is generally condemned as New Age garbage that has nothing to do with real Buddhism. I am unaware of any "western" deities who have been converted to Buddhism and become bodhisattvas or dharma protectors. You'd think it would have happened by now.
NEXT DAY UPDATE 11/28/24: since several responders were having trouble understanding where I'm coming from, I want to link 2 replies I made that should help clarify that. This way, I won't have to keep linking these 2 replies in all my other comments like I've been doing this morning:
(1) https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1hnm09e/since_buddhism_adapted_to_local_beliefs_and/m439nar/
(2) https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1hnm09e/since_buddhism_adapted_to_local_beliefs_and/m47h55z/
I really did not want to make anyone read this much just to answer a simple question or two, but apparently it's necessary as some are reading into this and seeing some views and opinions that are not mine and which I never stated. This is the easiest way to resolve that. So, if you are confused about my intentions or find these questions have rubbed you the wrong way and now you want to debate with me, please just read those 2 links instead before replying.
31
u/Madock345 vajrayana 1d ago
To say “this predated Buddhism, therefore we should ignore it.” Isn’t rational. The Buddha didn’t say “everything you are teaching is wrong.” He studied himself from many teachers and priests, and quoted those lessons in his teaching to others. He should be understood as having gone further beyond in his understanding, but as some teachers on here I have seen say: “The existence of Absolute Reality doesn’t negate the existence of Conventional Reality.”
The gods and spirits are just more parts of that conventional reality
-5
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
Ok, but the positions you are arguing against are not any positions I offered. I am not saying you said they are my positions, either. But wanted to clarify for anyone who thinks any of that reflects my position, they have misinterpreted what I wrote.
10
u/Cuddlecreeper8 ekayāna 1d ago
I think the reason why few if any western deities have been incorporated in Buddhism in recent times is because of a few reasons:
The majority religions in the west currently are monotheistic Abrahamic religions, an omnipotent universe creator is very clearly rejected early on in Buddhism (Dīrgha Āgama 24/Dīgha Nikāya 11). To incorporate the God of Abraham into Buddhism would require stripping him of most of his traits and role first, which is why I think it is improbable that he'll ever be integrated into Buddhism.
Polytheistic religions in the west are currently such a minority that I find it unlikely for syncretism to occur as it did in places like China and Japan, where Buddhism and the other religions gradually influenced each other and exchanged things. I would love to see western polytheistic faiths and Buddhism interact, but I don't think it's likely to happen within our lifetimes.
Somewhat answering another of your questions as well, I find that a lot of converts from the west keep a sort of Protestant Christian mentality when it comes to validity of teachings and beliefs. That they tend to support teachings and beliefs only if they can be found in or interpreted from text, tending to reject extra-textual teachings in search of a hypothesized original or pure form of the religion.
This sort of mindset somewhat seeped into Theravāda in places such as Sri Lanka as a sort of counter to the Christian missionaries who were trying to get rid of Buddhism.
This way of thinking affects Bodhisattvayāna schools less, Pure Land, Tiāntái/Tendai, Nichiren and Chán/Zen are all schools that incorporate practices that were later developments, but that does not seem to change the perception or validity of their teachings very much if at all within Bodhisattvayāna, they're just different methods within larger Buddhist practice.
As a side note, some Buddhists and even the Dalai Lama consider Jesus of Nazareth to have been a Bodhisattva, though I do not hold this view myself.
2
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
I was thinking more like Greek and Roman gods as well as those found throughout Europe and the Americas. It just seems odd for celestial beings to be so localized, especially Buddhas who teach in several dimensions at once. I explained where I'm coming from probably best here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1hnm09e/since_buddhism_adapted_to_local_beliefs_and/m439nar/
2
u/Cuddlecreeper8 ekayāna 17h ago
I am of the opinion that the Bhagavat referenced concepts and deities familiar to those where he taught because it was a skillful way to convey the teachings easily, other deities are denied or necessarily excluded just because they were not mentioned by him or by others.
At least within Bodhisattvayāna, Śakyamuni Buddha is very clearly stated to have used skillful means/upāya, '"O Śariputra! The real intention of all the buddhas is adapting their explanations to what is appropriate is difficult to understand. Why is this? Because I have expounded the teachings with innumerable skillful means and various kinds of explanations and illustrations.' Lotus Sutra, Chapter II
I think that more deities will be incorporated into Buddhism from other religions when it serves to be useful to those practitioners who will incorporate them, how long this will take I don't know.
By ancient standards, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. were all very far away from Northern India, and the deities of those countries were only later integrated into Buddhism, but it was a development that occurred naturally and to different extents depending on the country. The furthest developed form of Buddhist syncretism from what I've seen is that of Shinbutsu Shūgō or Shintō-Buddhist syncretism.
2
u/NoMuddyFeet 11h ago
I think I am in agreement with you, but I also perform practices which incorporate such deities and dharmapalas and we don't consider them simply symbolic in the practices. I recently responded to someone in greater detail, stepping through my thought process, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1hnm09e/since_buddhism_adapted_to_local_beliefs_and/m47h55z/
I would be really interested to hear your thoughts if you would be interested in reading and replying. It's pretty long, so it would probably suck to read on your phone. I really was not trying to share my thoughts much because, in my opinion, it has no beaering on the questions I posed. I'm really only interested in other peoples' answers to the questions, not a side debate about my beliefs. I wouldn't be asking the questions if I had firm beliefs. I am just thinking through some stuff and I probably explained it best right there in that link I just gave you.
13
u/Kitchen_Seesaw_6725 vajrayana 1d ago
I've enjoyed reading your post, thank you.
All gods are referred to as worldly protectors and/or bodhisattvas. Whether they are transformed or 'incorporated' into Dharma is another thing. But taking it into that 'broad global and historical perspective' I can say that it takes some considerable time and interaction. Eventually it is bound to happen.
All the best
3
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
Hey, thank you for a nice response! I really appreciate it since nothing about my post was meant to be combative or argumentative. It was literally just a request for the best logical explanations anyone had to offer since I figured there might be something in someone's head that would help me clarify some thoughts I was working through.
All gods are referred to as worldly protectors and/or bodhisattvas.
Interesting, I had never heard this before or maybe it didn't quite sink in. So, are you saying Jehovah would be a worldly protector and bodhisattva? Because I don't see how he could be if anything in the Bible about his character or supposed actions was accurate or true. Likewise for the misbehaving gods of Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. pantheons. They don't seem like bodhisattvas to me.
Whether they are transformed or 'incorporated' into Dharma is another thing. But taking it into that 'broad global and historical perspective' I can say that it takes some considerable time and interaction. Eventually it is bound to happen.
My lineage has protectors for North America incorporated into its practices. How they became such, I do not know exactly, but they were not a local American deities.
The conceptual framework overall for Buddhism was based on local cultures as well. I tried to touch on that in the OP, but didn't think I needed a big, long initial post for people to understand what I was getting at. In addition to what I mentioned in the original post, we also have Mount Meru, for example, rather than some axis mundi from another tradition. Most of the Buddhist teachers I am aware of are not adamant that Mount Meru should necessarily be taken literally anymore. In fact, they usually have a little side comment about that when they teach about Meru.
1
u/Kitchen_Seesaw_6725 vajrayana 12h ago
For Dharma practitioners, those are side topics as you highlighted. If any gods do not resemble the bodhisattva image, they can be considered as worldly protectors based on whatever merits they have.
Misbehaving gods can be given some offerings to prevent any misfortunate events. Personally I think they also need love and attention, just like children. If they were mature, they would take care of beings, instead of misbehaving.
Mount Meru, although quite a different topic, must represent the mental universe summit.
1
u/NoMuddyFeet 11h ago
It's interesting to think about for me, as I rejected the Bible when I was 10 and moved out of my super-religious home when I was 15. I think went into truth-seeking mode for about 15 years reading about every religious and esoteric belief system I could get my hands on. Weirdly, I knew since age 13 or 14 that Buddhism would probably be where I would land, but I saved that mostly until the very end, because I knew it would be a difficult standard to live up to and it made no sense not to check out everything else first. I was actually looking for truth, after all.
Then, it happened. Somewhere in my very early 30s, I was a few years into multiple Western Mystery Traditions, becoming extremely well-versed in their version of "Qabala" and having experiences with beings and pretty darn happy with my progress. It was all starting to make a lot of sense and I was getting real results, but I hate-hate-HATED the way they danced around the idea of God. It was basically esoteric Christianity, except Thelema, which sort of like a warped version of some Gnostic branch. And, worst of all, some of the lessons kept comparing their esoteric Christian ideas with Buddha. They'd use something the Buddha said to demonstrate their Qabala lesson about esoteric Christianity, which necessarily had a God concept. I knew Buddhism was atheist and I just could not stand the idea of constantly learning about esoteric Abrahamic God ideas any longer.
So, I started reading more books about Buddhism and, within 6 months, I'd dropped my association with those other traditions. In short order, I was fired from my job and entered the hardest period of my life. It really sucked.
But, something that stuck with me about the traditions I rejected is how they were all guilty of "new age mish-mash," ie. using other traditions to justify the beliefs they were teaching. Not only did they constantly compare their esoteric Jewish/Christian teachings to Buddha, but they would plot out god forms from different traditions on the Tree of Life diagram and talk about how they share this or that energy, etc. In some sense, they were saying multiple gods were basically the same thing and so you could invoke/evoke them according to certain methods within this Hebrew-centric tradition. In essence, using the God of the Bible to control gods and spirits from other traditions. This is not something a person who rejected the Biblical God at age 10 wants to do. :)
It was around this same time that I began posting in Buddhist forums online, regurgitating what I had learned about this or that teaching being like this or that Buddhist concept (because it did make some sense and I wanted to check with others to see if I had any concepts correct). Right away, everyone told me: "NOPE. THAT'S WRONG. THAT'S NEW AGE BULLSHIT. IF YOU WANT TO LEARN ABOUT BUDDHISM, LEARN FROM BUDDHIST SOURCES."
But, now, all these years later, I'm just thinking about how these other traditions were somewhat similarly incorporated into Buddhism. I don't have any doubts about the Buddhist incorporation of these deities from other traditions, I just have thoughts about it that I am trying to work through.
I've already just talked your ear off here, but if you would be interested to understand those thoughts I'm working through, I probably explained them best in a recent response this morning here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1hnm09e/since_buddhism_adapted_to_local_beliefs_and/m47h55z/
1
u/Kitchen_Seesaw_6725 vajrayana 8h ago
Thank you for your lengthy comments here and there in the link.
I feel like I can't really cover all of them. But there are a few points that came to my mind.
First, it is amazing that you found Dharma and started Buddhist practice.
Second, other traditions were made familiar but as a side practice, more of a support. The doctrine and the view remained.
Then onto Guru Rinpoche, he was enlightened and by his powers he can manifest in different forms to benefit beings.
What are Dharma protectors? They are former gods who are now under oath to protect Dharma and practitioners, since they understood the truth of Dharma and its benevolent nature to all, including them.
Chagdud Tulku's quote, "pure wisdom display in the arising of every phenomenon" is our own mindful awareness that shows us everything, like in a mirror.
7
u/AlexCoventry reddit buddhism 1d ago
You may enjoy Prof. Jay Garfield's essay on Buddhism and Modernity. I think it asks a lot of similar questions and has a lot of interesting thoughts around them.
6
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism 1d ago
I would say the article is rather superficial, concerned with how Buddhism looks. The heart of Buddhism, realization, is only very briefly evoked in the conclusion.
3
u/AlexCoventry reddit buddhism 1d ago
How do you think it should have addressed realization, and how would that have improved the article?
-1
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism 1d ago
I don't find that to be an interesting question.
2
u/AlexCoventry reddit buddhism 1d ago
What's the best way to relate the heart of Buddhism to Westerners, from your perspective? Is there any place for consideration of how Buddhism is going to interact with Western culture as Westerners assimilate it?
-1
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism 1d ago
I don't understand what's the relevant point you are trying to get me to engage with. Can you explain what it is you are personally concerned about here, if anything?
3
u/AlexCoventry reddit buddhism 1d ago
I inferred that you think it was an inappropriate or at best useless recommendation and, assuming that you actually think that, I would like to understand why, because I respect your opinion.
Happy to just stop talking about it if you prefer, though.
1
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism 1d ago edited 1d ago
I see. Yes, you are right, I did find the article to be slightly vapid, and that's because it was almost exclusively focused on Buddhism's appearances.
I think those who consider themselves students of the buddhadharma might want to be more concerned with the transmission of realization. And it could have been interesting to examine how that transmission happened in the past to then draw parallels to how it is happening, or not, currently.
For example, in the Tibetan context, masters who introduced teachings and lineages in Tibet were able to bring students to sufficient levels of realization. I don't know how much that is happening now.
edit: this is interesting, in that regard: http://web.archive.org/web/20240413001215/https://tricycle.org/magazine/it-takes-saint/
3
u/AlexCoventry reddit buddhism 1d ago
The heart of Buddhism is beyond all fabrication, but doesn't realization develop through contemplation and practice? And aren't the contemplations and practices someone engages for the sake of realization generally heavily inflected by the cultural context in which they came to Buddhism, at least initially? They'll have to let go of all that context on the way, of course, but it still seems significant to people's development.
I would understand if you're skeptical, but I think I developed a much clearer understanding of Yogacara and its utility in Buddhist practice from Garfield's Emptiness and the Mind Perceiving It, and part of the reason for that is that he knew how to present it without triggering typical Western defenses. I think the insight he displayed by avoiding those triggers came partly from the kind of thinking he's set down in the "Buddhism and Modernity" article.
2
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism 1d ago
To be clear, I agree that for the transmission of the dharma to happen, the teachings and practices need to be presented in a way that makes them relevant and accessible to the students.
I am not sure if you wrote your last comment thinking I was of the opposite view.
→ More replies (0)2
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
Thank you. I loved his translation of Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, so this sounds like a perfect recommendation.
5
u/Minoozolala 1d ago
Garfield's translation of the MMK is very problematic. A better translation is that by Katsura and Siderits. It still has problems, but most of the verses bring across the meaning. And you should pretty much ignore Siderits' commentary on the verses.
3
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
I found his notes to be very thorough and eye-opening, to say the least. It was thoroughly convincing and was the text that caused me to realize I could never believe in an ultimate creator god ever again, even if I wanted to.
1
4
u/fujin4ever 1d ago
Regarding western deities, hasn't this happened before with Greco-Buddhism?
0
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
I don't believe so. No Buddhist I know of thinks Zeus or Heracles is Vajrapani. But, if so, it was a local deity incorporated like the rest of them.
4
u/fujin4ever 1d ago
That's my point. It has happened in the past, so there's no reason to say it can't happen again.
2
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
But, did it really happen? Do you know any Buddhists who consider Zeus / Heracles to be Vajrapani? And why the downvote?
5
u/bodhiquest vajrayana / shingon mikkyō 21h ago
It's strange that you keep asking about the validity of a dead religious practice and point out the fact that said practice is dead as if it proves a point. There's no "Heracles in Buddhism" tradition today because Buddhism never strongly took root in the Greek world, and because it then died out. This absolutely doesn't imply anything other than this very simple fact.
Likewise for North Americans and such; this integration process, in other to be authentic, requires some time, and for stuff to happen and for people to have certain experiences. It's not a matter of making an artificial catalogue of beings and saying that these are parts of a local Buddhism now. Western types of Buddhism don't even exist yet, so how could their cosmologies exist?
In every Buddhist culture, local deities get integrated into the cosmology in a visible and major way once the Dharma take root. Look no further than Japan to see a very clear example of this, to the point that the local religions themselves, despite being quite different from those of India and being based on a culture very different than India, changed because of Buddhism and even started doing things such as representing their deities.
Obviously this is not a fluke. This is what always happens. It didn't happen in the West yet because Western Buddhisms are not born yet. There's no other "strange" reason behind it.
Similarly, Buddhists texts have no interest whatsoever in talking about other cultures' beliefs, because it's completely irrelevant and a waste of time. Telling Indians of 2600 years ago about how deity XYZ from other parts of the world came to witness the Buddha's awakening or not is irrelevant.
0
u/NoMuddyFeet 11h ago edited 5h ago
First of all, your opening sentence is completely incorrect. I am not remotely "asking about the validity of a dead religious practice and point out the fact that said practice is dead as if it proves a point." As far as Heracles goes, I'm stating plainly that I do not believe he was ever actually incorporated into Buddhism. There are images people have interpreted as a Buddhist representation of Heracles. So what? There are Buddhist images of Mickey Mouse. Do you know of any Buddhist texts which actually incorporated Heracles into Buddhism? I don't. If there is, then fine, I will accept that is the case. But, it has no bearing on anything I am discussing. If it is the case, then that would just be another example of a local god being incorporated into Buddhism.
I think what I have said only seems strange to you because you haven't really grasped where I'm coming from and, for some reason, feel the need to be informed about that before you can entertain my questions in the original post. I've finally taken the time to talk through my thought process in more detail for someone in my response here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1hnm09e/since_buddhism_adapted_to_local_beliefs_and/m47h55z/
Edit: it is disturbing when I correct someone who has misunderstood my own thoughts and I get downvoted for taking the time to explain that. It is as if someone would rather beat a strawman than participate in the actual discussion.
3
u/fujin4ever 1d ago
It did happen in the past, as depicted in the art we have left. Like I said, it's now a thing of the past—nobody today considers them connected or the same being. If Western-originating religions and Buddhism connect again in the same way they did in the past, there's no reason to think the same sort of syncreticism won't happen again, at least in my view.
I'm not sure about the downvotes, sorry. :(
1
u/tremendousGravel 23h ago
I have Dionysus, who subsists in Zeus, at the left hand my Buddha statue as a dharmapala.
1
u/NoMuddyFeet 11h ago
I am curious how you concluded this was appropriate and if your guru approved the idea. Maybe this sort of thing is taught and I've just never heard of it before. I've generally only seen pretty strict ideas about what is appropriate for a Buddhist shrine even within the standard Buddhist pantheon.
3
u/Tongman108 1d ago edited 1h ago
Adapting & grafting, transforming local custome & deities is the work of enlightened mahasiddhis.
One needs to have attainment in order to comprehend what is necessary & what is superfluous & what needs to be enhanced.
In the same way that a brilliant scientist can connect two important theories that were previously thought to be unrelated.
For example the ritual of worshiping being adapted to prostrating to the buddhas
Prostrating is lower your ego or sense of self
It can also induce blessing from the buddhas & divinities
It can remove karmic hindrances
Esoteric:
It can also vibrate the channel and unblock the channels inpreperation inner cultivation of prana & nadis.
If you have no attainment or wisdom or pith instructions handed down from the lineage Guru almost you see is a dude bowing down in Front of a statue, if you simply mimick or copy then you have an empty ritual.
Local deities:
If one practices authentic dharma & has attainments then local duties would definitely come & seek you out or take an interest (for better or worse),
You would also notice some variations due to locations Even Buddhas & Bodhisattvas can take on appearences accents of local culture.
Some would even catch sight of the deties of other religions that are currently popular in the west.
The topic itself ultimately concerns one's level of perception which is usually a direct result of one's actual practice
Not everything can be casually told,
Additionally we need more western mahasiddis & we all need to practics diligently.
I've answered in this way because some of the premises in your question were very matter of fact but are actually a little off.
Best wishes & great attainments!
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
3
u/aparctias00 1d ago
your question seems to be a leading on, trying to get people to agree with your position.
that is probably why you're a little combative. and that's ok, OP. you're ok.
2
u/ungemutlich 1d ago
This has been much discussed, but not in exactly the terms you're emphasizing (specific deities):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_modernism
>What is your well-reasoned explanation for why you believe these things literally rather than believing the ideas were a mental framework to yoke people's minds into different outlooks by using ideas they were already familiar with?...I am unaware of any "western" deities who have been converted to Buddhism and become bodhisattvas or dharma protectors. You'd think it would have happened by now.
I mean...I can read about the subjugation of Rudra and get something out of it without taking it literally.
The way to tell a modern person that Buddhism is superior to their gods isn't to talk about sutras and tantras and tell stories. It's with fMRI or stories about Navy SEALs or something, and there's a lot of that.
You're asking why their hasn't been syncretism in terms of gods in the society where god is dead.
It's about Daoism, but "Dream Trippers" is a very good academic book about the exchange of religious ideas between "East" and "West".
2
u/Ariyas108 seon 1d ago
What is your well-reasoned explanation for why you believe these things literally rather than believing the ideas were a mental framework to yoke people’s minds into different outlooks by using ideas they were already familiar with?
Because that would make the teachings either ignorant or simply a lie. If if believed either of those things, I wouldn’t be Buddhist to begin with.
2
u/keizee 1d ago
Theres no well reasoned explanation on my end. I simply had the luck to encounter evidence.
A lot of these 'western deities becoming dharma protectors stuff'... Ancient Greek or Roman beliefs have been replaced and no one practices those as a religion. Meanwhile, Christianity is younger than Buddhism by about 500 years. Any evidence that western deities have converted to dharma protectors will have to come from mediums and testimony.
Yes those testimonies do exist. The most cross examined Buddhist testimonies does affirm that Christianity is good for you. About whether who has converted and such... look we're not trying to pick a fight with Christians.
2
u/LotsaKwestions 1d ago
FWIW, a question for you - if I were to tell you, for instance, that I and others have directly interacted with other beings, would you dismiss that out of hand?
What if I were to tell you that I and others have direct insight into rebirth - would you dismiss that out of hand?
Would you be willing to consider the possibility of such things?
If not, do you think there is a bias present? Is that a truly fully examined bias, if so?
Just a thought.
1
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
I'm not sure why you're asking me either of those questions. I believe in other beings such as deities and also reincarnation. I suspect beliefs shape our reality, which may be why these beliefs were incorporated and modified.
5
u/LotsaKwestions 1d ago
Then I'm a bit unsure as to the purpose of your post. Generally, the Buddhist perspective is that first and foremost, Buddha Shakyamuni had basically perfect insight into the nature of reality, you could say. He was not equivocal about things in general, by and large - you bring up that 'people believed in things before he was there', but he specifically went against any number of beliefs at the time, pointing out their limitations. He specifically overturned quite a bit at the time, even. And there were quite a few competing views of how things are, and he didn't just go along with all of them.
So one answer is that Buddhist doctrine says so, but another answer is direct insight.
2
u/mindbird 1d ago
What Buddha said and what followers trying to be helpful spreading the dharma in other cultures said are two different things.
6
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago edited 1d ago
There is obviously some disagreement among some Buddhists about the 3 turnings of the wheel, but I did not want to dwell on that. Generally, all schools of Buddhism are said to agree on some essential points which qualifies them as actually Buddhist rather than something else.
However, I can't help notice that no Buddhist teachings incorporate deities from other cultures which were not local. There are no Native American deities mentioned, no Egyptian deities, Zoroastrian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, etc. We are dealing with celestial beings and very complex teachings here, so it wouldn't have been strange to incorporate such beings into the teachings if in fact they had been exposed to Buddhist teachings. It strikes me as odd that these other gods would be so stationary and oblivious about these superior teachings being taught to innumerable beings in countless realms invisible to us and it seems odd to me that the Buddha, Padmasambhava or any other master who had the power to manifest as different forms and teach beings in countless dimensions wouldn't have gone out of their way to find these gods of other traditions and teach them or convert them. Not only that, but it would be an amazing bit of evidential proof if gods of the Americas and Europe were named in ancient Buddhist texts as being gods of those regions who were converted. Historians would have to come up with new theories about trade routes to explain how that happened.
And we have Mount Meru in Buddhism, which is a local cosmology from Hinduism rather than an axis mundi concept from any other culture. I have seen respected lamas say this may just be symbolic, along with other Buddhist concepts, rather than literally or actually true in any way. Apparently, this was a heated debate at one time, but I don't know anyone who is that adamant about Mount Meru anymore.
I want to be clear that I am not saying these are lies. I have a somewhat unfinished thought about why I think this is and I posed the question for others who are willing to look at the question and pose their best logical explanation for why this is the case. And simultaneously, I am not offering my own beliefs because I am not trying to be a guru and I haven't even been able to fully flesh out my thoughts on the matter. I was just thinking about it for a while and looking to others for help on this, which is why I posted this here.
3
u/Titanium-Snowflake 1d ago
Guru Rinpoche did pacify, subdue and subjugate dakinis, nagas, local gods and demons.
3
u/NoMuddyFeet 12h ago edited 9h ago
Yes, Padmasambhava is a main reason I have written these posts. Like I explained above in paragraph 2, they were all local spirits (for lack of a better classification) and that seems odd for the reasons mentioned. And like I said in the final paragraph, I want to be clear that I am not saying these are lies. I really believe Padmasambhava subdued and converted various beings.
But, there are a lot of stories and ideas in the Tibetan tradition which many Tibetan lamas have said themselves should maybe not be taken literally, as I mentioned with Mount Meru, for example. But, there are also folk hero legends that are not literal like the Gesar stories. Gesar stories are similar to a lot of mahasiddha stories and Padmasambhava stories.
And, for example, let's take a look at the dharmapala Rahula:
The Tibetan Rahula is thus an amalgamated deity that combines aspects of Vishnu and the eclipse demon Rahu, who is one of the nine main planets in Indian astrology. In Indian mythology, Vishnu is well known for having cut off the head of Rahu after he stole the elixir of immortality from the gods. Angered at the sun and moon for revealing him to Vishnu, Rahu's immortal severed head perpetually pursues, and occasionally temporarily swallows, them, thus causing eclipses.
Do we take that literally? Because that's the origin story right there. And we know eclipses have never been caused by Rahu's severed head eating the sun and moon...right?
But, I do practices which include Rahula, so don't think I'm mocking this in any way. I am thinking critically about what actually is the reason for these "beings" symbolized as they are.
I know from my various teachers that the deities are "just as real as you or me" and we also know that "there is not one particle of solidity" to them, just like you or me. We have the two truths, but ultimately...
Nagarjuna said, "It is neither void, nor not void, nor both, nor neither, but in order to point it out, it is called the Void."
And it is along these lines I am trying to suss out the nature of what these beings really are. I think with all of this together, you can probably get some idea of what I'm trying to say, but if it's still unclear, then we can turn to Bardo Thodol, said to be written by Padmasambhava, but experts say it likedly dates to the 14th century, 700 years after Padmasambhava introduced Buddhism to Tibet. Whether we think Padmasambhava lived 700 years is not my point, though. Bardo Thodol discusses the various appearances that arise after death, such as the peaceful and wrathful deities, and teaches they are all manifestations of your own mind. We also know that our current existence is the result of karma and dependent origination which arose out of basic fundamental ignorance. As Chagdud Tulku's Red Tara sadhana says:
May I clearly perceive all experiences to be as insubstantial as the dream fabric of the night and instantly awaken to perceive the pure wisdom display in the arising of every phenomenon.
Like we can not know "sweet" without having tasted sugar (or some sweet substance), we can not experience or recognize things we do not expect to see or without a framework of awareness. This is shown in cognitive bias and the rebound effect. Every single Buddhist teaching uses examples from everyday samsara delusion to make the point that is trying to be taught—"finger pointing at the moon," for example, or "the mirror."
So, did Rahu's severed head ever gobble up the sun and moon? I don't think so, personally. But, do I think Rahu is a real being? Yes, in the same sense that we are real. But where did Rahu come from? The answer should be "dependent origination," like everything else. Did Rahu exist before humans thought up this myth to explain solar and lunar eclipses? How does Rahula combine aspects of Vishnu and the eclipse demon Rahu while Vishnu and Rahu maintain their separate identies?
How does Padmasambhava manifest in various displays such as Dorje Drolo, Senge Dradok, Nyima Oser, Loden Chokse, Pema Gyelpo, and Orgyen Dorje Chang? The correct answer for anyone who isn't a great Buddhist master himself should be "I don't know how he does it," but if we think about everything discussed here, we can see belief (such as cognitive bias, for example) creates our world. Most Tibetan lamas I know agree with the Dalai Lama in saying that if science disproves some Buddhist teaching, then we must accept the scientific view, but it does not invalidate all other Buddhist teachings. So, most of us now know solar eclipses are not caused by Rahu's severed head. That does not mean we don't believe in Rahula as a result, but it does change how we think about Rahula. Think harder about it and we may conclude our reality changes as a result of our beliefs.
But, of course, we are not god-like magicians who can change our reality with the snap of a finger. We are dependently originated beings made up of the 5 elements. Any demon born within our 5-element sphere of awareness can exert some influence on us. It's how such a demon is born that I am wondering about. Did Rahu exist before someone dreamed him up to explain eclipses? Does the aspect of Rahu in the manifestation of Rahula really have anything to do with Rahu other than a symbolic reference for all those who perceive him?
With all of this in mind, I'll return to my original question: if a teacher is interested in teaching locals, it makes sense to use the symbols they are already familiar with, but then are those symbols to be taken literally? If so, why? My guess is these pre-existing beliefs are used as a framework to yoke the mind in the right direction, like the symbols of the mirror, the crystal, the peacock's feather, or a finger pointing to the moon.
2
u/mindbird 1d ago
I imagine that Hopi or Potawatomi converts to Buddhism would eventually identify some of their pantheon as learned bodhisattvas of the past, with no harm done.
3
u/LotsaKwestions 1d ago
I mean that's a big topic. Of course there can be non-realized beings who think they understand the dharma but don't. Any number of variations might arise in this way.
On the other hand, I think you can also argue that there still remains a valid transmission of the wisdom lineage such that there are, and have been, realized beings in various traditions, lineages, circumstances, etc. And while particularities of how the heart-essence is transmitted may vary, the heart-essence itself does not in this way.
But various mandalas/cultures/etc may have different needs. Similar to how, say, if you go to a particular country where the soil is poor in some particular mineral, it may be beneficial to supplement that mineral, whereas if you go to another place, something else may be needed. The fundamental thought behind both is the same, but the particularities vary based on the need.
2
u/Madock345 vajrayana 1d ago edited 1d ago
Those who gained enlightenment following the Buddha are perfectly valid sources of insight. This is not a religion with a single prophet.
1
u/mindbird 1d ago
By definition a prophet is a person chosen by "god"to speak for 'god.". That's not Buddha, who denied the existence of such a god and dismissed devas as irrelevant to the path to enlightenment.
I can't help but think it's a way to avoid confrontations with insistent theists.-- if you can't beat them, incorporate them.
2
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
Then I think you should perhaps re-read without any preconceptions.
4
u/LotsaKwestions 1d ago
I'm sorry, but I don't see a reason to re-respond. The premise that the Buddha simply incorporated the mental milieu at the time is basically false. There were quite a lot of ideas, and he didn't use all of them fully, and more or less rejected most of them. This isn't wishy washy.
Other cultures by and large didn't change any of that, whether Tibet or other places.
Now, you could get into details of some of this which would be a much larger discussion, and which would incorporate the full understanding of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, but that would be difficult to discuss.
As for your last paragraph, this actually is present, but generally not public. I actually know of a lama, basically, who has said that one of his main roles in this life is incorporating such beings into the fold. More or less.
2
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
Likewise, I did not see any reason to defend positions that are not mine. I can only write what I believe. How you choose to interpret that is not something I can control. What I have noticed is you were unable to offer an answer to either of my questions and assumed things about my beliefs which are not remotely accurate.
1
u/TooOld4ThisSh1t-966 1d ago
I don’t really have an answer for your questions, but I have been wondering lately if Stoicism was perhaps influenced by travelers who were Buddhist or had knowledge of it. For example many of the meditations of Marcus Aurelius sound very Buddhist to me.
2
u/NoMuddyFeet 1d ago
I suppose it's possible, maybe even likely (?). I think a lot about his beliefs remains a mystery. I did read Meditations and have it on Audiobook, but my memory is not great. I read everything I could get my hands on in my "truth-seeking" years. Also, the audiobook I got later on as a refresher is terrible due to the dullest reading ever.
1
u/LavaBoy5890 zen 1d ago
I’ve heard a lot of references to “God” in Zen. Of course, this is not the common conception of God. But even using the word to refer to Buddhist concepts seems to be a form of syncretism
1
u/MolhCD 1d ago
What is your well-reasoned explanation for why you believe these things literally rather than believing the ideas were a mental framework to yoke people's minds into different outlooks by using ideas they were already familiar with?
I don't believe in them literally.
I also don't disbelieve in them literally - that's believing in strict materialistic rationalism. Which is a nice belief framework, and very useful for sure. I try to acknowledge to myself that it is at the end of the day still a belief framework, so I can see clearly its usefulness and also where it is not useful. So I can be the one using it, rather than the other way around or something.
1
u/damselindoubt 16h ago
I believe in the metaphysical and esoteric aspects of Buddhism and, indeed, of many religious and spiritual practices. This belief feels “spontaneous” and deeply rooted in my psyche. Growing up in a society that practices such traditions in religion and spirituality likely influenced me. From a Buddhist perspective, if you wish, this could also be seen as the result and continuation of accumulated karma and merit from numerous past lives.
I’ve also tried to read between the lines of your post and made a few observations:
- The Role of Logic and Rationality: Your perspective seems deeply informed by logic and rationality, which might make it challenging to move beyond “rūpa” (form) to “śūnyatā” (emptiness). In the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, progressing toward a realisation of emptiness often requires experiential insight and going beyond purely intellectual understanding.
- Buddhism’s Non-Proselytising Nature: As far as I know, Buddhism is not a proselytising religion. Its focus is on personal growth through the cultivation of wisdom and compassion. When one attains awakening, they can choose to use the qualities of a Buddha to help others become free from suffering (aka the Bodhisattva path). However, as you may already realise, “conversion” to Buddhism alone does not free anyone from suffering. An example from Tibetan Buddhism is Padmasambhava, who is said to have subdued various demons and spirits by transforming them into “dharma protectors” or allies of the dharma, rather than converting them to Buddhism. I see this as a precious teaching about Buddhism’s approach that often involves harmonising with and transforming diverse forces rather than imposing its framework.
- Western Deities and Dharma Protectors: Since Buddhism does not proselytise, there is no need to convert Western or other deities into Buddhism ☺️. In Padmasambhava's story above, the role of a dharma protector is to assist practitioners on the path to enlightenment by clearing obstacles to practise and creating conducive conditions for perceiving emptiness, as taught in the Heart Sutra (“Form is emptiness; emptiness is form”). So how do Zeus, Odin, Anubis, or Venus fit into this dharma narrative?
These are just some thoughts I wanted to share. Please feel free to ask further questions or share your perspective.
1
u/Occult_Insurance 11h ago
I’ve an unpopular opinion for this sub which may be in line with your post: more people cling to their cultural lens than to that of Buddhism.
This is why all the syncretism of eastern religions and cultural normals are totally acceptable, but syncretism in the western culture and norms is “not real Buddhism” or even “cultural appropriation.”
A lot of English speaking people here would be shocked to learn that normal lay Buddhists never meditate, historically. That’s why ritual and superstition (in the no judgment definition) is so vital to their practices. That’s why monks will be paid to go bless houses and crops and pets just like pastors and priests do in the west. The mechanical motions of a religion rather than the meditative aspects hence all the negativity aimed toward mindfulness meditation in this very thread. People associate it with non-Buddhists teaching it (as in, they literally don’t practice or believe anything else and just picked meditation) rather than an actual historical practice which most people simply refuse to do.
Buddha changed some of his teachings to reach an audience. Buddhism changed as it spread for the same reasons. People need to pierce that veil of cultural supremacy and realize the religion is as organic as any other, and that western Buddhists don’t need to worship and pray to eastern deities or believe in literal ghosts just because it’s popular folk religion in SEA. That doesn’t discount the traditions, just like refusing to practice the Bon aspects of Tibetan Buddhism isn’t an attack against that tradition.
I think of a western Buddhism including secular Buddhism moves people closer to the goal, then great. That’s the entire practice. Buddha didn’t focus on worshipping deities. But plenty of Buddhists do, for example. If that helps them stay motivated, follow dharma, and built merit then it should be celebrated.
But once a cultural lens gains supremacy, that’s when atrocities are easy to rationalize.
1
u/No_Bag_5183 10h ago
It's probably because the god of Abraham pretty much muddied that. Buddhism doesn't support that god for a very good reason. It drowns out all else. Besides being pretty useless and having it's own drama and not existing.Other than the gods of money and power. What gods do you refer? Western civilization did not grow up with gods except for the ones already mentioned and I am thinking those belong in the hell realms. I love Buddhism just the way it is. I'm a Tibetan and love the colors, ceremonies and invisible people.
1
u/IamTheEndOfReddit 6h ago
Absolute truth versus relative truth. The Buddha understood both the danger and the need for relative truth. He would figure out where people were at and he'd point them in the right direction. That relative truth would be different for different people.
People in 2024 read the relative truths as if everything is absolute truth. Reincarnation is a great example, there are some amazing concepts there but it doesn't work at all when you come with a western idea of reincarnation. Under the same circumstances different people will have the same thoughts, that's karma in action. If I have a come-to-Jesus moment, with all the same ideals, how different am I really from Jesus?
The Buddha warns about these misinterpretations but people still eat the past lives onion.
1
u/PlatinumGriffin 1h ago
Simply? Probably cultural reasons. In some cultures during some parts of history, it was more common to integrate and merge local spiritual and religious beliefs. In others it was more normal to pick a "correct" one and stick to whichever you believe that is. I assume, anyway. Also, as other commenter's have pointed out, various things that fill roles that religion sometimes does have been integrated- such as psychology, crystals, productivity, and capitalism, each with various success. Id even argue that many of these things have been harmful to the west's understanding of buddhism, such as trying to force it to be compatible with the notion of capital and productivity, for example
Hope this answers your question! Best wishes :)
1
u/Mayayana 1d ago
You're looking at it with a complicated framework of preconceptions. Most Buddhists don't believe in the teachings "literally". Deities and realms are not just leftover debris from superstitious fools. They serve powerful purpose. The realms are actually a very sophisticated psychological map.
Buddhism has been adapting to the West. Many teachings and liturguies have been translated. Many teachers speak English. But it's a gradual process that only started in earnest about 50 years ago.
There's no reason I know of that we need to switch our primary grain from wheat to rice, switch from beer to sake, or recast Zeus/Moses/Jesus/Ra as Buddhist deities. That would not be adapting to the culture.
I don't know what kind of adaptations you might know of that are condemned as "New Age garbage".
1
u/kdash6 nichiren 1d ago
It depends on your denomination. I practice Nichiren Buddhism with thw SGI-USA. We absolute incorporate local beliefs. We talk about democracy and the importance of serving the people, not using religion as a justification for persecuting others (as a direct response to Christian nationalism). We talk about racism and see the civil rights movement as an example of how the Buddhist humanist framework put into practice can change the world. We also talk about how rebirth can mean both between lives, and within a single life (that is, both as a literal rebirth and as a metaphor for how our lives fluctuate). Often times we even celebrate local holidays, like Halloween.
There is also a very robust tradition of seeing the Sutras as metaphor rather than literal. In the book series, "Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra," Daisaku Ikeda and two other scholars discuss the Lotus Sutra chapter by chapter and analyze it from many perspectives. They discuss how a lot of the fictional creatures, like dragons, demons, devas, etc., that come to the assembly apparently over the course of several years, are symbolic representations of the Buddha's life rather than literal entities floating in the air. When Ikeda visited America and saw people wearing traditional Japanese clothing and sitting on their knees, he told them to stop it, to wear clothing more typical in America and to sit in chairs because that's what Americans are used to, and to learn English.
Some people stop at learning how to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and reciting portions of the Lotus Sutra, in a practice we call "gongyo." I have met some people who identify as "Jew-Bu's," Jewish Buddhists, or even Christian Buddhists. They believe in one religion, but believe Buddhism works. I asked about it, and the SGI seems to allows it from what I can tell, with the following things to consider: 1) it is still important to chant and do gongyo. Other practices don't replace that. 2) you can believe what you want, but don't seek happiness outside yourself (e.g., you can believe Jesus is God the Son, but you shouldn't expect he will come down and solve all your problems), and 3) Buddhism is reason (i.e., don't expect miracles to happen without any effort on your part). Buddhist practice can give you the courage to fight cancer and may help you gain the wisdom to find a good doctor, and the universe may even align to make sure things go well. But you can't cure cancer with Buddhist practice alone (my aunt tried and died of breast cancer). You need medicine.
47
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism 1d ago
The main Western deity, Psychology, who actually has an influence on peoples' lives has been very well incorporated into the Buddhist presentation in the West.
I am not sure what other deity still needs to be incorporated.