Thread 17906090

why the fuck did vishnu descend to earth with buddha as his avatar, how does that make any sense
did he just randomly created competing religion just for shit and giggles?

thats only a belief among specific branches of hinduism. most forms of hinduism use a different list of avatars that does not include the Buddha

In the Vishnu Purana it says that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha to teach false teachings to some demons so that they would be subdued and lose their powers, allowing them to be killed. It doesn’t say that Buddha’s teachings are good but it implies they are a false trick. Many Hindus apparently hear or read that Buddha is considered an incarnation of Vishnu, but very few are actually aware of the details of how this is described and what this entails and how it implies that Buddha’s teachings are actually still bad and something to be cast aside. It also says that Vishnu appeared as the founder of Jainism as part of the same trick of fooling demons.

>In order to defeat the demons ( daityas ) who had succeeded in obtaining great powers through religious austerities, Visnu came down to earth disguised as an ascetic and began teaching doctrines contrary to the Vedas. First, disguising himself as the founder of the Jaina school, he taught the doctrine of anekāntavāda (perspectivism or “non-one-sidedness”) to the group of demons. Then, moving on to another group, he changed his outfit and, appearing as the Buddha, taught that animal sacrifices are immoral and so forth. By this means, the demons lost all of the powers they had attained, and were summarily massacred by the gods.
>This story is remarkable because it accomplishes two goals simultaneously. First, it manages to subsume Buddhism and Jainism under orthodox Brahmanism, by demonstrating that both Mahāvīra (if that is indeed who is portrayed—he is nameless in the Visnu Purāna ) and the Buddha were incarnations of Visnu. Second, it completely discredits the actual content of the doctrines of these two sects, by suggesting that the teachings of Buddhism and Jainism are intentionally false and nonsensical. The dupes are the Buddhists and Jainas, who do not understand that the source of all of the teachings they defend so vehemently is a divine trick.

>>17906090 (OP)
Buddha isn't an avatar of Vishnu

>>17906090 (OP)
Who is Vishnu? I'm finishing right now an introduction to Hinduism written by a complete idiot that preaches a version of Hinduism that is basically Abrahamic. It is a monotheistic religion with an all powerful, all knowing and all loving God that incarnates in avatars such as it did with Sri Krishna like 7000 years ago. I thought it was a retarded new age take but it seems that his quotation of scripture proves that such a God did indeed incarnate as such a being called Krishna (which is very similar to the story of Christ being an incarnation of God. Indeed this book has such retarded new age take as Christ being a Dharma master whose teachings were corrupted by Abrahamics, and Buddha being not really an avatar but a being influenced by God whose teaching were corrupted by Ashoka.
So again who and what is Vishnu? Is it just a name of the one God? Or one of many Gods?

>>17906164
>. It is a monotheistic religion with an all powerful, all knowing and all loving God
The author points correctly that christcuck arguments do not explain how a world with evil and suffering can exist with such a being, but then goes on to make the retarded argument that karma and reincarnation does give an explanation.
So this guy criticizes both new age spirituality and Abrahamism despite offering a worldview that is basically the same. And a worldview inferior to materialism.

They were competing religions yes, until Adi Shankaracharya more or less taught Buddhist philosophy in Hindu terms. After that everyone just sorta saw the two as branches/offshoots. Thats where you get Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu; both express the same concepts, one as negative and other positive.
For eg. Brahman (All pervasive, Positive) vs Sunyata (All pervasive, Negative)
Add in a sprinkle of Non Dualism and people saw the two preaching the same message, hence it isnt confusing for them to have the two as equals.

Theologically, Vishnu saw Kali Yuga and reincarnated as Buddha for said Yuga to create a line of Acharyas to reestablish theism by first negating theism (sorta).
However since both philosophies were found to be Non Dualistic, Hindus adopted the idea that all religions lead to Moksha, while Buddhists saw such figures as Bodhisattvas

TLDR it was a huge gambit

Somewhat off topic, somewhat not, but what's the most "Buddhist-like" section of Hinduism? I've always loved Buddhism in many respects, but prefer the idea of there being a supreme God and self like Hinduism teaches

>>17906963
Probably Advaita, maybe combine with Shaivism

>>17906090 (OP)
>competing religion
no such thing, but atheists will try to make you believe religions are competing

Narendranath Datta has said that Buddha is the truth that underlies all religion.

>>17906100
Reminds me of how the buddhist suttas talk about how brahma was just a random deva that was deluded into thinking he created the universe.
When monotheists have sectarian disagreements they genocide each other, when polytheists have sectarian disagreements they just go "nuh uh my god's stronger than yours"

>>17906164
"Hinduism" isn't one religion, despite what the british or some retarded nationalists might tell you. You may as well be asking "who or what is jesus according to the abrahamicists"

>>17907952
>Reminds me of how the buddhist suttas talk about how brahma was just a random deva that was deluded into thinking he created the universe.
Brahma is just a class of God in Buddhism. The sutta you mentioned must be referring to one specific individual brahma.

>>17907963
Is there any polytheistic Hinduism? Something like Buddhism in this respect.

>>17907964
Buddhists call brahma mahabrahma, hindus call him brahma and many used to believe he was the supreme god

>>17907967
Not the way you would think. Most branches consider all the devas to be different forms and manifestations of one ultimate reality called Brahman. Note that Brahman is not Brahma. Brahma would be a form of Brahman. Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti are all also forms and the different sects usually see one of those three as the "true" form of Brahman. This gets more complicated because each deva can also appear in different forms and avatars and sometimes a group thinks that an avatar of a deva who is a form of Brahman is the real Brahman. This is what happened with Sri Krisna. The Guadiya Vaishnavas believe that Krishna is the real Vishnu who is the real Brahman. Vaisnavas and especially Guadiya Vaisnavas as the most monotheistic and Smartists are the most polytheistic but none of them polytheistic the way Europeans conceptualize it. It gets even more complicated when you start to learn about which sects are dualists, that is that there is brahman and everything else, or non dualist, that is everything is brahman. So some "hindus" believe even we are just a form of Brahman deluded by ignorance, called Maya.

>>17907985
So is the hindu God an anthropomorphic God with thoughts and emotions, ie does he love, create, guide and act? Or is it some impersonal thing that is the source from which the universe is manifest in the same way warmth and light is manifest from the impersonal sun?

Also if everything is a manifestation of such source including Gods and humans, are humans less human because we are a manifestation of such source, and are Gods less God? If not then why is it a monotheistic religion?

>>17908049
That depends again on the branch. Guadiyas and other Vaisnavas would say that yes, Vishnu and Krishna are personal anthropomorphic gods like the Christian God. Some say Brahman is impersonal and unknowable by humans. Most would say both. Brahman is vast and unknowable and that's why it incarnates in anthropomorphic forms and avatars. As to the second question. Its not that humans are less human or gods are less gods, they are the same essence.

>>17908074
And I should clarify that while I am calling them branches they aren't branches the way Christian denominations are. Vaisnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and the hundreds and thousands of other branches are in many ways fully separate religions with the same backbone. Calling them all Hinduism is the same as lumping all the Abrahamic faiths together. They have the same backbone but they are very different. You may interested to know that the oldest form of Hinduism was a much more classical PIE style pantheon with a thunder god called Indra as the head deity.

>>17908074
>is vast and unknowable and that's why it incarnates in anthropomorphic forms and avatars.
If Brahman makes the choice to incarnate than he is anthropomorphic.
>As to the second question. Its not that humans are less human or gods are less gods, they are the same essence.
What does esserne mean? How do you reconcile it with all the differences between all these beings, differences that I can only call essential.

>>17908090
I dont know dude, Im not a Hindu I just read what they write.

>>17908049

Wall of text incoming

Brahman is literally translated as "ultimate reality" i.e. a mode of perception where you see things as they are (like Suchness in Buddhism and Dao in Daoism)

While It assumes many forms, and certainly an anthropomorphic loving God is one, it is not defined by it. What I mean is the definition of Brahman cannot stop at Anthropormorphic God.

Everything (and indeed even Nothing) is the manifestation of Brahman. The hills you see, the dreams you dream, the Universe and whatever lies beyond are ALL Brahman.

The underlying idea should be that YOU are also part of that same manifestation/God.

You are made of same tattva (elements). You are NOT separate from God. And there is no distinction between Divine and Worldly affairs (Non Dualism, Two Truths Doctrine).

This is why it is repeatedly emphasized, Tat Tvam Asi (Atman is Brahman)

Thats when you have realised Brahman (thats why you get people going All is Shiva, for eg.)

Hell it feels dirty trying to define Brahman, since everything that could be defined has an opposite, yet Brahman is both of them at the same time. That is why many sects and even Buddha Himself remained silent on the nature of the Self.

Also please do not think of Brahman as some sort of dumb, all pervading goo throughout the universe. That would imply it is separate from the Universe. When in fact It IS the Universe (and non-Universe). Get it?

Really the best way to realise is direct experience, words fails to capture it.

>>17906090 (OP)

Vishnu is not a god, but a demon. As for the Buddha, see here:

https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17837677/#17837677

>>17908090
>first question
Brahman is akin to a tree and we are the fruits on the branches. Does a tree make a choice/Is a tree anthropomorphic?

>second question
You see the difference we perceive is what is understood as Maya, the Illusion.
Take knower and known for eg. These two definitely seem to be completely separate nothing in common.

However there is a chain connecting the two. Without the object the knower has nothing to see. Without the subject the known might as well be irrelevant to not exist.

You see, an object cannot exist completely in isolation, then it doesnt exist. Try an experiment, think of an apple in isolation. You can, but there is a void or blank space surrounding it, is there not? You simply cannot think an object in isolation.

THAT is the realisation that all beings are connected to each other in some way (what the Buddhists call Doctrine of Mutual Penetration)(lol)

Erm, as for whether there is an essence, some would say there is, some would say not, really both are trying to same the same thing.

>>17908090
>If Brahman makes the choice to incarnate than he is anthropomorphic
According to the sankhya school "brahman" was just a general term the vedas used to simplify things. Matter and spirit are two distinct realities that are linked due to the spirit's ignorance. AFAIK basically all dualistic schools of hinduism are either "atheistic" (still allowing for gods), or accept an anthropomorphic deity
>What does esserne mean
All living beings, from humans to plants to gods have atman, which can exist independently from the ego

>>17908121
How do you decry someone that was born 500 years after you died?

>>17908301

What? Buddha lived in 123-200 AD.

I use to be involved in Reiki, Tai Chi, and other new age things. Then got involved in Hinduism, guru worship, and Buddhism. At the end of the day it's all satanic compared to the simplicity of the New Testament that simply teaches to love and forgive each other which solves nearly every problem. Jesus Christ is the only way.

>>17908339
>t. salva

All the theistic sects (Pure Land Buddhism, Ishvara Worship, Non Esoteric Shinto, Chinese Folk Religion etc.) basically teach the same thing and in an easy to understand manner.
The difference is you have choice.

>>17906164
that author is probably refering to brahman, which is a bit different from monotheism, more like pantheon. Vishnu is more like one half of Brahma, the more auspicious, light oriented half, while Shiva is the other half, the more dark oriented and destructive portion. there are sects of hinduism that interpret shiva as the highest god, or vishnu, or sometimes that they are mirrors of each other. there are other hinduisms where there are 5 highest gods

>>17906963
that depends on which type of buddhism and which type of hinduism. vajrayana resembles shaivism, but neither resembles mainstream hinduism very much at all

>>17906963
Sankhya school and the thai forest tradition are basically metaphysically identical

>>17906100
What do you mean, teaching demons? I'm not a demon or a great meditator and I don't have any power kek

>>17906963
Really, you just need to have a comparative reading of the Upanishads and Buddhism. That way it's clearer what the Buddha is refuting and how he's presenting his ideas. Don't depart from that. The golden age of religions was around the year 1000 to 500: Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism and even other schools that have been lost in time.

>>17907952
The Brahma-nimantanika Sutta (MN 49, The Discourse on Brahmā's Invitation) is one of those texts in the Pali canon which, read literally, describes a “supernatural” episode: the Buddha visiting Brahmā's realm to correct the Baka god Brahmā's belief that his world is eternal, perfect and absolute.
From a historical-critical point of view, scholars tend to see it not as a factual record of a “real” trip to heaven, but as a doctrinal and satirical narrative reflecting debates of the time.

>>17909389
Yeah as someone from a western/abrahamic upbringing a lot of the arguments the suttas make don't really make much sense until you learn more about early hinduism.
Tbh even buddhists from a hindu background should read the upanishads and ancient hindu exegesis because a lot of medieval/modern hindu philosophy is basically a direct response to buddhists
>>17908081
Funny enough it still kind of lives on in buddhism despite the buddha rejecting the vedas. Sakka, the buddhist equivalent of indra is still widely revered in much of east asia whilst most hindus don't care about indra

>>17909005
By the way, why do some people worship Shiva as main god? This is comic book tier "I want to serve evil god of death and destruction" shit.

>>17909594
Death and destruction aren't inherently bad in Dharmic religions.

>>17909594
There needs to be destruction for new life to appear. The christians and muslims also revere jesus, despite the fact that he will initiate the apocalypse and destroy the world

>>17908329

THIS.

>>17908421

Who?

>>17906090 (OP)
>Why the fuck did Yahweh descend to Earth with Jesus as his avatar, how does that make any sense did he just randomly created competing religion just for shit and giggles?

>>17909594
its a culturally ingrained tradition. aztec religion was 1000 times more insane and comic book villain tier shit and yet it was a very deeply ingrained traition, and not just to the aztecs but across the americas. why did anyone in the americas tolerate the centuries of human sacrifice? because they genuinely believed in these things for one, and they didnt really know any other way. I am not defending or rationalizing shaivism since it is a bit of a nutty religion, but you have to understand this is an ancient religion, and the most ancient religions tend to be a bit darker in nature because they were born from a time when man lived amongst bones and dogs, and Death was the only true God for them

>>17906090 (OP)
It was just an attempt to co-opt Buddhism, it was successful in India but nowhere else.
>>17908886
Pure Land Buddhism isn't theistic. Amitabha isn't taught to be a creator god (or a god at all). The Pure Land is only a stepping stone towards becoming a Boddhisatva.

who the fuck is this simon salva guy and why is he in every single thread about non-Christian religions spamming

>>17911684
some autistic retard who really needs to be rangebanned by the useless jannies here. he probably has ways to get around it anyway, or even is a janny himself. I genuinely cant tell if hes a pro-christian shill or an anti-christian shill who acts like such an obtuse gooner retard because he wants to make christians look bad. I just ignore him

>>17909594
He's not the evil kind of destruction. He's the natural entropy kind of destruction.
>>17911698
>>17911684
He's just a wannabe schizo poster

>>17911864

I'm not a wannabe nor a schizo. I'm just a historian.

>>17911684
It's an old 4chan tradition for namefags to be as incoherent/retarded as possible and shit up threads. Salvia is helping keep our culture alive