14 ms·

How Indian artists transformed the Buddha’s absence into presence

49 points by benbreen 3y ago

wmlive 3y ago
https://archive.is/COPQO https://archive.is/COPQO
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> Just as Christianity, in its early era, readily incorporated pagan beliefs and iconography into its developing creed and rituals, Buddhism was very accepting of preexisting Indian beliefs. It simply reframed them in Buddhist terms. This is an important point. Over the decades, I have seen it claimed on news-for-nerds sites like this, that Buddhism denied the supernatural entirely. Yet Buddhism as it is actually historically attested from its earliest eras (and attempts to reconstruct some kind of “pure” ur-Buddhism are dubious) show ready acceptance of e.g. the Vedic pantheon, with only the caveat that the gods, too, are stuck in samsara.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > I have seen it claimed on news-for-nerds sites like this, that Buddhism denied the supernatural entirely. I haven't observed that. It's a difficult position to hold: the ideas of karma and rebirth are central dogmas in Buddhism, and it's hard to construe them as not supernatural.
  - cyberpunk 3y ago
    Karma is purely action, cause and effect. There is little more to it. If I swing my hammer, it will hit something. Rebirth largely depends on what kind of buddhism we are talking about. There is nothing supernatural about rebirth in Zen. Others not so much, Tibetan buddhism for instance they believe that the Dalai Lama is a direct reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama (who would be tried for pretty serious crimes if he was alive today). So meh. ymmv.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      > There is little more to it Treating karma as simply cause and effect amounts to an apologetic. The doctrine is that some kinds of action have effects that are borne in future lives. That would imply that there is some kind of place or medium where the seeds sown by actions can be stored, until they bear fruit in future lives. The Abidharma proposes some pretty convoluted metaphysics to explain this storage without postulating an enduring self. Reincarnating lamas are a peculiarity of Tibetan Buddhism, honoured as much in the breach; for example, many lama lineages are passed from father to son. When searching for a reincarnated lama, monks rely on prophesies and magical signs. Unsurprisingly, the system is wide-open for corruption. Stephen Segal, for example, is supposed to be a reincarnated lama.
  - rhuru 3y ago
    The central teaching of Buddhism revolves around one single concept 'nirvana'. In this state you become one with all, rather you understand your true nature as the supreme self. While Hindus described this state as basically "everything", buddha and later many prominent buddhists described it as "nothingness" which appears as inconsistent with each other and hence folks might see Buddha as some kind of rebel. Buddha and Buddhists talk about "un-atman" and Hindus talk about "atman". There is one major difference between Buddhism and some schools of thought in Hinduism like Yoga or Bhakti. While Yoga and Bhakti insist that a 'deity' helps you make the progress much faster on path of self realization, Buddha did not explicitly support this. He instead focused on more inward looking approach of meditation and contemplation (which is a subset of Vedanta philosophy in Hinduism). This is often seen as Buddhism being an atheistic philosophy by Hindus. Both Hinduism and Buddhism allow its followers to embed this central concept into various other "decorations" and "facades". Which may involve supernatural elements. But they are mostly irrelevant for you to be either Hindu or Buddhist. This is in stark contrast to Islam, Judaism and Christianity where some central core beliefs absolutely require you to believe in supernatural elements.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      > understand your true nature as the supreme self This is nonsense. Buddhism regards the "self" as not really a thing; rather, a bunch of aggregates that beings mistake for a thing. The idea of a "supreme self" is Atman, which nearly all Buddhists regard as illusory. The word generally occurs in Buddhist literature in the form "anatta", or no-self. Clinging to the idea of a self is considered a mistake, and the root cause of dukkha, or suffering.
      - blueprint 3y ago
        you the real mvp. Thanks for what you're doing. Though may I caveat your description? The self may be a thing but it is not what we colloquially call a self. It doesn't exist independently - in the sense people think self means. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have existence and even undergo reincarnation too.
    - dharmach 3y ago
  - laserlight 3y ago
    Depends on rebirth of what. Rebirth of the sense of self is not supernatural. It is experiential. Rebirth as reincarnation is the supernatural one.
- cyberpunk 3y ago
  Of course there is a massive spread of religion that comes under the title 'buddhism'. The buddhism I practice doesn't resemble this, there are others (e.g Pure Land or Tibetan) which I do think incorporate some real 'religious' dogma and supernatural nonsense; but personally (and perhaps somewhat offensively.. Sorry!) I don't refer to these as Buddhism. The only thing I think my sect would say buddhists as a whole believe is that we absolutely do not care what any given person believes. There is no dogma, no leap of faith involved in zen. If you want to believe in a magical dude in the sky, that's up to you. It's not related to zen. It's quite easy to be mislead on this point, especially as a lot of zen texts were written at a time where such beliefs were common, but while e.g Dogen sometimes talks about literal rebirth and various hells and so on, these are not part of his teachings but the settings for it. Like how if I was to write some sutra today, I may set it in a contemporary setting, but that setting would not be the teaching..
  - sambapa 3y ago
    But without literal rebirth Buddhism doesn't make any sense
    - rhuru 3y ago
      Why do you think so ?
      - sambapa 3y ago
        If you die and it's over then you are not stuck in samsara
        cyberpunk 3y ago
        You die every second. Many many times a second. The me that's finishing writing this comment is not the me that started writing it.
        sambapa 3y ago
- rhuru 3y ago
  Yes. Buddha himself was pretty much a Hindu. Most of his teachings perfectly consistent with the previous Vedic thought and where he differed again, it was perfectly within the framework where all other Munis or rishis would disagree with the established beliefs. Buddha's "dhamma" is basically just a different pronunciation of "Dharma". Buddha's primary teachings was around "nirvana" a concept which existed long before Buddha in the form of "Kaivalya", "Moksha" or "Apagraha". Hinduism itself does not have the concept of "other", it has wide body of work and it is also tolerant to a wide array of ideas under its umbrella and Buddha was pretty much under that Umbrella. Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. Their homes are full of Buddhist insignia and they name their children after Buddha. There is a parity in praxis. "Pure Buddhism" is mostly a political issue and a much later addition to the discourse. One of the reason it happened is because a prominent caste based politician Ambedkar publicly declared that he is going to quit Hinduism because it did not treat his caste well. While Islamists and Christian missionaries rejoiced at the idea and try to court him he declared both the religions to be of foreign origin and harmful for India. He decided to become a Buddhist. This is the first time someone prominent tried and succeeded in drawing a clear line between Buddhism and Hinduism which since has become a bit thicker. The new converts however get called "neo buddhists" and aren't really seen as authentic buddhists by both non buddhists and original buddhists.
  - laxmin 3y ago
    > Buddha's "dhamma" is basically just a different pronunciation of "Dharma" Dharma is Sanskrit, Dhamma is Pali. There is not difference otherwise. Otherwise, agree completely. Nicely put.
  - iamshs 3y ago
    "Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. " So as to deny Buddhism is a separate religion, and co-opt Buddha among various Hindu avatars. This is how Buddhism was decimated by Brahminism in India, co-opting Budhha as their own.
    - eklavya 3y ago
      Or a less inflammatory take, Hinduism absorbing stuff and evolving like it has for thousands of years.
- iamshs 3y ago
  Budhha rejected Vedas. "He repudiated their thesis that the Vedas are infallible and their authority could never be questioned" - When you reject Vedas and question them, there is nothing left to salvage. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/01_5.html http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambe...
  - rhuru 3y ago
    Entire body of Upanishads are about questioning Vedas. The repudiation of Vedas isn't new thing that Buddha invented and pretty much part of usual Hindu philosophical traditions. The buddha himself says that very clearly that he is walking on the same old path treaded by others before him.
    - blueprint 3y ago
      > The buddha himself says that very clearly that he is walking on the same old path treaded by others before him. It is essential that people transmit the words of the masters exactly as they are so that we don't damage the truth of them. So, can you provide any citation as to where you believe you heard this "buddha himself" say that? What was he saying it about? He was not saying it about the people in "Hinduism" as you appear to be trying to take it out of context to say. I have read of him, however, saying it about the other Tathagatas that have appeared and will appear in other worlds and eras. quite different, sir.
- raincole 3y ago
  > supernatural > earliest eras I think it's important to remind ourselves that our ancestors didn't view the world like we do. There wasn't a clear line between "nature" and "supernature". Is alchemy supernature? If you don't know 1) microorganism 2) atoms, is there any reason to say "flour can be transformed into breads, but stones can never be transformed into gold"?
- mekoka 3y ago
  I think it's worth remembering that Gautama did not create Buddhism. He passed on and people that came after, continued teaching in his stead. So to say that Buddhism was very accepting of preexisting Indian beliefs doesn't say anything about what he actually taught after his liberation. For a number of reasons I don't think he himself incorporated pagan beliefs. If I laid out all my arguments, this answer would probably turn into an article. For the sake of brevity, I'll only pick three. First, most teachings that aim at orienting seekers toward a realization are non-conceptual, they're not intellectual. They don't ask you to believe in anything, but to orient to your own senses in the present. They require your direct participation. The work is about getting the mind out of the way of direct experience, which is antithetical to orienting it toward even more beliefs. The mind needs no extra motivation for stories, that's its job. The second point ties in with the first. The mind loves to intellectualize, to conceptualize. It wants to understand realization, since it cannot experience it. So eventually, some people will try to teach from a conceptual framework. It's in this form that the teachings will actually be either transmitted to or apprehended by the vast majority of "practitioners". This is where you'll also notice some ambiguity between original teachings and doctrine. In the morning you're taught to inquire into the nature of the I and to focus on your senses; then in the evening you're on your knees, chanting in front of a statue. Finally, did Gautama deny the supernatural? I think that the answer is probably yes and no. Yes, because as I explained, I don't think he actively included them in his teachings. No, because it would be as pointless as convincing a 2 year old that Santa doesn't exist. How fruitful would it be for a teacher whose aim is to help you realize, to spend their time debating concepts, when you might just wake up any instant and see things for yourself?
panjaro 3y ago
NOT ONCE has this article mentioned NEPAL. Buddha was born in Nepal. Omission of these facts in mainstream articles like these has robbed Nepal of its history.
- rhuru 3y ago
  Sadly most people might not even see Nepal as different from India.
- ss1996 3y ago
  I'm confused why that troubles you. Does every article concerning Buddha have to mention his birthplace? Or to generalize, does every article about any significant historical figure have to mention their birthplace? Well written articles will provide only relevant details. Exhaustive details can be found in encyclopaedias.

49 points by benbreen 3y ago

https://archive.is/COPQO https://archive.is/COPQO

> Just as Christianity, in its early era, readily incorporated pagan beliefs and iconography into its developing creed and rituals, Buddhism was very accepting of preexisting Indian beliefs. It simply reframed them in Buddhist terms. This is an important point. Over the decades, I have seen it claimed on news-for-nerds sites like this, that Buddhism denied the supernatural entirely. Yet Buddhism as it is actually historically attested from its earliest eras (and attempts to reconstruct some kind of “pure” ur-Buddhism are dubious) show ready acceptance of e.g. the Vedic pantheon, with only the caveat that the gods, too, are stuck in samsara.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> I have seen it claimed on news-for-nerds sites like this, that Buddhism denied the supernatural entirely. I haven't observed that. It's a difficult position to hold: the ideas of karma and rebirth are central dogmas in Buddhism, and it's hard to construe them as not supernatural.
- cyberpunk 3y ago
  Karma is purely action, cause and effect. There is little more to it. If I swing my hammer, it will hit something. Rebirth largely depends on what kind of buddhism we are talking about. There is nothing supernatural about rebirth in Zen. Others not so much, Tibetan buddhism for instance they believe that the Dalai Lama is a direct reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama (who would be tried for pretty serious crimes if he was alive today). So meh. ymmv.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > There is little more to it Treating karma as simply cause and effect amounts to an apologetic. The doctrine is that some kinds of action have effects that are borne in future lives. That would imply that there is some kind of place or medium where the seeds sown by actions can be stored, until they bear fruit in future lives. The Abidharma proposes some pretty convoluted metaphysics to explain this storage without postulating an enduring self. Reincarnating lamas are a peculiarity of Tibetan Buddhism, honoured as much in the breach; for example, many lama lineages are passed from father to son. When searching for a reincarnated lama, monks rely on prophesies and magical signs. Unsurprisingly, the system is wide-open for corruption. Stephen Segal, for example, is supposed to be a reincarnated lama.
- rhuru 3y ago
  The central teaching of Buddhism revolves around one single concept 'nirvana'. In this state you become one with all, rather you understand your true nature as the supreme self. While Hindus described this state as basically "everything", buddha and later many prominent buddhists described it as "nothingness" which appears as inconsistent with each other and hence folks might see Buddha as some kind of rebel. Buddha and Buddhists talk about "un-atman" and Hindus talk about "atman". There is one major difference between Buddhism and some schools of thought in Hinduism like Yoga or Bhakti. While Yoga and Bhakti insist that a 'deity' helps you make the progress much faster on path of self realization, Buddha did not explicitly support this. He instead focused on more inward looking approach of meditation and contemplation (which is a subset of Vedanta philosophy in Hinduism). This is often seen as Buddhism being an atheistic philosophy by Hindus. Both Hinduism and Buddhism allow its followers to embed this central concept into various other "decorations" and "facades". Which may involve supernatural elements. But they are mostly irrelevant for you to be either Hindu or Buddhist. This is in stark contrast to Islam, Judaism and Christianity where some central core beliefs absolutely require you to believe in supernatural elements.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > understand your true nature as the supreme self This is nonsense. Buddhism regards the "self" as not really a thing; rather, a bunch of aggregates that beings mistake for a thing. The idea of a "supreme self" is Atman, which nearly all Buddhists regard as illusory. The word generally occurs in Buddhist literature in the form "anatta", or no-self. Clinging to the idea of a self is considered a mistake, and the root cause of dukkha, or suffering.
    - blueprint 3y ago
      you the real mvp. Thanks for what you're doing. Though may I caveat your description? The self may be a thing but it is not what we colloquially call a self. It doesn't exist independently - in the sense people think self means. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have existence and even undergo reincarnation too.
  - dharmach 3y ago
- laserlight 3y ago
  Depends on rebirth of what. Rebirth of the sense of self is not supernatural. It is experiential. Rebirth as reincarnation is the supernatural one.
cyberpunk 3y ago
Of course there is a massive spread of religion that comes under the title 'buddhism'. The buddhism I practice doesn't resemble this, there are others (e.g Pure Land or Tibetan) which I do think incorporate some real 'religious' dogma and supernatural nonsense; but personally (and perhaps somewhat offensively.. Sorry!) I don't refer to these as Buddhism. The only thing I think my sect would say buddhists as a whole believe is that we absolutely do not care what any given person believes. There is no dogma, no leap of faith involved in zen. If you want to believe in a magical dude in the sky, that's up to you. It's not related to zen. It's quite easy to be mislead on this point, especially as a lot of zen texts were written at a time where such beliefs were common, but while e.g Dogen sometimes talks about literal rebirth and various hells and so on, these are not part of his teachings but the settings for it. Like how if I was to write some sutra today, I may set it in a contemporary setting, but that setting would not be the teaching..
- sambapa 3y ago
  But without literal rebirth Buddhism doesn't make any sense
  - rhuru 3y ago
    Why do you think so ?
    - sambapa 3y ago
      If you die and it's over then you are not stuck in samsara
      - cyberpunk 3y ago
        You die every second. Many many times a second. The me that's finishing writing this comment is not the me that started writing it.
        sambapa 3y ago
rhuru 3y ago
Yes. Buddha himself was pretty much a Hindu. Most of his teachings perfectly consistent with the previous Vedic thought and where he differed again, it was perfectly within the framework where all other Munis or rishis would disagree with the established beliefs. Buddha's "dhamma" is basically just a different pronunciation of "Dharma". Buddha's primary teachings was around "nirvana" a concept which existed long before Buddha in the form of "Kaivalya", "Moksha" or "Apagraha". Hinduism itself does not have the concept of "other", it has wide body of work and it is also tolerant to a wide array of ideas under its umbrella and Buddha was pretty much under that Umbrella. Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. Their homes are full of Buddhist insignia and they name their children after Buddha. There is a parity in praxis. "Pure Buddhism" is mostly a political issue and a much later addition to the discourse. One of the reason it happened is because a prominent caste based politician Ambedkar publicly declared that he is going to quit Hinduism because it did not treat his caste well. While Islamists and Christian missionaries rejoiced at the idea and try to court him he declared both the religions to be of foreign origin and harmful for India. He decided to become a Buddhist. This is the first time someone prominent tried and succeeded in drawing a clear line between Buddhism and Hinduism which since has become a bit thicker. The new converts however get called "neo buddhists" and aren't really seen as authentic buddhists by both non buddhists and original buddhists.
- laxmin 3y ago
  > Buddha's "dhamma" is basically just a different pronunciation of "Dharma" Dharma is Sanskrit, Dhamma is Pali. There is not difference otherwise. Otherwise, agree completely. Nicely put.
- iamshs 3y ago
  "Hindus for example believe Buddha to be the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu. " So as to deny Buddhism is a separate religion, and co-opt Buddha among various Hindu avatars. This is how Buddhism was decimated by Brahminism in India, co-opting Budhha as their own.
  - eklavya 3y ago
    Or a less inflammatory take, Hinduism absorbing stuff and evolving like it has for thousands of years.
iamshs 3y ago
Budhha rejected Vedas. "He repudiated their thesis that the Vedas are infallible and their authority could never be questioned" - When you reject Vedas and question them, there is nothing left to salvage. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/01_5.html http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambe...
- rhuru 3y ago
  Entire body of Upanishads are about questioning Vedas. The repudiation of Vedas isn't new thing that Buddha invented and pretty much part of usual Hindu philosophical traditions. The buddha himself says that very clearly that he is walking on the same old path treaded by others before him.
  - blueprint 3y ago
    > The buddha himself says that very clearly that he is walking on the same old path treaded by others before him. It is essential that people transmit the words of the masters exactly as they are so that we don't damage the truth of them. So, can you provide any citation as to where you believe you heard this "buddha himself" say that? What was he saying it about? He was not saying it about the people in "Hinduism" as you appear to be trying to take it out of context to say. I have read of him, however, saying it about the other Tathagatas that have appeared and will appear in other worlds and eras. quite different, sir.
raincole 3y ago
> supernatural > earliest eras I think it's important to remind ourselves that our ancestors didn't view the world like we do. There wasn't a clear line between "nature" and "supernature". Is alchemy supernature? If you don't know 1) microorganism 2) atoms, is there any reason to say "flour can be transformed into breads, but stones can never be transformed into gold"?
mekoka 3y ago
I think it's worth remembering that Gautama did not create Buddhism. He passed on and people that came after, continued teaching in his stead. So to say that Buddhism was very accepting of preexisting Indian beliefs doesn't say anything about what he actually taught after his liberation. For a number of reasons I don't think he himself incorporated pagan beliefs. If I laid out all my arguments, this answer would probably turn into an article. For the sake of brevity, I'll only pick three. First, most teachings that aim at orienting seekers toward a realization are non-conceptual, they're not intellectual. They don't ask you to believe in anything, but to orient to your own senses in the present. They require your direct participation. The work is about getting the mind out of the way of direct experience, which is antithetical to orienting it toward even more beliefs. The mind needs no extra motivation for stories, that's its job. The second point ties in with the first. The mind loves to intellectualize, to conceptualize. It wants to understand realization, since it cannot experience it. So eventually, some people will try to teach from a conceptual framework. It's in this form that the teachings will actually be either transmitted to or apprehended by the vast majority of "practitioners". This is where you'll also notice some ambiguity between original teachings and doctrine. In the morning you're taught to inquire into the nature of the I and to focus on your senses; then in the evening you're on your knees, chanting in front of a statue. Finally, did Gautama deny the supernatural? I think that the answer is probably yes and no. Yes, because as I explained, I don't think he actively included them in his teachings. No, because it would be as pointless as convincing a 2 year old that Santa doesn't exist. How fruitful would it be for a teacher whose aim is to help you realize, to spend their time debating concepts, when you might just wake up any instant and see things for yourself?

panjaro 3y ago

NOT ONCE has this article mentioned NEPAL. Buddha was born in Nepal. Omission of these facts in mainstream articles like these has robbed Nepal of its history.

rhuru 3y ago
Sadly most people might not even see Nepal as different from India.
ss1996 3y ago
I'm confused why that troubles you. Does every article concerning Buddha have to mention his birthplace? Or to generalize, does every article about any significant historical figure have to mention their birthplace? Well written articles will provide only relevant details. Exhaustive details can be found in encyclopaedias.