Hindu Gods in Buddhism

[goldenlight]

Buddhist literature, especially Mahayana is abundant in Magical Incantations and spells that avert calamities and disasters, eliminate sickness, bring rain and so forth.

Some of them seem blatantly un-buddhist, like an “Arya Ganapati dharani” that overcomes obstacles. Furthermore, most of these are garbed in a very Buddhist like cover in a Sutra form. Sutras such as the Golden light mention dharanis and propitiation of the Hindu Goddesses Sri (Lakshmi),Saraswathi and Drdha (Prithvi).

It seems quite Implausible that Shakyamuni may have propounded these; I may seem to Contradict myself when I say that I myself chant many of these Sutras with reverence yet usually skip the part wherein the incantations and chapter of the Hindu Deities appear.This is startling Since I myself am a Hindu Brahman by birth.

Shakyamuni propounded the tenets of Karmic philosophy, when and why did he himself give prominence to “ mundane “ Gods & Goddesses.Was it simply a gimmick by others to make Buddhism more appealing to Non- believers,or to cater to the mundane needs of the laity ?

I request a Mahayana Master to kindly resolve my doubts.

[Huseng]

Buddhist literature, especially Mahayana is abundant in Magical Incantations and spells that avert calamities and disasters, eliminate sickness, bring rain and so forth.

Non-Mahāyāna Buddhist literature likewise provides incantations and even dhāraṇīs or mantras.

As an example of the former, the Atanatiya Sutta provides a means of summoning protection against the yakkhas:

• "Surely bhante, there are disciples of the Blessed One. They frequent the remote recesses of forest and woodland wilderness where there is no sound, no tumult, where breezes are void of human contact, and suitable for man's seclusion and quiet contemplation. There are eminent Yakkhas who haunt these forests, who have no faith in the word of the Blessed One.
  
  "Bhante, may the Blessed One learn the Atanata protection so that the displeased Yakkhas may be pleased, so that the monks and nuns, laymen and laywomen, may be at ease, guarded, protected and unharmed."

As an example of the latter, the Mātaṅga Sūtra provides famous 'Gayatri Mantra' from the Rg Veda:

Oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ
tát savitúr váreṇ(i)yaṃ
bhárgo devásya dhīmahi
dhíyo yó naḥ pracodáyāt

(Chinese transliteration:)

菴浮婆蘇婆
旦娑婆鬪 婆利茹
被瞿提婆斯提麼
提由那婆羅提那

Early Buddhist literature therefore clearly had both incantations and mantras and this was not necessarily a later development.

Some of them seem blatantly un-buddhist, like an “Arya Ganapati dharani” that overcomes obstacles.

In some Buddhist texts, Ganesh is regarded as a form of Avalokitēśvara, which means neither he nor practices associated with him are "blatantly un-Buddhist". Granted, elsewhere in India literature he is the son of Shiva and has a prominent role to play in "Hindu" literature, but the truth is Ganesh has many stories behind him and there's many regional interpretations of him that vary greatly.

The other issue is that "Hindu" is a problematic term and actually quite modern. It is an outsider's word from a few centuries ago to describe Indian polytheism. There really is no one Hinduism. Various Indian religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Shaivism, Vedism and so on, draw from much of the same historical and religious heritage.

Furthermore, most of these are garbed in a very Buddhist like cover in a Sutra form. Sutras such as the Golden light mention dharanis and propitiation of the Hindu Goddesses Sri (Lakshmi),Saraswathi and Drdha (Prithvi).

From a polytheist perspective (and Buddhism is polytheist my definition), It is probably in your best interests to gain the favor of major deities. It also speaks to the cultural need on the part of ancient Indian devotees for real life assurances, such as having adequate wealth and good health.

It seems quite Implausible that Shakyamuni may have propounded these;

The top scholars in Buddhist Studies are quite doubtful we can know anything at all about what the Buddha actually taught. For example, Bronkhorst states the following:

• "It is not easy to get a clear picture of the Buddha's original teaching. Certainly, its aim was to stop suffering and rebirth. To achieve this, the Buddha taught a path in which consciousness played a major role. This is clear from the awareness practices and from the four stages of meditation. In the highest stage of meditation, it is somehow possible, with the help of wisdom (prajñā), to bring about a decisive transformation. Once this happens, the goal is attained."

Johannes Bronkhorst, Buddhist Teaching in India (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2009), 58

Modern scholars have often assumed that any rational and historically sound looking elements are probably reflecting actual reality while anything magical or supernatural is just a later addition, but that's highly problematic for a number of reasons and actually just reveals Protestant-influenced biases more than anything else. It is like attempting to dissect all the magic and supernatural elements out of the Bible. Why would it any safer to do that with Buddhist literature?

Shakyamuni propounded the tenets of Karmic philosophy, when and why did he himself give prominence to “ mundane “ Gods & Goddesses.Was it simply a gimmick by others to make Buddhism more appealing to Non- believers,or to cater to the mundane needs of the laity ?

Based on a reading of the early literature, it seems the Buddha was a polytheist like most of his countrymen in Magadha at the time. He accepted the existence of devas and according to the literature many prominent gods like Indra and Brahma visited him. It seems all Buddhists throughout Indian history likewise believed in the existence of such deities, including figures like Yama.

It is really just a modern interpretation of Buddhism that places so much emphasis on philosophy and theory extracted from scriptures with a quiet dismissal of all the 'supernatural' elements and magic.

[goldenlight]

Buddhist literature, especially Mahayana is abundant in Magical Incantations and spells that avert calamities and disasters, eliminate sickness, bring rain and so forth.

Non-Mahāyāna Buddhist literature likewise provides incantations and even dhāraṇīs or mantras.

As an example of the former, the Atanatiya Sutta provides a means of summoning protection against the yakkhas:

• "Surely bhante, there are disciples of the Blessed One. They frequent the remote recesses of forest and woodland wilderness where there is no sound, no tumult, where breezes are void of human contact, and suitable for man's seclusion and quiet contemplation. There are eminent Yakkhas who haunt these forests, who have no faith in the word of the Blessed One.
  
  "Bhante, may the Blessed One learn the Atanata protection so that the displeased Yakkhas may be pleased, so that the monks and nuns, laymen and laywomen, may be at ease, guarded, protected and unharmed."

As an example of the latter, the Mātaṅga Sūtra provides famous 'Gayatri Mantra' from the Rg Veda:

Oṃ bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ
tát savitúr váreṇ(i)yaṃ
bhárgo devásya dhīmahi
dhíyo yó naḥ pracodáyāt

(Chinese transliteration:)

菴浮婆蘇婆
旦娑婆鬪 婆利茹
被瞿提婆斯提麼
提由那婆羅提那

Early Buddhist literature therefore clearly had both incantations and mantras and this was not necessarily a later development.

Some of them seem blatantly un-buddhist, like an “Arya Ganapati dharani” that overcomes obstacles.

In some Buddhist texts, Ganesh is regarded as a form of Avalokitēśvara, which means neither he nor practices associated with him are "blatantly un-Buddhist". Granted, elsewhere in India literature he is the son of Shiva and has a prominent role to play in "Hindu" literature, but the truth is Ganesh has many stories behind him and there's many regional interpretations of him that vary greatly.

The other issue is that "Hindu" is a problematic term and actually quite modern. It is an outsider's word from a few centuries ago to describe Indian polytheism. There really is no one Hinduism. Various Indian religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Shaivism, Vedism and so on, draw from much of the same historical and religious heritage.

Furthermore, most of these are garbed in a very Buddhist like cover in a Sutra form. Sutras such as the Golden light mention dharanis and propitiation of the Hindu Goddesses Sri (Lakshmi),Saraswathi and Drdha (Prithvi).

From a polytheist perspective (and Buddhism is polytheist my definition), It is probably in your best interests to gain the favor of major deities. It also speaks to the cultural need on the part of ancient Indian devotees for real life assurances, such as having adequate wealth and good health.

It seems quite Implausible that Shakyamuni may have propounded these;

The top scholars in Buddhist Studies are quite doubtful we can know anything at all about what the Buddha actually taught. For example, Bronkhorst states the following:

• "It is not easy to get a clear picture of the Buddha's original teaching. Certainly, its aim was to stop suffering and rebirth. To achieve this, the Buddha taught a path in which consciousness played a major role. This is clear from the awareness practices and from the four stages of meditation. In the highest stage of meditation, it is somehow possible, with the help of wisdom (prajñā), to bring about a decisive transformation. Once this happens, the goal is attained."

Johannes Bronkhorst, Buddhist Teaching in India (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2009), 58

Modern scholars have often assumed that any rational and historically sound looking elements are probably reflecting actual reality while anything magical or supernatural is just a later addition, but that's highly problematic for a number of reasons and actually just reveals Protestant-influenced biases more than anything else. It is like attempting to dissect all the magic and supernatural elements out of the Bible. Why would it any safer to do that with Buddhist literature?

Shakyamuni propounded the tenets of Karmic philosophy, when and why did he himself give prominence to “ mundane “ Gods & Goddesses.Was it simply a gimmick by others to make Buddhism more appealing to Non- believers,or to cater to the mundane needs of the laity ?

Based on a reading of the early literature, it seems the Buddha was a polytheist like most of his countrymen in Magadha at the time. He accepted the existence of devas and according to the literature many prominent gods like Indra and Brahma visited him. It seems all Buddhists throughout Indian history likewise believed in the existence of such deities, including figures like Yama.

It is really just a modern interpretation of Buddhism that places so much emphasis on philosophy and theory extracted from scriptures with a quiet dismissal of all the 'supernatural' elements and magic.

Thank you for your detailed explanation on my doubts.I have never denied the existence of deities or the power they wield,It is just that I have realized that they seem powerless to override peoples Karma,Maybe I'm an exception whose genuine and earnest prayers went unheard.I was extremely and fanatically religious,almost insane with every nook of my house adorned with pictures of Hindu Gods.Like a majority of Indian Brahmins,I staunchly kept fasts,vows and celebrated holy days,But my piety bore no fruit.One day while surfing some random pages,I stumbled upon the "Cause & effect sutra" on the "cttbusa" site.That one sutra radically transformed me and my beliefs & I realized by folly and naivete.Since then I surrendered to the Triple Gem and its path of truth and reality.

[Serenity509]

This is from the Lotus Sutra:

To those who are to be converted by a goblin, he preaches the law assuming the shape of a goblin; to those who are to be converted by Isvara, he preaches the law in the shape of isvara; to those who are to be converted by Mahesvara, he preaches assuming the shape of Mahesvara. To those who are to be converted by a Kakravartin [This term is ambiguous; it means both 'the mover of the wheel', i.e. Vishnu, and 'an emperor'], he shows the law after assuming the shape of a Kakravartin
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/lotus/lot24.htm

Mahesvara was a name for Shiva. If Avalokitesvara can appear in the form of Vishnu or Shiva, what deities in other religions does he appear as to people as well? For the sake of expedient means, it can possibly be unlimited.

[LastLegend]

I am not a master, but what is your doubt?

[DGA]

If you want to claim that something is un-Buddhist, you need to explain first what you think it means for something to be Buddhist. Otherwise your claim is just an arbitrary label.

[Luke]

Some of them seem blatantly un-buddhist, like an “Arya Ganapati dharani” that overcomes obstacles.

Dear Golden Light,
While making these things one's focus would probably be "un-Buddhist," everybody has obstacles and Buddhism is pragmatic and realizes that overcoming obstacles is sometimes necessary for spiritual practice.

Shakyamuni propounded the tenets of Karmic philosophy, when and why did he himself give prominence to “ mundane “ Gods & Goddesses.Was it simply a gimmick by others to make Buddhism more appealing to Non- believers,or to cater to the mundane needs of the laity ?

Yes, indeed, Shakyamuni taught about karma--but he also taught about rebirth! And, because of karma, certain actions result in rebirths as gods or goddesses. Buddhism states that there are 6 realms of existence, so talking about the inhabitants of each realm is quite reasonable to Buddhists.

I sounds to me like you are going down the road of Stephen Batchelor with your thinking. Although I disagree with his approach, you might enjoy his books, since you dislike any talk of supernatural things.

**And I must add that I am not anywhere close to being a "Mahayana Master." I am just a regular guy who has practiced Buddhism for some years and read some books.

[goldenlight]

Thank you Indrajala and Luke, I have changed by perception towards the Gods,And as for Stephen Batchelor His doctrine is totally erroneous and unacceptable,He has questioned Karma and rebirth itself which is a derision of Buddhism.

[Loren Enders]

I get confused by this myself. Not a master and some of the Sanskrit names are hard to pronounce. Some of the deities share the same names but are not Hindu. But this is a quote from the introduction to the Śrīmahādevīvyākaraṇa that is at 84000 | Translating the Words of the Buddha.

This text extols the virtues and benefits of devotional practices, such as the recitation of sacred names and formulae or mantras. It can thus be said to be related to the bhakti or devotional movement in the religious life of the Indian subcontinent, a form of religious expression found in all major religions of the world. Faith (śraddhā; dad pa) is an essential factor of the path to awakening. It is listed among the five spiritual faculties (indriya; dbang po) and the eleven wholesome mental states.

In this sūtra, Śrī Mahādevī cultivated her faith by venerating and chanting names of the enlightened ones, thus accomplishing the roots of virtue that become the cause of her future awakening. The narrative takes place in the buddha realm Sukhāvatī, where Buddha Śākyamuni explains to Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara the benefits of reciting Śrī Mahādevī’s names. He further explains how Śrī Mahādevī herself gained the roots of virtue by venerating numerous tathāgatas, which the Buddha lists. He then relates the prophecy of Śrī Mahādevī’s future enlightenment, bestowed upon her by those buddhas, and lists her one hundred and eight names. The sūtra ends with Buddha Śākyamuni giving a dhāraṇī and a brief explanation on how to practice the recitation of Śrī Mahādevī’s names.

[Sara H]

I just want add, that as other's here have said, Gods and Devas are a part of Buddhism, all the way back to the Pali Cannon.

The Buddha taught about such things as being helpful to practice. For example in the Mahanama Sutta, He said:


"Furthermore, you should recollect the devas: 'There are the devas of the Four Great Kings, the devas of the Thirty-three, the devas of the Hours, the Contented Devas, the devas who delight in creation, the devas who have power over the creations of others, the devas of Brahma's retinue, the devas beyond them. Whatever conviction they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of conviction is present in me as well. Whatever virtue they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of virtue is present in me as well. Whatever learning they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of learning is present in me as well. Whatever generosity they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of generosity is present in me as well. Whatever discernment they were endowed with that — when falling away from this life — they re-arose there, the same sort of discernment is present in me as well.' At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the conviction, virtue, learning, generosity, and discernment found both in himself and the devas, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on the [qualities of the] devas. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.

"Of one who does this, Mahanama, it is said: 'Among those who are out of tune, the disciple of the noble ones dwells in tune; among those who are malicious, he dwells without malice; having attained the stream of Dhamma, he develops the recollection of the devas.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... call-devas

[Sara H]

The Buddha also talked about why this is more clearly when talking about the Ten Recollections. Number 6, is recollecting the devas and the Buddha placed that on the same list as having the same value as meditation, and taking Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

The Ten Recollections

§1. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Recollection of the Buddha. This is one thing that — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

§2. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Recollection of the Dhamma...

§3. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Recollection of the Sangha...

§4. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Recollection of virtue...

§5. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Recollection of generosity...

§6. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Recollection of the devas...

§7. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Mindfulness of in-and-out breathing...

§8. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Mindfulness of death...

§9. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body...

§10. One thing — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. Which one thing? Recollection of stilling. This is one thing that — when developed & pursued — leads solely to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

— AN 1.287-296

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/stud ... ml#summary