|
|
Close Help | ||||||||||||||
Pure Land Buddhism As Vaishnavism
Part One: The Difference Between the Original Pure Land
Tradition and the Atheistic Theravadin Tradition
By Bhakti Ananda Goswami
Recently I was asked if the Buddha taught atheism. I could not give a simple answer, because there is an erroneous presupposition in the question. Original Mahayana Buddhism was theistic, and taught the existence of infinite Buddhas, or incarnations of Lokeshvara (Vishnu) or the Supreme Transcendent Adi Buddha HRIH (Hari, Krishna), Who incarnates to preach the Dharma according to time and circumstance.
[ The following is from WHOSE
KRISHNA ? WHOSE BUDDHA ? WHOSE JESUS ?, a multi-volume work in progress by HH
Bhakti Ananda Goswami]
WHOSE BUDDHA ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © Tridandi Sannyasi Bhakti Ananda Goswami 2001 - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Buddha of Theravadin (T) Buddhism is not the same as the Buddha and Buddhas of Mahayana (M) Buddhism. The Gautama, Sakyamuni, or Siddhartha Buddha of the Theravadin (Southern or 'Hinayana') Buddhists has been considered by them to be an 'awakened' man, the only Buddha, unique in world history to this time. According to the Southern Pali Language Tradition of Buddhism, this Sakya Buddha of the Theravadins definitely taught not only atheism, but voidism. However, the Sakyamuni Buddha of the Mahayana Buddhists was originally considered to be the latest of infinite salvific incarnations of Amitayus (Balarama) as Vishnu (Lokeshvara). Not only did He teach a transcendental theism, but He was always considered to be an incarnation of the Adi Purusha, Bhagavan, HRIH / Amitabha the Dharma Kaya, Adi Purusha, the ADI BUDDHA Himself. These M Buddhists (Sakyamuni worshipers) were indistinguishable from Vaishnavas throughout the range of Vaishnavism, and only became perceived as belonging to a separate religion (Buddhism) as their traditions spread outside of India, or became corrupted with Theravadin atheistic teachings.
According to Mahayana Tradition, when the Lord descended as Sakyamuni Buddha, he
preached to the humble faithful and to the proud atheists both. Even in mixed
assemblies, the atheists could not understand His Divinity and theistic
revelations due to their proud offensive mentality. Those hearers who lacked the
BODHI HEART OF COMPASSION could not hear / receive the revelation of the ADI
BUDDHA'S GRACE MEDIATED THROUGH HIS SECOND PERSON'S INFINITE BODHISATTVA
MANIFESTATIONS AND BUDDHA INCARNATIONS (INCLUDING SAKYAMUNI). The proud
intellectual elitists brought their arrogant jnana / gnosis to the assemblies,
and thus they took away with them the atheistic conception of Sakyamuni and His
teachings which they had brought with them. They could not experience His
divinity, or even hear His theistic, bhakti / grace teachings about the infinite
Buddhas, the Bodhisattvas and their infinite spirit-realms. Due to their
offences, the atheists could not even hear Sakyamuni's teachings on the
Incarnations of Lokeshvara (Vishnu) , the Adi Buddha (HRIH) and His
spiritual Lotus Dwipa PURE LAND (hence PURE LAND BUDDHISM) . So it is
that the Mahayanists explain why their canon of scripture and oral traditions
contain some entirely different teachings than those of the Theravadins.
Unfortunately, over time, the pure transcendental devotional theism of Mahayana
Buddhism became corrupted with 'esoteric' and then explicit voidism, creeping
into it from the T Tradition. I will explain more on one of the
mechanisms (foreign pilgrims in India) of this corruption later below. As a form
of elitist gnosticism or jnana, the corruption of M Buddhism with atheism is
analogous to the way that gnostic 'esoteric wisdom' teachings have introduced
voidism and 'extreme apophatic' impersonalist teachings into Judaism and
Christianity in the West.
The Theravadins have always claimed that theirs is the original form of
Buddhism, and this view has been adopted and promulgated widely in both the East
and West, despite vast evidence to the contrary (more on this below). Sri Lanka
has long been considered the ancient homeland of Theravadin Buddhism, from which
it spread throughout South East Asia. There are vast differences between
Theravadin 'Southern Buddhism' and Mahayana , or 'Northern Buddhism', which is
closely related to Krishna-centric Vaishnavism. The Theravadins claim that the
Mahayana Tradition is a later corruption of Theravada by Hinduism. Western
academia has generally adopted this view. However, if we study the
antecedents of Mahayana Buddhism in the PTAH CULTUS OF HELIOS IN EGYPT, it is
clear that the PURE LAND BUDDHIST CORE OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM GOES BACK AT LEAST
AS FAR AS THE DOMINANT TRADITION OF HERU-ASAR-PTAH AT MEMPHIS CIRCA 3000 BC IN
EGYPT. The ancient Eastern Hemisphere range of Northern Buddhism in fact
pre-dated Sakyamuni Buddha by centuries to millennia, and included S.E. Asia,
India north and east to Japan, and west to Europe and Egypt. There is also
evidence of its presence among the Amerindians of the Western Hemisphere
(several other volumes at least could be written on this subject alone).
Having long studied the Mahayana-Vaishnava connections and M versus T
differences, on my Asian Independent Study through Marylhurst College in 1982, I
visited ancient Buddhist sites, present temples and monasteries, lay and
ordained practitioners, scholars, museum and private collections of sacred art
and artifacts, and libraries, etc. collecting texts and icons, sketching and
photographing them, and discussing them with experts and murti / icon makers
from Japan, to Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, India and Nepal. As
the Mainland USA Delegate to the academic 1982 World Hindu Conference, sponsored
by the Governments of Tamil Nadu, India, and Sri Lanka, I had the opportunity to
meet and discuss these issues with many scholars. I was also a guest of
the Sri Lankan Government, and given a tour of the most important ancient
Buddhist and Hindu sites in Sri Lanka. Every one of the oldest
Theravadin (T) sites had Jaya and Vijaya (Vishnu's heavenly temple
gate-keepers) and / or a Devali shrine (with the stupa) clearly depicting Vishnu
(Lokeshvara ) descending to take His birth as Sakyamuni Buddha. The
ancient and contemporary T Buddhist places of worship were pervaded with the
rich iconography and symbolism of Vaishnavism, in spite of the fact that T
Buddhism is militantly voidist and iconoclastic. When I asked
the T Buddhist masters and monks why their holy places were full of such 'idols'
and symbols, and why the masses were worshiping the mere 'awakened man'
Sakyamuni with traditional Vaishnava-style pujas etc., they all disdainfully
responded that the superstitious sentimentality of Dravidian Hinduism had
corrupted everything, and that it was very difficult for the common masses to
understand the sublime teaching / truth of anatta / no self.
Only the elite Aryan Arhants and their disciples could realize their
non-being, and thus escape the cycle of samsara ! As an aside here I would
like to mention that when I asked about Krishna and Balarama, these same T
Buddhists responded with a similar teaching to the one I encountered among some
Jains in India. They considered Krishna (or Vasudeva) and Baladeva to be demons
! The only elaboration on this that I could elicit, was that They
caused a great war (the Battle of Kurukshetra), and (as with some Jains) They,
or Krishna were in a hell for their sins in this conflict.
In spite of Sri Lanka's status as a kind of capital of Buddhist atheism /
voidism, I only saw ancient evidence there of MAHAYANA Buddhism. Moreover, M
Buddhism was still pervading the popular worship of the so-called 'Theravadin'
masses. For instance, on Wesak, the thrice holy day of Sakyamuni's birth,
enlightenment and 'nirvana', in the public places and temples that I
visited, everyone was chanting Mahayana Buddha's birth stories, which included
references to his previous salvific appearances found in the Northern Canon of
devotional literature. His enlightenment and 'death' stories were also
from the Northern Canon Tradition, and full of so-called 'mythical', miraculous,
salvific and transcendent elements. I could not find a single 'Theravadin'
temple where lay Buddhists were NOT worshiping Sakyamuni according to the
Mahayana Bhakti Traditions. The T Buddhist priests disdainfully tolerated it and
dutifully collected the ‘Hinduized’ faithfuls' offerings. After
my studies in Sri Lanka, the purported ancient center and regional diffusion
point for T Buddhism, I was convinced that Southern, or atheistic / voidist
Buddhism, in the South Eastern range was predominantly POPULARLY Mahayana,
but treated as a low-class corruption by the elitist religious, who were the
'brahmin' class, patronized and made powerful by various dynasties.
I concluded that the voidists have always been in denial regarding their true
historical position in relationship to Mahayana Tradition
