ryuei2000

People keep saying that there are no gods in Buddhism, but in actuality the Vedic gods have been part of Buddhism from the beginning. The earliest record we have of what the Buddha said and did is the Pali Canon. In the Samyutta Nikaya (Connected Discourses) there are large sections devoted just to conversations between the Buddha and the Vedic gods. In one, it is recounted how after his enlightenment the Buddha considered not teaching the Dharma (or Dhamma in Pali) as he was afraid no one would understand or want to give up their selfish craving. Brahma (the Vedic creator god) heard this and the following is from SN Chapter 6 story 1 in subchapter 1:

Then Brahma Sahampati, having known with his own mind the reflection in the Blessed One's mind, thought: "Alas, the world is lost! Alas, the world is to perish, in that the mind of the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, inclines to living at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma." Then just as quickly as a strong man might extend his drawn-in-arm or draw in his extend arm, Brahma Sahampati disappeared from the brahma world and reappeared before the Blessed One. He arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, knelt down with his right knee on the ground, raised his joined hands in reverential salute towards the Blessed One, and said to him: "Venerable sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma; let the Fortunate One teach the Dhamma. There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma." (p. 232 of the Connected Discourses translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

So the Vedic gods were not added in later to Buddhism or by Tibetan Bon or anything of the kind. They are very present even in the earliest form of the canon. Also, this is not the only place where god the creator appears in human form like this. Look in Genesis where God visits Abraham (chapter 18).

Here is what the Buddha taught people with families and jobs:

Householders, there are three kinds of righteous bodily conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma. There are four kinds of righteous verbal conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma. There are three kinds of righteous mental conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma.

And how, householders, are there three kinds of righteous bodily conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma? Here someone, abandoning the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life; with rod and weapon laid aside, conscientious, merciful, he dwells compassionate to all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given; he does not take by way of theft the wealth and property of others in the village or in the forest. Abandoning sexual misconduct, he abstains from sexual misconduct; he does not have intercourse with women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected by law, or with those already engaged. That is how there are three kinds of righteous bodily conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma.

And how, householders, are there four kinds of righteous verbal conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma? Here someone, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech; when summoned to a court, or to a meeting, or to his relatives’ presence, or to his guild, or to the royal family’s presence, and questioned as a witness thus: “So, good man, tell what you know,” not knowing, he says, “I do not know,” or knowing, he says, “I know”; not seeing, he says, “I do not see,” or seeing, he says, “I see”; he does not in full awareness speak falsehood for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end. Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide [those people] from these, nor does he repeat to these people what he heard elsewhere in order to divide [these people] from those; thus he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendship, who enjoys concord, rejoices in concord, delights in concord, a speaker of words that promote concord. Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and loveable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable to many. Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks what is good, speaks on the Dharma and the discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial. That is how there are four kinds of righteous verbal conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma.

And how, householders, are there three kinds of righteous mental conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma? Here someone is not covetous; he does not covet the wealth and property of others thus: “Oh, may what belongs to another be mine!” His mind is without ill will, and he has intentions free from hate thus: “May these beings be free from enmity, affliction, and anxiety! May they live happily!” He has right view, undistorted vision, thus: “There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are good and virtuous ascetics and brahmins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.” That is how there are three kinds of righteous mental conduct, conduct in accordance with the Dharma. So householders, it is by reason of such righteous conduct, such conduct in accordance with the Dharma that some beings here, on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a good destination, even in a heavenly world. (From In the Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi, pp. 158-160)

Here are three interesting verses from the Dhammapada that say you can (verses 103-105):

Though one might conquer in battle

a thousand times a thousand men,

the one who conquers himself alone

is supreme in battle.

It is better indeed to conquer yourself

rather than other people.

For a person who tames himself

acting consciously always,

neither a radiant one nor an aerial spirit,

nor Mara together with Brahma

could turn into defeat the victory

of a person such as that.

(translation by Glenn Wallis from pp. 23-24 of the Dhammapada: Verses on the Way) Note that "radiant one" is a translation of deva which is a name for the Vedic gods, Mara is the tempter or "murderer" in Buddhism who tries to keep the Buddha from attaining enlightenment and from teaching the Dharma. Brahma is the Vedic creator god. So Mara and Brahma are analogues to the Satan and God of the West.

Here are three verses from the Dhammapada that if followed would create a new world order:

"He berated me! He hurt me!

He beat me! He deprived me!"

For those who hold such grudges,

hostility is not appeased.

"He berated me! He hurt me!

He beat me! He deprived me!"

For those who forego such grudges,

hostility ceases.

In this world

hostilities are never

appeased by hostility.

But by the absence of hostility

are they appeased.

This is an interminable truth.

(translation by Glenn Wallis in The Dhammapada: Verses on the Way)

In the Lotus Sutra a bodhisattva (an awakening-being on the way to become a buddha or "awakened one") greets everyone with respect by bowing to them and saying: "I respect you deeply. I do not despise you. Why is that? It is because you will be able to practice the Way of Awakening Beings and attain spiritual awakening."

Here's the text of the Twelfth edict of King Ashoka (the Buddhist Emperor of India in the 3rd century BCE also known as Piyadassi):

The beloved of the gods, king Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds. But the beloved of the gods, king Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this - that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact between religions is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. The beloved of the gods, king Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

From this site:

http://www.livius.org/sh-si/shahbazgarhi/shahbazga...

A video of Soto Zen temple service at Eiheiji (the main Soto Shu temple in Japan founded by Dogen himself):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpPkvzglupw&feature...

BTW, Dogen established a Buddha-hall for Buddhist services and also performed such services, though certainly his main emphasis was zazen. So it is not like this was only done after his time. And there are plenty of other videos like this. Also, I live in San Francisco and have seen Buddhist religious services at both San Francisco Zen Center and at Soko-ji, the Soto Zen temple in Japan-town. Zen cannot be reduced to "religion" and is certainly not like Western monotheisms, but I cannot see how anyone can deny that religion is very much a part of the tradition for both clergy and laity.

But before you attempt to answer consider this statement by Professor Richard Payne (Dean of Japanese Buddhism and Religion at the Institute of Buddhist Studies in Berkeley California and a Shingon priest):

"...it is necessary to critically reflect not only on traditional, or emic, categories but also on our own intellectual categories. For example, perhaps the most problematic of our own intellectual categories is the distinction drawn between religion, philosophy, and psychology, which originates largely in nineteenth-century Euro-American institutions of higher learning, but which at best correlates with Buddhist thought only very loosely and at worst systematically distorts Buddhist thought and creates psuedo-problems." (Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, pp. 2-3)

Zen eventually became the dominant tradition of Chinese Buddhism. The warfare and persecution of previous centuries had devastated those schools of Buddhism that relied upon scholarship, large temples, and imperial patronage. Zen survived because its temples and monasteries were in the mountains away from the cities and had become fairly self-sufficient. By the end of the Sung dynasty, the abbots of most temples were Zen masters of either the Lin-chi or Ts’ao-tung houses of Zen. These temples also accommodated the teachings of the earlier schools such as the Flower Garland School or the T’ien-t’ai School. They also catered to the practice of Pure Land Buddhism for the common people, though some Zen masters used the nembutsu as a kind of hua-t’ou practice in its own right. The temples continued to ordain people using the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya of the Precepts School, though Pai-chang’s rules were also used to organize and regulate the life and routines of Zen monastic life. The primary practice of the Zen monks had become either the koan or hua-t’ou introspection of the Lin-chi school or the silent illumination of the Ts’ao-tung, though even the latter utilized koans at times. This eclectic, but ultimately Zen based form of Buddhism, continues to be the standard form of Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam to this day.

Do any of you really know who the so-called fat or happy Buddha really is? Hint: He is NOT the historical Shakyamuni Buddha the one who founded Buddhism and taught the Dharma.