9th avatar of Vishnu, Jesus or Buddha?

What the cartoonist (Dan Piraro) doesn't realize is that the Buddha did set down such a rule.

Great teachers of world's religions (Where's Mo?)

Christianity (particularly imperialist universalist Catholicism and hegemonical American Protestant Evangelism) is closer to Hinduism than Buddhism is, for all of their apparent similarities. The historical Buddha did not teach what Jesus or Krishna (avatars of a God like Vishnu), Brahma or Shiva taught.

All of these, we are told promoted devotional practices as the best that could be done by most humans during the Dark Age or Kali Yuga. Hinduism, to be more popular and tolerant, accepts other religions enough to swallow them and call them part of its own Eternal Teaching or Sanatan Dharma.

Hindu holy man, sadhu, sannyasin, ganja smoker

If Brahmin priests could not rid themselves of pesky wandering ascetic or shramanic traditions like Buddhism and Jainism, it simply dealt with them by incorporating them into its own structure and pantheon just as it did the ancient Vedas ("Knowledge Books") of proto-India and the Indus Valley Civilization, extending Hinduism (which was systematized and established by Adi Shankara a few centuries ago by coordinating and getting major points of agreement for many and diverse "religions" around the Indus River, thus resulting in the name of one conglomerate religion of Indus-ism where previously people did not live with the modern idea of being in a "religion" or doing anything more than practicing spiritual things as part and parcel of daily life).

• Was Jesus a Hindu avatar? | Catholicism Coffee

Tribal Jewish God in a polytheistic world

The British imposed the idea that one must name "spiritual" practices and/or superstitions and beliefs a "religion" and that those practicing in accordance or adhering to such beliefs must be "members" of that religion. The ancients in India, proto-India, Egypt, and elsewhere simply did not have this belief but simply went along when told by the dominant and oppressive colonizing culture. One has to imagine that pre-Christian pagans in Europe did not think they had a "religion" but were just living their cultural life and holding popular beliefs about how the world (with its spirits and mysteries) works.

Amitabha Cosmic Buddha

While Early Buddhism, just like Jainism, rejected the Vedas and gods as ultimate sources of wisdom or liberation, later (Mahayana) Buddhism was co-opted by the Brahmin priests and turned into a kind of Hinduism by other names. While there are certainly many devotional practices in modern Theravada Buddhism, a back-to-basics movement to preserve the historical Buddha's Teachings, many Mahayana traditions and practices went overboard to devote themselves to anyone but the historical Buddha.

Kwan Yin (female Avalokiteshvara)

That Buddha is respected but then quickly disregarded, forgotten, or shunned for "better" Mahayana Buddhist figures like the Cosmic Buddhas Amitabha (and His promise of praying to Him to be reborn in His heavenly Western Paradise, the Pure Land, where one can make efforts to reach enlightenment and liberation without bothering to do anything toward that here other than praying and devoting oneself to Him here and now) and Vairocana, or the ever-popular Virgin Mary figure Kwan Yin (Guanyin, Kwannon, Chenrézik, or Avalokiteshvara, the Goddess of Compassion, who like many other Mahayana figures is actually a bodhisattva, a person striving for Buddhahood, not a buddha at all) and Kṣitigarbha, who saves beings from the hells, which they fall into on account of their own deeds and views.

Pals Jesus, Budai, and Krishna with a cow

This devotional bent of Mahayana Buddhism has gotten so severe that who "the Buddha" is is often blurred, with most of the world mistaking him for the Mahayana figure Budai/Putai/Hotei the "Fat Happy Bodhisattva," the obese guy revered in Chinese restaurants around the world. Moreover, a distinction at one point had to be made between what Western elucidator of Buddhism Alan Watts points out in the Japanese Buddhist terms jiriki versus tariki -- enlightenment by one's own efforts or by outside help.

• Jiriki (自力, "one's own strength" [1]) is the Japanese Buddhist term for "self-power," the ability to achieve enlightenment and liberation (in other words, to reach bodhi and nirvana) through one's own efforts, whereas tariki (他力, "other power," "outside help") is the belief that it cannot be done on one's own. These two terms in Japanese Buddhist schools classify how one becomes spiritually awakened [2]. The first is commonly practiced in Zen Buddhism, whereas the much more popular Pure Land Buddhism refers to the power of Amitābha Buddha to "save" beings who merely have faith, believe, and worship an outside force like the mythological Amitabha [3].

.

Does Christianity teach Christians and Catholics that they can save themselves, awaken themselves, enlighten themselves, or even get into heaven (which is viewed as final salvation) by their own efforts? Certainly not. Most modern Christian schools teach that it is ONLY by "grace" (God's underserved gift or His whimsical feeling like it) and never by "works" (one's own efforts) that anyone can be saved.

All three religions (Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism) believe in karma (the power of deeds to bring about a result, but Christians insist everything is either God's will or not and nothing we can do can change that, other than perhaps groveling, begging, bargaining, self-abnegation, and absolute devotion and throwing ourselves on His mercy can save us.

For Christians killing isn't so bad compared to not loving the God enough because that God can erase that karmic debt and sin, wipe it away in an instant of devotion, obedience, adherence, and voluntary slavery, whereas not killing in the first, who cares? That's not a big deal to most Christians or apologists. Of course, Hinduism now talks about karma a lot, but it is said that the Buddha was the first sage to go around telling ordinary people about the importance of their deeds.

Up until then it was more or less a secret among Brahmin priests and preservers of the Vedas, who were not keen on telling anyone other than Brahmins. The Buddha, who was regarded as a Karmavadin (Teacher of the efficacy of actions) not as a Buddhist (which came later with the Western idea that things have to be a "religion"), went around telling everyone, emphasizing karma to everyone as a principle, a fixed law, an orderliness to the universe we live in, be it a simulation or a real place.

One has to eventually put forward the endeavor and effort to awaken oneself; it simply cannot be "given" or gained by devotion. It does not belong to anyone to give, not even "God," who Himself, Herself, Itself is not enlightened nor liberated but rapt in this samsara.

So while it is beautiful that we can all be Hindus now, all go back to a time when there was just one universal religion everyone had to follow, a worldwide belief system with an all-attractive cult figure like Krishna, Christ, Thor, Zeus, Sophia, Aphrodite, Brahma, Mithras, Ahura Mazda, Allah (or His Prophet), the Great Spaghetti Monster, Odin, or countless other astrotheological figures, Buddhism does not need the Buddha to be an "incarnation of Vishnu."

• The great thing is, of course, that "Hinduism" is not really a religion even now when it is treated like one because it has always meant a collection of disparate views, practices, belief, and preferred central gods (one choice in picking any incarnation of an essential Brahman, or "reality behind all illusion") presenting itself as an avatar or aspect of the One True God(hood). The yogis have their way, as do the Shaivites and Vaishnavites, agnostics, atheists, Kali worshippers, devotees of the Goddess Saraswati, Ma Durga, Radha (Krishna's partner), Krishna, or 100,000 others.

In fact, it is insulting as it shows a severe lack of understanding by Brahmins and Hindus that such things could even happen. A buddha is an arhat (fully enlightened being), who therefore by that supreme enlightenment is never again reborn, does not incarnate, does not reappear or rearise. Of course, there will be other buddhas, like Mahayana Buddhism's second favorite buddha of all time, the Buddha-to-come, the Future Buddha, Maitreya.

But that being will not be the last one (Siddhartha Gautama Buddha) coming again. It will be a new one, just as there have been ones in the ancient past and in the distant future. It is never the same being returning to teach beings how to make an end of all suffering and all rebirth after realizing the too-subtle unique teachings of Dependent Origination and anatta (the impersonal nature of all existence) or egolessness.

The Lord's Prayer (Medieval English)

• Text by Dhr. Seven, Ashley Wells, Pat Macpherson, Wisdom Quarterly