As early as before the birth of Buddhism 1000 years ago, Brahmanism was the mainstream religion in India. Buddhism was born because there was dissatisfaction with Brahmanism in society at that time. Buddhism and Brahmanism can be said to be tit for tat.
There are three basic propositions in the doctrine of Brahmanism:
Brahman first,
Sacrifice everything,
Vedic apocalypse
Say it one by one.
Brahman is supreme, which means that people are high and low, and Brahman priests are the noblest class, while Buddhism advocates equality of all beings.
Brahmanism also says that sacrifice is omnipotent and attaches great importance to sacrifice activities. For this reason, it does not hesitate to spend money, and sometimes a sacrifice will slaughter thousands of cattle and sheep. Buddhism, on the other hand, opposes sacrifice, believing that sacrifice is useless and there is no need to kill.
Finally, Brahmanism also advocates the Vedic apocalypse. What is Veda? Vedas are religious classics of Brahmanism, and the Vedas Apocalypse means that these classics are inspired by God. But the Buddhist classics, that is, Buddhist scriptures, record what Buddha Sakyamuni said, and the source is a historical figure.
The Remains of Hinduism-"Ultimate Truth"
Here's a question: Why can Hinduism absorb important figures from hostile religions without internal strife? Especially compared with monotheism, monotheism always emphasizes that only one god can be trusted, while polytheism like Hinduism has so many different gods, why can it accommodate so many gods?
The key to this problem lies in the mechanism of meaningful production. Compared with monotheism, many gods of polytheism and the only god of monotheism are part of the mechanism of meaning production. But the difference is that these two gods occupy different positions in the mechanism of meaning production.
The only god of monotheism is its surplus, which is the core component of its meaningful production mechanism. Although polytheistic gods are also called "gods", they do not occupy this core position. These gods are more like intermediate products in meaningful production. One more product or one less product will not change the operation of the whole mechanism.
So, what role does the gods in polytheism play? If these gods are not redundant, then what is the redundancy of polytheism? Why did polytheism create so many gods? In other words, how does polytheism work?
Take Hinduism for example. Let's first look at how its "surplus" is set. Although there are various gods in Hinduism, the rest of them are not any gods, but Brahma, that is, Brahma in Sanskrit. Hinduism says Brahma is the root of all things and the "ultimate truth". Compared with this ultimate reality, the real world is illusory, and all kinds of gods are just manifestations or incarnations of Brahma.
There are three most important gods in Hindu mythology, namely Brahma, the god of creation, Shiva, the god of destroying the world, and Vishnu, the god of maintaining the world. In addition, there are many functional gods who perform their duties. For example, the elephant god in charge of wisdom, Yamaraja in charge of the underworld, Gamov in charge of love and so on. These gods often correspond to a certain demand in reality, and believers can ask them for help when they encounter related problems. Look, doesn't this look like a product? One more god is like one more new product, which can meet a new practical demand. In the final analysis, the redundancy of Brahma behind them and the overall production mechanism will not be affected.
What good is it to regard surplus as the ultimate truth and the real world as an illusion?
This will return to the surplus itself.
I said that religion is the most special production mechanism, because its core "surplus" must go beyond the real world. This is to ensure that the surplus is not affected by the real world, maintain its own ultimate, integrity and stability in concept, and become the ultimate source of legitimacy for believers in the face of everything in the real world. Then, just like Hinduism, treating the real world as an illusion and the surplus as the ultimate truth is actually to maximize the "ultimate" of the surplus.
How does the Ultimate Truth connect with believers?
Religion has set up a surplus, and then it is necessary to establish a connection between the surplus and the believers. Hinduism regards surplus as the "ultimate truth", so how to establish contact with believers?
This means that in Hinduism, there is a special way to explain the world called "Gai Shi", which means to cover before releasing, to deny before affirming. For example, how does Hinduism describe Brahma? It says that the great Brahma is invisible, unspeakable, unattainable, incredible and indescribable ... In other words, I can't tell you what it is, but it is not.
In Hinduism, this method is also used to establish contact between the remaining and believers.
Hinduism says that everyone is just a "self", which is illusory. Only the ultimate truth of Brahma is the real "self". The ego essentially comes from the ego and will eventually return to the ego. You see, this method of denying first and then affirming is actually used here. Let's deny it first and point out that none of us is real. Then I will be sure that the illusory self will eventually return to the self and gain authenticity and meaning in the self.
It is in the tension between reality and illusion that this setting of Hinduism makes sense: since the real world is always changing and full of uncertainty, then set an unchanging root and essence. This method first denies the real world, but after denying it, it provides another kind of certainty for the world.
However, this setting also has a fatal wound, that is, the connection between the ultimate truth and the real world is too weak! We can see that all kinds of world-weary asceticism have prevailed in Indian society since ancient times, which finally affected the normal progress of real life.
In fact, there is a reason for this. Since Brahma is the ultimate truth, Brahma itself is set perfectly, and he doesn't have to rely on the real world at all. In other words, when you deny the truth of the real world, it is difficult to prove it. This is also the biggest problem facing Hinduism in today's era.