Fate/Grand Order Story and Lore (CONTAINS SPOILERS)

[SirGauoftheSquareTable]

Yes, that Vishnu part in particular is more likely because of Hinduism trying to dismiss Buddhism back then because their teachings completely against Hinduism myth. As an effort to make peace, Buddha's disciples came up with things like Indra shows up in the form of an elephant to protect baby Gautama back when he was born, and ramped up the myth into some Jesus birth story type of thing with angels singing and so on.

It's a mess really.

Sometimes Gautama Buddha's the 10th Avatar of Vishnu, sometimes he isn't. It really depends on the telling. Also, him becoming an Avatar I thought was more Hindus trying to reincorporate Buddhism into the fold and dissolve it as an independent tradition. It's what we do.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a lot of crossover between Hinduism and Buddhism

- - - Updated - - -

Like, I think Gautama is considered to be one of Vishnu's incarnations, even?

It's not really a crossover if Buddhism basically originated as an offshoot movement and lifted Hindu cosmology wholesale, only removing references to the Allmighty.

[34]

that happens in our country long time ago.

It still happens, in Bali at least

[AAM1232]

Sometimes Gautama Buddha's the 10th Avatar of Vishnu, sometimes he isn't. It really depends on the telling. Also, him becoming an Avatar I thought was more Hindus trying to reincorporate Buddhism into the fold and dissolve it as an independent tradition. It's what we do.

- - - Updated - - -


It's not really a crossover if Buddhism basically originated as an offshoot movement and lifted Hindu cosmology wholesale, only removing references to the Allmighty.

Technically, Gautama would've been the 8th/9th, as the 10th is saved for Kalki.

[Arun S Arrie]

In South India, Buddha is not considered as an Avatar of Vishnu instead it is Balarama.

[Lily Emilio]

Sometimes Gautama Buddha's the 10th Avatar of Vishnu, sometimes he isn't. It really depends on the telling. Also, him becoming an Avatar I thought was more Hindus trying to reincorporate Buddhism into the fold and dissolve it as an independent tradition. It's what we do.

Going by your way of thinking, the very fact that they tried to turn the founder of a "religion" which promoted different viewpoints, outright disregard Hindu stuffs and even got Buddha and his first few disciples into troubles, into an offshoot of Hinduism, is them trying to limit the scale of it more than anything. Oh hey there's this dude who is preaching weird things (read: scientific theories), let's try to restrict his status by telling people that this dude is just an avatar of one of our gods, y'know, the almighty that this dude taught his disciples that was not a thing.

It's not really a crossover if Buddhism basically originated as an offshoot movement and lifted Hindu cosmology wholesale, only removing references to the Allmighty.

Not quite. While Buddha also borrowed Hindu terms to explain his stuffs, the meaning and concepts behind those words are different. The scale and duration of a kalpa is vastly longer than Hindu's version, the karma system is opposite of Hinduism, the concept of moksha also different and no longer ties to Hinduism. Heck the way he described the universe and such are more akin to scientific theories than mythical stuffs. That's why nowadays there are a lot of schools trying to look at Buddha's teachings in ways that limit as much mythical and fictional elements as possible, and thus making Buddhism the religion most compatible with science. It's hard to say the same for Hinduism or any other religions really.

[34]

That's why nowadays there are a lot of schools trying to look at Buddha's teachings in ways that limit as much mythical and fictional elements as possible, and thus making Buddhism the religion most compatible with science. It's hard to say the same for Hinduism or any other religions really.

i don't know, if you cherrypick hard enough any religion could as well

[Lily Emilio]

i don't know, if you cherrypick hard enough any religion could as well

Nope. Any religions, be it monotheistic or polytheistic, revolves around the basis that there are godly being(s) who created the world/universe and humans as special snowflakes. That alone in of itself is against evolution theories, creation of the universe theories. Buddhism OTOH, while not entirely rule out the possibilities of supernatural phenomenon, denies the existence of such supreme beings who created life, thus allow its followers to accept scientific theories about evolution and origin of life as well as the scale of universe...etc (cuz Buddha never said anything regarding such matters, those are some of the several things he viewed as unnecessary and refused to answer for the most part). Not only that, no other religions had cosmology theories that shares as many similarities to modern science findings as Buddhism. If you want to contest this idea, go ahead and try to cherry pick something from Christianity, Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism,..etc whatever religion you can find, and see how much of those can match scientific theories close enough as Buddhism theories.

[Wandering Swordwoman]

Does Buddhism have their Heaven and Hell?

[Lily Emilio]

Yes and no. There are schools (mostly traditional schools) that view those as actual higher dimension places, if you want to go with TM way of calling them, and I'm sure they are like that in TM. But there are schools that view it as just metaphors or outright ignore those concepts such as some Secular Buddhism offshoots.

- - - Updated - - -

Also relevant stuffs I was talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

I'm a Theravada Buddhist from my family's tradition, so more or less I tend to believe mythical and supernatural aspects of what I was taught. But that did not stop me from looking into other schools and how other people view the original teachings in modern days.

[Wandering Swordwoman]

- - - Updated - - -

It's already there even before scientist found out that earth is round and earth surround the sun

- - - Updated - - -

It completely deny evolution and the Big Bang thing, I think.

[Lily Emilio]

None of that matters as long as your religion believes in a God which created those things. That is the entire point.

[Wandering Swordwoman]

Now I confuse about Buddhism now.....

- - - Updated - - -

Secular Buddhism—sometimes also referred to as agnostic Buddhism, Buddhist agnosticism, ignostic Buddhism, atheistic Buddhism, pragmatic Buddhism, Buddhist atheism, or Buddhist secularism—is a broad term for an emerging form of Buddhism and secular spirituality that is based on humanist, skeptical, and/or agnostic values, as well as pragmatism and (often) naturalism, rather than religious (or more specifically supernatural or paranormal) beliefs.

How many Buddhism are there now?

[Seika]

As religion tends toward being a contentious topic, it's usually best if we don't derail on it too long. Feel free to continue this discussion in a more suitable thread, but let's get this one back on topic.

[Wandering Swordwoman]

ok sorry

[manafusion]

Only religion I'd gladly follow is one where I can actually meet and do H with 2D gurls.

[34]

Nope. Any religions, be it monotheistic or polytheistic, revolves around the basis that there are godly being(s) who created the world/universe and humans as special snowflakes.

For the former, perhaps, but for the latter, no.

That alone in of itself is against evolution theories, creation of the universe theories.

No, see Francis Collins's (the person who le dthe Human Genome Project) book on this. And lol the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Christian Priest.

Buddhism OTOH, while not entirely rule out the possibilities of supernatural phenomenon, denies the existence of such supreme beings who created life, thus allow its followers to accept scientific theories about evolution and origin of life as well as the scale of universe...etc (cuz Buddha never said anything regarding such matters, those are some of the several things he viewed as unnecessary and refused to answer for the most part).

Exactly, Buddha doesn't care about science, most of the Buddhist Cosmology were developed by later philosophers and school of thoughts which interpreted Buddha's teaching differently.

Not only that, no other religions had cosmology theories that shares as many similarities to modern science findings as Buddhism.

And of the 5 Major Religions, no other contributed so little to it.

- - - Updated - - -

As religion tends toward being a contentious topic, it's usually best if we don't derail on it too long. Feel free to continue this discussion in a more suitable thread, but let's get this one back on topic.

whelp, didn't see this before posting, i apologize

[Wandering Swordwoman]

Only religion I'd gladly follow is one where I can actually meet and do H with 2D gurls.

Bakemono!

[Lily Emilio]

For the former, perhaps, but for the latter, no.

Hinduism and Shinto and Chinese tradition religion all have creator gods (the s is for the plural, in case you don't know) who created their "world" and mankind. This thing is literally Nasu's idea of different textures of different pantheons, becuz all of these different religions have their own creator myth.

No, see Francis Collins's (the person who le dthe Human Genome Project) book on this. And lol the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Christian Priest.

You're talking things irrelevant to the actual religion itself lol. You can be an Islam, a Muslim who discover scientific evidences that are directly against your own faith, go wild. But this is again, nonfactor and has nothing to do with what I was saying. I am talking about the religion itself being compatible or not. Any individuals from those particular religions does not speak for the entire religion's ideal entirely. In the first place I never said none of the religions are compatible with science other than Buddhism, I said Buddhism is the most compatible. Is it that hard for you to understand?

Buddha's theory, while share similarities with Big Bang, has a lot of differences. The universe of Buddhism is not just one, but this one we're living in is just one of the many, there are shitloads more before this one and once this one are gone, there will be new ones born from the void, constantly expanding and shrinking...etc. Do you realize what this meant yet? Big Bang theory is just how ONE of the MANY universes in Buddhism were created, in particular the ones that were "destroyed by means of fire". Buddha's version is a theory of vast multiverses upon multiverses.

And yes I knew about Collins lol. I wouldn't be here talking if I didn't do my homework. If what he said about how he believed in religion due to certain idea that perhaps there's someone who created this universe with very specific parameters and elements, is what you're trying to use to argue against my points, then sorry to break it to you that I've heard that type of reasoning long ago. It is one of the most common reasoning the priests here at my place used on Sunday church speeches to explain God to the newcomers who are more familiar with scientific things they were taught at school. It is one of the many attempts to explain and match what is unknown and unproven by science to God's work.

Exactly, Buddha doesn't care about science, most of the Buddhist Cosmology were developed by later philosophers and school of thoughts which interpreted Buddha's teaching differently.

Nope. Depends on different iterations of what was said, he either view that such knowledge is too much for his disciples or humanity to handle at that point in time (this is the version my grandma taught me, common in Southern Vietnam sects), or it is not relevant to those only seek the methods to reach nirvana, or he doesn't want to answer...etc.

And of the 5 Major Religions, no other contributed so little to it.

And you seem to be saying this out of spite, with nothing to back it up, which is unfortunate. I don't care which religion you follow, or if you follow any at all, but I'm really surprised you care about whether a religion more compatible with science than others when they are mostly built on faith and variations of stories and ancient religions from the start.

Which means the discussion is reaching danger zone. In that case let's stop here.

As religion tends toward being a contentious topic, it's usually best if we don't derail on it too long. Feel free to continue this discussion in a more suitable thread, but let's get this one back on topic.

My apologize. But it's getting really hard to not talk into religions at this point when we're dealing with religions stuffs that requires external knowledge in FGO stories atm, especially when Nasu tend to use a lot of stuffs there, it's hard to not derail to elaborate more things along the lines.

So I really don't know what is the line when talking about them. Can you give a simple guideline? For example what is the safe word and how far can we go when talking about religions, as long as we don't insult other's believes and treat the discussion as just a fun research to understand Nasu's shenanigans?

[34]

I'm really surprised you care about whether a religion more compatible with science than others when they are mostly built on faith and variations of stories and ancient religions from the start.

then why the the hell did you brought this up?

[Lily Emilio]

Then did you even read what I was replying to before quoting? I was replying to a statement saying Buddhism is just Hinduism but without references to a supreme being. I brought the fact that there are a lot of modern thinking pointing towards the big differences, in which compatibility to science between Hinduism vs Buddhism is one of the factors pointing towards that lol.

Basically you just jumped in blindly, read jackshit and proceed to completely missed the point.