Organized Religion as the Original Fraud

[Jhanananda]

Understand how organized religion is the original fraud will help us to detect the genuine mystics from the frauds.  This thread is based upon the thread Fraudulent documentary TV specials on supposed miracles.

So the fraud of organized religion begins at its beginning, which is not with the original mystic, say Siddhartha Gautama, Moses, Jesus or Mohamed, whom I accept as genuine because their message was genuine, and I found succor in following that message; but with the hegemonic ruler who appropriated the religion early on for power and control.  This means we will examine the origins of civilization and at the 4 major religions and the hegemonic rulers who appropriated them: King Ashoka for Buddhism, Arron for Judaism, Constantine for Christianity and Abu Bakr for Islam.

The problem with advancing this premise is we must gain a clear understanding of the religion being examined and its doctrine.  However, gaining a clear understanding of any religion and it's doctrine requires understanding that the doctrine of all religions has been appropriated and subverted by a hegemonic ruler, thus the doctrine and priesthood are simply a vehicle of control of the people by the hegemonic ruler and the hegemonic ruling class.  Thus, to understand any religion we need to be able to unpack and retranslate its doctrine and history.  Christianity is a good example of that, but all of the religions have suffered the same fate.

We really have to begin to examine religion at its origin, which was with the shaman in tribal society. 

Shamanism
All pre-civilized cultures had a shamanic tradition.  Shamanism is essentially a religious, or spiritual, context within any pre-civilized culture.  A pre-civilized culture is simply a human social system prior to the advent of agriculture, and a hierarchical class structure.

Shaman come in classes.  The average shaman is just a village priest/doctor/psychologist who helps people negotiate life.  Most of them were frauds, but there were some genuine mystics among the shaman.  It is a premise in this thesis that the earliest progenitors of all of the major religions were shaman who were genuine mystics, and they were documented as a root of a religion that emerged as the culture emerged from a primitive pre-civilized culture into a civilized social system.  As an anthropologist I do not use the term 'primitive' in a pejorative sense, nor do I use the term 'civilized' in the sense of an improvement in social systems.

As the pre-civilized culture emerged into a civilized social system it came with a stratified society.  That stratified society was built by the meanest toughest brute, who brought together other mean, tough, brutes, and they elected the meanest among them king.  Having an army of vicious brutes  behind him gave the king power; however, the masses from time to time rebelled and overwhelmed the army of brutes and dragged the king out and slaughtered him, which is proper treatment of a brute. The next king learned from the failures of the previous brute and learned how to appropriate the shamanic religions, and their shaman, for his own purposes, and thus religion was born.

[Jhanananda]

Buddhism
In MN-36 we see Siddhartha Gautama became enlightened by realizing his previous teachers were all frauds, then just sitting down to meditate deeply, and follow his bliss as the lead.  He followed his bliss to enlightenment, then he went to town to tell everyone that he was enlightened.  Along the way he met a farmer, who he told he was enlightened. 

The farmer said (paraphrasing) that's nice."  Then the farmer made a quick change in plans and left the scene as quickly as he could. People are used to every crazy idiot claiming he is enlightened, so they do not want to be a part of validating the crazy person by being seen with him.

So, Siddhartha Gautama first had to convince his fellow contemplatives, who abandoned him at first.  Perhaps he convinced them, but they were not key figures in his later story, so I believe they are most probably fabricated stories to build credibility on the story of Siddhartha Gautama, and it is most probably apocryphal.

According to the suttas he spent the next 45 years convincing people he was enlightened, and from reading the suttas he did not convince many people.  It was Magalana and Sariputtha who were needed as convincing converts and reliable observers, to Siddhartha Gautama's methodology that was most probably needed for Siddhartha Gautama to convince others to take up his Noble Eightfold Path.

Buddhism was pretty much a grass roots affair until about 100 years after the death of Siddhartha Gautama King Ashoka conquered half of Asia and promoted Buddhism and Jainism throughout his empire.  It was under Ashoka that the Abhidhamma arose.  The Abhidhamma is an obvious and classic example of appropriation, subversion, obfuscation and mystification, so I conclude that Ashoka essentially appropriated Buddhism and Jainism for enhancing is power.

[Luke Avedon]

Hi Jeffrey,

I agree with your synopsis of how organized religions are formed.

As well, I find that people desperately want a god to take care of them.  They are more open to physical miracles existing, as long as it happened to someone very special long long ago, then the idea that Jhana exists and is actually achievable among other things. 

The development of Pure Land Buddhism is one of my favorite examples of this.

However, I always assumed King Ashoka's conversion was genuine?   What made you conclude that it was not?

Well there are certainly a lot of problems with state religions.  Governments seem to have an unwholesome influence on religion to put it mildly.

I always assumed the Historical Buddha died in 500 BC and King Ashoka converted around 250 BC....so 250 years after Siddhartha’s death.  I’m curious why you placed it as 100 years after?

Another point I always found interesting is that it is believed there were no Buddha images before 0 AD or sorts.  A sign of Buddhism turning from a grassroots mystical tradition to a devotional religion for sure.

[Jhanananda]

Hi Jeffrey,

I agree with your synopsis of how organized religions are formed.

As well, I find that people desperately want a god to take care of them.  They are more open to physical miracles existing, as long as it happened to someone very special long long ago, then the idea that Jhana exists and is actually achievable among other things. 

The development of Pure Land Buddhism is one of my favorite examples of this.

Yes, Pure Land Buddhism is a classic example of appropriation, subversion obfuscation and mystification.  Pure Land Buddhism is actually a synthesis of Mahayana Buddhism, which emerged in Persia in the first century BC under Melinda; and Christianity.  The fusion of the two may have actually taken place in Persia and was transported to China where it flourished.

However, I always assumed King Ashoka's conversion was genuine?   What made you conclude that it was not?

As they say, "history belongs to the winners." Ashoka's conversion might have been genuine.  Born again Christians are sincere as well, but that does not mean they bother to unpack their belief systems.  My evidence of the corruption of Buddhism beginning with Ashoka is that is when the Abhidamma began to emerge.  It was under Melinda that the Abhidamma was formalized, along with the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism.

Well there are certainly a lot of problems with state religions.  Governments seem to have an unwholesome influence on religion to put it mildly.

I always assumed the Historical Buddha died in 500 BC and King Ashoka converted around 250 BC....so 250 years after Siddhartha’s death.  I’m curious why you placed it as 100 years after?

I was ball-parking. The dates worth paying attention to are:
Siddhārtha Gautama: about 560-485 BCE
Alexander III of Macedon (20/21 July 356 – 10/11 June 323 BC) about 40 years later marches against India, and was repelled, but he disrupted Indian culture.
Ashoka Maurya (304–232 BCE) pulls India back together again after Alexander, and conquers Persia
Milinda, Menander I Soter "The Saviour" (known as Milind in Indian sources) was the Buddhist Indo-Greek king (165/[2]/155[2] BC-130 BC) of Persia who conquers India.

Another point I always found interesting is that it is believed there were no Buddha images before 0 AD or sorts.  A sign of Buddhism turning from a grassroots mystical tradition to a devotional religion for sure.

Yes, I noticed that Buddhism was aniconic in its origins, then it became highly image-driven, possible under Persian influence.

[Jhanananda]

Judaism
The story of Moses and Aaron typify the transition of the Jewish people from a primitive pre-civilized culture into a civilized social system.  Moses is the genuine mystic who was a tribal shaman. Aaron, is the early convert, and reliable observer, who validated Moses and helped develop the Jewish people from a primitive pre-civilized culture into a civilized social system along with codifying their belief systems into a body of literature, even if it was oral at it origins.  It is under Aaron that a priesthood emerges within Judaism.

Aaron the Levite (אַהֲרֹן הַלֵּוִי) (Exodus 4:14), was the older brother of Moses, (Exodus 6:16-20, 7:7;[2] Qur'an 28:34[3]) and a prophet of God. He represented the priestly functions of his tribe, becoming the first High Priest of the Israelites. While Moses was receiving his education at the Egyptian royal court, and during his exile among the Midianites, Aaron and his sister Miriam remained with their kinsmen in the eastern border-land of Egypt (Goshen). There, Aaron gained a name for eloquent and persuasive speech, so that when the time came for the demand upon the Pharaoh to release Israel from captivity, Aaron became his brother’s nabi, or spokesman, to his own people (Exodus 7:1)[4]

Aaron’s function included the duties of speaker and implied personal dealings with the Egyptian royal court on behalf of Moses. The part played by Aaron in the events that preceded the Exodus was, therefore, ministerial, and not directive. He, along with Moses, performed "signs" before his people which impressed them with a belief in the reality of the divine mission of the brothers (Exodus 4:15–16).

At the command of Moses he stretched out his rod in order to bring on the first of three plagues (Exodus 7:19, 8:1,12). In the infliction of the remaining plagues, he appears to have acted merely as the attendant of Moses, whose outstretched rod drew the divine wrath upon the Pharaoh and his subjects (Exodus 9:23, 10:13,22). Perhaps Moses did not want to share the spotlight with his brother, so after using him in the beginning, Moses worked to minimize Aaron’s influence.
 
During the journey in the wilderness, Aaron is not always prominent or active; and he sometimes appears guilty of rebellious or treasonable conduct. At the battle with Amalek, he is chosen with Hur to support the hand of Moses that held the "rod of God" (Exodus 17:9). When the revelation was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, he headed the elders of Israel who accompanied Moses on the way to the summit. Joshua, however, was admitted with his leader to the very presence of the Lord, while Aaron and Hur remained below to look after the people (Exodus 24:9-14). It was during the prolonged absence of Moses that Aaron yielded to the clamors of the people, and made a Golden Calf as a visible image of the divinity who had delivered them from Egypt (Exodus 32:1-6). At the intercession of Moses, Aaron was saved from the plague which smote the people (Deuteronomy 9:20, Exodus 32:35), although it was against Aaron’s tribe of Levi that the work of punitive vengeance was committed (Exodus 32:26).

At the time when the tribe of Levi was set apart for the priestly service, Aaron was anointed and consecrated to the priesthood, arrayed in the robes of his office, and instructed in its manifold duties (Exodus 28, Exodus 29). On the very day of his consecration, his sons, Nadab and Abihu, were consumed by fire from the Lord for having offered incense in an unlawful manner (Leviticus 10).

From the time of the sojourn at Mount Sinai, where he became the anointed priest of Israel, Aaron ceased to be the minister of Moses, his place being taken by Joshua. He is mentioned in Numbers 12 in association with Miriam in a jealous complaint against the exclusive claims of Moses as the LORD’s prophet. The presumption of the murmurers was rebuked, and Miriam became leprous, as white as snow. Aaron entreated Moses to intercede for her, at the same time confessing the sin and folly that prompted the uprising. (Micah 6:4) In the present instance it is made clear by the express words of the oracle (Numbers 12:6–8) that Moses was unique among men as the one with whom the Lord spoke face to face. The failure to recognize or concede this prerogative of their brother was the sin of Miriam and Aaron.

Aaron’s death is significant. The principal account gives a detailed statement that soon after the incident at Meribah, Aaron, with his son Eleazar and Moses, ascended Mount Hor.[6] There Moses stripped Aaron of his priestly garments and transferred them to Eleazar.[6] Aaron died on the summit of the mountain, and the people mourned for him thirty days (Numbers 20:22-29; compare 33:38-39).[6]

Aaron died, as God said in verses 12 and 24, for his part in the rebellion at the rock of Meribah. He died on Mount Hor (Numbers 20:25 - 28), which is thought to have been directly south of Jerusalem. He allowed Moses, before he died at Mount Nebo (located directly east of Jerusalem), to view the broad panorama of the land inheritance he swore to give the descedants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Deuteronomy 34:4 - 5). After his death his body was buried by the Eternal in a special place no one would be able to find.

Now the problem with the account of Aaron’s death is, if miracles are just a means of control by the hegemony over the people, then Aaron and Moses worked together to create miracles to impress their people.  Or, the miracles were invented later.  Nonetheless, if Aaron, with his son Eleazar and Moses, ascended Mount Hor.[6] and there Aaron dies, then it seems more reasonable to speculate that Moses killed Aaron, than to believe that YHWH killed Aaron. This suggests that there was a conflict between Aaron and Moses, and Moses resolved it by killing his brother Aaron.  It was purely a power struggle.

[Luke Avedon]

Hello again, very interesting comments.

Yes, Pure Land Buddhism is a classic example of appropriation, subversion obfuscation and mystification.  Pure Land Buddhism is actually a synthesis of Mahayana Buddhism, which emerged in Persia in the first century BC under Melinda; and Christianity.  The fusion of the two may have actually taken place in Persia and was transported to China where it flourished.

I have heard that Pure Land Buddhism is the result of a mixture of Buddhism and Jainism? Does that make sense at all? My knowledge is very weak in this area.

--Luke

[Jhanananda]

Jainism and Buddhism have clear common roots; however, I see no connection to Pure Land here.  As I said above, it is clear that Pure Land is the result of Christianity meeting Buddhism.  The connection is both Christianity and Pure Land are essentially faith-based religions, and not contemplative, and they both share a deep emphasis upon worship of the progenitor of their respective religions. 

There is also historic evidence to support this premise in Early Buddhist and Christian literature in China.  There are also a number of artifacts found along the Silk Road in which a cross and a lotus are combined.  I believe this synthesis began in Persia; however, the Jesus component was dumped at some point along the way, possibly in China.

Archaeologists today accept that the cross and the lotus motif represented a synthesis of Buddhism and Christianity.  This iconography dates to about 500-700 AD. A Persian prophet, Mani", c. 216–276 AD, and the founder of Manichaeism, a gnostic religion, fused Christianity with Zoroastrianism and Buddhism.  Thus, I believe the origin of the cross and the lotus motif is with Manichaeism; and consequently the origins of Pure Land Buddhism are in Persia from the origins of Mahayana Buddhism, and Manichaeism.