#ganesha/#ganapati is a hindu diety, not a buddhist diety.
Ganapati is one among the Thirteen Golden Dharmas of Sakya, together with the Vajrayogini Naro Kachö, Vajrayogini Maitri Kachö, Vajrayogini Indra Kachö, Kurukulla, Simhanada Lokeshvara, Black Manjushri, and so forth. The Thirteen Golden Dharmas of Sakya were highly treasured, for instance, by Pabongkha Rinpoche and Trijang Rinpoches.
“The lineage of Ganapati is as follows: Vajradhara, Vajra Varahi, Saraha, Nagarjuna, Lord Shavaripa, Hangdu Karpo, Mal Lotsawa, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo, etc. The source text used in the Sakya Tradition was taught by the mahasiddha Krishnacharin and translated by Pandita Gayadhara.” [...] “Maharakta Ganapati [is] associated with the Chakrasamvara Tantra.”
http://www.himalayanart.org/items/89964 Therefore, it is clear that the Buddhist Ganapati is a purely Buddhist deity.
He was assimilated into #buddhism.
In the holy tantras, Vajradhara declared that all those tantras which the world mistakenly believe were spoken by Shiva were originally taught by him, Vajradhara.
This is a form of religious syncretism.
This is because you are still attached to the Hindu, non-Buddhist view that the Buddhist Ganapati is a non-Buddhist deity. You must get rid of Hindu, non-Buddhist views if you want to become a Buddhist.
As with all assimilations of dieties from one #religion to another, stories will be created to explain the cross-over, fabrications to make it religiously legal to seek favors from dieties of other religions.
Since according to you the profound explanations coming from buddhas such as Vajradhara and Vajra Varahi, from mahasidhas such as Saraha, Nagarjuna and Shavaripa, and from our own lineage teachers such as Pabongkha and Trijang Rinpoches, are just “fabrications” aimed legitimizing stolen teachings, no wonder that you reject purely Buddhist deities such as the Buddhist Ganapati!
If hindu deities have already became protectors of the #dharma(Inferiority & subjugation are being implied here, since it doesn't work the other round.) &/or are emanations of Buddhas, #hinduism should cease to exist now;
Of course not. The mere fact that Hindu deities were subjugated, or might resemble emanations of buddhas, does not mean that Hindu believers will not stick to their own beliefs.
Besides, as far as the Buddhist Ganapati is concerned, the topic of “subjugation” is irrelevant, as the Buddhist Ganapati is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, not a mundane protector bound by oath.
All hindus would have converted to Buddhism, during #buddha #sakyamuni's time, since their gods have all already became Buddhists.
A fallacious conclusion does not become correct just because you repeat it. For instance, your teacher may have become a Buddhist, but you still remain a non-Buddhist, as above shown.
Besides, since it is not stated that Ganapati was as Hindu deity who converted to Buddhism, your fallacious argument is also irrelevant.
Just like if a government converts to communism, all her citizens will become communists.
Thanks for offering a further proof of your own mistake. The Chinese government became non-religious communist, but hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens remained religious Buddhists, Muslims, and so forth. The Nepali government used to be Hindu, as Hinduism was Nepal's official religion, but many Nepalis such as Newaris, Tamangs, Sherpas, etc. remained Buddhists.
But, as already remarked, your argument is irrelevant to the present discussion, since it is not stated that Ganapati was a Hindu deity who converted to Buddhism.
A hindu will tell you that Ganapati is an emanation of #shiva or #vishnu, not #avalokitesvara.
Of course. And you, as a non-Buddhist, will believe them, as you do.
Likewise, it is safe to say that all goddesses in Buddhism, Hinduism, & other religions, are emanations of #tara?
It depends on what calls “safe”. In your case, as a non-Buddhist, “safe” is whatever is proclaimed in non-Buddhist scriptures. As to Buddhist scriptures, they do not declare that all goddesses are emanations of Tara, which makes your question again irrelevant.
Is #vaisravana really an emanation of #vajrapani? Isn't He a taoist diety?
Taoists and Hindus may have their own Vaisravanas, which are not necessarily the same as the Buddhist Vaisravana. Your perplexity comes from the primitive assumption that every deity named “Vaisravana” is necessarily one and the same.
The Ganesha of Hinduism & the Ganesha of Buddhism are two different dieties.
Which contradicts your previous statement that the Buddhist Ganapati is an assimilation of the Hindu Ganesha, and your unwarranted assumption that the Hindu Ganesha should have converted to Buddhism in order to become the Buddhist Ganapati.
The image of #mahakala stepping on Ganesha, which in this case is the hindu version, has always been a sore point between Hinduism & Buddhism. How hindus feel about this, is like how any #shugdenpa will feel about the image of Dorje Drolo stepping on #dorjeshugden.
Personal feelings aside, the image of a buddha stepping on a mundane deity carries a very meaningful, inspiring, and instructional symbolism, as it shows the victory over suffering and its causes, as represented by the mundane deity.
Meanwhile the image of any being stepping on a monk carries a very destructive symbolism, as it shows contempt for the Vinaya, which is the very foundation of the Buddha's teaching, and therefore the lack of Buddhist lineage of the imagined, monstrous stepping creature, which obviously cannot be an aspect of the great master Padmasambhava, as Dorje Drolo is reputed to be.
As a Buddhist, it is safer to worship dieties of pure buddhist origin, than to worship dieties assimilated from other religions, because how we be sure that they agree to be assimilated, which means He/She agrees to be under the authority of Buddha Sakyamuni?
This is the main reason why it is safe to worship Ganapati, among others, because of his pure Buddhist lineage, as above shown. By the same token, it is definitely unsafe to worship monstrous creatures stepping on monks, due to their lack of Buddhist lineage, or rather their anti-Buddhist lineage.
Those subjugated by #padmasambhava, & bound by oath to protect the Dharma, are different.
There are other cases beyond Padmasambhava of Buddhist masters who subjugated non-Buddhist deities which became reliable Buddhist protectors. For instance, Ga Lotsawa Zhonnu Pel subjugated the Raven Faced Mahakala and brought him to Tibet.
As part of The practice of The Four Purities, it is possible that we practice imagining all dieties of all other religions as emanations of our #yidam. However, reality may not be so.
You are just trying to blame your own deluded notion of “reality” for the failure of your practice of the four purities.
Religious syncretism may not always create #religiousharmony with all it's aspects.
There is no harmony beyond buddhahood, and buddhahood is the very result of the practice of the Buddhist yidam Ganapati.
Meanwhile, entertaining useless, unwarranted theories about “religious syncretism” is just a mundane path creating precisely the suffering you want to avoid.
It will be better for a buddhist to worship #ganesha in a hindu temple, with rituals conducted by hindu priests for Him, than to convert Him to a buddhist.
In general, it is better for Buddhists to follow their own tradition, which includes the Ganapati practice, rather than taking refuge in non-Buddhist teachers as you suggest. However, since it has already been established that you hold non-Buddhist views, your non-Buddhist advice is unsurprising.
Anyway, since the Buddhist Ganapati is a yidam taught by Vajradhara himself, only a non-Buddhist, as you, could conceive of “converting” him.
In this case, the hindu priests & other hindus in the temple, will know that non-hindus do appreciate their #god.
A Buddhist would rather become buddha Ganapati, through the practice of Ganapati as taught by Vajradhara himself, rather than subserviently flattering mundane teachers and their followers.
There are other evils in Buddhism in this degenerate age.
Sure. Your grotesque advice as above is a good sample.
However, Buddhism as a religion that advocates renunciation, has no business talking about wealth generation.
Wealth is generated only by generosity, and generosity is the first virtue cultivated by the bodhisattva. Therefore, Buddhism is from the very start all about wealth generation.
Your phobia against wealth generation shows that you reject the Buddha's teachings on karma and dependent arising, and therefore on how generosity produces wealth.
Besides, since renunciation, just like generosity, implies detachment from wealth, how could one generate renunciation without generating generosity, and therefore without generating wealth?
A greedy person will only generate poverty, but greed is never the cause of renunciation. Your hate towards the result, wealth, is a sign of your hate towards the cause, generosity.
Therefore, your whole discourse about “renunciation” without wealth generation is shown to be just a big pompous lie.
However, in #hinayana, Buddha Sakyamuni had already expounded His Dharma on mundane wealth without wealth dieties.
So what. He also expounded on wisdom without wisdom deities such as Manjushri, and on compassion without compassion deities such as Avalokiteshvara.
The true purpose behind this form of upaya, expedient means, has been lost. What remains is using the Dharma to get rich.
One cannot avoid getting rich through the practice of Dharma. The ultimate state of buddhahood features the sambhogakaya which is endowed with every conceivable and inconceivable riches.
