PDA

View Full Version : Lord Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu



Sri Vaishnava
01 November 2007, 06:08 AM
I am a Sri Vaishnava, but I agree with the Gaudiya Vaishnavas' general acceptance of Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Based on info. from certain sites, it can be proven that Lord Buddha was a Shaktyavesa Avatar of Vishnu.

Thus, while I agree with ISKCON that Buddha was an avatar, He was only an empowered incarnation and so, shouldn't be counted in the Dasavatara. Therfore, I follow the practice of including Balarama in Dasavatara and considering Lord Buddha as the 24th Avatar of Vishnu, on the same level of manifestation as Sri Vyasa or Sri Kapila.

Here is proof:

BUDDHISM FROM A HINDU PERSPECTIVE

Buddhism is incomplete Hinduism.

Lord Buddha was a Shaktyavesa Avatar of the Supreme Lord Vishnu. The Srimad Bhagavatam was written 2500 years before Lord Buddha and it has prophesised His coming:

"In the beginning of the Kali Yuga, the Supreme Lord Vishnu will incarnate as Buddha, Son of Anjana, at Gaya to delude the Atheists."

When Buddha came, people were misinterpreting the Vedic Texts and were slaughtering animals. So Vishnu came as Buddha and decided to mislead them into rejecting the Vedas. That way, they wouldn't misinterpret the texts and kill animals if they disowned the Religion.

Buddhists do not accept this, but the fact that this Prophecy is legitimate can by proved by studying Buddha's life and His philosophy. The Message of Lord Buddha and Lord Krishna's words in the Bhagavad Gita parallel each other more closely than many people think.

I shall now prove that Buddha was none other than Lord Vishnu in disguise.

1) Buddhists argue that Buddha was born in Nepal, not Gaya and that His mother was Maya, not Anjana. Actually, although that is true, Buddha attained enlightenment at Gaya, which is His true birth as Buddha and His mother died a few days after His birth, so He was raised by His Step-Mother of the Anjana Clan. Hence, the Prophecy is correct.

2) Buddhism talks of Anatma, ie, Lord Buddha said that the Skandha, the material existence, is not the Self. Buddhists interpret this in such a manner that they claim Lord Buddha said that there is no 'Self' or 'Soul'. This is not true. Buddha said the Material Existence is not Self, but He didn't say there was no Self. He remained silent on what exactly was the Self.

In the Bhagavad Gita, it is stated that the body and the Material Existence is the 'Field of Activity'. One who knows this 'Field of Activity' is the 'Knower of the Field' and he knows that he is different from the body. A true knower should also know the distinction between the Soul and the Supersoul (God). The Lord knows All bodies and all Individuals as well, hence He is the Superknower (Adi Buddha).

Lord Buddha said that the 5 Skandhas (Material Existence)are Non-Self. The Bhagavad Gita emphasises that the Material Body (Field of Activity) is different from the Self. So, if we correlate the Skandha to the Field of Activity, Lord Buddha says that the Skandha is not Self, and the Bhagavad Gita says that the Self is distinct from the Field of Activity. Both have become somewhat similar teachings now.

Hence, Buddha imparted the message of the Bhagavad Gita in a partial manner. He gave part of the truth and left the rest for all kinds of interpretation by the common people.

2) Buddhists ignore a few significant sayings of Buddha in their own scriptures. I quote Lord Buddha now, from the Scriptures of Buddhism:

"I am not a 'Deva', (demigod ), I am not a 'Gandharva' (celestial angel), nor 'Yaksa' (fierce guardian spirit), or human being." ~ Donasutta.

So, He is not a Demi-God, an Angel or a Demon/Guardian Spirit, or a Human. Then what is He? In a hidden manner, Lord Buddha has revealed that he is Vishnu, the Supreme Lord.

And in the Saddharma Punarika He announces to all :-

yam eva'ham lokapita swayambhu cikitsakah sarvaprajnan natah

"I am the self born, Father of all, the Lord of all beings and the remover of all ills."

This is a very clear statement. He has openly declared His true identity.

"Vakkali, he who sees the dhamma sees me; he who sees me sees the dhamma. Indeed, Vakkali, seeing the dhamma is seeing me; seeing me is seeing the dhamma" ~ Vakkali Sutra.

Buddha claims that He is the embodiment of Dharma. Lord Krishna, a previous Avatar of Vishnu, said the same thing in the Bhagavad Gita. The exact same message has ben given by both Avatars of Vishnu.

"They talk to me under these names, yet they fail to recognise that they are all my own appellations. There are some who call me the Self-existing One (svayambhuva), the Leader (nayaka), the Remover-of-obstacles (vinayaka), the Guiding One (parinayaka), Buddha, Rishi, Bull-king, Brahma, Vishnu, Isvara [God], the Originator (pradhana), Kapila, the Destroyer (bhutanta) [or: the Extreme of Reality], the Imperishable (arishta), Nemina, Soma (moon), Fire, Rama, Vyasa, Suka, Indra, the Strong One (Balin), or Varuna............ Teaching the Cause of Buddhahood, the All-Knowing, the Conquering One or the Will-Body." ~ Lankavatara Sutra.

Kapila, Rama, Vyasa, Suka, etc. are all previous Avatars of Vishnu. Isvara means 'God'. In addition, the Lord has often described Himself to be in everyone, even demi-gods like Brahma, Indra, Varuna, etc. Thus, one can gather that Lord Buddha is indeed Vishnu, from this statement.

"While I am thus known in hundreds of thousands of three-asamkhyeyas of titles, not only in this world, but in other worlds [too], my names are not exhausted; I am like the moon casting its shadow [reflection] on water, I am neither in it nor our of it. Those who know me will recognise me everywhere, but the ignorant who cannot rise above dualism will not know me." ~ Nirvana Sutra.

3) Lastly, Buddhism is also a truth. But it is an incomplete Truth, so the Path to liberation is more difficult. In Buddhism, you have to go searching for the truth by much struggle and you may even fail. But if you surrender to Lord Vishnu directly, truth will come to you automatically.

An incident occured in which Buddha's disciples asked Him if there were any truths greater than what He thought. Lord Buddha took a leaf from a tree and asked them who had more leaves now, the tree or Him. Just like the tree has more leaves as compared to the one leaf in Buddha's hand, there was more truth than what He had imparted.

Thus, the Bhagavad Gita is truth in entirety, Buddhism is a part of that great truth. Buddha was Vishnu. He imparted a half-truth. If we can summarise the message of Bhagavad Gita in 5 words, Buddha would describe only the first 3 words of that message and leave it to the people to figure out the last 2 words.

izi
03 November 2007, 12:30 PM
Indeed, what a trickster. Anyone can see that Buddhism is a good religion in essence and the scriptures there are very helpful, of course it would make sense that only one like Vishnu could be capable of providing such a bright path...

yajvan
03 November 2007, 12:52 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste,
So many limitations, so many boundries put on the Infinite for who is and who isn't...
Mine is the real One.. no Mine is, you both are wrong mine, no ,mine.

Ekam sad; vipra bahudha vadanti - Rig Veda I.164.46 Rsi dirghatamas
truth is One; sages call it variously


pranams

Sri Vaishnava
04 November 2007, 05:22 AM
Indeed, what a trickster. Anyone can see that Buddhism is a good religion in essence and the scriptures there are very helpful, of course it would make sense that only one like Vishnu could be capable of providing such a bright path...

Our dear Lord Krishna playing tricks again. You gotta love Him.

orlando
12 February 2009, 02:14 AM
O Kesava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari,
who have assumed the form of Buddha! All
glories to You! O Buddha of compassionate
heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor
animals performed according to the rules of
Vedic sacrifice Sri Dasavatara Stotra, 9th Sloka

srivijaya
14 February 2009, 02:07 PM
Many years ago, as I entered spiritual practice, I took as 'truth' certain opinions about other traditions I had gleaned from my "seniors". Carried along by admiration, euphoria and gratitude I never bothered to check for myself - I didn't think it necessary or important, as I was 100% sure I'd hit gold.

As I was very self-satisfied and stupid, it took me many years to get around to even bothering to investigate for myself - and what a shock I got when I finally did. I regret not doing it sooner, as a young man, but I'm still thankful that karma pushed me to do it - better late than never.

Do not feel that in satisfying your intellectual integrity, you are somehow being disloyal. Your duty is to your own path. It's not "theirs", it's yours. Anyone is entitled to whatever opinion they wish to hold but I would caution against not verifying such claims for oneself.

Life's too short.

Namaste

TatTvamAsi
08 March 2009, 01:49 AM
Buddha was NOT an incarnation of Vishnu. At least, 99% of Hindus don't subscribe to that theory. He was an ordinary man, a prince however, who became enlightened like thousands of other men in India in the days of yore.

Since many Hindus converted to Buddhism, several orthodox Hindus immediately posited this theory that Buddha is the 9th Avatar of Vishnu. This is total bunk because it is totally unsupported by the scriptures.

shian
08 March 2009, 06:18 AM
one said yes
and
other said no

so ?

i know.. some people who refuge in the name of ABC will think person who refuge in the name of DEF is stupid or lower

but dont forget the fact

some people who refuge in the name of XYZ is think person who refuge in the name of ABC is stupid or lower...

you said my beliefe is lower believe, but he said your believe is lower, and so on...

even we are same refuge in the name of ABC , but if we have different ways to refuge in the name of ABC, you can say that my way is lower and so on...

i believe we must have problem of "way" with our Dharma Brothers and Sisters , right ???

many Buddhist now can speak about "Anatta" but wow~ Ego still big! This is become very Atta Lol

many person who beliefe in the love of XXX name now heart is not full of XXX name, but full of wroth to convert others

very wonderfull if others see some good from us and start to attracted to what we believe (or the way).

devotee
08 March 2009, 06:53 AM
He was an ordinary man, a prince however, who became enlightened like thousands of other men in India in the days of yore.


Namaste TatTvamAsi,

How can the man who attained enlightenment be ordinary ?

"Buddha is a Vishnu incarnate or not", may be a debatable issue but Hindus, in general, do have a high respect for him. The one who attains One-ness with the reality, becomes that. So, I don't see any harm in accepting Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu, though I agree with you that it is not supported by Hindu Scriptures.

OM

srivijaya
09 March 2009, 12:17 PM
How can the man who attained enlightenment be ordinary ?
If enlightenment is not possible for ordinary people, what is the point of religious teachings?


I don't see any harm in accepting Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu, though I agree with you that it is not supported by Hindu Scriptures.
Indeed. If Buddha were an incarnation of a Hindu God, whose mission was to teach the Hindu faith, he would have instructed his followers to pay homage to the gods and he would have confirmed teachings on the atman and so forth.

None of this can be found within the suttas. In fact the opposite is the case. He advises his followers to abandon such practices.

Now this does not make Buddhism better or worse than Hinduism - there's no value judgement implied here. But it does make them two different paths.

Namaste

atanu
09 March 2009, 12:53 PM
Indeed. If Buddha were an incarnation of a Hindu God

Namaste srivijaya,

But Vishnu is not merely a Hindu God. Vishnu the name might have sanskrit origin but the meaning is universal in that it means that which encompasses every bit of space and every bit of time.

Om

PrimeDirectives
09 March 2009, 04:22 PM
Indeed. If Buddha were an incarnation of a Hindu God, whose mission was to teach the Hindu faith, he would have instructed his followers to pay homage to the gods and he would have confirmed teachings on the atman and so forth.

None of this can be found within the suttas. In fact the opposite is the case. He advises his followers to abandon such practices.

Well actually the Aryaganapati Sutra of Tibet declares that the Gautama Buddha had taught Ananda his cousin-disciple the Ganapati Mantra. And the Ghata Jataka teaches that in a previous life Buddha was born as Ghata Pandita, Lord Krishna's spiritual mentor. In the Dashratha Jataka, it teaches that Rama was a previous incarnation of the Buddha.

Further, Buddha taught his disciples to achieve the Brahman.

Buddha himself was an Brahmacharya, his teachings were the Brahmayana or Brahmapatha, Brahmavihara the Buddhist paradise, Brahmakshetra is a Buddhist temple.

srivijaya
09 March 2009, 04:23 PM
Namaste srivijaya,

But Vishnu is not merely a Hindu God. Vishnu the name might have sanskrit origin but the meaning is universal in that it means that which encompasses every bit of space and every bit of time.

Om

Hi atanu,
What about that which is said to be beyond the confines of space and time?
Is this Shiva?

Namaste

srivijaya
09 March 2009, 04:28 PM
Buddha taught his disciples to [B]achieve the Brahman

Please provide me with a Buddhist sutra reference for this. I have been a Buddhist for over 20 years and have studied both Tibetan (inc. Vajrayana) and Theravadan suttas and never - not once - encountered this.

It is contrary to everything Buddha ever taught.

atanu
09 March 2009, 11:14 PM
Hi atanu,
What about that which is said to be beyond the confines of space and time?
Is this Shiva?

Namaste

Namaste srivijaya,

Yes, I understand so, since, with Vishnu is associated the awareness of space. Yet, the unborn Vishnu is Mahesvara Himself. Shiva, as per upanishads, is that which is beyond vak, beyond name and beyond definition. But for the sake of understanding some sages have defined shiva as the revealer of consciousness.

I think to go literally through scriptures may mar the deeper understanding of the truth, which is that every being is incarnation of Vishnu. Else where from the intelligence? But, as Gaudapada explains in Mandukya Karika, an enlightened being does not abide in objects. This means that an enlightened being is no more divided in objects or limited within a shape and name. The enlightened one has become Vishnu.

Vedas support my view as below:


YV ii. 1. 3.
The gods and the Asuras strove for these worlds; Visnu saw this dwarf, he offered it to its own deity; then he conquered these worlds. One who is engaged in a struggle should offer the dwarf (beast) to Visnu; then he becomes like Visnu and conquers these worlds.---------------
I believe that the Buddha and Jesus both are characterised fully by the above verse. Both of them negated the demands of their lower nature and sacrificed the beasts.


But what is important is that, at all point of time and also beyond time, no one is anything else but all pervasive (visnu). The idea of "i" is the ignorance rooted in and shrouded in sleep, unravelling of whose nature provides the first clue that one is spirit unlimited.

There is another way:


YV i. 7. 5.
------ Headed by Visnu the gods won these worlds by the metres so as to be irrecoverable; in that he takes the steps of Visnu the sacrificer becoming like Visnu wins these worlds by the metres so as to be irrecoverable.Probably, this is not the path of Buddha or of Jesus (but I do not know).

Om Namah Shivaya

TatTvamAsi
10 March 2009, 12:06 AM
Namaste Devotee,

I certainly agree that most people, whether Hindu or not, have respect for Buddha. However, this does not warrant worship.

The funny thing I see Buddhists quack about is that, "Oh! Hinduism is too ritualistic!" And yet, when you go into a Buddhist temple or household, what do you see? A large idol of Buddha and images of him! :rolleyes: They claim that it is out of 'respect' they have his image/idol! haha.

I have yet to come across a Buddhist who can logically state why his faith (Buddhism) is not an offshoot of Hinduism! In fact, Hinduism the modern term, is an umbrella term that stands for all philosophical thought that arose in Aryavarta (India), of which Buddhism is one. It is considered a nastika darshana but it is still part of Sanatana Dharma! I can understand if they want to epistemologically debate the kernel of the philosophy compared to that of the various other schools such as Samkhya, Mimamsa, Yoga, and Vedanta but to constantly denigrate Hinduism/Hindus and Hindu society, Buddhists are lacking something very important; buddhi!

Secondly, I have encountered some Buddhists who have the temerity to say that Hinduism was derived from Buddhism! And, to add insult to injury, they pejoratively state that just because Hinduism is considered older, it doesn't mean that Buddhism didn't borrow from it!

Any objective and comparative study of the two 'religions' would lead one to clearly see the incredible similarities and the minute yet significant differences in terms of philosophy. This doesn't make one 'better' than the other, however there is not a semblance of a doubt that Buddhism is repackaged Hinduism for the Far East. This is strengthened by the fact that Buddhism was essentially unsuccessful in taking root in India although it is the birthplace of the Buddha and his experience!

The most obvious point is that Buddha never preached about an absolute "god" akin to the Abrahamic idiots. However, the notion of non-being and Brahman during cosmic dissolution is non-different.

Lastly, I have found it somewhat difficult to deal with Buddhists as, just like Sikhs, they get highly defensive and anti-Hindu once you question their apparent originality and independent philosophy.

The bottom line is, if you are a Buddhist, you will think that Buddhism the highest path to "Dhamma" as they call it. :D If you are a Hindu, Sanatana Dharma is considered the 'best'. Nobody is correct until one experiences Tat for himself!

Namaskar.


Namaste TatTvamAsi,

How can the man who attained enlightenment be ordinary ?

"Buddha is a Vishnu incarnate or not", may be a debatable issue but Hindus, in general, do have a high respect for him. The one who attains One-ness with the reality, becomes that. So, I don't see any harm in accepting Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu, though I agree with you that it is not supported by Hindu Scriptures.

OM

atanu
10 March 2009, 12:44 AM
Namaste Devotee,

Any objective and comparative study of the two 'religions' would lead one to clearly see the incredible similarities and the minute yet significant differences in terms of philosophy. This doesn't make one 'better' than the other, however there is not a semblance of a doubt that Buddhism is repackaged Hinduism for the Far East. This is strengthened by the fact that Buddhism was essentially unsuccessful in taking root in India although it is the birthplace of the Buddha and his experience!

Namaskar.

Namaste TTA,

Most of what you have written in this post is agreeable. However, I wish to emphasise a point, regarding 'repackaging'.

Buddha, as many other Indian saints, attained jnana, without apparently having any grounding in Vedas or Upanishads. Yet, after enlightenement many have found that the TRUTH, is to be found in the Vedas. Thus, not knowing Buddhas past studies etc., solely based on the known incarnation, we may say that he arrived at the truth on his own.

But there is a big fallacy here. Buddha could not have attained enlightement, without the support/protection of the TRUTH itself, since it would mean that the Truth was something which Buddha started as a movement and that before Buddha, the Truth was not there.

But, it is also not mostly true that the knowledge of Veda is available 100% to me or to all. Often, the truth gets hidden, in a society or in an individual. So, if a new sage comes to unravel the truth, you may call it re-packaging, but this re-packaging is done by none else but the Truth alone.

---------------

The bickerings, if any that you have mentioned, is very natural to human ignorance.

Regards and best Wishes,

Om

srivijaya
10 March 2009, 05:07 AM
an enlightened being does not abide in objects. This means that an enlightened being is no more divided in objects or limited within a shape and name.

Hi atanu,
Well said. I also suspect that the 'truth' is one and indivisible. The enlightened state is beyond any restrictions anyone wishes to impose upon it in order to make it more comprehensible, or sit neatly within a given system.

Namaste

srivijaya
10 March 2009, 05:13 AM
The funny thing I see Buddhists quack about is that, "Oh! Hinduism is too ritualistic!" And yet, when you go into a Buddhist temple or household, what do you see? A large idol of Buddha and images of him! :rolleyes: They claim that it is out of 'respect' they have his image/idol! haha.

I have yet to come across a Buddhist who can logically state why his faith (Buddhism) is not an offshoot of Hinduism!

...Buddhists are lacking something very important; buddhi!

Secondly, I have encountered some Buddhists who have the temerity to say that Hinduism was derived from Buddhism! And, to add insult to injury, they pejoratively state that just because Hinduism is considered older, it doesn't mean that Buddhism didn't borrow from it!

...there is not a semblance of a doubt that Buddhism is repackaged Hinduism for the Far East. This is strengthened by the fact that Buddhism was essentially unsuccessful in taking root in India although it is the birthplace of the Buddha and his experience!

Lastly, I have found it somewhat difficult to deal with Buddhists as, just like Sikhs, they get highly defensive and anti-Hindu once you question their apparent originality and independent philosophy.

There's a lot of anger there which seems to come from many bad experiences. Alas there will always be people like those you mention in all religions. Look how many conflicts have religion as their apparent cause.

Namaste

Eastern Mind
10 March 2009, 09:32 AM
I'm beginning to think that comparative religion studies is a detriment to humanity. I think it shouldn't be "What religion are you?" but "What is your character?" instead, when we compare or try to decide on another's morals. I recall the ridiculous belief held made by many Christians that you can't be a good moral person unless you've taken Christ as saviour. I'd much rather have a business dealing or even a discussion with an honest Muslim, Christian, or Buddhist, or atheist, than a dishonest, adulterous, or undisciplined Hindu. The whole idea of interfaith dialogue and comparing leads us all to overgeneralizing as I've read above and elsewhere, referring to those Buddhists or those Muslims, as if they were all of the very same mind and character.

Aum Namasivaya

simex
10 March 2009, 09:52 AM
every being is incarnation of Vishnu.



I am an avatar of Vishnu

Buddha is an avatar of atanu

Vishnu is an avatar of Buddha

George W Bush is an avatar of Rumi

Om

atanu
10 March 2009, 10:38 AM
I am an avatar of Vishnu

Buddha is an avatar of atanu

Vishnu is an avatar of Buddha

George W Bush is an avatar of Rumi

Om

Namaste simex,

No. Karaka is karya but not the other way around. Ocean is in every wave, but a wave is not the ocean.

But it is true that all elements, all names, all shapes are Vishnu alone. The intelligence abiding in a shape and name may become like Vishnu on two conditions: by surrendering the beast to Visnu or by retracing the steps of Vishnu.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
10 March 2009, 12:04 PM
The following link gives exposition of what hindu gurus think of Buddha and His teachings.

http://www.hinduism.co.za/buddhism.htm

Om

simex
10 March 2009, 12:19 PM
Namaste simex,

No. Karaka is karya but not the other way around. Ocean is in every wave, but a wave is not the ocean.



I see what you mean from a relative standpoint.

However, the dichotomies of general/specific; part/whole; are collapsed in Brahman, along with the rest of the referentially derived attributes.

"What is here, the same is there. He goes from death to death who sees any difference here."

Even when I read the Vishnu Purana, I come to the long lists of associations (e.g. Prahlad is Ashtavakra, Ashtavakra is Brahma, some river is Vishnu's finger, etc...), and I think it was the author's intent to set up such intricate and convoluted strings of incarnations and equivalences that the reader would eventually stop trying to keep track of who "owns" what; whom is responsible for whom. Relatively speaking, Vishnu is a character in a story, and the story is part of something else. But that thing, which the story is a part of, cannot really be said to be more or less general or specific; any more the point of departure than the destination. Brahman exists in the story, as well as the story in Brahman.

"Smaller than the small, larger than large."
"Not moving, it travels fastest."

Is that not the meaning of these lines?

atanu
10 March 2009, 12:34 PM
I see what you mean from a relative standpoint.

However, the dichotomies of general/specific; part/whole; are collapsed in Brahman, along with the rest of the referentially derived attributes.

"What is here, the same is there. He goes from death to death who sees any difference here."

Even when I read the Vishnu Purana, I come to the long lists of associations (e.g. Prahlad is Ashtavakra, Ashtavakra is Brahma, some river is Vishnu's finger, etc...), and I think it was the author's intent to set up such intricate and convoluted strings of incarnations and equivalences that the reader would eventually stop trying to keep track of who "owns" what; whom is responsible for whom. Relatively speaking, Vishnu is a character in a story, and the story is part of something else. But that thing, which the story is a part of, cannot really be said to be more or less general or specific; any more the point of departure than the destination. Brahman exists in the story, as well as the story in Brahman.

"Smaller than the small, larger than large."
"Not moving, it travels fastest."

Is that not the meaning of these lines?

Namaste Simex,

You are correct that truly Brahman exists in the story and the story in Brahman. Yet Hinduism does not negate the pratayksha that a chair and a table function differently, though they are both of wood. The essence of the chair is in table and vice versa.

Yet what you say is correct and highest, since the names and forms themselves are spiritual and infinite -- one within another, one incarnating as another, one hiding another, one giving birth to another, one destroying another -- all happening on the immutable screen of Brahman. One who understands/sees the one infinite homogeneous bliss of deep sleep as 'Pragnya' of oneself and transfiguration of that 'dense wisdom bliss mass' into a colored light universe of dream or a conglomeration of many solid and subtle bodies of waking, can comprehend that I am in the sleep and I am all these. Such a one will shed tears of joy when a chant of the name is heard, shed tears at the peculiarities of the various things as one's own, and also smile indulgently at apparent vicious ego plays,, --.

Regards.

Om