how can one say buddha was an avatar?

[charlebs]

Buddha claimed he saw infinity (space) and Brahma in Brahmaloka. He defeated every sage by argument. even an angel asked him 50 questions to test him. He was successful and blessed in every way.

I believe all the stories about him because I am gnostic. But He did come in Kali Yuga. Sure he was asian so a bit yellow, the colour of Vishnu when he comes into the Kali Yuga.
But his mission was to point out the faults of the veda's (which were just "errors" because by way of argument, you can most likely always win if you know the nature of your opponent), so he basically wrote the doctrine of atheism.

But I can not simply believe he was vishnu, because he might as well have been the all powerfull shiva. Set with a mission to confuse to enlighten.
Shiva can do this any way he wants. perhaps we were never meant to know about the highest heaven krishna told about. but now we have controllers and helpers in the highest heaven. and is that not a great thing?

I am just babbling by the way, I can not really think, I went from autism to full adhd. everything comes from impulse and my knowledge swings like a wild animal.
so do not mind me too much. just dreaming on.... =)))

[Sahasranama]

Charvaka's school of thought already existed before Buddhism, he was an exponent of the theory of momentariness which later become known in the west as carpe diem. In Buddhism this influenced the idea of the momentariness and emptiness. The shastras that say that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu mention that he came to delude the asuras. This is often forgotten in neo-Hinduism where he is praised as a Hindu reformer. I believe this observation of the shastras to be substantial, since Buddhist teachings have spread dharmic teachings all over the world and replaced asuric ideologies. Hinduism is not for everyone, most people are incapable of adopting the Hindu teachings if they were not born in a Hindu family. There is often too much skepticism towards a foreign religion, but Buddhism is easy to adopt since it's not a religion in the strict sense. That's why I have a lot of respect for westerners who were capable of becoming totally dedicated towards Hinduism, it's not the easiest transformation.

[charlebs]

I see, that's a very good explanation.

[Sahasranama]

Vishnu has incarnated many times to delude the asuras, during the sagar manthan he appeared as Mohini to prevent the asuras from drinking amrita, he appeared as a brahmana to delude Bhasmasura to put his hand on his own head, as Vamana he deluded Bali to give him three steps.

[astrostudent]

Buddhists do not believe that Buddha was an avatar; only Hindus believe that. What Buddhists believe about Buddha should matter more, wouldn't you say?

[Sahasranama]

Buddhists do not believe that Buddha was an avatar; only Hindus believe that. What Buddhists believe about Buddha should matter more, wouldn't you say?

Buddhist don't see Buddha as an avatar since they don't believe in the concept of a incarnating Brahman, a lot of Hindus do. Buddhists see Buddhas and Boddhisattvas as humans who have attained a certain state or sometimes as divine beings or reincarnations of previous Buddhas, but not as the ultimate incarnating in human form. What Buddhists believe about Buddha should not be ignored, unfortunately this is exactly what neo-Hindus like Vivekananda have done, completely ignoring the teachings of Buddhism and turning him into a Hindu reformer. But seeing him as an avatar that came to delude asuras is not inconsistent, since this idea implies that Buddhist teachings are different from Hindu teachings. You seem to be interested in jyotish. Rishi Parashara mentions Buddha as an avatar too in his Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra.

[Adhvagat]

Sahasranama, thank you for sharing this knowledge with us.

Buddhists do not believe that Buddha was an avatar; only Hindus believe that. What Buddhists believe about Buddha should matter more, wouldn't you say?

A question to all: don't the descriptions of Buddha on shastras predate Buddhism itself?

[charitra]

Sahasranama, thank you for sharing this knowledge with us.



A question to all: don't the descriptions of Buddha on shastras predate Buddhism itself?

Dharma,
Karma and
Rebirth are clearly hindu orSD doctrines adopted as is by Buddha who was a born and raised hindu.He was a great enlightened soul. Iam happy to call him an avatar. Sigh... there was a contestsant for his 9th place , jury is still out .

[TheOne]

Siddartha was Buddha(enlightened). I don't believe that he was an avatar of Vishnu or anything like that. He was beyond those terms. To say that he is merely a social reformer is a disgrace to his teachings. I think us trying to claim Buddha as our own is just as bad as Buddhists trying to claim Krishna was Siddartha in a previous life.

The Buddha found his own way in a society that lost spirituality in the same way that Jesus found his own way in his society. Now, remember the "Hinduism" that was practiced in Nepal was vastly different from the Hinduism practiced in mainland India. For example, there are no talks from Siddartha on Krishna, the avataras, Brahman, or any mainland Sanatana Dharma practices. He's like a person stranded on a proverbial spiritual desert trying to find his way. To criticize him and his philosophy is rather absurd because if you read Siddartha's teachings you will see that he is merely looking at reality from a different lens. The lens of momentariness.


I certainly don't like the attitude of some Buddhists(even one whom I studied under) that *their way* of liberation is either the ONLY way or the only worthwhile way. And if you try to have a friendly debate they end up saying "If belief in God gives you peace then believe in it" I end up back where I started with attempting to hold a philosophical dialogue with someone who sounds like they are the prime example of a human being and how they should behave to others.


I have many criticisms of certain "Buddhist" ways of life but criticizing them doesn't really solve any philosophical problem.

[Sahasranama]

You might be looking at this from a universalist perspective. I do not, I look at it from an analytical perspective. This does not mean I am against Buddhism. I respect the Buddhists in many ways. I might disagree with something, that doesn't mean I don't respect it. What I do disrespect is hypocracy and random violence against heathens.

The Buddha found his own way in a society that lost spirituality in the same way that Jesus found his own way in his society

If we look at this historically, first of all Jesus never existed, believing that he even was a historical person is part of Christian faith. Second, believing in Buddha is part of Buddhist faith and also Hindu faith, since scriptures of both faiths talk about Buddha. Buddhist scriptures actually only start describing the Buddha a century after his death. Hindu scriptures before his birth, but of course historians will not belief that it is possible that the rishis were capable of predicting an avatar. I do belief it's possible, the father of veda vyasa, Parashara Muni, was a great jyotishi and vyasa himself was a great rishi and avatar. So it's up to you how you look at the Buddha from which lens, Hinduism or Buddhism. Buddhist stories about his birth also say that a Hindu rishi predicted the life of the Buddha. This rishi's name was Asita. Coincidentally, this rishi is also a pravara in Shandilya gotra and his name is also mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita: asitadevalovyasa svayam chaiva bravishi me, Arjuna says to Krishna "Asita, Devala and Vyasa have said this and now you are telling this yourself."

You have expressed earlier that advaita vedanta is one of the reasons you are interested in Hinduism, then you should also know that all the advaita acharyas from Gaudapada, Shankara and onwards have disagreed openly with Buddhism. Hindus should not be surprised that Buddhists disagree with us either. That doesn't mean we can't learn anything from Buddhism, only that we do not believe in the same thing.