how can one say buddha was an avatar?

[anirvan]

Though i dont understand much the complicity of Buddhism much,but one thing i am sure is that it is Advita vedanta which doesn"t revolve about blissfull brahman.

See its even controversial about birth place of buddha,and major historians now proved that he was actually born at Gautamnagar,near konark,orissa.
he must have had Hindu guru,hindu teaching in his samadhi. so his boddha(knowledge) can"t be significantly drifted away from mainstream vedanta.

he indeed stayed mum when asked about God,most spiritual saints opine that he wanted to dispell the superstition rampant at that time and also wanted to convey the message that it can"t be discussed,it has to be experienced.

second thing is said that he was not a lover.but who else has loved,compassioned not only living,but also the non-living objects ,seeing the atman inside everything???

If we see buddha in eyes of true saints,lover we can see bishnu in him,but in eyes of intellectual(pandit) we can never realize him.

AdiShankar has not revamped buddhism,but the superstition,the materialistic tantra and other dirty enetered into buddhism. any religion which is not centered around God and love for him is bound to be perished as lesser individual understands word of love better that dry intellectualism.

Buddha is and in future also will be worshiped and loved by world always.it upto us how we see him.

[charlebs]

another question, was buddha a hidden avatar if he was one, was his coming ever mentioned/predicted? how can we specify his being as avatar when compared to someone as marvelous as chaitanya.

chaitanya came with a clear purpose, but not to confuse the people on earth. though we've learned much through buddhism, was there really need to inform more about the heaven without time?

krishna also talked about this. nirvana will not be affected by the new evolution at the end of time. (if it ever comes haha)

[anirvan]

Question is what do we mean by Incarnation ? is it somebody says someone is avtar or the avtar himself claims ?

Incarnation is generally regarded as a SPECIAL WISH OF JAGATGURU at a particular time that takes a Form on the earth in need of a major revamp of current socio-spiritual culture in a carpet fashion acting on collective psyche of majority.
it never depends upon few peoples.few scripture or few followers believe. whenever there was such need on earth,when Dharma has taken a backstage with rampant superstitions,ignorance,sin,adultery, then then Such incarnation has taken place. so its basically a RETROSPECTIVE view to ascertain the impact of such a person and labeled as Incarnation.
so there is nothing like hidden,partial,full etc in incarnation in absolute sense. we label them according to their impact,there demonstrated power and our affection. but essentially they are one and same supreme brahman.

Even in srikrishna birth,after some thousand birth only people started to worship him as incarnation.at his time on earth only 8 persons knew about his godly self apart from ofcourse Gopis/Radha.

so definitely Buddha was a major incarnation depending upon his impact of collective psyche of entire world.same can be said about Jesus,mohmad,Chaitanya,SriRamakrishna paramahansa. many people dont regard Ramakrishna,chaitanya as incarnation. so doesn"t affect the God as his job is finished as planned.

[TheOne]

You look at all his birthplace and such and conclude he is a Hindu. But do you even bother to look at his teachings? No, many don't even bother and if someone does you will see that they are opposite of what many of us follow. I do not believe Buddha was an avatar as he didn't make any claim to be one and he didn't even encounter mainstream vedic society.

If you believe I'm some "radical universalism" for believing that these individuals attempted to find their own way to the divine then I guess you need some modern examples. Take for example the 19th century American Trancendentalists they are like a westernized, watered down version of Sanatana Dharma. Many of the founders have read some Hindu scriptures but that wasn't the only catalyst for the large social movement. Your belief that I'm a radical universalist is absurd whether or not Jesus existed is of no concern I was merely making an example.

[Adhvagat]

Well, but he being an avatar does not negate that he found his own way to enlightenment.

The problem (at least in my point of view) is the weight you apply to shastra. If shastra predicts Buddha, what's not to believe?

[Sahasranama]

You look at all his birthplace and such and conclude he is a Hindu. But do you even bother to look at his teachings? No, many don't even bother and if someone does you will see that they are opposite of what many of us follow. I do not believe Buddha was an avatar as he didn't make any claim to be one and he didn't even encounter mainstream vedic society.

If you believe I'm some "radical universalism" for believing that these individuals attempted to find their own way to the divine then I guess you need some modern examples. Take for example the 19th century American Trancendentalists they are like a westernized, watered down version of Sanatana Dharma. Many of the founders have read some Hindu scriptures but that wasn't the only catalyst for the large social movement. Your belief that I'm a radical universalist is absurd whether or not Jesus existed is of no concern I was merely making an example.

I understand your example, one of the trancedentalists actually called the Bhagavad Gita a Buddhist scripture. I don't know, was it Emerson or Thoreau? But the Buddha was predicted by Hindu rishis like Parashara, Vyasa and Asita. Yes, Buddha did not teach Hinduism, but he brought Dharma among a large group of people who might have otherwise been adharmic. That's why the shastras predicted he came to delude the asuras like Vishnu has done many times before in his mohini and vamana avatar. If we look at the popularity of Buddhism throughout history of Asia and in modern day and age in the western world, I think this claim might very well be truth. How many former atheists and abrahamics have now adopted Buddhism? I am also very sceptical about avatar claims, but this particular was made by Parasara Rishi and Vyasa. Academics would say though that this is just sarcasm thrown at Buddhism.

[charlebs]

I understand your example, one of the trancedentalists actually called the Bhagavad Gita a Buddhist scripture. I don't know, was it Emerson or Thoreau? But the Buddha was predicted by Hindu rishis like Parashara, Vyasa and Asita. Yes, Buddha did not teach Hinduism, but he brought Dharma among a large group of people who might have otherwise been adharmic. That's why the shastras predicted he came to delude the asuras like Vishnu has done many times before in his mohini and vamana avatar. If we look at the popularity of Buddhism throughout history of Asia and in modern day and age in the western world, I think this claim might very well be truth. How many former atheists and abrahamics have now adopted Buddhism? I am also very sceptical about avatar claims, but this particular was made by Parasara Rishi and Vyasa. Academics would say though that this is just sarcasm thrown at Buddhism.

He did come with a mission to speak out against blood rituals. But who decided his mission? Was he not a normal human being at first like most avatars? I'm sorry if this sounds confusing.
But I do believe he did decide for his own what was good and false, even though he argumented that the veda's were full of nonsense (perhaps he COULD not read between the lines?)
His way did make dharma in a sense. What was appropriate in the time of krishna is not appropriate now. One can model to be like Krishna, but times change. We should never try what he did with his special mission. Even though we believe he is God fully incarnated.
sigh I wish I could think straightly again, I have no idea where I'm going here.

Anyway, I do believe everything was written to happen as it should happen, but the deva's must have inspired Buddha to complete Dharma for us. Because it was not yet fully realised by most.

If it were up to me, we wouldn't even eat fish. even though they almost seem to live FOR us, seeing as they're so good for us with their oils and such. but hey, who am I???

either way, it's hard for me to decide whether we are right to say Buddha came from Vishnu. I love Shiva just as much as Vishnu, and I find it hard to think that someone who is the mind of God would never incarnate with a certain mission.
I hope I do not offend anyone with speaking so freely.

But what argumentation is there that Vishnu and Shiva's avatars are not sometimes mixed up?
I understand that during Krishna's time, Shiva also came to earth and even protected "sinners" from Krishna's judgement, but there was no real quarrel. They merely tested their strengths against each other and they are just True brothers.

Why do we assume the emotion of god came first, and the will later? Why would any one of these two limitless deva's be the true God or the first. Sigh, I hope this will not become a HOT topic.
I just can't stop speaking from impulse. If I go too far, please tell me to correct myself, seeing as I'm autistic, I really need sure guidelines.

But I forgot Devi. That's something awful, because I respect and love the female godesses even more!
Please don't ban me. I go so off topic I think. But I hope this is overseeable. Or at least correctable.
I never got a guru and just read all the scriptures and drama's in my own time. I especially love the drama I bought online about Radhika and Krishna. Sorry, this was about Buddha.

Just ignore my mindless babbling which doesn't refer to the thread. Even though I started it.

[charlebs]

Though i dont understand much the complicity of Buddhism much,but one thing i am sure is that it is Advita vedanta which doesn"t revolve about blissfull brahman.

See its even controversial about birth place of buddha,and major historians now proved that he was actually born at Gautamnagar,near konark,orissa.
he must have had Hindu guru,hindu teaching in his samadhi. so his boddha(knowledge) can"t be significantly drifted away from mainstream vedanta.

he indeed stayed mum when asked about God,most spiritual saints opine that he wanted to dispell the superstition rampant at that time and also wanted to convey the message that it can"t be discussed,it has to be experienced.

second thing is said that he was not a lover.but who else has loved,compassioned not only living,but also the non-living objects ,seeing the atman inside everything???

If we see buddha in eyes of true saints,lover we can see bishnu in him,but in eyes of intellectual(pandit) we can never realize him.

AdiShankar has not revamped buddhism,but the superstition,the materialistic tantra and other dirty enetered into buddhism. any religion which is not centered around God and love for him is bound to be perished as lesser individual understands word of love better that dry intellectualism.

Buddha is and in future also will be worshiped and loved by world always.it upto us how we see him.

I believe anyone who enters nirvana, the heaven without time, will always be able to help and even control the destiny of the world. Maybe without buddha's we'd be in total war with each other everywhere now.

revolutions are bad. involution has to happen before evolution. Some may not be fit for reasonable debate. But we can't just applaud a war between politician views, where one country goes on a stampede for self destruction.

at least, that's my opinion. thanks for your input in the thread! I appreciate that you like to discuss what I started. People usually just grow annoyingly silent with me.

thanks!