Buddha

   

The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu??? (Page 2)

Post Reply New Post

Page 2 of 11

Page 1
Page   of 11
Page 3 Page 11

bhas1066

Senior Member

bhas1066

Joined: 08 January 2011

Posts: 466

Posted: 19 July 2012 at 1:00am | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Valid question!
 
Even I have my doubts about this, but as per what my family believes, we neither believe Balram nor Buddha to be the 9th avatar. Krishna is the 8th avatar and after him, we believe Lord Venkateshwara (Balaji) to be the 9th avatar.
 
Since Buddha created a whole new religion which kind of goes against the teachings of Krishna and Rama, we do not believe Buddha is a part of Hinduism or Lord Vishnu at all. And Balram is an amsa of Seshnaag so he too is not a part of the Dashavataras.


Lord Venkateshwara!! it seems most likely but is there any proof or text stating it? i know the story told by my grandma that yashoda complained about Krishna not inviting her to any of his weddings so he took the form of Balaji and yashoda was reborn as vakula devi and srinivasa's mother who went to ask the hand of padmavati for marriage. so yes its quite possible . but PLEASE DONT GET ANGRY--- is there any proof??


Edited by bhas1066 - 19 July 2012 at 12:59am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

.Vrish...RamKiJanaki..

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu??? (Page 2)" in Buddha forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44391

Posted: 19 July 2012 at 9:22am | IP Logged
Originally posted by ShivangBuch

@Janaki
Yes. Buddhism concentrates on one specific way of religion I agree but how is it against the teaching of Krishna? In Geeta also, we have Karmsanyas yog and Aatmasanyam yog.
 
I believe Buddhism goes against the preachings of Krishna and Rama because it believes violence is wrong at all times, whereas both Shri Ram and Shri Krishna endorsed wars for the greater good. The war against Ravan in Ramayana and the Kurukshetra war of Mahabharata both killed innocent people, but God himself supported them because Dharma had to be upheld, whereas Buddha preached that ahimsa is the way of life no matter what, and that wars are always bad in any circumstance. This is not something Hinduism exactly endorses, so that's why I do not believe Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu. All of Vishnu's avatars had one goal, and that was to destroy evil even if it meant war.

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

ShivangBuch.Vrish.The.Lannister

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44391

Posted: 19 July 2012 at 9:29am | IP Logged
Originally posted by bhas1066

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Valid question!
 
Even I have my doubts about this, but as per what my family believes, we neither believe Balram nor Buddha to be the 9th avatar. Krishna is the 8th avatar and after him, we believe Lord Venkateshwara (Balaji) to be the 9th avatar.
 
Since Buddha created a whole new religion which kind of goes against the teachings of Krishna and Rama, we do not believe Buddha is a part of Hinduism or Lord Vishnu at all. And Balram is an amsa of Seshnaag so he too is not a part of the Dashavataras.


Lord Venkateshwara!! it seems most likely but is there any proof or text stating it? i know the story told by my grandma that yashoda complained about Krishna not inviting her to any of his weddings so he took the form of Balaji and yashoda was reborn as vakula devi and srinivasa's mother who went to ask the hand of padmavati for marriage. so yes its quite possible . but PLEASE DONT GET ANGRY--- is there any proof??
 
No, I'm not angry, don't worry!LOL
 
The story of Lord Venkateshwara is from Vishnu Purana, so it's very possible that he was supposed to be considered the 9th avatara, because both Goddess Lakshmi and Goddess Earth (Bhudevi) married Balaji as Sridevi and Padvamavati Devi, just like Rukmini and Satyabhama who were also said to be amsas of Lakshmi and Bhudevi. Lord Venkateshwara destroyed the arrogance of many brahmins and kings during his avatar, and his preachings were similar to Rama and Krishna, so actually, he should be considered the 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu since already people believe he's an amsa of Vishnu.
 
Balarama is an amsa of Seshnaag and many don't even consider Buddha to be a part of Hinduism, because no source actually says he is, does it?

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1045

Posted: 19 July 2012 at 11:25am | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Originally posted by ShivangBuch

@Janaki
Yes. Buddhism concentrates on one specific way of religion I agree but how is it against the teaching of Krishna? In Geeta also, we have Karmsanyas yog and Aatmasanyam yog.
 
I believe Buddhism goes against the preachings of Krishna and Rama because it believes violence is wrong at all times, whereas both Shri Ram and Shri Krishna endorsed wars for the greater good. The war against Ravan in Ramayana and the Kurukshetra war of Mahabharata both killed innocent people, but God himself supported them because Dharma had to be upheld, whereas Buddha preached that ahimsa is the way of life no matter what, and that wars are always bad in any circumstance. This is not something Hinduism exactly endorses, so that's why I do not believe Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu. All of Vishnu's avatars had one goal, and that was to destroy evil even if it meant war.
Well Vaaman avataar was Brahmin and didn't engage in war and Parshuram despite being Brahmin had the nature of Kshatriya which he followed and Vishwamitra despite being Kshatriya had the nature of Brahmin which he followed. And for Brahmin, Ahinsa even in Hinduism is paramo dharma (which exactly Drona was scolded and criticized for by Saptarshis). In case of Parshuram & Vishwamitra, there is a story of fruits exchanged by mistake but no such case with Drona so he couldn't imitate Parshuram. Case was different. May be Buddha despite being king's son had Brahmin's soul and realized duties. Even Krishna tried to avoid war at any cost and then he made it inevitable since the other Kshatriya king was not willing to do justice. And Krishna was Kshatriya. Kshatriyas have the job to punish the evil. Why Vishwamitra didn't kill Subahu and Maarich despite being capable? Because in his sadhana, violence was not permitted. So all ways are endorsed by Geeta. All depend upon one's nature. So we can't  say contradicting views can't all be correct. Despite contradicting, all can be correct. We need to dig more deep into this I think. We can only know this if we can understand Buddha's preaching exactly what they were very subtly and minutely. After all, Buddha was compassionate for all creatures and that is what is God's nature. Karunavatsal. Aims can be different. Dharm sansthapan of different kind. Kachchhap avatar was not to punish the evil but to help a process. Matsya avatar was not to kill the evil


Edited by ShivangBuch - 19 July 2012 at 11:27am

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriyabhakti2..RamKiJanaki..

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44391

Posted: 19 July 2012 at 11:55am | IP Logged
Originally posted by ShivangBuch

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Originally posted by ShivangBuch

@Janaki
Yes. Buddhism concentrates on one specific way of religion I agree but how is it against the teaching of Krishna? In Geeta also, we have Karmsanyas yog and Aatmasanyam yog.
 
I believe Buddhism goes against the preachings of Krishna and Rama because it believes violence is wrong at all times, whereas both Shri Ram and Shri Krishna endorsed wars for the greater good. The war against Ravan in Ramayana and the Kurukshetra war of Mahabharata both killed innocent people, but God himself supported them because Dharma had to be upheld, whereas Buddha preached that ahimsa is the way of life no matter what, and that wars are always bad in any circumstance. This is not something Hinduism exactly endorses, so that's why I do not believe Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu. All of Vishnu's avatars had one goal, and that was to destroy evil even if it meant war.
Well Vaaman avataar was Brahmin and didn't engage in war and Parshuram despite being Brahmin had the nature of Kshatriya which he followed and Vishwamitra despite being Kshatriya had the nature of Brahmin which he followed. And for Brahmin, Ahinsa even in Hinduism is paramo dharma (which exactly Drona was scolded and criticized for by Saptarshis). In case of Parshuram & Vishwamitra, there is a story of fruits exchanged by mistake but no such case with Drona so he couldn't imitate Parshuram. Case was different. May be Buddha despite being king's son had Brahmin's soul and realized duties. Even Krishna tried to avoid war at any cost and then he made it inevitable since the other Kshatriya king was not willing to do justice. And Krishna was Kshatriya. Kshatriyas have the job to punish the evil. Why Vishwamitra didn't kill Subahu and Maarich despite being capable? Because in his sadhana, violence was not permitted. So all ways are endorsed by Geeta. All depend upon one's nature. So we can't  say contradicting views can't all be correct. Despite contradicting, all can be correct. We need to dig more deep into this I think. We can only know this if we can understand Buddha's preaching exactly what they were very subtly and minutely. After all, Buddha was compassionate for all creatures and that is what is God's nature. Karunavatsal. Aims can be different. Dharm sansthapan of different kind. Kachchhap avatar was not to punish the evil but to help a process. Matsya avatar was not to kill the evil
 
Yes, your point is valid, but Parashuram's avatar also teaches us that there are times when picking up a sword is required, because protecting Dharma is of utmost importance. Even Vishvamitra had brought Ram and Lakshman to defeat Mareech and Subahu. He didn't let them roam free in the name of ahimsa, did he? He may not have done it himself but he gave Ram and Lakshman the duty of punishing the sinners.
 
Buddhism'a teachings are that ahimsa is wrong in all cases, and that even to protect good one must take peaceful methods only. I don't think either of Vishnu's avatars ever preached that. Though Shri Ram did give Ravan many chances to surrender, finally he waged war because there was no other choice. Same with Shri KRishna who did try to prevent the Kurukshetra war by trying to reason with the kauravas.
 
I respect Buddhism, but I believe that Buddha was a saint, like Sai Baba, who taught people to love each other and live a peaceful life, but I don't believe he was an incarnation of Vishnu. I think the posibility of Balarama being the incarnation makes more sense, since Sheshnaag is said to be an amsa of Vishnu as well.
 
However, if Balram was Vishnu then Krishna had to be the 9th avatar since Balarama is older, and as per Bhagavatham that is wrong because Krishna was the 8th avatar only, after Rama. The 9th avatar had to come after Krishna.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

ShivangBuch

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1045

Posted: 20 July 2012 at 12:32pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Yes, your point is valid, but Parashuram's avatar also teaches us that there are times when picking up a sword is required, because protecting Dharma is of utmost importance. Even Vishvamitra had brought Ram and Lakshman to defeat Mareech and Subahu. He didn't let them roam free in the name of ahimsa, did he? He may not have done it himself but he gave Ram and Lakshman the duty of punishing the sinners.
Yes. That was Kaarit hinsa. Vishwamitra didn't do it himself, but let someone else do it. Even Gargacharya also could possibly give Brahmadanda in that case to Kans (curse or turning him into ashes) but he didn't interfere into the order of events of destiny and yet participated in it by allowing Krishna to escape from the jail and keeping his secret so that Kans is killed by him eventually. Parshuram lifted the weapon with that argument of keeping dharma that way but he was never a Brahmin soul. A Kshatriya seed entered in Brahmin woman through a fruit.
 
Buddhism'a teachings are that ahimsa is wrong in all cases, and that even to protect good one must take peaceful methods only. I don't think either of Vishnu's avatars ever preached that. 
Vishnu avatars were always willing for peace (and not war) with greatest possible efforts of explaining the sinners and forgiving them if they surrender/realize fault/correct the sin but had the ultimate aim of protecting good. That's right. I have nothing to say against this.

Though Shri Ram did give Ravan many chances to surrender, finally he waged war because there was no other choice. Same with Shri KRishna who did try to prevent the Kurukshetra war by trying to reason with the kauravas.
Yes. Definitely.
 
I respect Buddhism, but I believe that Buddha was a saint, like Sai Baba, who taught people to love each other and live a peaceful life, but I don't believe he was an incarnation of Vishnu. I think the posibility of Balarama being the incarnation makes more sense, since Sheshnaag is said to be an amsa of Vishnu as well.
Again well said. But your theory primarily revolves around Parshuram, Ram & Krishna. If you consider 22 or 24 avatars of Vishnu as per Shrimad Bhagwatam, apart from Vaaman, still Sanatkumars were ansh or avatars of Vishnu. Sage Kapil was Vishnu avatar. Lord Dattatreya was avatar of Vishnu. Rishabhdev (Jainism) was avatar of Vishnu. Vyas was avatar of Vishnu (and that too before Shri Ram in Treta - Possibly because sages lived long and Satyavati was ever youthful). And all Vishnu avatars had Brahmin traits and ahinsak deeds even when evil men were active around. So my point is that Vishnu can assume any qualities or any characteristic but the aim would be dharm sansthapan of SOME KIND OR THE OTHER.

Now I don't know about the authenticity of contents but reference is given of Shreemad Bhagwatam. Varaali and Rehan are also needed here for Buddha avatar discussion.


I am posting the paragraph of  Buddha and Kalki from both the above sources. Interesting is that, Kalki will be Brahmin by birth but will again lift weapon for dharma like Parshuram (and also will be taught by Parshuram that thing I have come across many times in discussions in the forums). And do have a look at notes in the first link below Kalki avatar paragraph. Very interesting.

1st link part

**The 21st avatar is that of Buddha. (This is in the predictive tone and indicates the early period of the Kaliyuga).

*** "Thereafter, at the conjunction of two yugas, the Lord of the creation will take His birth as the Kalki incarnation and become the son of Vi??u Yasa. At this time the rulers of the earth will have degenerated into plunderers."

2nd link part 
23) BUDDHA AVATAR (Incarnation as Buddha) : The twenty-third incarnation of Lord Vishnu was as Lord Buddha. In the Kaliyuga the demons were completely subjugated by the deities. Shukracharya the teacher of the demons instigated the demons to perform Yagya so that they could regain power and authority. Fearing this the deities prayed to Lord Vishnu for help. Lord Vishnu took incarnation as Buddha and dissuaded the demons from performing Yagya as it involves violence the demons stopped 


24) KALKI AVATAR (Incarnation as Kalki) : At the end of Kaliyuga, when the sins would be 80, all pervading that the kings would themselves becomes thieves then Lord Vishnu would take his twenty-fourth incarnation as Kalki by taking birth in the village of 'Shambhal'. He would take birth in a Brahmin family of Vishnuyash. By killing and destroying the sinners, he would re-establish the superiority of Virtuosity and religiousness.


However, if Balram was Vishnu then Krishna had to be the 9th avatar since Balarama is older, and as per Bhagavatham that is wrong because Krishna was the 8th avatar only, after Rama. The 9th avatar had to come after Krishna.
Again this is based on theory of Dashaavatar.


Edited by ShivangBuch - 20 July 2012 at 1:10pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya..RamKiJanaki..

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 20800

Posted: 20 July 2012 at 1:21pm | IP Logged
Vishnu avatars were always willing for peace (and not war) with greatest possible efforts of explaining the sinners and forgiving them if they surrender/realize fault/correct the sin but had the ultimate aim of protecting good. That's right. I have nothing to say against this.

That was only true about Rama & Krishna, AFAIK.  Matsya, Varaha and Narasimha did no such thing w/ Hayagriva, Hiranyaksha or Hiranyakashipu, and even if we left the animal avatars aside and focused on the humans, Parashurama never negotiated w/ any kshatriyas - he just went on a genocidal campaign to wipe out 21 generations of them.  One could argue that the emphasis away from war was a valid one, except that Parashuram pops even that one.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

ShivangBuch..RamKiJanaki..

..RamKiJanaki..

IF-Stunnerz

..RamKiJanaki..

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 44391

Posted: 20 July 2012 at 1:30pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by ShivangBuch

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Yes, your point is valid, but Parashuram's avatar also teaches us that there are times when picking up a sword is required, because protecting Dharma is of utmost importance. Even Vishvamitra had brought Ram and Lakshman to defeat Mareech and Subahu. He didn't let them roam free in the name of ahimsa, did he? He may not have done it himself but he gave Ram and Lakshman the duty of punishing the sinners.
Yes. That was Kaarit hinsa. Vishwamitra didn't do it himself, but let someone else do it. Even Gargacharya also could possibly give Brahmadanda in that case to Kans (curse or turning him into ashes) but he didn't interfere into the order of events of destiny and yet participated in it by allowing Krishna to escape from the jail and keeping his secret so that Kans is killed by him eventually. Parshuram lifted the weapon with that argument of keeping dharma that way but he was never a Brahmin soul. A Kshatriya seed entered in Brahmin woman through a fruit.
 
Buddhism'a teachings are that ahimsa is wrong in all cases, and that even to protect good one must take peaceful methods only. I don't think either of Vishnu's avatars ever preached that. 
Vishnu avatars were always willing for peace (and not war) with greatest possible efforts of explaining the sinners and forgiving them if they surrender/realize fault/correct the sin but had the ultimate aim of protecting good. That's right. I have nothing to say against this.

Though Shri Ram did give Ravan many chances to surrender, finally he waged war because there was no other choice. Same with Shri KRishna who did try to prevent the Kurukshetra war by trying to reason with the kauravas.
Yes. Definitely.
 
I respect Buddhism, but I believe that Buddha was a saint, like Sai Baba, who taught people to love each other and live a peaceful life, but I don't believe he was an incarnation of Vishnu. I think the posibility of Balarama being the incarnation makes more sense, since Sheshnaag is said to be an amsa of Vishnu as well.
Again well said. But your theory primarily revolves around Parshuram, Ram & Krishna. If you consider 22 or 24 avatars of Vishnu as per Shrimad Bhagwatam, apart from Vaaman, still Sanatkumars were ansh or avatars of Vishnu. Sage Kapil was Vishnu avatar. Lord Dattatreya was avatar of Vishnu. Rishabhdev (Jainism) was avatar of Vishnu. Vyas was avatar of Vishnu (and that too before Shri Ram in Treta - Possibly because sages lived long and Satyavati was ever youthful). And all Vishnu avatars had Brahmin traits and ahinsak deeds even when evil men were active around. So my point is that Vishnu can assume any qualities or any characteristic but the aim would be dharm sansthapan of SOME KIND OR THE OTHER.

Now I don't know about the authenticity of contents but reference is given of Shreemad Bhagwatam. Varaali and Rehan are also needed here for Buddha avatar discussion.


I am posting the paragraph of  Buddha and Kalki from both the above sources. Interesting is that, Kalki will be Brahmin by birth but will again lift weapon for dharma like Parshuram (and also will be taught by Parshuram that thing I have come across many times in discussions in the forums). And do have a look at notes in the first link below Kalki avatar paragraph. Very interesting.

1st link part

**The 21st avatar is that of Buddha. (This is in the predictive tone and indicates the early period of the Kaliyuga).

*** "Thereafter, at the conjunction of two yugas, the Lord of the creation will take His birth as the Kalki incarnation and become the son of Vi??u Yasa. At this time the rulers of the earth will have degenerated into plunderers."

2nd link part 
23) BUDDHA AVATAR (Incarnation as Buddha) : The twenty-third incarnation of Lord Vishnu was as Lord Buddha. In the Kaliyuga the demons were completely subjugated by the deities. Shukracharya the teacher of the demons instigated the demons to perform Yagya so that they could regain power and authority. Fearing this the deities prayed to Lord Vishnu for help. Lord Vishnu took incarnation as Buddha and dissuaded the demons from performing Yagya as it involves violence the demons stopped 


24) KALKI AVATAR (Incarnation as Kalki) : At the end of Kaliyuga, when the sins would be 80, all pervading that the kings would themselves becomes thieves then Lord Vishnu would take his twenty-fourth incarnation as Kalki by taking birth in the village of 'Shambhal'. He would take birth in a Brahmin family of Vishnuyash. By killing and destroying the sinners, he would re-establish the superiority of Virtuosity and religiousness.


However, if Balram was Vishnu then Krishna had to be the 9th avatar since Balarama is older, and as per Bhagavatham that is wrong because Krishna was the 8th avatar only, after Rama. The 9th avatar had to come after Krishna.
Again this is based on theory of Dashaavatar.
 
I agree that there were far more than 10 avatars of Vishnu, as even Vishnu Puraan states this, but I think the dashavataars were the most prominent incarnations of Lord Vishnu because each of them had a goal of destroying evil.
 
Matysa avatar was meant to destroy the demon Hayagriva (recall that there is yet another incarnation of Vishnu named Hayagriva, but he is not a part of the dashavatara) and recreate the world by protecting a male and female of every species. Kurma avatara was meant to help the churning of the ocean so that the devtas could get the amrit and always have superiority over the demons. Varaha was meant to destroy Hiranyaksha and protect the Earth from being drowned. Narasimha was meant to kill Hiranyakashipu and protect the people from his tyranny. Vamana was meant to destroy the arrogance of Bali Chakravarthy and push him down to the patal lok since he was assisting the demons in having superiority over the devtas. Parashuram was meant to kill all the arrogant kshatriyas of Earth who had been stopping the sages from doing yagnas. Rama was meant to kill Ravan and protect the people from his tyranny. Like Rama, Krishna too was meant to kill several demons and protect the people, and Kalki is meant to destroy the world which will one day become so steeped in evil that people will forget right from wrong.
 
As you have noticed, all 9 of these avatars of Lord Vishnu somehow are action-related, and they include protecting people from evil. Though Vishnu had up to 22-24 avatars, not all of them were meant to destroy evil as some of them were sages who spread God's word to people. If Buddha was indeed an avatar of Vishnu, then I would include him among the 24 but not the dashavatara, as he never did anything to destroy evil and protect the people. He is comparable to Vyasa, who himself never fought but spread God's word. Though Vyasa is an amsa of Vishnu, that's why he's not among the dashavatara.
 
That's why it's difficult to say just who the 9th avatar is, but as per my family we believe it's Shri Venkateshwara because he too broke the pride of many kshatriya Kings and established Dharma, like Parashuram and Vamana. The only difference is that he was not born to any woman, and neither did he have a childhood as he came in his real form to Earth in search of Lakshmi Ma, who had left Vaikunta in anger after Sage Bhrigu had insulted them.
 
It's also easier for me to believe Venkateshwara as the 9th avatar of Vishnu in comparison to Buddha, because the story of Buddha isn't explained clearly in any scripture as per my understanding, and characters like Vishnu, Lakshmi, and the other devtas do not appear in the story like they do with every other of Vishnu's avatars. Sometime, it doesn't even seem to be a part of Hinduism though Buddha was born a Hindu.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

ShivangBuch

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
About Buddha & Vishnu

2 3

Proud-India 23 759 20 March 2014 at 4:42am
By .Vrish.
Himanshu Soni had played Vishnu in Zee TV Ramayan nneeiill 9 1923 30 October 2013 at 10:51am
By RoseFairy
Lord of Kings SRK-MS.DHONIfan 3 179 28 September 2013 at 4:20pm
By Ms.S.K.
Lord buddha is born in india

2

sandiya_21683 12 619 16 September 2013 at 7:15am
By jyoti06
Buddha-avatar of lord vishnu Joyel 7 490 10 September 2013 at 5:12pm
By SilverBell

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Buddha Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.