Buddha
Buddha

India-Forums

   

The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu??? (Page 5)

ShivangBuch Goldie
ShivangBuch
ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009
Posts: 1045

Posted: 22 July 2012 at 1:29pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

You are right that Lord Vishnu is not one-dimensional and that the manner he taught people was different as per the society he came into, but I also don't think his ultimate message would have changed drastically in another avatar. When he killed Ravan as Shri Ram and taught people that one must not misuse the power they get through a yagna, why would he dismiss yagnas altogether in another avatar? 
Totally agree.

Yagnas are extremely important to Hinduism because they bear fruit not just for the doer, but also the entire society. Not only are the devas pleased by yagnas, but also Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh.
Yes. Correct. But Yagna done with pride and show off - Tamas Yagna is still condemned and many and most yagnas of today are done that way and they don't help the cause of Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh. God's message can be (just the enlargement or enhancement of Adhyay 2 verses around 40) just to transfer the weight of behaviour from egoistic behaviour to simple pure behaviour. As if God saying - No point in worshiping idols or performing yagnas when you are not able to feed the poor and help needy or you are not feeling mercy for them. Leave this MITHYACHAR. You don't eat the remainder of yagya left after feeding all. You eat sin. You only invite specific relatives to your Yagna. You don't invite public in general whosoever wants to come and eat the Prasad. Your entry is selective and your own imposed criteria and not the free will of the person who wants to attend. You don't attend the entire locality around or entire village to give them food for free (like Bhandara). I think such Tamas yagnas (majority of today) are not the message of Vedas or Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh so nothing wrong in even discouraging them. Three types of Yagnas - Satvik, Rajasik, Taamasik - are given in Adhyay 17 of Geeta.
 
To tell the truth, it's very difficult to say blatantly whether Buddha was Vishnu avatar or not, because there may be a lot of things we do not know about him. However, if Buddha did advocate against idol worship, yagnas, and rituals, then I cannot accept him as an avatar of Vishnu because while Vishnu did support all modes of worship in the Bhagawad Gita, he never supported a person following one form of worship while condeming another. It's very true that people connect to God different. Some can feel the essence of God only by doing pujas and yagnas, while others can feel the essence of God simply by hearing his name and stories. Neither mode of worship is wrong, but to condemn one form while advocating the other is not God's message, and if Buddha preached that the rituals of Hinduism are wrong, then he cannot be an avatar of Vishnu.
Correct. I totally agree with your view here. But then again as in my previous paragraph, it is important what was the intention (and level of disappointment or psychology of Buddha was behind discouraging certain behavioural practices) behind doing it whether you want to discourage Yagnas or false show off of yagna. Whether you want to discourage all kinds of yagnas or only those which are non-genuine. 

However, the Buddha mentioned in Bhagawatham may be different from the Gautama Buddha we know today, or even yet, the one mentioned in Bhagawatham may be the same but Buddha's message may have been distorted by people through the age. Even Buddha happened a long time ago, so we cannot exactly know what he did say or not, because his story was not written down as clearly as Vishnu's other avatars, and moreover, a whole new religion was created based upon his teachings. I do not know whether he himself created Buddhism or his followers created it because they wanted to break away from Hinduism, but if Buddha was indeed an avatar of Lord Vishnu, then his message should be more or less similar to the message his other avatars preached, though obviously also having differences since the society of Kali Yug is also different from Dwapar or Treta Yugs.
I agree with everything yet again.

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

Debipriya.Vrish...RamKiJanaki..

ShivangBuch Goldie
ShivangBuch
ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009
Posts: 1045

Posted: 22 July 2012 at 1:36pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

Originally posted by ShivangBuch

And in Kaliyug is the era of most sins but the absolute sinners are not that powerful like Ravan or Kans. Now the sin is spreaded and divided among ordinary  people.
 
This is true, but I'd also like to make a point that terrorists can be comparable to Ravan and Kans. In fact, I'd hold Ravan in a higher light than the terrorists because while he did do sins, he was also learned in Vedas and did lots of penance. Kans on the other hand has nothing good to say about himself so he's very much comparable to the terrorists of today.
 
To deal with such terrorists, someone like Rama or Krishna is necessary for our society, but I guess that's where Kalki avatar comes in since during Buddha's times, there probably weren't any terrorists, right?
Lol. Right. That terrorist thing did in fact come in my mind also. But again. Those terrorists can be compared with Bakasur-Aghasur kind of absolute demons large in number (still not possessing super powers or mayavi vidhya but only man made powerful destructive weapons and dangerous determinations) rather than 1 all powerful greatest of villains among them all. There is no one single terrorist to kill whom, God needs to incarnate. Anyone can be killed by ordinary humans (Some heroic ones too may be) also in an encounter or war. Even people like Bheem, Bhishma, Dashrath, Pandu could do that.

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya.Vrish.varaali..RamKiJanaki..

ShivangBuch Goldie
ShivangBuch
ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009
Posts: 1045

Posted: 22 July 2012 at 1:42pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by varaali

As I understand, there are two points under discussion:

  1. Whether the Buddha mentioned in SB and  Gautama Buddha are one and the same.
  2. If so, how did the principles which Gautama preached differ so radically from the tenets of Hinduism.
As I mentioned in my previous post, it is mentioned in SB, that Buddha, the 21st avatar of Lord Vishnu would manifest Himself in the first half of Kali Yuga as the son of Anjana Devi and would be born in the region of Gaya.

Now the Gautama Buddha that we are familiar with was born to Maya devi in Nepal, but his enlightenment took place in Bodh Gaya. That can be said to be his second birth.  So one fact in SB is corroborated.

Now to the second point- If Buddha's overly pacifist teachings went against the grain of Hinduism, how can he be accepted as a legitimate avatar of Vishnu?

The answer to this also lies in SB itself which says that in the Buddha avatar which Vishnu will take he will talk and lecture (a lot ) - not on religion- but on social and moral principles. So, the SB itself says that in His avatar as Buddha, he will not preach religious doctrines. To that extent, we need not wonder why Buddha did not encourage religious rituals.

Moreover, one more key point emerges in SB here. It says that Buddha will take avatar when scientific knowledge advances to such levels as launching invisible rockets in outer space with a view of whole scale destruction. Then Buddha will try to 'divert'  (mati vimoham) their minds by preaching non violence. Obviously, such level of technology did not exist during Gautama Buddha's time- but it could also have been Vyasa's poetic hyperbole.


Perhaps the most systematic post of the thread and summary of recent contents of the thread. Possibly Vyas considered broadly the happenings of Kaliyug spread over many many years (and 2000 are many years but for him while creating SB, out of total years of Kaliyug, they were nothing). So looking from that point, Buddha's arrival and atom bomb produced have not much time interval in between. Buddha could have foreseen the near future (coming future of next 20-25 centuries) and could have preached the society to be away from those forthcoming course of events.


Edited by ShivangBuch - 23 July 2012 at 1:06am

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya.Vrish.varaali..RamKiJanaki..

varaali IF-Dazzler
varaali
varaali

Joined: 17 July 2006
Posts: 2806

Posted: 22 July 2012 at 11:48pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

^^ That sounds valid Varaali, but I still have one small doubt. Did Buddha actually preach against religious practices or did he just not talk about them? Because if it's the latter, that's totally acceptable and may have been necessary for those times.
 
As you yourself have said, we cannot be totally sure what was actually  preached by Gautama himself and what was later on added / distorted by his disciples. Maybe Gautama  urged the people give more importance to the way they lived their lives, than to the rituals they performed. This probably was distorted by disciples to imply as if Gautama was against religious practices. This is purely my conjecture. 


Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

And did Vyasa mention launching rockets, or was he indicating that in latter Kali Yug that would happen, as well as atomic bombs and  all which cause greatr destruction?

Yes, he is hinting at weapons of mass destruction capable of large scale destruction 

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

DebipriyaShivangBuch.Vrish...RamKiJanaki..

.Vrish. Viewbie
.Vrish.
.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008
Posts: 21200

Posted: 23 July 2012 at 6:48am | IP Logged
Originally posted by ShivangBuch

Originally posted by .Vrish.

Incidentally, Buddha being missed in DkDM as one of Vishnu's avatars when Shiva was doing his Nata dance was briefly touched on here


One poster made a pretty good point that what Sidhartha did - abandoning his family in pursuit of moksha - was against Karmaic laws, which is incidentally what Krishna advised Arjun against doing in the Gita.
Baalak dhruv became tapasvi at child age. Shankara left his family at child age. Vivekanand also left his family at young age. Can you quote the exact verse of Geeta where Krishna specifically tells Arjun not to become Sanyasi even if one is a true sanyasi by mind?

I don't have my Gita on me, so can't cite any verses.  But no, there is nothing against becoming a sanyasi, but usually, when people did it, they normally left others to handle their worldly responsibilities.  Like Vishwamitra did.  Or when each ancestor of Rama retired to take up sanyas, they first installed their sons as their successors and then went.  Different from Buddha, who instead of asking Rahul to succeed Sudhodhana, took him into the sangha and probably saw the end of his father's dynasty.

On your other example above, Dhruva and Buddha's tapasya couldn't be more different from each other.  Dhruva did not have a plan to renounce the world - he wanted to win back his right to his father, which is why he went into meditation.  Vishnu granted him that he'd get that, and also succeed his father as king, whereas in Buddha's case, even after he got enlightened, not only did he not return, but his wife and son joined the Sangha.  Essentially, anybody who could fulfill the karmaic duties of succeeding his father were, AFAIK gone.  In fact, Dhruva is a perfect example of why Buddha was not the ideal path to follow.

Shankara and Vivekanand were more latter examples, and with all due respect, can't be held up as reinforcements of what Vedic religious practices, as done during the first 3 yugas, were.  Indeed, it would be very tough to take any of their teachings, and project it back to rationalize activities of Rama, Krishna, Arjun or anyone else, even though they take the actions of these divine figures and built up various philosophies surrounding their activities.  But one can't for certain claim the reverse cause-effect.  A lot of what was done by Shankara, Ramakrishna & Vivekananda was reformation of Hinduism, and that too, a subset of followers.  Which is absolutely valid, but once you start reforming anything, there are departures from the original traditions that may or may not be supported by the shastras,.  This of course doesn't mean that it's not Hindu or not valid in Hinduism, but it does make it likelier that the original shastras did not factor in these latter philosophers in mind, not only for obvious reasons of preceding them by millennia, but also, due to variances in the very messages themselves, be they about rituals, sacrifices, or whatever.

Actually aside from Varaali's speculations above, I think we bypassed a more basic definition - what did we use as our benchmark to define whether a person or religion was/is Hindu?  For something in those times, I'd look @ its compatibility w/ the ancient Hindu scriptures, and whether they followed those or not - particularly the Vedas, the Puranas and the Upanishads.  Granted, some texts, such as Manu's Smritis, could be revised over time, since they were written by humans and transmitted orally, and wouldn't be constant over time independent of society (although it did remain unchallenged for the first 3 yugas).

I also think that this religious compatibility thing is something like software.  If you bought an app 15 years ago that ran on Windows 95, that app would not run today under Windows 7, but that doesn't mean that either of those OSs are not Windows.  It does however mean that Windows 7 has features that not only were not there under Windows 95, but can't be supported there either.  Similarly, there are practices in the ancient scriptures that would be either impossible or illegal to try doing today - to take a very innocuous example, try doing an Ashwamedha yagna anywhere in India today, and it would be laughed @.  This is not b'cos the Ashwamedha Yagna is not a Hindu tradition or that today's Hindu's ain't Hindus, it's b'cos the 'versions' of Hinduism have changed over the millennia.

I don't deny that Buddha was Hindu, although it is fair to say that the religion he started is different from Hinduism to warrant being classified as different.  To continue the software analogy above, just like Firefox forked from the original Netscape, similarly, Buddhism (and Jainism and Sikhism) forked from Hinduism, and Christianity forked from Judaism.  Of course, there are differences and points where those parallels end - Christianity still has a place honoring the Old Testament, whereas Buddhism doesn't have any such place for the Vedas or the Puranas.

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

ShivangBuchvaraali..RamKiJanaki..

lola610 IF-Rockerz
lola610
lola610

Joined: 03 November 2008
Posts: 7515

Posted: 23 July 2012 at 2:54pm | IP Logged
Primero, thank you all for a very thorough and well-executed discussion.

Originally posted by .Vrish.

[QUOTE=ShivangBuch][QUOTE=.Vrish.]
I also think that this religious compatibility thing is something like software.  If you bought an app 15 years ago that ran on Windows 95, that app would not run today under Windows 7, but that doesn't mean that either of those OSs are not Windows.  It does however mean that Windows 7 has features that not only were not there under Windows 95, but can't be supported there either.  Similarly, there are practices in the ancient scriptures that would be either impossible or illegal to try doing today - to take a very innocuous example, try doing an Ashwamedha yagna anywhere in India today, and it would be laughed @.  This is not b'cos the Ashwamedha Yagna is not a Hindu tradition or that today's Hindu's ain't Hindus, it's b'cos the 'versions' of Hinduism have changed over the millennia.


^^ I like that! Well said. Clap Having read about what all the Ashwamedh Yagna actually entailed, I completely agree LOL j/k... those have always been my views on religion and IMO that's how it should be; while maintaining certain core beliefs we should adapt our practices according to our time and place. Just wouldn't have been able to phrase it as creatively. Putting that practical conclusion together with the evidence and related inferences from the Bhagavat Puran that Varaali provided, I have no doubts about how to reconcile the idea that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu with the differences between his philosophies and those of earlier incarnations. He was preaching to, and in preparation of, a society capable of more self-destruction than the villains of the past, and so he aimed to prevent as many as he could from taking advantage of those capabilities and wreak havoc on innocent people. It's like gun control laws, the one political issue I feel very strongly about which due to a recent tragedy are back in the news again here. People say we have a right to bear arms and protect ourselves, I say that with the number of crazy people who get their hands on them, we're better off tightening restrictions  - then there'd be nothing to protect ourselves from. Similarly if nonviolence was practiced by everyone (a societal value, as Varaali said, not an individual religious duty), then there would be no violent people to righteously wage war against. Makes sense to me. Thank you all for a very thorough and well-executed discussion.

In fact, I never had as much trouble wrapping my head around that incarnation as I did with Parshuram. On that note, there's a topic I'd like to discuss, but I'm wondering where to put it. The day before yesterday I watched the final installment of Nolan's Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises (loved and highly recommend it, as I do the whole trilogy - IMO the best examples of the superhero genre ever). As this genre often does, it brought to mind several mytho-related concepts and observations. One in particular that I'd like to discuss - the contrast between Bruce Wayne/Batman and R'as Al Ghul. The latter seeks to "restore balance to the universe" through mass destruction, targeting Batman's own Gotham City because it's become a hub of greed and corruption. Wayne disagrees of course, preferring to inspire change by providing a positive example for those who have potential and going after only those who don't, instead of simply wiping everyone out without a second thought. Below is a piece of their conversation from the first film:
Ghul: Only a cynical man would call what these people have "lives," Wayne. Crime. Despair. This was not how man was supposed to live. The League of Shadows has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years. We sacked Rome, loaded trade ships with plague rats. Burned London to the ground. Every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of its decadence, we return to restore the balance.
Wayne: Gotham isn't beyond saving. Give me more time. There are good people here.
Ghul: You are defending a city so corrupt, we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure... It should be you standing by my side, saving the world.
Wayne: I'll be standing where I belong: between you, and the people of Gotham.

There's a parallel in the contrast between their worldviews and certain characters found in our mythos. I hesitate to draw it directly since R'as Al Ghul is a terrorist and supervillain unlike anyone we could think of comparing him to, but just that idea of destroying anyone and everyone to "restore balance" versus protecting good and targeting evil really jumped out at me. Sooo... anybody on board, and if so should we do it here since we're already talking about the differences between avataars, should I dig up the old Parshuram topic (not that I know where it was), or shall we broaden the Harry Potter - Hindu Mythology thread to discuss all such parallels with western works of fantasy there?



Edited by lola610 - 23 July 2012 at 3:18pm

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

DebipriyaShivangBuch.Vrish.

Kal El IF-Rockerz
Kal El
Kal El

Joined: 12 December 2006
Posts: 9999

Posted: 23 July 2012 at 3:12pm | IP Logged
I am trying to avoid TDKR spoilers but they just won't leave me alone. Not even in the forum about mythology. D'oh

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

.Vrish.

lola610 IF-Rockerz
lola610
lola610

Joined: 03 November 2008
Posts: 7515

Posted: 23 July 2012 at 3:17pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Kal El

I am trying to avoid TDKR spoilers but they just won't leave me alone. Not even in the forum about mythology. D'oh


sorry sorry sorry LOL but you're safe! everything in my post is from batman begins. if not, I'll double check and edit accordingly. enjoy the movie!

--edited--

Yep, just checked, safe :)


Edited by lola610 - 23 July 2012 at 3:18pm

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

ShivangBuch.Vrish.Kal El

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
About Buddha & Vishnu

2 3

Author: Proud-India   Replies: 23   Views: 857

Proud-India 23 857 20 March 2014 at 4:42am by .Vrish.
Himanshu Soni had played Vishnu in Zee TV Ramayan

Author: nneeiill   Replies: 9   Views: 2343

nneeiill 9 2343 30 October 2013 at 10:51am by RoseFairy
Lord of Kings

Author: SRK-MS.DHONIfan   Replies: 3   Views: 211

SRK-MS.DHONIfan 3 211 28 September 2013 at 4:20pm by Ms.S.K.
Lord buddha is born in india

2

Author: sandiya_21683   Replies: 12   Views: 680

sandiya_21683 12 680 16 September 2013 at 7:15am by jyoti06
Buddha-avatar of lord vishnu

Author: Joyel   Replies: 7   Views: 565

Joyel 7 565 10 September 2013 at 5:12pm by SilverBell

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Buddha Topic Index

  • Please login to check your Last 10 Topics posted

Check these Celebrity also

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.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index