Buddha

   

The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu??? (Page 7)

Post Reply New Post

Page 7 of 11

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1032

Posted: 25 July 2012 at 8:40am | IP Logged
Originally posted by .Vrish.

In this case, I'm not sure about what happened to that dynasty - not very familiar w/ Nepali history.  I asked last weeks MOTW - a Nepali - about it, and she said that the kingdom was probably annexed by the Senas or the Shah dynasty.  Essentially, Sudhodhana's dynasty was over as a result of Siddhartha's actions.
Was it invaded and won by outsiders or subjects were properly handed over by Sidhdharth to a relative dynasty?


Actually, I think that would only be true for Vaishnavs - Shaivyas wouldn't be using the Geeta as the sole book by which to live.
If they consider Geeta to be said by Krishna then they may not accept it to be the sole book. If they see to it as verdict of Supreme speaking through Krishna (May it be Shiv or Durga or anyone), they may accept it to be sole book to guide. I know Shaiva friends who consider it to be acceptable like this. My own family is the follower of Shaivism.

But its DONTs very clearly negate what's allowed in Hinduism.  To continue w/ my example, idolatry is not unlawful, so if a non-Hindu religion condemns idolatry and worse, cracks down on it, then it's very much anti-Hindu in that it's inserting a restriction that doesn't exist in the original.
What you call anti-Hindu, I call it anti-subset of Hinduism. That's precisely my point. Nothing else. What I say and what you say is otherwise not different. Only a matter of terminology or way of defining more than interpreting actually.


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

Debipriya

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 7)" 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!

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1032

Posted: 25 July 2012 at 9:04am | IP Logged
Originally posted by bhas1066

1. Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas as well as the previous Avatars
regarded by Hindus...
Rama and Parasurama disputed over the destruction of Shiva Dhanus. But
Parasurama instantly recognized the Vishnu in Rama and reconciled with him.
No such reconciliation is to be seen with Buddha and the Vedas.
Very well framed conclusion.

2. Buddha never claimed that he is God or an avatar of God.He did not show any
miraculous powers. When a mother who had lost her child to snake bite sought
Buddha's help,  he  advised her that all life is sorrowful and to participate in
the sorrows of life cheerfully. (though this teaching holds true , it doesnt exalt him as an avatar of Vishnu)
Ram of Valmiki Ramayan never claimed himself to be an avatar of God. Neither Parashuram I guess. Did Parashuram demonstrate any miraculous powers (like Ram did in case of Ahalya Uddhar unintentionally by just following the instruction of Vishwamitra)?

3. Buddha was a rebellious reformer. He did accept some Hindu concepts such as
reincarnation, and expanded on some others such as Ahimsa. In comparison,
Mahatma Gandhi and Sai Baba make a better choice as one of the ten avatars of
Vishnu rather than Buddha.
Mahatma Gandhi??? An incarnation of Vishnu??? You mean to say those who were of the path of Ahinsa but didn't reject the Yagna at the same time are better examples of Vishnu's greater or smaller ansh in them? Is my interpretation correct?

4. Buddhist texts themselves do not link Buddha to any of the avatars of
Vishnu.

5. Mahaveera, a contemporary of Buddha, has more similarities to Buddha.
However, no attempt has been made to call him as one of the 10 avatars of
Vishnu.
Lord Mahaveera was 24th out of 24 tirthankars of Jainism. Lord Rishabhdev was 1st out of 24 tirthankars of Jainism. And Rishabhdev is counted as one of the 22 avatars of Vishnu.

6. Buddha discovered truth by himself. Even if the truth he discovered may not
be different from that proclaimed by the Hindu sages prior to him. Let it be
that. After all isn't  it also true that anyone can independently discover the
same truth?
What I can interpret in this point is that you mean to say that what Buddha realized and preached is the journey not different from many many sages of Hindu epics and purans. So he can be said to be a sage soul (rather than God's incarnation) and no different from them. He was not self realized like Krishna by birth. Can Valmiki Ramayan Ram and Parashuram be said to be self realized by birth? What was the life journey of knowledge realization of Sage Kapil and Lord Dattatreya? Was Vyas a self realized soul by birth? BTW, all the creatures have more or less Vishnu's ansh or Kalaas. So if Vishnu's incarnations had 10 kalaas minimum (not sure whether 10 avataars had that or 22/24 avatars), all sages or noble men could still have kalaas around 7 or 8. Ansha of God.




Edited by ShivangBuch - 25 July 2012 at 9:07am

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

Debipriya

bhas1066

Senior Member

bhas1066

Joined: 08 January 2011

Posts: 413

Posted: 25 July 2012 at 9:38am | IP Logged
Originally posted by ShivangBuch

Originally posted by bhas1066

1. Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas as well as the previous Avatars
regarded by Hindus...
Rama and Parasurama disputed over the destruction of Shiva Dhanus. But
Parasurama instantly recognized the Vishnu in Rama and reconciled with him.
No such reconciliation is to be seen with Buddha and the Vedas.
Very well framed conclusion.

2. Buddha never claimed that he is God or an avatar of God.He did not show any
miraculous powers. When a mother who had lost her child to snake bite sought
Buddha's help,  he  advised her that all life is sorrowful and to participate in
the sorrows of life cheerfully. (though this teaching holds true , it doesnt exalt him as an avatar of Vishnu)
Ram of Valmiki Ramayan never claimed himself to be an avatar of God. Neither Parashuram I guess. Did Parashuram demonstrate any miraculous powers (like Ram did in case of Ahalya Uddhar unintentionally by just following the instruction of Vishwamitra)?

3. Buddha was a rebellious reformer. He did accept some Hindu concepts such as
reincarnation, and expanded on some others such as Ahimsa. In comparison,
Mahatma Gandhi and Sai Baba make a better choice as one of the ten avatars of
Vishnu rather than Buddha.
Mahatma Gandhi??? An incarnation of Vishnu??? You mean to say those who were of the path of Ahinsa but didn't reject the Yagna at the same time are better examples of Vishnu's greater or smaller ansh in them? Is my interpretation correct?


4. Buddhist texts themselves do not link Buddha to any of the avatars of
Vishnu.

5. Mahaveera, a contemporary of Buddha, has more similarities to Buddha.
However, no attempt has been made to call him as one of the 10 avatars of
Vishnu.
Lord Mahaveera was 24th out of 24 tirthankars of Jainism. Lord Rishabhdev was 1st out of 24 tirthankars of Jainism. And Rishabhdev is counted as one of the 22 avatars of Vishnu.

6. Buddha discovered truth by himself. Even if the truth he discovered may not
be different from that proclaimed by the Hindu sages prior to him. Let it be
that. After all isn't  it also true that anyone can independently discover the
same truth?
What I can interpret in this point is that you mean to say that what Buddha realized and preached is the journey not different from many many sages of Hindu epics and purans. So he can be said to be a sage soul (rather than God's incarnation) and no different from them. He was not self realized like Krishna by birth. Can Valmiki Ramayan Ram and Parashuram be said to be self realized by birth? What was the life journey of knowledge realization of Sage Kapil and Lord Dattatreya? Was Vyas a self realized soul by birth? BTW, all the creatures have more or less Vishnu's ansh or Kalaas. So if Vishnu's incarnations had 10 kalaas minimum (not sure whether 10 avataars had that or 22/24 avatars), all sages or noble men could still have kalaas around 7 or 8. Ansha of God.





Hi ShivangBuch
sorry not mahatma gandhi as an avatar!!D'oh didnt come out right! Silly but more like sai baba i would say.  he preached the same and is also prayed.

in the last point (6) i meant to say that he could be a great saint but not necessarily an avatar... in that way. emohasis on  "could"

Bhargav Parasuram may not have done miracles but there are some legends saying that he did perform tasks outside the scope of a normal human. Like He went to Kalilash and learnt martial arts from Shiva himself!! He fought back the advancing ocean of the malabar and konkan coastAnd he had the ability to teleport ( "mann ki gati "). He is also a chiranjeevi supposedly to be the guru of Kalki avatar.


BTW these are just my conclusion / interpretations of whatever has been said till now in this topic. i was myself trying to make  out the answer to my question hence consolidated the points in favour and against Buddha as the 9th avatar. ( and wasn't successfull!!Unhappy. still myself confused!!) . Didint mean to disapprove or offend. In fact i would be glad to have answers for these points against Buddha as it will clear my doubts ,..like the point of Mahaveera ... i didnt know that!!

No hard feelings or indignation please.


Edited by bhas1066 - 25 July 2012 at 10:18am

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

DebipriyaShivangBuch.Vrish.

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1032

Posted: 25 July 2012 at 9:55am | IP Logged
Originally posted by bhas1066


Hi ShivangBuch

BTW these are just my conclusion / interpretations of whatever has been said till now in this topic.
Of course. That was clear in your post (although there were quite a few new added points as well). I just asked for confirmation whether what I interpreted from your summarized well compiled conclusion paragraphs was correct or not.

i was myself trying to make  out the answer to my question hence consolidated the points in favour and against Buddha as the 9th avatar. ( and wasn't successfull!!Unhappy. still myself confused!!) . Didint mean to disapprove or offend. In fact i would be glad to have answers for these points against Buddha as it will clear my doubts ,..like the point of Mahaveera ... i didnt know that!!
And the point of Geet Govind I didn't know. Smile Well what we can get through this discussions are the logical inputs of all and we can be clearer in the process and the process is ongoing. One can't be absolutely sure in this but Varaali still has come up with many objective evidences and Lola is absolutely sure in her feelings about Buddha. So I have personally enjoyed and have gained only through this thread. Vrish and Janaki's views are also firm. Probably you are just confused because both views are firm. But both the views are very valid and logical and openminded. And logical arguments haven't actually ended. We are still in harmonization process of thoughts.

No hard feelings or indignation please.
Not at all. Where did you see hard feelings in my post???!!!!!!!!! All were questions asking for clarification or confirmation of what I understood. Questioning is not disagreement. Even logical disagreement in a debate is not what can be called hard feeling.


Edited by ShivangBuch - 25 July 2012 at 9:58am

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

Debipriya

bhas1066

Senior Member

bhas1066

Joined: 08 January 2011

Posts: 413

Posted: 25 July 2012 at 10:18am | IP Logged
@ ShivangBuch
than god u r not offended!!! its just that while in some other forums esp mytho ones people are so passionate on their belief that it leads to them  bashing others as they get hurt by remarks opposing their belief. hence was clarifying beforehand!! i have just only started posting and u r a senior member so thats y i was unsure.

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

DebipriyaShivangBuch

ShivangBuch

Goldie

ShivangBuch

Joined: 31 August 2009

Posts: 1032

Posted: 25 July 2012 at 10:28am | IP Logged
Smile Oh no no. Not at all offended. In fact, if I am a senior member and you are new member, then on the contrary, I am not supposed to get offended. Big smile Right? Wink Actually I was surprised by your such worry since you must have read many of my posts by now in this thread itself only discussing about opposite views.LOL


And your post in fact was one of the best posts of the thread since it was very well compiled and systematic and open minded and neutral. Highly unbiased and balanced in terms of concluding different views.


Edited by ShivangBuch - 25 July 2012 at 10:41am

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

Debipriya

varaali

IF-Dazzler

varaali

Joined: 17 July 2006

Posts: 2597

Posted: 25 July 2012 at 11:12pm | IP Logged
We seem to be going around in circles.Presently the question in circulation seems to be twofold :

  • Whether Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu or not
  • If so, does he figure in the top 10, or in the larger group of 22?
Let me try to summarize everybody's arguments:

Vrish 's : objection to Gautama Buddha is that in his search for enlightenment, he abandoned his family / kingdom midway without providing for their future. This act of renunciation / abandonment is not sanctified by scriptures, hence this counts against him. Verdict : Cannot be considered an avatar

Janaki : allows Buddha to be an avatar but in the larger group of 22, not in the Dasha Avatar subsect

Shivang : Not all the avatars of Vishnu need to have had identical philosophies. Each avatar was distinct / different from each other. Similarly, despite all the arguments marshalled against Gautama, he can be considered an avatar. Verdict : Can be considered an avatar , that too in the top ten.

Varaali : Now,first of all, I would like to ask who's word do we take as the final authority?  For me, I would like to consider Srimad Bhagavatham / Veda Vyasa  as the guiding source.  And here, there are answers to the questions raised in this thread.

As I said earlier, SB mentions 22 avatars of Vishnu. Let us forget the subsect of Dasha Avatars for a minute and concentrate on the bigger list of 22. In that list, there are avatars as diverse as Kurma (who did nothing put to support the mountain) , King Prithu, Sage Kapila , Mohini and the four Sanat Kumaras.

It is in this list that Buddha is included. Our problem in reconciling with Buddha seems to be the fact that the  tenets that he preached  seem to go against the pillars on which Hinduism stood . My answer to that is this was what he was supposed to do anyway. His birth and his preachings had been predicted at the dawn of Kali Yuga itself. 

Srimad Bhagavtham, Veda Vyasa and Suta Goswami had no problems with accepting the fact that in His next incarnation as Buddha, Vishnu is not going to talk about the Vedas, yagnas, rituals,  etc but will preach on more basic, fundamental  social ethics. 

It is also said in SB itself that such an unique / different avatar will be required because  of the turbulent times the world will be passing through. Scientific knowledge would have advanced so much that men would be shooting invisible rockets / missiles into outer space which will hold a threat of not only destroying life on Earth, but lives(if at all)  on other spheres as well. 

So I am not going to reject Gautama Buddha's claim to avatar hood just because he did not give importance to what is considered sacrosanct in Hinduism. If SB, Vyasa and  Suta have allowed him to be an avatr who am I to question it ?

But that doesn't mean I am going to start celebrating Buddha Jayanti with gusto (except maybe to wish Shivang on his birthday Big smile) . That is because over a period of years, Buddha's followers have changed the colour of his teachings so much that it today stands as a separate religion which makes it difficult for us Hindus to accept them as a part of our faith, let alone accept their founder as an  embodiment of our God. 

Personally though I must admit that while teaching my children, I have found it  more comfortable to include Balarama in, and leave out Buddha. But it is a different story that I don't give much importance to the Top Ten. I like the larger, more inclusive list of 22. 








Edited by varaali - 25 July 2012 at 11:11pm

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

ShivangBuch

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

.Vrish.

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 18819

Posted: 25 July 2012 at 11:50pm | IP Logged
Good argument by Varaali above.  Buddha being one of 22 avatars I don't necessarily contest, but him being one of the 10 is more eye raising.

But if Balarama can be considered an avatar of Vishnu separate from Krishna, then why can't Lakshman, Bharat & Shatrughan be considered separate from Rama?  By that count, Vishnu would have 14 avatars instead of 10, no?

In Valmiki, all 4 brothers were a part of Vishnu's avatar itself - there was no Lakshman being Sesha Naag, Bharat being Panchjanya or Shatrughan being the Sudarshan.  It was right from the payasa itself.  However, since Vishnu was there in that one bowl of payasa, mathematically, Rama was 1/2 Vishnu, Lakshman was 1/4 Vishnu and Bharata & Shatrughan 1/8 Vishnu.  Which is why Rama is explained as a single avatar.

In the case of Krishna & Balarama, I'm not sure about what SB says, but if one goes by the Mahabharata, in Mausala Parva, @ the time Krishna sees his passing, a huge long serpant left his mouth and went into the sea, implying that Vyasa subscribed to the theory that Balarama was more an avatar of Sesha naag than Vishnu himself.  OTOH, one of the other Puranas - Vishnu Puran I think - has it that 2 hairs were plucked off Vishnu's head - one white, the other black.  The former became Balarama, and the latter Krishna.  That theory would be more akin to the Shaivya theory of avatars, like Hanuman being born of Mahadev's limbs.  Regardless, I think that in the Dasha Avatar scenario, the case for having Balarama as different from Krishna is pretty weak.

But harking back to my question @ the start of the thread, why not count Mohini as the 3rd avatar, after Kurma?  After the ocean was churned, Garuda was instructed to take the mountain back to where he brought it from.  Kurma's avatar was over, and Vishnu, seeing the devas and asuras fight over the amrit, and the asuras having taken possession of it, decided to trick them out of it.  So he took on Mohini's form, seduced the asuras into making her the distributor, gave it all to the devas (except for Rahu-Ketu) and then took back his form again.  That would seem to make Mohini the third avatar, and shift everyone else down by 1 - Varaha being the 4th, Vamana the 5th,... Rama the 8th and Krishna the 9th.  Only problem for scriptural numerologists - it disrupts a major significance of the #8 and Krishna if he's no longer the 8th avatar of Vishnu.

It's true that Mohini re-surfaced on other occasions to help Mahadev against Bhashmasura, and again to help create a son Ayappa to slay Mahishi.  But would that disqualify her from the list?

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
About Buddha & Vishnu

2 3

Proud-India 23 512 20 March 2014 at 4:42am
By .Vrish.
Himanshu Soni had played Vishnu in Zee TV Ramayan nneeiill 9 1177 30 October 2013 at 10:51am
By RoseFairy
Lord of Kings SRK-MS.DHONIfan 3 136 28 September 2013 at 4:20pm
By Ms.S.K.
Lord buddha is born in india

2

sandiya_21683 12 529 16 September 2013 at 7:15am
By jyoti06
Buddha-avatar of lord vishnu Joyel 7 370 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.