Jump to content

The Buddha was not an avatar (proof)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



I figured I should put together some info, for the convenience of the public.




I feel all sorts of warm fuzzies inside knowing that someone out there had a heart for community service. It's always nice to know that someone will appoint himself to the position of relieving the rest of us of our ignorance.




Smriti [viz. Puranas] calls the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Thus the teaching of the Buddha is the teaching of Vishnu.


This is to be proved false.




this should be fun...




Traditional Proof:


1. Vishnu being God cannot lie, for otherwise the Vedas themselves have to be doubted as eternal truth.





This is wrong for two reasons.


First, whether or not Vishnu can lie has no bearing on the authority of the Vedas. Vedas are apaurusheya - not authored by anyone, including Vishnu. All Vedaantists know this.


Secondly, since when is it that Vishnu, the Supreme Lord, cannot lie? Jahnava-Nitai brought several examples:




The Gita says Krishna is the cheat of the cheats. If one accepts there is a God, then it is pointless to try to limit him according to one's opinion of what he should be like. As Mohini Avatara he cheated the Asuras. As Krishna he told Yudhisthira to tell a lie. As Vamana He cheated Bali out of his land. And as Buddha he tricked the fallen brahmanas so that they would stop killing animals.




To which Shvu responded that no lying was involved in the above examples. Apparently Shvu is of the opinion that a lie of omission is not a lie, misleading someone by concealing one's identity is not dishonest, and hence Vishnu never lies to anyone. To say that this is absurd is self-evident. But let's look at other examples of Vishnu's trickiness:


In Mahaabhaarata, Krishna encouraged Yudhishthira to tell Drona that "Ashvathaama is dead" just to make Drona vulnerable, who was otherwise unbeatable on the battlefield. Bhiima even killed an elephant who just happened to be named Ashvathaama, to make this easier for Yudhishthira, though it was not (since he knew it to be a lie).


In the Bhaagavatam, Vishnu disguised Himself as a brahmachaari to save Lord Shiva from the powers of Vrikaasura. He *explicitly* lied by telling Vrikaasura that Lord Shiva cannot be trusted to have given the requested boon:


shrii bhagavaan uvaacha

eva.m chettarhi tadvaakya.m na vaya.m shraddadhiimahi |

yo dakShashaapaatpaishaachya.m praaptaH pretapishaacharaaT || bhaa 10.88.32 ||


So much for the theory that Vishnu cannot lie. The idea that the omnipotent, omnisicient, and omnipresent Lord Vishnu *cannot* do anything is foolish.




2. Vedantins are agreed that Sruti is authority for it is the word of God and is eternal truth. Smriti is written by man and so is authority only when it does not contradict Sruti.





Which Vedaantin says that shruti is the "word of God?" Shrutis are unauthored by everyone including God. If someone says shruti is "word of God," he is not trying to say that God created them. Most likely what is meant by the phrase (assuming the Vedaantin knows what he is talking about) is that Vedas were first spoken by God to Brahmaa and then onwards.


You say that smriti is written by man, but by such a definition of smriti, Puraanas would not be included. The shrutis clearly state that the Puraanas are of divine origin:


R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha |

uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 ||


The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24).


sa yathaardraidhaagnerabhyaahitaatpR^ithagdhuumaa vinishcharanti eva.m vaaare'syamahato bhuutasya niHshvasitametadyadR^igvedo yajurvedaH saamavedao'tharvaaN^girasa itihaasaH puraaNa.m vidyaa upaniShadaH shlokaaH suutraaNyanuvyaakhyaanaani vyaakhyaanaani asyaivaitaani niHshvasitaani || BU 2.4.10 ||


As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth, so, my dear, verily, from this Glorious Great God has been breathed forth the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharvaangirasa, Itihaasa, Puraanas, Science of knowledge, Mystic Doctrines of Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries. From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth (bR^ihadaaranyakopaniShad 2.4.10).


Thus, Puraanas enjoy the same authority as Vedas.




3. The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas and postulated an anti-vedic philosophy of Sunya-vada.





Which again, has no bearing on whether or not Buddha is Vishnu. Having established that Vishnu can lie (not that it needs establishing), all we need is a pramaana saying that Buddha is Vishnu. Such a pramaana is found in the Bhaagavatam. End of story.






The Puranas came centuries after the Buddha's time and was cooked up by a bunch of Brahmana scholars with vested interests and thus is summarily rejected.





Note the utter lack of anything resembling evidence for the above. The shruti pramaanas quoted by me show that the Puraanas originated with the Supreme Lord and hence are not written by men.




Common objection: What makes you say that the Puranas came after the Buddha?


Reply: Because the Buddhist and Jaina literature dated to 500 BC, lists out 62 different existent philosophies in India at that time. Only the Upanishads are mentioned. There is no Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam, Krishna or Rama mentioned anywhere. Many small-time guys are mentioned, but not the BG or Krishna or Rama. The first extant Purana came up only in 400 AD. Compare this with the traditional date of 3102 BC !




So Puraanas could not have been that old because Buddhists and Jains did not reference them? This is silly. Buddhists and Jains did not need to refer to Puraanas because the Vedas were considered the root of what they wanted to refute. Why would a Buddhist bother with the obviously devotional texts like the Puraanas when his own philosophy was itself not theistic?


By the above logic, since Buddhists and Jains did not mention the Veda Samhitaas, then perhaps those are also no older than 500 BC. No Rig Veda Samhitaa, no Yajur Veda Samhitaa, no Atharva Veda Samhitaa existed before 500 BC. And all because some heterodox philosophers who were anti-Vedic did not explicitly mention them in their writings. Is anyone of even meager intelligence going to swallow this tripe? I think not.




18 huge Puranas, were lying hidden, unknown for 3400 - 4000 years is an impossible story to believe for that will raise many questions, the basic one being how then did people identify Siddharta as the prophesized Buddha? It will also mean that the Ramayana and Mahabharata were hidden too, because Rama and Krishna are not mentioned in any literature older than 300 BC.





When you make statements like the above, you do nothing other than to destroy your own credibility.


Saying that "Rama and Krishna are not mentioned in any literature older than 300 BC" is only acceptable if your dates are.


Krishna has an entire Upanishad - the Krishna Upanishad, named after Him, and this Upanishad belongs to Rig Veda. The Gopaala-taapanii also mentions Krishna explicitly, and its comes from the Atharva Veda. Naaraayanopanishad refers to the Supreme Lord as the son of Devakii. These are just a few references off the top of my head, and all three are among the 108 Principle Upanishads accepted by all Vedaantins, and thus they are shruti and eternal. If you want explicit Sanskrit quotes, I am only too happy to provide them. Suffice it to say that scriptures traditionally considered older than the dates you provided *do* mentioned Krishna quite clearly. It's also worthwhile pointing out that the dating you provide for many texts is completely arbitrary, based on parrot-like repetition of the opinions of secular scholars, which themselves change from time to time.




One can either accept the Buddha as an avatar or accept his teachings. But not both, as they are mutually exclusive.





Vaishnavas accept Buddha as an avataara. They do not accept His teachings. Thus, there is no conflict.




Thus both traditionally and historically, it is proved that the Buddha was not an avatar of Vishnu.


QED, my friends !





The only thing proven here is Shvu's desperate desire to find some issue by which to discredit mainstream Vaishnava teachings. First Srila Prabhupada is slandering Advaitins by criticizing their stance of identifying themselves with God. Now Buddha can't be an avatar, because meat-eating scholars who can't control their senses and who are coming in the paramparaa beginning with great Christian proselytizers such as Max Muller et. al say that our Puraanas are not as old as we think they are.***


What will come next? Perhaps Shvu will now try to demonstrate that the existence of animal sacrifices means that there is no such thing as a sacred cow....


- K


*** As a side note, I have always marveled at how people passing themselves off as "rational" or "objective" have no problem arbitrarily rejecting the traditional understanding of scriptural orgins, only to accept blindly and without question the ever-changing chronology offered by secular Indologists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

russian said that there is no one but i, give me a break here, ask any thinking hindu, he will utter the same word....dont be moron...... hinduism is a religion which is full of surprises. it ain like islam, christianty or judaism....whic are basically based on mileaded chapters of veads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my reply to - islam is much more better.... because in islam there's god, in buddhism not


What Buddha wanted was to encourage people to take spiritual responsibility for their own lives, and not to depend passively on God, or on minor “gods,” for boons of temporary fulfillment. The fact that Buddha never said not to pray—indeed, Buddhists themselves pray to the Buddha—makes it clear that he didn’t exclude divine grace: He simply emphasized the importance of personal effort in addition to faith in God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest guest

From the ninth avtar that has been incarneted by Vishnu is budhh avtar..


Many say gautama budhh is the one..but as far as my little understanding goes..after mahabharat , pandavas were made to feel guilty of killing their brothers kauravas by brahmins of those times and said this would upset gods and godesses. Pandavas had faught on krishna's command and word...Krishna being avtar of vishnu.But the ignorant brahmins of those times made them feel guilty of having done hatya of thier own brothers.so pandavas agreed to do yagya to wash away their sins..

This was the step pandavas slipped. They doubted krishna's word and started preparing for yagya.Thus vishnu took another avtar known as budhh avtar. He came to the gates of the pooja place and bhim saw him and approached and this man spoke wisdom like krishna and thus bhim immediately recognsied him and vishnu identified himself as budhh. This was the shortest avtar of only 4 hours. Vishnu took this avtar to stop them from getting misguided. so budhh means wise..and this avtar was just to preach wisdom and thus its budhh avtar.


Many of us have misudnerstood budhh avtar to be gautama budhh..which is not true..gautam budhh was someone who searched god thru penance and meditation and found his inner peace and he preached rest of the ppl to do the same and to find their inner self.


so u r rite..gautama budhh of budhhists is not budhh avtar..but budhh avtar is the 4 hour avtar vishnu took after mahabharat after krishna avtar as a wise man - budhh.


hope this helped.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest guest

The fact that we didn't found anybody in the past, present and will not find in the future anybody who is omnipotent can show us the "technical term omnipotent" is an imputation of (human) mind.

An imputation, which is based in the belief of those who hold the thought of an eternal existence. Eternal existence is based in the belief of a real base, an eternal substance, which is in most cases defined as divine in origin.

Such a belief that all phenomena is of one nature, (monotheism) namely the divine eternal, is clearly rejected by Buddha Shakyamuni, and later by different schoolers in different treatises.

Second, it follows, omnipotent means also one mind, which is, the other, i like to point out.

If we all are part of one mind it follows that Buddha Shakyamuni didn't made a good job, he has forgotten to save all beings from suffering, by transmitting his all known power to all beings and hence transmit the power for liberation. Because, if we are all one mind, why we didn't reach enlightened at the same time Buddha Sahkyamuni became enlightened?

That's why, we are not one mind, we are many individual mind-streams.

Each individual mind-stream has to actualize his inner nature and has to realize suchness, dharmakya in his individual mind-stream. No Buddha can do that on behalf of all other beings. The fact he didn't do that, can show us he is not omnipotent.

Dharmakaya is not the expanse of a greater mind-stream we will take part of it at the time of liberation.

The fact that all Buddhas realize the same nature, dharmakaya, but still on the path use different methods, can show us different mind-stream need different methods, following the mind-stream until Buddha-hood we can see all pure Buddha-realms look different, according to the different vows they took on their way. (Even full fledge Buddhas have individual subtle differentiations, but not in their realization of the dharmakaya)

Individual mind-stream and dharmakaya is not a contradiction, but a logical consequence. Because dharmakaya is not a base, not a expanse of something greater we will take part of it etc.etc. But it is uncompounded and empty in and of itself, hence also empty of all characteristics, empty in nature means no eternal base for anything (divine origin) not nothingness, nor something...it is beyond of any characteristics hence also of the characteristic one brother gave us by defining it the .....


Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence are the triangle of being


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

I read here that Buddha did not believe in a creator god, but did he believe in the VEDIC gods? And who's to say he was right or wrong anyway? He's just one person out of a number of enlightened men to come by in the course of history. Maybe what he perceived as nothingness was really not, and maybe he just wasn't enlightened enough to realize it.


In any case, I've heard that Buddhists do not believe in "soul", but they believe in "reincarnation". So how does reincarnation happen without a soul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest guest

People these days without thourough study come to false conclulsion off the back of there head and broadcast.


1. Krsna as 'devaki putra' and 'gopam' is stated in the Vedas and Upanisads.''

In the Atharva Veda (Gopal tapani upanisad) it is said, "yo brahmanam vidadhati: purvam yo vai vedams ca gapayati sma krsnah.It was Krsna who in the beginning instructed Brahma in Vedic knowledge and who disseminated Vedic knowledge in the past."


in the Atharva Vedas (Maha upanisad), brahmanyo devaki-putrah: "The son of Devaki, Krsna, is the Supreme Personality."


2.It is historically known that there were 3 buddhas before The famous Gautama buddha: noted in the story of his beegging floating up the river as of the previous Buddhas

also see


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Buddha was the 9th Avathar of Vishnu.

Everybody in the universe belive this truth.

Gauthama Buddha and Aadi Buddha is one,because in Bhagavatham lord vishnu will appear as lord Buddha in the begining of Kaliyuga and will come in the Gaya.There is nly Kaliyuga.Buddha came there in Gaya.

So think before saying


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

In Bhavagad Gita, Sri Krishna said He will come as Kalki, NOT Buddha.


Buddha is just an enlightened Soul who choose to become a Teacher to Man, he is not a God or an Avatar.


As for teaching of Buddha to be similar to teaching of (Vishnu?) Gita, that is true, except Buddha removed the complex and unnecessary rituals and practises because it will not lead to Enlightenment.


Brahmins at time of Buddha were arrogant about their own status and Buddha came to kick them back down from their high place - same thing is I may add as Sri Krishna did when dealing with Caste problem during His time.


Lord Vishnu will come as Final Avatar - Kalki, not Buddha. if you wish to respect Buddhism, respect them as someone who follows Vishnu's Laws in different fashion, as I respect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

hindu's and indians are notorious for making avataars out of spiritually advanced men. that is our failing. the buddah himself said he was a man. he was enlightened more than ramakrishna in my eyes, because because before dying ramakrishna claimed to be something he was probably not. it seems we mark everyone left right and centre as being messengers of God, and doing so our religion will lose respect, become open to abuse and fickle. there needs to be a distinction, perhaps more discipline in the way people rever God. there is a thin line that needs to be drawn when interpreting the texts, and it can put into question the divinity of figureheads such as parashurama, balarama, laxman,etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

The Lord Buddha can't possibly be an avatar of the Lord Vishnu. This is because Buddha was human and only attained enlightenment/ moksha/ maha para nibanna through many rebirths and the cultivation of the eightfold path. Buddha wasn’t born a god. During his birth, the Buddha said that this is his last birth, last time to be conceived in a womb. The Buddha also rejects the theory of Atma/ Atman and the presence of god. He says that the theory of god is there only because of the effects of fear, so that man has something to cling on even though there is nothing to cling on to. All of these are against Hinduism, therefore, the Buddha is not a reincarnation of Vishnu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is just interpretation. Experience is the same, no different. Buddha was no more enlightened than Ramakrishna or anyone else. By the way, while Buddha said he was not "God", he didn't claim there even WAS a God. Ramakrishna said that there was God, and he sees God like he sees a normal person. He was able to give the experience to someone other than himself through a simple touch. Much like Krishna does to Arjuna in the Gita. Yet, the way Ramakrishna defines God CLEARLY is not what theists would like to believe in. In fact, his conception of God is close to Buddha's experience, though different in interpretation.


the scriptures aren't meant to be literal at least in our 3-dimensional world. At least much of it doesn't seem to be. Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, etc. are all avatars of Vishnu. WE are avatars of Vishnu, though less realized. Everyone is an emanation of God or Consciousness, and we will all go back into Him when it's all said and done.


You want to be servile to books, however altered they may be, however different their intentions and meanings might be from your interpretations, fine, go ahead. It won't make you any more enlightened than a person who seeks direct experience of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Lord Buddha can't possibly be an avatar of the Lord Vishnu. This is because Buddha was human and only attained enlightenment/ moksha/ maha para nibanna through many rebirths and the cultivation of the eightfold path. Buddha wasn’t born a god. During his birth, the Buddha said that this is his last birth, last time to be conceived in a womb. The Buddha also rejects the theory of Atma/ Atman and the presence of god. He says that the theory of god is there only because of the effects of fear, so that man has something to cling on even though there is nothing to cling on to. All of these are against Hinduism, therefore, the Buddha is not a reincarnation of Vishnu. "


And no, it is NOT against Hinduism, because Hinduism is an umbrella term that encompasses MANY different philosophies, some remarkably similar/idential to certain schools of thought in Buddhism.


The Buddha is a reincarnation of Vishnu, in that Vishnu is a representation of God, but with Form.


WHAT weas Buddha's conception of God in the first place? What was his idea of what everyone else's conception of God is? Even if he denied God's presence it means nothing, without the context of what his understanding of the term "God" was meant to represent.


Perhaps he reached the point where there was no atma, though I do not think this is anything but a matter of interpretation. If he identified Atma as something completely individual and separate from a God then I can definitely see him denying the existence of an atma, because at the highest level of consciousness, that separation probably doesn't exist to any SIGNIFICANT degree.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group

  • Create New...