Buddha in Hinduism (I know, subject probably beaten to death, but...)

[zenzero]

Friend Jainarayan,

Personal understanding is that during the time of Gautama's birth DHARMA was DHARMA meaning it was just a way of life a culture of this land. Gautama followed many saints of the time and did what they asked him to by fasting, by doing what not but never could reach to IT but when he gave up chasing or looking for enlightenment and just wanted his mind to relax sitting under the bodhi tree that he attained to IT.

His method is not different to that which were in practice at the time except he did not want to speak in anyway that could be taken in many ways [though it dis in one case].
In the vedas we can approach to it by 'neti, neti' where whatever comes to mind is not it and so did Gautama and only that he wants everyone to realize through awakening of the consciousness and not by using any label as after negating what remains is the self and this cannot be explained or spoken about but experienced and saying giving that a label will be falsifying it, so his stand is to personal understanding in line conformity with 'dharma'.

Love & rgds

 

[Aupmanyav]

this is exactly the point I am raising .... we do not need to agree or dissagree with Prabhupada ...we need to be level minded and calmly set about trying to understand what he is saying ....

Suits him and Gaudiyas, but is offensive to many others. Lord Buddha is the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu and it is painful to hear such things about him. Is he any different from Rama or Krishna?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram aupmanyav ji :namaste

And you know, Von Beck, there are Hindus who rever Buddha just like Rama and Krishna. So kindly do not go by what sectoral commentators say.

jai jai , ... yes me :namaste and never have I been disueded (by any one of any inteligence)..from continuing to revere lord Buddha ......

but what is this reference you make here to sectorial comentators ???

still you are not willing to discuss what has been said and why it might have been said , or what was meant by it ?

quote Ratikala ....
"never once in over fifteen years have I ever had to give up my refuge in Buddha not even as an vaisnava initiate . I could not have taken that initiation if there were any contradiction , I promice you from the depth of my heart that a true vaisnava has nothing but the deepest love and respect for Buddha ......and that any vaisnava or hindu that says any differently must be forgiven for they are not in full knowledge."

"Or, is the purpose to reinforce to those who are already Hindu, not to follow the Buddha's teachings? I don't know ..": It is basically for not giving space to Budha and appropriating all space for Krishna.

it is coments like this which caused me previously to call you divisive , in that you attempt to make assertions that there is something untoward going on , this fuels misstrust between traditions , here you are attempting to fuel a divide between Vaisnavas and Buddhists this behavior is reprehensible ....

No no , ....I am not big smile laughing ...!

every hindu is free to follow his own devotions , no one is playing games of trickery to divert attantion from Buddha so that it may be focused on Krsna this is a very foolish thing to say ,

as a Vaisnava it is most common to see the focus placed upon either Rama or upon Krsna , but Visnu himself is ever present .

you will also see great reverence paid to Narasimha and very little mention made of Matsya , Kurma , Varaha , Varmana and Parashurama , as their relevence is less important to us now in this yuga how ever we openly accknowledge and celibrate the relevance of lord Buddha .....in many vaisnava temples you will also see great respect paid to Jaganath and allthough in Odissa Jagannath sometimes takes the place of Buddha (this is due to Odissa having a strongly Buddhist history and seeing Jagannath as synonomous with Buddha ) none the less he is not commonly used to eclipse Buddha .

if these ''sectoral comentators'' of whom you complain wished to eclipse lord Buddha and put the focus in Krsna it would be easy to substitute Jagannath , but no this is not done and you will find on the Vaisnava callender a day called Buddha Jayanti or Buddha Purnima where upon we cellibrate his appeance , his enlightenment and his parinirvana . Jagannath has his own day .

so my dear freind not every day is appropriated by Krsna there are very specific days specific to individual occasions relating to different incarnations and different events .

but if you realy want to know who dilliberately set out to defeat Buddhists in India please look outside of the vaisnava sampradayas and look a little closer to home

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

What I meant is that this thread hasn't turned into a debate; people are making good points, I'd hate to see FH leave. I was addressing that specifically, and learning, via Aup's post I quoted.

I am currently away from regular, reliable internet, but I will continue to contribute if I feel like I have anything to add.

Ratikala - Thank you for your response, I have not had a chance to read through it but I will once I have a better connection

:camp:

 

[von bek]

I have heard some Hindus say that Vishnu appeared as Buddha out of love for those who could not believe in Brahman/Atman and gave teachings that would lead them to moksha. This is a much better explanation to my ears as it does not accuse Lord Buddha of deception. (Obviously I do not believe the Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu; but, that belief alone is not hurtful to me. It is only when the Buddha is accused of being a leader of demons and intentionally deceiving people that I take offense. Of course, I also believe demons were converted by the Buddha, but in these instances the demons underwent true mental and spiritual transformation, like the serial killer Angulimala, a cruel man transformed into an Arahant by the Buddhadhamma.)

 

[Sb1995]

Buddha is the 9th avatar of Vishnu. Jai Buddhaji

 

[Sb1995]

I have heard some Hindus say that Vishnu appeared as Buddha out of love for those who could not believe in Brahman/Atman and gave teachings that would lead them to moksha. This is a much better explanation to my ears as it does not accuse Lord Buddha of deception. (Obviously I do not believe the Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu; but, that belief alone is not hurtful to me. It is only when the Buddha is accused of being a leader of demons and intentionally deceiving people that I take offense. Of course, I also believe demons were converted by the Buddha, but in these instances the demons underwent true mental and spiritual transformation, like the serial killer Angulimala, a cruel man transformed into an Arahant by the Buddhadhamma.)

I would find that offensive as well. I pray to Buddha as well, Jai Buddha.

 

[Sumit]

In Hinduism I see Buddha as Rishi, a social reformer and a follower of Yoga marga.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram von bek ji :namaste

I have heard some Hindus say that Vishnu appeared as Buddha out of love for those who could not believe in Brahman/Atman and gave teachings that would lead them to moksha. This is a much better explanation to my ears as it does not accuse Lord Buddha of deception.

this of course is true :namaste ...Hindus acknowledge the surender Lord Buddha made in order to benifit mankind , he gave up a comfortable family life including his wife and child and went into the forests in search of knowledge and as is told in both traditions , he studied with the ascetics of the day , but in their practice he found no answer to the question of human suffering ....here we see clearly that the ascetics of the day did not have the answers and followed a path of self mortification , not only had this not provided their own slavation , but it was of no benifit to the masses , lord Buddhas goal was to find a path of salvation from which all may benifit ...

vaisnavas here are reporting one aspect of Lord Buddha's example ....He taught a path of non violence , of non reliance on ritual , he taught that salvation came from dettatchment , from a non 'self' centered approach .

(Obviously I do not believe the Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu; but, that belief alone is not hurtful to me. It is only when the Buddha is accused of being a leader of demons and intentionally deceiving people that I take offense.

I canot belive that there was ever the intention to portray Buddha as being a leader of demons , I think that the confusion comes when Prabhupada uses the term Demoniac , which he uses constantly to refer to any practice which is Adharmic ...so frequently he calls meat eaters demoniac as they support animal slaughter , he constantly praises Lord Buddha for his practice of Ahimsa which Prabupada describes as 'Param Dharma' the higest Dharma .this use of 'demoniac' and 'deluded'it is misstranslated or missunderstood , when Prabhupada says that Buddha deluded the atheists ..''Sammoha-ya'' this could also be translated as going or taking beyond folly or ignorance , therefore Buddha took those who were confused beyond their confusion ....what this is saying is that Buddha used subtle means , this is not trickery or deceipt but the etreme of kindness , this is where we can fall foul of language , what Prabhupada said regarding many things was not in the words we are accustomed to , in the west we have developed a very polite way of not adressing something uggly that is right infront of our noses , we side step around it and dont confront it . Prabhupada confronts it streight in the face , when he saw ignorance he called it ignorance , this is just the plain speaking manner of a guru , it is his duty to wake us up , even if that means to shock us into looking at what we like to cover up and leave un addressed ...

Of course, I also believe demons were converted by the Buddha, but in these instances the demons underwent true mental and spiritual transformation, like the serial killer Angulimala, a cruel man transformed into an Arahant by the Buddhadhamma.)

this is the power of Dharma , one in full knowledge sees and understands all and can use his power to persuede and transform even the most demoniac , but on a mundane level when dealing with those like us who simply have demoniac tendencies we may be transformed by different means , this Buddha did by teaching the eightfold path .

we will see every day that there are different levels of delusion , but we will also see that it is easy to find oneself unwittindly following the behavior of ones society in its delusional behaviors without giving it a second thought , this constitutes an incomplete action , however if one realises ones actions to be wrong then it becomes a complete action , and the implications of complete actions are much stronger than those of incomplete actions ...

look at the example of animal killing there is a school of thought that says to kill out of need is very different to un nececary killing , this whole issue sarounding Prabhupada saying that Buddha deluded the atheists , simply means that Buddha promoted Ahimsa , this concerns not just the kindness of not killing or making animal sacrifice as was sanctioned in the vedas , but more importantly he spoke out against such practices as they were at that time being done for reasons beyond those sanctioned by the vedas ...so if the boundarys of right way and wrong way have become blured then it is better to do as Buddha did and persuede people away from such practices alltogether ,..this was the inteligent thing to do ...

there is also the conscideration that unwittingly we dammage ourselves by comitting such actions and run the risk of falling into deeper bad habits , Prabhupada described this as vilence of a more suble kind as it is a violence toward the self .

 

[Vinayaka]

In Hinduism I see Buddha as Rishi, a social reformer and a follower of Yoga marga.

I agree with this, which illustrates the variance in Hindu schools.

 

[Jainarayan]

I have heard some Hindus say that Vishnu appeared as Buddha out of love for those who could not believe in Brahman/Atman and gave teachings that would lead them to moksha. This is a much better explanation to my ears as it does not accuse Lord Buddha of deception. (Obviously I do not believe the Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu; but, that belief alone is not hurtful to me. It is only when the Buddha is accused of being a leader of demons and intentionally deceiving people that I take offense. Of course, I also believe demons were converted by the Buddha, but in these instances the demons underwent true mental and spiritual transformation, like the serial killer Angulimala, a cruel man transformed into an Arahant by the Buddhadhamma.)

What I bolded is my take on it also. I don't like the word 'demons' either. I think it's a terrible description. I think Prabhupada is being sold short, because he mentions that the Buddha, who in Prabhupada's belief is Vishnu, actually converted atheists, as well as (re-)establishing dharma that was being lost. This is because the atheists, did not believe Buddha to be Vishnu (God), began following and worshiping him, and therefore in spite of themselves, worshiped God.

I don't believe it's correct to say that the Buddha rejected the Vedas. I think it's more correct to say he rejected how the Vedas were being misused. Even Sri Krishna said that the Vedas were being used only for material gains:

"Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination of devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place." Bhagavad Gita 2.42-44

Here Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 2, Verse 42, 43 It says how men were beginning to misuse the Vedas, which is what I believe the Buddha was also trying to change.

So I think it comes down, again, to translation and interpretation. And of course, while I can't translate, this interpretation of what is translated and interpreted makes sense to me.

 

[Jainarayan]

In Hinduism I see Buddha as Rishi, a social reformer and a follower of Yoga marga.

Yes, at the very least I see this regardless of one's belief that he was Vishnu or not.

 

[Asha]

Namaste

And maybe not all Gaudiyas. I'm not sure. I'm not very familiar with Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Certainly, it's not the general Hindu perspective. Just as an example, in my tradition, there are no avatars at all, so whether or not Buddha wa sonw would be moot.

I think sir you will find that all Gaudia Vaisnava accept Buddha as an avatara although as mentioned earlier the avatara that are more frequently focused upon especialy amongst Gaudia Vaisnavas are Narasimha, Rama, Krishna and Kalki.

In true Gaudia tradition I find it very uncomfortable to correct a senior but for the sake of fairness I must say something.

I find it very sad that you make such sweeping statements as ''certainly, it is not the general Hindu perspective'' when according to many accounts Vaisnavas form the majority within Hindu traditions ?

I am not wishing in the least to say that our tradition is larger than yours or that it would even mean anything if I did. But I am upset that you on one hand say that you are not very familiar with Gaudia Vaisnavism, then on the other hand assume that because in your tradition there is no system of avatara that the question of Buddha as an avatara is a moot point ?

As I am Gaudia I am like you in that I feel I dont know enough about the tradition of others, in this case if the question were about shiva I would refrain from giving any opinion at all incase I cause offence.

As you are my senior I should treat you with respect which is very hard to do when an aparAdah is comited against Vaisnava Dharma.

Hindu beleif is indeed varied but surely that does not nececitate contradicting others beleifs ?

 

[Vinayaka]

Namaste

Hindu beleif is indeed varied but surely that does not nececitate contradicting others beleifs ?

I'm truly sorry if I offended you. As I said, I don't know much about Vaishnavism, but I do know enough to know avatara is a strong concept there, and I respect that.

Thank you for adding to the discussion that all Vaishnava schools adhere to this. That I did not know.

As for the 'moot point' comment, that was intended as a 'for me'... not for everyone. it was a moot point for me.

I like to preface my words with phrases like 'in my school of Hinduism' or 'in my opinion' or 'according to ________' so that anyone curious who happens to be reading has a better understanding. Obviously, sometimes in the spur of the moment I forget. I think we would all be well advised to do the same.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram jai ji :namaste

What I bolded is my take on it also. I don't like the word 'demons' either. I think it's a terrible description. I think Prabhupada is being sold short, because he mentions that the Buddha, who in Prabhupada's belief is Vishnu, actually converted atheists, as well as (re-)establishing dharma that was being lost. This is because the atheists, did not believe Buddha to be Vishnu (God), began following and worshiping him, and therefore in spite of themselves, worshiped God.

jai jai you have it in one , ....but unfortunately even this veiw can be offensive to some Buddhists purely because they feel this is some kind of deception

on one hand the Hindu mind is happy thinking that allthough the Buddhists do not realise it they are still worshiping or revering God , therefore everything is ok

on the other the Buddhist mind is not needing to be brought into the fold of Hinduism .
many many culturaly Buddhist folowers(those born into indiginous Buddhist comunities) have no problem with this , the main problem is with the slightly more interlectual take that many western Buddhists have , this is purely because they have chosen to practice Buddhism because of its focus on the path rather than the divine cosmic origins of the path , ...in which case it is better not to dissrupt this way of thinking .

but what we are seeing is something like the scenario of a parent and child , the parent being naturaly more worldly and wanting the best for its child tries to lead the child on the right path , but very often the child due to its own feeling of independence rebels against the parents recomendations and needs to find out the truth for himself , he canot just accept what the parent says just because they say it , but invariably he will find his own way descovering many of the same truths for himself along the way .

the Hindu mind is wanting that child to realise god in the way they have learnt to see god because to them God realisation means respect for that divine order ,

the Buddhist mind has wanted to discover that order for himself and is perfectly happy with the concept of there being a natural order but in many cases has taken the word divine out of the equasion .

it is only natural that we want the best for eachother this is all that Buddha wanted , he wanted everyone to be free from the sufferings of worldly existance and wanted to deliver a path which would be of benifit , and where the Vedic path had become over complicated , and eleitist . Lord Buddha sought to redress that ballance making it accessable to all , intruth he simply returned the focus to Dharma .

I don't believe it's correct to say that the Buddha rejected the Vedas. I think it's more correct to say he rejected how the Vedas were being misused. Even Sri Krishna said that the Vedas were being used only for material gains:

"Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination of devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place." Bhagavad Gita 2.42-44

Here Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 2, Verse 42, 43 It says how men were beginning to misuse the Vedas, which is what I believe the Buddha was also trying to change.

:namaste

So I think it comes down, again, to translation and interpretation. And of course, while I can't translate, this interpretation of what is translated and interpreted makes sense to me.

and also to the false notion of ' I' , 'Me' and 'Mine' ....the ' I' that is thinking that My religion is better than your religion , .....when in truth both lead to the same goal therefor neither can be superior or inferior . ... then the problem of the ' I' that thinks it self to be individual which both Hinduism and Buddhism accknowledge to be a missconception ..... so who is there to be insulted or offended ? only a false idea of self !!!

and if there is an ' I' that is clinging only to its own conceptions and wishing to find fault in the conception of others through inturpretation , then he is his own worst enemy he is causing his own pain .

all the arguements here on this site and out there in the world of religion are down to this strong sence of self who will not surrender his ego ....

what did sri Krsna say in the bhagavad gita .....

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me , I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction , Do not fear . ch ..18 v ..66

like wise we should not cling to the idea that my religion is superior , my religion is genuine ....all this noncence is just causing problems prohibiting us from seeing the same truth and order revealed by Sri Krsna and by Lord Buddha the same sanatana Dharma .....

thus when a Vaisnava says Matsya , Kurma , Varaha , Narasimha , Vamana , Parasurama , Rama , Krsna , Buddha and Kalki are all one , that they are all incarnations of Visnu that is because they are all embodiments of the same truth , ...
what offence can ther be in this ???

more it is an offence to deny it .....

I will tell you a small not at all funy story ...

there was once a great Fool that thought himself to be a great Vaisnava who thought himself so elevated by mere dint of seniority that he promiced to look after me once I had taken initiation ... and who took it upon himself one evening in the temple to just decide to give me a little word of advice .....All day I had been serving the temple deities sri sri Radha and Krsna ... all day I had done nothing but think or speak of them ... but for some unknown reason he decided to tell me that now that I have Krsna I can forget all about Buddha as Krsna was by far superior ! ......
being that I was in the Temple fufilling my duties as a pujari I felt that this remark was comletely out of place , so I simply made no reply ...I think he took this as a sign of humility on my part and said ..'' you understand ''....I think I replied simply ... yes I understand ....it was the best and most sencible thing to do under the circumstances ...the most ironic thing was at that moment he was standing directly under the depiction of Lord Buddha as the ten avatars are on the wall above an arch which spans the temple hall I remember the feeling of deep pain and shock and praying for him rather than taking offence ....why ? ..what in his mind made him do that ?...every day he walks under those images ...is he blind ? ....does he not see that they are all one and the same , they are all Visnu , ....therefore they are all just different lila ....

What point would there be to even prolong such a conversation ? ....none what so ever ...sometines it is better not to even disturb someones mind .....one could say by my reply that I deluded him by creating the false impression that I took his orders , that I understood things as he saw them ...... in truth my answer was a deceipt ...yes I understood , but I understoood very differently ....but it was the best thing to do under the circumstances .

I still pray for him every time I think of this incident ....

the moral of the story is that we should never deny another their understanding ...

if some see Buddha as simplty a rishi , a sage then that is fine ....but never should any deny the divine origin of the realisation that that rishi perceives , is it is the Buddhi in the buddha which is divine and the Buddhi within the buddha that gives him divine status .

if a non theist has difficulty understanding this then that is ok , either way its fine , just keep walking the path all will reveal its true nature along the way :namaste

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can't give you frubals at the moment, but admire your spirited defense.

 

[Jainarayan]

namaskaram jai ji :namaste



jai jai you have it in one , ....but unfortunately even this veiw can be offensive to some Buddhists purely because they feel this is some kind of deception

on one hand the Hindu mind is happy thinking that allthough the Buddhists do not realise it they are still worshiping or revering God , therefore everything is ok

on the other the Buddhist mind is not needing to be brought into the fold of Hinduism .
many many culturaly Buddhist folowers(those born into indiginous Buddhist comunities) have no problem with this , the main problem is with the slightly more interlectual take that many western Buddhists have , this is purely because they have chosen to practice Buddhism because of its focus on the path rather than the divine cosmic origins of the path , ...in which case it is better not to dissrupt this way of thinking .

Exactly, sometimes things can be over-thought. Especially if one is not born into a tradition or culture. I know from experience.

it is only natural that we want the best for eachother this is all that Buddha wanted , he wanted everyone to be free from the sufferings of worldly existance and wanted to deliver a path which would be of benifit , and where the Vedic path had become over complicated , and eleitist . Lord Buddha sought to redress that ballance making it accessable to all , intruth he simply returned the focus to Dharma .

Again I agree with this. As others have said, he was a reformer, but I don't think reformer is the right word either. Maybe "re-aligner", as in re-aligning people to dharma.

and also to the false notion of ' I' , 'Me' and 'Mine' ....the ' I' that is thinking that My religion is better than your religion , .....when in truth both lead to the same goal therefor neither can be superior or inferior . ... then the problem of the ' I' that thinks it self to be individual which both Hinduism and Buddhism accknowledge to be a missconception ..... so who is there to be insulted or offended ? only a false idea of self !!!

From a Vaishnava perspective Bhagavad Gita 4.11: "As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā." and "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear." 18.66. From a Pure Land perspective, nianfo/nembutsu is the path to enlightenment. The list can go on.

the moral of the story is that we should never deny another their understanding ...

if some see Buddha as simplty a rishi , a sage then that is fine ....but never should any deny the divine origin of the realisation that that rishi perceives , is it is the Buddhi in the buddha which is divine and the Buddhi within the buddha that gives him divine status .

if a non theist has difficulty understanding this then that is ok , either way its fine , just keep walking the path all will reveal its true nature along the way :namaste

True, very true.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Guess we are making a slight mistake in our understanding.
Buddha is not a person, kindly understand Buddha means 'awake'.
Gautama was the person who became a Buddha and all individuals who are awake fully are all buddhas.

source: What does "buddha" mean?

Love & rgds

 

[chinu]

I think that's why the Hindi word "बोध" is equal to cognized, and later on the word "बोध" turned into "Buudha"

 

[Vinayaka]

Friends,

Guess we are making a slight mistake in our understanding.
Buddha is not a person, kindly understand Buddha means 'awake'.
Gautama was the person who became a Buddha and all individuals who are awake fully are all buddhas.

source: What does "buddha" mean?

Love & rgds

Surely you mean 'slight difference in understanding, not slight mistake. We all have differences in understanding, but to state the rest of us are making a mistake is no differnt that saying, "I'm right and you're wrong." It's really just everyone's opinion based on their personal experience.

Just my opinion.