Namaste HLK,
Heartfull and thoughtful words! I cannot say I am disagreeing. In Saiva, what appears, APPEARS, as two opposites, both can be true. We are limited, our vision. For example, someone may say "Vishnu is in Vaikuntha", another may say "Vishnu is here now as Buddha". A third may say, "But now Vishnu is here, then how can He also be in Vaikuntha?". Another than says, "God can be in two places at one time. One says Here, another says There. It APPEARS one must be wrong for the other to be right. But two realities that seem to contradic, opposite, can be true. Be we are limited to see it with our vision."
Sort of like that ...
Namaste All
A quick synopsis of Vedagu, which appears many times in Buddhist Pali scripture, as well as Vedantagu (and in conjunction with being a Brahmachari), may be of interest in this discussion, but please research the Buddhist texts yourself to verify, but you will find it enjoyable.
An acknowledged Vedagu knows 3 Vedas (there are more, but the 3 being Rik, Yajur and Sama - note, it appears the Atharva Veda is not included in references to Vedagu in those times), knows grammar (e.g. Sanskrit), the histories (e.g. Ithihasas), rituals (e.g. honoring dead forefathers, homas and Agnihotra), and the 32 birth markings and features of a Mahapurusha (e.g. on foot, chest, neck). This is the more traditional meaning before modern times (e.g. before middle ages and after), thus even though the translation of Vedagu is an "expert on Vedas", a Vedagu is more than that actually, though the Vedas are the most important aspect.
In terms of Vedagu in tradition and Buddha the Vedagu:
(1) The Buddha used selective Sanskrit words in his dialect, much like some "Western Hindus" do today, but did not give sermons nor instruction in Sanskrit, there is no evidence I am aware of at least. His audience was the people and those from the general population who were wanting to be His students, not Vedic scholars or priests, nor did it seem He associated with Brahmins at all, not in childhood nor later but only in "debates".
I believe he had been given instruction of "some" Sanskrit scripture, but general principles and not specific, instruction from both from Hindu and Jain instructors. His knowledge was advanced enough to be "respectfully" called Vedagu, but probably did not meet this exactly in traditional terms - keep in mind because He was a Royal and did not engage in what a priest would be taught when he was a child, but rather only concepts and not mantras, and so on. Respectfully being called Vedagu later in life still is appropriate, especially considering His meditations, sermons, etc.. But the application of such a title was to come later in "debates" with Brahmins and from admirers of His powerful sermons.
It appears Brahmanas and Brahmins did not live in the Sakya region of Buddha's youth, or if so, then in very small numbers. No doubt He had a teacher or teachers in His childhood - but not necessarily Brahmins at all, and the evidence of a strong Brahmin community of the Sakya clan is sorely lacking.
Effectively, if Buddha is one of the Dasavatar (10 Avatars), it is interesting to note that He first appeared in a region empty of Brahmins - so being under the tutelage of Brahmins must not necessarily be very important to an incarnation as some may preach, certainly not in this case.
Certainly it seems clear the Buddha did not think so.
He met both Brahmins and also Jain Arhats in travels. It appears there were Brahmins at that time who engaged in animal sacrifice and He was critical to this very much, reflecting His Jaina influence.
(2) Buddha rejected emphasis on rituals as part of his realized sermons and discussions.
(3) Observers claim Buddha had some or all 32 markings.
(4) Buddha never referenced the Ramayana nor Mahabharata or other histories as far as I know. He seemed to know selected Upanishadic sayings. Not meantioning Ramayana may not mean anything, it does not necessarily mean the Buddha didn't know the Ramayana, just that the Buddha didn't spreak about it much. Meru and Indra were known by Buddha.
.... so I admit I am painting with a very broad brush here, but to surmise:
The Buddha was considered a Vedagu by admirers and followers despite not sermonizing in Sanskrit. But it was others who called Him such.
But while it was others who called Him Vedagu and not Himself, He did call Himself, or refer to Himself as Vedantagu, which is very close to Vedagu.
Yes this is the same Vedanta word heard in the description of a modern sect today.
So in one way you might say, Buddha was the world's "First Vedantan"?
I don't know, you tell me.
Om Namah Sivaya
