Gautama was not a Vishnu Avatar

[Madhuri]

I have just replied to a post that addresses this and wanted to do it properly here.

Many people seem to think that Gautama Buddha is the incarnation of Vishnu that is refered to in Vedic scripture. But this is not true. The mix up must be from the fact that many people think Buddha is a name rather than a title. The Buddha in the Vedas is meant to have appeared at the begining of Kali Yuga, which began over 5000 years ago. He was born in Gaya. There is a temple of this Buddha that Gautama visited around the time that he became Realised.

Gautama Buddha was a realised person but he is not the personality described in the Vedas.

 

[anupj]

interesting, could you please provide any references for this, where i can read it in detail. even i thought that siddartha(Gautama Buddha) was a vishnu avatar, however i also could not understand how come siddartha taught atheistic philosophy when he is claimed to be vishnu avatar

 

[Madhuri]

This is the website I was just looking at:

NITAAI ( NITyananda Gauranga Hare Krishna NAAma BhaktI ) Yoga By HH Bhaktiratna Sadhu Swami Gaurangapada

tatah kalau sampravritte sammohaya sura-dvisham
buddho namnanjana-sutah kikateshu bhavishyati
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.24)

“Thereafter, in the twenty-first manvantara at the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in Kikata Pradesa (the province of Gaya-Bihar), just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful demigods.”

According to Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Öhakura’s commentary:

anjana suto ’jina sutasceti pathadvayam
kikateshu madhye gayapradese

“The names Anjanasuta and Ajinasuta can both be found in the above verse. The province of Gaya has been called Kikateshu.”

It is written in the 29th Verse, 36th Chapter of Sri Nrisimha Purana:

kalau prapte yatha buddho bhavennarayana prabhuh

“Lord Narayana appeared as Buddha when the age of Kali started.”

This clearly implies that Lord Buddha appeared five thousand years ago. The following verse can be found in the second paragraph of Nirnaya-sindhu:

jyaishtha sukladitiyayam buddhajanma bhavishyati

“Buddha will take birth on the 2nd day of the sukla-paksha of the month of Jyaishtha.”

In Sri Madhvacarya’s commentary on Verse 1.3.24 of Srimad-Bhagavatam, from his book Bhagavata-tatparya, the following quotation from Brahmanda Purana has been referred to:

mohanartham danavanam balarupi pathisthitah
putram tam kalpayamasa mudhabudhirjinah svayam
tatah sammohayamasa jinadyana suramsakan
bhagavan vagbhirugrabhirahimsa vacibhirharih
(Brahmanda Purana)

“In order to delude the demons, He (Lord Buddha) was present in the form of a child on the way while the fool, Jina (a demon), imagined Him to be his son. Later on, Lord Sri Hari (as avatara-Buddha) expertly deluded Jina and other demons by His strong words of non-violence.”

There is an authentic Buddhist book, Lankavatara-sutra, in which Ravana, the king of Lanka, prays to Jina’s son, the ancient Lord Buddha, and to all the Buddhas and Buddhas’ sons who would appear in the future, via this eulogy (stava):

atha ravano lankadhipatih gathagiten anugayati sma lankavatarasutram vaih purvabuddhanuvarnitam smarami purvakaih buddhairjinaputra-puraskritaih putrametannigadyate bhagavanapi bhashatam bhavishyantyanapate kale buddha buddhasutasca ye

Therefore, this source leaves no doubt that the ancient avatara-Buddha and the modern Gautama Buddha are not the same person.

Buddha-avatara has been discussed in various Puranas such as the Linga, Bhavishya, Varaha, Agni, Vayu, Skanda, Vishnu and many others. In the 17th and 18th Chapters of the 3rd Section of Vishnu Purana, Buddha is referred to as Mayamoha. It should be remembered that the Buddha-avatara whose narrations are found in various Puranas and other scriptures, is not the nihilistic Buddha, the son of Suddhodana.

 

[RamaRaksha]

I think she is right but let's look at the bigger picture. What does it say about our fiath that it teaches us to see God even in a man who rejected some of Hinduism' s teachings? I always say that if the Buddha had been born in Europe or muslim lands in the middle ages, he would have been tortured and killed! There would be no Buddhism today! Makes me proud to say that I am a Hindu.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

There is a great diversity of traditions within Hinduism, as such there is no specific consensus on how many Avatars are in the Vedic tradition:

In Gita Govinda says this about the Lord Buddha.

O Keshava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You! O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules of Vedic sacrifice.

Garuda Purana has a list of 10 Avatars and Bhagavata Purana has a list of 22

Matsya Purana says there twelve avatars.

Bhagavata Purana says "The incarnations of Vishnu are innumerable, like the rivulets flowing from an inexhaustible lake. Rishis, Manus, gods, sons of Manus, Prajapatis, are all portions of him."

This is not even commenting on the non Vishnu Avatars. In the Hanuman Chalisa, Hanuman is identified as the eleventh avatar of Shiva. Adi Shankara is also seen as an Avatar of the Lord Shiva.

In some traditions it is very true that Buddha is not an Avatar. In others he is one. I for one accept him as an Avatar.

Some of the Rshis did not believe that the lord Rama was an Avatar. Yet they were Rshis.

 

[Madhuri]

Of course Buddha was an Avatar. I'm saying that Gautama is not the Buddha spoken of in hte scriptures.

 

[Madhuri]

I think she is right but let's look at the bigger picture. What does it say about our fiath that it teaches us to see God even in a man who rejected some of Hinduism' s teachings? I always say that if the Buddha had been born in Europe or muslim lands in the middle ages, he would have been tortured and killed! There would be no Buddhism today! Makes me proud to say that I am a Hindu.

Yes, our religion is amazing

 

[nameless]

overproudness take us away from our religeon.
The religion is all about to be simple.