The Buddha and Hindu scriptures

[dyanaprajna2011]

I've read in several places where it's said that the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, is mentioned in the Hindu scriptures, particularly the Puranas. It's also said that the Buddha was the ninth incarnation of Vishnu. Are there any substantiations to this claim? Input from Hindus and Buddhists would be much appreciated.

 

[Madhuri]

Like many things, the belief that a personality is divine is based entirely on scripture. So if you are someone who trusts the Puranas, then you will believe this.

There are actually Hindus who believe Siddhartha Buddha was a devotee of Vishnu Buddha, and Vishnu Buddha obviously being the avatar and existing earlier in history.

I will provide you with some Puranic quotes:

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist." - Bhagavata Purana, 1.3.24

Prabhupada wrote that, according to Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, the Buddha mentioned in this Purana did appear in a different Kali Yuga. This is mentioned after the following verse:

"When the atheists, after being well versed in the Vedic scientific knowledge, annihilate inhabitants of different planets, flying unseen in the sky on well-built rockets prepared by the great scientist Maya, the Lord will bewilder their minds by dressing Himself attractively as Buddha and will preach on subreligious principles."

Obviously, there has not yet been any Buddha appear at a time when atheists have annihilated other planets. So he says it refers to a different Age. Not all avatars appear during every planetary cycle.

 

[Metempsychosis]

I've read in several places where it's said that the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, is mentioned in the Hindu scriptures, particularly the Puranas. It's also said that the Buddha was the ninth incarnation of Vishnu. Are there any substantiations to this claim? Input from Hindus and Buddhists would be much appreciated.

Buddha isn't mentioned anywhere in the Shruti texts (the only ones which are authoritative) IMO.Puranas ado not come under Shruti texts.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Buddha isn't mentioned anywhere in the Shruti texts (the only ones which are authoritative) IMO.Puranas ado not come under Shruti texts.

I don't know where you're from, but smrti is still authoritative, depending on the sect you follow. Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Gita are all smrti but still considered authoritative.

 

[Breathe]

I've read in several places where it's said that the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, is mentioned in the Hindu scriptures, particularly the Puranas. It's also said that the Buddha was the ninth incarnation of Vishnu. Are there any substantiations to this claim? Input from Hindus and Buddhists would be much appreciated.

I live in an area with a large chunk of Indians, and a significant chunk of Nepalis. Of the Nepalis I've met, a large chunk of them have been Hindu and Buddhist syncretists. Of the Hindus I've met, a large chunk believe Buddha to be an incarnation of God.

From Wikipedia: Gautama Buddha in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harivamsha (1.41)
Vishnu Purana (3.18)
Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.23)
Garuda Purana (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26)
Agni Purana (16)
Narada Purana (2.72)
Linga Purana (2.71)
Padma Purana (3.252) etc.


However, it seems there are two or three Buddhas spoken of: the son of Śuddhodhana, whom from Buddhism we can guess is Siddhartha Gautama Buddha the Shakyamuni. However, there is also the son of Jina, and Añjana.

Unless these are merely other names that Śuddhodhana was referred to by others or incorrect choices in names for some reason, we may have different people mentioned.

Not to mention, Buddha calls himself Vishnu (and everything else) in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Long-winded quote, but cut short:

"Of these, Mahāmati, some recognise me as the Tathagata, some as the Self-existent One, some as Leader, as Vinayaka (Remover), as Pariṇāyaka (Guide), as Buddha, as Rishi (Ascetic), as Bull-king, as Brahma, as Vishṇu, as Īśvara, as Original Source (pradhāna), as Kapila, as Bhūtānta (End of Reality), as Arishṭa, as Nemina, as Soma (moon), as the Sun, as Rāma, as Vyāsa, as Śuka, as Indra, as Balin, as Varuṇa, as is known to some". - trans. by Daisetz. Teitaro Suzuki.

Make of it what you will.

 

[Tathagata]

I live in an area with a large chunk of Indians, and a significant chunk of Nepalis. Of the Nepalis I've met, a large chunk of them have been Hindu and Buddhist syncretists. Of the Hindus I've met, a large chunk believe Buddha to be an incarnation of God.

From Wikipedia: Gautama Buddha in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harivamsha (1.41)
Vishnu Purana (3.18)
Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.23)
Garuda Purana (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26)
Agni Purana (16)
Narada Purana (2.72)
Linga Purana (2.71)
Padma Purana (3.252) etc.


However, it seems there are two or three Buddhas spoken of: the son of Śuddhodhana, whom from Buddhism we can guess is Siddhartha Gautama Buddha the Shakyamuni. However, there is also the son of Jina, and Añjana.

Unless these are merely other names that Śuddhodhana was referred to by others or incorrect choices in names for some reason, we may have different people mentioned.

Not to mention, Buddha calls himself Vishnu (and everything else) in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Long-winded quote, but cut short:

"Of these, Mahāmati, some recognise me as the Tathagata, some as the Self-existent One, some as Leader, as Vinayaka (Remover), as Pariṇāyaka (Guide), as Buddha, as Rishi (Ascetic), as Bull-king, as Brahma, as Vishṇu, as Īśvara, as Original Source (pradhāna), as Kapila, as Bhūtānta (End of Reality), as Arishṭa, as Nemina, as Soma (moon), as the Sun, as Rāma, as Vyāsa, as Śuka, as Indra, as Balin, as Varuṇa, as is known to some". - trans. by Daisetz. Teitaro Suzuki.

Make of it what you will.

That quote does not at all show that the Buddha believes he is Vishnu. If you interpret it properly, the Buddha is merely say that he is exalted by many and refered to as these names of high exaltation for this reason.

I know for a fact he doesnt agree that hes Vishnu because among the lists of names were Brahma and Isvara, gods who despised and denied existence of. See Brahmajala Sutta and Culla Vagga.






.
.
.

 

[Breathe]

I know for a fact he doesnt agree that hes Vishnu because among the lists of names were Brahma and Isvara, gods who despised and denied existence of. See Brahmajala Sutta and Culla Vagga.

Buddha has been dead for over 2,500 years. To claim that one knows for a fact anything a religious icon said is hilarious and arrogant beyond belief. So, no, you do not 'know for a fact'. It is pointless to claim otherwise. You believe. Same as everyone else does.

Also, I know how to interpret the passages. I will, however, allow others to believe what they want.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thus I have heard.....

 

[Vinayaka]

I've read in several places where it's said that the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, is mentioned in the Hindu scriptures, particularly the Puranas. It's also said that the Buddha was the ninth incarnation of Vishnu. Are there any substantiations to this claim? Input from Hindus and Buddhists would be much appreciated.

Both religions are vast, but my guess is that Hinduism is more vast, with a wider range of belief systems within it.

I can just give you the POV of my own wee sampradaya, within Hinduism. For all intents and purposes, for me, Buddha is irrelevant. What others believe is up to them. However, I do have more respect, or feel closed to Buddhists (than lets say, any of the Abrahamics) in general just because the philosophy is closer to mine.

 

[Tathagata]

Buddha has been dead for over 2,500 years. To claim that one knows for a fact anything a religious icon said is hilarious and arrogant beyond belief.

We are working within a certain framework here. The notion that the Buddhist scriptures are the most accurate presentation of what the Buddha taught and in fact the ONLY source of sayings from the Buddha.

How many times in Christian discussions do we ask "Did Jesus really say to love your neighbor as yourself" or do we ask in every discussion about Islam whether Muhammad said the things in the Quran. No.

And as I have stated many times before, the Buddha is the character as described by the scripture. If there was a man who did not speak the words as described by the Buddhist scripture, then he is not the Buddha that the people speak of, it is someone else.

So, no, you do not 'know for a fact'. It is pointless to claim otherwise. You believe. Same as everyone else does.

No, I don't believe as everyone else. My statements are extracted from scripture.

Also, I know how to interpret the passages. I will, however, allow others to believe what they want.

I will not allow a wrong view about scripture to be perpetuated and try my best to correct it for the sake of preserving the Dharma in it's original form.


.

 

[DreadFish]

That quote does not at all show that the Buddha believes he is Vishnu. If you interpret it properly, the Buddha is merely say that he is exalted by many and refered to as these names of high exaltation for this reason.

I know for a fact he doesnt agree that hes Vishnu because among the lists of names were Brahma and Isvara, gods who despised and denied existence of. See Brahmajala Sutta and Culla Vagga.




.
.
.

Well, its important to remember that, because Shakyamuni realized Buddhahood, he was no longer an individual person bound by ego. It is not that he "thinks hes Vishnu" at all. Vishnu is a name that means "All Pervading."

Likewise, as you mention Brahma and Isvara, Isvara is not a deva like Vishnu and Brahma, and from the Vaishnava standpoint, Vishnu is Isvara. Isvara is Supreme Brahman in the form of personal God, and each sect has a different opinion as to which deva is the Supreme. Also, the Buddha did not deny the existence of the devas, rather he stated that they were also subject to birth, old age, sickness, and death, and that though they were powerful, their form was still impermanent. Also, the Buddha did not "despise" anything, if he did, he wouldnt be a realized Buddha would he? Get yourself educated on the topic before making a definitive statement on it.

So, there are different ways of looking at that passage. I have read another passage that doesnt mention Vishnu, but rather does mention Varuna and Indra (it is the D.T. Suzuki translation). So, from the point of view of Tathagatagarba, all things are Buddha nature and Buddha. These schools are often non-dual also, and from that point of view it is reasonable to theorize that the Buddha was saying that, that which he is, is often recognized "as the Tathagata, some as the Self-existent One, some as Leader, as Vinayaka (Remover), as Pariṇāyaka (Guide), as Buddha, as Rishi (Ascetic), etc..."

No, I don't believe as everyone else. My statements are extracted from scripture.

I dont think he was saying that you believe the same thing everyone else believes, but that you "believe," just as everyone else also "believes" something about something.

I will not allow a wrong view about scripture to be perpetuated and try my best to correct it for the sake of preserving the Dharma in it's original form.

Apparently you appear attached to scripture and attached to "the Dharma." It is not likely that the Buddha actually said anything in any of the Sutras other than the Tripitaka, and that was written down a while after Shakyamuni died.

I think you have a foolish point of view, but that is only my point of view.


EDIT: Here we go, this will clarify what the Buddha meant when he said the statement quoted by Odion (keep in mind that this is a different translation)

Then Mahamati said: If the Tathagatas are un-born, there does not seem to be anything to take hold of - no entity - or is there something that bears another name than entity? And what can that "something" be?
The Blessed One replied: Objects are frequently known by different names according to different aspects that they present, -- the god Indra is sometimes known as Shakra, and sometimes as Purandara. These different names are sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes they are discriminated, but different objects are not to be imagined because of the different names, nor are they without individuation. The same can be said of myself as I appear in this world of patience before ignorant people and where I am known by uncounted trillions of names. They address me by different names not realizing that they are all names of the one Tathagata. Some recognize me as Sun, as Moon; some as a reincarnation of the ancient sages; some as one of "ten powers"; some as Rama, some as Indra, and some as Varuna. Still there are others who speak of me as The Un-born, as Emptiness, as "Suchness," as Truth, as Reality, as Ultimate Principle; still there are others who see me as Dharmakaya, as Nirvana, as the Eternal; some speak of me as sameness, as non-duality, as un-dying, as formless; some think of me as the doctrine of Buddha-causation, or of Emancipation, or of the Noble Path; and some think of me as Divine Mind and Noble Wisdom. Thus in this world and in other worlds am I known by these uncounted names, but they all see me as the moon is seen in the water. Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use; not having their own self-realization of Truth they cling to the words of their canonical books, or to what has been told to them, or to what they have imagined, and fail to see that the name they are using is only one of the many names of the Tathagata. In their studies they follow the mere words of the text vainly trying to gain the true meaning, instead of having confidence in the one "text" where self-confirming Truth is revealed, that is, having confidence in the self-realization of noble Wisdom.

Source: Lankavatara Sutra

 

[Tathagata]

Well, its important to remember that, because Shakyamuni realized Buddhahood, he was no longer an individual person bound by ego. It is not that he "thinks hes Vishnu" at all. Vishnu is a name that means "All Pervading."

Yeah, and Allah means "the God" in Arabic, but that doesn't mean that when Hindus reference God, they're referencing Allah. Allah may mean God, but it denotes the being described in the Quran and worshiped by Muslims. Just as Vishnu might mean "all pervading," it's still the being described by the Vedas and worshiped by HIndus.

The Buddha cannot be called "Vishnu."

Likewise, as you mention Brahma and Isvara, Isvara is not a deva like Vishnu and Brahma, and from the Vaishnava standpoint, Vishnu is Isvara. Isvara is Supreme Brahman in the form of personal God, and each sect has a different opinion as to which deva is the Supreme.

I am well aware of who Isvara is. Isvara is the Hindu equivalent of a Monotheistic God like Yahweh. Isvara is the Supreme Being, the Creator, the "Lord of the world."

Also, the Buddha did not deny the existence of the devas, rather he stated that they were also subject to birth, old age, sickness, and death, and that though they were powerful, their form was still impermanent.

Agreed, but he did deny the existence of Isvara. Regarding devas, the Buddha basically stripped them of their god-hood rather than deny their existence. The Buddha has even confronted Brahma and said to his face that he is not God, nor is any other being.

Also, the Buddha did not "despise" anything, if he did, he wouldnt be a realized Buddha would he? Get yourself educated on the topic before making a definitive statement on it.

Get myself educated? It is you my friend who is not educated. Have you not read Buddhist scripture? In the Kevaddha Sutta, the Buddha explicitly states that he despises the practice of miracles.

"And that is why, Kevaddha, seeing the danger of such miracles, I dislike, reject and despise them."
-- the Buddha [Kevaddha Sutta]

So, there are different ways of looking at that passage. I have read another passage that doesnt mention Vishnu, but rather does mention Varuna and Indra (it is the D.T. Suzuki translation). So, from the point of view of Tathagatagarba, all things are Buddha nature and Buddha. These schools are often non-dual also, and from that point of view it is reasonable to theorize that the Buddha was saying that, that which he is, is often recognized "as the Tathagata, some as the Self-existent One, some as Leader, as Vinayaka (Remover), as Pariṇāyaka (Guide), as Buddha, as Rishi (Ascetic), etc..."

No matter what anyone thinks about the passage, the Buddha is in no way implying that he is actually the Vishnu that Hindus know and worship. He is simply saying (and as your later quote of the full passage made clear) that he is the Tathagata, but called many names but done so out of mistaken ignorance.

"The same can be said of myself as I appear in this world of patience before ignorant people and where I am known by uncounted trillions of names. They address me by different names not realizing that they are all names of the one Tathagata. ... Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use;"
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

I dont think he was saying that you believe the same thing everyone else believes, but that you "believe," just as everyone else also "believes" something about something.

I fully understood what he meant, but I disagree. Yes, I believe things and others believe things, but my assertions are doctrinally correct with basis in scripture as opposed to others who are not.

Apparently you appear attached to scripture and attached to "the Dharma." It is not likely that the Buddha actually said anything in any of the Sutras other than the Tripitaka,

There is no reason to affirm the unlikelyhood that the Buddha spoke what is in the Pali Canon and Sutras.

and that was written down a while after Shakyamuni died.

Written long after Buddha, yes. Recorded long after Buddha? No. Buddhist scripture was recorded immediately after his death, just not in written form. It was done by a highly sophisticated, systematic oral preservation method.

EDIT: Here we go, this will clarify what the Buddha meant when he said the statement quoted by Odion (keep in mind that this is a different translation)
Source: Lankavatara Sutra

That quote only confirmed what I've been saying all along.


.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

"And that is why, Kevaddha, seeing the danger of such miracles, I dislike, reject and despise them."
-- the Buddha [Kevaddha Sutta]

This quote must make your self feel very comfortable. Since your world view seems to despise so much.

 

[Tathagata]

This quote must make your self feel very comfortable. Since your world view seems to despise so much.

False. I don't despise, I proclaim the Dharma and correct wrong views.

I may be very contrarian, but despising is not something I revel in. In fact I would struggle to even name something that I despise.


.

 

[Breathe]

We are working within a certain framework here. The notion that the Buddhist scriptures are the most accurate presentation of what the Buddha taught and in fact the ONLY source of sayings from the Buddha.

How many times in Christian discussions do we ask "Did Jesus really say to love your neighbor as yourself" or do we ask in every discussion about Islam whether Muhammad said the things in the Quran. No.

We do not even know if their works are attributable to them, and their words are saved significantly earlier than the Buddha's are.

And as I have stated many times before, the Buddha is the character as described by the scripture. If there was a man who did not speak the words as described by the Buddhist scripture, then he is not the Buddha that the people speak of, it is someone else.

All based on scriptural claims which come over 500 years after the Buddha's death. Not to mention the mass of varied sects which came around that time after the third Buddhist council.

No, I don't believe as everyone else. My statements are extracted from scripture.

Your interpretation of it, yeah. Again, you believe as everyone else. You don't know for a fact. Short of you living at the time of Buddha until now, you can't say for sure.

I will not allow a wrong view about scripture to be perpetuated and try my best to correct it for the sake of preserving the Dharma in it's original form.

You say original form, I say misunderstood, misrepresented and looking at the letters and words, not the wisdom and meaning behind the text.

You say original, I say mappō. And I'm welcome to my opinion, as you are yours.

 

[DreadFish]

Yeah, and Allah means "the God" in Arabic, but that doesn't mean that when Hindus reference God, they're referencing Allah. Allah may mean God, but it denotes the being described in the Quran and worshiped by Muslims. Just as Vishnu might mean "all pervading," it's still the being described by the Vedas and worshiped by HIndus.

The Buddha cannot be called "Vishnu."

But you see, he is not referring to himself as an individual person, in this he is talking about himself as The Buddha and Buddha Nature all around.

I am well aware of who Isvara is. Isvara is the Hindu equivalent of a Monotheistic God like Yahweh. Isvara is the Supreme Being, the Creator, the "Lord of the world."

Then why did you lump Isvara in with other "gods" like Brahma and Vishnu? You were not clear in your language because your language did not convey that at all.

Agreed, but he did deny the existence of Isvara. Regarding devas, the Buddha basically stripped them of their god-hood rather than deny their existence. The Buddha has even confronted Brahma and said to his face that he is not God, nor is any other being.

Agreed, he did state that belief in the existence of Isvara was foolish.

Get myself educated? It is you my friend who is not educated. Have you not read Buddhist scripture? In the Kevaddha Sutta, the Buddha explicitly states that he despises the practice of miracles.

"And that is why, Kevaddha, seeing the danger of such miracles, I dislike, reject and despise them."
-- the Buddha [Kevaddha Sutta]

I cannot deny that that is attributed to him in the scripture, but I can state that the various teachings in Buddhism point toward equanimity, and while the word despised could have been said, one who is enlightened would not despise something.

No matter what anyone thinks about the passage, the Buddha is in no way implying that he is actually the Vishnu that Hindus know and worship. He is simply saying (and as your later quote of the full passage made clear) that he is the Tathagata, but called many names but done so out of mistaken ignorance.

"The same can be said of myself as I appear in this world of patience before ignorant people and where I am known by uncounted trillions of names. They address me by different names not realizing that they are all names of the one Tathagata. ... Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use;"
-- the Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]

The "ignorant" people I believe he is referring to is everybody not yet realized and still attached to forms and ideas. Not realizing the nature of things, they see these various things and they praise and honor these things and the like but they do not realize the nature of reality, that all things are Tathagatagarba. I am of the school of thought that the devas aren't actually separate deities, but different facets of the Absolute. From this point of view, while people are calling this facet Vishnu and assuming certain attributes, they do not realize the nature of reality and thus they do not realize that
"Vishnu" is actually the Tathagata.

I fully understood what he meant, but I disagree. Yes, I believe things and others believe things, but my assertions are doctrinally correct with basis in scripture as opposed to others who are not.

Your reply did not convey that you fully understood, again I suppose your language was not clear.

There is no reason to affirm the unlikelyhood that the Buddha spoke what is in the Pali Canon and Sutras.

Written long after Buddha, yes. Recorded long after Buddha? No. Buddhist scripture was recorded immediately after his death, just not in written form. It was done by a highly sophisticated, systematic oral preservation method.

Yes, but there were plenty of divides among the followers as to what to practice and what was true. Again it is a similar situation to Jesus' teachings, except that the Buddha is better documented. The point is, whether or not the Buddha did or didnt say certain things, and whether the scriptures are correct is irrelevant. The Dharma is not contained on a page or in words. Words are empty and hollow and filled with meaning by the mind. All the words do is direct your attention. There is nothing but right now and no truth that is not right in front of us. I do not believe the Buddha meant for us to follow the "scriptures." If he cared about texts, I would imagine that he would have likely had things written down in his lifetime. The Dharma is here for all to learn, and it is within our minds to learn it if we have the karma for it. Everything expresses the truth.

That quote only confirmed what I've been saying all along.

But it must not have, it confirmed it in your eyes and not ours, because I actually see it confirmed another way. I guess if an idea was considered right to one person, but not considered right to another person then things would transpire that way.

Given that neither of us know anything about each other besides what we think about this quote, there is no way for one of us to know if the other has "right" or "wrong" view.