What do Buddhists think of the Vaishnavists accepting Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu?

[Surya Deva]

I am interested in knowing the actual views and opinions of Buddhists on the Hindu Vaishnavist sect claiming that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu as the deceiver, who incarnated on Earth to deceive the ignorant worldly people by teaching them an atheist philosophy to ultimately bring them back to the real religion of Vishnu worship. For, so far I have only heard what Hindus have to say about what Buddhists thinks, not what Buddhists think themselves. Also, is there any official response in Buddhism to this?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I think they're missing the point.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

It's disingenuous. It's a common theme to see, in the study of comparative religion, how one religion or sect in contact with another will attempt to suborn it by encompassing and downgrading it. This is a perfect example of this tendency.

Buddha may be held as an avatar of Vishnu, but his doctrines are said to be a result of Vishnu incarnating to delude demonic people.

 

[AmerikanZen]

I feel a sense of comedic relief.

 

[AmerikanZen]

Also, is there any official response in Buddhism to this?

Yes, you need to read and study -What the Buddha taught- and re-read over and over so you'll know it well.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's disingenuous. It's a common theme to see, in the study of comparative religion, how one religion or sect in contact with another will attempt to suborn it by encompassing and downgrading it. This is a perfect example of this tendency.

Buddha may be held as an avatar of Vishnu, but his doctrines are said to be a result of Vishnu incarnating to delude demonic people.

I agree. It's the same thing the Christians did to the Jews. Look at the Church Fathers, St. John Chrysostom was highly anti-semitic, and he's supposed to be one of the greatest of the church fathers. It's the same here. There are no references to the Buddha in Hindu scriptures before his advent, only after, and this in only a few of the Puranas, if memory serves me well.

 

[Madhuri]

Buddha may be held as an avatar of Vishnu, but his doctrines are said to be a result of Vishnu incarnating to delude demonic people.

Is 'demonic' the literal translation or is that just Prabhupada's poetic license?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Is 'demonic' the literal translation or is that just Prabhupada's poetic license?

I think it's fairly accurate. A common one is 'sura dvisham'

Sura is Deva, or followers thereof, dvisham is enemies of, 'those divided against'

It could mean atheists, or it could mean demons, of course, atheists were often seen as demonic.

 

[ratikala]

dear surya deva

I am interested in knowing the actual views and opinions of Buddhists on the Hindu Vaishnavist sect claiming that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu as the deceiver, who incarnated on Earth to deceive the ignorant worldly people by teaching them an atheist philosophy to ultimately bring them back to the real religion of Vishnu worship. For, so far I have only heard what Hindus have to say about what Buddhists thinks, not what Buddhists think themselves. Also, is there any official response in Buddhism to this?

this is quite an interesting question , however I think we need to get the vaisnava veiw correct before we go ahead with this line of questioning .
as a buddhist I was taught that the buddha was born into the indian brahmanical system of the day , and was educated as a kshatriya but upon whitnessing suffering , old age , sickness and death , vowed to find a path of salvation . leaving his former life behind he studied under yogis of the day and finding no answer in their practice of astheticism set out alone to find salvation in order that he might teach it and benifit others .
from the vaisnava prespective it is taught that lord buddha came in order to re establish moral principals , vaisnava teachings openly accknowledge that the brahminical system of the day had become corrupt and that astheticism had become self indulgent , moral principals had become lax and that animal sacrifice was common place .the same life history of the buddha is taught and empasiss is placed upon the effect that buddhist teachings had on the people of the day how the teachings of the buddha are perfectly in line with the principles of sanatana dharma , encoraging ahimsa and the practice of a personal sadhana .

it is true that a vaisnava might think fondly that a buddhist is ultimately worshiping or revering vishnu , as yes a vaisnava conciders buddha to be an incarnation of visnu , an incarnation of goodness and rightiousness , and an exponent of sanatana dharma . Personaly I see no contradiction between the two veiws

so far I have only heard what Hindus have to say about what Buddhists thinks, not what Buddhists think themselves. Also, is there any official response in Buddhism to this?

so here I have given both veiws .much like within hinduism , you will not nececarily find any one official responce but many perspectives .

however I must add that implying deceipt , is the wrong way of looking at this question and likely to inflame fellings and further exacerbate sectarianism . the focus of buddhism is on the practice of moral principles and not nececarily upon the worship of buddha as a divinity (some do some dont)so theist non theist is not realy the question , for a buddhist what is important is whether or not one is a follower of dharma or not .

 

[Surya Deva]

Thank you everybody. I agree with the general consensus in this thread. It is disingenuous and its makes Vaishnavism completely lose all credibility in my eyes. This doctrine that accepts Buddha as the deceiver of demonic/atheistic people is basically an institutionalized form of violence against Buddhism which followers of this sect are brainwashed with.

 

[haribol]

In fact in a Hindu Purana it is written that the Buddha is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the ninth incarnation. Of course Hindu Puranas preceded Buddhist literature there seems some support for this debate. But I think what is written in the Puranas could have been added in the course of history too. Nevertheless the Buddha was a Hindu and had learned things from Hinduisms, putting the mythical part apart. The Buddha had given something new, and yet what is there in Buddhism is ingrained in some Vedanta already. With that said I am not demeaning Buddhism. Vedic philosophy is very rich and vast and Buddhism, Hinduisms, Jainism, Sikhism are the offspring of this great source, tributaries originated from the same reservoir.
I know I will invite reproaches I am ready to absorb them.

 

[ratikala]

dear sureya deva ,

Thank you everybody. I agree with the general consensus in this thread. It is disingenuous and its makes Vaishnavism completely lose all credibility in my eyes. This doctrine that accepts Buddha as the deceiver of demonic/atheistic people is basically an institutionalized form of violence against Buddhism which followers of this sect are brainwashed with.

I see that after my taking the time to politely explain from both vaisnava and buddhist perspectives that ther is no real basis for there to be any offence caused to a buddhist by the vaisnava veiw and that both are simply looking at things from a different angle . you choose to dismiss any rational explanation , and thank people for backing you in your attempt to start yet another argument and set people against each other .
such devisive behavior is abhorant and is against all dharmic principles .

you are now delliberately trying to inflame anti vaisnava feeling amongst the comunity here by such statements .

This doctrine that accepts Buddha as the deceiver of demonic/atheistic people is basically an institutionalized form of violence against Buddhism which followers of this sect are brainwashed with.

your posts are in them selves a form of "violent" attack on buddhism and vaisnavism but also upon dharma it self .

if you are not willing to listen to the answers you have solicited
kindly dessist from posting any more of your devisive questions .

 

[iamfact]

Thank you everybody. I agree with the general consensus in this thread. It is disingenuous and its makes Vaishnavism completely lose all credibility in my eyes. This doctrine that accepts Buddha as the deceiver of demonic/atheistic people is basically an institutionalized form of violence against Buddhism which followers of this sect are brainwashed with.

Shakyamuni Buddha being a Vishnu-Incarnate whose purpose was to lead the demons away from the Vedic religion is largely an ISKCON view. This view is not a commonality within all of Vaishnavism.

Vaishnavism = Fruits
ISKCON = Apple

Just because you dislike the taste of apples, does not mean you should instantly think bad of all other fruits.

Take my grandmother, for example. She is a Vaishnavist--a very devout Vaishnavist--and she believes that Vishnu incarnated as the Buddha to show people the Dharma to unbelievers of the Vedic faith. She doesn't believe that the Buddha incarnated to delude demons.

Vaishnavism is a very large Hindu denomination, please don't generalize it.

 

[ratikala]

Take my grandmother, for example. She is a Vaishnavist--a very devout Vaishnavist--and she believes that Vishnu incarnated as the Buddha to show people the Dharma to unbelievers of the Vedic faith. She doesn't believe that the Buddha incarnated to delude demons.

Vaishnavism is a very large Hindu denomination, please don't generalize it.

jai jai :namaste

 

[Shuddhasattva]

What people believe may not be sectarian scriptures, nonetheless sectarianism of all stripes bears responsibility for such divisiveness.

That said, dismissing Vaishnavism entirely due to some of its flawed social doctrines (and surely we can find even more objectionable ones) is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[ratikala]

dear shddhasattva ji

I think it's fairly accurate. A common one is 'sura dvisham'

Sura is Deva, or followers thereof, dvisham is enemies of, 'those divided against'

It could mean atheists, or it could mean demons, of course, atheists were often seen as demonic.

Here I agree , any adarmic action might be veiwed as demoniac , just as a buddhist might say that an act is in ignorance ,

I think the problem lay in western thinking where our nature is to indulge and enjoy without thought of the concequence , ...so when a strictly honest sanatana dharmi comes along and calls an action ignorant we dont like it !
if we look at it rationaly many people from many faith groups through out the world (and kind hearted non theists) ,even those who condone meat eating would see animal sacrifice as barbaric .


jayadev wrote ....

O Keshava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who has 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.
​

so what does it matter if we call adharmic behavior ignorant , demoniac or barbaric ?

if we continualy defend ignorance and object to the use of strong language , we are in our selves exhibiting ignorance

after many years of buddhist practice followed by many years as a practicing vaisnava ,
I see no thing offencive in the vaisnavas accepting buddha as an avatar , in fact when I found out that vaisnavas revered lord buddha in such a way I was deeply touched and very happy .

this only draws our attention to the simple fact that there are often numerous ways of looking at any situation and that just because veiws differ it does not mean that they are in valid .
jayadeva glorifies lord buddha for his compassion , by glorifying him in this way he is not saying that this is the only accheivement of lord buddha he is glorifying one aspect ..... compassion !

lord buddha ki jai :namaste

jayadeva ki jai :namaste

 

[Surya Deva]

I am just saying it is as I perceive it. I am not interested in debating it here.(This is not the right place to debate) The Vaishnavist Puranas within which this divisive doctrine appears against Buddhism, lose all credibility for me simply on the count that they would fabricate this story and institutionalize it as doctrine. What else have they fabricated? If one thing turns out to be a fabrication, the rest of it comes into question as well. Hence the whole thing is dubious.

I have no intention to inflame anybody, I am simply offering my opinion based on what has been said so far in this thread. The Buddha avatar story is disingenuous as many have said.

 

[iamfact]

I am just saying it is as I perceive it. I am not interested in debating it here.(This is not the right place to debate) The Vaishnavist Puranas within which this divisive doctrine appears against Buddhism, lose all credibility for me simply on the count that they would fabricate this story and institutionalize it as doctrine. What else have they fabricated? If one thing turns out to be a fabrication, the rest of it comes into question as well. Hence the whole thing is dubious.

I have no intention to inflame anybody, I am simply offering my opinion based on what has been said so far in this thread. The Buddha avatar story is disingenuous as many have said.

I agree with every word you said here! It's just your previous comment about one view within Vaishnavism demolishing your view of Vaishnavism as a whole that I was having trouble with

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Let’s not forget that – the same way they teach that there are two Kapilas – some Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas teach that there are two Buddhas: Śākyamuni Buddha and the much earlier Viṣṇu-Avatāra Buddha. How can an incarnation of God teach and establish total foolishness to negate very theistic understanding? For them the only solution is that this Buddha who is the incarnation of Viṣṇu is not really the historical Buddha.

Pranāms

 

[AmerikanZen]

Namaskāram

Let’s not forget that – the same way they teach that there are two Kapilas – some Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas teach that there are two Buddhas: Śākyamuni Buddha and the much earlier Viṣṇu-Avatāra Buddha. How can an incarnation of God teach and establish total foolishness to negate very theistic understanding? For them the only solution is that this Buddha who is the incarnation of Viṣṇu is not really the historical Buddha.

Pranāms

When the very first atheist became self-aware of human nature?..