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

[Shuddhasattva]

II would like to point out, that while the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra does speak of a "true self", this self is not an independent, ego-soul, as is generally believed by most western, and some eastern, religions.

The Self of both Advaita and Buddhism is not a personal object (ideational construct concerning personal identity), but rather the universal self-awareness. It is not not personal awarenes.

This self is the tathagatagarbha, which is tied inextricably to dependent origination, in other words,

The satya-atman thus defined is not subject to pratitya samutpada.

it's like each person is one drop in a vast ocean, there is no independent, eternally existing true self, it's simply the Buddha-nature that is in all things. From my understanding, even in Advaita, the atman and brahman, while united, are only so in a semi-dualistic way, while the Buddha-nature is non-dual.

In other words, while the atman and brahman is the same, there is still a difference, with the atman being an independent ego-self, which the Buddha would categorically deny. Of course, I could be wrong in my view of this topic according to Advaita, and if I am, I hope someone could correct me.

Yes, you are - I say this with no rancor. In Advaita, the Self is the only absolute reality as brahman. Without parts - it is not a drop but the entire ocean, notions of part and quantity being utterly irrelevant to that which is beyond such material constructs. The atman is not in any way seen as an independent entity separate from Brahman.

You'll note actually that your description of Buddha-nature is semi-dualistic (part vs whole). My understanding of Buddha-nature is monistic, with some monistic-cum-dualistic elements which are complementary to that core monism.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think the reason why my view of Buddha-nature might seem a little dualistic, instead of completely non-dual, is because, while I'm Zen, I still draw heavily from the Pali Canon, and Theravada Buddhism, unlike the Mahayana schools, tends more towards dualism. So, there does seem to be a hint of dualism in my approach, but I will say that it's a tiny amount.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The dualism I like is the idea that the vajrakayas are like facets of a gem, with the self-referential one (undefined by atomicity - ie, a particular viewpoint) being the whole gem. Each vajrakaya contains within it every other vajrakaya, mutually interpenetrating, yet there being only one supreme vajrakaya - which everyone is, containing the other vajrakayas, this supreme vajrakaya being the self-vajrakaya to begin with.

 

[Surya Deva]

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

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is Vaishnavism not a sect/sub religion of Hinduism that is based on the very same Puranas that accept this avatar story? What I find offensive here is not the idea of Buddha has been accepted as an avatar, but the fact that the story has been fabricated in the tradition in order to subvert Buddhism, clearly evincing to me the political nature of this sect/sub religion. It is clearly a man-made institution.

 

[iamfact]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is Vaishnavism not a sect/sub religion of Hinduism that is based on the very same Puranas that accept this avatar story? What I find offensive here is not the idea of Buddha has been accepted as an avatar, but the fact that the story has been fabricated in the tradition in order to subvert Buddhism, clearly evincing to me the political nature of this sect/sub religion. It is clearly a man-made institution.

A Vaishnavist is perhaps better trained to answer this question, but I always understood that different Vaishnavists hold different views. Some view that the Buddha mentioned in the Purāṇas is Siddhārtha Gautama while others view that the Buddha of the scriptures is different from Siddhārtha Gautama. Those saying that the historical Buddha and the Purāṇic Buddha are different, take that approach because Siddhārtha Gautama was born in Nepal, while the Buddha of the Purāṇas was born in central India. There are also other Vaishnavists, like my grandmother, who believe that the historical Buddha was Vishnu-incarnate who came to teach the people of the non-Vedic faith the path of Dharma and non-violence. I'm not exactly sure how she explains the scriptures but I guess it just comes to show you the saying that "there are as many flavours of Hinduism as there are Hindus" is true.

 

[iamfact]

I would like to point out, that while the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra does speak of a "true self", this self is not an independent, ego-soul, as is generally believed by most western, and some eastern, religions. This self is the tathagatagarbha, which is tied inextricably to dependent origination, in other words, it's like each person is one drop in a vast ocean, there is no independent, eternally existing true self, it's simply the Buddha-nature that is in all things. From my understanding, even in Advaita, the atman and brahman, while united, are only so in a semi-dualistic way, while the Buddha-nature is non-dual. In other words, while the atman and brahman is the same, there is still a difference, with the atman being an independent ego-self, which the Buddha would categorically deny. Of course, I could be wrong in my view of this topic according to Advaita, and if I am, I hope someone could correct me.

No, in Advaita, brahman = ātman.

Thus, the mahavākyas (Great Sayings) of the Upanishads:
- ayam atmā brahma - This atman is brahman
- tat tvam asi - Thou art that
- aham brahmasmi - I am brahman
- sarvam khalvidam brahma - All this is truly brahman

There is no semi-dualism in the traditional (Śankarācharya's) approach of Advaita, or my approach of Advaita. The "semi-dualism within non-dualism" also known as attributive monism is within the Vishishtādvaita Vedantic school of thought:

Advaita and Vishishtadvaita

 

[Surya Deva]

A Vaishnavist is perhaps better trained to answer this question, but I always understood that different Vaishnavists hold different views. Some view that the Buddha mentioned in the Purāṇas is Siddhārtha Gautama while others view that the Buddha of the scriptures is different from Siddhārtha Gautama. Those saying that the historical Buddha and the Purāṇic Buddha are different, take that approach because Siddhārtha Gautama was born in Nepal, while the Buddha of the Purāṇas was born in central India. There are also other Vaishnavists, like my grandmother, who believe that the historical Buddha was Vishnu-incarnate who came to teach the people of the non-Vedic faith the path of Dharma and non-violence. I'm not exactly sure how she explains the scriptures but I guess it just comes to show you the saying that "there are as many flavours of Hinduism as there are Hindus" is true.

This is why I reject the term Hinduism, because it is meaningless. It can mean contradictory things. It is a bad term created by the British attempting to classify the religious thought of an entire subcontinent into one monolithic religion. I accept the term Santana Dharma, because it is clearly inherent in the title that I accept universal religion of spirituality based on universal principles. Vedanta is the earliest human attempt at describing such a religion, but the cultural specific terms of the Vedic religious tradition are not essential to it. I can just as easily substitute Brahman for Tao.

 

[iamfact]

This is why I reject the term Hinduism, because it is meaningless. It can mean contradictory things. It is a bad term created by the British attempting to classify the religious thought of an entire subcontinent into one monolithic religion. I accept the term Santana Dharma, because it is clearly inherent in the title that I accept universal religion of spirituality based on universal principles. Vedanta is the earliest human attempt at describing such a religion, but the cultural specific terms of the Vedic religious tradition are not essential to it. I can just as easily substitute Brahman for Tao.

You're right. In the end, words are just words. A line from the Tao Te Ching comes to mind:
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

 

[ratikala]

buddha also said look not at the word but at the meaning !

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji

A Vaishnavist is perhaps better trained to answer this question, but I always understood that different Vaishnavists hold different views. Some view that the Buddha mentioned in the Purāṇas is Siddhārtha Gautama while others view that the Buddha of the scriptures is different from Siddhārtha Gautama. Those saying that the historical Buddha and the Purāṇic Buddha are different, take that approach because Siddhārtha Gautama was born in Nepal, while the Buddha of the Purāṇas was born in central India.

out of curiosity , where in the puranas does it say central india ? does it give an area or kingdom ?

to my knowledge from both the buddhist perspective and the vaisnava veiw , buddha was born in lumbini , and reared in the principality of kapilavastu ,
but what we must remember is that india or bharatvarsa once covered a much larger reigion which included modern day nepal .

There are also other Vaishnavists, like my grandmother, who believe that the historical Buddha was Vishnu-incarnate who came to teach the people of the non-Vedic faith the path of Dharma and non-violence.

jai jai to grandmother ,
this is very much the veiw I am used to and I find no offence in it .

I'm not exactly sure how she explains the scriptures but I guess it just comes to show you the saying that "there are as many flavours of Hinduism as there are Hindus" is true.

what I find most sad is the need to make problems with the use of the title hindu ,
what is the problem ? we know what a person means
just the same the use of india as opposed to bharatvarsa !
there is a case for tollerence and understanding here

but what perturbs me the most is that as you say ...."A Vaishnavist is perhaps better trained to answer this question,"

when a practicing vaisnava (with a buddhist bacground) does reply certain people still will not accept that veiw , and on this subject ,....?

"but I always understood that different Vaishnavists hold different views."

this is true , even within the same traditions people are brought up with differing veiws , it is for us all to be rational about such veiws and not turn them in to divisions .

 

[Jainarayan]

...she believes that Vishnu incarnated as the Buddha to show people the Dharma to unbelievers of the Vedic faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but her view seems to be the Buddha saying "well, if you can't follow the Vedas, then live this way" because "this way" is still highly dharmic, simply in a non-theistic way. If this is true, I can reconcile the whole affair. Even Sri Krishna said some things that might be considered as diminishing the importance of Vedas, Bhagavad Gita Chapter 2:

42-44. O Arjuna! There are people who delight in the eulogistic statements of the Vedas and argue that the purport of the Vedas consists in these and nothing else. They are full of worldly desires; paradise is their highest goal; and they are totally blind in a spiritual sense. They expatiate upon those florid Vedic texts which describe the means for the attainment of pleasure and power, which provide attractive embodiments as the fruits of actions and which are full of descriptions of rites and rituals (through which these fulfilments are obtained). In the minds of these votaries of pleasure and power, addicted to enjoyments of the above description, steadfast wisdom (capable of revealing the Truth) is never generated.

45. O Arjuna! The Vedas deal with material ends. But you be established in the Spirit, in the immutable purity of it, having abandoned all material values, attachment to possessions, and concern with the contraries of life like pleasure and pain, heat and cold.

46. What use a pond has got when a whole country is flooded, that much of use only the Veda has got to a Brahmana who is full of wisdom.

Because Sri Krishna's way is dharmic, He also says in 4.11. O Partha! Whosoever worship Me through whatsoever path, I verily accept and bless them in that way. Men everywhere follow My path.

Would my arguments stand up in a court of law? Probably not, but it's a view.

 

[Surya Deva]

what I find most sad is the need to make problems with the use of the title hindu ,
what is the problem ? we know what a person means

Do you? I certainly do not. If a person tells me they are Hindu he could be anything from a pantheist, atheist, theist, montheist, polytheist, transtheist, materialist, animist, ancestor worshipper, yogi, dualist, non-dualist, qualified non dualist, Krishna/Vishnu worshiper, Shiva worshiper, Divine mother worshiper, Hanuman worshiper, Ganesha worshiper, Smartist, snake, cow or rat worshiper.

I get really no idea what somebody means when they say they are 'Hindu' It is a meaningless term. I certainly do not relate to 90% of the Hindus that use this title and would not want to be associated with them. On other hand, if somebody tells me specifically which religious tradition they are from, I get a far better idea of their beliefs and practices. Hindus need to get in the habit of clearly letting people know which tradition they are from Vaishavisim? Shiavism, Shaktism, Smartism? Are they dualists, non-dualists, qualified non dualists? I am from Advaita Vedanta.

 

[Jainarayan]

If a person tells me they are Hindu he could be anything from a pantheist, atheist, theist, montheist, polytheist, transtheist, materialist, animist, ancestor worshipper, yogi, dualist, non-dualist, qualified non dualist, Krishna/Vishnu worshiper, Shiva worshiper, Divine mother worshiper, Hanuman worshiper, Ganesha worshiper, Smartist, snake, cow or rat worshiper.

Labels, labels, and more labels. Humans love their labels.

And the other 6,999,999,999 inhabitants of planet Earth don't know and don't care. Probably 99.998756357291% of "Hindus" don't give a Holy Rat Worshipping's *** either. This is sweating the small stuff.

I get really no idea what somebody means when they say they are 'Hindu' It is a meaningless term. I certainly do not relate to 90% of the Hindus that use this title and would not want to be associated with them.

'Kthxbye.

On other hand, if somebody tells me specifically which religious tradition they are from, I get a far better idea of their beliefs and practices. Hindus need to get in the habit of clearly letting people know which tradition they are from Vaishavisim? Shiavism, Shaktism, Smartism? Are they dualists, non-dualists, qualified non dualists?

And this is important why... ?

I am from Advaita Vedanta.

I heard that from somewhere.

 

[Surya Deva]

And this is important why... ?

Why is it important for anybody to adopt a religious label? It lets other know exactly where you are coming from. Labels are useful for communication. And with all due respect have you not adopted a religious label yourself sir, " Sanātana Dharma"

I recall a conversation earlier how a Gaudiya Vashnavist Hindu from IKSON was asked to give the the Hindu perspective on a TV show. But that is definitely not representative of what Hindus believe. Thus it should be made clear which tradition you are speaking from.

 

[SageTree]

I'm skeptical of 'knowing' someone from a label,
That is why I don't choose one here.
Enough presumptions already.

I appreciate the explaining of what our labels mean.
Thank you to those who do.

 

[Jainarayan]

Why is it important for anybody to adopt a religious label? It lets other know exactly where you are coming from. Labels are useful for communication. And with all due respect have you not adopted a religious label yourself sir, " Sanātana Dharma"

But is there a need to give a religious taxonomic classification?



I simply say "Hindu". Someone who is not Hindu or Indian doesn't know or care what "Vaishnavism" or "Shaivism" is, much less Advaita, Vishishtadvaita. If they have some knowledge of the divisions and press for more answers I'll tell them. And the average garden-variety Hindu at temple doesn't care to pry into another person's beliefs. I don't need to make a Shock & Awe presentation of my religious taxonomy.

 

[ratikala]

ratikala , ...what I find most sad is the need to make problems with the use of the title hindu ,
what is the problem ? we know what a person means

Do you? I certainly do not. If a person tells me they are Hindu he could be anything from a pantheist, atheist, theist, montheist, polytheist, transtheist, materialist, animist, ancestor worshipper, yogi, dualist, non-dualist, qualified non dualist, Krishna/Vishnu worshiper, Shiva worshiper, Divine mother worshiper, Hanuman worshiper, Ganesha worshiper, Smartist, snake, cow or rat worshiper.

you do not know ? then let me help you ,if a person says that they are hindu they simply wish it to be known that they come from one of the dharmic traditions which originated in india .

I get really no idea what somebody means when they say they are 'Hindu' It is a meaningless term.

if a person wants you to know more they will volunteer that information as we do here in our titles , however it is quite permissable to use the term hindu it is explicit in its meaning .

I certainly do not relate to 90% of the Hindus that use this title and would not want to be associated with them.

this could be veiwed as rather an intolerant attitude ?

On other hand, if somebody tells me specifically which religious tradition they are from, I get a far better idea of their beliefs and practices. Hindus need to get in the habit of clearly letting people know which tradition they are from Vaishavisim? Shiavism, Shaktism, Smartism? Are they dualists, non-dualists, qualified non dualists? I am from Advaita Vedanta.

why ? why should anyone "need" to do something simply because it would simplify things for the benifit of your understanding ?
we may politely ask another to which sampradaya they belong , but many lay hindus who have not gone as far as commiting to one sampradaya may not wish to be sepperated in to sects , over my years of temple service I have seen many visitors particularly on festival days who come simply to pay hommage or receive blessings even though they may not be overtly vaisnava it has never occured to me that I might need to know their tradition , all I needed to know was how to welcome them and make sure that they felt comfortable and included .

the most beautifull thing about hinduism from my perspective is that there is a general acceptance of each others traditions without recourse to sectarianism

your need to know only fuels assumptions , once you know that I for instance am vaisnava , you cease to inquire and assume that the title vaisnava tells you our beleifs and our practices when even these vary from person to person , temple to temple , guru to guru !

excuse me repeating myself , ..but , I think ......

there is a case for tollerence and understanding here

 

[Surya Deva]

you do not know ? then let me help you ,if a person says that they are hindu they simply wish it to be known that they come from one of the dharmic traditions which originated in india .

There are many dharmic traditions of India: Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Charvaka(tiny minority I know) and finally Hinduism.

Let me start a new title thread on this subject in the debate forum(as it will invariably turn into a debate)

 

[SageTree]

There are many dharmic traditions of India: Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Charvaka(tiny minority I know) and finally Hinduism.

Let me start a new title thread on this subject in the debate forum(as it will invariably turn into a debate)

Is this the thread there, bud?

 

[Surya Deva]

Yes