Gautama Buddha: Siddhartha Gautama an Avatar of Vishnu?
A few days ago I saw a documentary on Public Television (PBS) called “The Buddha”. This documentary was narrated by actor Richard Gere and also included comments and thoughts by well known Buddhists including the Dalai Lama and Pulitzer Prize winning poet W.S. Merwin. The program was very well done and very informative particularly for the American audience who are not that familiar with Eastern religions and philosophies including Buddhism and Hinduism.
As I was watching the program I felt that something was missing. The documentary basically retells the life story of Siddhartha Gautama from his childhood as a prince in Kapilavastu to his days as a wandering monk in Northern India to his eventual enlightenment under a Pipal tree and finally his death. This life story of the Buddha is extremely familiar to most Indians whether they are Buddhist or not.
Most Hindus believe that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu and that Buddha was a Hindu before he formed the religion that is today known as Buddhism. The PBS documentary reinforces such stereotypical views about Buddhism and its history. There is a lot of room for debate on whether Siddhartha Gautama was actually a historical figure or a mythical character like most other gods. But if Siddhartha was indeed a real person then how can he be a Hindu when no such religion existed during his lifetime (around 500 BCE)?
Buddha simply means an enlightened person and Siddhartha probably was an enlightened person. But it would be naive to believe that Buddhism originated from Hinduism (as it is taught in Indian schools) and also that Siddhartha Gautama was the founder of this philosophy. The way Hinduism treats Buddha is very similar to the way Islam treats the Christian god Jesus Christ. The supreme deity of one religion becomes the saint, prophet or a secondary deity of another religion that it is competing with.
As a result of DNA testing we now know that modern human beings started settling in India very soon after they started migrating from Africa. But since that initial migration many groups of people from all over the world including Eastern and Central Europe have migrated to India. Every group brought with them their unique languages, culture and religious and spiritual beliefs. The newer migrants and the existing groups were often at odds with each other and the loser faced some dire consequences.
The Buddha is often portrayed in ancient art and architecture as a black person. Buddha has curly hair, flat nose and full lips. Human beings have a tendency to portray god in our own image and the image of Buddha is a very good indicator of who most of his followers were (for the record the physical characteristics of a black person can be as varied as any other race).
So the question is how did the god of the ancient Indians with their caste less society also become the god of the newer migrants from Central Asia with their caste based Vedic religions? The induction of Buddha into the Hindu pantheon and the story of Siddhartha Gautama as told today is an attempt by the Vedic religions to convert and control the Buddhists of ancient India. This is another example of how history is often written by the winners.
The misrepresentation of history does not stop with the induction of Buddha as a Hindu god. We are also taught that Buddhism spread all over the world and became the religion that it is today primarily because of the Mauryan emperor Ashoka (a Hindu king who became a Buddhist after the bloody war with the state of Kalinga (modern day Orissa). Ashoka might have been a great ambassador for Buddhism but there is no evidence to suggest that the Mauryan Empire extended to Orissa or that the war in Kalinga took place. It is very likely a mythical war (For more please read my article on Chandragupta Maurya).
Buddhism was well known to the ancient world hundreds of years before Ashoka was ever born. In fact Ashoka’s grandfather Chandragupta Maurya also claimed credit for spreading Buddhism after seeing the pain and suffering among his subjects. But history shows that several emperors have made claims of converting to and spreading religions that they are not born into. The most well known example is Emperor Constantine of Rome who is supposed to have renounced his pagan religion and converted to Christianity. If you cannot fight them join them or make claims that you have joined them!!
The group that played a pivotal but a lesser known role when it comes to promoting Buddhism is the Greeks. After the successful conquest of modern day Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North West India, Alexander the Great established the Indo-Greek kingdoms. Many of these kingdoms promoted Buddhism (this phase is called Greco-Buddhism).
Many of these Greek kings incorporated Buddhist Mudras in their coins and some even claim that they converted to Buddhism including Menander I Soter (King Menander). This cultural interaction between the Greeks and the Buddhism transformed Buddha from a black god to a god who resembles ancient Greek gods!! It was this Greek inspired Buddha that later became an avatar of Vishnu. Some of the greatest works of Buddhist architecture (particularly the depiction of Buddha) that you will find in the world today are clearly inspired by the Greek influenced Gandhara style.
Although all these facts are well established why do we still continue to believe that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu? Why do we still believe that Ashoka was primarily responsible for spreading Buddhism? Are we ashamed to admit the fact that at one point in our long history we had aggressive intentions towards Buddhism? While we have a great history we should be willing to acknowledge that this history and tradition came at a price. And that price is the marginalization of the ancient Indians and their Buddhist culture.
Fortunately our forefathers did not do a good job. Buddhism survived and it now thrives.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense” – Buddha
Related posts:
- India Should Not Arrest the Avatar of Sai Baba
- Islam and the False Concept of Equality in Indian Society
- Thirumala Venkateswara Temple: From Buddhism to Hinduism
- Onam And The End of Buddhism in Kerala
- Shravanabelgola and the Jain Statue of Gomatheswara
Category: Culture & Religion
the features that you speak of are very Dravidian too…we have the Yenadi tribe in AP who can be mistaken for an African any day.
Krishna, Buddha and Christ…all three born of virgin mothers and with very similar stories …there seems to be a lack of creativeness or was it a case of ancient plagiarism of epic proportions?
You are correct about the features. If you study the mythology of Buddha, Krishna and Christ you have to conclude they are similar. The concepts and the names are the same. They are all Sun gods and in addition they are all “mediator” gods.
It is so wrong to compare Buddha & Krishna with Christ. Jesus was condemned and put to death like a common criminal by his own people because he was claiming divinity without providing any proof for it. (Jews don’t think much of him to this day!) Buddha never claimed divinity and was adored by most of the people of his society.
Ajay .. as you probably might know many books have been written on this subject. “Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha & Christ”. is a good read. The common perception is that Buddha did not claim divinity (there are many Buddhist schools of thought that agree with you). But it is also a fact that for many Buddhists, Buddha is a god and they worship him just like Christians worship Jesus.
I am well aware that many followers of Buddha consider him divine, especially of Mahayan branch. But there is a big difference between someone claiming divinity and someone being considered divine *after death by others*.
Vast majority of people find it comforting to pray to some higher power. Buddhism evolved to meet this spiritual need, even though the founder never recommended it. (Likewise, I doubt if Ram or Krishna considered themselves divine.)
I agree Ajay. But some Christians claim that Christ is not god but just a “son of god” or a messenger of god. It would depend on the interpretations.
Very interesting post. Our history is distorted. Even if we do not go as far back as the period BC.
Your blog is really interesting and reflects your immense research and hard work into gaining knowledge. Hats off to you!
Cheers
Hiyaa
Welcome and thank you very much for your compliments Hiyaa. My blog is about sharing the little knowledge that I have gained with my fellow human beings in this beautiful place called Earth.
hi,
its very true and daring post ,i liked it allot
really everything in history is distorted by the winners and tyrants.
also thanks for giving good information of history.
Roopam
Welcome to my blog Roopam. Thank you very much for the compliments.
Completely wrong portrayal of History. For one Vedic Hinduism very much existed during the period. U have completely forgotten to mention that Buddhism like Jainism and other Schools of Hinduism were competing for dominance. So it was not only Hinduism which was attacking buddism but more a case of all three big religions jostling for supremacy. Archeological evidence and many sacred buddhist texts also Indicate Ashokas role in spreading the religion. Also visit the lesser known buddist sites across India to learn more!! Nice article as in its a creative argument, unfortunately its lacking in hard historical facts, more a case of a few indicators used to portray a large complicated picture.
Welcome Advitaya,
You present the Hindu viewpoint of this argument which is also the traditional and standard version taught in Indian schools. No one said that Ashoka did not spread Buddhism. But what I did say was that Buddhism was well known to the ancient world hundreds of years before Ashoka.
Personally I do not believe in the word Vedic Hinduism. It is a term used by Hindus to usurp the Vedas for themselves. The stories found in the Vedas are relevant to the Buddhists and the Jains as it is for the Hindus (the word Hindu originated almost 2000 years after the Vedas).
I find it interesting that when the status quo is challenged people immediately seek evidence without willing to acknowledge that the status quo itself is standing on very thin ice. The only evidence you need is the belief of many Buddhists over hundreds of years that their religion did not originate from Hinduism and that Buddha is not an avatar of Vishnu. A person has the right to believe that their version of history is the right one and the others view is just a “creative argument” as you put it.
Buddhism did not spread before Ashoka. Please revisit your facts. The advent of Buddhism throughout the world happened only after his times. This is a few shared even in the sacred buddhist texts from Sri Lankan to Japan.And the “version” of history presented by me is not the “right wing” version but something several neutral historians stand by as well.
Vedic Hinduism is accepted such not just by “Hindu Fundamentalists” but also by scholars from the world over. The Hinduism you see today is a natural progression of that system and many others. Hinduism is in fact as you put it is a usurping of many thoughts. (or amalgamation of many systems and thoughts). So Charavaka is as Hindu a system as is todays saivism. There is no “Hindu” view because the scope of the religion is really really vast. Or are you implying the right wings Hindutva view when you speak about this so called Hindu view. When a religion itself is so complex, with varied beliefs from Astik to Nastik, from Non duality to Duality, from Logic to Mythology how then can you restrict its scope to one view point and call it the Hindu view? Buddhism is a distinct religion which has been influenced by Hinduism and later Hinduism has been influenced back by it (refer to the Advaita Vedanta). And for the record i despise the view of the right wing.
I never said anything about Buddha being an avatar. Personally to me as a Hindu none of the Hindu gods exist anyway. Taking the mythology literally is fallacy.
Advitya .. as I mentioned many kings before Ashoka have made claims that they have adopted Buddhism including Ashoka’s grandfather Chandragupta Maurya. So I do not believe that Ashoka was solely responsible for spreading Buddhism. There is a book by Godfrey Higgins called Anacalpsis that goes into great detail on the extent of the spread of Buddhism way before the Mauryan empire.
If Hinduism today is a natural progression of the Vedic system then why cannot it be a natural progression for the Buddhism and Jainism? It is not the right wing Hindu view but the normal Hindu view today (and the view of the Indian governments as evidenced in our text books) that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu (I am not responsible for creating this “restrictive view”). This gives the impression that Buddhism is an offshoot of “Hinduism”. I do not agree with this view.
Chandragupta Maurya turned to Jainism later in his life and from all known accounts was not Buddhist at any time.
Read the Buddhist texts, the Bon texts, the mahavamsa , the chinese and japanese texts. Ashoka and only Ashoka plays a central figure (King) in the spread of the religion.
I dont know which books you read but even the Tamil Nadu state board text books clearly mention that Buddhism is a distinct religion and that Buddha was a Kshatriya Prince prior to renouncing it. And while studying Philosophy in India i was taught that all religions interchanged ideas from each other as is the case with every religion which has come to this part of the world.
Buddhism started off as an offshoot to Hinduism just as Christianity was to Judaism but is now a distinct religion which has influenced Hinduism and in turn has been influenced. A shared history is not demeaning it is positive. Reminds you your not so different after all!! Plato as a student to Socrates learned much from him, but his views were unique and enriched the word and this was more because of his own evolved thought than merely being Socrates’s student. I dont say Buddism is the student of Hinduism but they have been complimentary religions. i studied in India, and these impressions i get from my education here, i never for once was taught that Buddha was the Avatar of Vishnu. It was always taught he was a prince who became enlightened!!!
Advitya,
I studied in Tamil Nadu for over 15 years. I know what the Tamil Nadu state board says. I and most people on the planet know that Buddhism and Hinduism are two separate religions. I am also fully aware of the role of Ashoka in Buddhist texts.
My article is trying to argue against the assumption that you just made that “.. Buddha was a Kshatriya Prince prior to renouncing it….Buddhism started off as an offshoot to Hinduism just as Christianity was to Judaism but is now a distinct religion which has influenced Hinduism and in turn has been influenced“.
My article argues that Buddhism is as old if not older than the Vedic religions and that the concept of Buddha (an enlightened person) is as old as time. Following is a small list of Hindu scripture that declares Gautama Buddha as 9th Avatar of Vishnu: Harivamsha (1.41), Vishnu Purana (3.18) and Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.23).
One of the authors of the Indian constitution Ambedkar said “I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda“. I wonder why someone of his stature would make a statement like this if not many people in India believed that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu!!
And also its not like our father tried to completely destroy Buddhism. They were competing religions for a while. For a while Buddhism enjoyed more patronage and then Hinduism emerged again.
Read the Mattavilasa Prahasana. Its an interesting portrayal of 6th century India and shows how various religions competed. If you say that our forefathers tried to vanquish Buddhism you must realize they could very well have been buddhists at some point.
And also the battle of Kalinga is as Historic as Alexanders battle with Porus. Both are recorded in texts and accounts. The physical evidence for neither exists. So does that mean Alexander dint fight Porus as this particular battle lacks the physical evidence of his earlier battles?
Advitya,
You keep asking me to read the various texts. Please consider the possibility that I might be as well read as you are :)
There is no question that Hinduism not only tried to vanquish Buddhism from India but also presented a negative picture of Buddha in some of its texts. Buddha is portrayed as a preacher of false views. The conversions of Buddhists in to Hindus like all conversions was done though debate, coercion and also by force.
I would like to end this thread by agreeing with you that the battle of Alexander with Porus is also very likely mythical (just like the Kalinga war). If the war in Kalinga is mythical then did Ashoka convert to Buddhism? If he did not convert to Buddhism then did he really spread Buddhism to the rest of the world?
Thank you for debating with me on this topic.
” But if Siddhartha was indeed a real person then how can he be a Hindu when no such religion existed during his lifetime (around 500 BCE)?”
This is a good point. I wonder what religion existed besides Brahmanism during the time of the Buddha.
What I heard from a Hindu ” enlightened master” was that there were a large number of bad people and outcast. But the gods couldn’t just get rid of them. Therefore Vishnu took birth on earth to become the Buddha. He said the Buddha try to speak their (the outcast) language by being a rebel as well as a technique to guide the outcast. They put a statue of the Buddha on the side in the shrine room of the Temple, people are not recommended to follow his teachings because it is intended for the outcasts and bad people, ie.. criminals,etc..Most dharma talks is about Shiva sutra, patanjali, etc..So the Buddha was just there in the corner for decoration or something. This is coming from someone who claimed to be “enlightened” and worshiped by other Hindus.
This means that they are making the Buddha a minor deity in their religion and refuse to recognize Buddhism as a legitimate religion. That way there is no Buddhism for people to convert to. Depite being placed as a minor deity in Hinduism, people are discouraged to learn about his teaching by way of making up the above story.
Good points Pepsi. Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is a brilliant idea. This means Buddha is just one of the gods of the Hindu religion and it also puts Hinduism as the parent religion from which Buddhism rose. Obviously this is not true.
Hari, I agree with you that the claim that Buddha is Vishnu is without substantial basis.
According to the myth, Vishnu came down as Buddha ( his 9th incarnation). He will come down again as a horseman ( 10th incarnation).
According to the biography of the Buddha, he was a Mahapurusha (great being) named Shvetaketu. Tushita Heaven ( Home of the Contented gods) was the name of the realm he dwelled before taking his last birth on earth as Buddha. There is no more rebirth for a Buddha. Before leaving the Tushita realm to take birth on earth, he designated Maitreya to take his place there. Maitreya will come to earth as the next Buddha, instead of him coming back again.
Krishna was a past life of Sariputra, a chief disciple of the Buddha. He wasn’t a god and have not attained enlightenment during that life as Krishna. Therefore, he came back to be reborn during the life of the Buddha and reached the first stage of Enlightenment after encountering an enlightened disciple of the Buddha. He reached full Arahantship/ full Awakening not long after became ordained in the Buddha’s sangha.
From the Lalitavistara Sutta :
“The Bodhisattva in the Tushita Heaven. Prior to his final birth and enlightenment underneath the Bodhi Tree, the Bodhisattva resided in a great palace in the Tushita heaven . After being consecrated, lauded, praised and glorified by a hundred thousand Devas, the voices of a hundred thousand million kotis of apsaras sang out in unison “Now is the time come; let it not pass unused.”
“The Bodhisattva announces his approaching human birth.It was announced that in twelve years time the Bodhisattva would descend into a mother’s womb…….”
“It would not be becoming of us, o worthy ones, and would be a token of ingratitude should we allow the Bodhisattva to depart along and unattended,” proclaimed the king of the Devas to the heavenly host. “Who among us is able to faithfully and continually attend the Bodhisattva?”………
“Upon hearing these words, the eighty four-thousand Devas of the Four Great Kings as well as hundreds and thousands of Devas from the East, South West and North gathered together.”….
“Hearken o rulers of the immortals to these words and consider this irrevocable decision,” spoke the highest of the Deva-sons to the heavenly host. “Forsaking riches, love and pleasure and the great happiness of meditation, we shall bind ourselves faithfully to this pure being.”……
“The Bodhisattvas of the Ten Winds render homage to the future Buddha. When the time of the Bodhisattva’s descent had arrived, many hundred thousand bodhisattvas from the East, as well as many hundred thousand bodhisattvas from the countries of the ten winds, all bound to only one more birth, gathered to render homage to the future Buddha.”……..
“The Descent of the Bodhisattva and the conception. After the Bodhisattva had placed himself on the lion-throne that originates from all his merits, he departed the Tushita heaven surrounded by a hundred thousand million kotis of bodhisattvas, Devas, nagas and yaksas…”
“When the winter was over in the month of Vaichakha (mid-April to mid-May), the Bodhisattva descended from the beautiful Tushita abode and entered the womb of his mother .”…..
“The Devas pay homage to the Bodhisattva’s earthly abode. After he had entered his mother’s womb, a jeweled pavilion (Ratnavyuha) sprang up to house the Bodhisattva, who in his final existence does not have the nature of the fleshly substance of a fetus. Within the pavilion he was seated with crossed legs, complete with all his limbs and with all the requisite tokens.”…….
“Accompanied by a divine host and in possession of the drop of essence, Brahma approached the Bodhisattva’s jeweled palace to behold him, to adore him and serve him, and to hear the Dharma.”……
“The Bodhisattva was born at the end of ten full months……”
“Filled with profound reverence, the Devas Brahma and Sakka received the Bodhisattva and wrapped him in a silk garment of gold and silver threads, recognizing and knowing him. When the Bodhisattva descended to the ground, the earth split open and a great lotus rose to receive him. Naga kings showered him with streams of warm and cool water as a heavenly host sprinkled him with perfumed water and flower blossoms. The Bodhisattva placed himself on the lotus and looked towards the four winds……”
The Buddha did mentioned however, that he was Rama in a past life ( but not Krishna). The text also indicated that, the next person coming will not be him either. During the life as Rama, he was highly developed. But he was not yet enlightened in that life .
The Buddha started his spiritual life by exploring spirituality as a saddhu. It appears that he took up practices similar to the Jains. He later abandoned it because he realized that self-mortification, asceticism, and torturing the body only makes it unconducive to entering a Jhana state he recalled having entered by chance as a child. That was the meditation state he used to realized awakening wisdom.
For a thorough background research into Hinduism and Buddhism, I recommend the book ” Hinduism and Buddhism, A Historical Sketch” by Charles Elliot
Thank you for taking the time to submit all this information. For many of us Buddha is a Hindu prince who set out on his own to reform society and find the reasons for human pain and suffering. In our minds he is almost human. The texts that you have submitted shows all the mythical, spiritual and God-like nature of the Buddha.
Dear Hari,
Yes, you are right. After being born into the human realm, he is indeed a considered human. From that point on he considered himself a man and not a god. The info above was about the time before he decided to take birth as a human from Tushita realm.
In Buddhist cosmology, it is not unusual to take birth in one realm in one life and another realm in another life depending on your kamma. You can be a human in the present life and be a deva , animal, or brahma in a previous life or the next. Yet none of these identities can be considered your permanent / true identity. Just like in one dream you are a man, in another you are elephant, yet an angel in another. Once you awaken, you don’t take any of these roles in your dream to be yourself. For this reason, the Buddha doesn’t emphasized on becoming god or reborn as human in the spiritual life but only Awakening and liberation from the whole cycle.
About the Buddha started life as a Hindu, I would say that the Pali Canon indicated that he started the spiritual life practicing like the Jains until he eventually abandoned his self-mortification practices. And others who practiced with him at the time left him because he is no longer torturing himself physically :
“Originally, Hindu was a secular term which was used to describe all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent (or Hindustan) irrespective of their religious affiliation. It occurs sporadically in some 16th-18th century Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnava texts, including Chaitanya Charitamrita and Chaitanya Bhagavata, usually to contrast Hindus with Yavanas or Mlecchas.[17] It was only towards the end of the 18th century that the European merchants and colonists referred collectively to the followers of Indian religions as Hindus.
Eventually, it came to define a precisely religious identity that includes any person of Indian origin who neither practiced Abrahamic religions nor non-Vedic Indian religions, such as Jainism, Sikhism or Buddhism, thereby encompassing a wide range of religious beliefs and practices related to San?tana Dharma.” – Wikipedia
Hinduism emphasizes:
1. Rituals.
2. Caste system
3. ethics have so small a place in its fundamental conceptions.
4. God centered
The Buddha doesn’t emphasizes rituals and caste system. Virtue ( ethical conducts) is a requisite in meditation practice. In other words, purity in words, thought , and action is crucial in the path.
The Buddha did not deny the existence nor forbid the worship of the popular gods, but such worship is not Buddhism and the gods are merely angels who may be willing to help good Buddhists but are in no wise guides to religion, since they need instruction themselves. The focus of the Noble Eightfold Path is not so much about worshipping god, achieving heaven in the next life ( perhaps for a number of lay devotees but not bhikkhus/ bhikkhunis), experiencing Brahma consciousness in this life or the next. The reason is that in all these realms, beings are subject to rebirth after some period of time. It is like going around in circles in the round of rebirth despite all the effort and striving. Therefore, the purpose of the holy life in the Buddha’s path is about liberation from the cycle of rebirth and experience Awakening in this very life ( some might take longer, depending on the person). The Buddha himself realized Awakening after about 6 years of practice. He enter into Sunya/ ??nyat?, dwell in rapture, sukkha ( happiness) , tranquility, equanimity, and the like , also visit any realms he feels like in this very life , here and now. He is liberated from all rebirth in samsara now and after parinirvana.
Jainism emphasizes:
- asceticism , self-mortification, or torturing the body, as a means of purifying the soul and obtaining supernatural powers.
Buddhism is similar to Jainism regarding no animal sacrifice/ human sacrifice. However, the Buddha wouldn’t suggest his disciples to take up self-mortification, or torturing the body. The middle way is neither indulgence in sensual desires nor is it self- mortification. Also the Buddha doesn’t place emphasis on supernatural powers . If it happens, it is just the icing on the cake. Also his forbid disciples from showing it to the laity for the sake of fame.
” No temples or images remain to illustrate the first growth of Hinduism ( as the later form of Indian religion is commonly styled) out of the earlier Brahmanism……..we have evidence that in the fifth or sixth century before Christ the Vedic or Brahmanic religion was not the only form of worship and philosophy in India. There were popular deities and rites to which the Brahmans were not opposed and which they countenanced when it suited them. What takes place in India today took place then. When some aboriginal deity becomes important owing to the prosperity of the tribe or locality with which he is connected, he is recognized by the Brahmans and admitted to their pantheon, perhaps as the son or incarnation of some personage more generally accepted as divine. The prestige of the Brahmans is sufficient to make such recognition an honor, but it is also their interest and millennial habit to secure control of every important religious movement and to incorporate rather than suppress. “- Sir Charles Elliot
Pepsi,
The information you provided about the basic concepts of Buddhism, the differences between Buddhism and Jainism and the transition from Shvetaketu to Buddha is very fascinating to say the least. The last comment by Charles Elliot that you quoted in your response is very relevant to this discussion. Thank you very much for the knowledge.
It’s always interesting to have an open dialogue and exchange ideas. Thanks for keeping an open mind. I really enjoyed the article.
Thank you for the compliments. I hope you continue to visit my blog.
Hari,
Ur bias for buddhism shows in this post..Buddhism did not predate Hinduism…infact Hinduism existed long before Buddhism..the vedic civilisation existed before 1500 B.C
Buddha was a reformer and a improviser… his sham enlightenment was nothing but gaining knowledge from other hindu religious teachers from ..nothing original…infact Zoraster is the real mastermind of all our moral teachings.
now i am sure, u like to live in alternate buddhist reality..and so cant wait for ur distorted facts.
I hope u have the guts to take me on religious debate.
Jibril,
Stating the facts as I know it (and understood by millions of Buddhists in the world) is not a bias.
We do not know a lot about the “Vedic civilization” if there was one. We do not know for sure even if some the Vedic scriptures were written in the Indian context. There are a lot of similarities in the ancient mythologies of India, Iran and parts of the Middle East.
Your attempt to connect the mythical Vedic civilization to modern day Hinduism to prove that Hinduism existed long before Buddhism is rather lame.
The article says, “… then how can he be a Hindu when no such religion existed during his lifetime (around 500 BCE)?”
Hinduism existed long before Siddhartha was born. He incorporated some of it into his own beliefs.
John,
Modern day Hinduism is a collection of different religions, beliefs and scriptures. One aspect of this religion is the mythology that you will find in scriptures like the Vedas. But similar mythology exists in other religions also like Zorastrianism, Mithraism and the Abrahamic religions. For example you will find the concept of Brahm in the Vedas and also in Hinduism, Buddhism and Abrahmic religions (Ab-brahm, Ibrahim). When you state that Hinduism existed before Buddhism then you are referring to an aspect of modern day Hinduism that existed before the historic Buddha. But these ancient mythologies are common to most other religions and Hinduism cannot claim exclusive rights.
Hinduism is a relatively new religion that incorporates very ancient and vastly different traditions and beliefs. Some of these religions were dominating religions themselves at one point and at war with each other (Shaivism vs Vaishnavism is a good example).
The term Hinduism and Buddhism were coined very recently there were a set of beliefs which is existed more than 3 thousand years ago and it war continuosly updated from time to time there was certain beliefs and practices which were not relevant at that time which had to be updated and Buddha shown the way how to live at that particular time and since it was relavent at that particular time many people accepted it this is now known as Buddhism.Buddha never said this a religion of my own and dont follow any other religion.the Hinduism which we call now is actually not a specific religion it is a set of beliefs people of India practiced for thousands of years Hinduism constantly updates itself from time to time and many phylosopher7 emerged from time to time even you and i can create our own religion out of Hinduism and Buddha is such a philosopher and ultimately Buddha is not an Avatar of Vishnu he is an intelligent person
Welcome Vishwa.
I would like to add the following comments: Buddha in the eyes of some of us is an intelligent person (human) who reformed society. This view is an attempt by other religions to downgrade him from what he really is. I agree that there are some Buddhists who see Buddha strictly as a reformer and a philosopher (Buddhism is one of the fastest growing religions in the West and this aspect of Buddhism is what the West loves the most).
But there is a lot of scripture to support the fact that Buddha was indeed God and treated like god by his followers and those who wrote about him. Buddha had several incarnations as a Deva prior to being born as Siddhartha. Buddhism has polytheistic, pantheistic and monotheistic aspects that cannot be ignored.
The following is a translation of an inscription found in Bodh Gaya. These comments also show the tug of war between competing gods. Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha according to these inscriptions are all various forms of Buddha!
Reverence be unto thee, in the form of Buddha: reverence be unto the Lord of the earth: reverence be unto thee, an incarnation of the Deity, and the Eternal One: reverence be unto thee, O God! in the form of the God of Mercy: the dispeller of pain and trouble; the Lord of all things; the Deity who overcomest the sins of the Kali Yug; the guardian of the universe; the emblem of mercy toward those who serve thee—O’M! the possessor of all things in vital form. Thou art Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa; thou are Lord of the universe; Reverence be unto the bestower of salvation I adore thee, who art celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms, in the shape of Buddha, the God of Mercy.—Be propitious, O Most High God!
Hi Vishwa,
Vishwa : “Buddha never said this a religion of my own .”
I would also say that the Buddha’s dharma is for all, regardless of the faith they belong to. However, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t intend to set up a dispensation that follow his instruction as it is without adding or subtracting. Setting up a religion is simply a way to preserve the teaching in its purest form and reduce the possibility of dilution so that it will remain effective for later generations when they want to experience liberation through his teaching.
People from various belief are more than welcome to take up what they are comfortable with and leave out what doesn’t go well with their personal taste. The establishment of the new religion is for those who are ready to practice the path as he taught it and experience the intended outcome of the path. Therefore, the Buddha established a new religion when he was alive.
Vishwa :”Buddha shown the way how to live at that particular time and since it was relavent at that particular time many people accepted it”
Wouldn’t you say that it is relevant today as well?
Hi everyone,
What a lively conversation. Indeed, when it comes to his past before Awakening the Buddha said in the Metta Sutta :
” I developed the thought of loving kindness for seven years and did not come to this world for seven aeons of cosmic-contraction and cosmic-expansion. Whenever the world was destroyed, I entered ( by way of rebirth) among the devas of Streaming Radiance, and when the world unfolded again, I was born in an empty Brahma-palace. There, I was Mahabrahma, the unvanquished victor , holding authority for seven times. And thirty-six times I was Sakka, king of the devas, and many hundred times I was a universal monarch, a just and righteous king.”
When it comes to his identity after Awakening , there is no identification with any types/ class of beings living within the 31 planes of existence as his true identity. This includes God, human , animal, etc..( although he has been all of these before when residing in these planes). During the life as Sakka or Brahma, he is still within the boundary of the 31 planes of samsara and not liberated or awakened yet.
In the Dona Sutta, the Buddha said he is not identified with being a deva , human being (or various types of beings found in any other planes) but simply ” Awakened” ( Buddha).
On seeing him, Dona went to him and said, “Master, are you a deva?”
“No, brahmin, I am not a deva.”
“Are you a gandhabba?”
“No…”
“… a yakkha?”
“No…”
“… a human being?”
“No, brahmin, I am not a human being.”
“Remember me, brahmin, as ‘awakened.’ ”
After Awakening, he spent his time teaching both human and devas the path to Awakening. One of his description is a “Teacher of Human and Deva ” ( Sattha devamanussanam) .
what fools u are hinduism was eshtablished in 2500bc and even siddharats father was a hindu king have some knowledge and buddhism failed in many fields as buddha said to do non voilence and not to kill animal but u people r ferocious non vegeterians so uall buddhists i see do not follow buddhismn well and buddha himself was influenced by hinduism as he copied the yoga and meditation and other features from hinduism so bad luck
First of all I am not a Buddhist. Second the word Hindu never existed in the vocabulary before the 15th century (Hindu is a term mostly used by traders. It was later popularized by the British). So I do not know what to say when someone claims that Hinduism was established in 2500 BCE. Some elements of modern day Hinduism can be traced back thousands of years. The same can be said of any other religion in the world.