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
- Thirumala Venkateswara Temple: From Buddhism to Hinduism
- Onam And The End of Buddhism in Kerala
- Shravanabelgola and the Jain Statue of Gomatheswara
- Tamil is Part of Indian Heritage
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.