Clarification needed

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Clarification needed

Post by thornbush » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:34 am

Bhakta_Glenn wrote: The reason why Hindus see the Buddha as an Avatar is because they have a different, uncompounded view of reality. From this perspective, the Buddha could not be considered to be anything else than an Avatar of God.
"In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart."" onclick=";return false;
"Teacher of divine & human beings (sattha deva-manussanam)"" onclick=";return false;
On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."
' Then what sort of being are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising...Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.' ... .than.html" onclick=";return false;
Others:" onclick=";return false; ... el414.html" onclick=";return false;" onclick=";return false; ... buddha.htm" onclick=";return false;" onclick=";return false;" onclick=";return false;" onclick=";return false;" onclick=";return false; ... 50_151.pdf" onclick=";return false;

(Dear Mods, may I beg your kind indulgence on this section to be seen as I think it's important to see how this never ending claim of Buddha as Vishnu's Avatar must end as even their own kind have refuted that very claim and I have used some of these excerpts in my many debates with my Vaishnavaite frens)

It starts with:
Bhagavata Purana, Canto 1, Chapter 3 - SB 1.3.24:
"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." ... _of_Vishnu" onclick=";return false;
Son of Anjana? Province of Gaya? Wasn't the historical Buddha born in Lumbini, son of Suddhodana Maharajah and Maha Mayadevi?

An interesting comment from a Hindu website:
"It is said that Sakyasimha Buddha, the son of Suddhodana and Maya, and Buddha-avatara, the Vaishnavas’ object of adoration, are not one and the same person."
"Our Most Revered Nityalilapravishta Om Vishnupada 108 Sri Srimad Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada has clearly said,
“Sakyasimha Buddha was merely a vastly learned person, so we cannot call him the original Buddha or Lord Buddha.”
Thus, Sugata Buddha and Sunyavadi (Sakyasimha) Buddha are not the same person."

And apparently, the confusion may have stem from:
"It is written in Chapter 21, Page 178 of Lalitavistara-grantha that Gautama Buddha performed penances at the same place as the previous Buddha (Vishnu-avatara Buddha). Maybe it is for this reason that in later ages he and Lord Buddha are considered as being one.."

"Therefore, this source leaves no doubt that the ancient avatara-Buddha and the modern Gautama Buddha are not the same person."" onclick=";return false;
According to the German scholar Max Muller, Sakyasimha Buddha was born in the Lumbini Forest of Kapilavastu in 477 B.C.
Ancient Kapilavastu is a famous district situated near Nepal. Gautama’s father’s name was Suddhodana and His mother’s name was Mayadevi.
Anjana’s son and Maya’s son both share the same name but one appeared at Gaya and the other at Kapilavastu.
Thus, the appearance places and parents of Vishnu Buddha and Gautama Buddha are totally different."" onclick=";return false;
And a thought on what the Buddha taught:
"While other religions lead us outward — towards ideas of a deity who determines our fate, or to lofty philosophical abstractions like the idea of a universal self or a nondual reality in which all opposites are resolved — the Buddha leads us back to ourselves, always keeping his teaching attuned to the hard facts of experience.
He places the mind at the forefront of his analysis and says that it is the mind which fashions our actions, the mind which shapes our destiny, the mind which leads us towards misery or happiness.
The beginning point of the teaching is the ordinary mind, in bondage and subject to suffering; the end point is the enlightened mind, completely purified and liberated from suffering.
The whole teaching unfolds between these two points, taking the most direct route." ... el433.html" onclick=";return false;
Personally, as a figure of speech, I won't ask an Engineer what is a cardio arrest, even tho he may know SOMETHING about it, but it does not cover ALL things about it as compared to a medical doctor.
Similarly, as a Buddhist, only the Tipitaka/Tripitaka is qualified to speak on the totality of the Buddha and His Dhamma.
Other than that, other books may be just be a past time indulgence on Buddhism and comparative religious study.

Namo Amitabha Buddha

User avatar
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: UK

Re: Clarification needed

Post by srivijaya » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:09 pm

These assertions are usually made citing the Tevijja Sutta DN 13 as a Buddhist authority:
81. `Then you say, Vàseññha, that the Bhikkhu is free from household and worldly cares, and that Brahmà is free from household and worldly cares. Is therethen agreement and likeness between the Bhikkhu and Brahmà?'
`There is, Gotama!
`Very good, Vàseññha. Then in sooth, Vàseññha, that the Bhikkhu who is free from household cares should after death, when the body is dissolved, become united with Brahmà, who is the same,such a condition of things is every way possible!'
`And so you say, Vàseññha, that the Bhikkhu is free from anger, and free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself; and that Brahmà is free from anger, and free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself. Then in sooth, Vàseññha, that the Bhikkhu who is free from anger, free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself should after death, when the body is dissolved, become united with Brahmà, who is the same,such a condition of things is every way possible!'" onclick=";return false;

Seems a bit odd, considering that Buddha censures Brahmans for claiming to know the way to (and to summon) that which they have never seen and do not know.
15. `Verily, Vàseññha, that Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen, such a condition of things can in no wise be!
An interesting take on this question on this blog: ... aphor.html" onclick=";return false;


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pilgrim and 10 guests