Talk:Gautama Buddha in Hinduism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong Stating as Buddha as a Brahim

Buddha was against Brahminism in certain ways. For one the Buddha never could accept the fact that people could claim sanctity because of birth and because they could recite the Vedas. He also could not accept their blind belief in the Vedas while he advocated on experiencing the truth individually. Buddhisms insistence on non-ritualistic sect, definitely affected the livelihood of Brahmins, but it never resulted in any serious confrontation between them. Buddhism never considered Brahmins as their real opponents, but their rivalry was more with other sectarians like Jains and Ajivikas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.1.109 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

POV problems

Much of this article is non-NPOV. There are few citations and references; it also contains many inaccuracies. It needs to be thoroughly reviewed and re-written. Since it also has little to do with Hinduism, the Hindu Project banner should also be removed, in my opinion. --Stephen Hodge 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the article is non-NPOV, and lack citations and references. It's also has an unencyclopedic style, reading like an attempt to "take back" Buddha from the Buddhists. I think it's fine to keep it as part of WikiProject Hinduism, as the article explicitly descibes the conception of Buddha in Hindu religion/mythology. There's definitely a need for such an article to exist, if only to expand on the terse, rather clinical, description at Gautama_Buddha#Hinduism. --Anirvan 03:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My main problem with this article is that it does not do what it purports to do: there is only minimal content dealing with the Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu. 95% of the article is irelevent and already covered in the various pages related to Buddhism. The irrevelent material should be cut. If warranted, perhaps an article covering the wider topic of "the Buddha from the Hindu perspective" could include some of this material, provided it is sourced and referenced properly. --Stephen Hodge 19:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete the neutrality and accuracy cautions until the issues have been resolved ! --Stephen Hodge 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


As a first step, how about deleting the following four sections, as they all seem to be pretty irrelevant to Buddha (the avatar of Vishnu):

  • "Was Buddha an Atheist?"
  • "Brahman in Earliest Buddhism"
  • "Deva worship in Buddhism"
  • "Vegetarian Practices in Buddhism"

This isn't an article about the relationship between Buddhist practice and Hinduism (or for that matter, about why Hindus know Buddha better than Buddhists do -- which seems to be the article's current thesis) --Anirvan 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Anirvan. Yes, I agree. If user Maleabroad wants to keep this material, it should be transferred to a new article on the Buddha from the Hindu perspective, where we can then examine the accuracy and NPOV of the contents of those bits. The current article should only cover what it says it covers: the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu and nothing more.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
A postscript to the above. If user maleabroad does not respond and discuss the problem, I suggest deleting the entire article except for the first two sentences of the first paragraph.--Stephen Hodge 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I can see three distinct areas covered in this article: (1) Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu in the Hindu mythology (9th among Vishnu's ten avatars), (2) Gautama Buddha as a historical Hindu figure and the impact of his teachings on an evolving Hinduism, and (3) the relationship between and cross-influences among Hinduism and Buddhism. It might make sense to include both #1 and #2 in the same article (e.g. "Buddha in Hinduism"), and push the third out into a different article (e.g. Buddhadharma and other Indian Dharmas#Hinduism or Hinduism and other religions#Subsequent Dharma faiths: Buddhism, and Jainism). I'm not a fan of the POV, but the areas covered in the article seem entirely valid. (P.S. Steven, can you please add edit summaries when you make changes to the article? Thanks.) --Anirvan 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree this article has really rambled and drifted off-topic until you are confused what it is about and why some sections are there. If they belong they are not well integrated, and just reading it seems to be a bit of a mess. I have seen this happen to a few other article that I have run into from Maleabroad, not sure what is going on. I wanted to put up a cleanup tag but since its pretty much for revision anyhow just gonna give it a miss. I also agree that it belongs in Hinduism because it is dealing with a Hindu diety, and I beleive either it needs to address the historical significance of this identification or lead into a seperate artcile that does. I do beleive this identification played a major role in the late 1st millenium in the decline of Buddhism in the South of India, and I can see how it may get POV with the conflict in Sri Lanka.

--Tigeroo 05:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that some preliminary editing has occured. But still not enough in my opinion. I was hoping that the original author of this article would put in an appearance and discuss the remaining problems -- which I list here:

1) Buddha the Solar Deity: Largely irrelevent to "Buddha as Vishnu avatara" topic

2) Buddha's Hindu Mission: Almost completely irrelevent to "Buddha as Vishnu avatara" topic, except for the unsourced a Hindu scripture claims Buddha's mission was to "mislead" the "demons."

3) Arya Dharma: Completely irrelevent to "Buddha as Vishnu avatara" topic

4) Was Buddha an Atheist?: Completely irrelevent to "Buddha as Vishnu avatara" topic

5) Brahman in earliest Buddhism: Completely irrelevent to "Buddha as Vishnu avatara" topic

6) Brahmaviharā: Completely irrelevent to "Buddha as Vishnu avatara" topic

7) Buddha as God Almighty: Completely irrelevent to "Buddha as Vishnu avatara" topic

8) Quotes: Both are completely irrelevent to "Buddha as Vishnu avatara" topic

I am not saying that the material under these headings is valueless -- some of it has already been covered elsewhere -- but it should not be included in this article. It would be better to include this stuff under something like "The Buddha from a Hindu Perspective" -- with references and citations. What I would like to see in the current article is more information about the Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu. When did this idea start ? What texts deal with the idea ? What was the purpose of avatarizing the Buddha ? What is the Buddhist perspective on this ?--Stephen Hodge 19:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


I suggest renaming the article "Buddha in Hinduism" to broaden the scope of the article, so it can incorporate both the role of Buddha as an avatar in the Hindu mythos, as well as his role as a co-participant in the project of the development of Hindu philosophy. In my limited knowledge of Hinduism, Buddha is the only historically authentic figure I know of who plays both roles, which makes him rather interesting. I'll go ahead and rename the article if I get an OK from someone. Thanks! --Anirvan 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anirvan, bfore you do that, have a look at this Wiki article which seems to cover the same topic in a short form: Buddhadharma and other Indian Dharmas--Stephen Hodge 21:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen. That's a good starting point for an article. You'll notice that it links to Gautama Buddha in Hinduism as the main article, and that Gautama Buddha in Hinduism is itself a redirect to Gautama_Buddha#Hinduism. Here's what I suggest:

--Anirvan 18:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Response

Dear Viewers of this article. I created this article because there were many article for Buddhists or Nastik Buddhists as a Hindu would say, but none for "The Buddha from a Hindu Perspective," and as a reult I created this. Many times my material in the Gautama page was being deleted by neo-Buddhists perhaps. Gautama is understood by many religions as a savior. The Baha'i think of him as an incarnation of God as do the Hindus. I added the article such as Vegetarianism in Buddhism and God in Buddhism because those are aspects which connect with Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleabroad (talk • contribs)

Amarakosha

The Amarakosha was compiled by the Buddhist Amarasimha, not Shankara.--Stephen Hodge 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bhagavad-gita quote

No, this is a mistranslation. Krishna does not urge refuge in the Buddha. Buddhau is locative of buddhi, not Buddha.--Stephen Hodge 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

http://vedabase.net/b/buddhau


buddhau — in such consciousness; BG 2.49 buddhau — in the intelligence; SB 8.20.25-29


http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys2/faith20.htm In Buddhism, Buddha is "suchness"

now unless you can provide citation for your translation, you should NOT remove or revert this. This is a valid interpretation. As Saran in Buddha is explained in the same way--216.254.121.169 00:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but these amateurish references are not worth much. I repeat, buddhau, locative of buddhi, does not refer to the Buddha at all. This is obvious from the occurences of buddhi in the following verses 50-53 of the BhG. If that does not satisfy you, this is how some of the greatest commentators have glossed buddhau in 2.49.
  • Śrīdharaḥ: yasmād evaṃ tasmād buddhau jñāne śaraṇam ... yad vā buddhau śaraṇaṃ trātāram īśvaram āśrayety arthaḥ ||
  • Madhusūdanaḥ: tasmād buddhau paramātma-buddhau sarvānartha-nivartikāyāṃ śaraṇaṃ pratibandhaka-pāpa-kṣayeṇa rakṣakaṃ...
  • Baladevaḥ: hi yasmād evam atas tvaṃ buddhau tad-yāth' ātmya-jñāne śaraṇam ...
  • Śaṅkhara: sāṃkhya-buddhau śaraṇam ....

If your Sanskrit is a bit rusty, these glosses are, in brief 1. refuge in knowledge or reliance upon God; 2. refuge in buddhi of the supreme self; 3. refuge in knowledge of the self; 4. refuge in discriminatory buddhi. No sign of the Buddha here. So, let's have an end to this nonsense -- Krsna is not urging Arjuna to take refuge in the Buddha at all.--Stephen Hodge 02:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you, that this is an article about VISHNU and Buddha as a VISHNU AVATAR. Does that ring a bell in your head?

In Buddhism, "Buddham sharanam gacchami" means the same thing. Buddham is the supreme spirit, "who sees the Dharma, he sees me" is the common saying.

Buddha is Dharma or the body of what theists like to call "God". So I am right. You are wrong. 

Buddha is THE same God.  So you should remove that, or I will.
Your conclusions are POV and probably original research. Please substantiate your claims with references to bona fide, scholarly sources. In the meantime, please note the following definitions of buddhi:
From Monier William's Sanskrit-English Dictionary:
  • the power of forming and retaining conceptions and general notions, intelligence, reason, intellect, mind, discernment, judgment cf. Mn. cf. MBh.
  • perception (of which 5 kinds are enumerated or with [manas] 6 )
  • comprehension , apprehension , understanding cf. Saah
  • (in Saa.mkhya phil.) Intellect, the intellectual faculty or faculty of mental perception, the second of the 25 Tattvas
  • presence of mind, ready wit cf. Pa~ncat. cf. Hit
  • an opinion , view, notion, idea, conjecture cf. MBh. cf. Kaav. &c
  • thought about or meditation on (loc. or comp.), intention, purpose, design cf. ib. ([buddhyA] , with the intention of. designedly , deliberately
  • impression, belief, notion (often ifc. = considering as , taking for) cf. Kaav. cf. Kathaas. cf. Pur. cf. Hit
No mention of the Buddha here.
From the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (OUP, 1997, p. 171):
  • Buddhi (Sanskrit, "intellect") in Sanskrit literature is the higher mental faculty, the instrument of knowledge, discerment, and decision. Buddhi is comprehended slightly different in different philosophical systems. On the whole, it contrasts with manas, mind, whose province is ordinary consciousness and the connection of atman with the senses. Buddhi, however, is a higher faculty that acts in sense percepts organized by manas and furnishes intellectual discrimination, determination, reason, and will. As such buddhi is at the very core of one's being, as sentient creatures, and the closest mental faculty to the atman, real Self or spirit. In Samkhya-yoga philosophy, buddhi (or mahat, "the great one") plays a key role. Buddhi is the first principle derived from unmanifest prakrti (and predominant in sattva guna, "intellectual stuff"), virtually transparent reflector for pure consciousness (purusa), with which buddhi mistakenly identifies. With this mistaken identification with the conscious principle, a fall into ignorance, buddhi produces the next principle, ahamkara, which in turn produces manas. The three together make up the "internal instrument," or antahkarana. For salvation, buddhi must attain the discriminative discernment between itself as unconscious matter, prakrti, and the independent and transcendent principle of pure consciousness, purusa.
No mention of the Buddha here either.--Stephen Hodge 23:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Buddha is defined perfectly in Buddhism -- Buddha is one who has obtained to perfect Buddhi and removed Abuddhi, the scriptural citation is provided in the article.

Yes, a or the Buddha is defined properly in Buddhism, but not in the terms you claim. You cite the Khuddaka-patha as a source of your buddhi/abuddhi. I have five Pali editions to hand and none of them even uses the words buddhi or abuddhi. What passage in this text do you think states this ? Please provide a page reference or quote from a recognized edition.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the Gita "Buddhi" is given by "ME", this is Krishna referring to himself as the Mahapurusha. Similarly Buddha who is the "dhamma" gives or bestows Buddhi. Buddhi is considered the highest attainment, citation provided in article.

Your equation of the Buddha and dhamma in the sense you suggest is dubious. To say that the Buddha bestows buddhi is unsubstantiated: buddhi is a very rare term in Buddhist texts -- it occurs less than dozen times in the Nikayas and never in the sense you ascribe to the word. Buddhi might be the highest attainment in the BhG but it is never described as such in Buddhist sources.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you fail to seem to understand that this article is about Buddha being seen as the Mahapurusha or Vishnu avatar. Not your personal views on Buddha.

This is not about my personal views on the Buddha: I follow and quote recognized scholarly sources -- which seem be in short supply here. Yes, I agree that this article is about the Buddha as a Vishnu Avatar, so why is it that so much unrelated material has been smuggled in. Anything, and there is a lot of that as I have indicated, needs to be placed in some other more appropriate article. The attempt to link the Buddha with the Mahā-puruṣa from Buddhist sources is mistaken: mahā-puruṣa has a quite different meaning in Buddhist sources.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Buddha is NOT a personal name, but a name of the supreme consciousness in the view of him as a Mahapurusha. --216.254.121.169 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Give a valid citation for this assertion, please. In the meantime, can you pick out your meaning from the definition of buddha given in Monier-Williams:
buddha: mfn. awakened , awake cf. MBh; expanded , blown cf. SaamavBr
  • conscious , intelligent , clever , wise (opp. to [mūḍha]) cf. MBh. cf. Kaav. &c
  • learnt , known , understood cf. Aapast. cf. MBh. ('by ' , usually instr. , but also gen. according to cf. Paa.n. 2-2 , 12 ; 3 , 67 cf. Sch.)
  • m. a wise or learned man , sage cf. W
  • (with Buddhists) a fully enlightened man who has achieved perfect knowledge of the truth and thereby is liberated from all existence and before his own attainment of Nirvāṇa reveals the method of obtaining it , (esp.) the principal Buddha of the present age (born at Kapilavastu about the year 500 B.C. his father , "Suddhodana , of the "Sākya tribe or family , being the Rāja of that district , and his mother , Māyādevī , being the daughter of Rāja Suprabuddha cf. MWB. 19 &c
  • he was preceded by 3 mythical Buddhas of the present Kalpa , or by 24 , reckoning previous Kalpa , or according to others by 6 principal Buddhas cf. ib. 136
  • sometimes he is regarded as the 9th incarnation of Vish.nu cf. Hariv. cf. Kaav. cf. Var. &c.)
  • n. knowledge cf. BhP.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, all these are on topic as they are trying to relate Hindu views as well as Buddhist views and ancient Vedic views.

No, you have contradicted yourself: you said above "this article is about Buddha being seen as the Mahapurusha or Vishnu avatar". Stick to the topic and place the extra material in a more appropriate place !--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So I don't mind you reorganizing the article to make it more sensible , but frankly, I don't see you being very constructive.

To be constructive with this article, it needs to be focussed properly with irrelevent material removed. All the dubious quotes and POV claims need to be removed. I made a start with this by tagging all problematic sections.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1)The question is, did Buddha as an AVATAR OF VISHNU, create a separate school?

That's something that this article could address.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

2)if so, why? if not, why? Both these issues have to be discussed.

No, because they probably involve speculation, original research and POV.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Vivekananda and Gandhi claim he is a Hindu, Buddhists claim he is not, and broke away from the mess known as Hinduism(Ambedkar). Both these issues have to be discussed.

Perhaps, but not here.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

3) What is the "MahaPurusha"? Is it man perfected as Buddhists and Vedic people claimed (aham brahmasmi) I am Brahma. Or God as modern Hindus claim? In other words, which is the correct teaching?

No, it is not the task of Wikipedia to decide which is the correct teaching. Just report, with accurate quotes, the sources for the differing views. If you think otherwise, you should take some time out and read carefully the basic rules and principles of Wikipedia which you can access through the Main Page.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

These are important issues. So far all these issues are being discussed, they are not off topic, but perhaps they can be given better organization.--216.254.121.169 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) They are off topic because they do not specifically relate to the Vishnu Avatar topic.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PS>>>>> NEXT TIME YOU SHOULD CITE ERRONEOUS PASSAGES AND WHY A DISCUSSION IS OFF TOPIC BEFORE YOU PUT TAGS ALL OVER THE PLACE. --216.254.121.169 13:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already indicated many of the problems on the Talk Page from the very start. I am quite entitled to tag any passage that is genuinely problematic, as I have done. Discussion can then follow as here.--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting tags in is not a joke, it makes the entire article unreadable. This article might be POV, but POV is not one of the wiki requirements. the POV template is in for deletion.

Deleting bona fide tags is not a joke: it is called "vandalism" in a Wikipedia context. You do NOT remove tags until there is a consensus to remove them. If you don't understand how Wikipedia works, have a good long look at the rules and guidelines as I have suggested. Your comment about POV is incoherent -- do you actually know what POV means ?--Stephen Hodge 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

What a joke, if I showed any admin the kind of vandalism to an article YOU have done: Revision as of 01:04, 12 July 2006; you would be kicked out. Don't mess around, if you want to edit something or discuss something do it properly any edit like the one on July 12, an admin will be notified of the kind of edits that you do, these would be termed "vandalism".--216.254.121.169 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking at your User Talk page,I think you are the one with an established history of vandalism. I put the tages in because this article is very badly written and constructed, primarily by somebody who evidently has little understanding of the subject matter.--Stephen Hodge 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is quite clear that you don't even understand that a Mahapurusha is a Vishnu Avatar. you have put tags on an article WITHOUT discussion and obviously without any knowledge of Vedic myths. I have looked at your other edits (Buddha God or man) and you have inserted the Dona sutta which asks if Buddha is a "Deva, Yaksha Gandharva" as valid to the article in discussion of GOD, do you even know deva, gandhara or yaksha are minor dieties in the vedic myths? Why are you putting inputs into things you don't understand?
A mahapurusha is not a Vishnu avatar in Buddhist understanding, yet you allude to Buddhist sources as though it were. If you bothered to read all of the above discussion, you will see that I have highlighted the many problems with this article. Also you haven't bothered to read all the Buddhism/God discussion: I have said that the Dona-sutta needs to be re-housed in an article of its own. And whether a deva in Vedic literature is a mere demi-god is quite contentious.--Stephen Hodge 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't even understand basic Hindu myths, why are you in this? Stop putting tags on things YOU don't know about. Expert? With your level of knowledge you wouldn't be able to recognize one.--216.254.121.169 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also obvious that you have a very idiosyncratic POV and think you are an expert on the subject: you might know a litle bit about Hindu myths but you ceratinly don't understand Buddhism -- there is an obvious need for an expert with better knowledge than you to assess and improve the article.--Stephen Hodge 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1) You have a dispute, list the disputed content in an orderly manner. So it may be discussed.

I have done so above. You have repeatedly failed to address my points properly.

Dispute1: Purusha? Purusha is a Vishnu avatar, the Purusha sukta is sang for Vishnu, who in the Hindu pantheon is associated with "Sat" or the truth principle.

OK, the article involves Vishnu, but this viw is only accepted by Vaishnavites: there is no prima facie evidence from the purusha-sukta that it involves Vishnu.--Stephen Hodge 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute2: you have a dispute with the Krishna section, which is major as it is a description of krishna as the mahapurusha speaking about Buddhi yoga and that the mahapurusha GIVES this yoga to the faithful. Not only that, but it says Buddhi Yoga is the supreme thing that God gives. buddhists say "Buddhahood" is the highest.

But it is a non sequitur to link the two. Buddhahood involves bodhi not buddhi. If you don't understand Sanskrit technical terms as used in different darshanas, you end up making this kind of spurious identification.--Stephen Hodge 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It ties in Hindu ideas to Buddhist ones. You can try to improve it if you wish and make it more understandable, but you have to demonstrate that you understand these ideas. Gita talks about Buddhi yoga but does not delineate what exactly Buddhi yoga is. Buddhism is the entire development of "Buddhi" or acquisition of Buddhi, which is Buddhahood or arahanthood in Buddhism and the perfection of pragya, or wisdom. Which, if you have read the Gita, is considered the ultimate goal.

Hindu ideas are tied here to Buddhist ones in a very unsatisfactory way. Once again, Buddhism is not about buddhi but bodhi -- don't you even understand the difference. And what on earth is pragya ? You don't mean prajñā by any chance -- another indication of your level of scholarship. Read the naming conventions at the very top of this page: Dharmic terms use Sanskrit.--Stephen Hodge 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute 3: Meaning of "Buddha" is clearly outlined in "Khuddhaka Patha" right in the first chapter, a definition given in a BUDDHIST scripture is a VALID citation as it relates directly to how Buddha himself defined this. Monier Williams? that is only a valid citation absent actual scriptural references.

Well, if the Khuddaka-patha mentions buddhi and abuddhi as you claim, give the line number, a quote or a reference or something. But you won't because you can't. It's not there and thus your argument collapses. As for Monier-Williams: look again carefully and you will see that he gives the source references for his definitions. Oh, I forgot, you can't read Sanskrit. --Stephen Hodge 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

answers to disputed arguments

Dispute1: Purusha? Purusha is a Vishnu avatar, the Purusha sukta is sang for Vishnu, who in the Hindu pantheon is associated with "Sat" or the truth principle.

Only accordinng to Vaishnavites. There is no prima facie evidence from the purusha-sukta that it involves Vishnu.--Stephen Hodge 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The Purusha Sukta hymn is sung as a hymnal in all worship of Vishnu, vaishnav or non-vaishnav, this is the way Vishnu is worshipped -- ask any brahmin on how vishnu is worshipped.

ALSO THIS IS ABOUT THE HINDU aspect of why Buddha is considered a Vishnu avatar. This is not a Buddhist perspective as can be gauged from the title.

Dispute2: you have a dispute with the Krishna section, which is major as it is a description of krishna as the mahapurusha speaking about Buddhi yoga and that the mahapurusha GIVES this yoga to the faithful. Not only that, but it says Buddhi Yoga is the supreme thing that God gives. buddhists say "Buddhahood" is the highest.

But it is a non sequitur to link the two. Buddhahood involves bodhi not buddhi. If you don't understand Sanskrit technical terms as used in different darshanas, you end up making this kind of sprurious identification.--Stephen Hodge 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You have not read or have knowledge of actual Buddhist texts. Read the Khuddaka Patha, it is the acquisition of "buddhi", It's in the first chapter on the "triple refuge" 1:18.
Your reference to does seem to correspond to any edition I know of. The first "chapter" (khanda) is merely the Triple Jewel Refuge formula. Are you alluding to the Ratana-sutta section ? There is no mention of buddhi there either. As you cannot come up with a quote either in English or Pali for your supposed buddhi/abuddhi, I can only assume that you are manufacturing fake evidence to support a POV assertion. So much for somebody who poses as an expert. Would 24 hours give you enough time to prove your claim, before we delete this reference ?--Stephen Hodge 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Do you read any original Buddhist material or do you get your information from reading Dalai Lama books off the shelf?
Dear anon 216, you really must alter your behavior to be more polite if you want other Wikipedians to continue paying attention to you. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. This is a requirement, not a suggestion. To boot, you are making a fool of yourself by asking a professional Buddhist scholar and translator, "do you read any original Buddhist material or do you get your information from reading Dalai Lama books".—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear nat, civility is a 2 way street on wiki, anyone who who goes around putting tags on things they don't know anything about and crossing things out as was done on July 12 by this same person, is hardly an expert and is rudeness personified. A linguist "expert", should stick with linguistics. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a "deva" and God, is not much of an expert on any tradition.
Thanks Nat for the intervention. This style seems to be typical of Anon 216 when he/she can't answer an argument any other way. You will note the other complaints on this user's Talk Page.
Anon 216 seems to be the kind of impetuous person who shoots his/her mouth of without even knowing a smidgeon of the facts. I am well aware of the difference between a deva (god) and God. Anon 216 should look at my comment posted at the very inception of the Buddha - God or Man article: "Note also the typical confusion between "god" and "God".--Stephen Hodge 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)". It is evident from this that I was aware of the potential confusion from the start !--Stephen Hodge 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand why many Buddhists would confuse theistic hinduism with Vedic thinking, but I am using the Purusha as a Vedic personification of the "1" in accordance with monistic ideas. I am trying to distance this article from the more theistic notions of later hinduism, to the more non-theistic views of Vedic writings(Upanishads).
Then you should make very clear the position your are describing -- which you have not done.--Stephen Hodge 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In the non-theistic sense the Avatars or mahapurusha are merely perfected men or humans and yes they have certain great powers, Buddha and Buddhism makes this point very clear.

Incoherent sentence

This sentence is rather incoherent "Buddha is the same supreme intelligence of what people know as divine in which there is "sharan" or refuge, Buddha clearly states in the Vakkali Sutta: ...". What are you trying to say ? Also would you stop using Hindi words (sharan): read naming Dhammic conventions at the top of the page.--Stephen Hodge 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Urna

"The mark that appears in many depictions of the Buddha in between the eyebrows of the Lord Buddha represents the third eye". No, it doesn't except in flaky new-age theories. The urna is a curled tuft of hair -- give a cite from reputable Buddhist sources that state it represents the "third eye".--Stephen Hodge 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Attribution

This passage "This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the un-instructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. He is not freed from stress, I say." is not found anywhere in the Khuddaka-patha. Do you just invent these references on the spur of the moment ? Please give the orrect one.--Stephen Hodge 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

oooh, hodge is angry... too much anger clouds little minds:

as best expressed in many of his suttas, now what part of "many of his suttas don't you understand?" This verse is not unique but repeated in a similar fashion in a number of suttas. The correct one is given, the Khuddaka Patha 1:38 is one of the descriptions of what Buddha means, this is further elucidated in the passage which is repeated throughout the suttas of the pali canon.

For heavens sake, grow up ! Yes, I see I misread the attributed quote as though it were supposed to come from the KhP. If you are interested, your quote is found once with that precise wording, in Majjhima-nikaya 2 (Sabbāsava-sutta), but it's not a verse. A very similar passage is also found in the Majjhima-Nikaya 72 (Aggi-vaccha-sutta). Those are the only occurences in the NIkayas --Stephen Hodge 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Finalizations

The "expertise" of Hodge is wonderous:

1)hodge: in Buddhism the Purusha idea is not the same as the Vedic one: Anupada Sutta

If one could ever say rightly of one that he is the Blessed One’s true son, born of His speech, born of the Dhamma, formed of the :Dhamma, heir to the Dhamma (not heir to worldly benefit), it is of Sariputta that one could thus rightly declare.

This is the same myth presented in the "Purusha Sukta", brahmins born from the mouth.

You are jumping to conclusions as usual. The Buddhist term is mukhato jāta and the brahmanical one is mukha-ja. You are, of course, correct as far as the Purusa-sūkta bit and Sariputta may have been a brahmin, but in Buddhism mukhato jāta is used of all outstanding bhikkhus. But you have thrown this in a a red herring: you careful duck the issue -- I was talking about the supposed identification you were making between the Vedic/Vaishnava Mahā-purusa and Buddhist usage of mahā-purusa.

2)bleah, bleah bleah: hodge

Buddha as Vishnu:

26. Then he sought for him from a family of unblemished moral excellence a bride possessed of beauty, modesty, and gentle bearing, of wide-spread glory, Yasodharà by name, having a name well worthy of her, a very goddess of good fortune. || 2.26

The Buddha-Carita, or The Life of Buddha by Asvaghosa edited and translated by Edward B. Cowell

Yashodhara, Buddha's wife is "sri" the goddess of good fortune, which is another name for Laxmi, which is Vishnu's wife. I think it's pretty tight now--216.254.121.169 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Still jumping to conclusions. Just because Ashvaghosha expresses his praise of Yashodhara in such terms does not prove a formal equation. There's a lot of women around now called Lakshmi, but that doesn't make them goddesses. This is typical of your methodology: you pluck useful-seeming quotes from texts willy-nilly with no regard to context, usage nor -- more importantly -- chronological stratum.--Stephen Hodge 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, in the Lalitvistara, Buddha is also considered higher than Vishnu, but that's another article...this article is of him as a Vishnu avatar.

Okay fine, I'm sorry, this will be my last slight...I'll bury the hatchet if you will, but I'll take it out again if you will.

You are the one having the hissy fit: I'm just pointing out and attempting to disprove your erroneous assertions. Perhaps that accounts for your reaction.

Again, I don't mind a discussion and a tighter article, but the discussion really has to be major issues...what you are discussing are relatively minor issues in the article. I will try to provide all the minor citations.

Why should you set the agenda ? Much of this article is wrong-headed in my opinion and the details show the poor workmanship. You seem to have an agenda which you are determined to squeeze into this article whether it is appropriate or not.
PS: Don't forget the Khuddhaka-patha quote for buddhi/abuddhi: I dying to see it.--Stephen Hodge 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hope you slept well and are in a better frame of mind. Here are some further thoughts. The puranic idea that the Buddha is one of the avatars of Vishnu which is well attested should be reported in this article together with factual pieces of information which are helpful to the reader. But just because there are parallels betwen some aspects of Buddhism at certain stages of its development and some aspects of Vaishnava (or whatever) concepts does not allow you to link them directly as though they are same thing as you would have it. There is no proof that such is the case -- that is just speculation, no matter how obvious it might seem to you personally. Unless you can quote accepted authorities who come to that conclusion, what you write is classed as "original research" (See: Wikipedia No Original Research guidelines), which is banned in Wikipedia. One must write things which can, in theory at least, be verified by any reader. You are quite prolific in your contributions to this page, but you really should slow down and look carefully through Wiki Guidelines and Policies. Most conflict arises when people do not follow them and try to insert their POVs. Sorry to lecture you, but you might find this advantageous in the long run.--Stephen Hodge 00:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit transcription

If people are going to quote Sanskrit verses, they could also try and use the correct diacritics -- Wiki does support these as can be seen from my quotes above.--Stephen Hodge 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-Hindu Buddhism DID spread through war in some places

In some places like Thailand, Buddhists invaded militarily and massacred the locals. It is factually wrong to say that Buddhism did not spread through war ever. Japanese Samurai (mostly Buddhists) routinely spread Buddhism by invasion of non-Buddhist villages in Japan.Shiva's Trident 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know the source of the latter statement. As a social class, the samurai probably arose around the 9th century, by which time virtually all of Japan with the except of Hokkaido, then called Ezo, would have been Buddhist.--Stephen Hodge 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots and lots of factual innaccuracies and other assorted statements

Several issues:

There is no concept of canon or heresy in Hinduism
Buddhism was never totally eliminated from India
Manusmriti has been quote mined hopelessly. Half the quotes cited here are from unreliable translations
Do not confuse between Caste and Varna, Vedas do not mention any castes.
Tone of the article is unencyclopedic and defamatory.

Shiva's Trident 02:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


There was also the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka, whose conquests led to the wide spread of Buddhism in India. --Makerowner 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Heresy in Hinduism

There were several Hindus claiming there is no such thing as heresy in Hinduism. That is false.

The term and classification of Nastik and Astik is quite well known and Buddhism falls under the category of Nastik because it doesn't accept the Vedas as primal or the highest.

Another form of heresy is "outcasteing", or untouchability. This was used as a punishment for those who did not follow Vedic rites.

Similar is the term Melecha.--Green23 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on several counts. Firstly, the very ides of systematic heresy is inherently Abrahamic and does not have any equivalent in any Dharmic religion, be it Hinduism, Buddhism, jainism or Sikhism. Secondly, Nastik/Astik are both Hindus. Not accepting the vedas is not "heresy" or anything. many Hindus don;t hold the Vedas in highest esteem. Lastly,Untouchability was inherited, heresy had nothing to do with that. While manuSmriti says that a person can be rendered untouchable that person is not regarded as an apostate or a heretic. He is still regarded as a Hindu, though some Dalits dispute this claim. The claim of heresy implies the claim of canon, and there is no canon in Hinduism. Mlechchas are not heretics, they are gentiles. There is a difference. There have been people labelled as good mlechchas also (like Menander/Milinda, for instance).Hkelkar 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no connection between the terms Nastik and Astik and heresy. Buddhism was one of the many schools of thought that were not based on the Vedas. Also, the text says "It is unheard of to question the guru or teacher in pre-Buddhist India." Well, all education in India, atleast since the time of the oldest of Upanishads, was in the form of dialogue or debate. This tradition was continued in Buddhism. Many Upanishads are written in the form of dialogues where the student doubts and the teacher explains. The Bhagavadgita too has that format. "later Hinduism discouraged questioning the nature of Brahma." This one needs sources too.

"In that sense, Buddhism is not a part of Hinduism, but a rligion seceded from Hinduism as it rejects many Hindu beliefs." Most schools of Hinduism too reject tons of what would be called "Hindu beliefs." There's nothing like a universal Hindu belief. gautama Buddha never claimed to start a new religion, nor did he claim to have said anything new. Buddhists believe there had been countless Buddhas before him, and there will be countless after him. Pick up any Buddhist text, and note how many of his teachings end with "esa dhammo sanatano" ("this is the Sanatana dharma".) Alan Watts has time and again, and forcefully asserted that "Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export." deeptrivia (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research concerns and citations required for the following...

  • Gautama Buddha is considered by many Hindus to be an avatar (incarnation) of the Hindu god Vishnu, the ninth among his ten primary avatars (dashavatara)
  • The idea of the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is hinted at in the earliest Buddhist scriptures
  • The theory of the "superman" who is sacrificed (see human sacrifice Purushamedha) for the benefit of all of creation is found in many Indo-European myths
  • In Buddhism, the Purusha idea is similar to the Vedic one found in the Purusha Sukta
  • The idea of Buddha not only as a "Mahapurusha" but as Vishnu is also found in Buddhist texts,
  • In Buddhism, this sacrifice has a new meaning different from the ritualistic and somewhat literal meaning of Vedic lore.
  • Another hint is that the Buddha is shown as superior to Brahma the creator and shown bowing down to him in Buddhist scriptures,
  • Many theistically minded Hindus, ignorant of Arya Dharma, continue to claim that the Buddha was an atheist.
  • Describes Buddha in both a favorable and unfavorable light, however, both completely ignore the Buddha's teachings
  • Some Buddhists say this is true and this episode is found in the Buddhist Lankavatara Sutra
  • The post-Buddhist Hindu scriptures do not demonstrate a clear understand of his teachings or philosophy.
  • The Buddha himself predicted the decline of the Dharma in 500 years, and it was around 500 years after the passing away of the Buddha that, in India Buddhism started declining.
  • With the Dharma itself in decline, Buddhists too were at fault.
  • As the Buddhists distanced themselves from the people
  • Eventually, for Indians, Buddhism itself could no longer distinguish itself from other traditions
  • In fact, there is a long line of Buddhas and a long line of Avatars

Regarding the above, more is required than a reference to scripture. It would not be acceptable for a Christian to quote passages of the Bible and expound their own personal interpretation of scripture without secondary references. The same applies here. Given the concerns relating to lack of scholarly references have been made by other editors, I'll remove the tagged paragraphs tomorrow. Addhoc 11:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced and irrelevant material, obviously I would suggest this material should not be reintroduced without secondary references. Thanks, Addhoc 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Improvement

If anyone feels that the table I have removed should be replaced then maybe we could re-organise the content to be of a more accurate or unbiased nature. I felt it was comparing sectarian notions of 'Buddhism' and 'Hindusim' and not addressing 'Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu' directly. Regards, ys, GourangaUK 11:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Buddha the solar deity paragraph

Firstly could I request that when reverting another editor, a valid reason should be given. Indicating you consider the other editor to be a Hindu, Buddhist or Jain isn't sufficient.

Concerning the "Buddha the solar deity" paragraph...

"Buddha an incarnation of Vishnu (to Hindus) as he was born into the Sakya, Suryavamsh ("Solar heritage") caste" - is there a reference that says he was born into this caste, because I was under the impression that Gautama Buddha was of the Kshatriya, a ruling warrior caste.
"Outside of India he is worshipped by many as the Mahavairocana" - this is a different Buddha.
"Legend has it that he witnessed the 'wheel of life' in the sun when he awoke from sleep" - which Buddha saw this?
"This wheel in Hinduism is the 'Dharam Chakra' or 'wheel of Law' and has been used since the Vedic Indus Valley civilization and is today on the flag of India" - the flag of India has a spinning wheel designed by Gandhi.
"Buddhists have also used the Swastika, also known as "Wheel of Law" or "Wheel of Life" and yet another Hindu symbol" - the swastika predates Hinduism.
"In many depictions of the Buddha, he is depicted as having the sun behind his head" - yes, this is called a halo. Not sure of the relevance.
"The Buddha achieved enlightenment when meditating under a fig tree, the tree that represents Vishnu" - Again, not sure of the relevance.
"The author Acharya S. even composed a book titled, "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled - Still not sure of the relevance.

Would suggest this paragraph should either be rewritten with citations or removed. Addhoc 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete this section tomorrow, unless there is some form of meaningful reply or references are forthcoming. Addhoc 11:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairest way

The fairest way this article can be handled is restricting this article to actual Hindu scriptural sources.--216.254.121.169 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely it makes sense for this article to show a number of clear and logical viewpoints and descriptions (with references where appropriate) regarding Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu (or Buddha as not an avatar of Vishnu in critical response). Does anyone disagree?
In my humble opinion what this article should not be, is a comparison between Buddhism & Hinduism, or a comparison between Vishnu and Buddha unless doing so has some relevance on the overall topic? For example according to Puranic scripture Vishnu has a large number of avatars, each different in appearance and role. So we don't have to match components of Buddha's appearance with that of another avatar to 'prove' anything. A lot of the statements I have removed seemed to be based on the conclusion that in order to proove the 'truth' of Buddha (which itself is beyond Wikipedia's scope) some fault has to be proven with the many traditions of Hinduism (again beyond Wikipedia's scope). Surely it is better to avoid such subjective arguments either way. Does anyone disagree?
P.S, for the record I think Buddha is great, and I've got nothing personal against Buddhism - just trying to help make some sense of this article. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Mostly agree with your comments and I think your edits have been appropriate in removing unsourced material. Obviously, information not specifically about Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu could be moved into different articles, including Buddhism and Hinduism. Addhoc 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Proper Transliteration of Sanskrit

Could we have correct transliterations of Sanskrit ? I have corrected a few passages but cannot find all of them. Eg: mohanartham danavanam balarupi pathisthitah | putram tam kalpayamasa mudhabudhir jinah svayam || tatah sammohayamasa jinadyana suramsakan | bhagavan vagbhir ugrabhir ahimsa vacibhir harih || is not in my e-version of the BA Purana. I also think the translation given is wrong but I cannot determine this because of the useless transcription given. A verse reference would also help.--Stephen Hodge 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation Issues

Hi Stephen, in regards to the recent change of translation. If we go with the current translation, I'm wondering what is the context in terms of Buddha's mission:

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga [he] will become the Buddha by name, the son of Anjana, in Bihar, for the purpose of confusing those who hate the devas."

Buddha's purpose was to confuse people who hate the devas? How does that fit in exactly?

The words where there are disagreements are 'dvisham' - and 'sura'. To translate dvisham as 'hate' seems to me to be too strong - to be envious, or against something or someone does not neccessarily mean you 'hate' them, although obviously the words are similar. See dvisham. Then, with 'sura' (sura)- you are correct that sura means the devas or 'demigods', but more specifically the devas are split into suras and asuras (demons). The difference between the two groups in the context of the Bhagavata Purana itself is that the sura's worship Vishnu, whereas the asuras flought the authority of Vishnu. So in this verse it is not incorrect to translate this as "in order to confuse those who against the devas", but as the suras are theists (they follow Vishnu, described in the Bhagavatam as the supreme God), in order to understand the greater context of the verse, neither is it incorrect to translate as "for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist". Which, for me, sounds less alien to a reader than the other version, which could be taken as meaning "to confuse those who are against demigod worship". Buddha is described basically as coming with the purpose of confusing the atheists, who are against the worship of God, or Vishnu. That's how I understand it anyway. Apologies for the long message. Ys, GourangaUK 17:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gouranga, thank you for your message. The problem here is that the translation you have quoted in good faith is very inaccurate and misleading. Either the person who did that translation does not have a good knowledge of Sanskrit or has deliberately mistranslated with some hidden agenda. If you think my translation is wrong, show both translations to a reputable Sanskritist and see what they say. There are also Sanskrit dictionaries available on line of which you might like to avail yourself.
First, you should bear in mind that the implied message of this has nothing to do with a Buddhist view of the Buddha. Here Vishnu said to emanate as the Buddha not in order to save the ignorant, but to help damn them. Perhaps the view here is that the typical follower of the Buddha denies primacy to the gods and the existence of God and hence is an "enemy of the gods". What the Vishnu-Buddha is portrayed as doing is like sorting the chaff from the wheat. That is the significance of saṃmoha. It is true that saṃmoha can mean "infatuate" in certain circumstances (viz. one of the five arrows of Kāma), but the normal sense is "bewilderment", "stupefaction" or "confusion". Since "infatuate" is misleading here, it is better to stick with the common, basic meaning.
As for sura-dviṣām, this should be explained as follows. The asuras are the demons or, as some people prefer, the demigods. The opposite to them are the suras -- indeed, the asuras are actually the enemies of the suras (= devas = gods) and constantly made war on them. It is well-attested since the Vedas that the term sura is just an alternative for deva. There is no way that one can legitimately translated sura as "theist", let alone "faithful theist". However, we then have dviṣām which is genitive plural of dviṣ. As an adjective, this only means "hostile / hating / inimical" and the like; or as a noun it only means "enemy" or similar. There is no way that it can mean "envious" -- dviṣ is derived from the verbal root DVIṢ, which only has the meanings of "to hate, dislike, be hostile towards". So putting the two words together, we get "one hostile to the devas" or, better still, "enemy of the devas". Now this compound is quite old in Sanskrit as it is found in the Ṛg-veda, where it is actually a synonym of asura. So we had really come in a full circle here. Those to whom Vishnu in his Buddha guise brings confusion are none other than the asuras -- the demons. To call them atheists is anachronistic and whether the author thought of Buddhists as demons is open to debate.
When you say that "for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist" [snip] for me, sounds less alien to a reader than the other version, which could be taken as meaning "to confuse those who are against demigod worship", it might sound less alien to you, but that is not the criterion here. It is a question of supplying the Wiki user with an accurate translation. The translation I offer is quite clear: Vishnu appeared as the Buddha to mislead or confuse the enemies of the gods (ie = the demons or other hostile to the gods).
There are some other problems with the translation you quote. For example, kīkateṣu is locative plural of kīkata. I have left it as "Bihar" with some misgivings. The Kīkata are known from Vedic sources onwards as non-Aryan people. Ther is nothing specific here about Bihar or even Gaya, though Bihar was once the home of many non-Aryan people and the Buddha was awakened in Bihar. The Bihar rendering is suspicious because the Buddha was not born in Bihar -- this must have been known even to the author of the SB. And that it does not mean Bihar is also suggested by the use of the plural -- in other words, the Vishnu-Buddha was born among non-Aryans in an unspecified region.
I would also like to see a proper Sanskrit transcription of the other long quote, because I think this is also mistranslated.
PS: You might like to note that in the Iranian religious tradition, it is the asuras who are the gods and the devas who are the demons -- some ancient tribal rivalry here !


Hello Stephen - I was not saying that the translation you have given is incorrect - infact I agree that as a direct word-for-word translation it is the most accurate. I also don't disagree with including it in the article. However I was trying to explain how the other translation is not incorrect - it is simply given in a larger context. You determine that "Here Vishnu said to emanate as the Buddha not in order to save the ignorant, but to help damn them" whereas the author disagrees, and so do I. Why would Vishnu want to damn people? It is against all the teachings of the Bhagavata Purana. Vishnu is "deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist" by tricking the aetheistic people into worshipping him (Vishnu), as Lord Buddha. It is not given as an act of damnation, but as an act of salvation. In regards to Bihar, the author sees both places as identical: "kikateshu -- in the province of Gaya (Bihar)" . Sincere regards, GourangaUK 11:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Dear Gouranga, thanks for your reply. I am glad to read that you do not consider my translation wrong. I see that you are trying to explain that the other translation might be plausible in a wider context, but unfortunately the wider context actually confirms my position. You seem surprised that Vishnu might want to damn people, so I'll try and explain. First, it should be noted that the Puranas are generally hostile to Buddhism and have created a distorted alternative Buddha. This might be unpalatable to some, but that is the truth of the matter.
Now for the background story of this Vishnu-Buddha: as recounted in the Vishnu Purana, from which the later Puranas derive their ideas about the Vishnu-Buddha, the devas and the asuras were again engaged in a long war. Led by Hrāda, the asuras defeated the devas. The devas retreated to the northern shore of the ocean of milk and performed austerities etc to please Vishnu. Vishnu then appeared to the devas who asked him to protect them from the asuras. They also said, "The asuras under the command of Hrāda have stolen away our portion of the sacrifices, but they have not violated the command of Brahmā. [snip] They take pleasure in the duties of their own class, they follow the path of the Vedas and are full of ascetic powers. Therefore we cannot kill them, although they are our enemies, and so you should devise some means by which we will be able to kill the asuras."
Vishnu then acceded to their request and manifested himself as the Buddha, saying "This magic deluder will bewitch all the asuras and they will be excluded from the path of the Vedas, and thus they will be susceptible to slaughter." This Vishnu-Buddha then led the asuras from the path of the Vedas by his teachings. [snip] Thus the Vishnu-Buddha corrupted the asuras so that they abandoned the entire teaching of the Vedas. When he had done this, the asuras were set on the wrong path, and when the battle between the devas and the asuras was resumed, the gods slew the asuras. The armour of their dharma had formerly protected them, but when it was destroyed, they too were destroyed. [See Vishnu-purana 3.17.9-10 and 35-45, 3.18.1-33]
So you can see clearly that this is no act of salvation, but a deliberate trick to destroy the formerly virtuous asuras. The verse from the Bhagavata Purana merely summarizes this and in no way contradicts the Vishnu Purana account. The fact that humans also happened to become followers of the Buddha and thereby damn themselves is merely unfortunate collateral damage.
When you say, "in regards to Bihar, the author sees both places as identical: "kikateshu -- in the province of Gaya (Bihar)", the author you refer to is not the author of the Purana itself (Shrila Vyasadeva), but the modern commentator -- Swami Prabhupada, I think. This is just his opinion, not corroborated by any lexical works.
I hope this clarifies the situation for you.--Stephen Hodge 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Stephen, I understand your argument now but cannot agree to it myself. The version of the Vishnu Purana you give above sounds too 'anti-Buddhist' for me (i.e, a sectarian viewpoint from 'Hindu-ists' trying to tear down Buddhism). However, as it is largely irrelevant to the article as it stands at the moment I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. Ys, GourangaUK 10:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gouranga. When you refer to my "version of the Vishnu Purana", that is what it says actually says, albeit in summary form. And you are, perhaps unintentionally, right: the Puranas are sectarian and hostile with respect to Buddhism. They take away the Buddha from the Buddhists and damn them. Look at all the cited pauranic passages and you will see what I mean. The later upa-puranas change tack and are a little more favourable. I can point you in the direction of modern scholarship on this matter if you want.--Stephen Hodge 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

Dear Maleabroad and anon user (if not the same person), Please stop re-including paragraphs of unencyclopedic material. The sections are largely, if not completely irrelevant to the subject matter, and in some cases (such as the 'Is Buddha an Aetheist section) they have already been re-written in a much improved format in the current article including what relevant information was there. Please Read through the current article before making any reversions. And for the record, the last time I looked I'm not a 'Neo-Buddhist'. Thanks, GourangaUK 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you have simply reverted the page back again. I have deleted the nonsensical sections and am of the opinon that the following are more relevant to the article Buddhism and Hinduism than in here. Does anyone disagree?
  • Deva worship in Buddhism
  • Brahman in Earliest Buddhism
  • Buddha's Nirvana
If there are no arguments to the contrary I will move them across. Regards, GourangaUK 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As there has been no argument to the contrary I have moved the information from the sections 'Deva worship in Buddhism' and 'Buddha's Nirvana' into the Buddhism and Hinduism article. I see that the 'Brahman' section is already in the article Brahman and has been removed by User:Nat Krause. Please do not revert these changes back blindly, as no discussions or objections were made to this being done. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please remove this "Brahman in Earliest Buddhism" if you see it anywhere else in the future. I went to the trouble of checking the sources and have found it to be unverified at best.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Brahman in Earliest Buddhism" and reversions

How is my adding Brahman in earliest Buddhism section irrelevant to this article? The point of this article is to describe why Hindus see the Buddha as a Hindu who followed Hindu Dharma. Brahman is God in Hindu Dharma and in the earliest Buddhist texts, writers discuss Brahman. This page is certainly not for Nastik Buddhists, especially if they try to erase Hindu views on Gautama Buddha.-Maleabroad

Dear Maleabroad, thank you for replying. If the section you are referring to is relevant anywhere, then surely the article Buddhism and Hinduism would be the best place for it, as it could discuss the different points of view regarding the concept of Brahman. There would be no point in duplicating it in two articles. If other editors feel that it should not be included in that page because of issues with quality and referencing then surely that is not a valid reason for it to be included here. Maybe it could be re-worked or referenced more clearly?
In regards to the second point- I would disagree that this article is about "why Hindus see the Buddha as a Hindu who followed Hindu Dharma", rather I would say it should be about "how the different traditions within Hinduism view the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu", which is a different thing altogether. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But having "Brahman in Earliest Buddhism" gives more of a reason as to why Hindus see the Buddha to be a Hindu observing Hinduism and that the Buddha was indeed a divine avatar. Even the Hindu symbollism such as the third eye, dharmachakra and murdas give reasoning as to why the Buddha was is seen as a Hindu and a divine avatar.-Maleabroad

Hello Maleabroad, giving reasons why sounds, to me, like primary research - which would against the Wikipedia model (see Wikipedia:No original research) of what an article should be. An encyclopedia does not argue why from a personal perspective - it presents referenced information or provable facts. Do any academic documents present the arguments you would like to include? Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course this has been researched! Because of these reasons Hindus believe that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu. I created this article because some other vandals kept deleting my contributions (because they were obviously jealous that Buddha is a Hindu avatar.) You are a Buddhist and so want to hide the Hindu facts. Maleabroad

Do you know many Buddhists with usernames like Gouranga? I'm just trying to work towards an 'informed NPOV' approach in the article. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Rahula Vipola

There was no citation for Rahula Vipola's opinion. The books listed at the end of the sentence are Buddhist scripture, not books written by Vipola. A Google search for "Rahula Vipola" returns only this Wikipedia article and copies of it around the web. Since someone saw fit to remove the {fact} tag, I've removed the sentence as unverifiable. —Hanuman Das 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's probably because the author in question personally used the form "Walpola Rahula" for his books in English and French. Google the correct name and you should get stacks of references. I would imagine that the quote comes from his book "What the Buddha Taught" if it is an English language citation--Stephen Hodge 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We even have an article about him: Walpola Rahula.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, funny how the name was backward in the article. Not verified, I guess. :-) —Hanuman Das 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Gautama the Hindu

Everyone, have a look at the newly created Gautama the Hindu, which has serious POV problems. Rosemary Amey 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a duplicate page to this one (although not duplicate in it's present content) created by a sockpuppet or impersonator of User:Maleabroad. I have since re-directed the page to this article. There was a similar page created called Buddha From a Hindu Perspective a few days ago. Thanks for picking up on it. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the best title for this page?

It covers much more than just Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. It seems to be about "Buddha as a figure in Hinduism" or something like that. I am newly following this article so probably am not up on prior discussions about this, so I apologize in advance for asking. Buddhipriya 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, we have recently been cleaning up the avatar page to make it less sectarian and note that there are other deities who have avatars. Some of the edits which I made to this page along those lines were reverted, which is OK, but I notice that there has been another editor who has just objected to the same reversion. I reverted his reversion of the reversion of my edits. (Did I say that right?) I will wait for these reversion to die down before trying to raise the issue again via edits to the article. Buddhipriya 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Buddhipriya, there has been an ongoing edit war with this article. Looking back your additions in regards to Ganesha had been added to the POV version being pushed by User:Maleabroad, who has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. In terms of your original question - Buddha is clearly described as an avatar of Vishnu in the Puranas which is what has given rise to this page. I would not not vote to widen the scope of the article any further unless direct scriptural passages of a similar strength could be found for other dieties. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddha a consequence of animal sacrifice?

Under "Views of Buddha in Hinduism" it is said some believe Buddha battled animal sacrifice of corrupt Brahmins. This is nonsense.

Early Buddhist literature has little or no interest in the religion of the Brahmanas and was certainly not formed as retaliation against any existing religion. Please refer to any of the several books on Buddhism such as the Rise and Fall of Buddhism. Such misinformation does not deserve a place in an encyclopedia.

It should also be clearly mentioned that the Buddha is not mentioned as an avatar in several avatar lists of Vishnu. For example, there are two avatar lists in the Mahabharata and only one of them lists the Buddha as an avatar. Some Puranas do not list the Buddha as avatar too and scholars like Hazra et al., have concluded that the Buddha was named as an avatar only after the 5th century AD. The information on the Buddha found in the Bhagavatam is incorrect and was either ignorant writing or just careless writing - a common problem found in Puranas.

Without providing this alternate side, this article is incomplete and gives a false picture that Hinduism in general accepts the Buddha as an avatar unequivocally. Shvushvu 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Puranic literature actually represents him as someone who presents a false doctrine against violence caste and animal sacrifice to delude a city of demons away from dharmic practices so they can be killed by the good guys. The real issue you raise is about the source for the statement: [1]. Why is it a reliable source? Arrow740 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It's reliable as a source of religious viewpoint concerning this issue. A number of Vaishnava schools view Buddha as an avatar in this fashion - more of a social and religous reformer if you like, rather than nastika. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why have you removed sourced content from the article? Is the opinion of Jayadeva irrelevant to the discussion of Buddha as an avatar? I do not see how this can be so seeing as he is a highly influential person within the history of Hinduism. It seems to me that you are simply removing anything in the article which you personally disagree with? The sources are perfectly accurate in terms of the information they are displaying so please don't keep throwing WP:RS as the only argument. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Knower of the Vedas

Can this please be verified: "Buddha is said to be a knower of the Veda (vedajña) or of the Vedanta (vedântajña) (Sa.myutta, i. 168) and (Sutta Nipâta, 463)." Also, the fact that he is called that in the Pali Canon does not mean that he himself described himself as such in the Canon. Arrow740 04:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Buddhism and Hinduism

Should be pretty uncontroversial? This could go in the "Hindu views" section. Arrow740 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the size of this article and it's potentially controversial nature (see history of edit wars) I would vote against it being merged with the other article. Gouranga(UK) 15:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Much of the material in this article extraneous to the discussion of the Vishnu avatar is already present in the other article. Arrow740 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If it is not merged then we should remove material which only talks about Hindus praising the Buddha. Such material is more suitable for the other article. There is even a line about the Dalai Lama being invited at a Hindu meeting. That is just inter-religious interaction, and doesn't prove anything here. --Knverma 12:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Gouranga, the Hindu reactions on the reforms are in the other article, and say nothing about the avatar issue. You shouldn't restore this material in case you delete the merge tag. --Knverma 10:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to have any kind of collaboration or discussion when one user simply keeps removing material as they see fit. I can't help but feel this page is being steamrolled for a particular pupose. To discuss Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu a number of other associated areas are surely relevant, without going into too much detail? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly there are two sides among the editors on this issue. I think we should make clear the specific topic, and present matter which says something on that particular topic. Otherwise it gives an impression of using vague arguments to prove something that an editor might have presumed. If it is really such a narrow topic that we don't have enough material, then we could just merge and discuss all the related issues together. --Knverma 12:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Knverma. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I'll be honest that I think the other article (Buddhism and Hinduism) is currently unbalanced in favour of a Buddhist perspective (although it is well written) and would rather some other non-Buddhist editors became involved before any merge took place into that article (if we go in that direction). I am not inferring that the bias is deliberate, but at least that in my opinion it is apparent. I genuinely believe that this (Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu) article had enough information in it to warrant it's own page, but both yourself and Arrow740 disagree with this, so we are in a stalemate. I believe to progress further we need to ask the opinion of other editors? What do you think? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the Buddhism and Hinduism article is pro-Buddhism, while this article is pro-Hinduism. The articles could possibly be merged in the future, however at the moment, I doubt this would result in a neutral point of view article. Addhoc 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you alleging violations of guidelines in the other article? Arrow740 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Buddhism and Hinduism is entirely neutral, there is more emphasis on Buddhism than Hinduism. Addhoc 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nastika issue

Buddhism is classified as a nastika (heterodox) system of philosophy by Hindus because it does not accept the authority of the Vedas, not because it does not accept the existence of god. See the article on nastika where this issue is discussed. A recent addition of a comment related to this is in my opinion an error and references related to it are in the other article. E.g.:

"In modern Indian languages, 'āstika' and 'nāstika' generally mean 'theist' and 'atheist', respectively. But in Sanskrit philosophical literature, 'āstika' means 'one who believes in the authority of the Vedas' or 'one who believes in life after death'. ('nāstika' means the opposite of these). The word is used here in the first sense. In the second sense, even the Jaina and Bauddha schools are 'āstika', as they believe in life after death. The six orthodox schools are 'āstika', and the Cārvāka is 'nāstika' in both the senses."[1]

Buddhipriya 19:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point - I've amended the intro. Was thinking about changing that the other day, but got caught up in other things. Gouranga(UK) 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed information

Let's see which pieces of text you insist on reverting.

  • That being said, the monist schools of Hinduism, such as Advaita, share a number of philosophical similarities to later forms of Buddhism[2] and thus give less emphasis to the nastika interpretation of his teachings.

Now, the concept of the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu is only relevant to this similarity between Advaita and Mahayana if it is in fact true that advaitins "give less emphasis to the nastika interpretation of his teachings." You have never produced a source for that nonsensical statement. The Buddha rejected the Vedas (even your swami who founded the Hare Krishnas admits that in the link) so he was a nastika, plain and simple.

  • The section "reaction to reforms" makes no mention of the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, and that material is already included in the relevant article, Buddhism and Hinduism.
  • The Buddha's teaching on God section further is irrelevant. If you insist on including it despite its irrelevance and the fact that it is WP:OR not cited to a WP:RS I will live with it.

I have had good reasons to delete these things and I've made them clear in the edit summaries and the talk page. "Deletion without good cause" is a paltry excuse for your POV-pushing. Arrow740 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If I was POV-pushing (as you suggest) then why would I fight to include information of the opposite opinion to my own personal religious belief? It would be much easier to not argue. The fact is that influential figures in modern Hinduism of a more Advaitin persuasion - such as Vivekananda and Ramakrishna for example - are much more positive in their viewpoint of Buddha's teachings than those of the dualistic Dvaita schools. I feel this is relevant as the article is explaining how Buddha is viewed within Hinduism (as an avatar). His position as both an avatar and a nastika is somewhat uncommon, so surely it would be useful to explore this somewhat? I will endeavour to find some citations before replacing the text. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have amended some of the points made (while re-adding them) and included references to the information in the introduction. In terms of the other sections I saw no harm in keeping the small Buddha's teachings on God section but have removed it as per your argument above and the fact that the main link already exists further down the page. Have whittled down the "Reaction to reforms" section slightly, but see the other information as relevant the wider context of the page. Gouranga(UK) 11:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
So Vivekananda and Ramakrishna say positive things about the Buddha, OK. However you have yet to demonstrate in a valid way that that has anything to do with their monistic beliefs. As it is the connection is your original research. The parallel between Mahayana and some aspects of Advaita thought is not relevant here, you're just forcing it in to fit your agenda. Arrow740 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I gave the following as a reference:

"As far as avataratva (incarnation-ness) is concerned, each one of the avataras—be it Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed—all are the same. They are all incarnations of the Divine descended to meet the requirements of the society of their times." - Swami Sridharananda Dharma-sthâpaka Sri Ramakrishna

I think that is pretty straightforward as a reference. If all avatars are equal manifestations of the same impersonal Brahman there is little problem to see Buddha and other avatars in the same light. Whereas Dvaita schools generally see Buddha's teachings as nastika, case closed. Having followed Buddhism in the past I am frankly supprised by your attitude. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple. The Buddha was definitely the founder of a new religion, and people who try to convince people otherwise are usually Hindu chauvinists with little concern for the truth. Arrow740 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This sounds more like the saying "God is manifested in all things". But the intro suggests we are talking about some sequence of 10 avatars. As I said above, article is a bit vague about what material is being used to prove what point. --Knverma 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm out-voted I'm removed the disputed material. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have liked to make it a matter of votes among three editors. So I can only hope to have more editors involved in future. --Knverma 15:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If you could provide evidence that monist Hindus think of the Buddha differently from others because of their monist beliefs, that would be worth including. Arrow740 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindu Wiki

136.159.32.181, 136.159.32.209, 136.159.32.179: I cannot be sure, but normally one would expect that they are multiple IPs of the same user. The important point is that Wikipedia doesn't consider open wikis as reliable, for obvious reasons. If it is a well-known wiki with a large number of editors then it can be trusted to some extent. The Hindu Wiki has a total of 36 registered editors at the moment. I don't think that's a good sign, but if necessary, I will ask for third party opinion on this matter. --Knverma 21:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it proves, I thought it is worth noting that multiple 136.159.32.* IPs are suspected sockpuppets of User:Maleabroad. --Knverma 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Maleabroad comes and goes and hate messages related to Buddhism are part of his or her themes. The links to the Hinduwiki are also a trademark of Maleabroad. These socks should be noted and reverted, as per Wikipedia policy edits made by banned users are to be removed on sight regardless of other merits. Buddhipriya 00:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Move

The move from Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu to Buddha from the Hindu perspective was done without prior discussion, and I suggest it to be undone. It is also more appropriate in light of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buddha_is_not_an_Avtar_of_vishnu. It doesn't make sense to start too many articles on such narrow topics. --Knverma 07:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the previous title was much more appropriate and ideally the page should be reverted back to the original. Gouranga(UK) 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The title better fits the article, which is full of material extraneous to a discussion of the Buddha in Hindu texts. We should move it back and delete this material like I've been trying to do for some time. Arrow740 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has already been trimmed down so much, better to add to the article than deleting any more. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 19:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Explain why the stuff which is not related to the Buddha as an avatar should be included. Arrow740 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the article rename, for whatever reason it was done, was a good move. This name is better because now this article can talk (as it does) about things other than the belief that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu. deeptrivia (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with deeptrivia and koavf. The rename was an improvement. The title is more broad and has greater scope to cover the whole subject in its context rather than a title for a single belief. Tommytocker (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Should this page be included on the page for Buddha (disambiguation)? That page already has a link to Budha, which seems to have something to do with Hindu, but I think that's different. And if it is related to this, then it seems like the article for Budha should have a link to this article. - Shaheenjim 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Budha appears to be something different. Arrow740 23:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Budha is the God of Mercury while Buddha is an incarnation (Avatar) of Vishnu. They are different gods.--Redtigerxyz 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Readers

There is no doubt about Buddha being an Indian, and Hindu. He was born and died within a Hindu region, and his language was certainly of Sanskrit origin. However the conclusions drawn today by Indian and Sanskrit 'scholars' is to be regarded with caution. At what point, for example, does a 'deity/man' become a designated Avatar of Vishnu? If Buddha is is not mentioned previous to his human existence, there seems no evidence for his being an incarnation of Vishnu. His human name was Siddharta, his religious and posthumous name was Buddha.


A similarity is with Jesus being a Jew. [Or Prophet Mhd. being a Jew for that matter.] At what point does the new religion begin, and the old one end? In the case of Buddhism, contemporary India is not favourable to conversion (to Buddhism) because it is a move against caste. Present Indian mythology and politics push the Buddhist/Hindu connection for post-colonial merit only. It is to show that India has given the world such a famous incarnation. It also brings into play regional relations with Tibet, Sri Lanka, Burma, etc.. Indian culture is also very aware of the popularity of Buddhism in the 'West'. However, in no Indian home (Hindu or Muslim) is Buddha venerated. Nor is there any public awareness of Siddharta's life as a human being.

Therefore I ask the Hindu side to clarify if an Avatar can be a religion of its own? If the Avatar in fact has outgrown the Avatar designation - then what is the point in the Hindu connection? [Any glance at the last 1000 years of Indian history will show that Buddhism died within India. The Avatar connection is a recent postulation.]

Hello there Buddha has nothing to do with being any Awtars of Vishnu -bullshit- on wikipedia they write any damn thing over here and people like us try to clarify and the next thing you know it the moderators go deleting the stuff within seconds thats why I came here on the talk page. Half of wikipedia is all false and the real stuff gets deleted all the time!!!!!!!!!!! They just want to promote the buddism and blow it out of proportion and say its linked with a Hindu God. Absolutely incorrect, he was a King (they say he was a jutt/jatt also)and he left his Kingdom at the time King Asoka was repenting for all the deaths of the war so Buddha stated his religion of non violence. Many people leave their riches to become priests and saints its quite common.

Now when did Vishnu awtar "Krishna" say don't kill at all, he never said don't kill he said kill all your relatives to Arjun, if you read the Bagavadgita then you will undestand the concept entirely. Even the Awtar Parshuram killed all the kshatriyas then why did he kill them himself. When Vishnu came as Narsimha he killed Hiranyakashyap too. When Vishnu awtar came as Matsa awtar then why did all of the people drown and only the so called "Noah" (of western thought) and his ark survived? Where did the rest of the people go they died or were killed too isn't it. Bhuddist philosophy is totally different than Hindus it doesn't match at all. They have even their own different deities with different names. So it's absolutely impossible that Buddha is an awtar of Vishnu.

Dear Anon, the things you say are termed as WP:OR on wikipedia. Check your facts (Ashoka lived at least 100 years after Buddha). There are enough scholarly material and references available to support that Hindus believe Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu. The Avatar connection is NOT a recent postulation, but evidence in the holy Puranas. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gautama Buddha in Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gautama Buddha in Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Eighth Reprint Edition. (University of Calcutta: 1984). p. 5, footnote 1.
  2. ^ Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same? by David Loy, National Univ. of Singapore (p69-p70): "The similarities between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta have been much noticed; they are so great that some commentators conceive of the two as different stages of the same system. Curiously, both Shankara and his predecessor Gaudapada were accused of being crypto-Buddhists, while on the other side, Theravadins criticized Mahayana for being a degeneration back into Hinduism."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gautama_Buddha_in_Hinduism/Archive_1&oldid=1089874307"