How Lord Buddha influenced Hinduism?

[Rainbow Mage]

I am wanting to ask how exactly Lord Buddha enriched Sanatana Dharma? Since Hindus believe he was an avatar, what was his purpose as an avatar? Why would someone who was an avatar claim not to be a god?

 

[Surya Deva]

The influence Buddha had on Hinduism was more reactionary. The challenge Buddhist philosophy bought to Hindu philosophy lead to significant movements within Hinduism to answer those challenges, such as the Advaita movement founded by Adisankarcharya. Advaita has been accused of being crypto-Buddhist, because it seems to incorporate some of the philosophical elements within Buddhism from a Hindu point of view such as the doctrine of no self. In actuality, this accusation is exaggerated, because justification can be found for Advaita within the Upanishads itself, which is older than Buddhism. However, the impetus to formulate the Advaita philosophy seems to have resulted from the conflict amongst the different schools of philosophy in India on core issues(such as self vs no self, being vs no being, reality vs illusion)

The inclusion of Buddha amongst the avatars of Vishnu list is again reactionary in order to appropriate the Buddha of Buddhism. The justification for this is that Buddha was not a challenger of Hinduism, but a reformer. It was his followers who formed the religion of Buddhism based on misinterpreting what he said.

 

[Madhuri]

People need to stop confusing Gautama Buddha with Vishnu Buddha. This is what the Srimad Bhagavatam says:

[SIZE=+1]"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Aïjanä, in the province of Gayä, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."[/SIZE]

This verse alone has two important implications. 1 is that Lord Buddha was born in Gaya, not Nepal, the birthplace of Gautama Buddha. And 2, the beginning of Kali Yuga was over 5000 years ago meaning that Lord Buddha appeared much earlier than Gautama Buddha.

Clearly they are different personalities.

 

[Satsangi]

People need to stop confusing Gautama Buddha with Vishnu Buddha. This is what the Srimad Bhagavatam says:

[SIZE=+1]"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Aïjanä, in the province of Gayä, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."[/SIZE]

This verse alone has two important implications. 1 is that Lord Buddha was born in Gaya, not Nepal, the birthplace of Gautama Buddha. And 2, the beginning of Kali Yuga was over 5000 years ago meaning that Lord Buddha appeared much earlier than Gautama Buddha.

Clearly they are different personalities.

Kali Yuga is, I think, 432,000 years as per the Bhagvatam. Hence, even today, this is "just the beginning of the Kali Yuga." The signs of Kali Yuga are also not at its height as described in the Puranas and were certainly not at their heights at the time of Gautama Buddha. Hence, just based on your (2) observation, one cannot say that Gautama Buddha and Lord Buddha are different persons.

The borth place is mentioned as the "province of Gaya" in the Bhagvatam. Current boundaries of Gaya cannot be taken as the referrence for this one too. In fact, Lumbini in Nepal is very near to Bihar boundaries. Further, "Gayaa" comes from "Gaya" Raja's kingdom if I am not mistken (not sure here). The kingdom of King Gaya (who was a very noble king) is even more extensive.

Thirdly, if Gautama Buddha is not the Lord Buddha of Bhagvatam, then who is the Lord Buddha of Bhagvatam?

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

Thirdly, if Gautama Buddha is not the Lord Buddha of Bhagvatam, then who is the Lord Buddha of Bhagvatam?
Regards,

I agree with this. When we speak of a Buddha avatar, we are talking about the founder of Buddhism. It is possible that there were multiple stories for the Buddha and one of them had Gaya as his birthplace.

There is so much confusion about the identity of people (Shankara, Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna, etc) who came long after the Buddha. It should not be surprising that there may exist multiple, conflicting versions of historical details about the Budda.

 

[Madhuri]

You didn't address the name of Buddha's father.

Hey, what if Vishnu Buddha hasn't appeared yet? Has anyone ever addressed the following text from the Srimad Bhagavatam?

Srimad-Bhagavatam - Canto 2 Chapter 7 Text 37

"F[SIZE=-1]or those who became well informed on the path of education but envious with the divine roam the worlds and the ether with inventions of Maya [or with modern technology], He will dress up most attractively and [as the Buddha and His representatives] with the use of many terms deviating from the tradition extensively discourse on their destructive bewilderment.[/SIZE]"

Another translation reads as follows:

"When the atheists, after being well versed in the Vedic scientific knowledge, annihilate inhabitants of different planets, flying unseen in the sky on well-built rockets prepared by the great scientist Maya, the Lord will bewilder their minds by dressing Himself attractively as Buddha and will preach on subreligious principles."

Sounds futuristic.

 

[kaisersose]

Another translation reads as follows:
"When the atheists, after being well versed in the Vedic scientific knowledge, annihilate inhabitants of different planets, flying unseen in the sky on well-built rockets prepared by the great scientist Maya, the Lord will bewilder their minds by dressing Himself attractively as Buddha and will preach on subreligious principles."

His intent is unclear. What is the purpose of preaching "subreligious principles" to atheists? To me, this means he agrees with atheists, thus making his motive a mystery.

 

[Madhuri]

Back to the birthplace debate, some translations read as follows:


“Thereafter, in the twenty-first manvantara at the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in Kikata Pradesa (the province of Gaya-Bihar), just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful demigods.”

 

[Madhuri]

His intent is unclear. What is the purpose of preaching "subreligious principles" to atheists? To me, this means he agrees with atheists, thus making his motive a mystery.

Who knows? But if he agrees with them, why is he there to bewilder them?
And why would a text that emphasises theism be telling us that Buddha is atheistic? I mean, come on...

 

[Satsangi]

You didn't address the name of Buddha's father.

Hey, what if Vishnu Buddha hasn't appeared yet? Has anyone ever addressed the following text from the Srimad Bhagavatam?

If you mean "Anjana" in your Shloka- may be that is meant for his mother; this also resonates with the tradition that the sons are called by their mother's names (e.g. Anjaneya for Sri Hanumanji). Mayadevi was Gautama's mother. Maya is also called "anjan". Nir-anjan means without Maya. The two "futuritic sounding" translations posted- are they of the same Shloka? In that case, the original shloka needs to be looked at.

Regards,

 

[Madhuri]

If you mean "Anjana" in your Shloka- may be that is meant for his mother; this also resonates with the tradition that the sons are called by their mother's names (e.g. Anjaneya for Sri Hanumanji). Mayadevi was Gautama's mother. Maya is also called "anjan". Nir-anjan means without Maya. The two "futuritic sounding" translations posted- are they of the same Shloka? In that case, the original shloka needs to be looked at.

Regards,

Yes they are of the same Shloka. Two different translations. The one about annihilation of life on other planets is from Prabhupad's translation.

 

[Satsangi]

These links have some information on Gautama Buddha and Hinduism

Gautama Buddha in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.hinduism.co.za/buddhism.htm#Buddhism,%20The%20fulfillment%20of%20Hinduism

 

[kaisersose]

Who knows? But if he agrees with them, why is he there to bewilder them?

That was my question. Your translation says he preaches sub-religious principles (I do not have access to the sanskrit original). Sub-religious implies "not religious" to me and hence the question.

And why would a text that emphasises theism be telling us that Buddha is atheistic? I mean, come on...

Why not? The Bhagavatam does not advise readers to follow the Buddha. Besides, the Vishnu Purana provides more detail on the Buddha and as I recall, it pretty much calls him a deluder.

One other point. For the Purana verse to have any value, it must be a prediction. That is, it must have been written before Buddha's time through some kind of magical vision of the future. Now Buddha was not his original name. His birth name was Siddartha and at some point, he became the Buddha.

1) Did Siddartha rename himself or was this a name coined by his followers?
2) Was this name based on the Puranic prediction or was it simply a remarkable coincidence? There is no record that Siddartha was named the Buddha based on a Puranic prediction.

If we take the position that the prediction was inserted into the Puranas after the Buddha, then there are no questions. If we take the position that there was a prediction, then the above questions are left unanswered.

 

[Satsangi]

That was my question. Your translation says he preaches sub-religious principles (I do not have access to the sanskrit original). Sub-religious implies "not religious" to me and hence the question.


Why not? The Bhagavatam does not advise readers to follow the Buddha. Besides, the Vishnu Purana provides more detail on the Buddha and as I recall, it pretty much calls him a deluder.

Bhagvatam gives a list of the Avatars of Sri Hari and hence it is implied that one should respect and worship all the Avatars. Bhagvatam does say that these Avatars can bestow Moksha and sings of their glory being above ALL.

Vishnu Purana does not call Lord Buddha a deluder. I believe, it says that Buddha Avatar will "delude" the people who are already "deluded" (Atheists) back into the spiritual fold.

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

Vishnu Purana does not call Lord Buddha a deluder. I believe, it says that Buddha Avatar will "delude" the people who are already "deluded" (Atheists) back into the spiritual fold.
Regards,

This is now what I recall reading. Do you have the Vishnu Purana verse which says the Buddha pulled atheists back to spirituality?

Thanks

 

[Madhuri]

That was my question. Your translation says he preaches sub-religious principles (I do not have access to the sanskrit original). Sub-religious implies "not religious" to me and hence the question.


Why not? The Bhagavatam does not advise readers to follow the Buddha. Besides, the Vishnu Purana provides more detail on the Buddha and as I recall, it pretty much calls him a deluder.

One other point. For the Purana verse to have any value, it must be a prediction. That is, it must have been written before Buddha's time through some kind of magical vision of the future. Now Buddha was not his original name. His birth name was Siddartha and at some point, he became the Buddha.

1) Did Siddartha rename himself or was this a name coined by his followers?
2) Was this name based on the Puranic prediction or was it simply a remarkable coincidence? There is no record that Siddartha was named the Buddha based on a Puranic prediction.

If we take the position that the prediction was inserted into the Puranas after the Buddha, then there are no questions. If we take the position that there was a prediction, then the above questions are left unanswered.

In the Hindu scriptures, it seems to me that Buddha is the actual name of the Avatar. With Gautama it is my understanding that Buddha is more a title than a name.

IMO, the Buddha of the Hindu scriptures has not appeared in this Kali Yuga.

 

[Satsangi]

This is now what I recall reading. Do you have the Vishnu Purana verse which says the Buddha pulled atheists back to spirituality?

Thanks

The verse does not say "back to spiritual fold". I think the verse is in chapter 3. But, it does mean that the Buddha Avatar was to delude the "demons". Above post is just one of the translation/commentary of the verse.

Regards,

 

[Satsangi]

Madhuri,

There is another interesting explanation for "Anjana" in the shloka posted by you. Gautama's mother Mayadevi apparently died 8 days afyer his birth, and he was brought up by his grand mother whose name apparently was Anjana.

Regards,

 

[Madhuri]

Madhuri,

There is another interesting explanation for "Anjana" in the shloka posted by you. Gautama's mother Mayadevi apparently died 8 days afyer his birth, and he was brought up by his grand mother whose name apparently was Anjana.

Regards,

I can't find any online references to this. I'm seeing references that state his aunty (Pajāpat&#299 became his foster-mother.

 

[Madhuri]

If you mean "Anjana" in your Shloka- may be that is meant for his mother; this also resonates with the tradition that the sons are called by their mother's names (e.g. Anjaneya for Sri Hanumanji). Mayadevi was Gautama's mother. Maya is also called "anjan". Nir-anjan means without Maya. The two "futuritic sounding" translations posted- are they of the same Shloka? In that case, the original shloka needs to be looked at.

Regards,

Btw, Anjan means 'grey' in Sanskrit.
I have found some online references that say Anjan can also mean 'maya' (don't know how true this is) but still, Anjana and Maya are two different names. And the location mentioned in the scriptures is not the Nepalese location that Gautama was born in.