Why do Hinduism call Buddha an Avatar?

[Jainarayan]

Vishnu incarnates as the Buddha to teach and to end animal slaughter.

And in my village-Hindu estimation this is what's meant by deluding demons and leading them away from the Vedas. I think "demons" refers to the brahmins who lived by the letter of the Vedas and not by the real teachings or spirit. Not unlike Christ's issue with the Pharisees. In the Bhagavad Gita 2.42-43 Krishna says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this."

 

[Spirit of Light]

I really like this thread and how it develops I do learn much about Hindus and their belief

 

[Aupmanyav]

And in my village-Hindu estimation this is what's meant by deluding demons and leading them away from the Vedas. I think "demons" refers to the brahmins who lived by the letter of the Vedas and not by the real teachings or spirit. Not unlike Christ's issue with the Pharisees. In the Bhagavad Gita 2.42-43 Krishna says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this."

Well, I would not demonise Vedas. What is wrong with animal sacrfice if the people are ready to kill for food? How is that different? It is hypocrisy to be non-vegetarian and at the same time denigrate animal sacrifice. Vedic people were non-vegetarian. And also, do not put all brahmins into one category. I am a Kashmri brahmin and we are traditionally non-vegetarian and mostly Shaivas. There are many brahmin people in India who too are non-vegetarians. I think BhagawadGita, being a Vaishnava literature, is not fair at many places. I am an atheist and many things mentioned in BhagawadGita would not apply to me. Though it is one of my favorite books, book-marked and consulted all the time. Sure, lot of wisdom there. And in spite of being an atheist, I love Krishna.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, I would not demonise Vedas. What is wrong with animal sacrfice if the people are ready to kill for food? How is that different? It is hypocrisy to be non-vegetarian and at the same time denigrate animal sacrifice. Vedic people were non-vegetarian. And also, do not put all brahmins into one category. I am a Kashmri brahmin and we are traditionally non-vegetarian and mostly Shaivas. There are many brahmin people in India who too are non-vegetarians. I think BhagawadGita, being a Vaishnava literature, is not fair at many places. I am an atheist and many things mentioned in BhagawadGita would not apply to me. Though it is one of my favorite books, book-marked and consulted all the time. Sure, lot of wisdom there. And in spite of being an atheist, I love Krishna.

Not all brahmins, of course. I think the interpretation is that the Vedic sacrifices were used only for material gains and comforts, some having lost sight of their purpose. In a sense, it would be senseless slaughter, even missing the point of the sacrifices providing food. I don't think in the time of the Mahābhārata society was entirely vegetarian. Krishna did say "Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer as oblation to the sacred fire, whatever you bestow as a gift, and whatever austerities you perform, O son of Kunti, do them as an offering to Me." ISKCONers as far I've encountered take the Bhagavad Gita quite literally at face value (which can make it look contradictory), would have my head for implying that he's saying it's ok to offer him a meat dish. But I'm not saying that. I'm saying he must have recognized not everyone was vegetarian, and it was probably more important to offer to him what you had, given the previous verse. And at the time, they were losing sight of that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I'm on the fence about Buddha being a purnavatar, (full avatar) v. anshavatar (partial) or even an expansion of Vishnu.

Would it be fair to say that this is not ultimately a pressing matter from your perspective? That it may well become significant at some point, but may just as easily remain unsolved without much of consequence resulting?

 

[Jainarayan]

Would it be fair to say that this is not ultimately a pressing matter from your perspective? That it may well become significant at some point, but may just as easily remain unsolved without much of consequence resulting?

I'd say you're correct. I can easily see how he could be an avatar. but I wouldn't get into a fist fight or go to war over it. Nor does it shake my faith one way or another. I have great reverence and respect for the Buddha, as I do for many figures from different religions. I'm sure there are other avatars, manifestations, expansions, emanations we don't know about. God can do anything he needs to do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm saying he must have recognized not everyone was vegetarian, and it was probably more important to offer to him what you had, given the previous verse. And at the time, they were losing sight of that.

Jai, Krishnavatara ended with Krishna on a hunt in 'Prabhasa Kshetra'.
(I have seen the tree where he was resting when 'Jara', in reality, Bali of the Ramavatara, shot him in the foot. Lord Rama had promised him that.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Controversial Theory:

Decimal system, the old Roman calendar of ten months (to which January and February were added by Emperor Nemo in 700 BCE), ten avataras, and Dashagwahas (Indo-Iranian Aryan priests who completed their sacrificial cycle in ten months) are relics of the time when Indo-Europeans lived within Arctic Circle and faced two-months of long, cold, dark Arctic night.
"Arctic Home in Vedas" B.G. Tilak