krishna, bhagavad gita, and buddha

[raphiq]

I can't really give a proper title to the question that I'm about to ask, for it is a rather lengthy question.

I've noticed something akin to a sort of discrepency while combing through information regarding Hinduism and Buddhism (well, not exactly a discrepency per se, depending on your view).

I study all sorts of religion in my free time, and I just so happen to come across the story of Arjuna and the Bhagavad Gita recently. What particularly caught my attention was Krishna's counsel to Arjuna about his wavering determination to face the battlefield of Kurukshetra. He tells Arjuna to uphold his duties in this world above all else. So, what does Krishna's advice have anything to do with Buddhism?

Well, Krishna is seen as an avatar of Vishnu, no? And according to some, Siddhartha was also seen as an avatar of Vishnu. Yet what Krishna told Arjuna through the Bhagavad Gita is contradicted through the teachings and life of Siddhartha, yet both are avatars of the same being. Yes, it can be said that Buddhism is separate from Hinduism, but it's true that the basis of Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. Not only that, but Siddhartha himself was already described in a number of Puranic texts as being an avatar of Vishnu.

Can anyone tell me this seemingly mismatch of information that I've found? Am I basing my question on faulty information? I hope I've phrased my question in an understandable manner. . .I'm not good at voicing my thoughts very well

[Snoopy]

Hi and welcome to CR

Was the Buddha made an avatar of Vishnu in an attempt to bring “Buddhism” under the wing of “Hinduism” perhaps? Only a thought. If Siddhartha’s teaching was seen as a heretical path then maybe it was political shenanigans by the authorities of the time that tried to draw the sting of this new path by incorporating it as just another avatar?


Snoopy.

[raphiq]

True, I've thought of that. But assuming that Krishna and Siddhartha were avatars, how would one account for the Buddhist version of Krishna's story? And the Puranic descriptions of Buddha being another avatar of Vishnu, are these Puranic texts already in existence before the birth of Buddha? Or were they added on to "bring 'Buddhism' under the wing of 'Hinduism'"?

[seattlegal]

I don't see much resemblance between Krishna and Siddhartha at all. The behavior of Krishna in the stories deviate greatly from Siddhartha's teachings, imo.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by raphiq

True, I've thought of that. But assuming that Krishna and Siddhartha were avatars, how would one account for the Buddhist version of Krishna's story? And the Puranic descriptions of Buddha being another avatar of Vishnu, are these Puranic texts already in existence before the birth of Buddha? Or were they added on to "bring 'Buddhism' under the wing of 'Hinduism'"?

Hi again,

I’m only responding so you don’t think I’m ignoring your questions!

I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer to your last question was yes, as I’d suggested. However, beyond that there are more knowledgable folk on CR that can shed far more light on this than me (Agnideva for one).

s.

[Nick the Pilot]

raphiq,

I prefer the theory that Gautama was an avatara of Amitabha Buddha. To me, the idea that Gautama was an avatara of Vishnu is only the musings of wishful-thinking Hindus. I see the positions of Amitabha Buddha and Vishnu in the Scheme of Things to be very different.

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by raphiq

I study all sorts of religion in my free time, and I just so happen to come across the story of Arjuna and the Bhagavad Gita recently. What particularly caught my attention was Krishna's counsel to Arjuna about his wavering determination to face the battlefield of Kurukshetra. He tells Arjuna to uphold his duties in this world above all else. So, what does Krishna's advice have anything to do with Buddhism?

Well, Krishna is seen as an avatar of Vishnu, no? And according to some, Siddhartha was also seen as an avatar of Vishnu. Yet what Krishna told Arjuna through the Bhagavad Gita is contradicted through the teachings and life of Siddhartha, yet both are avatars of the same being. Yes, it can be said that Buddhism is separate from Hinduism, but it's true that the basis of Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. Not only that, but Siddhartha himself was already described in a number of Puranic texts as being an avatar of Vishnu.

Can anyone tell me this seemingly mismatch of information that I've found?

Hello Raphiq,

What you say about a mismatch above sounds quite correct to me - Krishna's advice in the Bhagavad-Gita has very little to do with Buddhist teachings. Especially as the majority of Buddhist paths do not believe in an Supreme God or saviour, whereas Krishna's teachings in the Gita conclude in Him advising Arjuna that surrender to God is the ultimate goal of all spiritual paths.

Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend. (BG 18.65)

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. (BG 18.66)

According the the Puranic texts of Hinduism, the Buddha is counted as one of the many avatars of Vishnu, and Krishna is also counted amongst the list of avatars. However, (from the perspective of Hinduism) Buddha's teachings are seen as heretical because he denied the authority of the Vedas. The Vaishnava traditions believe he deliberately preached this way as the Brahmin priests of India at the time were using certain parts of the Vedas as an excuse to slaughter animals - better for the populace to move away from the Vedas entirely and focus on nonviolence. That being seen as the main focus of Buddha's mission (amongst others).

The poet Jayadeva writes:

O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You! O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules of Vedic sacrifice.

To my understanding, this perspective is flattly denied by followers of Buddha. So you have two (among many) conflicting opinions depending on which sources you go to...

Personally I see Buddha's teachings as totally valid, but only up to a point. But then I'm not a Buddhist!

Hoping this is (kind of) what you were looking for?

Best Wishes,


... Neemai

P.S - This link may also be of interest: Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 1 Chapter 3 Verse 24

[Francis king]

yes, have to agree with neemai... Krsna's advice on the battlefield relates to the concept of varna-ashrama-dharma: man's place in the world, and the duties and responsibilities he has...

each man has a place, and when he is in that place, he needs to act in a manner which befits his station... there is no point in arming the pascifist, and there is no point moaning about going into battle if you're a warrior... this is your place... and, according to the place you are in, there are rules... it is the warrior's duty to protect the king, the shepherds duty to look after the sheep... if the warrior minds the sheep..? waste of time... for the shepherd to defend the king? pointless...

as for Buddha being an avatar of Visnu... if Vishnu is your supreme personality of God, then all are incarnations of Vishnu... so yes, Buddha would be too...

I have heard that Buddha was the ninth incarnation of Vishnu, and came in human form to teach man how wrong animal sacrifice was... yet... the only place I have heard this is in Prahbupada's books...lol...

regardless, traditionally Buddha does not teach about God- IMHO you can't really be a Hindu without a God... And so, if Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, then he's a heretical version... as Neemai says, the goal of Hinduism, is to become aware of God, then praise and offer devotions, then hopefully you can one day unite with God, become one with them, (kind of)...

but then it starts to get complicated...

In some versions of buddhism, Buddha also has avatars! No longer is he just this man who sat under a tree, but no! He's a whole lineage onto himself!

There's Buddha Amitabha, (Vishnu, actually) Buddha Avalokitesvara (Lord Brahma, actually,) Buddha Manjushri (Lord Siva)... White Tara (Sarasvati)... the list goes on and yet... they are incarnations of Buddha, now, not Hindu Gods! Result!

again, it's all part of the same process... Religions come, religions go, yet the Gods remain... they just get some new clothes, The sun God becomes the creator god, the creator god becomes the father and goes on to become his own son...

or at least, that's my take on it..

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Francis king

I have heard that Buddha was the ninth incarnation of Vishnu, and came in human form to teach man how wrong animal sacrifice was... yet... the only place I have heard this is in Prahbupada's books...lol...

Lol - The first recording I have seen of this version is in Jayadeva's Dasavatara stotra, which is only really popular amongst the Vaishnava traditions.

The Vishnu Purana also gives an account of Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, and shares some elements of this theory :

Vishnu Purana: Book III: Chapter XVII
Vishnu Purana: Book III: Chapter XVIII


Hari Om,

... Neemai

[Francis king]

cheers neemai