Guest guest Posted January 4, 1996 Report Share Posted January 4, 1996 PD writes: > My point was NOT that Buddha is accepted as > one of the 10 by Sri Vaishnavaas. The 10 are very > clearly stated by Thirumangai aazhvaar and > Swami Sri dhEsikar, and Buddha is not in this 10. > However, it is undeniable that Buddha is named as > an avathaaram by Sri Vaishnavaas, but, let me > repeat, not as one of the dhasaavatharams. > Since Buddha is not one of the ten you don't find > him in the dhasaavathaaraan sannithi at Sri Rangam. > I would like to point out that in one of the Annamacharya kritis, buddha is mentioned as one among the 10 avataras. --raghu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 1999 Report Share Posted June 3, 1999 Dear Sri Madhvakannan, Thank you for the wealth of quotes on this subject. However, you write: >To those who disregard "maRai" (Vedas), or neglect Vedas (like Buddhism >does) the whole life is like an oarless boat. The boat is left to the mercy >of the waters. It has to go astray and haywire and wander aimlessly. > >Hence... Buddhism is Non vedic and is not reverred. The question I had was not whether or not Buddhism was Vedic (obviously, it is not, since Buddhists reject the Vedas), but whether or not Buddha is, in some sense, an avataara of Vishnu. Being an avataara of Vishnu does not validate Buddhism, nor am I asking for its validation. My only question is how is it reconciled that Buddha is not an avataara of Vishnu with the Bhaagavata verse which says that He is born in Kali Yuga as Buddha for the purpose of misleading the atheists. I assume the following quote: >1. Here's NammAzhwAr's pAsuram 5.7.5: (only translation!) > >Is there anything I have to enable You to come to me? It is You, >who, on Your own, has to come; You are Great Dark Maayavan, who is >capable of entering into any group and become one among them to mislead >them; (For example, You entered into Buddha and enabled them to push >themselves far away from You with no vaidheeka saastras (non Vedic )by >misleading them with nihilistic approach, which is not true! ) That is all >for those who do not believe in You; But can You do that to Your adiyaar >like me? You are showing Yourself so majestically at SrI varamanghala nagar, .... is the reconciliation. I assume that what is in the parenthesis is also part of the translation? If so, how do Sri Vaishnavas describe Buddha, seeing as how they consider him to be empowered by Vishnu ("You entered into Buddha and enabled...")? For example, I have heard other Vaishnavas describe Buddha as shaktyavesha avataara - a jiiva who is empowered by Vishnu for some purpose. Do the Sri Vaishnavas posess similar terminology? namo naaraayaNaaya, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 1999 Report Share Posted June 3, 1999 Sri: Dearest Sri Krishna, In depth, these discussions have been archived in Jan 96 of bhakti list. http://www2.be.com/~mani/bhakti/archives/jan96/0047.html Please read and enjoy! Narayana Narayana Narayana dAsan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 1999 Report Share Posted June 3, 1999 On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 Sri T.V.Venkatesh wrote: > > SrimathE nArAyaNAya namaha > > Sri Krishna wrote :- > > There is definitely shaastric reference supporting the idea of Buddha being > > an avataara of Vishnu. In the chapter describing the various descents of the > > Lord, the following statement can be found in the Bhaagavatam: > > > > tataH kalau sampravR^itte sammohaaya suradviShaam | > > buddho naamnaajanasutaH kiikaTeShu bhaviShyati || bhaa 1.3.24 || > > > > When Kali sets in, He will be born in Magadha (North Bihar) as Buddha, son > > of Ajana, with a view to deluding the enemies of gods (bhaagavata puraaNa > > 1.3.24). No purANa tells us that Gautama Buddha is an incarnation of BhagavAn. The place of birth and the name of His mother given in BhAgavata (as quoted above) are quite different from those of Gautama Buddha. There is one more Buddha who was also an avatAr of VishNu. He seduced the wives of TripurAsuras. So the story told by BhAgavata and the second story must be having kalpa bhEdam. One of the memebers wondered whether Buddha is saluted by any of the VaishNava AchAryas. BhadrAchala raghuvara supabhAtam, written in the lines of SV suprabhAtam, says " tAlAnka krishNa yavanAntaka buddha rUpa" in one of its verses saluting ten avatAras. Obviously, this Buddha must be one of the two Buddhas mentioned above and not Gautama Buddha. your servant Vishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 1999 Report Share Posted June 6, 1999 V.Srimahavishnu <vsri > No purANa tells us that Gautama Buddha is an incarnation of >BhagavAn. The place of birth and the name of His mother given in BhAgavata >(as quoted above) are quite different from those of Gautama Buddha. >There is one more Buddha who was also an avatAr of VishNu. He seduced the >wives of TripurAsuras. So the story told by BhAgavata and the second story >must be having kalpa bhEdam. Ahh yes, I think I was unclear. I was not pointing to Gautama Buddha as an avataara of Vishnu, but rather to a different Buddha. My understanding also is that the Buddha referred to in the Bhaagavatam is not the Buddha of our Kali Yuga, but from a previous Kali Yuga who did something similar. I am not familiar with a Buddha who seduced the wives of the tripuraasuras. One question, however - is the Buddha referred to in NammAzhwAr's pAsuram 5.7.5 the Buddha from a previous age, or the Gautama Buddha? In other words, is the fact that He entered into Buddha and enabled him to preach nihilism taken to refer to Gautama Buddha and explain how he is actually not the avataara mentioned in the Bhaagavatam, or does it refer to the previous kalpa's Buddha, and saying that this Buddha is an avataara, but only a shaktyavesha? yours, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 1999 Report Share Posted June 8, 1999 On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 Sri Krishna Susarla wrote: > > One question, however - is the Buddha referred to in NammAzhwAr's pAsuram > 5.7.5 the Buddha from a previous age, or the Gautama Buddha? In other words, > is the fact that He entered into Buddha and enabled him to preach nihilism > taken to refer to Gautama Buddha and explain how he is actually not the > avataara mentioned in the Bhaagavatam, or does it refer to the previous > kalpa's Buddha, and saying that this Buddha is an avataara, but only a > shaktyavesha? Dear Sri Krishna, While I don't know anything about Sri Sathakopar's works, I can add somehing to what you have said. In his Telugu meanings to VSN, KAnchI mahA vidwAn SrI P B aNNangarAchArya swAmI says that BhagavAn incarnated as Budhha, and spread Buddhism and other such theories. Here also, there is no direct reference to Gautama Buddha and hence it is not very clear as to which Buddha SrI PBA is making a reference. These are the meanings to the nAmas in the region "mahAhradO mahAgartO .. ". This entire area deals with BuddhAvatAram. SrI PBA's Telugu meanings are invariably based on SrI ParASara Bhattar's commentary to VSN known as "BhagavdguNa darpaNam". Unfortunately, most of SrI PBA's Telugu works are not available nowadays. dAsan Vishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.