Lord Buddha's teachings contradicts the sanatan dharma?

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

I've wondered about this a lot and i want to know your opinions.

 

According to the Shrimad Bhagavatam, Buddh Bhagvan was one of the avatars of Purushottam Narayan residing in dham. Yet, Buddh Bhagvan teaches that Nirvana is mankind's ultimate destination and in his teachings there is no concept of God. If this is so, this is Nashitk (non theistic) philosophy and therefore is not according to the sanatan dharma.

 

So, how should one understand Buddha bhagwan? His teachings are contradictory to the Bhagvatam, and yet we believe He is one of the avatars of Narayan?

 

I pray for forgiveness to Lord Narayan and His incarnations if i have insulted My Lord in any way due to my lack of knowledge.

 

Thanks,

[Gaea]

The thing to understand is that Lord Buddha taught according to time, place and circumstance - this is the case with ALL incarnations - time, place and circumstance

 

The people at that time fancied themselves as intellectuals, so Lord Buddha gave them something to think about. They are on one rung of the spiritual ladder. Ultimately the ladder is going up but you have to start somewhere. It is the same whther you are a Buddhist, Advaitist, Dvaitist etc. - you start according to your position. God is so merciful that he allows you to go at your own pace.

[Guest guest]

 

The thing to understand is that Lord Buddha taught according to time, place and circumstance - this is the case with ALL incarnations - time, place and circumstance

 

The people at that time fancied themselves as intellectuals, so Lord Buddha gave them something to think about. They are on one rung of the spiritual ladder. Ultimately the ladder is going up but you have to start somewhere. It is the same whther you are a Buddhist, Advaitist, Dvaitist etc. - you start according to your position. God is so merciful that he allows you to go at your own pace.

 

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

But our shastras emphasise that someone who does not recognise the avatars of Narayan is a maha paapi and one should not associate themselves with them. For example, when someone says GOD is formless, He/She is comitting a sin greater than that of killing a Brahmin. Yet, here the teachings of Buddha bhagvan goes further and says that there is no such thing as GOD. Is'nt this a paap for which there is no redemption and that we should not associate with such people?

 

Again i pray to my Ishatadev for forgiveness if i am knowingly/unknowingly criticising His various forms.

 

Thanks.

[Gaea]

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

But our shastras emphasise that someone who does not recognise the avatars of Narayan is a maha paapi and one should not associate themselves with them. For example, when someone says GOD is formless, He/She is comitting a sin greater than that of killing a Brahmin. Yet, here the teachings of Buddha bhagvan goes further and says that there is no such thing as GOD. Is'nt this a paap for which there is no redemption and that we should not associate with such people?

 

Again i pray to my Ishatadev for forgiveness if i am knowingly/unknowingly criticising His various forms.

 

Thanks.

 

You call him Bhagavan whilst at the same time insinuating him to be a "maha paapi". The fact is that Buddha is none other than Narayana Himself and so He can really preach whatever He deems fit.

 

Say you are a mother and you realise that the only way that your son will progress in life is for him to leave home. He is vile right now, he speaks back to you and even goes as far as to say that he does not consider you his mother. A mother's love is such that she will let him go regardless. He will eventually learn and repent but has to do so in his own way because he's just built to think differently. He needs a different path.

 

In the same way, if God wants his Bhaktas-to-be to progress He has to let them follow the path they are on until they are fit for more. Evidently the path of Devotion was too much for the people of the time of Buddha - otherwise He would have preached as Krsna did. That is God's Leela - so wonderful and multi-facedted. We see things from our own scewed view. It's like watching TV - you only see what the camera is focussing on but totally unaware of the rest of the things that are going on because we cannot see them.

 

You may not agree with non-dual or atheistic philosophies - that's fine, you're on a differnt path. God has a plan for everyone for their own MAXIMUM benefit for their particular stage. We just have to simply trust.

[Gaea]

 

For example, when someone says GOD is formless, He/She is comitting a sin greater than that of killing a Brahmin.

 

I've heard someone else say that too - do you know where this is documented in the Vedas please? I would like to read the context.

[Guest guest]

 

You call him Bhagavan whilst at the same time insinuating him to be a "maha paapi". The fact is that Buddha is none other than Narayana Himself and so He can really preach whatever He deems fit.

 

Say you are a mother and you realise that the only way that your son will progress in life is for him to leave home. He is vile right now, he speaks back to you and even goes as far as to say that he does not consider you his mother. A mother's love is such that she will let him go regardless. He will eventually learn and repent but has to do so in his own way because he's just built to think differently. He needs a different path.

 

In the same way, if God wants his Bhaktas-to-be to progress He has to let them follow the path they are on until they are fit for more. Evidently the path of Devotion was too much for the people of the time of Buddha - otherwise He would have preached as Krsna did. That is God's Leela - so wonderful and multi-facedted. We see things from our own scewed view. It's like watching TV - you only see what the camera is focussing on but totally unaware of the rest of the things that are going on because we cannot see them.

 

You may not agree with non-dual or atheistic philosophies - that's fine, you're on a differnt path. God has a plan for everyone for their own MAXIMUM benefit for their particular stage. We just have to simply trust.

 

 

 

Gaea,

 

I mean no harm. With regards to 'You call him Bhagavan whilst at the same time insinuating him to be a "maha paapi". ', i was just stating what our scriptures say and pointing out the contradiction. I call Bhudda Bhagvan 'Bhagvan' because it is said so in the Shrimad Bhagvatam, and thefore calling Buddha Bhagvan anything else would be wrong. I am not trying to critisise any of the avatars, just to increase my understanding. You make a real valid argument in your last reply, i suppose i did not look at it fom this perspective. Yes, who are we to question the Leelas of the Lord.

 

I will find the scripture which states the paap when one considers GOD as Nirakaar (without form) murti, as opposed to Sakaar (divine form) murti residing in golok dham, Vaikunth dham, Brahmmahol dham (whatever name one calls it by)

 

Thanks.

[Gaea]

 

I mean no harm.... I am not trying to critisise any of the avatars

 

i know

[krishnadasa]

Honestly the problem with this age is quarrel, just quarrel, and only qaurrle, EVEN ON THE FORMS OF THE SUPREME...what an age , krishna save krishna save, common first worship, just quarrelling wudnt yield anyhting

[gHari]

I heard that India became filled with impersonalists who surrounded the personalists. To save His devotees, Krsna incarnated as Buddha and preached an impersonalist philosophy to attract the impersonalists. He then led them out of India. At the same time He offered mercy to them for they were now indeed worshipping Him even though somewhat indirectly.

[Guest guest]

But in the course of time, ignorant men took the tamasika orders to be the only instruction of the Vedas and engaged in the extensive killing of animals, sometimes even sacrificing human beings during worship of the demigods. At that time, the Supreme Lord descended in the form of Buddha and outwardly rejected the teachings of the Vedas for the welfare of human beings incapable of comprehending the true teachings of the Vedas. This implies that He disputed and cancelled His own prior teachings, propounded the futility of belief in God and preached to human beings four noble truths, to free them from their violent practices. This act of Buddha provided instantaneous benediction to mankind of that period. As Lord Buddha was the Supreme Lord Himself, many people resolved to follow ahimsa-dharma-the path of non-violence, due to His influence.

 

Buddha-avatara has been discussed in various Puranas such as the Linga, Bhavishya, Varaha, Agni, Vayu, Skanda, Vishnu and many others. In the 17th and 18th Chapters of the 3rd Section of Vishnu Purana, Buddha is referred to as Mayamoha. It should be remembered that the Buddha-avatara whose narrations are found in various Puranas and other scriptures, is not the nihilistic Buddha, the son of Suddhodana.

 

namo buddhaya suddhaya daitya danava mohine

 

The preceding eulogy to Lord Buddha, taken from Akrura’s prayer in Srimad-Bhagavatam (10-40-22), is the essence of all the Vedas, Vedanta, Puranas, Itihasas and other scriptures. The meaning of this prayer is:

"O Lord, I offer my obeisances unto Your faultless beguiling form of Lord Buddha who enchanted the demons and devils by composing anti-Vedic mantras."

 

Commenting on this, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has written:

 

suddhaya vedaviruddha sastra pravarttakatve ’pi nirddoshaya

"The meaning of the word ‘suddhaya’ is that although He is the founding element of anti-Vedic literature, yet He remains inculpable."

 

Therefore, by establishing sastras opposed to the Vedas, He (avatara- Buddha) hypnotised devils and demons.Thus, we can see by the authentic words of genuine scriptures, that Lord Buddha and Sakyasimha/Gautama Buddha are not the same. The Lord has established many anti-Vedic scriptures for deluding the demons. Other Buddhas also followed Him and propagated anti-Vedic nihilism. That is why many doubts arise, as all of them have been mentioned together in several places.

[Srimanta]

 

Hi

 

I've wondered about this a lot and i want to know your opinions.

 

According to the Shrimad Bhagavatam, Buddh Bhagvan was one of the avatars of Purushottam Narayan residing in dham. Yet, Buddh Bhagvan teaches that Nirvana is mankind's ultimate destination and in his teachings there is no concept of God. If this is so, this is Nashitk (non theistic) philosophy and therefore is not according to the sanatan dharma.

 

So, how should one understand Buddha bhagwan? His teachings are contradictory to the Bhagvatam, and yet we believe He is one of the avatars of Narayan?

 

I pray for forgiveness to Lord Narayan and His incarnations if i have insulted My Lord in any way due to my lack of knowledge.

 

Thanks,

When some one arrives above abode of Narayana, then always one gives actual concept of God who is Krsna. Upto abode of Narayana there is no concept of God. It changes how Narayana represents Himself