The Buddha was not an avatar (proof)

August 7, 2003

islam is much more better.... because in islam there's god, in buddhism not

August 10, 2003

I figured I should put together some info, for the convenience of the public.

I feel all sorts of warm fuzzies inside knowing that someone out there had a heart for community service. It's always nice to know that someone will appoint himself to the position of relieving the rest of us of our ignorance.

Smriti [viz. Puranas] calls the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Thus the teaching of the Buddha is the teaching of Vishnu.

This is to be proved false.

this should be fun...

Traditional Proof:

1. Vishnu being God cannot lie, for otherwise the Vedas themselves have to be doubted as eternal truth.

This is wrong for two reasons.

First, whether or not Vishnu can lie has no bearing on the authority of the Vedas. Vedas are apaurusheya - not authored by anyone, including Vishnu. All Vedaantists know this.

Secondly, since when is it that Vishnu, the Supreme Lord, cannot lie? Jahnava-Nitai brought several examples:

The Gita says Krishna is the cheat of the cheats. If one accepts there is a God, then it is pointless to try to limit him according to one's opinion of what he should be like. As Mohini Avatara he cheated the Asuras. As Krishna he told Yudhisthira to tell a lie. As Vamana He cheated Bali out of his land. And as Buddha he tricked the fallen brahmanas so that they would stop killing animals.

To which Shvu responded that no lying was involved in the above examples. Apparently Shvu is of the opinion that a lie of omission is not a lie, misleading someone by concealing one's identity is not dishonest, and hence Vishnu never lies to anyone. To say that this is absurd is self-evident. But let's look at other examples of Vishnu's trickiness:

In Mahaabhaarata, Krishna encouraged Yudhishthira to tell Drona that "Ashvathaama is dead" just to make Drona vulnerable, who was otherwise unbeatable on the battlefield. Bhiima even killed an elephant who just happened to be named Ashvathaama, to make this easier for Yudhishthira, though it was not (since he knew it to be a lie).

In the Bhaagavatam, Vishnu disguised Himself as a brahmachaari to save Lord Shiva from the powers of Vrikaasura. He *explicitly* lied by telling Vrikaasura that Lord Shiva cannot be trusted to have given the requested boon:

shrii bhagavaan uvaacha

eva.m chettarhi tadvaakya.m na vaya.m shraddadhiimahi |

yo dakShashaapaatpaishaachya.m praaptaH pretapishaacharaaT || bhaa 10.88.32 ||

So much for the theory that Vishnu cannot lie. The idea that the omnipotent, omnisicient, and omnipresent Lord Vishnu *cannot* do anything is foolish.

2. Vedantins are agreed that Sruti is authority for it is the word of God and is eternal truth. Smriti is written by man and so is authority only when it does not contradict Sruti.

Which Vedaantin says that shruti is the "word of God?" Shrutis are unauthored by everyone including God. If someone says shruti is "word of God," he is not trying to say that God created them. Most likely what is meant by the phrase (assuming the Vedaantin knows what he is talking about) is that Vedas were first spoken by God to Brahmaa and then onwards.

You say that smriti is written by man, but by such a definition of smriti, Puraanas would not be included. The shrutis clearly state that the Puraanas are of divine origin:

R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha |

uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 ||

The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24).

sa yathaardraidhaagnerabhyaahitaatpR^ithagdhuumaa vinishcharanti eva.m vaaare'syamahato bhuutasya niHshvasitametadyadR^igvedo yajurvedaH saamavedao'tharvaaN^girasa itihaasaH puraaNa.m vidyaa upaniShadaH shlokaaH suutraaNyanuvyaakhyaanaani vyaakhyaanaani asyaivaitaani niHshvasitaani || BU 2.4.10 ||

As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth, so, my dear, verily, from this Glorious Great God has been breathed forth the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharvaangirasa, Itihaasa, Puraanas, Science of knowledge, Mystic Doctrines of Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries. From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth (bR^ihadaaranyakopaniShad 2.4.10).

Thus, Puraanas enjoy the same authority as Vedas.

3. The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas and postulated an anti-vedic philosophy of Sunya-vada.

Which again, has no bearing on whether or not Buddha is Vishnu. Having established that Vishnu can lie (not that it needs establishing), all we need is a pramaana saying that Buddha is Vishnu. Such a pramaana is found in the Bhaagavatam. End of story.

Historical:

The Puranas came centuries after the Buddha's time and was cooked up by a bunch of Brahmana scholars with vested interests and thus is summarily rejected.

Note the utter lack of anything resembling evidence for the above. The shruti pramaanas quoted by me show that the Puraanas originated with the Supreme Lord and hence are not written by men.

Common objection: What makes you say that the Puranas came after the Buddha?

Reply: Because the Buddhist and Jaina literature dated to 500 BC, lists out 62 different existent philosophies in India at that time. Only the Upanishads are mentioned. There is no Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam, Krishna or Rama mentioned anywhere. Many small-time guys are mentioned, but not the BG or Krishna or Rama. The first extant Purana came up only in 400 AD. Compare this with the traditional date of 3102 BC !

So Puraanas could not have been that old because Buddhists and Jains did not reference them? This is silly. Buddhists and Jains did not need to refer to Puraanas because the Vedas were considered the root of what they wanted to refute. Why would a Buddhist bother with the obviously devotional texts like the Puraanas when his own philosophy was itself not theistic?

By the above logic, since Buddhists and Jains did not mention the Veda Samhitaas, then perhaps those are also no older than 500 BC. No Rig Veda Samhitaa, no Yajur Veda Samhitaa, no Atharva Veda Samhitaa existed before 500 BC. And all because some heterodox philosophers who were anti-Vedic did not explicitly mention them in their writings. Is anyone of even meager intelligence going to swallow this tripe? I think not.

18 huge Puranas, were lying hidden, unknown for 3400 - 4000 years is an impossible story to believe for that will raise many questions, the basic one being how then did people identify Siddharta as the prophesized Buddha? It will also mean that the Ramayana and Mahabharata were hidden too, because Rama and Krishna are not mentioned in any literature older than 300 BC.

When you make statements like the above, you do nothing other than to destroy your own credibility.

Saying that "Rama and Krishna are not mentioned in any literature older than 300 BC" is only acceptable if your dates are.

Krishna has an entire Upanishad - the Krishna Upanishad, named after Him, and this Upanishad belongs to Rig Veda. The Gopaala-taapanii also mentions Krishna explicitly, and its comes from the Atharva Veda. Naaraayanopanishad refers to the Supreme Lord as the son of Devakii. These are just a few references off the top of my head, and all three are among the 108 Principle Upanishads accepted by all Vedaantins, and thus they are shruti and eternal. If you want explicit Sanskrit quotes, I am only too happy to provide them. Suffice it to say that scriptures traditionally considered older than the dates you provided *do* mentioned Krishna quite clearly. It's also worthwhile pointing out that the dating you provide for many texts is completely arbitrary, based on parrot-like repetition of the opinions of secular scholars, which themselves change from time to time.

One can either accept the Buddha as an avatar or accept his teachings. But not both, as they are mutually exclusive.

Vaishnavas accept Buddha as an avataara. They do not accept His teachings. Thus, there is no conflict.

Thus both traditionally and historically, it is proved that the Buddha was not an avatar of Vishnu.

QED, my friends !

The only thing proven here is Shvu's desperate desire to find some issue by which to discredit mainstream Vaishnava teachings. First Srila Prabhupada is slandering Advaitins by criticizing their stance of identifying themselves with God. Now Buddha can't be an avatar, because meat-eating scholars who can't control their senses and who are coming in the paramparaa beginning with great Christian proselytizers such as Max Muller et. al say that our Puraanas are not as old as we think they are.***

What will come next? Perhaps Shvu will now try to demonstrate that the existence of animal sacrifices means that there is no such thing as a sacred cow....

- K

*** As a side note, I have always marveled at how people passing themselves off as "rational" or "objective" have no problem arbitrarily rejecting the traditional understanding of scriptural orgins, only to accept blindly and without question the ever-changing chronology offered by secular Indologists.