Buddhavatara

Srikanth

When will Lord vishnu show his Buddhavatara? As I heard from many philosophers in Srimad Bhagavata they dont explain much about Buddhavatara......Pls can anyone clarify my doubt?

स्वाति...

as i no.....vishnu incarnated this roopa as to preach moha shasthra for thamasa jeevies...and bouda shastra is naasthika ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ and we dont have to do anything with this avatara of god......and may b tats its not much explained......in bhagavatha

C S

My views...

Well.. Dear All..

In the Dashavathara stuti.. composed by Grt Sri Vadiraj Swami..in the 32 st stanza.. he explains the .

" buddhAvatArakavi baddhAnukaMpakuru baddhAJNjalau mayi dayAm.h |
shauddhodanipramukha saiddhAntikA sugama bauddhAgamapraNayana |
kruddhAhitAsuhR^itisiddhAsikheTadhara shuddhAshvayAnakamalA |
shuddhAntamAMruchipi maddhAkhilAN^ga nija maddhAva kalkyabhidha bhoH

The meaning of the same..

shauddhodanipramukha saiddhAntikA = one who is the son of Shudodhaka and the Buddha philosophy which is in the publicity, Asugama = cannot understand, bauddhAgama = devataas (demi gods) who are intellectuals (gyanis) liked by the philosophy which is named Bhudda, praNayana = one who is created, kavibaddhAnukaMpa = kind among gyanis (intellectuals), buddhAvatAra = Sri Hari who manifested as Bhudda, baddhAJNjalu = saluting through hands, mayi = myself, dayAm.h kuru = be kind (bless me), kruddhA = got wild, Ahita = enemies, asuhR^iti = matters concerning to stealing of life (pranapahara), siddha = getting ready, asikheTa = one who is having sword and shield (gurane), shuddhAshvayAna = one who is having pleasant horse as the vechicle, kamalAshuddhAnta = one who has got Sri Lakshmi as queen (one who is staying in Sri Lakshmi's palace), ruchipimaddhAkhilAN^ga = one who is covered by the radiance with all organs of the body, kalkyabhidha = named as Kalki, bhoH = one who is Sri Hari, mAm = myself, addhA = more, ava = protect.

Translations
============

There was a time, when the whole world (kaliyuga) was full of divine culture and vaidic (sacred) environment and at the same time many demons (asuras) were also born and started following the divine culture and learning divine knowledge. Because of this dharma started decaying (spoilt) in their hands. During that time for the king of Shakya by name Shudhodhana a baby was born. It is understood that Sri Paramathma in the form of this baby started talking and preached that this world is void (shunya, empty) and all things which are happening are all miseries. This is suppose to be Bhuddha philosophy. (Sri Hari who is in the form of Baby has preached this). In order to prove this philosophy is true to the people Sri Hari has swallowed all the weapons which devataas has attacked to the baby. After seeing these wonders and these incidents the King Shuddodaka and his followers started believing the new philosophy and started practising the same, by leaving aside the vedic philosophy.

After sometime the Paramathma who was in the form of baby has disappeared. and Shuddodaka son appeared again. Shuddodaka son grown up as Bhudda started preaching Bhudda philosophy which Paramathma has publicised previously. Even in Devaloka (adobe) Sri Paramathma has preached devataas (demi gods) the real essence of Bhudda philosophy which he has preached as Bhudda in this world. Sri Paramathma preached demi gods the essence of Bhudda philosophy which is publishised as 'Prashanthavidya' which even Shuddodaka's son Bhudda and his followers cannot understand this philosophy. Sri Vadiraja is praying Sri Hari who is in the form of Bhudda to be kind to him by doing bhuddanjali.

Sri Vadiraja is praying Sri Hari who is in the form of Sri Kalki as one who is destroying (killing) wildered enemies and one who is wearing (holding) sword and shield and sitting on top of the pleasant horse. His body with all organs of the body are shining like splendour and Sri Vadiraja is praying that he is h

PS : The original preaching of Bhudda philosophy was preached and publisised by Sri Narayana in the form of Bhudda. The preaching are meant in two ways. The original meaning was told to demi gods or devataas by himself in deva loka (adobe). But the sinful asuras or demons taken (understood) his preaching in wrongful meaning and started practising the same by blaming the vaidic dharama. Like this Paramathma will incarnate to get love from Asuras to Devataas has been told in Bhagavatha prathama scanda chapter 32 shloka 24.
In order to attract the Asuras who are enemies of devataas Sri Hari will incarnate as Bhudda as son of Jinana in the place called Gaya in the land of Magadha. This has been told in Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya Chapter 32 shloka 139.
Further, it has also been told that after completing 1000 years of Kaliyuga when all the devataas who were there in that yuga reached adobe and one who is killed by (destroyed by) Rudra by name Tripurasura was reborn in this world. At that time even Sri Vedavysa has disappeared and divine culture was existent by removing all faulty practices. At that time even demons had the opportunity to learn divine knowledge. But devataas and Paramathma did not like the idea of demons gaining divine knowledge. All devataas went to the ocean of milk where Sri Hari is residing and prayed him to bless them the solution for the above scene. During the same time in the place called Gaya (land of Magadha) Tripurasura was born to Shuddodana or Jinana. Paramathma disappeared the new born child and incarnated as a child. When Shuddodaka started doing ritual for the new born baby, the baby started smiling. They all stunned by the happening and the baby started preaching the new siddhanta called Bhudda sidhanta. Because of the prevailing situation ie divine culture they all did not believe the new philosophy, Paramathma remembered (called) his devataas and those devataas started launching different weapons on the new born baby. But that baby swallowed all the weapons like t

But that baby swallowed all the weapons like trishula etc and even when Vishnu attacked the baby with his discuss (chakra), even that the paramathma in the form baby made it as its seat and sat. On seeing the wonders of this child, Shuddodana and his followeres started believing and accepted the new philosophy by leaving divine culuture which they were following. After that the Paramathma disappeared from there and preached the real meaning of the new philosophy to the devataas, but demons were attracted by this new preaching and started following the same.

Even before this incident there is mention in Bhagavatha that Bhudda manifested earlier to attract Tripurasura's wives.

The Bhudda who was born during 3000 AD is not the incarnation of Sri Narayana. Goutama Bhudda is one who has publicised the Bhudda philosophy which was preached by Sri Narayana as a child. It should be assumed that Goutama Bhudda is not the manifestation of Sri Narayana.

Manjunatha

@ Mr

I had always heard about one ShuddhOdhana who is the father of siddhArtha goutama buddha. But who (or what) is this shuddhodaka?

Manjunatha

After reading all the stories, and quotations and "interpretations" following is what I can summarize:

1) Once upon a time there was a demon called TripurAsura (who had 3 flying cities, hence the name)

2) As usual, he (true and rightful his asurik nature (swa-vihita vrutti) ), was troubling the gods and sundry.

3) A small twist to the normal story, instead of the strength of tapas/boons, he had the strength of pAtivratya of his wives (ofcourse, strength is strength... he was using it for bad purpose, since he was an asura - fated to be ultimately killed by devas)

4) To spoil this pAtivratya, sri hari had to roam around before them naked (teaching non-vedic religion - shunya/maya/moha shastra?)

5) Because of this, their pAtivratya got spoilt, so TripurAsura lost his strength.

6) After this, Hari only could have killed him, but for the reasons unknown (hari leela?), he asked Rudra to kill him (by bestowing necessary strength in Rudra)

7) Many centuries (or kalpas) later, the same demon was born again as ShuddhOdhana (not shuddhOdaka). Instead of killing him (as usual), this time Vishnu chose to "mislead" him by taking form of his own son and preaching the same maya/shunya vada again.

8) Once the job is done, he disappeared and the real son re-appeared (from nowhere). And for the reasons best known to nobody, this real son did never deny that he was not the one who preached the shunya vada etc. Instead, he left the home sat ander pepal tree, got "enlightned"

9) After this "enlightnment" he started preaching the people (and he is not the buddhavatara of Vishnu, remember)

Now the questions:
1) Which one was shunya vada? the one taught by Sri Hari to "demons" to mislead them? or the one taught by this Buddha II after the "enlightnment"?

2) Where was this Buddha II from his first disappearence till his re-appearence?

3) What was his stand point when he was suddenly "re-appeared" in the place of Lord Vishnu? How did he manage this transposition?

4) Why did not he tell the world that he is a different person from the person who was there till then?

5) What was the "enlightnment" that he got under the pepal tree?

6) If we see the whole story, there are many interchanging personalities: The buddha who spoilt the pativratya of Tripurasuras wives by moving around naked; The buddha who was the son of shuddhodana; the buddha who took his place and preached shunya vada; the buddha who "re-appeared" and taught something later (I understand this is what we actually, historically, refer as shunya vada). To make the matter more confusing, there is also a Jina, Mahaveera (who was also moving around naked). And historically (again) we have never heard Buddha was moving around naked. Who is who, what is what?

7) Why should Sri Hari preach misleading shastras to demons. I know as per their swaroopa they dont have "adhikara" to vedas. In that case, they will not even think of learning it. If they think, it means they are on their way of correction. It said ones swaroopa is permanent, and can never change, no amount of good deeds. Then what if asuras learn good knowledge, they remain asuras anyway, why mislead them separately?

8) Throuout we are talking about Buddha, we are quoting from puranas and their madhwic interpretations. Do we have any reference to support this, from Bouddha literature itself? That lends it more authenticity because we are talking about their "religious leader"

Yogi

Buddhavatara is rightly associated with Gautama Buddha.

Dashavatara Stuti by Shree Vaadirajaru says...

buddhaavataara-kavibaddhaanukampa-kurubaddhaanjalau mayi dayaaM
shouddhodhani-pramukha-saiddhaantikaabhimata-bouddhaagamapraNayana|

Interestingly, in Dashavataarastuti, Shree Vaadiraja Teertharu has not told about the Tripurasura but pointed about the Buddha who was Shuddhodhana's son and who was the 'center point' for the Bouddhaagama [Today's Buddhism].

As far the stories of Shuddhodana being an asura, I can only say our Madhvas are very good fictionists. Similar to denigration of Shankaracharya [who was coined with the asura title by Trivikrama Panditacharya and Narayana Panditacharya, before whose works there was no evidence as such for Shankaracharya being a demon], we tend to call whoever doesn't accept our philosophy as demons

I would like to know from which grantha we have got the info of Shuddhodana being a demon [or is it just because Shuddhodana rymes with Duryodhana? ]

Hare Naarasimha
Yogi

Buddhavatara is rightly associated with Gautama Buddha.

This adds another twist to this ongoing sAga.m totally confused.

Hare Srinivasa

Buddha actually challenged the Vedic Rituals prevalent at that time.

It is an irrefutable fact that there was a time when cows, horses and other animals were slaughtered and put to homa kundas. This is due to wrong interpretations of Vedas. There are chapters in Rig Vedas which literally say how to slaughter a horse and which part of the horse meat is to be used for Yajnyas. Of course, the etymological meaning of that chapter is different and it is pious, spiritual and hailed by all the Acharyas, that is what we are following today. Even today there are Vedic groups which perform the yajnyas by slaughtering of the animals, which stands as a proof for that horrible slaughter culture once prevalant.

At that time Buddha came and questioned it and rejected the Vedic Dharma (prevalant at that time). Even Jayadeva Kavi who used to play with Baby Krishna while he sang Geetagovinda, says the following...

nindasi yajnya-vidheH ahaha shruti jaatam
sadaya-hRudaya-darshita-pashu-ghaatam
keshava! dhRuta buddha shareera, jaya jagadeesha hare

This clearly says, there was a culture at one point in time where pashughaatam (animal slaughter) was prevalant. And Buddha is revered to have stopped it. It is only in Maadhva stories that I find Shuddhodana being a demon and Vishnu coming as Buddha mislead him.

Proofs please...

Manjunatha

@ Yogi

Yes, this is what I too guess.

As far as my understanding goes, there is ofcourse a reference of Buddha incarnation in the Hindu scriptures, who was instrumental to the destruction of Tripura etc etc.

But the Historical Buddha must have ccme to be considered as an incarnation Vishnu much later.

As you rightly mentioned, by the time of Buddha many cruel practices were prevalant, in the name of Vedic scriptures. He denied them and preached Ahimsa. It is possible that those humane values were subsequently adapted into the Vedic way of life too. Since he was an icon of human compassion, it is natural that the people (not his followers, but those who still followed Sanathana Dharma, but nevertheless admired these good virtues of Buddha), would have accepted him into mainstream as an incarnation of Vishnu himself!

However despite all (followable) good virtues, his core preachings were against Vedas, and were deceptive. Bouddha matha was also one of the mathas to be refuted to establish Tattwavada. But he was already considered as the incarnation of Vishnu. If you accept him as Lord Vishnu, can you refute his preachings? And probably I guess this is where story of Vishnu re-born to Shuddhodhana, preaching maya and disappearing (and the second buddha reappearing) etc must have taken shape.

Ofcourse SrimadAchArya could have directly refuted the theory itself, of Buddha (II) being the incarnation of Vishnu. But I don't understand why he did not do that. Then, maybe this story (of disappearing and re-appearing) is true . But till u get concrete evidences, story remains story.

So, if you delink these two Buddha versions, the Dashavatara story ends at the Tripura dahana, as far as Buddha is concerned (like how Manimantha's story ends with the death of Manimantha). Probably they won't flow down to Kaliyuga anywhere except in Madhwic literature (i'm open for correction in this regard)

It is more a matter of academic interest and discussion than an emotional braw

bharath

excellently put @ manjunath... i was always struggling to put this point across... i guess we need to challenge the status quo at times, dig more of the truth at times.... and this doesnt deny our current beliefs in narayana/madhwa... but somewhere when certain things are based strongly out of faith, we tend to get a bit restless... but the reason that we are here in this forum is signal enough about what we believe first...

what u said was absolutely true... we need to link the known history with the mythical beliefs... only then we can have sensible talks with our fellow counterparts from other beliefs... and we need certainty... else we end up coccooning within our own community....

Surya

as i know buddha means a enlightned person.......there were many buddhas before gautama buddha.gautama buddha is not the founder of buddhism(this is what every body thinks)& it is not gautama buddha who taught the shoonya vada but the later buddhist monks who were also called the buddhas(as a advaiti peetadipati is called a shankaracharya).the buddhas at the time of shankaracharya(or a few centuries before shankara) started teaching shoonya vaada.the advaitins 'CLAIM' that these buddhas started defeating hindu scholars & shankaracharya with his advaita defeated these buddhas & saved hinduism.gautama buddha never told about shoonya vaada.

Yogi

Dear Manjunatha, I am glad to see someone like you open enough to question things rationally and at the same time not to lose faith

I stand beside you and declare I am ready to correct myself if consistent proofs are provided for the mainstream Maadhva theories. Shankaracharya being Manimanta is one disgraceful theory which alienates us from one big chunk of Brahmins. If Madhvacharya hasn't claimed it, I don't see any reason to believe what the later scholars said.

One more thing to ponder over. If Buddha is accepted as Vishnu, still, there is no need to accept Buddhism as valid. It can very well be refuted keeping Buddha within Dashavatara. You see, Chaarvaaka, who preached no-God theory and total materialistic enjoyement in life, was in fact Lord Vishnu himself. Acharya Madhva refuted Charvaka philosophy.

Similar to present day Maadhvaism in which, wherever Madhvacharya has said braahmaNa, our achars interpret it as maadhva or anyone who is born to braahmaNa father , (from purely my guessings) whatever Lord said in the form of Charvaka and Buddha might be misinterpreted by his followers. And with a purposeful intention Lord might have done it.

What baffles me is, our beloved Maadhva achars (who gracefully accept Shankaracharya to be a demon) reject and denigrate ISKCON's claim that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was Lord Krishna's incarnation. Chaitanya had come in the dreams of Madhvacharya and told him that he would come in Maadhva parampara and spread the true Vedic Knowledge

The above claim was written by (probably) Rupa Goswami in the 17-18th century. They are teaching this to ISKCON disciples all over the world. And our Maadhvas scholars vaachaamagochara scold them

Manjunatha

@ Surya

"there were many buddhas before gautama buddha"... Oh nooo... more buddhas, more confusion

Your statement is partly true. This is as per Buddhist scriptures (as I have heard) that the soul, to be ultimately enlightened as "Buddha" (="enlightened"), had to pass through many births. Stories of all these births are famous as "Buddha Jataka Tales". This soul (till it attained enlighenment) was called Bodhisatwa (="the one who has the potential of becoming the Buddha). After many births and re-births, Bodhisatwa ultimately took birth as a prince, and ultimately got the "enlightenment" under the Pepal tree (=Bodhi Vruksha).

Maybe these stories were developed much later in the Buddhist literature after the Buddha. Anyway, these stories do not have anything to do with our "Buddha Story"

A small correction to your statement: "shankaracharya with his advaita defeated these buddhas & saved hinduism".

Shankaracharya DID defeat the buddhists by his advaita, but however this advaita was not instrumental to "save" hinduism.

And yes, when people were suffering in the hands of Buddhism (which had become even politically strong at that time), when there was no hope against it, he DID save the hinduism from the clutches of Buddhist politics, by touring throughout India, and stressing upon the significance and greatness of Sanatana (Vaidika) Dharma. In this process, his Advaitic Interpretations of Vedas naturally got prominance and became popular.

So, his service to Hinduism is more generic in nature, than just confined to his "Advaita philosophy". That is why he is revered by one and all, not withstanding their acceptance of Advaita or not.

Surya

@manjunatha

i have used the word 'CLAIMED' see properly.

i kow the jataka stories i have huge collection of it i am not talking about that........my friend had got a book on buddhism as a gift from his uncle in japan.the book said that before gautama buddha.........there were many buddhas(human beings not the previous lifes of gautama buddha such as a elephant,bird etc etc) in india.

all i meant to say is that gautama buddha did not teach the shoonya vaada
but it was the later buddhas during the time of shankaracharya.

Yogi

@ Surya

So, what do you say about bouddhaagamapraNayana said by Vaadiraja Teertharu?

Hare Naarasimha
Yogi

Surya

has vadirajaru told that gautama buddha taught shoonya vaada??i don't know pls tell me if vadirajaru has told that

Yogi

@ Surya

Please read the earlier posts.

shouddhodani is Shuddhodana's son Buddha. bouddhaagamapraNayana means one who propounded bouddhagama.

Vaadiraaja Teertharu prays to such a Buddha in Dashavatarastuti

Surya

being a madhwa i agree about vadiraja's work.........but u can't neglect the source i had given.

i may be fully wrong in my views & even the source i said may be wrong

What baffles me is, our beloved Maadhva achars (who gracefully accept Shankaracharya to be a demon) reject and denigrate ISKCON's claim that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was Lord Krishna's incarnation. Chaitanya had come in the dreams of Madhvacharya and told him that he would come in Maadhva parampara and spread the true Vedic Knowledge

What is there to be baffled abt..This incident has nevr been reported in the official biography of Sri Madhwa i.e Sumadhwavijaya and spreading lies that Madhwa saw Chaitanya in his dreams and he would come in Maadhwa parampara and blah blah is just not appreciated here.its disgusting to say the least.

Pls see this letter from Pejavara swamiji whos one of the most well respected swamijis of BhAratavarsha aka India today regarding this nonsense and fabricated story..the link is there in the bottom of the page..
http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml

The above claim was written by (probably) Rupa Goswami in the 17-18th century. They are teaching this to ISKCON disciples all over the world. And our Maadhvas scholars vaachaamagochara scold them

ofcourse they have every right to refute these ppl who spread lies and nonsense..why do u have a problem in our scholars countering the lies and nonsense that those guys spread i dont understand

Hare Srinivasa

jayateerth

hi all...
i have not read all the threads( but have gone through those definitely) but still thought to post some thing that i know...

In ShriMadBhagavatMahapuranam in the trutiya skanda there comes the listings of few of the avataras of lord Vishnu there it is said for boudhavatara:
buddhonamna jina suta kekateshu Bhavishyati...

for this Shri Bannaje Acharya manipulates and tells that gouttam Budha was ( is )actually the Avatara and ( as per the intention ) that was most mis-interpreted by his shishyas.
And Shri Achayra has given few explanation about the Shoonya vada that was originally being proposed by Lord Himself...

Manjunatha

@ rkan/Aditya

What was the birth name of Sri Madhwacharya? And when & how did the other names PUrNaprajnya, Madhwa & Anandathirtha came?

Yogi

And... coming back to main discussion, from all the references that everyone provided we can declare that Goutama Buddha, the son of Shuddhodana, the one who is the center of today's Buddhism is indeed an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, irrespective of whatever imaginitive filling ups for linking his identity with Tripuraasura Bhanjana Buddha of Puranas.

Manjunatha

I don't think so, yet.

The general stand looks like Buddha (the disappeared and re-appeared son of Shuddhodhana) is not the incarnation of Vishnu; there is a guest appearance of Vishnu for a brief while, to appear as the baby "buddha" and show some miracles and re-preach "shunya vada" to his "demon" father. In fact the logical explanation is yet to be given to this second re-reincarnation theory, and original Buddha's disappearence and re-appearence theory.

The answers are still awaited, for those 8-9 questions raised earlier by me.

Yogi

Yes. I agree.

But my belief is based on Vaadiraaja Teertha's references. Shouddhodani himself can be Tripuraasura Mardana Buddha. Why do we need another incarnation, guest appearance, re-appearance and paapa... Shuddhodana's damnation as demon?

I don't understand where comes the hindrance to this. Am I missing something?

Manjunatha

@ Yogi

That is where things go grey.

That S.G.Buddha, son of ShuddhOdhana was considered reincarnation of Vishnu was already an accepted fact by Vadiraja's time (also ref. Jayadeva) - Equation 1

It is same S.G.Buddha, son of ShuddhOdhana who taught Shunya vada/vEda apramaNya etc, which was subsequently condemned by Shankara, Madhwa etc - Equation 2

By Equation 1 & 2, it means we r opposing Preachings of Lord Vishnu himself; that is what (I deduce) called for harmonization (remember, the very crux of Madhwa way of handling appearent conflicts is by harmonization, not by dropping it out like Shankara). Hence the theory of Vishnu "mis-leading" demons etc (ofcourse, there could be some puranic references to this (subject to version authenticity), I am not challenging that) - Equation 3

Above arrangement looks perfectly alright, as Vishnu is quite often in habit of mis-leading (or causing to mis-lead) demons . But still above premise accepts Buddha as Lord himself! But he is leader of very rival school of thought which was already firm rooted, and which was to be CONDEMNED, not hormonized & accepted. Many scholors might have thought this weekens our position, despite "Vishnu-mis-leading-demons" theory being in place; because all said n done, Vishnu (aka Buddha) has done a great help to the world by misleading demons. Then he should be worshipped! Then how can we condemn him idealogically???

Then obviously logical solution would be

>to delink both Buddha & his "shunyavada" from incarnation theory (so that both will become condemnable at once);

>to introduce another teaching (plus some miracles) by "Baby Buddha" (new character, Vishnu Incarnate) )

Now u can condemn both Buddha & his preachings (call Buddha "son-of-a-demon"; his preaching avaidic); Sametime,worship Vishnu for his help as usual. As for references, you can always dismiss Jayadeva as he is outside madhwa philosophy. Vadhiraja's reference is satisfied too, as "ShouddhOdhani" is Lord Vishnu himself for a brief while .

Samir

a small digression (or another confusion as Manju may put it :P)

https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no18321.htm

This book is by Roque Mesquita, Prof of Indology at Univ of Vienna. He talks of how Madhwacharya may have "concocted scriptures and references" for making his position "as per vedas". Madhwa's claim of being Vayu is also derided in the same fashion. The book, though a bit costly, is an eye opener to the facts that apart from beliefs, we need to shore up our arguments very sharply, before we face other people from other communities etc.

A sound rebuke to this has been provided by Prof BNK Sharma and Shrisha Rao. Ref: Asiatische Studien LVII, 1, 2003. pp. 181–194

After the original book in 2000, now Prof Mesquita has yet agin come out his second version on the same topic in late 2007/early 2008. I am yet to read it. Then I may post a comment on it !!

Just my 2 cents to tell that we also need to come out of the koopa mandooka view, because the world doesnt seem the same way we see our philosophy. So, lets for "some time" also see from their view point, then refute it, so that our understanding will become extremely clear.And sharper.

Dilip

This link is relavent to Samir's posting:
http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/papers/mesquita.pdf
Its the refutation provided by Shri Shrisha Rao and Dr. BNK Sharma.
Mesquita's books are available in Vedanta Book House, Chamarajapet, B'lore

Manjunatha

@ Samir

"we also need to come out of the koopa mandooka view, because the world doesnt seem the same way we see our philosophy. So, lets for "some time" also see from their view point, then refute it, so that our understanding will become extremely clear.And SHARPER !!"

Well said. What we are (atleast I am) trying to do here is to drive home the same point. We are not (and can not) discuss whether Madhwa was right or Shankara was right. To do that we have still to carry bags and bags of mud ("maNNu horuvudu, itivat), let alone show the adoucity of calling the others names.

If Madhwa called Shankara a daithya (which I am not sure), we don't know in what context, what tone and background he would have said that. We are only catching the summarized bad aspect of it and calling names (even saying scriptures call him so ). The question is, should we do whatever scriptures say, god does, godmen do? without even understanding its import and intention? If so, each one should be flirting with 16000 women, following the footsteps of Jagadguru Sri Krishna

Yogi

@Manjunatha

By Equation 1 & 2, it means we r opposing Preachings of Lord Vishnu himself;

This is where I say we are acting too smart. When Vishnu came as Charvaka and preached atheism, we believe he is Vishnu. But when it is Buddha, why we go giddy? We also should know, Saankhyas, whose basic premise is “there is no God”, are actually disciples of Veda Vyasa. Why didn’t Veda Vyaasa send them to eternal damnation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends, I had to lose my composure a little while replying, due to emotionally driven and baseless arguments which rose my blood boiling I feel really sorry and apologize for that.

Once a wonderful great man appeared on this planet and gave a gem of teaching. He said,

1) dourlabhyaat shuddha-buddheenaam [due to lack of pure intellect]
2) baahulyaat alpavedinaam [due to lot of ‘less-knowing’ people]
3) duraagraha-gRuheetatvaat [due to prejudices]
vartante samayaaH sadaa || [all faiths remain for ever]

As long as we don’t open our minds to truths and rely on prejudices, even God doesn’t save us.

Manjunatha

@ Yogi

Stright nail on the head; i.e., TO-THE-POINT. I couldn't have agreed better or less; Except for "But any idiot can tell... ", which is as good as calling Shankaracharya a "Demon" or Buddha "son-of-a-demon" (or worse still, since u don't have any scriptural backup )

@Manjunatha Sir

Hare Srinivasa

Namaste,

What do we call the son of a human being?
Son of a human being in a LITERAL SENSE is a human being

Hare Srinivasa

Namaste,

In the other words, a man is a man, monkey is a monkey, cock is cock and dog is dog (and bitch is bitch)... - and spade is a spade... there is nothing wrong in "accepting" it. correct?

I really dont think u understood my previous post..the words "Literal sense" shud satisfy ur query really..rather than asking these kind of questions pls come to the point..what is it that ur tryin to convey here??Pls kindly tell us that..

Hare Srinivasa

Sorry to say but this thread has gone totally diverted..let us get back to the topic Buddhavatara..

@Manjunatha Sir,

Its my request to u sir that let us end it here itself n spk of Buddhavatara since ur not going to change ur opinion nor am I..Therefore If u want to continue this then pls continue in the other thread..thers already enuf confusion regarding Buddhavatara..let us resolve to remove this confusion..I request ur cooperation sir..

Dilip

Before answering a few questions posted by Shri Manjunatha, I would like to make it clear , that these replies are based on Shri Madhvacharya’s MBTN and a few discourses I have heard. I have no intention to rake up any controvery.

1) Once upon a time there was a demon called TripurAsura (who had 3 flying cities, hence the name)

Not one daemon, but a bunch of them called tripurASura-s

2) As usual, he (true and rightful his asurik nature (swa-vihita vrutti) ), was troubling the gods and sundry.

correct

3) A small twist to the normal story, instead of the strength of tapas/boons, he had the strength of pAtivratya of his wives (ofcourse, strength is strength... he was using it for bad purpose, since he was an asura - fated to be ultimately killed by devas)

This is not new…even jalaMdhara asura was surviving on his wife bRunda’s pativrata shakti.

4) To spoil this pAtivratya, sri hari had to roam around before them naked (teaching non-vedic religion - shunya/maya/moha shastra?)

He did not teach non-vEdic religion to the wives of tripurasuras. He just appeared naked infront of them and His unmatched beauty wavered the minds of the ladies.

5) Because of this, their pAtivratya got spoilt, so TripurAsura lost his strength.

Yes

6) After this, Hari only could have killed him, but for the reasons unknown (hari leela?), he asked Rudra to kill him (by bestowing necessary strength in Rudra)

Rudra kills them

7) Many centuries (or kalpas) later, the same demon was born again as ShuddhOdhana (not shuddhOdaka). Instead of killing him (as usual), this time Vishnu chose to "mislead" him by taking form of his own son and preaching the same maya/shunya vada again.

The entire lot of tripurAsuras were born in kaliyuga. ShuddhOdana was the first amongst the tripurAsuras.
The asuras had taken up the study of vEdas since vEdavyAsa had revived the tradition at the end of the dvApara.

The path of truth is not the natural course of tAmasik souls like how durmArga is not the course of sAtvik ones. The tamOyOgya jIvas had to be brought back to the their natural course. Hence the misleading shUnyavAda.
The Lord periodically brings souls back on track whenever they deviate.

8) Once the job is done, he disappeared and the real son re-appeared (from nowhere). And for the reasons best known to nobody, this real son did never deny that he was not the one who preached the shunya vada etc. Instead, he left the home sat ander pepal tree, got "enlightned"

The Lord neither disappeared, nor did shuddhOdana’s child reappear. The Lord continued His incarnation as goutama Buddha preaching shUnyavAda.
He explained prashAMta vidya to the gods later.

9) After this "enlightnment" he started preaching the people (and he is not the buddhavatara of Vishnu, remember)

Buddha was viShNu till the end. Every act of the Lord in this incarnation was for asura mOhana.
It was basically a mOhAvatAra!

1) Which one was shunya vada? the one taught by Sri Hari to "demons" to mislead them? or the one taught by this Buddha II after the "enlightnment"?

shUnya vAda preached by the Lord was rightly perceived by the dEvatas. It’s called prashAMta vidya which is mOkSha sAdhaka vaidika vidya. The followers of Buddha on the earth were deluded by His words since their very jIva svarUpa grasped ayatArtha ~jnAna.

2) Where was this Buddha II from his first disappearence till his re-appearence?

The original child of shuddhOdana is out of the picture.

3) What was his stand point when he was suddenly "re-appeared" in the place of Lord Vishnu? How did he manage this transposition?

The upanishats say “iChChA mAtram prabhO sRuShTiH”…the Lord creates, sustains, destroys and controls this creation by just His desire (iChCha). Nothing is impossible for the omnipotent Brahman.

4) Why did not he tell the world that he is a different person from the person who was there till then?

Even if this replacement issue were to be true (which is not), cant the Lord whose mAYa none can surpass do a small thing like this? (mama mAya duratyaya…) Who can overcome His mAya?

5) What was the "enlightnment" that he got under the pepal tree?

As vAdirAjaru says in lakSHmI shObhAne…”asura mOhanavE naranaTane…”

6) If we see the whole story, there are many interchanging personalities: The buddha who spoilt the pativratya of Tripurasuras wives by moving around naked; The buddha who was the son of shuddhodana; the buddha who took his place and preached shunya vada; the buddha who "re-appeared" and taught something later (I understand this is what we actually, historically, refer as shunya vada). To make the matter more confusing, there is also a Jina, Mahaveera (who was also moving around naked). And historically (again) we have never heard Buddha was moving around naked. Who is who, what is what?

The multiple Buddha question has been answered.
ShuddhOdana was called jina. AchArya in MBTN says “jinEti prOkta…”
We should remember that jains consider RuShabha nAmaka paramAtma as the 1st tIrtaMkara and jainmisn existed much before Buddhism.
RuShabha who was a ruler, at the end of the avatAra, tore away His clothes and entered the forest. He ended His avatAra in a forest fire. The people who were to be mislead assumed that His was the right mode of sAdhane and began to follow (today’s digambara-s)

7) Why should Sri Hari preach misleading shastras to demons.

He doesn’t preach misleading shAstras. They perceive them in the wrong way.

I know as per their swaroopa they dont have "adhikara" to vedas. In that case, they will not even think of learning it. If they think, it means they are on their way of correction.

You are partly right and partly wrong.
Their inherent nature doesn’t allow them to lead the right path. If they start doing so, it doesn’t mean they are on the way of correction since their inherent nature cannot be changed! This is against their jIva svabhAva which the Lord doesn’t alter. Following vaidika mArga means they are treading the wrong path. paramAtma then ensures they come on track like how He brings sAtvika souls like ajAmiLa on to track.

It said ones swaroopa is permanent, and can never change, no amount of good deeds. Then what if asuras learn good knowledge, they remain asuras anyway, why mislead them separately?

It’s something like giving nuclear bomb technology to the tAlibAn.
shAstras can be misused.
Also, knowledge has to be carried on to future generations which the asuras might not do. In that case knowledge is destroyed permanently. It’s worse if they distort them.
These people who would be considered as highly knowledgeable vaidikas, who would be in the position to influence people, could mislead the society. (a few instances of what I could think of)
Hence the Lord makes sure these asuras reject the right ~jnAna and get on to their mOkSha sAdhane (which is tAmasik).
Stealing vEdas by asuras means this (and not running away with manuscripts!!).

8) Throuout we are talking about Buddha, we are quoting from puranas and their madhwic interpretations. Do we have any reference to support this, from Bouddha literature itself? That lends it more authenticity because we are talking about their "religious leader"

We should remember that bouddha literature is a product of asura mOhana. What is available to today as Buddhist literature is ayatArtha only. Hence considering that as a reference bears no authenticity.

AchArya in his dvAdasha stOtra :

daityavimohaka nityasukhAde devavibOdhaka buddhasvarUpa||

He is daitya vimOhaka and deva vibOdhaka.

ವಿಶು / vishu

Buddha

I know that buddhAvataara is a mOhana-avataara and is meant to mislead people according to dvaitins. Nevertheless, I see nothing wrong in posting some of his original statements below:

Accept my words only when you have examined for yourselves; do not accept simply because of the reverence you have for me. Those who have only faith in me and affection for me will not find the final freedom. But those who have faith in truth and are determined on the path, they will find awakening. -- Majjhima Nikaya.

* The truth indeed has been never preached by Buddha, seeing that one has to realize within oneself. -- Lamkara Sutra

I remember having heard in pravaChanAs that the historical Gautam Buddha is not same as the Buddhavatara. Is that right?

Dilip

@Vishu

According to Shri Bannanje Achar, the historical Goutama Buddha and bouddhAvatara of the Lord are the same.
Lot of mAdhva "pandits" have created confusion regarding this incarnation.

BalachandraAchar

@ Sri Dilip

How does Sri Bannanje support his arguments? How shall we comprehend who is correct? Bannanje or the other Madhwa pandits?

Dilip

How does Sri Bannanje support his arguments?

He is refering to Bhagavatha and MBTN.
Historically too most of the facts match (shuddhOdana, gaya kShEtra, shUnya vAda...)
There isnt any solid proof that the two buddhas were different.

How shall we comprehend who is correct? Bannanje or the other Madhwa pandits?

That requires clearing doubts directly with respective scholars or doing a deep study of the scriptures (the former being the easier way out ;)).
I spoke to Shri Bannanje Achar recently and was convinced.
You could probably post your question at anandamala.org for asking Shri BG or meet him in person.
Ultimately, for unread and untutored people like me, I guess respect and faith in a scholar matters ;)

PRUTHVI RAJ Hari

BUDDHAVATARA

sri jayatheertharu in nyaya sudha has written the following shloka as the concluding shloka

"ithi srimadpurna pramathi bhagavathpada sukruthe anuvyakyanasya praguna jayatheerthakya yathina kurthaya teekayam vishamapada vakyartha vivruthaw
chaturthe adhyayesmin charama charana paryavasitha"

Here bagavatdpada means the acharya put the buddha matha under his feet...

"BHAGAVN HERE MEAN BUDHA MATHA.. "
HERE ACHARYA KEPT THE BUDDHA MATHA UNDER HIS FEET.. AND KEPT LORD BUDHHA(AVATARA OF LORD VISHNU)FEET ON HIS HEAD

"Bagavantha buddhasya mathaha baudha matha yasya padhe saha..
Bagavantha buddhasya padhe yasya sirasi saha.."

So we can know from this is.. buddha matha is tought by buddha should not be followed by madhwas..