Talk:Gautama Buddha in Hinduism

grammar and syntax of text

I don't know what this means: While taking Buddhism & giving Buddhism to Lakhs of people (this is just one example). It would be very helpful to English readers who are coming here to learn about Buddhism, or at least to this one, if someone who is very knowledgable in Buddhism and the original languages and in English could edit the text. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. It seems to be implying that a layman (Ambedkar) gave the precepts and refuges, which would not make sense. I will have to check this out. Mitsube (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact he did break from tradition and do that himself. Mitsube (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MISBELIEF

This section contains certain event/facts which were published in December 1999 issue of the Vipashyana Patrikā. Removing the content without talking about it, will not solve the issue. ...........Ranjithsutari (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• MISBELIEF is shouting and pushing of a WP:POV (point of view), not neutral.
• The interaction of Mr. Goenka and a Shankaracharya can not prove it is a misbelief. Mr. Goenka is neither a religious scholar

nor a Buddhist religious leader. Why should his views be considered so significant and NOT an WP:UNDUE?

• The reference used is neither a reliable nor neutral.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here this article is not to prove or disprove the theory of re-incarnation of Vishnu as Gautama the Buddha. As it is stated in some hindu text it will not prove that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu which is a bias itself. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar along with millions of people in one voice vowed that this theory is sheer madness and false propaganda. Now this is an incident which has happened in presence of a million people, whatever has happened this is a fact not bias. Here If I say that this fact is a good/bad then it is WP:POV. If 'misbelief' is like shouting then suggest any other word. The sources are fair and reliable. Now the question of significance of S. N. Goenka and his views can be learned from his works, but this communiqué is to considered because it is made at the Maha Bodhi Society....................Ranjithsutari (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu" is Hindu belief, B.R.Ambedkar's statement is his belief, none is a misbelief. Ambedkar's views are noteworthy as he was de-facto leader of the Neo-Buddhists of India but the reference is an wikipedia article, which is unreliable. Ambedkar does not explicitly say that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, what is written in the article is WP:original research. Goenka's statement on Vipassana would be an authority, but on Buddhism at large, his authority is questionable. He making a statement at some Buddhist society does not make it the official stand of the Society at large. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an official statement(communiqué) released jointly by Goenka, Shankaracharya and Jayendra Saraswathi at Maha Bodhi Society, now questioning their authority is nothing but the problem of bias, Here we may not be concerned about the authority and consensus on the communiqué, finding absolute consensus on this communiqué is nothing but the problem of bias. Maha Bodhi Society is an international organisation, and its achievements/works are universally accepted by Buddhists. I appreciate your partial agreement of B.R.Ambedkars' view. If Misbelief is not a correct word please suggest another word............. Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's as notable as some other statements in the article, I think. Who are the Hindu figures we are talking about? I think it hinges on that. Mitsube (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that B.R.Ambedkar's view is notable, but whatever is written using the unreliable sources is original research. Find a reference that explicitly says that Ambedkar did not believe that Buddha was not an avatar. The statement "Now Buddhists, Atheists and many other people don't believe that Buddha was incarnation of Vishnu" is original research too and needs a reference. The source given for Goenka's statement is his own newsletter (non-neutral) and promotes his views and does not officially reflect the views of the Maha Bodhi Society. The site or a publication of the Maha Bodhi Society is a better source to assert their views. The Society can be considered an authority, but Goenka is a Vipassana guru, not a Buddhist leader/authority, who represents the Buddhist views. If there is consensus that the views are notable, then please revert. The new title for MISBELIEF suggested by me is "Buddhist views"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems reliable: [1]. Did you really doubt that Ambedkar rejected the belief that the Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu? Mitsube (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't doubt it, but reference used was a wiki article (not RS). I am adding this source to the article, though I still can't understand why a non-religious leader's (Goenka's) views should be represented notable? However, the same view if asserted by the Society is notable. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Goenka's view isn't that important here, as a Buddhist of course he doesn't believe the Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu. But if there are some prominent Hindus saying that that is more interesting. The sourcing should be better, I agree. Mitsube (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not every Buddhist's view reflects the view of all Buddhists. He is the Dalai Lama or leader of a prominent Buddhist organization. It should be noted that Goenka's Vippasana organization does not directly associate with/propagate any religion including Buddhism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist views

Recall that the article is on Gautama Buddha in Hinduism — Hindu views on the Buddha. Now obviously Buddhists, as they do not believe in Vishnu, do not believe that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu; this goes without saying. So what exactly is the point of the section? I believe it is to illustrate Buddhist reactions to Hindu views on the Buddha. (So I renamed it Buddhist reactions.) Still, the "joint communiqué" doesn't seem to fit in the section, unless Goenka is notable as a Buddhist leader/scholar, or the location where the announcement was made gives it sufficient prominence. Is either of this true? In any case, do we need such a detailed statement? Shreevatsa (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This section has been renamed "Opinions and reactions" because "Buddhist reactions" was apparently not NPOV? "Opinions and reactions" is vague because it could refer to the rest of the article as well. So what should it be called, and what is its function in the article? Shreevatsa (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to continue this discussion as a sub-section, because this section was name as "MISBELIEF" earlier. Then after as the section name is loud and POV some editors have objected for including in this article, after discussions at last the section is renamed as "Buddhist views". Now I have changed this section to "Opinions and reactions" because it also include the views/opinions of non-Buddhists and reactions of millions of people along with Babasheb Ambedkar.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm asking what the section has to do with "Gautama Buddha in Hinduism". I guess the second part does, if we can show these views are important, but the first one seems to be about the converse, something like "Hindu gods in Buddhism". It is relevant to the rest of the article only if it is somehow related to "Gautama Buddha in Hinduism" — the only relation I can imagine is that it's a Buddhist reaction to "Gautama Buddha in Hinduism". Calling it "opinions and reactions" is too vague; the title could describe the rest of the article as well. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This talk will be confusing if we do not include the previous discussion. The importance and notability of this section is already answered in above discussions. According to me This articles' title(Gautama Buddha in Hinduism) itself is Vague, Gautama Buddha existed 2500 years ago, where as word "Hinduism" is just 200 years old. One has to ask himself How Gautama Buddha is related to Hinduism?.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Need for Criticism Section

(Sorry to move this section to the bottom of the Talk page as per WIKI guidelines.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC))

Sorry for adding this here.. But i seriously think there is a Need for a Critics section in this topic.. Many Buddhist Criticse this saying that Buddha is 7th Avatar of Vishu. They belive it is utterly untrue and false. If you are in need of some Quotaions for this saying.They can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.50.78 (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I just add it under views and opinions, but it was removed. I guess critics are not allowed to have views and opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpliciti (talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it not because it's criticism, but because it's so obvious it doesn't need to be stated. The article is about Hindu views about the Buddha; obviously Buddhist views wouldn't agree that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu! This should be clear enough without stating it in so much detail. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But this goes under the Views and Opinion section / critic section though. These are the view of these people that shouldn't be left out. Because it just say that the neo-Buddhist believe the teaching that Buddha's teaching is for demons or outcasts in Hindu scriptures is false propaganda and sacreligious. There is concrete evidence to his claim. But this very crucial information is not allowed to show under Views and Opinion. This omision of information not fair representation of the Critics. --Simpliciti (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see the need to belabour the obvious, but anyway: the article already says that Buddhists don't believe it:

B. R. Ambedkar, who revived Buddhism in India, denied that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Among the 22 vows he gave to the neo-Buddhists, the 5th vow is "I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda."

What you were adding is a whole lot of irrelevant detail about what the Buddhist scriptures say about Vishnu. It's all interesting information, but not necessary for this article... if there was some article called Hindu Gods in Buddhism, you could add it there. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you know the claim about Buddha's teaching is only meant for demon is obviously not true, then shouldn't there be a clear sign or indication on top or somewhere in the article saying that " Of course, all this is only false ". In this way the general public would be clear. Instead of of just quote from a Buddhist claiming he doesn't believe it. It is very obviously to everyone that a Buddhist doesn't believe this being familiar with what the Buddha says about himself and his identity. But this is information is not obvious and very obscure to the general public that are not familiar with the topic. They could be mislead by the article without fair and impartial presentation. --Simpliciti (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to post this under Views and Opinions. Feel free to discuss if you have a question:

In the Maha-samya Sutta there was an occasion when the devas from almost all the planes came to see the Buddha when he was dwelling in the Great Wood together with 500 bhikkhus, all of them arahants. The Buddha introduced their names to the monks, Vishnu was one of those present. The Buddha mentioned him by the name Venhu.

The Venhu Sutta shows Vishnu as one of the young devas who came to visit and talked with the Buddha:

At Savatthi. Standing to one side, the young deva Venhu recited this verse in the presence of the Blessed One: " Happy indeed are those human beings attending on the Fortunate One. Applying themselves to Gotama's Teaching, who train in it with diligence." The Blessed One said: "When the course of teaching is proclaimed by me, O Venhu," said the Blessed One, "Those meditators who train therein. Being diligent at the proper time. Will not come under Death's control."

According to "Hinduism and Buddhism An Historical Sketch", Sir Charles Elliot who was a British diplomat mentioned that this correlates with the Rig Veda text before Hinduism started. Both texts mentioned that Vishnu and Shiva are minor deities instead of the Lords of the Universe as popularly known by worshippers:

" Vishnu and Rudra (Shiva) are known even to the Rig Veda but as deities of no special eminence. It is only after the Vedic age that they became , each for his own worshippers, undisputed Lords of the Universe…..The Pali Pitakas frequently introduce popular deities , but give no prominence to Vishnu and Siva. They are apparently mentioned under the names of Venhu and Isana, but are not differentiated from a host of spirits now forgotten. ….The suttas of the Digha Nikaya in which these lists of deities occur were perhaps composed before 300 B.C. "- Sir Charles Elliot

--Simpliciti (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems to an WP:UNDUE. What is the relevance of this text to this article? Also please provide WP:RS to support the text. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The texts included quotes from the Pali canon showing that Buddha and Vishnu are two different people. It is supported by the Charles Elliot's comparative studies of early Hindu and Buddhist texts before the changes that take place in later texts. His book is called " Hinduism and Buddhism a Historical Sketch. There are three volumes that goes into detail on the subject. The quote above is from Vol. 2 page 746. The other is from The Connected Discourse of the Buddha" A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi ,page 432).

I thought it goes nicely under the Views and Comments section because it just says that Buddhist doesn't believe the claims in the article but show nothing else in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpliciti (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

required citation: Lankavatara Sutra

The Buddha claims to be, among other Indian deities, Vishnu in the Lankavatara Sutra, Chapter 3, section LXXVI: "The Tathagata variously designated". http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm

The same, Mahamati, can be said of myself, for I come within the range of hearing of ignorant people, in this world of patience, under many names, amounting to a hundred thousand times three asamkhyeyas, and they address me by these names not knowing that they are all other names of the Tathagata. Of these, Mahamati, some recognise me as the Tathagata, some as the Self-existent One, some as Leader, as Vinayaka (Remover), as Parinayaka (Guide), as Buddha, as Rishi (Ascetic), as Bull-king, as Brahma, as Vishnu, as Isvara, as Original Source (pradhana), as Kapila, as Bhutanta (End of Reality), as Arishta, as Nemina, as Soma (moon), as the Sun, as Rama, as Vyasa, as Suka, as Indra, as Balin, as Varuna, as is known to some; while others recognise me as One who is never born and never passes away, as Emptiness, as Suchness, as Truth, as Reality, as Limit of Reality, (193) as the Dharmadhatu, as Nirvana, as the Eternal, as Sameness, as Non-duality, as the Undying, as the Formless, as Causation, as the Doctrine of Buddha-cause, as Emancipation, as the Truth of the Path, as the All-Knower, as the Victor, as the Will-made Mind. Mahamati, thus in full possession of one hundred thousand times three asamkhyeyas of appellations, neither more nor less, in this world and in other worlds, I am known to the peoples, like the moon in water which is neither in it nor out of it. But this is not understood by the ignorant who have fallen into the dualistic conception of continuity.1 Though they honour, praise, esteem, and revere me, they do not understand well the meaning of words and definitions; they do not distinguish ideas, they do not have their own truth, and, clinging to the words of the canonical books, they imagine that not being subject to birth and destruction means a non-entity, and fail to see that it is one of the many names of the Tathagata as in the case of Indra, Sakra, Purandara.

64.90.143.2 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Samgwan Spiess

That's interesting. (I took the liberty of formatting the quote and adding emphasis.) I'm not sure whether it's worth adding into the article (and where), though: Vishnu is just one name among many here, but it does seem notable.... Shreevatsa (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For information about the Buddha's teaching, it is best to refer to the oldest records rather than later ones. The Buddha recounted his numerous past lives in details in the Jatakas. The Buddha was born in all sorts of planes before he became a Buddha ( refer to Buddhist Cosmology(Theraveda) for a detailed list of the 31 planes of existence). After Awakening, there is no identification with any incarnation as the permanent self. All these identities from past lives are impermanent and considered not-self after awakening. Vishnu was a deva in one of the planes was present while he was alive. About his past lives Buddha mentioned in the Itivuttaka edition of the Khuddaka Nikaya that:

[blockquote] Whenever the eon contracted I reached the "Plane of Streaming Radiance", and when he eon expanded I arose in an empty divine mansion. And there I was Brahma, the great Brahma, the unvanquished victor, the all-seeing, the all-powerful. Thirty-six times I was Sakka, ruler of the devas. And many hundreds of times I was a wheel-turning monarch, righteous, a king of righteousness, conqueror of the four regions of the earth, maintaining stability in the land, in possession of the seven treasures. [/blockquote]

Note: there are many brahmas in the brahma plane of existence according to the Buddha. His visits to these planes and conversations with various brahmas were recorded in the Pali Canon. --Simpliciti (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)