The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu??? - Page 5

Originally posted by: lola610

sorry sorry sorry 😆 but you're safe! everything in my post is from batman begins. if not, I'll double check and edit accordingly. enjoy the movie!

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

[

 

To tell the truth, it's very difficult to say blatantly whether Buddha was Vishnu avatar or not, because there may be a lot of things we do not know about him. However, if Buddha did advocate against idol worship, yagnas, and rituals, then I cannot accept him as an avatar of Vishnu because while Vishnu did support all modes of worship in the Bhagawad Gita, he never supported a person following one form of worship while condeming another. It's very true that people connect to God different. Some can feel the essence of God only by doing pujas and yagnas, while others can feel the essence of God simply by hearing his name and stories. Neither mode of worship is wrong, but to condemn one form while advocating the other is not God's message, and if Buddha preached that the rituals of Hinduism are wrong, then he cannot be an avatar of Vishnu.

 

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I don't have my Gita on me, so can't cite any verses.  But no, there is nothing against becoming a sanyasi, but usually, when people did it, they normally left others to handle their worldly responsibilities. 

Yes. I agree. And fair enough. But worldly responsibilities never end. They keep on coming. So time never comes for Sanyas even for true sanyasi by mind who can't find any other person as his alternative to fulfill those duties. Can that be the conclusion of this? And can one's responsibility be transferred or shifted to somebody else first of all? Dharm vyapar nahi hota. Wo ati kathor aur vyaktigat hota hai.

On your other example above, Dhruva and Buddha's tapasya couldn't be more different from each other.  Dhruva did not have a plan to renounce the world - he wanted to win back his right to his father, which is why he went into meditation.  Vishnu granted him that he'd get that, and also succeed his father as king, whereas in Buddha's case, even after he got enlightened, not only did he not return, but his wife and son joined the Sangha.  Essentially, anybody who could fulfill the karmaic duties of succeeding his father were, AFAIK gone.  In fact, Dhruva is a perfect example of why Buddha was not the ideal path to follow.

If his wife and son also joined the sangha, what was the worldly responsibility left out to be fulfilled then? I don't know Buddha's story in detail actually. And one more thing. Leaving family to do tapasya in the jungle is actually Vanprasth and not Sanyas. Sanyas even comes after that. After the end of tapasya. Then sanyasi can even come back to the social world but he will keep contacts with relatives and others equally and will be detached by mind. That's the essence of sanyas. Sanyas doesn't mean leaving your family or relatives. Sanyas only means leaving your family or relatives as family or relatives. Now all in the world are equal for you. Your duties become universal and you don't need to have a station to stay or be attached permanently. But to acquire that mental state, vanprasth aashram is the earlier phase. This phase makes you prepared under any situation - because in the jungle, you will also have to demonstrate your tolerance against hot & cold and also will have to overcome fear of wild animals i.e. fear of death and also will have to achieve victory over hunger & thirst. These achievements are only possible in solitude and forced adversities. Hardships. And you can't drag your family with you in this tough austerity. Some people would become sanyasis. Some people will come back and will not be able to be free from attachments completely. They will continue this journey in the next birth since they will get those sanskaars or parts or anshas of vairaag element in them from the childhood itself. Four aashrams are elaborated in detail in Uddhav Geeta.

Shankara and Vivekanand were more latter examples, and with all due respect, can't be held up as reinforcements of what Vedic religious practices, as done during the first 3 yugas, were.  Indeed, it would be very tough to take any of their teachings, and project it back to rationalize activities of Rama, Krishna, Arjun or anyone else, even though they take the actions of these divine figures and built up various philosophies surrounding their activities.  But one can't for certain claim the reverse cause-effect.  A lot of what was done by Shankara, Ramakrishna & Vivekananda was reformation of Hinduism, and that too, a subset of followers.  Which is absolutely valid, but once you start reforming anything, there are departures from the original traditions that may or may not be supported by the shastras,.  This of course doesn't mean that it's not Hindu or not valid in Hinduism, but it does make it likelier that the original shastras did not factor in these latter philosophers in mind, not only for obvious reasons of preceding them by millennia, but also, due to variances in the very messages themselves, be they about rituals, sacrifices, or whatever.

Very very well said. But what I say is that even Geeta is not too enthusiastic about rituals or vedic traditions as I have often mentioned about Adhyay 2 verses around 40. So instead of REFORMATION of Hinduism, I would like to call it ANOTHER INTERPRETATION of essence of Hinduism. These people interpreted the essence in their own way by digging deep into their conscience. And Geeta is open to many many alternative different paths for salvation whichever is natural to an individual specifically.

Actually aside from Varaali's speculations above, I think we bypassed a more basic definition - what did we use as our benchmark to define whether a person or religion was/is Hindu?  For something in those times, I'd look @ its compatibility w/ the ancient Hindu scriptures, and whether they followed those or not - particularly the Vedas, the Puranas and the Upanishads.  Granted, some texts, such as Manu's Smritis, could be revised over time, since they were written by humans and transmitted orally, and wouldn't be constant over time independent of society (although it did remain unchallenged for the first 3 yugas).

I also think that this religious compatibility thing is something like software.  If you bought an app 15 years ago that ran on Windows 95, that app would not run today under Windows 7, but that doesn't mean that either of those OSs are not Windows.  It does however mean that Windows 7 has features that not only were not there under Windows 95, but can't be supported there either.  Similarly, there are practices in the ancient scriptures that would be either impossible or illegal to try doing today - to take a very innocuous example, try doing an Ashwamedha yagna anywhere in India today, and it would be laughed @.  This is not b'cos the Ashwamedha Yagna is not a Hindu tradition or that today's Hindu's ain't Hindus, it's b'cos the 'versions' of Hinduism have changed over the millennia.

I don't deny that Buddha was Hindu, although it is fair to say that the religion he started is different from Hinduism to warrant being classified as different.  To continue the software analogy above, just like Firefox forked from the original Netscape, similarly, Buddhism (and Jainism and Sikhism) forked from Hinduism, and Christianity forked from Judaism.  Of course, there are differences and points where those parallels end - Christianity still has a place honoring the Old Testament, whereas Buddhism doesn't have any such place for the Vedas or the Puranas.

The entire above explanation was awesome. As Lola has rightly appreciated.👏Ultimately the morals of time are decided by conscience of enlightened people of that time (which can again be one dimensional in accordance with their own personal experience - if one has experienced bliss in a particular manner, one would naturally consider only that approach to be correct). Now what personally I can say is that since Hinduism is not against any view or religion (since religion is the one which gives salvation/detachment/balanced state of mind), no view or religion (whether sprung from Hinduism or not) technically can be said to be against Hinduism even if that view itself calls itself against all other views of Hinduism and therefore against Hinduism.

Originally posted by: lola610

He was preaching to, and in preparation of, a society capable of more self-destruction than the villains of the past, and so he aimed to prevent as many as he could from taking advantage of those capabilities and wreak havoc on innocent people. It's like gun control laws, the one political issue I feel very strongly about which due to a recent tragedy are back in the news again here. People say we have a right to bear arms and protect ourselves, I say that with the number of crazy people who get their hands on them, we're better off tightening restrictions  - then there'd be nothing to protect ourselves from. Similarly if nonviolence was practiced by everyone (a societal value, as Varaali said, not an individual religious duty), then there would be no violent people to righteously wage war against. Makes sense to me. Thank you all for a very thorough and well-executed discussion.

Yes. Very well framed. Something I also feel but you worded it perfectly.

In fact, I never had as much trouble wrapping my head around that incarnation as I did with Parshuram.

So how about the discussion or debate - Parashuram vs Buddha???

One basic premise of our discussion going on is that "Vishnu can't contradict Vishnu". Now what better comparison can be than this one? Even Ram-Parshuram were opposite each other for a while (when Vishnu already had left Parshuram perhaps as it is popularly said) and even Lakshman was Vishnu's portion.

Now all of us have almost forgotten that the name of the thread is '9th Avatar of Vishnu' and not 'Gautam Buddha'. So let me throw a question to everyone. If Balram was Vishnu (now chronologically he would be 8th one and Krishna would be 9th as Janaki had rightly put it but that is immaterial here), how could he contradict Krishna's philosophies in the same era? How could Lakshman argue against Ram in Chitrakoot? How could Vishnu support Duryodhan after Lakshagruh and Draupadi Vastraharan? If Buddha couldn't be Vishnu, how could Balram be Vishnu? Because Duryodhan was ritualistic and did follow the vedic procedures but only violated the essence of dharma????!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Worldly responsibilities may never end, but personal responsibilities do.  Like when a person steps down as the CEO, or CFO, or CMO, or COO of a company, his place is usually filled by someone else.  If somebody decides that he's unable to continue a certain responsibility, the responsible thing to do is to hand it over to someone else and then move on.  Out here, we are talking about one's worldly responsibilities towards others, not spiritual responsibilities towards oneself - the activities aimed @ attaining ultimate salvation

Clear. So it is not like Bharat going to vanvas instead of Ram and Ram taking his place to rule the kingdom (a clear exchange to avoid the NIYAT KARM - The natural duty in front to accept the more convenient and preferred duty). It is like Lakshman giving the responsibility to serve Kaushalya (and Sumitra) to Urmila because he himself had to go to fulfill what was his greater identified duty.

Well, he was the crown prince of Kapilavastu, and his father Sudhodhana was the king, and wanted a successor.  Now, Siddhartha was unwilling to do it after he attained his wisdom.  Fair enough, but in that case, he should have told his father to make his son Rahul the next crown prince, and told Rahul to follow his grandfather and continue his dynasty.

This one is easy to follow - when Rama decided to do his mahaprayan, he didn't take Kush, Luv or any of his nephews w/ him.  When Krishna retired, he didn't take Vajra w/ him, and when the Pandavas decided to retire, they crowned Parikshit the new ruler, they didn't take Parikshit w/ them.  Essentially, they transfered their royal responsibilities to their successors so that their dynasties would continue.

IMHO, Siddhartha should have done that as well.

Again getting your point. So the dynasty was finished then? Wasn't there any distant cousin of Siddhartha who could have ruled? Wasn't there anyone outside the dynasty either to rule the subjects (Like Bharat did in case of Hastinapur)? And if Rahul himself wanted to join him in Sangha and didn't want to rule then? Who should take the privilege to become sanyasi? If any one could do it, who should have done it? Father or son?

Yeah, but Geeta is not the sole book that is there to guide - there are a lot of other sources, such as the Vedas, the Puranas and if somebody picks only one of these books - in this case the Geeta - and overrides what's preached in others, than it's more than just an interpretation.  Since it involves overturning traditions mentioned in other scriptures, reformation is a more accurate description of it.

Upanishads are said to be the different interpretations of essence Vedas (rather than pure mechanical rituals in Vedas) by sages and Geeta is God's speech and is said to be the summary and approval of those and hence the final verdict. Purans are stories and are internally contradicting and are classified into Satva, Rajas & Tamas. So what is there in Bhagwad Geeta or any other Geeta in Mahabharat inspired by God can be accepted to be a sole book to guide. It clearly says that even a leaf or a flower or a fruit or water given with love (BHAAV) is sufficient ritual. So overturning or overriding traditions is just an alternative path and not the rejection of the other alternative path if naturally taken.

Actually, to the extent that different scriptures sometimes have either paradoxical, or even downright contradictory material in them, I agree in that sense that it's tough to pin down what 'Hinduism' is for or against.  But your last statement that goes from this to the idea that no view can be said to be against Hinduism does not follow from that.  For instance, to pick an example, while Hinduism doesn't require idolatry, it doesn't preclude it either, and if another religion or viewpoint condemns idolatory, it cannot be said to be consistent w/ Hinduism (despite the fact that one might be able to pull out an odd text somewhere or the other in support of that view).

It can be said to be consistent with Hinduism so far as its DOs are concerned. Not DON'Ts. What it accepts is accepted by Hinduism so if you follow the DOs, you are following Hinduism and you are not against Hinduism. You are just against the alternative path approved by Hinduism. So Hinduism has broader acceptability. That doesn't mean that the narrower beliefs or values are against the broader one. They are just one subset of the broader one which rejects the other subsets.

I'd suggest leaving this thread on Buddha, and just opening a new thread solely on Parashurama, since his various activities are very strongly in variance w/ usual dharmaic activities.

That's perfectly fine. As Lola said, probably there is one thread on Parashuram opened in the past I don't remember.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

In this case, I'm not sure about what happened to that dynasty - not very familiar w/ Nepali history.  I asked last weeks MOTW - a Nepali - about it, and she said that the kingdom was probably annexed by the Senas or the Shah dynasty.  Essentially, Sudhodhana's dynasty was over as a result of Siddhartha's actions.

Was it invaded and won by outsiders or subjects were properly handed over by Sidhdharth to a relative dynasty?

Actually, I think that would only be true for Vaishnavs - Shaivyas wouldn't be using the Geeta as the sole book by which to live.

If they consider Geeta to be said by Krishna then they may not accept it to be the sole book. If they see to it as verdict of Supreme speaking through Krishna (May it be Shiv or Durga or anyone), they may accept it to be sole book to guide. I know Shaiva friends who consider it to be acceptable like this. My own family is the follower of Shaivism.

But its DONTs very clearly negate what's allowed in Hinduism.  To continue w/ my example, idolatry is not unlawful, so if a non-Hindu religion condemns idolatry and worse, cracks down on it, then it's very much anti-Hindu in that it's inserting a restriction that doesn't exist in the original.

What you call anti-Hindu, I call it anti-subset of Hinduism. That's precisely my point. Nothing else. What I say and what you say is otherwise not different. Only a matter of terminology or way of defining more than interpreting actually.

Originally posted by: bhas1066

1. Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas as well as the previous Avatars
regarded by Hindus...
Rama and Parasurama disputed over the destruction of Shiva Dhanus. But
Parasurama instantly recognized the Vishnu in Rama and reconciled with him.
No such reconciliation is to be seen with Buddha and the Vedas.
Very well framed conclusion.

2. Buddha never claimed that he is God or an avatar of God.He did not show any
miraculous powers. When a mother who had lost her child to snake bite sought
Buddha's help,  he  advised her that all life is sorrowful and to participate in
the sorrows of life cheerfully. (though this teaching holds true , it doesnt exalt him as an avatar of Vishnu)
Ram of Valmiki Ramayan never claimed himself to be an avatar of God. Neither Parashuram I guess. Did Parashuram demonstrate any miraculous powers (like Ram did in case of Ahalya Uddhar unintentionally by just following the instruction of Vishwamitra)?

3. Buddha was a rebellious reformer. He did accept some Hindu concepts such as
reincarnation, and expanded on some others such as Ahimsa. In comparison,
Mahatma Gandhi and Sai Baba make a better choice as one of the ten avatars of
Vishnu rather than Buddha.
Mahatma Gandhi??? An incarnation of Vishnu??? You mean to say those who were of the path of Ahinsa but didn't reject the Yagna at the same time are better examples of Vishnu's greater or smaller ansh in them? Is my interpretation correct?

4. Buddhist texts themselves do not link Buddha to any of the avatars of

Vishnu.

5. Mahaveera, a contemporary of Buddha, has more similarities to Buddha.
However, no attempt has been made to call him as one of the 10 avatars of
Vishnu.
Lord Mahaveera was 24th out of 24 tirthankars of Jainism. Lord Rishabhdev was 1st out of 24 tirthankars of Jainism. And Rishabhdev is counted as one of the 22 avatars of Vishnu.

6. Buddha discovered truth by himself. Even if the truth he discovered may not
be different from that proclaimed by the Hindu sages prior to him. Let it be
that. After all isn't  it also true that anyone can independently discover the
same truth?
What I can interpret in this point is that you mean to say that what Buddha realized and preached is the journey not different from many many sages of Hindu epics and purans. So he can be said to be a sage soul (rather than God's incarnation) and no different from them. He was not self realized like Krishna by birth. Can Valmiki Ramayan Ram and Parashuram be said to be self realized by birth? What was the life journey of knowledge realization of Sage Kapil and Lord Dattatreya? Was Vyas a self realized soul by birth? BTW, all the creatures have more or less Vishnu's ansh or Kalaas. So if Vishnu's incarnations had 10 kalaas minimum (not sure whether 10 avataars had that or 22/24 avatars), all sages or noble men could still have kalaas around 7 or 8. Ansha of God.