buddha : according to purANas and other hindu-texts

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

What do purANas say about buddha ?
Someone told in a thread @ advaita-l group that buddha incarnated at time of tripuradAha to deviate asuras from worship of shrI-shiva. If this is according to purANa, then buddha told there is not this popular buddha for sure.

So, a natural question arises :
Do purANas tell about same buddha who was born about 2500 years ago and whose followers are seen today ?

Please, reply according to the views of purANa and hindu-texts only. I'm not interested in any other version.

--

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

[Sunder Hattangadi]

There are some 'general' references, but no specific ch. or verse.

 

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/misc/buddha-purana.html

 

 

 

Regards,

 

sunder

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 02:36, Sunder Hattangadi <sun...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There are some 'general' references, but no specific ch. or verse.

 

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/misc/buddha-purana.html

 

 

 

Regards,

 

sunder

Thank you Sunder Ji.

More is expected from scholars.

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dear Group,

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः poses the following question:

< Do purANas tell about same buddha who was born about 2500 years ago
and
whose followers are seen today? >

Common knowledge does not indicate their being more than one Buddha,
so, in all probability the bête noir of some of the Puranas would be
the same and only Buddha that we know of.

The Puranas had an ambivalent approach towards him. The hardliners
would reject him as a propagator of पाखण्ड, and the soft-liners would
try to bring him within the fold of the ancient belief. This is
reflected in the following quote from the website referred to by
Sunder Hattangadi http://www.kamakotimandali.com/misc/buddha-purana.html
which has the following in it:

<Agni purANa makes an attempt to associate Buddha - the tathAgata with
Buddha - a supposed incarnation of nArAyaNa, still holding him in a
favorable light but at the same time rejecting his teachings.
According to this purANa, mahAviShNu incarnated as mAyAmoha, the son
of King shuddhodana and deluded the reborn daityas who, under his
influence, deserted vaidika dharma and adopted Buddhism. The same
nArAyaNa is also considered to have assumed the form of arhata,
misleading the remaining asuras into Arhata dharma. Both these dharmas
are included in the list of pAShaNDa shAstras enumerated in the kUrma
purANa: kApAla, vAma, bauddha, Arhata, kApila, pAncharAtra, DAmara,
nAkula, pAshupata, soma, lA~Ngala and sAtvata.>

The acceptance of Buddha within the fold of the Ancient religion can
be said to have been fairly complete by the 11th century. The
following well-known verse appearing at 15/27 of the
सुभाषितरत्नभाण्डागार has been sourced to महानाटकम् of हनूमत्कवि (11th
century).

यं शैवाः समुपासते शिव इति ब्रह्मेति वेदान्तिनः।
बौद्धा बुद्ध इति प्रमाणपटवः कर्तेति नैयायिकाः॥
अर्हन्नित्यथ जैनशासनरताः कर्मेति मीमांसकाः।
सोऽयं वो विदधातु वाञ्छितफलं त्रैलोक्यनाथो हरिः॥

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, May 21, 2011.

[murthy]

That the Buddha is recognized as one of the ten incarnations by Adi Shankara
has been brought out in this forum earlier too. That is, provided that you
do not question the authorship of Vishnupadadikesantastotra attributed to
him. The specific verse is as follows:
मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहः नरहरिणपतिर्वामनो जामदग्न्यः
काकुत्स्थः कम्सघाती मनसिजविजयी यश्च कल्किर्भविष्यन् ।
विष्णोरंशावतारा भुवनहितकरा धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाः
पायासुर्मां त एते गुरुतरकरुणाभारखिन्नाशया ये ॥
In the above मनसिजविजयी refers to Buddha. Sri Sankara is placed around the
8th century.
A point was raised whether Sankara would go to the extent of recognizing
Buddha as an incarnation when he has criticized his philosophy vehemently.
Great persons respected their opponents even and they are instances galore
to substantiate this. Srivaishnavas call advaiti's प्रच्छन्नबौद्ध’s!
Regards
Murthy

[hnbhat B.R.]

But when the attribution itself to SriShankara itself is questioned, what about the verse he quotes? For certainty by the time of  KSEMENDRA (1006 AD ) mentions the दशावतार-s which is after the Bhagavata. According to Scholars, date of Bhagavata could not be earlier than 9th Century and it is not possible to quote the Dashavatara concept later than Bhagavata.  Hence the attribution to Sankara, the authorship of Stotra is always questionable. 

Anyhow, for this anamoly, one can pose two Buddha-s one in the PurAna-s is different than the one attested by the history and inscriptions. Again depending on this, Sankara's date too pushed back to 3rd century or so. That is a different thing and questionable always. The question was raised with this issue in mind and not when Buddha was deified or his divinity or human being two separate issues.

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः

lalitAlAlitaH

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 04:55, Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Group,

Common knowledge does not indicate their being more than one Buddha,
so, in all probability the bête noir of some of the Puranas would be
the same and only Buddha that we know of.

I don't want to rely on common knowledge.
I want to the buddha of purANa, so that I can turn my respect towards correct person.
 

The acceptance of Buddha within the fold of the Ancient religion can
be said to have been fairly complete by the 11th century.  The
following well-known verse appearing at 15/27 of the
सुभाषितरत्नभाण्डागार has been sourced to महानाटकम् of हनूमत्कवि (11th
century).

यं शैवाः समुपासते शिव इति ब्रह्मेति वेदान्तिनः।
बौद्धा बुद्ध इति प्रमाणपटवः कर्तेति नैयायिकाः॥
अर्हन्नित्यथ जैनशासनरताः कर्मेति मीमांसकाः।
सोऽयं वो विदधातु वाञ्छितफलं त्रैलोक्यनाथो हरिः॥

OK. But was this assimilation according to purANa or was it a work of free will ?

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः

lalitAlAlitaH

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:22, murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

That the Buddha is recognized as one of the ten incarnations by Adi Shankara has been brought out in this forum earlier too. That is, provided that you do not question the authorship of Vishnupadadikesantastotra attributed to him. The specific verse is as follows:
मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहः नरहरिणपतिर्वामनो जामदग्न्यः
काकुत्स्थः कम्सघाती मनसिजविजयी यश्च कल्किर्भविष्यन् ।
विष्णोरंशावतारा भुवनहितकरा धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाः
पायासुर्मां त एते गुरुतरकरुणाभारखिन्नाशया ये ॥
In the above मनसिजविजयी refers to Buddha.

How could you say that मनसिजविजयी is for shAkya-muni ?
Is there any proof that paurANika-buddha was not मनसिजविजयी ?
 

Sri Sankara is placed around the 8th century.
A point was raised whether Sankara would go to the extent of recognizing Buddha as an incarnation when he has criticized his philosophy vehemently. Great persons respected their opponents even and they are instances galore to substantiate this. Srivaishnavas call advaiti's प्रच्छन्नबौद्ध’s!

Sorry, for a vaidika like bhagavatpAda this respect must have come from any evidence from shAstram.
Respecting opponent as a scholar, artist, etc. is something common for great among us. But, treating someone as avatAra is not just respect and it must come from shAstram.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः

lalitAlAlitaH

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 17:27, hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

But when the attribution itself to SriShankara itself is questioned, what about the verse he quotes? For certainty by the time of  KSEMENDRA (1006 AD ) mentions the दशावतार-s which is after the Bhagavata. According to Scholars, date of Bhagavata could not be earlier than 9th Century and it is not possible to quote the Dashavatara concept later than Bhagavata.  Hence the attribution to Sankara, the authorship of Stotra is always questionable. 

Anyhow, for this anamoly, one can pose two Buddha-s one in the PurAna-s is different than the one attested by the history and inscriptions. Again depending on this, Sankara's date too pushed back to 3rd century or so. That is a different thing and questionable always. The question was raised with this issue in mind and not when Buddha was deified or his divinity or human being two separate issues.

Thanks bhat ji for pointing these things. Your open-minded opinions are elating.

[hnbhat B.R.]

2011/5/22 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com>

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः

lalitAlAlitaH

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:22, murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

That the Buddha is recognized as one of the ten incarnations by Adi Shankara has been brought out in this forum earlier too. That is, provided that you do not question the authorship of Vishnupadadikesantastotra attributed to him. The specific verse is as follows:
मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहः नरहरिणपतिर्वामनो जामदग्न्यः
काकुत्स्थः कम्सघाती मनसिजविजयी यश्च कल्किर्भविष्यन् ।
विष्णोरंशावतारा भुवनहितकरा धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाः
पायासुर्मां त एते गुरुतरकरुणाभारखिन्नाशया ये ॥
In the above मनसिजविजयी refers to Buddha.

How could you say that मनसिजविजयी is for shAkya-muni ?
Is there any proof that paurANika-buddha was not मनसिजविजयी ?

There was already confusion with the use of the word Jina. The lexicon Amara (5th Century AD cir.) refers with this term both Buddha sugata, tathaagata and also a separate Shakyamuni is introduced in a separate assertion.

Jina or Buddha 18

( १. १. २५) सर्वज्ञः सुगतः बुद्धो धर्मराजस्तथागतः ( १. १. २६) समन्तभद्रो भगवान्मारजिल्लोकजिज्जिनः ( १. १. २७) षडभिज्ञो दशबलोऽद्वयवादी विनायकः ( १. १. २८) मुनीन्द्रः श्रीघनः शास्ता मुनिः शाक्यमुनिस्तु यः

And Gautamabuddha :

Gautama Buddha 7 

( १. १. २९) स शाक्यसिंहः सर्वार्थसिद्धः शौद्धोदनिश्च सः 

( १. १. ३०) गौतमश्चार्कबन्धुश्च मायादेवीसुतश्च सः

And your question finds place in this context. If we take both of these, the identical person, why the confusion for Amarasimha, himself between Jina = Mahavira, and Buddha.  And according to the method followed, शाक्यमुनि etc. goes with Gautama Buddha and the words before it goes with जिन who is called मारजित्.

And it is popular in बुद्धचरित of अश्वघोष and पद्यचूडामणि of some other poet, biography of Buddha accounts for in detail his confrontation with काम and his army and his victory over him. Hence your question deserves much more consideration than simply accepting दशावतार incarnation theory which is a later development accomplished around 10th century at the earliest.

Now the question is mixed up with the question why Mahavira was not at all known and even if known, how Amarasimha himself got the confusion between the two names? I do not have a ready solution. Not even a name महावीर popular by the time at least Amara compiled his lexicon? 

This may warrant the question retaken up by our Arvindji and Murthiji again and confirm your original question whether there are two Buddha-s? apart from Avatara- concept?. 

[murthy]

Unless there are other forceful factors which lead us to believe that Sankara was not the author of the stotra, it would be incorrect to say that he was not the author just because it does not suit our notion in the matter.

As to मनसिजविजयी referring to Buddha the commentator says so. And Buddha, as conqueror of Manmatha, is brought out often. For example the नादीश्लोक of नागानन्द play.

ध्यानव्याजमुपेत्य चिन्तयसि कामुन्मील्य चक्षुः क्षणैः

पश्यानङ्गशरातुरं जनमिमं त्रातापि नो रक्षसि।

मिथ्याकारुणिकोऽसि निर्घृणतरः त्वत्तः कुतोऽन्यः पुमान्

सेर्ष्यं मारवधूभिरित्यभिहितो बुद्धो जिनः पातु वः॥

It is significant to note Buddha is called JIna also.

Regards

Murthy

[Ram Kumar Krishnan ராம குமரன்]

quite confusing, by a similar argument even Mahavira, Jesus, Prophet Mohammed can be considered as Vishnus avatars???

2011/5/22 murthy <murt...@gmail.com>

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 21:53, murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Unless there are other forceful factors which lead us to believe that Sankara was not the author of the stotra, it would be incorrect to say that he was not the author just because it does not suit our notion in the matter.

OK.
If author was sha~Nkara himself then it must be according to pramANas. I already said that declaring anyone avatAra without any evidence of shAtra is not business of any vaidika who relies on shAstra and yukti. So, provide me that.

These days people quote sha~Nkara to prove anything correct. But this doesn't work for all. All are not blind followers of sha~Nkara. Even sha~Nkara was not someone with extra organs of perception which we lack. He just propounded everything according to shAstram. So, for these words of sha~Nkara you must quote purANa-vAkyam.
 

As to मनसिजविजयी referring to Buddha the commentator says so.

Commentator of keshAdipAdAnta-stotram ?
Who is he ?
What did he presented as evidence to prove that मनसिजविजयी बुद्ध was not different from मायासुतः ?
 

And Buddha, as conqueror of Manmatha, is brought out often. For example the नादीश्लोक of नागानन्द play.

ध्यानव्याजमुपेत्य चिन्तयसि कामुन्मील्य चक्षुः क्षणैः

पश्यानङ्गशरातुरं जनमिमं त्रातापि नो रक्षसि।

मिथ्याकारुणिकोऽसि निर्घृणतरः त्वत्तः कुतोऽन्यः पुमान्

सेर्ष्यं मारवधूभिरित्यभिहितो बुद्धो जिनः पातु वः॥

It is significant to note Buddha is called JIna also.

Sorry, you missed to see amarakoSha and its commentaries. There जिन has come for a बुद्ध different from शाक्यमुनिः .
Please see माहेश्वरी and commentary of क्षीरस्वामिन् .
They have presented जिन different from शाक्यमुनि .

[hnbhat B.R.]

I think in their zeal to reply, fail to read the earlier replies and evaluate their contents carefully.

[Vasu Srinivasan]

According to Madhvacharya there were definitely two Buddha-s and Gautama Buddha was definitely not avatara of Vishnu. 

While he was totally against Gautama Buddha, because Veda-s were not pramANa for the latter, Madhvacharya had composed dvAdasha stotram where he mentions Buddha as one of the avataras, but this is not Gautama Buddha. 

I remember having heard that according to Madhvacharya, there *was* a Buddha avatara of Vishnu but I cant recollect all the details.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--
Regards,
Vasu Srinivasan
-----------------------------------
vagartham.blogspot.com
vasya10.wordpress.com

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 07:31, Vasu Srinivasan <vas...@gmail.com> wrote:

According to Madhvacharya there were definitely two Buddha-s and Gautama Buddha was definitely not avatara of Vishnu. 

While he was totally against Gautama Buddha, because Veda-s were not pramANa for the latter, Madhvacharya had composed dvAdasha stotram where he mentions Buddha as one of the avataras, but this is not Gautama Buddha. 

I remember having heard that according to Madhvacharya, there *was* a Buddha avatara of Vishnu but I cant recollect all the details.

Vasu, can you direct us to any digital edition of this stotram and give any evidence to prove that madhvAchArya supported two-buddha theory.

[Vasu Srinivasan]

namaste |

dvaadasha stotram is available at http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/dvAdasha_stotra.pdf

The sixth stotram is dashaavatara and 7th sloka in that mentions buddha-svarupa. 

as far two buddha evidence, i have only heard stories from my father that the buddha avatara of vishnu is different from gautama buddha, i will ask for textual evidence.

2011/5/22 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 07:59, Vasu Srinivasan <vas...@gmail.com> wrote:

namaste |

dvaadasha stotram is available at http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/dvAdasha_stotra.pdf

The sixth stotram is dashaavatara and 7th sloka in that mentions buddha-svarupa. 

I saw. But there is nothing in words about difference.
You have concluded from refutation of bauddha-matam and praise of buddha that there were two buddhas. But, please take notice that bauddha-matam was refuted and not buddha. So, one can say that there is no need of imagining two buddhas as madhvAchArya is not refuting and praising buddha at same time.
 

as far two buddha evidence, i have only heard stories from my father that the buddha avatara of vishnu is different from gautama buddha, i will ask for textual evidence.

That will be nice. 

[Sunder Hattangadi]

An interesting essay on the subject is at:

 

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6623

 

 

Regards,

 

sunder

 

 

 

From: Vasu Srinivasan <vas...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: buddha : according to purANas and other hindu-texts

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Sunder Hattangadi <sun...@yahoo.com> wrote:

An interesting essay on the subject is at:

 

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6623

 

 

Regards,

 

sunder

 

 

 

Thanks for the link.

The immediate question will be even though two Buddha-s are proved somehow, as son of Jina and the other one as the son of Gautama, what about our Mahavira Jina?

Why he was not at all considered by lexicographers or literary eminent personages? Only they refer to जैन philosophy? All the epithets common to the Mahavira, अर्हत्, जिन, and even बुद्ध.

 

How to explain this anomaly? Is it a simple confusion of the epithets or two different personages attested in the history? And even Amara, the earliest lexicographer didn't notice that they are applied to the तीर्थंकर in his latest recension महावीर जिन whose philosophy is known as जैन philosophy which is never applied to Buddhist philosophy? Who is the propounder of Buddhist philosophy/logic the Avatara Buddha or Historical Buddha? Series of questions raise immediately. I had already raised the point in my first  post itself.

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Group

I do not think the “Two Buddhas” theory is either credible or likely.

They refer to the Gautama Buddha and other sects saw him as a danger, because people were drawn to his doctrine and abandoning the vedic rituals and beliefs.

Vimala

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sunder Hattangadi
Sent: Monday, 23 May 2011 1:47 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: buddha : according to purANas and other hindu-texts

 

An interesting essay on the subject is at:

 

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6623

 

 

Regards,

 

sunder

 

 

 

 

From: Vasu Srinivasan <vas...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: buddha : according to purANas and other hindu-texts

namaste |

 

dvaadasha stotram is available at http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/dvAdasha_stotra.pdf

 

The sixth stotram is dashaavatara and 7th sloka in that mentions buddha-svarupa. 

 

as far two buddha evidence, i have only heard stories from my father that the buddha avatara of vishnu is different from gautama buddha, i will ask for textual evidence.

--

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 16:01, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Dear Group

I do not think the “Two Buddhas” theory is either credible or likely.

They refer to the Gautama Buddha and other sects saw him as a danger, because people were drawn to his doctrine and abandoning the vedic rituals and beliefs.

I can't understand the way few people talk. If you have no evidence for supporting your belief or refuting others, please keep silence and see the discussion. You are not making any contribution. And I'm not interested in your personal belief.

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dear Group,

I do not have anything to say about whether there was only one Buddha
or two. However, the common belief is the there was only one. This
much to me is obvious. Now, if someone suspects that the apparently
obvious is not true and the truth is other than that, Rules of
Evidence put the onus of producing proof on him and not the other way
around.

To give a parallel, the common belief is that the earth is round. If
someone believes in the Flat Earth, it is he who has to produce
evidence in support of his belief. Otherwise the world goes on,
secure in its knowledge that the Earth is round.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, May 23, 2011.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 20:07, Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Group,

Now, if someone suspects that the apparently
obvious is not true and the truth is other than that, Rules of
Evidence put the onus of producing proof on him and not the other way
around.

Correct.

We have put amarakoSha and its commentary as pramANa.
Now see bhAgavatam :
ततः कलौ सम्प्रवृत्ते सम्मोहाय सुरद्विषाम् ।
बुद्धो नाम्नाजनसुतः कीकटेषु भविष्यति ॥

Place of birth of paurANika-buddha is 'kIkaTa' - near gayA.
His father's name is 'ajana'.

Both are different from popular buddha's.

Quoting from link sunder ji provided :

In Lalita Vistara, Ch. 21 page 17, it is described how Gautama Buddha meditated on the same spot as the predecessor Buddha:
ca dharaNImuNde pUrvabuddhAsanasthaH samartha dhanur gRhItvA zUnya nairAtmavANaiH klezaripuM nihatvA dRStijAlaN ca bhitvA ziva virajamzokAM prApsyate bodhim agryAM

The one seated on the hallowed earth on the previous Buddha’s birthplace, is on the path of voidism and renunciation . With his weapon, the powerful bow, he vanquishes the enemies of distress and illusion. Thus with wisdom he will attain the auspicious state of grieflessness and worldly detachment.



Lanka-avatara Sutra is a famous and authoritative Buddhist text. From the description of Buddha, which is found in this book it may be firmly concluded that he is not the more recent Sakya Simha or Gautama Buddha. In the beginning of this book we find RAvana, King of Lanka, praying first to the original Vishnu avatar, Buddha and then to the successive future Buddha.
laNkAvatAra sUtraM vai pUrva Buddha anuvarNitaM smarAmi pUrvakaiH buddhair jina-putra puraskRtaiH sUtram etan nigadyante bhagavAn api bhASatAM bhaviSyatyanAgate kAle buddhA Buddha-sutAs ca ye
 

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 09:16, Sunder Hattangadi <sun...@yahoo.com> wrote:

An interesting essay on the subject is at:

 

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6623

Nice work, sunder ji.

This definitely provides some material for theory of two buddhas.

A brahmachArI brought avatAra-a~Nka of kalyANa, gItA press and found two essays. One of them based on bhAgavatam depicts buddha of purANa, which was avatAra of viShNu, different from gautama. Another has mixed all things and is unable to say anything about difference.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 09:37, hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

what about our Mahavira Jina?

जिन means one who has conquered mind, etc. If this is meant by you then any one can be called jina. Why are you trying to find place for mahAvIra in koSha. He may be not very popular and may not have many names. That's why he failed to get place there. I don't think every bodhisattva or older tIrtha~Nkaras have found any place in koSha. That doesn't mean that they didn't exist.
 

Why he was not at all considered by lexicographers or literary eminent personages?

He may be not so eminent.
 

Only they refer to जैन philosophy?

Did they say anything about syAdvAda, anekAntavAda, etc. ?
 

All the epithets common to the Mahavira, अर्हत्, जिन, and even बुद्ध.

Because both were opposed to veda, varNAshrama, yaGYa, etc.
 

 How to explain this anomaly? Is it a simple confusion of the epithets or two different personages attested in the history? And even Amara, the earliest lexicographer didn't notice that they are applied to the तीर्थंकर in his latest recension महावीर जिन whose philosophy is known as जैन philosophy which is never applied to Buddhist philosophy?

Actually advaitins used word jaina for bauddha-matam while refuting. If I'm not wrong shrI-harSha did so.
While answering jainas madhusUdana-saraswatI, etc use word 'Arhata' and not 'jaina'.
 

Who is the propounder of Buddhist philosophy/logic the Avatara Buddha or Historical Buddha?

purANas tell that avatAra-buddha propounded theory against veda to turn asuras away from veda.
Quote from the link of sunder ji also says on behalf of la~NkAvatAra, etc. that gautama-buddha was in same lineage of philosophy developed by avatAra-buddha.
And, if we accept that gautama was not against veda, as sunil and satish of advaita-l Group try to propagate, then there will be no doubt that philosophy originated from avatAra-buddha.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

2011/5/24 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com>

We have put amarakoSha and its commentary as pramANa.
Now see bhAgavatam :
ततः कलौ सम्प्रवृत्ते सम्मोहाय सुरद्विषाम् ।
बुद्धो नाम्नाजनसुतः कीकटेषु भविष्यति ॥

Place of birth of paurANika-buddha is 'kIkaTa' - near gayA.
His father's name is 'ajana'.

I just found a different version of this shloka @ vedabase maintained by people of ISKON who favor oneness of buddha :

ततः कलौ सम्प्रवृत्ते सम्मोहाय सुरद्विषाम्  ।

बुद्धो नाम्नाञ्जनासुतः कीकटेषु भविष्यति ॥

tatah -- thereafter; kalau -- the age of Kali; sampravritte -- having ensued; sammohaya -- for the purpose of deluding; sura -- the theists; dvisham -- those who are envious; buddhah -- Lord Buddha; namna -- of the name; anjana-sutah -- whose mother was Anjana; kikateshu -- in the province of Gaya (Bihar); bhavishyati -- will take place.

TRANSLATION

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

 

[venugopal gudimetla]

Dear Group,

Not sure if this verse is already referenced or discussed,

In the Bhagavata Purana Buddha is said to have taken birth to restore the devas to power:

tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya sura-dviṣām ।

buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati ॥

—srimad-bhagavatam 1.3.24

Translation: Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, for the purpose of confusing the enemies of the devas, [he] will become the son of Anjana, Buddha by name, in the Kīkaṭas.

Could anyone state if the translation is correct and if so, who is this Anjana? is he the same as Śuddhodhana? if so then they could be the same.
Little more digging tells me that   Kikatesu was a province of Gaya which is in present Bihar, not quite Lumbhini but close enough if this is true.

Venu

[murthy]

The commentator is Purnasaraswathy and the name of the commentary is Bhaktimandakini.

I reproduce below the relevant portion of the commentary:

मनसिजविजयी मनस इन्द्रियाणां च निग्रहात् कामं जितवानिति बुद्धमुनिः, ’मारजिल्लोकजिज्जिनः’ इत्यभिधानात् । जिनमुनेरपि भगवदवतारेषु दशस्वन्यतमत्वेन भागवतादिप्रसिद्धेः ’लोकान् तामिति विमोहमतिप्रलोभं वेषं विधाय बहु भाष्यत औपधर्म्यम्’ इति भागवतोक्तेः । ’इत्युक्ते भगवांस्तेभ्यो मायामोहशरीरतः। समुत्पाद्य ददौ विष्णुः प्राह चेदं वचः सुरान्’ इति श्री विष्णुपुराणवचनात् । बलभद्रस्य तु शेषावतारत्वेन प्रसिद्धेश्चेयमुक्तिः । ’मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहश्च नारसिंहश्च वामनः। रामो रामश्च बुद्धश्च  कृष्णः कल्की च ते दश’ इति गणनात्। अत्रापि ’रामो रामश्च रामश्च ’ इति कैश्चिपठ्यते । स तु पाठोऽनन्तस्यापि भगवन्मूर्तित्वात् तदवतारस्यापि बह्गवदवतारविवक्षयेति मन्तव्यम् ; कृष्णबलभद्रयोः तुल्यकालत्वादेकस्मिन् काले अवतारद्वयस्यानुपपत्तेः अङ्गभूतानामवतारस्य च प्राधान्याङ्गीकारे लक्ष्मणाद्यवतारेष्वपि ताथाभाव इति त्रयोदशत्वप्रसङ्गात् ।

 While I can comprehend the import of the commentator, there are more competent persons in the group to give a word by word translation and notes on the above text.

Regards

Murthy

 

----- Original Message -----

From: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:28 AM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: buddha : according to purANas and other hindu-texts

[venugopal gudimetla]

Buddhism it self never refuted the existence of many Buddhas before Gautama, after him. When you say a person attained Buddha-hood, you are basically saying the person has completely realized himself and is thus the 'awakened one'. So how does it matter which Buddha you are bowing? you are bowing to an awakened teacher anyways. So to me the point of knowing which Buddha you are bowing and which Buddha is mentioned in the puranas is mote. In Buddhism, Gautama Buddha has a unique place, so do other Buddhas, before him and after him. So getting worked up regarding which Buddha one is bowing to and being adamant that one will bow to only the right one is foolishness. It is like saying among the thousands of Gods., I will bow only the right one. Just my thoughts, You need not agree.

 

2011/5/23 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com>

--

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:21, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:

When you say a person attained Buddha-hood, you are basically saying the person has completely realized himself and is thus the 'awakened one'.

Actually we don't accept awakening of a person against veda. So, we can't bow before them. But, if one of buddhas, who taught against veda, is proved to be an avatAra of viShNu for a special purpose, he becomes our revered on account of our own shAstra.
 

So how does it matter which Buddha you are bowing? 

you are bowing to an awakened teacher anyways. So to me the point of knowing which Buddha you are bowing and which Buddha is mentioned in the puranas is mote.

Yes it matters, really.
Already replied.
 

In Buddhism, Gautama Buddha has a unique place, so do other Buddhas, before him and after him. So getting worked up regarding which Buddha one is bowing to and being adamant

If one of followers of buddha told what I'm telling, then it may be adamant. But, I'm not a bauddha. I'm from a lineage which always refuted every person and creed which tried to go against veda.
 

that one will bow to only the right one is foolishness.

Actually bowing down to everyone is foolishness. I've no such blindness.
 

It is like saying among the thousands of Gods., I will bow only the right one.

Do not compare both. All gods who are respected by me are faithfuls of veda. This is not the case with all buddhas.
 

Just my thoughts, You need not agree.

Sure. I don't.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

2011/5/23 murthy <murt...@gmail.com>

The commentator is Purnasaraswathy and the name of the commentary is Bhaktimandakini.

I reproduce below the relevant portion of the commentary:

मनसिजविजयी मनस इन्द्रियाणां च निग्रहात् कामं जितवानिति बुद्धमुनिः, ’मारजिल्लोकजिज्जिनः’ इत्यभिधानात् । जिनमुनेरपि भगवदवतारेषु दशस्वन्यतमत्वेन भागवतादिप्रसिद्धेः ’लोकान् तामिति विमोहमतिप्रलोभं वेषं विधाय बहु भाष्यत औपधर्म्यम्’ इति भागवतोक्तेः । ’इत्युक्ते भगवांस्तेभ्यो मायामोहशरीरतः। समुत्पाद्य ददौ विष्णुः प्राह चेदं वचः सुरान्’ इति श्री विष्णुपुराणवचनात् । बलभद्रस्य तु शेषावतारत्वेन प्रसिद्धेश्चेयमुक्तिः । ’मत्स्यः कूर्मो वराहश्च नारसिंहश्च वामनः। रामो रामश्च बुद्धश्च  कृष्णः कल्की च ते दश’ इति गणनात्। अत्रापि ’रामो रामश्च रामश्च ’ इति कैश्चिपठ्यते । स तु पाठोऽनन्तस्यापि भगवन्मूर्तित्वात् तदवतारस्यापि बह्गवदवतारविवक्षयेति मन्तव्यम् ; कृष्णबलभद्रयोः तुल्यकालत्वादेकस्मिन् काले अवतारद्वयस्यानुपपत्तेः अङ्गभूतानामवतारस्य च प्राधान्याङ्गीकारे लक्ष्मणाद्यवतारेष्वपि ताथाभाव इति त्रयोदशत्वप्रसङ्गात् ।

Thank you, mUrthy Ji, for the pain you took for us to present these words of pUrNa-saraswatI.
भागवतादिषु प्रसिद्धस्य जिनमुनेर्न गौतमाभेदस्सम्भावयितुं शक्यः । तत्राजनसुतत्वेनाञ्जनासुतत्वेन वा कीकटे - गयाक्षेत्रे तदाविर्भावस्योक्तत्वात् । गौतमस्य च मायाशुद्धोदनसुतत्वात् । न वा गौतमस्य जन्म कीकटेषु । मारजिल्लोकजिज्जिन इत्यभिधानमपि गौतमपरमिति न वक्तुं शक्यम् । गौतमस्य शाक्यसिंहत्वाद्युक्तेस्तद्भेदेन च बुद्धस्याष्टादशनामग्रहणादमरादिषु । वेदविरुद्धार्थप्रतिपादकत्वमपि पुराणसिद्धमुनेरेवोक्तम् । गौतमस्य तु न वेदविरुद्धत्वमित्यपि वदन्ति केचित्ताटस्थ्यात्तस्य । अतो नेयं टीका बुद्धगौतमयोरभेदज्ञापने समर्था ।

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 08:23, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Group,

Not sure if this verse is already referenced or discussed,

In the Bhagavata Purana Buddha is said to have taken birth to restore the devas to power:

tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya sura-dviṣām ।

buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati ॥

—srimad-bhagavatam 1.3.24

Translation: Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, for the purpose of confusing the enemies of the devas, [he] will become the son of Anjana, Buddha by name, in the Kīkaṭas.is he the same as Śuddhodhana?

Could anyone state if the translation is correct and if so, who is this Anjana?

Yes. Correct translation. There are two different readings : अञ्जनासुतः and अजनसुतः . Both are different from mAya and shuddhodana, mother and father of gautama.
 

if so then they could be the same.
Little more digging tells me that   Kikatesu was a province of Gaya which is in present Bihar, not quite Lumbhini but close enough if this is true.

Yes. shrIdharaswAmI tells that kIkaTa is gayA. It's near lumbini, but it's not the same. In old times kAshI, a~Nga, etc. were little provinces. So was kIkaTa. It's different from lumbini.

[Vinodh Rajan]

Hi All,

The Vaidika-s seems to have never had a clear idea of what Buddha they were referring to. Initially what was thought to refer to Tathagata Shakyamuni, later expanded to several other Buddhas. They just posited that "the Buddha" is an Avatar of Vishnu.

Buddhism internally references to many many Buddhas. Though the Tathagata of the our current Bhadra Kalpa is Shakyamuni.

In one of the Pancharatra texts, the "Mahalakshmi Tantra" [which is in the form of Dialogue between Mahalakshmi and Indra ]

In one portion of the Tantra, Mahalakshmi enumerates how in myriad forms she accompanies Vishnu whenever he takes an "Avatara".

In one specific verse, 

[...]

अवतारान्तरं यत्तु मोहनं बुद्धसंज्ञकम्

ताराहं तत्र नाम्ना वै धरा[*] च एव प्रकीर्तिता 

[*] The other pATha Bheda is dhaarA

Mahalakshmi states whenever Vishnu takes Avatara such as the "Buddha" she accompanies him as Tara or Dhara.

Bhagavati Tara is the Prajna-shakti of Buddha Amoghasiddhi (one of the Pancha Maha Buddha-s ). 

From this text,

Atleast it is clear that, the Vaidika-s always referred to the Buddha[s] of Bauddha Mata. From an outsider point of view, they could see only "the Buddha", a single entity. 

The Vaidika-s never seems to have had a separate Buddha of their own.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a side note, it is interesting to know that, while Vaidika considers Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu, it is Vice Versa in Buddhism. Maha Vishnu is seen as an emanation of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. [Infact, all Vaidika deities are seen as an emanation of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara].

In one Sutra, Maha Vishnu is himself shown as bowing down to the Buddha and Praising him.

-- नारायणपरिपृच्छा आर्यमहामायाविजयवाहिनी नाम धारणी --

एवं मया श्रुतमेकस्मिन्समये भगवान् स्वर्णशृङ्गे पर्वताग्रे वैश्रवणस्य गृहे विहरति स्म। [...] अथासुरैर्निगृहीतो विनिर्धूतः पराजितस्तेजोहीनो नारायणो येन भगवांस्तेनोपसङ्क्रामदुपसङ्क्रम्य भगवतः पादौ शिरसाऽभिवन्द्यैकान्ते स्थितः॥१॥

एकान्ते स्थितश्च नारायण एवं प्रार्थयाञ्चके। तदेवं देशयतु भगवान् सर्वज्ञः सर्वदर्शी सर्वसत्त्वानुकम्पकस्तं धर्मपर्यायं यमेते देवनागयक्षराक्षसादयो मनुष्या वा धारयमाणाः संग्रामे महाशूलपातेभ्यो वा सर्वोपद्रवेभ्यो वा सर्ववितर्कविचारेभ्यो वा विजयिनो भविष्यन्नि॥२॥

भगवानाह - असि मायाधरस्त्वं नारायण। मायावांस्त्वं महावलोऽसि। अनेकमायाजालेन सत्त्वान् वञ्चयसि। [किमिह भयात्] संग्रामविजयप्रश्नं परिपृच्छसि॥३॥

[...]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

V

--
http://www.virtualvinodh.com

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

2011/5/24 Vinodh Rajan <vinodh...@gmail.com>

Hi All,

The Vaidika-s seems to have never had a clear idea of what Buddha they were referring to.

It is not true for elders as they were seen referring to two buddhas, jina and shAkya-muni.
It's correct for us, newer ones, as we have yet to decide. Although a few of us heard of difference from our ancestors, we are lacking a huge support.
 

 Initially what was thought to refer to Tathagata Shakyamuni, later expanded to several other Buddhas.

No. According to us initial references were to jina, the sarvaGYa. Later it expanded to shAkya-muni, as it appears.
 

 They just posited that "the Buddha" is an Avatar of Vishnu.

Buddhism internally references to many many Buddhas. Though the Tathagata of the our current Bhadra Kalpa is Shakyamuni.

Any evidence from purANas, etc. ?
 

In one of the Pancharatra texts, the "Mahalakshmi Tantra" [which is in the form of Dialogue between Mahalakshmi and Indra ]

In one portion of the Tantra, Mahalakshmi enumerates how in myriad forms she accompanies Vishnu whenever he takes an "Avatara".

In one specific verse, 

[...]

अवतारान्तरं यत्तु मोहनं बुद्धसंज्ञकम्

ताराहं तत्र नाम्ना वै धरा[*] च एव प्रकीर्तिता 

[*] The other pATha Bheda is dhaarA

Mahalakshmi states whenever Vishnu takes Avatara such as the "Buddha" she accompanies him as Tara or Dhara.

Bhagavati Tara is the Prajna-shakti of Buddha Amoghasiddhi (one of the Pancha Maha Buddha-s ). 

Did laxmI said that she will not be accompanying buddha in form of woman ?
Again, amoghasiddi-buddha is not shAkyamuni, or he is ?

One more thing, variants of buddha are not accepted by us ? And we never told any amoghasiddhi-buddha as our avatAra ?

Trying to mix shAstras of two different and opposite lineage is not our desired here. We want to decide according to purANa, etc.
 

From this text,

Atleast it is clear that, the Vaidika-s always referred to the Buddha[s] of Bauddha Mata.

Yes. But that buddha was not shAkya-siMha. We refer to avatAra-buddha and bauddha-matam was spread by him. shAkya-siMha was one of this lineage, latest one, as it was seen in la~NkAvatAra.
 

From an outsider point of view, they could see only "the Buddha", a single entity. 

Yes.
 

The Vaidika-s never seems to have had a separate Buddha of their own.

Actually they had it different from shAkya-siMha. amarakoSha, bhAgavatam and their commentaries are enough to prove it.
 

As a side note, it is interesting to know that, while Vaidika considers Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu, it is Vice Versa in Buddhism. Maha Vishnu is seen as an emanation of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. [Infact, all Vaidika deities are seen as an emanation of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara]. 

In one Sutra, Maha Vishnu is himself shown as bowing down to the Buddha and Praising him.

-- नारायणपरिपृच्छा आर्यमहामायाविजयवाहिनी नाम धारणी --

एवं मया श्रुतमेकस्मिन्समये भगवान् स्वर्णशृङ्गे पर्वताग्रे वैश्रवणस्य गृहे विहरति स्म। [...] अथासुरैर्निगृहीतो विनिर्धूतः पराजितस्तेजोहीनो नारायणो येन भगवांस्तेनोपसङ्क्रामदुपसङ्क्रम्य भगवतः पादौ शिरसाऽभिवन्द्यैकान्ते स्थितः॥१॥

एकान्ते स्थितश्च नारायण एवं प्रार्थयाञ्चके। तदेवं देशयतु भगवान् सर्वज्ञः सर्वदर्शी सर्वसत्त्वानुकम्पकस्तं धर्मपर्यायं यमेते देवनागयक्षराक्षसादयो मनुष्या वा धारयमाणाः संग्रामे महाशूलपातेभ्यो वा सर्वोपद्रवेभ्यो वा सर्ववितर्कविचारेभ्यो वा विजयिनो भविष्यन्नि॥२॥

भगवानाह - असि मायाधरस्त्वं नारायण। मायावांस्त्वं महावलोऽसि। अनेकमायाजालेन सत्त्वान् वञ्चयसि। [किमिह भयात्] संग्रामविजयप्रश्नं परिपृच्छसि॥३॥

[...]

Wow !!
Nice for this new thing. People practicing different things can always amaze you by what they have concealed as jems.  :)

[Vinodh Rajan]

//Did laxmI said that she will not be accompanying buddha in form of woman ?

Again, amoghasiddi-buddha is not shAkyamuni, or he is ?

One more thing, variants of buddha are not accepted by us ? And we never told any amoghasiddhi-buddha as our avatAra ?

Trying to mix shAstras of two different and opposite lineage is not our desired here. We want to decide according to purANa, etc.

//

 

I am not mixiing up the Shastra-s. I am just speaking about the cross-reference here.

 

Maha Lakshmi proclaims,She accompanies Vishnu as Bhagavati Tara/Dhara whenever Vishnu takes the form of "Buddha".

 

Now what Buddha is MahaLakshmi referring too ? Is it the Vaidika Buddha ? certainly no !

 

We have to get into Bauddha Mata to clarify this. In Tantra, The Maithuna form of deities are very common (in both Bauddha Tantra & Vaidika Tantra).  Bhagavati Tara is a popular Bauddha Bodhisattva who is the considered as the Prajna-Shakti of Buddha Amoghasiddhi. To someone outside Bauddha Mata, without geting into the minor details,they would have just comprehended,"Tara is the Companion of Buddha" fullstop.

 

When the Authors of Mahalakshmi Tantra wanted to enumarate the companion of Vishnu in each Avatara, they had to get a companion for the Buddha. From an outsider perspective, they would have known "Tara as the Shakti of Buddha". [ It can be said, they might have known the difference between the various Buddhas - Shakyamuni, Amoghasiddhi, Ratnasambhava or some other Buddha. They just knew a single entitiy -  Buddha] So, they included Tara in the list of Mahalakshmi's Avatara.

 

The point to be noted here, the Vaidika-s [in this Tantra] went to refer the shakti of buddha from Bauddha Mata.

 

This Tantra atleast is one of the evidences that Buddha[s] referred on by the Vaidika-s was always the Buddha[s] venerated by the Bauddha-s.

 

Now for that Amarakosha,

 

Amarasihma was probably a Bauddha himself. The epithets of the Buddha as in the Amarakosha can be explain in terms of Bauddha Mata. Sarvajna, Shad-Abhijna, Sugata, Tathagata, Marajit are all pratyeka Baddha Pada-s. He went one to enumarate the epithets of a common "Buddha", [All Buddha-s share the same Characteristics] and then enumarated various of Epithets specific to the present Bhadra Kalpa Buddha, Shakymuni,

 

~~~

 

With respect to Bhagavata differing about the precise details of Shakyamuni, one can but conclude that the authors of Bhagavata were ill-informed about Bauddha Mata.

V

 

2011/5/24 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com>

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

2011/5/24 Vinodh Rajan <vinodh...@gmail.com>

Hi All,

The Vaidika-s seems to have never had a clear idea of what Buddha they were referring to.

It is not true for elders as they were seen referring to two buddhas, jina and shAkya-muni.
It's correct for us, newer ones, as we have yet to decide. Although a few of us heard of difference from our ancestors, we are lacking a huge support.
 

 Initially what was thought to refer to Tathagata Shakyamuni, later expanded to several other Buddhas.

No. According to us initial references were to jina, the sarvaGYa. Later it expanded to shAkya-muni, as it appears.
 

 They just posited that "the Buddha" is an Avatar of Vishnu.

Buddhism internally references to many many Buddhas. Though the Tathagata of the our current Bhadra Kalpa is Shakyamuni.

Any evidence from purANas, etc. ?
 

In one of the Pancharatra texts, the "Mahalakshmi Tantra" [which is in the form of Dialogue between Mahalakshmi and Indra ]

In one portion of the Tantra, Mahalakshmi enumerates how in myriad forms she accompanies Vishnu whenever he takes an "Avatara".

In one specific verse, 

[...]

अवतारान्तरं यत्तु मोहनं बुद्धसंज्ञकम्

ताराहं तत्र नाम्ना वै धरा[*] च एव प्रकीर्तिता 

[*] The other pATha Bheda is dhaarA

Mahalakshmi states whenever Vishnu takes Avatara such as the "Buddha" she accompanies him as Tara or Dhara.

Bhagavati Tara is the Prajna-shakti of Buddha Amoghasiddhi (one of the Pancha Maha Buddha-s ). 

 

From this text,

Atleast it is clear that, the Vaidika-s always referred to the Buddha[s] of Bauddha Mata.

Yes. But that buddha was not shAkya-siMha. We refer to avatAra-buddha and bauddha-matam was spread by him. shAkya-siMha was one of this lineage, latest one, as it was seen in la~NkAvatAra.
 

From an outsider point of view, they could see only "the Buddha", a single entity. 

Yes.
 

The Vaidika-s never seems to have had a separate Buddha of their own.

Actually they had it different from shAkya-siMha. amarakoSha, bhAgavatam and their commentaries are enough to prove it.
 

As a side note, it is interesting to know that, while Vaidika considers Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu, it is Vice Versa in Buddhism. Maha Vishnu is seen as an emanation of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. [Infact, all Vaidika deities are seen as an emanation of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara]. 

In one Sutra, Maha Vishnu is himself shown as bowing down to the Buddha and Praising him.

-- नारायणपरिपृच्छा आर्यमहामायाविजयवाहिनी नाम धारणी --

एवं मया श्रुतमेकस्मिन्समये भगवान् स्वर्णशृङ्गे पर्वताग्रे वैश्रवणस्य गृहे विहरति स्म। [...] अथासुरैर्निगृहीतो विनिर्धूतः पराजितस्तेजोहीनो नारायणो येन भगवांस्तेनोपसङ्क्रामदुपसङ्क्रम्य भगवतः पादौ शिरसाऽभिवन्द्यैकान्ते स्थितः॥१॥

एकान्ते स्थितश्च नारायण एवं प्रार्थयाञ्चके। तदेवं देशयतु भगवान् सर्वज्ञः सर्वदर्शी सर्वसत्त्वानुकम्पकस्तं धर्मपर्यायं यमेते देवनागयक्षराक्षसादयो मनुष्या वा धारयमाणाः संग्रामे महाशूलपातेभ्यो वा सर्वोपद्रवेभ्यो वा सर्ववितर्कविचारेभ्यो वा विजयिनो भविष्यन्नि॥२॥

भगवानाह - असि मायाधरस्त्वं नारायण। मायावांस्त्वं महावलोऽसि। अनेकमायाजालेन सत्त्वान् वञ्चयसि। [किमिह भयात्] संग्रामविजयप्रश्नं परिपृच्छसि॥३॥

[...]

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--
http://www.virtualvinodh.com

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:30, Vinodh Rajan <vinodh...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

I am not mixiing up the Shastra-s. I am just speaking about the cross-reference here.

Cross-reference means : 'A reference at one place in a work to information at another place in the same work(or in the work of same nature)'.
purANas and bauddha-literature are not of same nature as they are related to Astika and nAstika matam.
Buddha is common to them, So we must treat them as one ?
No, Actually it is yet to be proved and we are talking only that here.

purANas were created in dvApara by vyAsa and they were not created after advent of buddha of kali to which they refer. Not to say that bauddha-literature has any thing to do with them. They were created later and they just created their own version taking matter from purANas and converting them suitable to their faith in many cases. So, there is no need of corss-reference, aka mixing.

 

Maha Lakshmi proclaims,She accompanies Vishnu as Bhagavati Tara/Dhara whenever Vishnu takes the form of "Buddha".

 

Now what Buddha is MahaLakshmi referring too ? Is it the Vaidika Buddha ? certainly no !

How came this certainty of negation ?
 

 

We have to get into Bauddha Mata to clarify this.

No. We need not.
We can cross-refer purANas as bhAgavatam, viShNu, agni, etc.
No cross reference to later-works of buddha is needed. Cause described above.
 

In Tantra, The Maithuna form of deities are very common (in both Bauddha Tantra & Vaidika Tantra).  Bhagavati Tara is a popular Bauddha Bodhisattva who is the considered as the Prajna-Shakti of Buddha Amoghasiddhi. To someone outside Bauddha Mata, without geting into the minor details,they would have just comprehended,"Tara is the Companion of Buddha" fullstop.

Some tell buddha didn't preach, some tell he preached but not against veda, some say he preached against veda. Which is true ?
In anyway, I've not heard that gautama-buddha created tantras. Who are their creators ? How could they know anything which is not of this world, as previous avatAras of buddha, relation of tArA, etc ? When were these created, before gautama or later ? If before, any proof ?
purANas say that name of avatAra was buddha and not amoghasiddhi. They can't confuse name. They go to any detail of avatAra, his janma, Ayudha, sahsranAma, etc. How could they miss anything gross like this ?

 

When the Authors of Mahalakshmi Tantra wanted to enumarate the companion of Vishnu in each Avatara, they had to get a companion for the Buddha. From an outsider perspective, they would have known "Tara as the Shakti of Buddha". [ It can be said, they might have known the difference between the various Buddhas - Shakyamuni, Amoghasiddhi, Ratnasambhava or some other Buddha. They just knew a single entitiy -  Buddha] So, they included Tara in the list of Mahalakshmi's Avatara.

So, you don't accept they are real talks of mahAlaxmI and indra. Then the whole matter's validity is in doubt ? How could a man know those things which are out of grasp of pramANas ?
 

 

The point to be noted here, the Vaidika-s [in this Tantra] went to refer the shakti of buddha from Bauddha Mata.

Hindu-tantras are older than them. They took tArA from here and went on expanding their literature.
 

 

This Tantra atleast is one of the evidences that Buddha[s] referred on by the Vaidika-s was always the Buddha[s] venerated by the Bauddha-s.

No clear reason provided yet. It fits avatAra-buddha too.
 

 

Now for that Amarakosha,

 

Amarasihma was probably a Bauddha himself.

Yes.
 

The epithets of the Buddha as in the Amarakosha can be explain in terms of Bauddha Mata. Sarvajna, Shad-Abhijna, Sugata, Tathagata, Marajit are all pratyeka Baddha Pada-s. He went one to enumarate the epithets of a common "Buddha", [All Buddha-s share the same Characteristics] and then enumarated various of Epithets specific to the present Bhadra Kalpa Buddha, Shakymuni,

None of commentators said like you. We are far away from amara-siMha by time than commentators and twisting things which seem so straight and clear is not a good thing for people who are doing inquiry.
 

 

~~~

 

With respect to Bhagavata differing about the precise details of Shakyamuni, one can but conclude that the authors of Bhagavata were ill-informed about Bauddha Mata.

budhha is said to have born in kIkaTa from ajana or a~njanA or ajina. So, treat them as dealing with buddha other than shAkya-siMha. Just if it doesn't approve your view you can't say that information conveyed is wrong.

As I said bauddha-books are later creations, there are chances that they were created with ill-will.

I can understand that,

if we treat whole literature as compatible with each other, we may reach your conclusions...
if we take hindu-literature only, it is difficult to prove oneness of buddha.....
if we take bauddha-literature only, you may tell us more.......

I think we need to close this thread as nothing more is coming.
Thanks for participating to all....
Sorry to vimalA jI for my rough words......

[Shambhu Shastry]

lalitAlAlita and Vinodh mahOdayAH,

Very nice and educational discussion from both of you.

If you have (or may kindly write) your respective side of the debate as a research paper, I will greatly appreciate you kindly emailing me a copy (or put on your respective blog and advise the group).

This is not for continuing this discussion, but only a request from me. A good research paper addressing the following issues will be valuable for the chronology of several of the Samskrita texts currently grouped around 800 BC - 800 AD but none in the tradition agrees with such chronology. The issues are:

1. What are the pramANas to say that the purANas (ignoring their later revisions or versions) were earlier to Gautama Buddha? Other evidences in the purANas or somewhere else are needed to establish this.
2. When was the onset of kali yuga? On what pramANa(s) was this decided? Was Varahamihira's 'fixing' of the yugAbda based on what he saw as planetary alignment (it really was not) wrong?
3. Is there a shAstra (other than Varahamihita's) or purANa evidence that ties yuga sanDhi to planetary alignments (modern astronomy-wise speaking, these have not happened in a million years or so)?
4. Between a shAstra (such as manusmr`ti) and a purANa (such as viSNu purANa), which is the final pramANa if there is a conflict on the same issue? We accept that between shruti and shAstra, shruti is final.
5. What is the pramANa for the difference of a factor of 360 between what is plainly stated about the yuga durations in the Manusmr`ti or the purANas and the commentators' explanations (daivI varSha = 360 earthly varShas)? Where/what is the pramANa for the 360 factor?
6. What was the time of Gautama Buddha? What is the evidence? Basing it on Greek sources is very weak. This too has controversies.

I realize that these issues have little to do with Samskrita per se but crucial to decide the identity of the avatAra budDha as well as lot of other issues of chronology. But then these questions/issues/debates arise because of the difficulties or differences in interpreting the Samskrita texts. Anyone with a flare for words can get away with any line of argument and tell us that our grand parents are our grand children or vice versa -:).

BhavadIyaH,

Shambhu

---

From: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 25, 2011 11:06:12 PM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: buddha : according to purANas and other hindu-texts

[Vimala Sarma]

A good Western reference is Winternitz – History of Indian literature.  But the traditionalists may have a different view.

Vimala