and nor is buddhism a branch of hinduism.

let me hear if you disagree.

Exactly pal, the king was surriounded by Yogis and priests around him. Althought the king tried to distance him from those knowledge with other pleasures, the boy was exposed to spiritualism which might not have been the intent. There were priests, Yogis and hinduism rite in front of the boy; he made a choice..? You know how people make choice ?..its when they are able and willing.
He had everything a prince would ask, he also was exposed that there were other ways to view life and he made a choice. The knowledge or information was there, he learnt it as a hindu prince. Once he saw other things as old age , death he confirmed and moved on.
Just imagine a hindu prince would not be taught about hinduism - that is nonsense in itself.

He did not just see a dead person , got scared and become a sadhu. The knowlede was there and he mastered it.
The point is,he was exposed to spiritualism of hinduism just by the fact that he was a son of hindu King and the king in those days would surround themselves with religious figures for various purposes. He found what was mentioned in hinduism not other way around.

Maila,

Yes, you are right. Lot of people believe that Siddartha Gautam was not the first Buddha, nor was he last.

If I am right, our Baudha stupa was actually made in reverence to a Buddha who came even prior to Siddartha Gautam. This Buddha - Buddha of Compassion - was a hunter. While he was hunting in the woods, which now is Baudha, came across a female tiger with cubs. Due to sickness or injury, this mother tiger was unable to hunt. She was physically decaying due to lack of food. And her cubs were also dying because her body could not produce any milk. Having seen this, the hunter was so overwhelmed with compassion that he gradually cut off his own limbs and fed the mother tiger until he died. But the tigress and her cubs lived. With this ultimate act of compassion, he gained nirvana. Some have given that Buddha a name of Avolokeshwar or Chengrisi.

But he is said to have come back as Siddartha Gautam, aka Shakya Muni.

Before he died, Shakya Muni did pronounce his imminent rebirth. That happened 8 years after his death in a place which we now know as Afghanistan.

A child is said to have been formed in a lotus. This child later became a great teacher like Shakya Muni. We know him by various names such as: Padmasambava (Lotus Born) or Guru Rimponche. He is said to have come to Farping, very near Kathmandu, to do his meditation. He formed numerous schools in India and Tibet. He is the Buddha who emphasized more on meditative power to gain nirvana and much credited in Vajrayana or Tibetan Budhism.

Yes, the sutras say that there will be another Buddha who will come in future. That Buddha will be known as Maitreya.

Adi Guru Shankaracharya did not destroy buddhist text as far as i know. however he did win over the buddhist and other hindu scholars through debate.

anyway what is all the fuss about? there is buddha idols and temples in hindu places and vice versa all over nepal. Even if buddhism is completely different from hinduism and still hindus claim that it is part of hinduism and accepts buddha as one of the avatars what is the problem?
Can you change what people believe? is it llike 2+2=4? no matter how much debate is done not matter how much historical fact is provided this is the truth of the present time:

"Hindus will always consider buddhism, jainism, sikhism and other monirity religion of the south asia as part of hinduism, at the same time strict followers of these othe religion will hate the fact that they are not considered as a distinct religion"

by the what is Hinduism?

Birbhadra,

I don't think anybody here is displaying animosity towards Hinduism.

The contention is, in my opinion, purely academic. Is Buddhism really a branch of Hinduism and is Gautam Buddha really an avatar of Lord Vishnu? And if the answer is yes in both cases, so be it. But what is the source of that assertion?

Someone mentioned here that Vishnu's incarnation as Buddha was mentioned in Bhagavata Purana. That's the type of answer I was looking for. Now on what basis did Sukha assert such claim in that purana when he parlayed that to Parikshit? THAT is what I want to know.

Rather than accepting everything on face value, one has to question why where how such is such. At least that's what they say in Buddhism.

Only those who have no respect to Buddhism and others alike will make such statements. Good thing is people are now aware of their rights and they are not afraid to defend their belief.

Buddhist consider Vishnu and many alike as gods who are there to serve Buddha. Buddha is beyond comparison to any god. That's written in Buddhist text and it says, "even human life is more precious than God." But one must understand that its purpose is not to abuse other religion or to claim Buddhism as s superior. A whole and sole purpose to such saying is "Not to waste such a precious time of our human life in any negative thought and devote our time in practicing non-violence and dharma so that peace will prevail and people will respect each other and live in a progressive society.

No one has to impose their thoughts on others. Truth will prevail. If something is noteworthy and valuable, people and society will notice and will have an everlasting effects.

So before anybody makes Statements like Buddha is avatar of Bishnu or vice versa, they should look inside themselves and ask whether it is worth making it. I am glad we are seeing less and less people who say such things openly.

I am glad changes are taking place back home. People are willing to speak up and defend for their rights. My only hope is peace will prevail and everybody can live in harmony.

if I say buddha is indeed bishnu's avatar and buddhism is nothing but a branch of hinduism and i totally believe what can you possibly do to change that?
How can one argue about something as abstract as faith/belief? one can believe whatever they want evidence in history hints in vedas will not change one's belief because beliefs is something you take to be true without having to prove.

I don't believe buddha was god (he himself said it) not do i think he is avatar. As a matter of fact the whole idea of a personal God is beyond my understanding and God coming down to earth to teach us dharma sounds absurd. maybe that is another subject. but no try with all your might but you can't change the reality that hindus will always consider buddha as their avatar and buddhism as part of hinduism.

View/Share this post only

Gyurme,
i have respect only for humans not their beliefs.

Birbhadra, if you really consider buddhism as a part of hinduism, why do hindus despise buddhism so much? How can they want to bring it under their umbrella on one hand, and despise it on other hand. Those claiming buddhism as branch of hinduism have rarely read any buddhist text, and merely it to feel good or perhaps for their pleasure.

Buddhiism is never a branch of hinduism and can not be These kinds of stuffs really offend me. Put your arguments to prove it is. Don't just merely make a blind statement, and say that it's not gonna change. Broaden your mind, and stop looking for painted glasses.

You say what is this fuss about, and then make your baseless claims that it is a part of hindusim. You say that we're the strict follower; and we always go to hindu temples, and worship hindu gods. You're the one who's the satisfied with that still want to bring it under your umbrella.

Why're there buddhist idols in hindu temples? Look back to our history. When've we buddhist people started to integrate so much with hinduism? Why were all buddhist monks were expelled from Nepal during Rana period? We're living in a harmony, and we will. But don't be offensive, and claiming that it is not.

I don't have the books now, but I've read materials from buddhist scholars claiming logically why buddhism is not the branch of hinduism, and shankaracharya et al. had actually started this propaganda.

So let's not try to disturb religious harmony by claiming what is not. I've never problem with hinduism, and I know about hinduism as much as I do about buddhism. But please prove me wrong with the facts, not just by saying that you're gonna believe what you like to. If that's the case, people reading this know who's blind and strict follower and the extremist.

I'm asking to prove me wrong, and you blame me calling strict follower?

gahu goro,
Well in todays terms Buddhism and Hinduism are different. You are rite on that but if you look at Buddha we are talking about than the history needs do be dug deep. But buddhism these days are loosely defined as being started from the budhha from lumbini.
Buddhism has other roots , do some research on it. Actually there is one in Minneapolis Art institute where there is a good deal of scripture about Bodhi satva from as early as 4th century b.c.
From some of my research the, the buddha from lumbini has been associated as being the decendants of the chinese budhhas. The route has definitely changed in terms of todays beliefs about buddha. But i have found some different facts. But i am not surprised.

Its just like some people believe that Evangelicals are not catholics. Its a diversion.

Gautam Buddha was the 28th buddha.


Generally, Buddhists do not consider Siddhartha Gautama to have been the only buddha. The Pali Canon refers to Gautama Buddha at least once as the 28th Buddha (see List of the 28 Buddhas). A common Buddhist belief is that the next Buddha will be one named Maitreya (Pali: Metteyya).
n Buddhism, a buddha (Sanskrit बुद्ध) is any being who has become fully awakened (enlightened), has permanently overcome desire or craving (lobha), aversion (dosa), and delusion (moha), or ignorance, and has achieved complete liberation from suffering. However, such a negative definition should be augmented with its positive aspect, for a Buddha is also "one who has achieved a state of perfect enlightenment,"[1] which is a state of perfect mental tranquillity and non-fading bliss: "is the highest bliss" and "the bliss of peace, the bliss of enlightenment."[2]

In the Pali Canon, the term 'buddha' refers to anyone who has become enlightened (i.e., awakened to the truth, or Dharma) on their own, without a teacher to point out the Dharma, in a time when the teachings on the Four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Path do not exist in the world.










The names of 28 Buddhas Sanskrit name Pāli name
1 Tṛṣṇaṃkara Taṇhaṃkara
2 Medhaṃkara Medhaṃkara
3 Śaraṇaṃkara Saraṇaṃkara
4 Dīpaṃkara Dīpaṃkara
5 Kauṇḍinya Koṇḍañña
6 Maṃgala Maṃgala
7 Sumanas Sumana
8 Raivata Revata
9 Śobhita Sobhita
10 Anavamadarśin Anomadassi
11 Padma Paduma
12 Nārada Nārada
13 Padmottara Padumuttara
14 Sumedha Sumedha
15 Sujāta Sujāta
16 Priyadarśin Piyadassi
17 Arthadarśin Atthadassi
18 Dharmadarśin Dhammadassi
19 Siddhārtha Siddhatta
20 Tiṣya Tissa
21 Puṣya Phussa
22 Vipaśyin Vipassi
23 Śikhin Sikhi
24 Viśvabhū Vessabhū
25 Krakucchanda Kakusandha
26 Kanakamuni Koṇāgamana
27 Kāśyapa Kassapa
28 Gautama Gotama

dear gahugoro,

i did Not claim buddhism being branch of hinduism i just said what if i believe so can you prove i am wrong? you cannot because beliefs are beliefs they cannot be challenged unless they are related to physical world, debating who is right about abstract things like buddha being avatar or not is futile.

i already stated in my previous thread that i neither believe buddha is god nor do i consider buddhism or any other "ism" to be part of hinduism. Frankly i don't care if buddhist feel bad if hiundus consider thier religion as their owm branch. you can deny to kiss someone you can avoid being kissed by someone but if people start to throw flying kisses you can't stop it. hehe

I am more concerned about religions of the west particularly christianity and Islam because they are trying to spread their believes through power and money and convert us into their armies of crusaders and jihadist.

If you can't differntiate between a Cat and Tiger just because they are from the same family than it might be better to learn about their features.

Guys if Buddha is a part of hindu Goddes avtar,,why he has to struggle so hard in order to figure out the new way of life and death. Buddhism and Hindusm is 2 different very different religion.

My personal theory about Gautam Buddha.

He was a son of a hindu King. He was exposed to some spiritual education and decided he needed to see the non materialistic side of life.
He was a Super smart person; If he ran away in the direction of india rite away it might be possible that his Dad the King would send people to fetch him.

So he might have headed to Chinese main land; they did have a very spiritual knowledge ; previous buddhas and Bodhi satva.

After few years of studying, the King might have been advised to give up search . Then he returned to the indian territory and started his meditation.

Buddha was the title given by the chinese spiritual world to whoever had attained nirvana. So they might have given him the title and he might have had his own followers.
Infact he is the last buddha the 28th. It is said that there was one more comin.

Actually although so popular these days the religion buddhism, this term has been very loosely used and its origin way different then contemporarily undersood.


see prev threads.


Pure specualation and just a theory.

Peace

Birbadra:

If you have respect for others, then keep your belief for yourself. You dont hshnuave to impose on others. Like I said, if something is worth noting, it will stand out itself. Becuase Buddhist see this as nothing but a distraction, we try to keep quiet since it makes no sense in arguing Buddha as avatar of Vishnu.

Vishnu is important for Hindu and we as a Buddhist must respect that . As a Buddhist I dont go around claiming Vishnu is a bodyguard of Buddha. Saying so is directly against the practise of Buddhism. I think it is exactly true even in Hinduism. A true Hindu practitioner will never say that and instead devote his or her time in practising dharma and preaching peace and harmony.

are ya buddha's papi...if ur not stfu............
why you guys always make a religion a major issue .....why all the fukin nepalese live , play and party happy together......
later

Well this is a debate and ia am just putting in my opinions which are just opinions. It seems like you are not thoroughly reading my comments and just blindly trying to give a rebuttal on something i have not claimed in the first place. Gyurme i am a skeptic at the very least i am not a believer i am a Knower and i have not professed any beliefs.

incase you are too lazy to go back and read my coment.

i don't believe buddha as a n hindu avatar not do i believe that buddhism is part of hinduism. i am making this statement based on religion as an institution not from a philosophical perspective. However there is nothing in buddhist philosophy that is extremely alien to hindu philosophy. if this is not the case prove it.

hindu religion is an institution not a religion if u go back read the history. so far buddha is concerned, i would tell that buddha himself used to be hindu. the excavation in Lumbini has found some statue of shiva. That implies his family used to profess hindu religion too.
jayamatadi

know the definition before writing something

religion is a institution