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. [1] 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: [2]. 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)

Percent?

Is there any indication of how many Hindus believe in the Buddha, be it as an incarnation of Vishnu or in some other sense?24.189.108.166 (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Avatar of Vishnu & accesstoinsight

Regarding this addition and its subsequent removal: the main problem is not the status of accessofinsight, but the fact that this addition is a comment, c.q. WP:OR. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, primary sources are not WP:RS for assertions like this as they require interpretation, and we rely on quoting and summarising what scholars say about those sources. Ogress _smash! 07:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Deference Between avatar Buddha and Gautamsection

Removed section: Gautam was the son of King suddhodana and he was born in Nepal but the avatar Buddha is the son of Ajana. He was born in kikata (present Bihar). Gautam Buddha and the God Buddha are two different persons according to bhagwatam.

Tatah kalau sampravritte sammohaya suradwisham। Buddho namnajanasutah keekateshu bhavishyati।। (Bhagwatam 1|3|24)

Buddhavataramah। ajanasya susah। kikateshu madhye gaya pradeshe।। (by the famous commentator Shridhara)

~AbHi, Problems with the section:

• While several references in the article clearly state that the Buddha of Hinduism is the same individual as the founder of Buddhism, removing references to Gautama Buddha is WP:POV pushing of a WP:FRINGE.
• The reference is not a WP:RS. Please provide scholarly references that they prove that this theory is notable FRINGE. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz I'm fair about this article, and the biggest source for this section is bhagwatam. That is reliable and trustable but... If you have any problem with this or this is not looking suitable then I request to you, please make this suitable because this is very important. - ~AbHi ^{Chat Me!! 📥} 08:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

References

"Born a Hindu"

@Ms Sarah Welch: well, that was an interesting edit, from

Lars Tore Flåten (2016). Hindu Nationalism, History and Identity in India: Narrating a Hindu past under the BJP. Taylor & Francis. pp. 90–93. ISBN 978-1-317-20871-6. Quote: "Rhys Davids says, 'Gautama was born and brought up and lived and died a Hindu."

to

Lars Tore Flåten (2016). Hindu Nationalism, History and Identity in India: Narrating a Hindu past under the BJP. Taylor & Francis. pp. 90–93. ISBN 978-1-317-20871-6. Quote: "Rhys Davids says, 'Gautama was born, and brought up, and lived, and died a typical Indian. Hinduism had not yet, in his time, arisen."

Full quote:

Other scholars such as Hermann Oldenberg, Thomas Rhys Davids and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan have stated that there is much in common between the two religions.

The quote "born a Hindu" was added here, with this text:

Some scholars such as Hermann Oldenberg, Thomas Rhys Davids and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan have stated that there is much in common between the two religions, and Buddha was "born, brought up, lived and died a Hindu".

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the original source and the Flåten-source; Flåten cites BJP textbooks representations of Buddhism, in this case, Ancient India... It may be worth to send an email to the author. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I made the edit from "born a Hindu" to "born an Indian". The "born a Hindu" quote is incorrect and was never said by Rhys Davids. He never even wrote a book called "Ancient India" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rhys_Davids#Works). Presumably "Buddhist India" is meant, but there the only time the word Hindu is used is to say "The mass of the more wealthy classes, and the more cultured people, in the south, were Buddhists and Jain before they were Hindu in faith." (site:fsnow.com/text/buddhist-india/ hindu) The "born a Hindu" quote should only used as an example of Hindu appropriation of the Buddha and Buddhist scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.172.30.164 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Something is odd, very odd, indeed. If I recall right, it was meant to reflect 'claims' by one side. Let me check the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"Ancient India" is a BJP educational textbook; they changed the quote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

JJ: No, not quite. @1.172.30.164: please do not ad hoc change quotes and misrepresent scholarly sources, just because you read something on other wiki pages, fsnow.com etc. That is disruption. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

JJ:, @Farang Rak Tham: I have clarified the text a bit. Please review. It would be wonderful if you would add summary from more appropriate sources to improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The section has been edited very well, and is a lot better. Much effort has been made to get every quote right and to summarize all sources correctly. A problem that does remain is that sources that state the opposite of these sources are not mentioned. According to some sources, the Buddha broke with many Brahmanic (please don't use the much later word Hinduist) traditions, but sources describing this are not mentioned. An example of this, if I am not mistaken, is the very same Gombrich, in his What the Buddha Thought, which has as the basic premise "that the Buddha was one of the most brilliant and original thinkers of all time" (page vii).

Oh, and please get rid of any misquotations of TW Rhys Davids. Just stating that he is being referred to by some writers should be enough.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Rhys Davids did write about Buddha and Hinduism. It is important to not misquote him. It is important to correctly quote him directly in order to understand the context and for NPOV. That the Buddha was an original thinker is without doubt. The counterpoint others are making is that "original thinkers" rely on the context they are born in and they use the premises/concepts that pre-exist in their culture, times. To acknowledge such views in the scholarly sources is important for NPOV in this article. The subject of the article is "Gautama Buddha in Hinduism", and that is what we need to keep reminding ourselves when we revise/add any line. For balance, we must also summarize the scholarly criticism of the Hindu nationalists, without overdoing it, which the article now does. Let us meditate on all this a bit more, and continue our journey that steadily improves the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, same person who made the edit on Rhys Davids' quote, thanks for your contributions. I realize now I made a mistake in my sources, so I apologize for that. Rhys Davids did in fact say at one point that the Buddha was born a Hindu. The text as currently cited on the page is, however, still incorrect, as it confuses two quotes from different works at different times. In "Buddhism: Its History and Literature", a series of lectures published in 1896, on page 116 he said: "Gotama was born and brought up and lived and died a Hindu". https://archive.org/stream/buddhismitshist01davigoog#page/n135/mode/2up But the rest of the saying on the page is not from there. It is, rather, from page 83 of "Buddhism: Being a sketch of the life and teachings of Gautama, the Buddha", which was published nearly two decades later in 1912. There, he said: "Gautama was born, and brought up, and lived, and died a typical Indian. Hinduism had not yet, in his time, arisen." https://archive.org/stream/buddhismbeingske00davi#page/82/mode/2up Though it is not technically incorrect to attribute the saying that Rhys Davids said the Buddha was a Hindu, it is, in my view, misleading and poor scholarship to do so. Clearly, he changed his mind in the intervening years, and his mature view was that there was no such thing as Hinduism in the time of the Buddha, and that the Buddha's family did not follow Vedic rites. In the context of this page, I think it would be appropriate to give the earlier quote, saying that this is often quoted, but also to clarify that his views changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.172.28.217 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@1.172.28.217: Please allow me to ignore your wisdoms / prejudices / opinions about "Buddha's family did not..." etc. You do bring a relevant point, which is to acknowledge the 1912 publication. I have added a note. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the quote twice, and it has been reverted to the incorrect quote twice. Let me say one more time: In "Buddhism: Being a Sketch of the Life and Teachings of Gautama, the Buddha", Rhys Davids did not say "But the foregoing account will be sufficient …" etc. This is false, an incorrect quote and has no place on Wikipedia. He did say, "Gotama was born and brought up and lived and died a Hindu". In the book of 1912, he did not "reword". He completely changed his mind, rejecting his earlier view, and stated in clear contradiction to his earlier text: "Gautama was born, and brought up, and lived, and died a typical Indian. Hinduism had not yet, in his time, arisen." But look, I give up. What's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.172.25.146 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Rhys Davids did write "But the foregoing..." and much more (he goes further and calls Ashoka "a Hindu of the Buddhist sect"). You are plainly refusing to check, or don't have the resources to verify (try the WP:TEAHOUSE for help). FWIW, we now have both versions because it provides the historical context and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not the place for WP:SOAP and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bye, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Another problem with quoting TW Rhys Davids is that the sources are of course very dated. In this context Rhys Davids' works function like primary sources used by secondary works. It may therefore not be required to cite Rhys Davids' works at all. It may be better to just stick to the secondary sources to explain how and in what context Rhys Davids' works are used by modern authors. The reason why Rhys Davids is quoted is to make a historical point, not a point of doctrine. I Propose not to cite TW Rhys Davids sources as sources in themselves, but only cite the secondary sources that quoted, or misquoted his works.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

FRT: it is disingenuous for the IP/anyone to allege that Rhys Davids did not write what we quote, after we have provided the source and links. He did. Click that link and please read it. It is okay to quote primary sources, per WP:Primary guidelines. In this case, we should keep Rhys Davids, Radhakrishnan etc, because it is a part of the "dated" history of this subject, and also because it is a part of the "modern argument" by one side. It wouldn't be NPOV to present or imply, directly or indirectly, any side as "liars" when the facts are on their side. Please note it is the "Hinduism did not exist" which is off topic here, and a WP:Fringe and a dangerous slippery slope of POV pushing we must avoid. It is a slippery slope because [a] it means alleging that Vedas and other texts, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, ancient/old temples, Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, etc has nothing to Hinduism; [b] it means rituals, festivals, varna/class/caste system, etc is not related to Hinduism, because "Hinduism is a modern phenomenon" and all this was invented by them or forced on "Hindus" when Sunni Muslims or the Christian British or post-British Nehru were ruling them; [c] it means Buddhism, Christianity, Islam etc did not exist too by similar arguments (these words did not exist before the 14th to 19th century!); [d] etc etc. All this is neither mainstream scholarship nor something you would find in any scholarly encyclopedia. Let us keep the focus on the subject of this article, and not WP:COATRACK this article into a POV-y soap sideshow. The history of views and scholarship on "Gautama Buddha in Hinduism" belongs in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You have misread me, Ms Sarah Welch. My point is not to remove any quotes, but rather to stick to secondary sources and how they interpret TW Rhys Davids. Using the works of TW Rhys Davids directly is straying off. So if some scholars interpret Rhys Davids in a certain way, then we just say so. We should cite Jayatilleke and Flaten, and how they quote Rhys Davids, but we shouldn't quote Rhys Davids directly, because his works are too primary source-like for that. My point was mostly technical correctness.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Jayatilleke does quote Rhys Davids original suggestion/view about Buddha "born and brought up and lived and died a Hindu". Your suggestion would mean we remove the 1920 source where we find "Buddha died a typical Indian...". I suggest we keep it in refn for NPOV, as our content guidelines give us the flexibility to 'quote exact' from primary sources without interpretation. It also helps clarify that Rhys Davids had second thoughts about "religion(s) in ancient India" and how to place or not place Buddha / Hinduism. Let us meditate on this a bit more, and wait for additional suggestions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

For fear of being misunderstood again and per WP:BRD, I have now made the edits myself, cutting out the primary sourcing and possible WP:SYNTH. This doesn't mean I fully agree with the current content of the section. But any improvements should be made by adding sources rather than correcting current content, especially not by using primary, outdated sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha is not an incarnation of Vishnu

This article is completely wrong. Gautama Buddha and Adi Buddha are two different persons. Gautama Buddha is the founder of Buddhism. Adi Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu he did not create a separate religion like Gautama Buddha. Lord Adi Buddha, believed to be incarnation of Vishnu, appeared in the province of Gaya (Bihar) as the son of Anjana, while Gautama Buddha (originally Siddhartha) was son of King Shuddhodhana and Queen Mahamaya. In that time, they belongled to Shakya Kula, and Gautam Gotra. The traditional Vedic system was present viz, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra in those times but it was not called as Hinduism yet. So Siddhartha was Kshatriya, born in Shakya Kula in the present Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slgprakash (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• There is no Gautama Buddha. The founder of Buddhism had the personal name Siddhatta Gotama/Siddhartha Gautama beforehand, but never used his prior personal name afterwards. He can properly be called Shakyamuni Buddha. This entire article should in fact be renamed "Shakyamuni Buddha". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherlin (talk • contribs) 06:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of Gautama Buddha as Vishnu's Avatar

Text proposal I

The followers of the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Hindu Dharma do not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu.

In a Joint Communiqué issued by Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peeth and Vipassanacharya Satya Narayan Goenka at the Maha Bodhi Society in Sarnath, Varanasi on 11 November 1999, they said:

Due to whatever reason some literature was written (in India) in the past in which the Buddha was declared to be a reincarnation of Vishnu and various things were written about him. This was very unpleasant to the neighbouring countries. In order to foster friendlier ties between the two communities we decide that whatever has happened in the past (cannot be undone, but) should be forgotten and such beliefs should not be propagated.

Swami Shri Nischalanada Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Govardhan Peeth, too has stated that the "Buddha" included by Adi Shankara in the list of Dashavataras (ten major incarnations of Vishnu) was not Gautama Buddha; as the Bhavishya Purana states that Baudhavatar (Buddha avatar of Vishnu) was born in the Brahmin community, while Gautama Buddha was born in a Kshatriya clan.

Furthermore, Bhagvata Purana (1.3.24) states that Vishnu will be incarnated as Buddha on the onset of Kali Yuga in the Kikata region (the precise location is believed to be near Gaya): "Next, when Kali sets in, He will be born among the Kikatas as Buddha, son of Anjana, in order to delude the foes of the gods."

The fact that Buddha avatar is said to take birth as son of Añjana among the Kikatas, while Gautama Buddha was born to Śuddhodana of the Sakya clan from Kapilvastu, indicates that the two Buddhas were different individuals.

Robert Montgomery Martin writes of the Buddha mentioned in the Amarkosha, an ancient Sanskrit thesaurus written by Amarsimha:

Gautama is not mentioned among the synonyms of Buddha, which are Sarbaggna, Sugata, Buddha, Dharma Raja, Tathagata, Samantabhadra, Bhagawan, Marajit, Lokajit, Jina, Sarabhiggna, Dasabala, Adwayabadi, Binayaka, Munindra, Srighana, Sasta and Muni...

[...]

These names, by which Gautama is known, according to Amarkosh, are Sakya Muni, Saka Singha, Sarbartha-Siddha, Sauddhodhani, Gautama, Arkabandhu, and the son of Mayadevi.

The Buddha here mentioned is thought to be Vishnu's avatar, whereas Gautama is Gautama Buddha.

Samantabhadra, which is one of the names of Buddha mentioned in Amarkosha, is also the name of the Adi-Buddha ("First Buddha" or "Primordial Buddha") in the Nyingma or "Ancient School" of Tibetan Buddhism. And hence, Adi-Buddha is considered by many to be the avatar of Vishnu, instead of Gautama Buddha.

Among the adherents of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada regarded Gautama Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu (or Krishna) and so do his followers at ISKCON; but there are others who disagree (even within ISKCON). Other gurus of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition viz. Srila Narayana Gosvami (alias Srila Gurudeva) and Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha did not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu, but believed another Buddha ("Sugata Buddha" or "Bhagavata Buddha") to be the avatar.

References

Yuyutsu-69 (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Joshua_Jonathan what's wrong with this section? | Yuyutsu-69 (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR:

• "The followers of the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Hindu Dharma do not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu." - unsourced
• "Joint Communiqué" - no context, not representative for "the followers of Advaita Vedanta."
• "Swami Shri Nischalanada Saraswati [...] too" - this swami states something different than the previous swami's, so "too" is out of place. The idea that there are two different Buddhas being mentioned in the texts is old, but does not mean that "all followers" reject the idea that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu.
• Bhagvata Purana - interpretation of primary source
• "son of Añjana" - unsourced
• Martin: outdated source; relevance, or even meaning, unclear. Qouted out of context.
• "Adi Buddha" - not WP:RS
• Gaudiya Vaishnava - some relevance, but Stephen Knapp is not WP:RS, nor are those other sources.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The followers of the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Hindu Dharma do not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu."

The Shankaracharyas are the representatives of Advaita Vedanta tradition.

• "Joint Communiqué" - no context, not representative for "the followers of Advaita Vedanta."

The communique was issued jointly by S. N. Goenka and Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati; the latter was the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham and hence a representative of Advaita Vedanta tradition.

• "Swami Shri Nischalanada Saraswati [...] too" - this swami states something different than the previous swami's, so "too" is out of place.

This swami is the Shankaracharya of Govardhan Math and he too believes that Gautama Buddha was not Vishnu's avatar. As a Shankaracharya he is also a representative of Advaita Vedanta tradition.

• but does not mean that "all followers" reject the idea that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu.

If a Pope says something is not a part of Catholicism, does it really matter whether "all Catholics" agree with him or not?

Also, apart from the aforementioned Shankaracharyas; Swaroopanand Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Dwarka Sharada Peetham isn't too fond of Gautama Buddha either (see "Pearls of wisdom from Swaroopanand Saraswati Maharaj" by Newslaundry for context).

So it's very likely that he doesn't believe that Gautama Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu.

Therefore, (at least) 3 out of 5 Shankaracharyas of the major Mathas do not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu. Why shouldn't they be considered representatives of Advaita Vedanta tradition?

• Bhagvata Purana - interpretation of primary source
• "son of Añjana" - unsourced

I have cited a translation. Do you want a source that provides translation of specifc verses?

• Martin: outdated source; relevance, or even meaning, unclear. Qouted out of context.

It was meant to provide an English translation. Do you want me to prove that the translation matches the original Sanskrit source?

• "Adi Buddha" - not WP:RS
• Gaudiya Vaishnava - some relevance, but Stephen Knapp is not WP:RS, nor are those other sources.

They are not supposed to be WP:RS, this entire section is WP:RSOPINION.

Yuyutsu-69 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The "joint communiqué" is about fostering friendly relations Buddhists and Hindus. The statement in question does not state that the followers of Advaita vedanta do not believe thet Gautama Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu; it's aim is too counter any intent to claim the Buddha for Hinduism. Swami Shri Nischalanada Saraswati made a different statement than the two acharyas. Regarding If a Pope says something is not a part of Catholicism, does it really matter whether "all Catholics" agree with him or not?, yes, that does matter. I can assure you that a lot of Catholics are horrified by such a stupid, ignorant comment. You conclude form the statements from 3 acharyas that all' followers don't believe that the Buddha was a reincarnation of Vishnu. That's WP:OR. Regarding the puranas, you're interpreting primary sources. Martin is a source from 1838; we don't use such outdated sources in India-related articles. And you're not giving opinions as opinions, you're presenting opinions as generalized statements of fact. Poor editing; please try better than this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement in question does not state that the followers of Advaita vedanta do not believe thet Gautama Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu

It does say that the Shankaracharya believes that "such beliefs should not be propagated".

yes, that does matter. I can assure you that a lot of Catholics are horrified by such a stupid, ignorant comment.

From Papal infallibility,

The doctrine of infallibility relies on one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma: that of papal supremacy, and his authority as the ruling agent who decides what are accepted as formal beliefs in the Roman Catholic Church.

You conclude form the statements from 3 acharyas that all followers don't believe that the Buddha was a reincarnation of Vishnu.

So I should've instead mentioned that 3 acharyas of the Advaita Vedanta tradition believe that Gautam Buddha was not Vishnu's avatar?

That's WP:OR.

How is it WP:OR if I use their own websites as sources?

The article on WP:OR says,

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources.

Martin is a source from 1838; we don't use such outdated sources in India-related articles.

The translation of Amarakosha by H. T. Colebrooke is from 1807 (the 3rd edition is from 1891). I couldn't find any newer English translations, except a pdf file from wilbourhall.org. Will that do?

@Joshua Jonathan: | Yuyutsu-69 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

NB: note that the communiquw says "such beliefs should not be propagated," not that they are incorrect, even less that 'all folowers of Advaita Vedanta reject these beliefs'. If none of them believed them, there would be no reason for Goenka and the acharyas to call for not propagating them, would there? The site "Buddha was born as Brahmin" is porrly written, and hardly comprehensible. Dogma's do not necessarily reflect popular belief; statements by acharyas do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of their followers, though in this case they do refer to popular beliefs; they do not support your statement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If none of them believed them, there would be no reason for Goenka and the acharyas to call for not propagating them, would there?

statements by acharyas do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of their followers

So I should simply write that Shankarcharyas of those mathas do not recognise Gautama Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu?

The site "Buddha was born as Brahmin" is porrly written, and hardly comprehensible.

But that is the official site of Govardhan Matha. How much more primary can a source get?

@Joshua Jonathan: | Yuyutsu-69 (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Text proposal II

Shankaracharyas of the Advaita Vedanta tradition of Hindu Dharma do not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu.

In a Joint Communiqué issued by Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peeth and Vipassanacharya Satya Narayan Goenka at the Maha Bodhi Society in Sarnath, Varanasi on 11 November 1999, they said:

Due to whatever reason some literature was written (in India) in the past in which the Buddha was declared to be a reincarnation of Vishnu and various things were written about him. This was very unpleasant to the neighbouring countries. In order to foster friendlier ties between the two communities we decide that whatever has happened in the past (cannot be undone, but) should be forgotten and such beliefs should not be propagated.

Swami Shri Nischalanada Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Govardhan Peeth, has stated that the "Buddha" included by Adi Shankara in the list of Dashavataras (ten major incarnations of Vishnu) was not Gautama Buddha; as the Bhavishya Purana mentions that Baudhavatar (Buddha avatar of Vishnu) was born in the Brahmin community, while Gautama Buddha was born in a Kshatriya clan.

Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24) states that Vishnu will be incarnated as Buddha on the onset of Kali Yuga in the Kikata region: "Then after full advent of the Kali Age, (He) will be born with Buddha as His name, and as a son of Ajana in the Kīkaṭa country."

Buddha avatar is said to take birth as a son of Ajana or Ajina or Jina (frequently misspelt as Añjana or Añjanā) among the Kikatas (in the province of Gaya), while Gautama Buddha was born to Śuddhodana of the Sakya clan from Kapilvastu. Hence, many believe that the two Buddhas were different individuals.

Amarakosha, an ancient Sanskrit thesaurus written by Amarasimha, mentions seventeen names for Buddha and five for Sakyamuni. "Gautama" is not mentioned among the synonyms of Buddha, but it is listed as one of the names of Sakyamuni. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton in An Account of the Districts of Bihar and Datna in 1811-1812, Volume 1 mentions the four Buddhas of the present, viz. Kakusandha, Koṇāgamana, Kasyapa, and Gautama; being referred to as Mahamuni, Chandamuni, Sakyamuni, and Gautamamuni, respectively. According to a commentary on Amarakosha, Gautama is said to have been descended from Kasyapa (Sakya), and "Sakyamuni" is a name common to both. Buchanan mentions that some consider Mahamuni to be the real founder of Buddhism, and believe that the Mahabodhi Temple was originally dedicated to Mahamuni (or Mahabuddha). He also notes that the Rajput pujaris at the temple worshipped Mahamuni as an incarnation of Vishnu.

Samantabhadra, which is one of the names of Buddha mentioned in Amarakosha, is also the name of the Adi-Buddha; who is the "First Buddha" or "Primordial Buddha" in the Nyingma or "Ancient School" of Tibetan Buddhism. The name "Adi-Buddha" is also associated with Jagannath, who is sometimes substituted for Sakyamuni Buddha (Gautama Buddha) as the ninth avatar of Vishnu.

Among the adherents of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada regarded Gautama Buddha as an avatar of Krishna and so do most of his followers at ISKCON. Other gurus of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition such as Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha and Srila Narayana Gosvami (a.k.a. Srila Gurudeva) did not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Krishna/Vishnu, but believed another Buddha ("Sugata Buddha" or "Bhagavata Buddha") to be the avatar.

References

cc:@Joshua Jonathan:

Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Same as before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Be specific please. I have cited all my sources. Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You're piecing together whatever you can find to oppose the belief that the Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu. For a personal blog, this piece would already have to be considered poorly written and unconvincing, but for Wikipedia it's just useless. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your Highness, I don't claim that it is a fact that Gautama Buddha is not an avatar of Vishnu. I only mentioned those who believe so; and why they do. I have written why Shankaracharyas do not consider him to be an avatar of Vishnu, and I have mentioned Buchanan's account of people he met who did not consider Gautama to be the Avatar. I am not "piecing" things together, except maybe the bit about Samantabhadra. But again, it is also a fact that Jagannath is sometimes a substitute for Gautama Buddha in the list of ten avatars; and Jagannath has been called "Adi-Buddha".

I have only mentioned facts. But facts are useless I suppose.

Text proposal III

Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24) states that Vishnu will be incarnated as Buddha on the onset of Kali Yuga in the Kikata region: "Then after full advent of the Kali Age, (He) will be born with Buddha as His name, and as a son of Ajana in the Kīkaṭa country."

Buddha avatar is said to take birth as a son of Ajana or Ajina or Jina (frequently misspelt as Añjana or Añjanā) among the Kikatas (in the province of Gaya), while Gautama Buddha was born to Śuddhodana of the Sakya clan from Kapilvastu. Hence, many believe that the two Buddhas were different individuals.

Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, in his account of the survey of Gaya in 1811-1812, mentions the four Buddhas of the present, viz. Kakusandha, Koṇāgamana, Kasyapa, and Gautama, being referred to as Mahamuni, Chandamuni, Sakyamuni, and Gautamamuni, respectively. Buchanan mentions that some consider Mahamuni to be the real founder of Buddhism, and believe that the Mahabodhi Temple was originally dedicated to Mahamuni (or Mahabuddha). He also notes that the Rajput pujaris at the temple worshipped Mahamuni as an incarnation of Vishnu.

Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi Kamakoti Peeth and Swami Shri Nischalanada Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Govardhan Peeth have stated that they do not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu.

Among the adherents of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada regarded Gautama Buddha as an avatar of Krishna and so do most of his followers at ISKCON. Other gurus of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition such as Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha and Srila Narayana Gosvami (a.k.a. Srila Gurudeva) did not consider Gautama Buddha to be an avatar of Krishna/Vishnu, but believed another Buddha ("Sugata Buddha" or "Bhagavata Buddha") to be the avatar.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuyutsu Ho (talk • contribs) 8 june 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just try to find some decent academic sources? here's also a source, thouygh unfortunately not exactly WP:RS; but it is in support of your point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I just don't understand why I need an "academic source" to mention something that is present in official websites of the people concerned. Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Text proposal IV

[1] Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24) states that Vishnu will be incarnated as Buddha on the onset of Kali Yuga in the Kikata region: "Then after full advent of the Kali Age, (He) will be born with Buddha as His name, and as a son of Ajana in the Kīkaṭa country."

Buddha avatar is said to take birth as a son of Ajana or Ajina or Jina (frequently misspelt as Añjana or Añjanā) among the Kikatas (in the province of Gaya), while Gautama Buddha was born to Śuddhodana of the Sakya clan from Kapilvastu. Hence, many believe that the two Buddhas were different individuals.

[2] During his tenure as the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Jayendra Saraswathi had released a joint statement with Vipassanacharya S. N. Goenka saying that the (Gautama) Buddha as Vishnu theory should be forgotten and no longer propagated.

[3] In the Medieval Orissan School of Vaishnavism, Jagannath was believed to be the first Buddha incarnation of Vishnu, or Adi-Buddha; with Gautama-Buddha and Chaitanya being further incarnations of the Buddha-Jagannath.

[4] Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, in his account of the survey of Gaya in 1811-1812, mentions the four Buddhas of the present, viz. Kakusandha, Koṇāgamana, Kasyapa, and Gautama, being referred to as Mahamuni, Chandamuni, Sakyamuni, and Gautamamuni, respectively. Buchanan mentions that some consider Mahamuni to be the real founder of Buddhism, and believe that the Mahabodhi Temple was originally dedicated to Mahamuni (or Mahabuddha). He also notes that the Rajput pujaris at the temple worshipped Mahamuni as an incarnation of Vishnu.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuyutsu Ho (talk • contribs) 10 june 2021 (UTC)

Add:

• [5] Sugata Buddha:

• Hughes, David Bruce (0000), Śrī Vedānta-sūtra, Adhyāya 2, Esoteric Teachings Seminar {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help), p.96-97
• Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Maharaja, Modern Buddha and Vishnu Avatar Buddha are Different
• Tripathy, Byomakesh (May 2005). "Buddhist Remains in Western Orissa" (PDF). Orissa Review.</ref>

[1] son of Ajana [...] "born to Śuddhodana":

• Bhagavad-gita As It Is: "the son of Añjanā—his mother's name, Añjanā." Stephen Knapp, Were There Two Buddhas?, clarifies "with Mayadevi as his mother"; you mixed-up the info you want to present...
• "Hence, many believe that the two Buddhas were different individuals."

• Vaswani, J. P. (2017-12-22). Dasavatara. Jaico Publishing House. ISBN 978-93-86867-18-6. - refers to Stephen Knapp
• David Bruce Hughes. Śrī Vedānta-sūtra, Adhyāya 2. - argument centers around sugata Buddha, not Ajana.

[2] - as stated before, this statement does not deny the believe in Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, and is irrelevant here.

[3] - not a rejection of the Buddha-avatar, but an alternative.

[4] - idem.

[5] - argues that Sugata Buddha is the avatar, while Gautama was the founder of Buddhism.

So, what have we got?

Some Hindus reject the identification of Gautama Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, referring to the texts of the puranas. Stephen Knapp argues that Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24), "Then after full advent of the Kali Age, (He) will be born with Buddha as His name, and as a son of Ajana in the Kīkaṭa country", refers to the Vishnu avatar, born 1800 BCE to a mother called Ajana, while Gautama was born to Maya. Hughes argues that Sugata Buddha, an epthet for the Buddha, refers to the Vishnu avatar.

That's all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

But I'm not sure if "Ajana" is supposed to be the mother's name.

Knapp writes "son of Anjana", which is an error that seems to have originated from A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's translation of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam; where he has transliterated बुद्धो नाम्नाजनसुतः ("with Buddha as His name, and as a son of Ajana") as buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ ("with Buddha as His name, and as a son of Añjana").

Many modern translations have changed Añjana to Añjanā; and since Añjanā is also the name of Hanuman's mother, I guess Knapp and others assume that Anjana (who is actually Ajana/Ajina/Jina) was a woman.

References

So I think it would be better to write "the Vishnu avatar, born 1800 BCE to Ajana, while Gautama was born to Maya and Śuddhodana."

Or should I keep the wrong spelling because that's what Knapp has used, and insert a note saying that it was wrongly transliterated?

Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Btw what do you think of this - https://www.jagran.com/bihar/aurangabad-shankaracharya-said-bhagwan-buddha-and-gautam-buddha-were-different-persons-14167888.html . Is this WP:RS ? Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Doniger explains it clear and correct: a(n)jana is jina, that is, a refefence to Jainism. The argument that the Buddha-avatar was not Gautama is 'mythology in progress'. I'm fine with your proposal to leave out "mother" in reference to Ajana. Doniger on jina should be added; and that's about it. No speculations about Knapp's interpretation; that would be WP:OR. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What about that news article by Dainik Jagran?

I Can't read Hindi... I've added info on the rejection of Buddh as an avatar of Vishnu; see Gautama Buddha in Hinduism#Rejection. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology

Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty (1988), The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, pp. 198 ff, contains usefull info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)