perfectbite

Just out of curiosity. How was it decided that Siddartha Gautama Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu? What general Hindu body made such a determination and pronouncement and how did they make it 'stick' and who's avatar would Bodhidharma be? Thanks.

premjan

I'm pretty sure that Vishnu is the only one who has real "avatars" (there are supposed to be ten of them). I would not be surprised if Adi Shankara was the one responsible for turning Buddha into a Vishnu Avatar (he also postulated the five-God version of Hinduism with Brahma Vishnu Shiva Ganesh and Durga) since he was the one attributed responsibility for the renovation of Hinduism in Nepal the Buddha's birthplace.

Dharma

well attained himalayan yogis,monks and highly spiritually attained people used to convene along various holy sites in India and make these determinations, they make it stick by putting them in certain books which lists spiritual accomplishments of various people, these books are handed down from generation to generation by spiritual lineage sects/families of brahmins.

Noone has determined Bodhidharma's lineage, since he probably attained stuff in China and noone is aware of his full spiritual attainments or whether he documented it, it might be kept secret in Shaolin temple in China.

From legends, Bodhidharma was able to walk on water on some river all the way to some place just to meditate when he first came to China, so he equalled or exceeded Christ right from the outset. :thumbs:

Dharma

Shiva has partial avatars since noone can know ALL of SHiva...Shiva avatars are all the Nath, Tantrik sects..

perfectbite

I was looking for Nalanda's history when I came across this web site in a Google search and in a conversation from 2003, Hinduwoman had referenced Nalanda (amongst other centers of learning) and she had also mentioned Adi Shankara (was he the debator par excellence?) his name wasn't familiar to me and also, sad to say, although I know many of the illustrated Hindu deities by their 'marks' I cannot identify Durga. What is Durga's 'specialty'? Could Durga's 'deity' have distinct avatars and is it possible that Shiva is nothing but avatars and that his representation is actually as an 'umbrella' deity for all of his avatars? Thanks.

premjan

Durga is a prototype of a "woman in anger" or a "strong woman" who takes justice into her own hands. There is a wikipedia page on her. She rides a lion and slays the evil demon Mahisha(sura) who took the form of a (water) buffalo. She has one avatar according to that page (Annapoorna). Actually she would be a surrogate for the "goddess" forces (Shakti) in general and as such would be identified with any female deity.

Ganesh is Shiva's son, a jolly and food-loving scribe with an elephant's head (a bit of a Santa Claus) who is wise enough to remove obstacles from one's way (with the alacrity of an elephant perhaps).

Adi Shankara is indeed best known for his debate and organizing skills.

There is a legend of a competition between Vishnu and Brahma who both tried to find the ultimate ends of Shiva (manifest as a pillar stretching to infinity at either end) and neither could, but Brahma was punished for having lied that he had found it. I am sure Dharma might be able to give the spiritual reason behind why there is no complete manifestation to Shiva whereas for Vishnu there are three (Narasimha, Rama and Krishna). Perhaps Vishnu is perfection incarnate whereas Shiva is transcendent (so no particular form can capture him). Maybe perfection incarnate is an illusion which is why several avatars of Vishnu are needed from time to time to redefine the ideal of perfection.

Seems like there is a six-God decomposition of Hinduism as well (Ganesha, Vishnu, Siva, Surya, Sakti and Skanda). And perhaps there is no Brahma (creator) in this sect (Smarta Panchayatana) but only Surya (the sun).

Answerer

Bodhidharma was the first master and founder of Ch'an sect in China. And he didn't have an avatar. He came to China after his guru's death during the Sui dynasty period.

perfectbite

Thank you, it occured to me that I was so involved with trying to make the concept of a person's name and view fit in with another being's qualities, who would belong to who, that I should have written 'whose' avatar would Bodhidarma be instead of 'who's' as in whose is the atavar that that person is of then? Multiple personalities would have to generate their own syntax to rationally talk of them.

I find it interesting that Hinduism is willing to declare its own people and others (i.e. Christ) to be avatars but seems to be content to let their own of significant spiritual accomplishment and renown not to be assigned an avatar deity if their involvement with Hinduism is very minimal even though those possible candidates for avatarhood may have expounded on and continue the supreme form of a non-Brahmin, Hindu spirituality. Hinduism, with its universally applicable emphasis on consciousness, relegated to a mere regional religion? Say it ain't so.

As far as Ganesh goes, in February's Scientific American from the 50 to 100 and 150 years ago column is the story of a steam engine in the U.S. pulling a circus train in 1905 that ran out of water for steam very shortly after it had filled its water tender up. It was found that an open hatch had allowed an elephant to snake its trunk from its boxcar to the water tender and it had done so repeatedly and had thoroughly soaked every other animal in the boxcar with that water. That elephant probably thought it was funny but the other animals were soaking wet and apparently miserable.

As far as Durga goes, at first I wondered if the Hindu concept of womanhood was confined to women being either content, if not downright happy, amorously satisfied consorts or independent powerful and angry beings like Kali and Durga but I am now wondering if it is actually a case of Hindu womanhood and, by extension, worldwide womanhood themselves resisting and refusing both categorization and definition but allowing that somewhere between these two extremes womanhood may reside depending on the woman.

Thank you for your replies.

hinduwoman

I would say that it is diffcult to ascertain how Buddha ended up as an avatata and when. Adi Sankara was certainly a factor but as far back as 600 A. D Buddhism and Hinduism was merging together. Hindu deities ended up in the Buddhist mythology while Buddhist divinities found their way in the Puranic pantheon. By 700 A.D more or less we have Vishnu-Buddha.

However Buddha as an avatar has an interesting history. In some puranas Vishnu became Buddha to lure people and demons astray; they left the Vedas and so were destroyed. But in other puranas Visnu incarnated himself as Buddha out of compassion to animals to stop sacrifices and preach non-violence.

On the other hand Buddhists took over Rama as a Boddhisattva.

Perfectbite, Durga is pictured as riding on a lion, with ten arms carrying weapons and slaying a demon. In Sakta worship she is the Mother of the universe and other goddesses are her manifestations.

Hinduism has a plethora of goddesses; the nature and powers of the lower level ones, particularly the humans who became goddesses make it very confusing when it comes to woman’s emancipation question.
You can read this book Is goddess a feminist?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...752330-8604141

Or you can go here for a basic reading by believers:
http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/Reso...boardmain.html

perfectbite

I have often wondered why Buddhism took such a nosedive in Hindu Indian thought and belief.

Buddhist hierarchies, given their emphasis on the study of the Buddhist Suttas and Sutras, seem to invariably, inevitably degenerate into an orthdoxy which views enlightened texts as an object of study with the possible byproduct of that study being the attainment of enlightenment and not the other way round and the concentration of centralized Hindu Indian Buddhist universities which, considering just the food and sanitation requirements at that time, must have placed extreme stress on the local farmers and nearby ecologies (especially as it seems to have been China and not India that considered human 'night soil' to be a valuable fertilizer).

Was it a general loss of belief in the efficacy of Buddhist thought or was it that the Buddhist Universities became way too expensive (and probably way too authoritarian) to support any more?

I suppose my question is 'Did Hinduism give up its association with Buddhism willingly or reluctantly?'