For Buddhists, Buddha is not an avatar of Vishnu. For Hindus, he may be.
Buddhism rose in India 2,500 years ago. It played a key role
in spreading monastic ideas across the subcontinent. Before Buddhism,
the focus on religious life was the yagna ritual in which gods were
invoked for material gains. Great value was placed on social obligations
such as marriage and children. Introspective ideas were restricted to
the intellectual communities.
Buddha changed the rules of the game, and
discussed ideas of desire and suffering with the common folk, inviting
them to join the community (sangha) of monks and live in monasteries
(viharas) where one could get wisdom (bodhi) that would grant peace and
freedom. This became highly popular. The old ways were being abandoned.
Click here to read about Meera, a true devotee who will take your heart away
In response, Vedic Hinduism reframed itself to become
Puranic Hinduism, which brought hermit wisdom into the householder's
life. While Buddhist scholars focussed on negation of life, hence zero
(shunya), Hindu storytellers spoke of affirmation of life, hence
infinity (ananta). Life was full of joy and pleasure. The wise were not
those who renounced the world; the wise were those who participated in
the world, without getting attached to it. Stories of such wise men were
retold in epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. In temples, rituals
celebrated the marriage of gods and goddesses. Beauty and pleasure found
displays on temple walls. People spoke of the wise god, Vishnu, who
preserves the social order, and does not destroy it as monks do.
In Puranic lore, composed
around 1,500 years ago, while Brahma creates social order, he and his
children (for example, Indra) are not at peace with the world. Shiva
renounces the social order, becomes a hermit, and is at peace. Shakti
marries Shiva and gets him to participate in social life, but he remains
a reluctant participant, unable to appreciate social norms. Vishnu is a
fruitful member of the society, taking various mortal forms (avatar) -
at times priest (Vaman), at times king (Ram), at times cowherd
(Krishna) - living life fully, wisely, as he is enlightened in the ways
of the Veda.
Clearly, for more than a thousand years, Buddhism and
Hinduism were rivals. But they influenced each others' philosophies and
mythologies. Adi Shankaracharya was accused of being Prachanna Bauddha,
masking Buddhist ideas in Vedic lore, for example; and Buddhist concept
of heaven and hell reveal a strong Puranic influence
The value placed on the
household by Hindus, led to the old Theravada Buddhism transforming into
Mahayana Buddhism, where greater value was placed on Bodhisattva, who
is more compassionate and understanding of human material desires than
the enlightened Buddha. The importance given to hermits by Buddhists led
to Vedic Hinduism - which valued pitr-rin (debt to ancestors that was
repaid with marriage, children and family life) - to give greater
importance to gurus who embraced celibacy and renunciation, such as
Shankara and Ramanuja, and created monasteries (mathas) much like
Buddhist viharas. Buddhists told stories of how the Adi Buddha manifests
himself as Buddhas and Bodhisattvas for the benefit of humanity, an
idea that mirrored the popular concept of avatar found amongst Puranic
Hindus. Thus, for a long time, Hinduism and Buddhist mingled and merged.
It must be kept in mind that this differentiation between
Hinduism and Buddhism did not matter to the common folk who worshipped
both simultaneously, and did not distinguish between the two. In
Thailand, we find temples that celebrate Buddha and Ram simultaneously
as parts of the same discourse. The divide mattered to the Brahmin
community, and to the monastic orders, who were rivals seeking royal
patronage for their rituals and temples, and for the monasteries. Also,
words like Hinduism and Buddhism that we use today emerged in colonial
times, in 19th century. Before that, the words used were more
caste-centric. The argument was whether one followed the ways of Buddha
or the ways of Brahma (that is, the Vedas) or Shiva and Vishnu (that is,
the Puranas).
Initially, followers of the Vedas (Nigama traditions) were
opposed to followers of the Puranas (Agama traditions) as they valued
yagna rituals over the puja rituals of the temple. But gradually, the
Nigama and Agama schools merged, and the brahmachari-sanyasi acharyas
became heads of monastic orders as well as temples. This happened about a
thousand years ago. Around this time, Buddha came to be seen as an
avatar of Vishnu. However, this Buddha was not Gautama Buddha of the
Buddhists.
In some texts, such as Bhagvata Purana, Vishnu takes the
form of a hermit to trick asuras away from Vedic rituals, enabling devas
to defeat them. Here, the hermit is associated with Buddha as well as
Jina (from the monastic Jainism, another rival religion). In other
texts, such as Gita Govinda, Vishnu takes the form of a hermit to save
animals from animal sacrifices, referring to the idea that at least some
Vedic sacrifices involved offering of animals (an idea that many
orthodox Hindus reject and see as wrong interpretation). Over time,
Vishnu’s ninth avatar was seen as the hermit, perceived by some as
Buddha and by some as Jina. This was, perhaps, a strategic move to get
many Buddhists and Jains to become a part of Vaishnavism, and later
Hinduism. Or maybe it was a sincere move to show how, sometimes, to save
the world, Vishnu has to renounce the world and become a
hermit-teacher.
For the Buddhists, Sakyamuni Buddha is a historical figure
who lived 2,500 years ago, and a metaphysical figure (Adi Buddha) who
manifests as the compassionate Bodhisattva for the benefit of humanity.
There is no Vishnu, or Shiva, in their worldview. Different truths
exists in different periods of history and different geographies of the
world. We need to respect the faith of the faithful, rather than
imposing our views about who Buddha really was or was not. And, it is
important to recognise the politics underlying such assertions.
Source:www.dailyo.in
Comments
Post a Comment