That Buddhar or This Buddhar?

Updated on December 4, 2020 in Avatars
15 on December 3, 2020

Namaskaaram to all Bhaagavathas!

Adiyen found this verse in the Srimad Bhaagavatham interesting.

SB 1.3.24:

tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte
sammohāya sura-dviṣām
buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ
kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati

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

So it seems here kīkaṭeṣu means Gaya pradesham.
But the Gautama Buddha was born in a place called Lumbini in Nepal it seems. So as Velukkudi Swami has told in an Enpani audio titled “புத்தர் யார்?” he says that it is not necessarily that Gautama Buddha is necessarily same as the Buddha mentioned in Srimad Bhaagavatham.

Interested persons can share their thoughts on this subject matter. Adiyen might have a wrong understanding…

அடியேன்

 
  • Liked by
Reply
1 on December 3, 2020

Srimate Ramanujaya Namaha

There are 2 Buddhas. One is Jivatma Buddha or Fake Buddha. One is Narayana Avatar Buddha or Real Buddha.

Srimad Bagavatam says about Narayana Avatar Buddha.

People say mostly about Jivatma Buddha.

That verse is translated by Srila Prabhupada. He is very particular about such details. He is correct. Narayana Buddha appeared in Gaya.

Narayana Avatar Buddha appeared much much before Jivatma Buddha. Jivatma Buddha ate pigs. Could such things Narayan do? No.

Buddha ism what is practised in 21st century is different then what Narayana Avatar Buddha preached.

Do you know, there are 2 Kapilas. One is fake Kapila. One is real Narayana Avatar Kapila Muni, who is son of Mother Devahuthi

Adiyen

on December 3, 2020

Fake buddha means who’s existed is questioned. For convenience I will refer 1 buddha as Non Veg Buddha and another as Narayana Avatar Buddha

Adiyen

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
2 on December 3, 2020

I request to avoid using the word ‘fake’. Let us respect other religions as well. Let us be magnanimous in our approach.

adiyen

on December 3, 2020

Srimate Ramanujaya Namaha

Actually Fake word suits better because the very existence of Fake Buddha is questioned. I request you to study history of religions, especially about Buddha. Many scholars aruge, he never existed. I also doubt he ever existed? I firmly believe Fake Buddha never did. I didn’t write this because I felt its irrelevant. Narayana Avatar Buddha exist. Only.

Buddha in Buddhism means who is enlightened. it is actually a tittle. Not a person. like Sanyasi. It’s a tittle. Not a person. When one understand this, anyone can get why I used that word. This has nothing to do with Buddhism. It’s irrelevant that swamy you pointed respecting religious. Nothing to do with religion. It’s history.

Adiyen

on December 3, 2020

Swamy I changed “Fake” with “Non Veg” Buddha.

Adiyen

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
5 on December 3, 2020

Namaskaaram Swamis,

It looks like the discussion has turned towards another direction, which is also fine as that was also useful. I mainly created this post for several clarifications and allegations of Buddhists against Vedas.

 

By the way, the Buddhists are confused thinking that including Buddha as Lord Narayana’s Avataram is a plot of Sanatana dharmis to convert Buddhists as Hindus. So if we say that the Buddha we refer to and the Buddha they are worshipping are different, it would solve a lot of problems…

 

adiyen

on December 3, 2020

Srimate Ramanujaya Namaha

“So if we say that the Buddha we refer to and the Buddha they are worshipping are different, it would solve a lot of problems…”

Spot on. I agree swamy. That’s why I said that. I wanted to clearly differentiate between the two Buddhas. One Buddha ate Non Veg. Narayana never eats Non Veg! So our Narayana Avatar Buddha is totally different and has no correlation with Non Veg eating Buddha.

Adiyen

on December 3, 2020

Namaskaaram Acharya dasar Swami,

Yes swami adiyen agree all your points. All except the fact that Lord Narayana never eats non veg.

This is because it’s said that Lord Rama hunted several animals in the forest, and consumed them when He was with Mother Sita.

So by this adiyen not supporting meat-eating. But the laws for humans cannot be applied to him. Also if He descends in other yugas there is a chance He may consume meat. But, in Kali-yuga not necessarily as in Kali-yuga ahimsa is a very much recommended dharma

Devareer may reject my view, but adiyen presented my humble opinion.

அடியேன்

on December 3, 2020
So if we say that the Buddha we refer to and the Buddha they are worshipping are different, it would solve a lot of problems…From Shravanan Of Swami's Upanyasams

Namaskaaram Swami,

Although you have understood the above quote, for more clarity what adiyen was trying to tell was that, the truth should be well known to all. I am not trying to say that we should lie to others and make up stories. The above mentioned different Buddhas is what is the general understanding of Acharyas, not our made up stories… 

Although devareer has understood this, for the benefit of others, adiyen is mentioning this…

adiyen

on December 4, 2020

Srimate Ramanujaya Namaha

“This is because it’s said that Lord Rama hunted several animals in the forest, and ****consumed them**** when He was with Mother Sita.”

No! They didn’t. Sriman Narayana or Sita Mata or Sri Lakshman never ate or eat Non Veg!

I’m absolutely disheartened to read that. How can this be said in Sri Vaishnava platform? It’s such a offensive statement.

In olden times, Kshatriyas hunted animals. Not to eat them. But, to practise fighting skills. Even Arjun Pandavas did Hunting. Not to eat them, but to practise archery or skills.

Rama ate Non Veg. Rama was a misogynist. Rama was irresponsible husband who dumped his wife when pregnant. Rama doubted his wife by hearing a stupid washmen and did Agnipariksha, atheistic feminism vs Rama devaru etc – All are fiction. They never happened. it’s all done by Anti God Asuras. Don’t listen or agree or take side with them.

Even if they bring the verses which shows Sriman Rama or Sita Mata or Sri Lakshman ate Non Veg. I don’t agree.

It’s all editing by Asuras. I oppose them.

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

on December 4, 2020

Namaskaaram Swami,

 

Please forgive me…

 

adiyen

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
1 on December 4, 2020

Srimate Ramanujaye Namaha,

Swami appreciate your devotion to Lord Rama..but even if others present so we need not be concerned as Lord Rama who is the creator can do such acts and that will only liberate the animal..also yuga dharma is different in different yugas..this has been discussed extensively in another thread and also answered by Velukkudi swami..

Secondly even in the recent mahabhartam audios in the discussion between Yudhistar maharaj and Bheesma Dev.( After the war).yudhistar maharaj clarifies with Bheesma dev and says i cannot believe that kshatriyas can be vegetarians and still fight..for which bheesma dev says bheesma dev has been able.to do his service well despite being vegetarian. So this shows atleast until then pandavas and other kshatriyas had it as a norm as per that yuga dharma and as per their service of fighting religious wars they might have taken non veg.

But of course no one is eligible or required to apply them in these current days.

Dhanyosmi
Adiyen

on December 4, 2020

Srimate Ramanujaya Namaha

I’m not qualified and ask apologies to great Bhagavathas like you all swamy. But whatever Yuga Dharma it is, I will only agree that Sriman Rama or Sri Laxman or Vaishnavas like Pandavas don’t and never ate Non Veg.

Adiyen

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on December 4, 2020

Namaskaaram Acharya Dasar Swami,

Adiyen can understand devareer’s thoughts. But the above opinion is not of me but of a Sri Vaishnava  . Even adiyen felt a little disheartened by knowing several verses which indicated that Lord Rama ate meat at first.

 

Maybe devareer should hear Mahabharatham audio no. 73. A similar discussion is there by our Velukkudi Swami. 

 

“Rama was a misogynist. Rama was irresponsible husband who dumped his wife when pregnant. Rama doubted his wife by hearing a stupid washmen and did Agnipariksha, atheistic feminism vs Rama devaru etc – All are fiction.”

 

Yes, I agree this statement. They are all not the correct interpretation. 

 

Adiyen feel sorry to have hurted devareer.

 

adiyen

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on December 4, 2020

Namaskaaram Swamis,

The answer in Enpani 1947 is slightly related to the intention of my question in the thread, as some Buddhists speak ill of those who are Vaidikas.

I sincerely thank Velukkudi Swami for such a beautiful answer…

அடியேன்

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
Loading more replies