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.

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.
The wise were those who participated in the world, without getting attached to it. Photo: Singye
Wangchuk/Reuters

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.
Vishnu rests on Anant-Sesha. Photo: Blogger.com/Phanom Rung Historical Park
A cave in Ajanta depicts Buddha entering parinirvana. Photo: sjoneall.net

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, Vishnus 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.

.
.
.
.
, , .
.

.
.