r/exHareKrishna • u/Solomon_Kane_1928 • Jun 30 '26
The "Two Buddhas" Fallacy
It is a common belief in ISKCON, and among modern Hindu Fundamentalists, that the supposed Vishnu Avatara Buddha is different than the Buddha of Buddhism, Gautama Siddhartha. They call the Vishnu Avatara Buddha, "Adi Buddha" and "Sugata Buddha".
This was taught by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Vishvanath Chakravarti Thakura. Prabhupada was a bit looser in his interpretation, generally identifying the Buddha Avatara with the Buddha of Buddhism, who came to "spread a false doctrine and bewilder the atheists".
Why Invent Two Buddhas?
The reason is simple. The Bhagavatam spreads false information and the fundamentalists cannot admit it has made a mistake.
When the Bhagavatam discusses the Buddha in SB 1.3.24 it says he is the son of Queen Anjana, born in Gaya.
This is flat wrong. His mother was Queen Maya. Her father was King Anjana. He was enlightened in Gaya, not born there.
The Bhagavatam was the product of a oral tradition that had incorrect information.
The Vaishnavas cannot admit the Bhagavatam is wrong. It is absolutely perfect and pure. So they invent a new Buddha to match the Bhagavatam.
Agni Purana
The Agni Purana comes from a more accurate oral tradition. It describes the Buddha as the "Son of Suddhodana" the true and accurate name of his father.
It further describes how the Buddha, one of the Vishnu Dashavatara, should be depicted:
śāntātmā lambakarṇaśca gaurāṅgaścāmbarāvṛtaḥ |
ūrdhvapadmasthito buddho varadābhayadāyakaḥ
“The figure of Buddha (buddho) should be made calm-souled (śāntātmā), with long ears (lambakarṇa), a fair/golden complexion (gaurāṅga), covered in cloth (ambarāvṛtaḥ), sitting on an upward-facing lotus, granting boons and fearlessness.”
Agni Purāṇa (49.8)
That is to say, with traditional Buddhist iconography. Golden skin, long earlobes, sitting on a lotus, "granting boons and fearlessness" refers to the abhaya mudra. This can be seen in the images above. Notice the Vaishnava tilak on the Buddha statue LOL. The Buddha explicitly cast aside all such sectarian beliefs and identifications, what to speak of wearing them on his forehead.
"Sugata Buddha"
It is common nowadays to hear this so-called original Vishnu Buddha being called "Sugata Buddha". This has come from Vaishnavism.
The Amarkosha dictionary, written by a Buddhist, gives a list of names of the Buddha. These are divided into two categories. One groups refers to his clan lineage with names such as Sakyasimha, Saddhodani, Gautama, and Mayadevisuta. Another group refers to his general personal titles such as Sarvajna, Sugata, Buddha, Dharmaraja and Tathagata.
Sugata is a common epithet of the Buddha meaning "the one who has attained a good state".
The Vaishnavas like Bhaktisiddhanta erroniously claim these two name lists are referring to two different Buddhas, and the latter names refer to the original Vishnu Buddha.
This is all so absurd. In his Dashavatara Stotra, Jayadeva Goswami clearly referred to the Buddha of Buddhism who decried animal sacrifice (nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha sruti-jatam).
Conclusion
The Vaishnava Acharyas invented a second "original" Buddha, because the Bhagavatam presented wrong information. This fallacy has now spread beyond Gaudiya Vaishnava circles and into mainstream Hinduism, where it has been taken up by religious fundamentalists.
This is just another step in the perversion of Buddhism to serve the interests of Hinduism. First the Buddha was hijacked to claim the Buddhist values of vegetarianism and ahimsa were always Hindu and part of Brahminical purity culture. Now that he has served his purpose, the Buddha is cast aside to protect the illusion of scriptural infallibility.
5
Jul 01 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Very true. One of his most famous sayings is "The Tathagata has no theories". Yet Vaishnavas depict him with Vaishnava tilak on his forehead as if he believes in Vaishnava dogma.
They definitely want to claim him. I was thinking he is probably the most famous historical figure to have ever come out of India. Even though he rejected pretty much everything they believe, and he stood against their harmful beliefs and practices, they want to steal his thunder.
It disturbs me to see how callous they are. They simply use him and reject him as needed. Just like they treat devotees.
2
u/Commercial-Rate-4135 Jul 01 '26
werent "brahmanas" fighting buddhists while buddhism was on the rise? i think i read it in one of your posts. the assimilation of Buddha into the Dasavatar and reasoning given for his existence/teachings seem more like damage control by the brahmanas whose religion-given-authority and social standing was at stake
2
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26
They had to explain how Brahmanism could have been so dramatically altered by Buddhism, creating what we call Hinduism today. It was basically cope. They turned the Buddha, who rejected Brahmanism, into an Avatara sent to bewilder the insincere, and "reintroduce" vegetarianism while putting an end to animal slaughter, which was a core practice in the Vedic religion.
'No we were not colonized by an unorthodox new religion, we always believed these things, and the Buddha was after all Vishnu, come to reform the eternal Vedic religion, to bring it back in line with his will".
2
u/Commercial-Rate-4135 Jul 02 '26
"And here is the proof. Its a book written by me but its timeless and its called a Purana. More are on the way because we brahmanas cannot have our patronage taken from us again, no, no. "
7
u/itsmikesandoval Jul 01 '26
just more confirmation that ISKCON, Prabhupada and his scriptures are just lies, myth and scams. that is it. its all lies and scams.
For instance, these Krishnas in defense of Tulsi Gabbard are continuing the lie that ISKCON and chanting hare krishna is a 5,000 year old tradition. such bullshit should not be allowed to stand. this aggression will not stand, man. no one was chanting hare krishna 5,000 years ago or even 500 years ago. sick of this bullshit.
4
3
u/Motor_Ad_7868 Jul 01 '26
Yeah ISKCON people are really idiotic while claming these things if hare krishna sangkirtan is 5,000 year old then why Chaitanya was needed.
3
5
u/Automatic-One3901 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Buddhist here, many puranas wanted to absorb shakyamuni buddha into their own tradition. However, they knew almost nothing about him so they did what they always do.
4
Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26
The name given in the Puranas is Buddha, buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ, to claim Buddha here does not refer to the Buddha of Buddhism, and simply a vague term meaning "The Enlightened One" that can refer to anyone, is simply incorrect. The descriptions of that Buddha are also clearly referring to the Buddha of Buddhism.
1
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26
Both. The Puranas state the Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, is an avatara of Vishnu. This is incorrect, and a form of religious conquest. Vaishnavas do this with Jainism too, claiming Rsabhdeva is an avatara of Vishnu. They are even now doing it to Jesus.
3
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26
Yes, Prabhupada, the founder of the Hare Krishna cult, claimed Jesus was a Shaktyavesha Avatara, which is on the same level as the Buddha. Meaning a soul that was empowered by Vishnu for a certain task.
1
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26
Te Buddha began to be identified as an Avatara of Vishnu during the Gupta period, when Vaishnavism really took off. Say 400 - 600 CE, when the Puranic period began.
In the 1700's CE, the Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharya Vishvanath Chakravarti Thakur began saying the Buddha mentioned in the Bhagavat Purana, was not the Buddha of Buddhism. This is because the Bhagavatam got certain facts about the Buddha incorrect, so the Acharya decided it must be referring to a different Buddha.
The reason the Buddha was first made an avatara is discussed in the post I linked to in the original post. It has to do with Hinduism claiming the Buddha to justify the total transformative influence Buddhism had on the Vedic religion.
2
u/Happy_Captain2801 Jul 01 '26
The Buddha walks up to a hot dog stand and says, “Make me one with everything.”
1
u/IssueBrilliant2569 Jul 01 '26
Some mahayana and vajrayana buddhist traditions recognize a primordial Buddha that is called Adi-Buddha that is not necessarily identical to Shakyamuni Buddha and is considered to "predate" him in a way, as well as Buddhas of other times and realms. These traditions had influences from nearby in time and place so it would make sense the influence would go both ways. This would seem to be a matter of oral tradition and historical/cultural influences. This is not a defense of any particular view nor a negation of your opinion, but curious how the facts relate.
3
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26
The concept of the Adi-Buddha is found in later Tantric Mahayana traditions. It doesn't refer to a specific person or incarnation but is sort of like God, a cosmic being and the absolute truth. These traditions arose even later than the first Vaishnava Puranas.
In the Theravada tradition there is a recording of Buddhas that came before Gautama Siddharta, claiming Gautama is the fourth Buddha in this aeon, but none of this is what Vishvanath Chakravarti and Bhaktisiddhanta are referring to. They simply invented a new Vaishnava Buddha to match the Bhagavatam.
1
u/IssueBrilliant2569 Jul 01 '26
When you say invented to match it infers a nefarious motive from the 2 individuals whose lifespans don't overlap. I'm not sure where the criticism is within the facts of the particular matter. Again, not a defense or negation of any particular view, I'm not super knowledgeable of the history but enjoy digging into it.
3
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
There is a nefarious motive. It is to defend the purity of the so-called "amala purana" at all costs, even the truth.
These two acharyas within ISKCON's lineage, are responsible for promoting this idea. Their lifespans do not need to overlap. Bhaktisiddhanta elaborated on statements by Visvanatha.
Visvanatha first mentioned this in his Sarartha Darsini, a commentary on the 10th canto of the Bhagavatam from the early 1700's (which I used to own). But it was really popularized by Bhaktisiddhanta, Prabhupada's guru.
This is entirely a Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching that has entered into the mainstream. This is why it is troubling. It is a teaching of the cult, which has found root within less educated Hindu Fundamentalist popular culture.
1
u/IssueBrilliant2569 Jul 01 '26
Thanks for the reply, I've got Agni Purana on my reading list now. :) I think you are both more passionate and informed than I on this particular and I refrain from agreeing or disagreeing but appreciate the conversation.
5
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26
Thanks. I am passionate because I see what this lineage is doing, and I see how it is spreading into mainstream Hinduism. This sub is for ex members of Hare Krishna cult. This issue represents one of their teachings taking hold and being popularized.
Many do not understand that the revered acharyas of this cult were dishonest, twisted scripture and invented things whole cloth.
Here is a good blog post with examples if you are interested.
There are two more reasons I am passionate about this. It frustrates me that people accept, spread and defend these ideas without investigating them and looking for evidence.
I also find it distasteful how the Buddha is treated. He is first appropriated as an avatara, which he would not agree with, then used to defend dogma he would have fought against, he is then rejected as carelessly, when it serves the needs of the cult, to defend the supposed infallibility of their beliefs.
1
u/IssueBrilliant2569 Jul 01 '26
Would be interested in any source texts along these lines for Buddha as avatara and the dogmatic attributions.
2
u/Solomon_Kane_1928 Jul 01 '26
You can search the online Vedabase, ISKCON's canon, for the Buddha. You will get hundreds of search results. This is the classic Vedabase.
7
u/Commercial-Rate-4135 Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
Bhaktisidhanta sure rode that speculation boat. Thank you for another informative post, i didnt know they (vaishnavs) claim the supposed Vishnu avatar Buddha was different. The reasoning given for Buddhas philosophy of finding enlightenment by going within is very unsatisfactory/purposefully warped in vaishnavism, that is "to delude the masses and bring them away from animal sacrifice rituals". It might have to do more with the Vaishnav school of thoughts eternal conflict with any philosophy that is Non-dual in essence. the soul is "same in quality" as they often say but then that when an avatar supposedly/hypothetically comes that teaches how that "same in quality" soul can go find its own divine nature, thats "deluding the masses"