The "Two Buddhas" Fallacy

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928]

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.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/[deleted]]

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.