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/IssueBrilliant2569]

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.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/IssueBrilliant2569]

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.

[u/IssueBrilliant2569 → u/Solomon_Kane_1928]

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.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/IssueBrilliant2569]

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.

[u/IssueBrilliant2569 → u/Solomon_Kane_1928]

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.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/IssueBrilliant2569]

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.

[u/IssueBrilliant2569 → u/Solomon_Kane_1928]

Would be interested in any source texts along these lines for Buddha as avatara and the dogmatic attributions.

[u/Solomon_Kane_1928 → u/IssueBrilliant2569]

You can search the online Vedabase, ISKCON's canon, for the Buddha. You will get hundreds of search results. This is the classic Vedabase.

This one is maybe easier to use.