Why Is Buddhism Perceived To Be An Atheist Religion, When Buddha Himself Was An Incarnation Of Vishnu???

Question

Diminati, Do you even know the history behind Buddhism??? It was born from Hinduism. Many Hindus consider Buddhism to be a part of Hinduism.

Michael, I have heard many stupid and ignorant people (most of whom have never even read the teachings of Buddha) say that Buddhism is an atheist religion and that it does not believe in divinity. This is 100% WRONG. Buddhism does believe in the concept of a god.

Diminati, any Tom , **** and Harry can publish articles on wikipedia. Just because there is an article on wikipedia, it doesn't men that it is of quality scholarship and it is neutral and impartial.

anger eating demon, r u calling me a fool?

The Bear. You are totally wrong. Buddha never rejected the vedas but contrary he wanted to implement the vedic philosophy more accurately. What he rejected was the misuse and the abuse of the vedas, for example the practice of animal sacrifice which he aboslutely deplored.

Secondly, those of you that have argued that Buddha never claimed to be a divine personality - well of course he wasn't going o go around saying "Hey Guys, I am god". Had he claimed to be a divine spirit, do you honestly think that anyone would have followed him??? Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Krishna, Guru Nanak, Zoroaster etc were ALL divine figures yet they never actually said that they were divine figures. These prophets, messengers and incarnations of the lord have always been humble. They would NEVER say that they were divine. Of course it doesn't imply that they were not.

Anger eating demon and Philps s, your knowledge about Buddhism is ZERO. You should feel ashamed to call yourself Buddhist. You are fakers. I suggest that you both go back and read Buddha's teachings more accurately!!!

Answer 1

Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 1 Chp3 TEXT 24

TEXT

tatah kalau sampravrtte
sammohaya sura-dvisam
buddho namnanjana-sutah
kikatesu bhavisyati

SYNONYMS

tatah--thereafter; kalau--the age of Kali; sampravrtte--having ensued; sammohaya--for the purpose of deluding; sura--the theists; dvisam--those who are envious; buddhah--Lord Buddha; namna--of the name; anjana-sutah--whose mother was Anjana; kikatesu--in the province of Gaya (Bihar); bhavisyati--will take place.

TRANSLATION

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

PURPORT

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gaya (Bihar) as the son of Anjana, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas. At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly. Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing. Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization. He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God. Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him.
Killing of animals before the advent of Lord Buddha was the most prominent feature of the society. People claimed that these were Vedic sacrifices. When the Vedas are not accepted through the authoritative disciplic succession, the casual readers of the Vedas are misled by the flowery language of that system of knowledge. In the Bhagavad-gita a comment has been made on such foolish scholars (avipascitah). The foolish scholars of Vedic literature who do not care to receive the transcendental message through the transcendental realized sources of disciplic succession are sure to be bewildered. To them, the ritualistic ceremonies are considered to be all in all. They have no depth of knowledge. According to the Bhagavad-gita (15.15), vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah: the whole system of the Vedas is to lead one gradually to the path of the Supreme Lord. The whole theme of Vedic literature is to know the Supreme Lord, the individual soul, the cosmic situation and the relation between all these items. When the relation is known, the relative function begins, and as a result of such a function the ultimate goal of life or going back to Godhead takes place in the easiest manner. Unfortunately, unauthorized scholars of the Vedas become captivated by the purificatory ceremonies only, and natural progress is thereby checked.
To such bewildered persons of atheistic propensity, Lord Buddha is the emblem of theism. He therefore first of all wanted to check the habit of animal-killing. The animal-killers are dangerous elements on the path going back to Godhead. There are two types of animal-killers. The soul is also sometimes called the "animal" or the living being. Therefore, both the slaughterer of animals and those who have lost their identity of soul are animal-killers.
Maharaja Pariksit said that only the animal-killer cannot relish the transcendental message of the Supreme Lord. Therefore if people are to be educated to the path of Godhead, they must be taught first and foremost to stop the process of animal-killing as above mentioned. It is nonsensical to say that animal-killing has nothing to do with spiritual realization. By this dangerous theory many so-called sannyasis have sprung up by the grace of Kali-yuga who preach animal-killing under the garb of the Vedas. The subject matter has already been discussed in the conversation between Lord Caitanya and Maulana Chand Kazi Shaheb. The animal sacrifice as stated in the Vedas is different from the unrestricted animal-killing in the slaughterhouse. Because the asuras or the so-called scholars of Vedic literatures put forward the evidence of animal-killing in the Vedas, Lord Buddha superficially denied the authority of the Vedas. This rejection of the Vedas by Lord Buddha was adopted in order to save people from the vice of animal-killing as well as to save the poor animals from the slaughtering process of their big brothers who clamor for universal brotherhood, peace, justice and equity. There is no justice when there is animal-killing. Lord Buddha wanted to stop it completely, and therefore his cult of ahimsa was propagated not only in India but also outside the country.
Technically Lord Buddha's philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of the Supreme Lord and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is an act of camouflage by the Lord. Lord Buddha is the incarnation of Godhead. As such, he is the original propounder of Vedic knowledge. He therefore cannot reject Vedic philosophy. But he rejected it outwardly because the sura-dvisa, or the demons who are always envious of the devotees of Godhead, try to support cow-killing or animal-killing from the pages of the Vedas, and this is now being done by the modernized sannyasis. Lord Buddha had to reject the authority of the Vedas altogether. This is simply technical, and had it not been so he would not have been so accepted as the incarnation of Godhead. Nor would he have been worshiped in the transcendental songs of the poet Jayadeva, who is a Vaisnava acarya. Lord Buddha preached the preliminary principles of the Vedas in a manner suitable for the time being (and so also did Sankaracarya) to establish the authority of the Vedas. Therefore both Lord Buddha and Acarya Sankara paved the path of theism, and Vaisnava acaryas, specifically Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, led the people on the path towards a realization of going back to Godhead.
We are glad that people are taking interest in the nonviolent movement of Lord Buddha. But will they take the matter very seriously and close the animal slaughterhouses altogether? If not, there is no meaning to the ahimsa cult.
Srimad-Bhagavatam was composed just prior to the beginning of the age of Kali (about five thousand years ago), and Lord Buddha appeared about twenty-six hundred years ago. Therefore in the Srimad-Bhagavatam Lord Buddha is foretold. Such is the authority of this clear scripture. There are many such prophecies, and they are being fulfilled one after another. They will indicate the positive standing of Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is without trace of mistake, illusion, cheating and imperfection, which are the four flaws of all conditioned souls. The liberated souls are above these flaws; therefore they can see and foretell things which are to take place on distant future dates.

Answer 2

I am a Sri Vaishnavite and I have been asked this question many times. Here is the answer.

Buddha was indeed Vishnu. Actually, during the time of Buddha, the Vedas were being misinterpreted. There is a Horse Sacrifice Ritual described in the Vedas, in which a person must let a Horse run around a Fire Altar and then set it free, so that it can roam wherever it pleases. However, people misinterpreted it and started killing Horses. In reality, you should NOT kill the Horse, but like I said before, set it free after circling the altar. Sanatana Dharma has always preached vegetarianism, so the Vedas never speak of animal slaughter.

When the Vedas say 'Sacrifice', it means shedding your negative ego. Lord Krishna aptly described it as 'detachment from material pursuits' in the Bhagavad Gita. There is no talk of killing helpless animals.

But anyway, during those times, such atrocities were being committed. Hence Buddha came. He knew that these atheists would never see reason, so the best solution would be to simply convert them into non-violent atheists and ensure that even if they didn't believe in God, they could lead a virtuous life.

Srimad Bhagavatam, written centuries before Buddha prophesised his coming. 'The Lord Hari would be born as Buddha, son of Anjana at Gaya, and he would mislead the Demons'. Buddha was a Shakti Avatar of Vishnu, i.e., he was a living soul endowed with a part of Vishnu's powers, unlike Lord Krishna, who was Vishnu Incarnate. And just as the Prophecy predicted, Buddha was raised by his grandmother Anjana and the Shakti avatar began when he attained enlightenment at Gaya, hence 'Born in Gaya'.

Buddha knew that Atheists would never follow Vedas properly, so he said 'If you can't do it properly, don't attempt it at all'. He never preached against the Vedas, as so many people think. When people asked him if God existed, He simply said 'Why worry about that? Concentrate on Enlightenment.'

Hindus don't worship Buddha simply because he was a Shakti Avatar, not a complete incarnation. It is similar to the reason why we don't worship Parashurama or Mohini either, who were both Shakti Avatars too.

This is also the reason why you must never equate Jesus or Mohammed with Lord Krishna, because only those historical persons who have been mentioned as Avatars in Srimad Bhagavatam are indeed so...Buddha has been prophesised, but Jesus and Mohammed never were. Any claims to the contrary are false and a deception. Some hatemongers even say Srimad Bhagavatam is only 1000 yrs. old. Not true, it was written immediately after the Mahabharata War.

The story of Buddha reveals that our dear Lord Krishna is indeed compassionate to all beings, including those who don't believe in Him. He came specifically to save atheists from Sin and you can see that Buddhism has spread to many parts of the world.

Answer 3

Hinduism considers every religion a part of Hinduism ;)

Seriously, though, Buddhism has become very, very widespread, not just physically, but philosophically. Tibetan Buddhism (especially Red Hat), for example, is absolutely not atheistic. But who can say what a Zen buddhist believes?

In addition, since the 50s, Buddhism has undergone even MORE change since it was introduced in the Americas. The version that was introduced to the US, primarily the Japanese Rinzai school, was not introduced hand-in-hand with more religious and mystical perspectives, such as Shinto. Which, really, answers your question; it's percieved as an atheist religion, because that's how it was introduced to people.

You may have historic validity regarding Siddhartha, but history isn't as important to some people as message and philosophy are. And each of those people makes up their own mind as to what is and isn't Buddhism.

If you want to change people's perspectives, you can't rely on being right alone. You have to remember that other people think they are just as right as you believe yourself to be.

Answer 4

There are many misperceptions about Buddhism, one of the greatest is that there is only one way to believe, or one 'path to enlightenment'.

Within Buddhism, there really is no meaningful distinction between 'philosophy' and 'religion', one must have both in order to have either.

Secondly, atheism generally is nihilistic. Buddhism is in no way nihilistic, and the question of whether and the manner in which, Buddhists believe in "G-d", god, or gods, varies dramatically from tradition to tradition and from individual to individual.

I think perhaps most of the confusion comes from what 'we' vs. 'they' think of as the meaning (or being) of G-d. It is always dangerous to generalize, however I am going to: Buddhists do not believe in a 'creator' G-d, and entity that is separate from, independent of, and superior to humans, but rather G-d as an intricately linked part of all things, and that we all have G-d-nature.

Whether or not Buddhism was borne of Hinduism, or whether the Buddha was a rebirth of Vishnu is completely irrelevant.

Also - note about reincarnation (Hindu) and rebirth (Buddhist): the concepts while similar in some respects, are not the same thing.

Answer 5

Because Theravada Buddhism, for example, is non-theistic. You can adhere to the 8-fold path, 4 Noble Truths, etc., without having to believe in deity. Theism is simply irrelevant to the structure. Other sects of Buddhism DO include deity and other notions of external, metaphysical entities, but not all of them.

"Atheism" = "a" + "theism" = without deity

And obviously, not all Buddhists view Buddha as being an Incarnation of Vishnu.

Answer 6

Brother, Lord Buddha is only considered the avatar of Lord Vishnu in the later period of history and just for historical sake, the Buddha himself was not generally accepted by the orthodox Hindus due to his rejection of the Vedic texts.

The Hindus generally accepted him to be an avatar of Vishnu when Buddhism was greatly influential in ancient India and seeing that the Buddha's teachings were threatening the survival of the old sects and ways (even during the time when the Buddha was alive, there were various sects/holy men who considered the Buddha to be an avatar of God/Gods but the Buddha himself rejected it).

In Dona Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 4:36) of the Pali Tipitaka you can find the conversation between Lord Buddha and Brahmin Dona:

"Master, are you a deva?"
"No, brahmin, I am not a deva."
"Are you a gandhabba?"
"No..."
"... a yakkha?"
"No..."
"... a human being?"
"No, brahmin, I am not a human being."
"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahmin, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahmin, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahmin, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahmin, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"

"Brahmin, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising.

"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahmin, as 'awakened.'

"The fermentations by which I would go to a deva-state,
or become a gandhabba in the sky, or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:
Those have been destroyed by me,
ruined, their stems removed.
Like a blue lotus, rising up,
unsmeared by water,
unsmeared am I by the world,
and so, brahmin,
I'm awake."

Prior to his final death (Parinibbana), Lord Buddha himself had declared to his disciples about the distortion of his teachings and how others may attempt to change what he had taught for their own gains. This very statement had also been the cause for the First Sangha Council after the parinibbana of Lord Buddha to be held in order to preserve what the Buddha had taught to avoid deviation from the actual teachings.

In the later centuries as predicted by the Buddha (it was said that the Buddha had forewarned the event of certain 'downfalls' of his teachings after 500 years), some had absorbed other traditional practices (and religion) into Buddhism in order to spread the teachings and adapt to the locality of its people. This had resulted in several schools of taught and some had contradicted to the original teachings of the Buddha.

You can consider Buddhism as an 'atheist' religion or a 'polytheistic' religion but none of them actually reflects on the real teachings of the Buddha as what the Buddha had actually taught was totally different from the views of Monotheism, Atheism or Polytheism. The Buddha had rejected the dependency of a personal God or a need for mantras in order to realize the Dharma.

It can be said that the term used for Dharma here (Sanatan Dharma/Universal Dharma) is applicable but definitions vary in most cases, for example, the Buddha had rejected the idea of creation, the superiority of God to men, etc.

Again, it cannot truly be said that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism as the term 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism' itself is a relatively new term used to differ the two different groups of religious movements in India. Hinduism itself has many different sects and schools where no single sect or school that agrees with one another. Buddhism happens to be in 'one' of those schools too, which makes them considered an 'offshoot' of Hinduism/a generic term to describe the origin of its religion.

Hope this helps :-)

Answer 7

Buddha was definitely a form of Vishnu, for sure you are right.

First of all, why Buddhism was born :

every religion has a purpose, for its self initiation. The ancient vedic religion and its followers started misusing the religion guidelines.

In veda in one part we have that if humans are in a condition that they have no herbal food and have to commit suicide, than it is okie to eat flesh.

This was heavily misused and killing of animals etc, and lot of flesh eating began. See in Buddha's life also the Swan he protected plays a major role and insists this only.


So, there was a need, and Buddhism came up with total Ahimsa : Bud sad part today it has been converted to a meditation religion, where importance is paid in achieving mystics and advanced meditation , and the basic rules are again neglected. Buddhists in china, hong kong etc eat everything from snake to earth worms.


No one is interested in Buddha,, everyone is just behind how he got enlightened, They don't want to follow him, but want to become one of him. Very sad.

and hence, it has become atheist in nature. this is what happens when one stops following god and wants to become god.

todays Buddhism is about mind practice, and achieving high mystic skills and power and all those exercises, and the final destination of this practice is to become Buddha himself. Ask any Buddhist if i am wrong.

just one line in above post, by tocktock tells what is truth.Thanks tocktock.

-- deito

Answer 8

Buddhism lets everyone in Atheist included. Later on if the true Buddha is seen one will know themselves. Buddhism just does not say you have to believe this or that but find out for yourself, wise words. Great question!

Answer 9

The Hindus claim Buddha but he never said that he was an incarnation of anyone...but I do agree that Buddhism is not atheistic.

Answer 10

Vishnu is a HINDU god, not Buddhist. There are some who practice a hybrid of the two religions, and may believe as you say. True Buddhists do not believe in any sort of personal deity

Answer 11

Buddhism is not an atheist faith and if some people think ...they have not understood buddhism well.

Buddhism believes in Karma, re-birth, power of Mantra...how it can be atheism

Buddha never denied the presence of god... he just kept quiet, because he did not want to invent another form of god ...and people start fighting in his name

Buddhism is an offshoot of hinduism and its roots are firmly fixed in Philosophy of Sanatan Dharma