Were there two Buddhas?

Buddha’s “avtāratva” has been a topic of contraversy for a while, with different groups making different claims about it.

There’s a new theory, which I saw many Neo-Vaiṣṇava groups propagating, of the 2 buddhas: Viṣṇu incarnate Ādi Buddha and the other being Śākyamuni of Buddhism, as two seperate personalities, based on the minute differences in Buddha myths from the Vaiṣṇava texts and Śākyamuni’s story in Buddhist texts. They cite the details mentioned in the Bhāgvata Puruāṇa to claim that Viṣṇu-incarnate Buddha was a different person born centuries before the Gautama Buddha, gave teachings of compassion and leaving animal slaughter, then centuries later Siddhārtha came to bodh gaya, gained enlightenment there as the place had increased spiritual potency, for being the birthplace of Avatāra Buddha.

But do these differences in details from the Bhāgvata Purāṇa actually make the Avatāra Buddha a separate person from Siddhārtha of Lumbini?

So, As per the logic of this theory the Kṛṣṇa and Rāma of the Jātakas, the Jain Purāṇa texts and the Sikh Dasam Granth can be said as different persons from Kṛṣṇa and Rāma of Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa; Kṛṣṇa of Śiva Purāṇa would be different person from Kṛṣṇa of Bhāgvata Purāṇa. The Isa, Musa, Yahya, Ibrahim, Maryam, Dawood, etc of Quran would be different from the Jesus, Moses, John, Abraham, Mary, David, etc of bible. But is it so?

No. The truth is these are essentially the same figures, but just co-opted in the respective tradition and canonized in it with certain unique distinctive features of that particular tradition.

These canonizations and co-optations have been an extremely common practice in every religion. The entire Vedic Pantheon is similarly co-opted and canonized in the Buddhist and Jain mythology as well. Likewise Sikhs also canonized the mainstream Hindu Purāṇa lores in their canon, including the Viṣṇu incarnate Buddha. Almost every prominent or significantly impactful personality(Kapila, Buddha, Yājñavalkya, Aṣṭāvakra, Parāśara, Gautama, Aṅgirasa, Bṛhaspati) from the Axial Age has been canonized in the Purāṇa texts. Even the greeks, scythians, parthians, hunas, chinese, romans, Persians are canonized in the epic literature as well.

So Buddha Avatāra of Vaiṣṇava texts is basically a co-optation of Buddha into Vaiṣṇava mythology with certain alterations. Similarly the Rāma and Kṛṣṇa of Bauddha Jātaka fables are canonization of those 2 into Buddhist mythology.

The differences between Viṣṇu Buddha and the Śramaṇa buddha are there or added probably to assert that their’s is the true story and rest are false or later deviations by the other denominations. We see this phenomena happening in every religion.

For e.g. Vimalasuri in his Paumacariya(the oldest Jaina Rāmāyaṇa), criticizes Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa a lot, calling it false and presents his version as true story of Rāma. See – Jaina Rāmāyaṇas

Muslims claiming that Isa(Jesus) wasn’t the son of God, but a messenger only and all the Prophet’s right from Abraham were Muslim only.

Sikhs stating that Avatāra aren’t God actually descending on Earth, but agents of God.

Vaiṣṇava claiming that Ādi Śaṅkarācarya was actually Śiva incarnated on Viṣṇu’s behest to delude the Buddhists by preaching false doctrines or Madhvas claiming he was rebirth of Maṇimān. Or Kapila was a bhakta, not an atheist.

Arya Samaj claiming Rāma and Kṛṣṇa were ideal men, not God-incarnates, and making Kṛṣṇa, Draupadī monogamous; Vānara as forest dwelling Human tribes.

ISKCON claiming Vallabha to be father-in-law of Caitanya and getting ‘svapna-dikṣā’ from Caitanya in later years of his life. Prabhupada calling Muhammad, Jesus as Vaiṣṇava.

Buddhists claiming that Brahmā isn’t a creator deity, but a leading god only, but still lower than Buddha. Same with Indra, Viṣṇu, etc. Or Kṛṣna being Śāriputra. Or Jains claiming the origin of Vedas from Marici, a previous birth of Mahāvīra. Read – Hindu Self-Identity & its position in Indian Religions

Similar type of differences can also be seen in Rama’s story present in the Jātaka tales and the one in Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. See here – Buddhist Rāmāyaṇas.

The same apologists who are propagating this two buddha theory, will call the Rāma of the Jātaka as Buddhist appropriation of Rāma.

These people also emphasise on Bhāgvata Purāṇa mentioning him as ‘Sugata’, thus inferring that this was Sugata Buddha, a different person from Gautama Buddha. But Sugata is just an epithet of Buddha, describing an aspect of his enlightenment, used multiple times to address him in both Pali and Sanskrit texts. This is an argument just for the sake of an argument, showing only the desperateness and obliviousness of the people pointing it out as a difference.

None of the traditional acārya mentioned anything about the two Buddhas.

Ādi Śaṅkarācarya and Rāmānuja, both staunch anti-buddhist/Buddha, never said anything Buddha being an Avatāra at all, nor did they quote Bhāgvata Purāṇa in any of their works, which shows that this Purāṇa was compiled or finished compiling after them.

None of the other later traditional bhāṣyas or texts mention 2 buddha or Viṣṇu Buddha to be separate from Bhikkhu Buddha. Like Śaṅkarācarya does in case of Kapila in his bhāṣya of the Brahma Sūtra or Madhva with Kṛṣṇa in his Chāndogya Upaniṣad bhāṣya.

Such a key detail should definitely be mentioned by any of the acārya, had this been the traditional view, because there are multiple precedents of commentator pointing such things out in their works.

The initial story of Buddha Avatāra was different from what we finally see in the Bhāgvata Purāṇa or Jayadeva’s Daśavatāra Stotram.

The historical traditional views, while all claiming that Buddha to be an Avatāra, differed about nature of the Avatāra. Sometimes depicted as a preacher who deludes and leads asuras and heretics away from the path of the Vedic scriptures, but another view praises him a compassionate teacher who preached the path of ‘ahiṃsā’.

Not everyone believed buddha to be an Avatāra, as already aforementioned about Ādi Śaṅkarācarya and Rāmānuja.

The Viṣṇu Purāṇa mentions ‘Māyāmoha’, an illusionary form of Viṣṇu brought into existence to delude the Asuras from following the Vedas and teach them heretical doctrine, deceive them from pursuing Vedic Sacrifices, thus diminishing their merits they gained from following Vedas, making them vulnerable to be easily vanquished by the Devas.

However, Viṣṇu Purāṇa credits Māyāmoha to be the progenitor of Buddhism, Jainism and Cārvāka, not just Buddhism.

Another version places the Māyāmoha meeting the Asuras, before the destruction of Tripurāsura by Śiva, in which Viṣṇu took the illusionary form to preach false doctrines to Asuras for the same purpose mentioned in Viṣṇu Purāṇa version, which ultimately results in the annihilation of the 3 Asura cities by Śiva.

Another version of the Tripurāsura destruction story and Buddha states that Viṣṇu took the form to destroy the ‘pativratya’ of Rākṣasa women by teaching them ‘unrightful’ things, since the Rākṣasa were shileded by the piousness of their wives.

Madhva, the founder of dvaita sect, made Gautama seperate from Māyāmoha, relating it to the rebirth of Tripurāsura, but a Viṣṇu Avatāra only. Read – Is Buddha in dashavatara?

Then in some regional versions prevalent in Odisha, Jagannātha is considered to be a manifestation of Kṛṣṇa as Ādi-Buddha and Gautama an incarnation of Jagannātha-Buddha.

The transition from initial versions of Buddha-Avatāra stories antagonising the Buddhists, when Buddhists were still an intellectual force to reckon with, to a ‘compassionate enlightened teacher’ when Buddhism declined to obscurity and ceased to be a major threat, can be clearly seen in canonical texts.

And now this latest claim of two Buddhas is because of the Asian spread of Buddha and politics of Ambedkar and Leftists, which raises questions on the veracity of Hindu beliefs.

In India the Vaiṣṇava were the masters in co-opting important people from other traditions and canonizing them as their own in some way or other. Buddha is not the only one who suffered this fate, many more are there. Read : Vaiṣṇavism and Avatāravāda.

Buddha Avatāra is just hyped because of the same reasons this two Buddha theory came up. Otherwise Buddha-Avatāra plays hardly any significant role in what commonly constitutes of contemporary Hindu beliefs.

Buddhism as a religion was established primarily on the basis of incultration and co-optation. Buddha’s teachings primarily focused on monasticism, not giving much for the laymen. Common folk used to continue practicing their native customs, while being followers of Buddha, which resulted in many native customs getting intertwined with Bauddha-dhamma. This and The similarities between Jātaka stories about Bodhisattvas and Other stories of Viṣṇu’s other incarnations also might have contributed in paving the way to co-optation of Śākyamuni as Viṣṇu incarnate.

So , to answer the question: no there’s been only one “historical” buddha, i.e. the Śākyamuni, who eventually got co-opted as Viṣṇu-incarnate in Purāṇa texts lateron.

My Opinion

This is nothing just an apologist whitewash attempt to justify the actions of their traditional predecessors. Acceptance of Buddha as Avatāra or any other Avatāra is purely a matter of faith. Faith in the scriptures. Complete faith in the particular tradition one subscribes to. There is nothing about it other than what is available from the traditional sources. If someone is looking some evidence of it, then its a waste of time. There’s no evidential sense to it, but just complete blind faith. Like Muslims unapologetically claim the entire Biblical Pantheon or Christians claim Jesus to be the descendant of David, hence the Messiah. They don’t come up with such theories.

If these people can accept an elephant god, a man-lion hybrid god, a wild boar lifting the earth, a dwarf scaling the sky, a mountain raising so high obstructing the path of sun, a talking crow, a giant serpent lifting the universe on its back, then why being so defensive on claiming Buddha now?

Follow us on Facebook and Instagram.