The Buddha As Avatara of Visnu in The Mahapurana

The Journal of Hindu Studies 2021;1–19 doi:10.
1093/jhs/hiab006
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

The Ambivalence of the Hindus: The Buddha as
ra of Visnu in the Maha
Avata puranas
__ _
and Beyond
Bradley S. Clough*
*Corresponding author: bclough9377@gmail.com
Abstract: This article examines the formation of Vaisnava theology’s conception of

_ _ Supreme Lord Visnu, with
the Buddha as an avatara or ‘divine incarnation’ of their
a focus on the mahapuranas. My aim is to move beyond the synthetic_ kinds _ of
_
treatment that have typified most of the scholarly investigations of this phenom
enon, by attending more closely to the dynamic historical development of the
Buddhavatara idea than previous efforts appear to have done. Contrary to con
clusions drawn by earlier studies, which assert that this concept followed decidedly
unidirectional and unvarying patterns of development, the thesis that I will sup
port maintains that great variety and ambivalence is evident in this idea’s creation
and articulation in these vitally central Hindu scriptures.
With respect to Hindu traditions assimilating Buddhist ones, a major theme of

this issue of JHS, the phenomenon that this article endeavours to examine is the
development of Vaisnava1 theology that conceives of the Buddha as an avatara2 or
_
‘divine incarnation’ _(literally, ‘descent’) of the ısvara or ‘Supreme Lord’ known as
Visnu, with a focus on the mahapuranas, a major scriptural corpus within their litera-
_ _ My aim is to move beyond the synthetic
ture. _ kinds of treatment that have seemingly
typified most of the scholarly investigations of this phenomenon to date, by attend-
ing more closely to the dynamic historical formation of the Buddhavatara idea than
previous efforts appear to have done. Contrary to the conclusions drawn by earlier
studies, the thesis that I will provide evidence and arguments for here is that rather
than follow quite unidirectional and unvarying patterns of development, this
concept was expressed with great variety and ambivalence over the course of the
creation and articulation of these vitally central Hindu3 scriptures.
Theories about the historical development of the Buddhavatara theology

It is well established that it is very difficult to fix dates for the different mahapuranas,
due to the fact that our knowledge of their mode of composition and compilation into _
V
C The Author(s) 2021. Oxford University Press and The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email journals.permissions@oup.com

2 The Buddha as Avatara of Visnu in the Mahapuranas
__ _

highly conglomerate and stratified texts leads us to look out for and, when evidence is
there, assign varying time periods to different sections of different works, in the
versions that are available to us now. These scriptures often have material that both
dates back to Vedic times and forward to the early modern era. The consensus pos-
ition today is that what scholars call the ‘pure chronicles of the old purana’, which
date to roughly 300 CE, were recast into the veritable encyclopedias of Hindu_ lore that
they became beginning around 500 CE.4 And though some works bear inclusions that
might have been added as late as the sixteenth century or even beyond, they were
largely closed around the eleventh century, the time of al-Bır unı’s well-known listing
of them (Klostermaier 1979, p.64; Rocher 1986, p.101). With regard to avatara theory
in particular, it appears that the prefix ava þ the root tr in noun form is not at all
prominent in the puranas until around 600 CE,5 and puranic _ lists of Visnu’s main
_
incarnations varied greatly before 800 CE, at which point we finally begin _ _ to see a
standardised list of ten that invariably includes the Buddha.
With respect to theories about the concept of Buddhavatara in puranic Vaisnava
theology, two major ones have prevailed. They more or less directly oppose_ each _
other, and for the sake of directness and clarity, I will simply refer to them as Theory 1
and Theory 2.
Theory 1, whose main exponents include R.C. Hazra (1940), Klaus Klostermaier
(1979), and R.S. Bhattacharya (1982), attributes the very consistent identification of
the Buddha on avatara lists, at the circa 800 CE juncture mentioned just above, to a
newly inspired Hindu tendency towards tolerance and syncretism. More specifically,
it posits that due mostly to the great growth and thus increasing threat of Buddhism
to their traditions’ religious and political vitality and predominance, a trend that
commenced as early as Asoka Maurya’s third-century BCE reign and only grew
stronger in succeeding centuries, the Hindu authors of the early puranas tended to
present the Buddha and his followers in disparaging terms, consistently _ portraying
him as a deceiver who tricks the daityas, danavas, and asuras—demonic beings who
merit inferior rebirths because of past karma—into reviling the Veda, rejecting class
dharma, and denying the devas, and in doing so sows their eventual destruction. But
with the rise of the Guptas, there begins a major shift in Hindu thought towards
acceptance and even glorification of the Buddha. In the aftermath of the Guptas and
their potent ideas of Hindu kingship, resurgent Hindu traditions perceived of
Buddhism much less oppositionally, and confronted it in unprecedented ways that
were more open to considering how the Buddha might have bolstered their
significance.
Theory 2, whose main exponents have been P.V. Kane (1930–1962), Ronald Inden
(1998), and John Clifford Holt (2004), argued against Theory 1 by asserting that the
early puranas represented a time in history when Hinduism was forced to accept the
Buddha and _ Buddhism, because Buddhist expressions were increasingly both per-
meating the culture and becoming indispensable parts of state policy and institu-
tions. As for the later upsurge in identification of the Buddha with Visnu, this theory
maintains that it is a more assertively antagonistic development in_ _the history of
Bradley S. Clough 3

Hindu–Buddhist relations, in that it marks Hindu appropriation and minimisation of
the Buddha as an historical agent. According to Theory 2, the undeniable and polit-
ically significant presence of institutional Buddhism since Asoka’s time and adapta-
tion of the religion’s teachings as implemented public policy, forced a dual strategy in
Brahmanical circles, where prior to 800 CE there was an expressed congeniality
towards Buddhism that was adopted as a kind of common-sensical survival tactic,
but after 800 there was a major shift in orientation towards condemnation of the less-
imposing but still rival Buddhists and their operations. In this altered atmosphere,,
the consistent characterisation of the Buddha as an incarnation of Visnu was an
indication not of Hinduism’s inclusivism but of an intensified drive on_ its _ part to
undermine the Buddha’s historical importance, either by disparaging him or making
him a great Hindu god’s mere appendage, existing only to ensure the karmic demise
of anti-Vedic opponents by deceiving them into even worse forms of deluded belief
and practice.
As we proceed into our critical analysis, it should be made clear that generally
speaking, we do not dispute the identification of broad historical trends by the
theorists in question, according to which: (i) there was a major rise of Buddhist
teachings and institutions in the millennium following the reign of King Asoka,
such that Hindu authorities would have been compelled to come to terms with the
strongly growing presence of the figure of the Buddha and followers of his teachings;
and (ii) there was a subsequent decline of Buddhism on the Indian religious and
political landscape from the eighth to twelfth centuries, which might well lead to
shifting perspectives on the Buddha’s persona in various Hindu quarters during that
era. In contrast, what we do largely take significant issue with are the patterns of
Hindu response, developed in response to these historical trends, which these the-
orists have identified.
It is also worth briefly noting here that because the mahapuranas were all composed
in the Sanskrit language, it is clear that they were composed_ by members of the
learned priestly class of Brahmins primarily for an audience of their fellows. As such,
we cannot assert that the attitudes reflected within them are representative of all
Hindus. However, scholarship has firmly established the powerful role of the
Brahmin class as frequent and consistent arbiters and determiners of doctrinal
and practical trends in Hindu traditions, and as such their expressed attitudes tell
us very important things about developments in Indian religious history.
Analysis of the Buddhavatara concept’s meaning and purpose over the course of
the history of the Mahapuranas: assessing the two theories and arguing for an
alternative _
In this main section of this article, we will examine, in as strict a chronological order
as is possible and with reference to all significant descriptions of the Buddha as an
avatara of Visnu, the complex historical development of this concept in the puranic
_ _ to determine the interpretive usefulness of the two aforementioned
literary corpus,
__ _

prevalent theoretical perspectives on it, and to propose what we will maintain is a
more careful and nuanced—and therefore more accurate—reading of its materials
and their purport. While the previous scholarship that we’re referring to has also
taken a diachronic approach to some extent, we hold that one of its problems has
been that once it establishes and becomes fixated upon an historical dividing line of
sorts—with puranas pre-dating 800 CE and those post-dating that historical juncture
_
then being separately placed into distinct groups, and with little differentiation
between texts within each group being recognised—a much less critical kind of
synchronic consideration of the materials and their content takes place, in the ser-
vice of formulating a totalising explanatory model that in the end results in actually
less reliable understanding.
We begin our investigation with the Matsya Purana, the core of which, according to
consensus, was composed between 200 and 500 CE (Rocher _ 1986, p.199). Uniquely for a
purana this early, it lists ten main avataras including Buddha in the ninth position,
where _ he appears to replace Krsna. This is rather remarkable, given Krsna’s usual
place, along with Rama, as the _most
_ _ important of the incarnations, and_ _it_ suggests
how it important it was for the authors to see Buddha in divinised form. Of the two
passages on him, the first (47.246) describes him as an ascetic having divine splendor
(devasundara) and lotus-like eyes (puskareksana), both qualities typically applied to
_
Visnu as ısvara and to his other benevolent _ _avataras. He is also credited with the
_ _
crucial role of establishing dharma, which fits with another line here, which says his
purah: sara or ‘forerunner’ (which might imply ‘teacher’ as well) was none other than
one of the premier authorities in Hindu tradition, Dvaipayana Vyasa. The second
passage (54.19) offers homage to him as the peaceful one.
So, right at the onset of our investigation, we begin with a very positively effusive
portrayal of the Buddha that already surely calls Theory 1 into question. Additionally,
his purpose is said to be destruction of the demons. This particular passage doesn’t
elaborate who the demons are, so one might well assume that they are, as is usually
the case in Hindu literature, the semi-divine enemies of the devas. However, most
other puranic presentations of the Buddhavatara figure make clear that the demons
being referred to are decidedly human adversaries of the Veda who misinterpret and
misuse the yaj~na or Brahmanic sacrifice. However, given the highly variant nature of
the contents of the texts we’re dealing with, we must be cautious here not to impose
conceptions that possibly developed later onto this probably very earliest puranic
account of the Buddha. We will see that later treatments also usually maintain that
the Buddha deludes these demons into a further rejection of the Vedic dharma, which
will serve to ensure even more certainly that they will be destroyed, in the sense that
their destiny will be future bestial or hellish rebirths. But again, the role of the
Buddha as a deluder and nothing more cannot be assumed here, since he is simply
said to be a destroyer, without elaboration as to how he carries out his roles. And even
if we were to think that this passage implicitly assumes that he destroys through
delusion, he is clearly more complex here, since he is also characterised positively as
an establisher of dharma.
Bradley S. Clough 5

This evidence from the Matsya Purana seems to make Theory 2 more plausible than
_
Theory 1, since the latter held that earliest views of the Buddha were largely negative.
However, several scholars have maintained that the section about the Buddha here is
probably a later interpolation, since identical passages occur in the later Vayu and
Bhramand: a Puranas describe Krsna, not Buddha, in precisely the same words, and as
we noted _ above,_ the Matsya’s_ _ enumeration
_ of avataras rather oddly replaces the
otherwise theologically indispensable Krsna with the far less important Buddha.6
_ _ a_ na, because it has the fairly unanimously
The work to turn to next is the Visnu Pur
held position of being one of the oldest and_ best-preserved puranas. While Rocher
(1986, 249) notes a very wide scholarly estimation of dating, ranging _ from 700 BCE to
1100 CE, the overwhelming consensus is that its contents mostly fall between the late
third and early sixth centuries CE. It is perhaps the most important purana for us to
consider, for it is one of the most strongly Vaisnava-leaning texts in the corpus _ and it
_ _
provides by far the fullest presentation of views on the Buddha and Buddhism.
Visnu 3.17-18 establishes the Buddha both as an avatara and a mayamoha, ‘one
whose_ _ divine power is delusion’. From this point on, he is almost always described
as such, whether this particular epithet is applied or the activities of ‘delusion’
(vimoha or saṁmoha) are presented as his primary attribute. In later Vaisnava the-
ology, a mayamoha is definitively distinct from a full-fledged divine incarnation __
(p
urnavatara), in that the former type is merely sent into the world by Visnu, rather
than_ being an embodiment of his essence. But here in the Visnu Purana, _ _ as in the
_ _ _
Matsya, Buddha quite literally arises from Visnu’s body (sarıratah: samutpadya) into the
__
appearance of an ascetic (3.17.41), so no diminishment of his divinity in that later-
formulated sense is suggested. However, he is specified to be a ‘naked’ (nagna) one,
and we will soon see that this designation is invested with negative spiritual associ-
ations. But to proceed presently with what the text initially describes, we find it
presenting the Buddha’s first act to be teaching demons (daityas) as they perform
austerities (tapas) along the banks of the Narmada River. Here there is no doubt that
the so-called demons are certainly human beings, as will almost always be the case in
future puranic accounts whenever the texts specify. In reply to the Buddha’s query as
to why they live in this manner, they state that they seek heaven (svarga) and liber-
ation (vimukti). His response in turn is that he has a secret, superior path to those very
goals. Then, in providing them with specious, contradictory, and false teachings, all
delivered in sweet and agreeable tones, he leads these ‘foes of the gods’ (sura-dvisam)
away from acceptance of the Veda. The demons thus become followers of the Buddha _
who go on to spread his perversions to even more people, to the eventual point where
they disparaged the Veda, the devas, and the twice-born, and spoke of sacrificial
action7 with scorn (3.18.25)
The Visnu is also noteworthy here as probably the first purana to explicitly label
__
these demonic Buddhists as nastikas. This term, which carries the _ general connota-
tion of a ‘denier’, has a long history of varying meanings in South Asian religious
discourse, with variances coming from differences in what exactly is being denied. In
the mahapuranas, as in Dharmasastra texts like the Manu Smrti, a nastika is defined as a
_ _
__ _

‘reviler of the Veda’ (veda-nind: ukah: ), in the sense of one who refrains from the prac-
tice of sacrifice because of its_ perceived immorality. In the case of the Buddhists, the
immorality of course stems from the violence involved, which brings immediate
suffering to the creatures victimised by it and eventual suffering, through the law
of karma, to the sacrificers committing such evil action. The Visnu quite explicitly
refers to them condemning Vedic precepts that lead to the injurious __ massacre of
animal life (3.18.26). So, the opposition or denial of the nastika in this context is of a
decidedly practical and ethical, not doctrinal, nature. The nastika’s heresy or wrong
choice is thus a matter of ‘heteropraxy’, not ‘heterodoxy’, which is often the term
(mis-)applied to describe the type of opposition that the nastika poses. This puranic
characterisation of Buddhist nastikas as those who refuse to participate in the Vedic
sacrifice would become quite fixed hereafter as well.8
Pausing briefly to take the Visnu into comparative account with the Matsya, we see
our thesis that Hindu tradition_ viewed _ the Buddha with great ambivalence already
coming into view, with the former text sometimes portraying him in clearly positive
terms and the latter doing so with largely negative characterisations.
Returning to the remainder of the Visnu’s account of the Buddha’s way of teaching,
we find an interesting turn. To seal the _ _ demons’ renunciation of violent animal
slaughter, he is depicted as next taking on the ochre robe of a holy man, assuming
a benevolent stance, and then continuing to preach in soft and pleasant ones, telling
his followers that his way is the only way to heaven and liberation. People remain
trapped in saṁsara, he maintains, because in their passion they embrace error as
revelation, instead of developing ‘discriminating awareness’ (vij~nana) that sees that
the world is ‘without support’ (asesa).
This last section is quite noteworthy, _ in that we often find Vaisnava portrayals of
the Buddha’s words and deeds to be at notable odds with other available __ depictions of
them in primary sources from ancient India, with Buddhism’s own self-presentations
being the most detailed ones, of course. But here we find no such contradictory
representation, but quite the opposite of that, in fact. Echoing this last Visnu
Purana section, those early Buddhist sources themselves have the Buddha frequently __
_
criticising as ‘baseless’ (Pali and Sanskrit: amulika; see Majjhima Nikaya II.170 et. freq.)
the Hindu acceptance of the Veda as eternally true revelation that established the
ultimate status of gods and Brahmins. In contrast, his own alternative teaching—
which he repeatedly and invariably proclaimed to be experientially self-evident (Pali:
sandit: t: hika) and verifiable (Pali: ehipassaka)—was based firmly in developing personal
awareness of the insubstantiality of all things (‘the world is without support’) and
cultivating compassion based in non-violence (ahiṁsa; their nastika rejection of the
yaj~na’s inherent violence). So, even in the context of quite negative depictions of the
Buddha’s way—which should make us question Theory 2’s position that early puranic
tradition wished not to disparage Buddhism—we also see a certain acceptance if not
endorsement of it being issued, in that it is not only rightfully portrayed from a
Buddhist perspective, but from a Vaisnava one as well, in the condemnation of vio-
lence based in lust. __
Bradley S. Clough 7

But even further ambivalence, or at least contrasting perspectives, can be seen in
even a singular statement. This section’s very last line, about the world lacking any
support, could also be construed as the Buddha expressing a possibly anti-Vaisnava
sentiment, as a direct mocking of Visnu, who as Supreme Lord is typically worshipped __
_ _
and celebrated as the divine bearer (Srıdhara) of the earth.
Another point worth making at this juncture, pertaining to the shortcomings of
the two theories under consideration, is that even in this early stage of our inves-
tigations, something more complex is apparently emerging in these mixed assess-
ments of the Buddha’s teaching, that seems to go beyond what these theories would
have us believe are largely attempts to simply either completely accommodate and
ameliorate or fully marginalise and diminish Buddhism’s presence and influence on
the South Asian religious landscape. Rather than quite fixed, unvarying positions
being established and maintained, it’s as if much more dynamic processes of nego-
tiation are going on, with different perspectives being essayed and different voices
being heard. We will return to this point after more evidence has been taken
into account.
The Visnu’s most eviscerating take on Buddhism is reserved for section 3.18 and its
excursus_on _ the word ‘naked’ (nagna), as a kind of metaphor for spiritual depravity. As
elsewhere in the Dharma-sastra and Itihasa literature, the Visnu speaks of the Veda as
a ‘garment’ (avrti) or ‘covering’ (samvarana)9 and the ‘armor _ _ of the true Dharma’
_ 10 ˙ _
(saddharmakavaca). The naked Buddha and his demons are stripped of such religious
protection because of much of what they’ve renounced. Outside of rejecting violence,
Buddhist renunciation is indeed a problem for Vaisnava and other Hindu voices in the
puranas, for Buddhist monastics at least are seen to_ _pervert the hallowed four asramas
when_ they skip the second (garhasthya or grhastha) stage of life, and don’t wait for the
proper time for third (vanaprastha) and fourth_ (samnyasa). Furthermore, they even
pervert the essential householder practice of making ˙ sacrificial offerings to gods,
spirits, ancestors, sages, and guests, by selfishly taking such gifts as alms for them-
selves. As a result of their dereliction, the demons have rendered themselves so
impure as to be beyond redemption and are fated for eventual destruction by the
righteous devas. Even pious Hindus who merely witness the demons’ misconduct
unwittingly must undergo major expiatory rites, and those who willingly contact
them in any way, even in cases of emergency, face consequences of multiple unfor-
tunate rebirths. This is graphically illustrated in a story that closes this purana’s
treatment of the Buddha and his followers, about the opposing fates of a royal couple _
interrupted in their worship of Visnu, ‘God of gods (devadevo)’, by an approaching
__
heteroprax demon. The queen, realising she is in the midst of sacred ritual, uncivilly
turns away, but the king, out of simple courtesy, engages in conversation. He con-
sequently receives five rebirths as a lowly beast, and in the end is only saved by later
reincarnations of his righteous well-born wife, who always recognises him in these
bad destinies and repeatedly reprimands him into performing atonements for his
wrongful actions.
__ _

The lengths to which this text, which almost surely predates 800 CE, goes to con-
demn Buddhists, also reveals a clear flaw in Theory 2’s asserted pattern of develop-
ment for Buddhavatara theology.
The next earliest purana is probably the Bhavisya, which consensus dates to the
_
sixth–eighth centuries, though some have suggested_ that parts of it could go back as
far as 300 CE (Rocher, 1986, pp.152–4). The twenty-ninth chapter of the Pratisarga
Parvan of this work adds some important new features to our subject, as it appears to
be the first text to specify that the Buddha’s role is peculiar to a certain age, namely
the kaliyuga. From this point on, this specification becomes an important standard
part of how Hindu scriptures characterise the Buddha. This assignment of the
Buddha to the kaliyuga casts him in rather negative light, but in later Vaisnava trad-
ition, a noteworthy ambivalence about the nature of his role as such emerges __ yet
again. Typically, it comes to be seen as a kind of limitation, to the point where he will
be regarded as merely a partial incarnation (amsavatara), rather than a full incarna-
tion (purnavatara), of Visnu. In post-puranic Vaisnava theology, his invariable asso-
_ the dark age_ _will lead to one of his classifications
ciation with __ being that of a limited
kind of divine incarnation known as a yugavatara, an embodiment with a very par-
ticular role limited to a certain time and place. On the other hand, it certainly could be
argued that the kaliyuga is the age most in need of extraordinary and skillful salva-
tional measures by an avatara of Visnu, and in this context the Buddha could be seen
in quite positive light. __
Getting back to what this purana establishes, it is a scenario where the Buddha
manifests in India of the late Vedic_ period to further mislead those who are already
misguided, in the sense that before his arrival, they had long ago begun performing
sacrifices only for the perverse pleasures of killing animals and eating their flesh. And
amplifying their evil doing, they also appealed to the authority of the Veda to sanc-
tion these acts. Buddha then appears to push them even further, to the point of
complete rejection of the Veda. In later traditions, this is usually interpreted as
the Buddha turning the religious situation from bad to worse, because circumstances
go from misuse of the Veda by some parties to a state of affairs where the path of the
Veda was destroyed, as this and other texts often describe it, in complete fashion.
However, in the Bhavisya Purana itself, no position as yet is taken regarding an im-
_
portant point of disagreement _among later Vaisnava interpreters, as to whether: (i)
the Buddha did a relatively good thing in destroying_ _ an irredeemably corrupt form of
practice that was rampant; or (ii) he worsened matters by moving the condition of
Vedic practice from that of problematic but remediable perversity to utter disinte-
gration. Most would adopt the latter stance, but even if less common, the other
perspective significantly put forth by some was that the Buddha entered into the
kaliyuga and its violent misapplication of the Veda to begin to save the ones who were
ruining the tradition, by reorienting them to ahiṁsa, which also, as it turns out,
happens to be the indispensibly necessary first step towards reviving true devotion
to the Supreme Lord.11
Bradley S. Clough 9

The Bhavisya is unique among the puranas in depicting Visnu as manifesting in a
_ related to the Buddha, a patrilineal
series of figures _ _ kings who introduce
succession_of
and perpetuate Buddhism. Over the course of 120 years, four kings—namely
Gautama, Sakyamuni, Suddhodana, and Sakyasiṁha—perpetuate Buddhism to the
point where all people become Buddhists and (as just mentioned) the path of the Veda
is destroyed in course.12 This points to another unusual perspective taken in this text:
whereas other puranas speak of only the demons being deluded, this one speaks of the
_
delusion of all individuals. This doesn’t seem to make sense, given the eventual
triumph of Vaisnavism over Buddhism, initiated by Brahmin holdouts, that this
_
work goes on to_ describe, but this scenario does makes certain theological sense in
that, as the text itself explains, if these kings were incarnations of Lord Visnu himself,
the all-powerful master of illusion, it stands to reason that no one could resist the
spell he casts. And there is ongoing theological consistency here as well, seen in the
text’s accompanying statement that even for all those following these evil rulers,
eventual liberation is assured, for after all they are taking refuge in Lord Visnu
himself! This is a rather remarkable and ingenious move as well, for it takes _the _
Buddha’s significant presence on the Indian religious scene and his reputation for
compassion and uses them to assert and promote Visnu’s even greater potency
(people ultimately have no choice but to follow him) and _ _ grace (even those taking
up a misguided and evil path will be saved by him eventually). Such a presentation—
of promoting Visnu at the Buddha’s expense—falls well in line with what Theory 1
proponents maintain_ _ is the puranic agenda with respect to the Buddha, and it is yet
more evidence of the untenability of Theory 2. But as we move on, it is important to
think back and be reminded that we’ve already seen evidence of Theory 1’s flimsiness
as well.
The remainder of the Bhavisya’s treatment of Indian Buddhist history tells of this
lineage of Buddhist kings lasting _ for four more reigns, with the millions of the
religion’s followers coming to be killed at the hands of ksatriya warriors who arise
as the result of a great Brahmin’s yaj~na. The king under whose _ rule this take place is
none other than Asoka himself. So, here in the Bhavisya we have a fascinating rework-
ing of Indian religious history, where the text’s authors_ would have their audience
believe that Buddhism began its downfall, rather than its rise, under the watch of the
famous Mauryan monarch!
While such a rendering of events accords poorly with circumstances as evidenced
by so many other ancient sources, and thus casts dubious light on this purana as a
reliable historical document, it surely tells us much about the lengths to which _ cer-
tain Hindu authorities would go to assert their religious vision.
In presenting Visnu as incarnating in a lineage of kings championing Buddhism
that lasted less than_ _300 years, a short period of time indeed when one considers the
grand temporal scale of Hindu yuga-cosmology, the Bhavisya expresses still another
new conception of Buddhavatara, and this is that Lord _Visnu was only partially
invested in functioning as a deluder, a perspective that yet_ again _ would certainly
make sense from the point of view of his devotees. As indicated above, the
__ _

development of more nuanced typologies of different kinds of avataras does not really
get too far off the ground until the mostly post-puranic formative era of Gaud : ıya
Vaisnavism, but it’s likely that passages such as this eventually provoked the afore-
__
mentioned notion that the denying and deluding Buddha couldn’t have been a full
incarnation (p urnavatara), but rather was a partial incarnation (aṁsavatara) of God.
Likewise, the idea_ here that Visnu was only manifest relatively briefly in a series of
Buddha-related persons is a probable __ basis for another later concept, that of the
saktyavesavatara or ‘incarnation endowed with divine energy’, who is described as a
being (jıva) born previously (purvotpanna) with an ordinary material body, who is
entered into (prefix a þ root vis) temporarily by Visnu by means of his divine energy
_ _ in the mahapuranas themselves,
(sakti) (Holdrege 2017, pp.70–1). But again, to be clear,
which close circa the eleventh century, an avatara was more or less an_ avatara, with-
out many distinctions or qualifications.13
As our investigation continues with the next work to be considered, the Agni
Purana, we will find an even greater complexity and variety of Hindu perspectives
_
on matters relating to the Buddha on display. Because its composition is typically
dated to the period between the seventh and eleventh centuries (Rocher 1986,
pp.137–7) and thus appears to fall around that 800 CE turning point identified by
scholarship theorising about the formulation of the Buddhavatara concept, the Agni is
likely representative of its next developmental phase. Like the Visnu, the far briefer
account in the Agni begins with why Visnu chose to incarnate as the _ _ Buddha. Again,
_ _
there is reference to the famous episode of the defeating of the devas by the daityas, an
event which caused the devas to turn to Visnu to get his protection (16.1-2), and so he
manifests as the Buddha, the embodiment_of _ the Lord’s mayamoha or delusive power
(16.2). Here we have the Buddha clearly linked to Visnu’s role as supreme divine
protector, but there is obviously also a perpetuation of_ the _ negative function typic-
ally assigned to him. Of course, Vaisnavas attribute the power of maya to Visnu
himself as an important aspect of him _ _ as the Supreme Lord whom they worship, __
but unlike the Buddha, this trait is not seen as his primary if not sole power. As with
previous depictions of his deluding power, here again the Buddha fools the demons,
in this case the human ones, into becoming Buddhists. Then as arhats or fully realised
practitioners, they completely abandon adherence to the Veda (16.3-4). Because arhat
is the specific term that both Buddhists and Jains apply to liberated adepts, some
scholars have speculated that the two sramana or renunciant religions are being
conflated here as kind of generic enemies of Hinduism._ There is a certain logic to
this, since in the eyes of many Hindus the two appear to have been fairly indistin-
guishable nastika traditions, and furthermore, we find in some puranas, especially
earlier ones, that the Buddha and the first Jain tırthaṅkara Rsabhadatta _ are fairly
_
interchangeable. Additionally, the text here explicitly states that others who aban-
doned the Vedas branched off from the Buddhists. Finally, the passage ends by
describing how the demons, living without the Vedic dharma, take to such corrupt
practices as accepting dana or charity from even the vile, and in these ways they
Bradley S. Clough 11

destine themselves to rebirth as mixed servants/slaves (dasyus), who by the end of
the kaliyuga merit nothing but hellish lives (16:5-6).
If we take Chapter 16 of the Agni in isolation, it seems that Buddha again functions
as a force inimical to Hinduism, as the one who ensures the destruction of Vedic
tradition. However, in turning to Chapter 49, we find him as a benevolent figure once
again, in that section’s descriptions of each avatara’s characteristics, which presum-
ably were composed to provide general guidelines for image-making. Calmly seated
on a lotus, the Buddha is said to be one who bestows favor and protection.
The Agni Purana, then, depicts the Buddha in varying ways. As a positive force, he is
associated with _protection of the devas and helping them to regain control of the
world from the demons, while also acting as a calming presence who extends his
protective powers into the human realm, where he confers blessings as well. But in a
clear continuation of the pattern we’ve seen of presenting him in ambivalent light, he
is also presented as a manifest negative force who furthers the delusion associated
with humans who demonically violate the Veda. In terms of our critical assessment of
the validity of the two theories under consideration, there’s not much to say here.
Because the text falls within an historical era circa 800 CE, a period that both theories
hold is transitional, I assume that from their perspective, it would certainly be under-
standable that varying perspectives on the Buddha’s persona would be on display,
although it is again worth noting that previous theorists have tended to gloss over the
kind of intratextual nuances that we find once more in this particular work, presum-
ably in their eagerness to advance totalising positions that are not served well by
greater attention to the complex of diverse voices that seem to speaking through
these works.
With consensus locating them between the eighth and tenth centuries, the
Garud: a14 and Bhagavata15 Puranas fall slightly later in this era. While the former
work mentions the Buddha only_ briefly and doesn’t go beyond assigning him a status
that is definitively established by this stage of puranic composition, namely that of a
kali-yuga deluder of the demons, the latter has tremendous importance because of its
primary status in and influence upon later Vaisnava theology, such as the Gaud : ıya
tradition. A somewhat new idea that emerges in_the _ Bhagavata is the Buddha’s delud-
ing of the foes of the gods through preaching false or inferior principles (aupadharmya
or upadharma: 2.7.37).16 In portraying the Buddha as a deceiver who deludes with false
doctrines and adds nothing beneficial like the rejection of violence, this purana
engages in a kind of doubling-down on condemnation of his destructive place _in
the evolution of Indian spirituality. In doing this, it perpetuates a trend initiated in
the scriptures preceding it, of lessening or marginalising his contributions, which
certainly fits the pattern of development argued by Theory 2. However, when we look
at another possibly new element in this text, which is the inclusion of ritual verses of
prayer to the avataras, which supplicate all of them in general to protect dharma and
endow the Buddha with the special salvational charge of guarding the pious ‘against
the heedlessness of the heretical masses’ (pasand: aganapramadat; 6.18.19), we find yet
_ _
again that such theories, which tend to see individual _ puranas or even whole lengthy
_
__ _

periods of puranic history as devoted solely to either unqualified condemnation or
wholesale endorsement of the Buddha’s persona and role, are profoundly lacking in
attention to nuance and the variety of ambivalent perspectives on display in these
works. And to respond to those Theory 2 proponents who suggested that even such
praising of the Buddha effectively marginalises him, by rendering him as some kind
of indistinct, generic divine figure, we would counter by asserting that the prayer’s
assigning to him a special and unique salvational role hardly denies him significance
as an historical agent, as different as that role might be from how Buddhists them-
selves saw his place and function.
Further ambiguity is in evidence at 10.40.22, where even in the context of identi-
fying the Buddha once again as a deluder of the demons, obeisances are paid to him as
the ‘pure’ or ‘faultless’ (suddha) one. Obviously, this turn to ritually praising the
Buddha for very positive qualities further complicates the picture. But we cannot
say that such expressions support either Theory 1 or 2, for in the space of just one line,
the Buddha is associated with both a positive attribute (purity) and a negative one
(delusion). Such ambiguity is borne out still more when the final verse on the Buddha
in the Bhagavata—perhaps unsurprisingly by now—simultaneously describes him as
one who will perform feats that are difficult for (other) gods (karisyati surair api
duskarani) and propound specious teachings to delude those unfit _ to perform
_ _
Vedic sacrifices (11.4.22).
The Devi Bhagavata Purana, which probably comes from the same time as the
Bhagavata, has but one verse _ dedicated to the Buddha,17 though it is by no means
insignificant, as it pays homage to him as a mahadeva who stops those yaj~nas of the
wicked that were performed solely to slaughter innocent creatures. Such a depiction
shows again that the argument which posits that the late mahapuranas rob the
Buddha of historically significant agency is weak. Crediting the Buddha _ with role
of stopping violence, with the tremendous experiential and karmic pain and damage
that such activity brings for all involved, surely paints him in the light of an abso-
lutely crucial historical interventionist, in the eyes of both Hindus—or at least those
Hindus, like the Vaisnavas, who saw any violence involved in the Vedic sacrifice as a
horrible corruption_of _ that core tradition—and Buddhists alike.
Coming approximately five centuries after the Visnu Purana, the Narada (some-
_ _ antipathy
times Naradıya) Purana returns to the former’s thorough _ for the figure of
_
the Buddha and his followers, whose very presence threatens the fate of the pious.
Verses 1.15.51–53 describe Buddhists in typical puranic fashion, as heretical revilers
of the Veda, and then explain that nothing, not even hundreds of expiations, redeems
a Brahmin who knowingly enters a Buddhist temple or even so much as glances upon
Buddhists. The following verses (54–60) provide further details of the consequent
kalpas of horrible rebirths that will ensue for such negligent behaviour. This rever-
sion to pure negation is clear evidence of the untenability of Theory 1, which again
would have us think that the early puranic condemnations of the Buddha gave way
over time to wholly laudatory representations of him, once he becomes firmly estab-
lished as Visnu’s ninth avatara.
__

The next work in the corpus, the Varaha Purana, comes from the tenth to twelfth
centuries, and two of its three relevant passages simply_ post the by-now standard list
of the ten avataras. The lack of attention surely mirrors the situation on the ground,
where Buddhism was a greatly diminished presence in this time just prior to and
during the first incursions of Muslim powers in India. The third one (55.37) briefly
and curiously recommends worship of Buddha as part of a subhavrata, a ritual for
those desirous of beauty! It’s tempting here to see some consciously-injected humor
in this association of something so antithetical to the Buddha’s well-known teachings
of renunciation of attachment to fleeting superficialities like physical appearance,
and it must also be acknowledged that this kind of treatment is surely what Theory 2
scholars had in mind when they discussed Hinduism’s agenda of robbing the Buddha
of agency, in terms of concerns that Buddhists themselves would have in asserting
their teacher’s import and expressing reverence for him. In this case even praise
quite possibly casts him in rather laughable light. On the other hand, desire for
rewards such as physical well-being of all sorts was hardly uncommon for Indian
worshippers of their chosen deities. But it’s possible that both things could underlie
this praise: for some it could’ve operated as a mockery of the Buddha, while for others
as a means for gaining a surely lesser but not negligible benefit of genuine devotion.
The final mahapurana to speak about the Buddhavatara is the Padma Purana, which
current consensus dates _ to the twelfth–thirteenth centuries (Rocher 1986, pp.136–7).
_
Several of its passages simply offer homage to the Buddha as an avatara, sometimes
adding that his chief function, once again, is delusion of the demons through teaching
his false dharma, so as to plant a major seed that will eventuate in their destruction
(1.75.91, 2.32.43, 6.71.26, and 6.197.65). One interesting section (6.235–236) depicts
Parvatı asking Rudra to identify ‘stupid’ or ‘false’ (tamasa) texts, composed by heretics
among the twice-born who fail to follow the practices enjoined insruti and smrti, and
are without devotion to Lord Visnu. Rudra’s response includes works of the Buddhas, _
_ _
as well as those of other traditions labled nastika from a certain particularly hardline
Vaisnava point of view: Carvaka, Saiva,18 Pasupata, Nyaya-Vaisesika, Saṁkhya, Mımaṁsa,
and_ M
_ ayavada, this latter being a ‘false, pseudo-Buddhist doctrine’
_ (bauddhasastrama
19
satproktum). Beyond this, the Padma Purana, in its lengthiest and most fascinating
passages on ˙ the Buddha (6.71.275–278), is yet_ another typifier of the pattern of strong
ambivalence that I have been seeing throughout the puranic theological history of
the Buddhavatara concept. In Vaisnava traditions outside of this corpus, some of
which surely predate the Padma, one _ _ of the main criticisms of the Buddha’s dharma,
which is seen as being exacerbated by those of his followers who go on to spread his
teachings in subsequent centuries, is that it presents a multitude of varying and
contradictory teachings. This is emphasised and rearticulated here, where he is
said to teach ‘40 million various truths’ (catuskot: iprthaktatva)20 and be ‘preserver of
_
texts sacred to the heretics’ (pakhamdasrutigopaka). _ On the other hand, these
˙
criticisms are immediately preceded by praise for him as ‘preserver of the meaning
of the sacred Veda’ (vedarthasrutigopaka)! So once again, we find in the space of just a
__ _

few lines, the persona of the Buddha shifts dramatically, from the ultimate kind of
deceptive teacher to the ultimate kind of supportive one!
The other salient feature of Padma Purana 6.71.275–278 is its portrayal of the
Buddha as a full-fledged divinity. On a cosmic _ level, he is the eternal (asesa) one,
beloved to the world (jagatpriya). And as none other than Srıdhara, God _of gods
(devadevo)—common epithets of Lord Visnu himself—he conquers all through his
meditation (dhyanajita). Furthermore, he _ _ is Lord of the Perfection of Wisdom
(praj~naparamitesvara). Several things are worthy of commentary here. First, this de-
scription of the Buddha as a supreme deity—and nothing less than the ‘Auspicious
Supporter’ (Srıdhara) at that—stands in marked contrast to the Visnu Purana’s pres-
entation of him as a nay-saying teacher whose central message was_that _ ‘the_ world is
without support’. Secondly, what is going on here is clearly much more than what
Theory 2 would have us understand is a marginalising of him by subsuming him
under or conflating him with Visnu. For by mentioning both the power of his medi-
tation and his perfecting of the_ _supreme virtue of Buddhism, liberating wisdom
(praj~naparamita), which is also the name of the most important genre of literature
in the religion’s Mahayana branch, the Buddha is being celebrated for qualities rather
distinctive and unique to his sacred persona. Lauding things that are special to a
figure would be an odd way to marginalise him. Furthermore, the praise here has him
at least standing in for the Supreme Lord Visnu to carry our crucial cosmic functions,
and beyond that seems to indicate that he actually __ bests Visnu as ısvara himself!
Then, in addition to describing his cosmic role, the Padma_ _has the Buddha, in his
capacity as a more immanent personal saviour, as a divine wish-fulfiller who gives
happiness (sukhada) and everything else that is desired to devotees as they deserve
(yathayogyakhilakrpa and akhilest: ada). But assigning this kind of more generic divine
activity, that would _ be typical of_ any avatara, could be seen as possibly marginalising,
and also as an ironic take on a figure known centrally in Buddhist circles at least as
one who preached stridently that grasping after the fleeting pleasures of the mun-
dane world was the central cause of human suffering, not satisfaction and
contentment.
One section of the Padma that treats the Buddha as a divine embodiment, the
Kriyayogasarakhand: a, is generally thought to be its latest in composition, so it may
well represent a _kind of puranic last word on him. This section has two brief salu-
tations to the Buddha, presumably to be offered in ritual settings. In them, the key
quality that he is lauded for is compassion (karuna). In one (7.11.93), the supplicant
_
simply praises him for his purity as well as his compassion, while the other (7.6.96)
explains that Buddha best demonstrated this quality when he witnessed animal-
killing done in the name of the Veda and thus censored the Veda. This novel kind
of characterisation almost surely fed certain later Vaisnava theological discussions,
in which one position maintained that the Buddha didn’t _ _ mean to silence the actual,
true Veda, but rather the demons’ misinterpretation and misuse of it in ways that
sanctioned violence and meat-eating, while the opposing position held that he

rejected the actual, true Veda as an evil necessitated by widespread, gross violence in
its name that was otherwise unstoppable.21
Concluding analyses
I hope that the evidence and arguments I’ve presented here have shown that the two
prevalent theories concerning the historical development of the Buddhavatara con-
cept in the mahapuranas are too simplistic and don’t account for the clear ambiva-
lences surrounding the _ figure of the Buddha that are so clearly on display in these
texts. Rather than seeing an early period of obviously and consistently negative
characterisations of the Buddha, followed by a later period of obviously and consist-
ently positive characterisations of him, or vice-versa, it seems quite clear from our
investigations that Hindu traditions went back and forth on this matter quite regu-
larly, from the start to the finish of the long puranic era. Not only from one text to the
next do we see shifts between largely negative and largely positive treatments, but
even more tellingly, we find this process frequently taking place within individual
texts, sometimes within a matter of a few words or lines! As much the identification of
clear patterns of development can be a useful way to enhance our understanding of
how ideas and practices are formed and carried on, we cannot be beholden to it as an
approach, especially when an attempt made in the name of increased clarity ends up
creating greater obfuscation of what apparently took place. The lack of clear patterns
in the history we are investigating here can certainly be confusing, but I would argue
that it actually makes a lot of sense in light of the nature of the puranas and of
‘Hinduism’ itself. _
As much as I’ve tried to rely on fairly fixed dates for the composition of each purana
considered here, we have to remind ourselves that these are highly composite, _
stratified texts that were often produced and compiled over long stretches of time,
and that despite efforts of both traditional and academic scholars to identify each
work as either Saiva, Vaisnava, or Brahma, most individual puranas reflect a more
eclectic and inclusionary_ _perspective that embraces different cultic orientations
more or less simultaneously. One can say very similar things about what we call
‘Hinduism’. In the case of a conglomeration of religious traditions of such dynamism
and diversity, we shouldn’t be surprised to find these same qualities reflected in their
major scriptures. That these texts shift so much between negative and positive
characterisations of the Buddha simply reflects the nature of a Hinduism that has
so repeatedly involved multiple and varied voices co-existing or, not infrequently,
opposing or contradicting each other. So, given the nature of how the puranas were
put together and Hinduism developed, it would actually be quite surprising _ to dis-
cover all puranas and all Hindus agreeing about an issue in one way for hundreds of
years in a row_and then shifting so markedly and simultaneously at the same histor-
ical point, after which all once again remarkably agreed about the same issue, but in a
__ _

diametrically opposite way, for several more hundred years in a row without signifi-
cant variation.
Of course, we could assert the similar things with regard to Vaisnavism:
Not all thinkers and devotees among or even within its various movements __
have had uniform views and practices at the same time, let alone over the course
of history.
At the same time that we draw such conclusions, we must also emphatically note
the unity within Hindu and Vaisnava traditions, and here we must take philosophical
_
and theological tendencies into_account. At first glance, it might seem like Hindus are
being completely incoherent or contradictory when they say that the Buddha was
both a complete deceiver and complete enlightener in almost the same breath. But
the theological stance that the Gaud : ıya–Vaisnava tradition would develop over time,
with the fullest articulation of the Buddhavatara concept provided by modern leader
Swami Prabhupada, is that if Visnu is Supreme Lord, surely he could deceive and
enlighten at the same time as well as different times. Prabhupada took all the varied
puranic views of the Buddha into account and arrived at a synthetic vision that
integrated all of them and gave them coherence. He accomplished this by treating
the delusional and salvational aspects of the Buddha as wholly complementary.
While holding to the pervasive puranic idea that the Buddha deluded the demons,
he balanced it with a more positive acceptance of him that he attributed to Gaud : ıya
founder Caitanya Mahaprabhu who, in drawing and expanding upon Jayadeva in his
Gıtagovinda before him,22 emphasised the Buddha as a compassionate healer who
saved not only the animals being sacrificed wrongly in the name of the Veda, but also
the souls of those lustfully carrying out this heinous offense. By condemning the
violence of the sacrifice, the Buddha stopped these sinners from the further negative
karmic consequences of their conduct and set their souls, which otherwise would
have been incapable of understandingısvara’s transcendental message, back onto the
path of worshipping the Supreme Lord, in this necessary first step in their spiritual
rehabilitation. Prabhupada maintained that it is only in the context of the simultaneous
need to save both the animal victims of the corrupt sacrificers and those very sac-
rificers themselves that the Buddha rejected the Veda. But it was merely a superficial
denial on his part. As God incarnate, he could not sincerely reject the Veda. So, the
Buddha’s denial, his commitment to a nastika way, is a necessary but provisional act
that eventually serves the ultimate goal of liberation.23
Prabhupada’s position makes even more sense if we take into consideration
the notion formulated by his tradition’s founder, Caitanya, of acintyabhedabheda
tattva. If, as this concept would have it, there is an ‘inconceivable co-existence
of difference and oneness’ when it comes to the nature of the Supreme Lord,
surely opposing functions such as deception and liberation could be present—at
both different times and even the same time—in the work and play of the Visnu
and his incarnations. __

Notes
1 I apply the term ‘Vaisnava’ here, because without exception, all of the passages from
the mahapuranas that_ _ are to be examined herein clearly pertain to theology quite
specific to the_ divine being known as Visnu. Furthermore, these passages are also
invariably the province of later Indian thinkers __ and writers who quite consciously
identified themselves as Visnu-adherents or –worshippers, and are ones that have
been quite pointedly appealed _ _ to in the tradition-defining exegetical work of those
later interpreters. However, it is important to next acknowledge readily the inclusive
and widely embracing nature of this literature with respect to Hindu deities of all
varieties, to the extent that despite efforts by scholars to label different puranas
according to particular sectarian allegiances, based on the supposed chosen divine _
objects of the devotion expressed by the authors of these works, their extremely
eclectic theological orientation usually defies such tidy classificatory efforts. Hence
the convenient catch-all term ‘Hindu’, rather than the much more specific ‘Vaisnava’,
will be the appellation most frequently employed in our analysis here. __
2 All non-English terminology in this article, which upon first appearance will be itali-
cized, is in Sanskrit, unless otherwise indicated.
3 I recognize that applying the designation ‘Hindu’ to texts created in this historical
period involves anachronism. I use it simply as a convenient umbrella term for those
South Asian religious traditions which looked to certain textual corpuses—namely
those of the Vedas, Dharma-sastras, Itihasa, and Mahapuranas—as authoritative,
and whose main doctrinal and practical orientation became that _ of devotionalism
(bhakti), centered around the deities focused on and celebrated in these and
later traditions.
4 For a summary of the development of this thesis, see Rocher (1986, pp.41–8).
5 See Hacker and Schmithausen (1978) for a full examination of this matter.
6 For a summary of the scholarly discussion on this, see O’Flaherty (1976, pp.200–1).
7 In this text’s following verses, the demons mockingly ask those who sacrifice animals
to the fire in order to send them to heaven why they don’t throw themselves on the
fire, and denigrate the gods who accept such offered flesh.
8 My discussion here on the meaning of nastika is indebted to ones in Chapter 5 of
Heesterman 1985 and Chapter 9 of Nicholson 2010.
9 3.17.5–6
10 3.18.35
11 For some further discussion of how these issues played out in the post-puranic Gaud : ıya
Vaisnava tradition, see Clough (2017, pp.174–6).
_
12 One_ presumes that the figure modern scholars refer to as ‘the historical Buddha’ is the
one named Sakyamuni. However, there is still some uncertainty with respect to iden-
tity here, as the Bhavisya list Suddhodana as his succeeding son rather than his pre-
ceding father, as all _ancient Buddhist sources certainly do. The Bhavisya is also
curiously at odds with Buddhist sources in portraying the Buddhas as a king _ rather
than one who definitely renounced kingship.
13 This said, it is important to note that in a Vaisnava-related development that falls
within our examined period of the fourth–eleventh _ _ centuries but outside of the pur-
anic corpus, at least one text in the Pa~ ncaratra tradition, the Visvaksena Saṁhita, speaks
_ I _have not found any
of types of avesavataras, including the saktyavesavatara. (To date,
__ _

scholarship on the dating of this particular text, and so absent that, I am operating on
the educated assumption that it dates within the general time period that scholars
assign to the Pa~
ncaratra Agamic literature, which is 600–850 CE).
14 The relevant passages in this text are found at 1.1.32, 2.30.37, and 3.15.26.
15 The relevant passages in this text are found at 1.3.24, 2.7.37, 5.15.1, 10.40.22,
and 11.4.22.
16 According to Swami Prabhupada and his modern Gaudiya : ISKCON (International
Society of Krishna Consciousness) tradition, aupadharmya or upadharma means ‘pre-
liminary principles’ or ‘sub-religious principles’ and refers to the necessary if not
ultimate teaching of ahiṁsa or ‘nonviolence’, which needed to be reintroduced by
the divinely incarnate Buddha in the face of people slaughtering animals in the
name of the Veda, as a first step back towards worship of the Supreme Lord Visnu.
17 Devi Bhagavata Purana 10.5.13. __
_
18 It’s also interesting here that the text presents Rudra, of all figures, as identifying Saiva
groups as nastikas.
19 6.236.6
20 This reference to catuskot: i could also be, rather remarkably, a reference to a ‘four part’
_
mode of logical argumentation that went by this name that is extremely specific to
Buddhist philosophy. If so, this reference would greatly support the point I subse-
quently make just below, which is that we cannot see Hindu puranic authors as
marginalizing the Buddha by assigning him rather generic divine traits, when he is
being singled out for aspects of his character and teachings that are so distinctive.
21 Clough (2017, pp.176–8), has some treatment of these later Vaisnava discussions.
__
22 Jayadeva’s description of the Buddha is found at the beginning of his Gıtagovinda, in the
9th verse of the Dasavatarastotra. My research has been unable to turn up what
Prabhupada’s original source was for attributing such a characterization of the
Buddha to Caitanya.
23 Prabhupada (1956) is largely the source from which I have summarised his positions on
the Buddhavatara.
References
Primary Sources

Agni Purana. Edited by H.N. Apte. Anand asrama Sanskrit Series, no. 41, 1900.
Bhagavata_ Purana. Gita Press Edition, 1962.
Bhavisyapurana._ Edited by Srıkrsnadasa Ksemaraja. Bombay: Vedanta Press, 3rd Edition, 1959.
_
The Critical _
Edition _ _ _anam. Edited
of the Visnupur _ by Pathak M. M.. 2 volumes. Vadodara: Oriental
Institute, 1997, 1999. _ _ _
Garuda: Puranam. Edited and translated by Nath Dutt Manmatha. Calcutta: Society for the
_
Resuscitation of Indian Literature, 1908.
Majjhima Nikaya. Edited by Trenckner V. and Chalmers R.. 3 volumes. London: Pali Text
Society, 1888-1899.

Matsya Purana. Edited by H.N. Apte. Anand asrama Sanskrit Series, no. 54, 1907.
_

Narada Purana. Edited by Shastri J.L. and Bhatt G.P.. Translated by Tagare G.V.. New Delhi:
_
Motilal Banarsidass, n.d.
Padma Purana. Edited by Sarma S.S.. Bareli: Saṁskrti-samsthana, 1968.
Srımad-Dev _ıbhagavatam. Edited and translated_ by Swami Vijayananda. Chaukhumbha
Samskrit Pratisthan, 2011.
Varaha Purana. Edited by Shastri Shri Hrishikesh. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Amarabharati
Prakashan, _ 1982.
Secondary Sources
Bhattacharya, R. S. 1982. ‘Buddha as depicted in the purana’. Puranam, 24, 384–404.
Clough, B. S. 2017. ‘Buddha as avatara in Vaisnava theology: historical and interpretive issues’.
Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 26, 161–87. _ _
Hacker, P. and Schmithausen, L. 1978. Zur Entwicklungder Avataralechte. Weisbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Hazra, R. C. 1940. Studies in the puranic records of Hindu rites and customs. Calcutta: Abinas Press.
_
Heesterman, J. C. 1985. The inner conflict of tradition: essays in Indian ritual, kingship, and society.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Holdrege, B. A. 2017. ‘Beyond avataras: he Gaud : ıya Vaisnava taxonomy of Krsna’s divine forms’.
Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 26, 45–83. __ __ _
Holt, J. C. 2004. The Buddhist Visnu. New York: Columbia University Press.
_ _ and cycle time in Hindu kingship’. In J. F. Richards (ed.)
Inden, R. 1998. ‘Ritual, authority,
Kingship and authority in South Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Kane, P. V. 1930–1962. History of the Dharmasastra. 5 volumes. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute.
Klostermaier, K. 1979. ‘Hindu views of Buddhism’. In Roy C. Amore (ed.) Developments in Buddhist
thought: Canadian contributions to Buddhist studies. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press, pp. 60–82.
Nicholson, A. J. 2010. Unifying Hinduism: philosophy and identity in Indian intellectual history. New
York: Columbia University Press.
O’Flaherty, W. 1976. The origins of evil in Hindu mythology. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Prabhupada, S. 1956. ‘Lord Buddha—the emblem of theism’. Back to Godhead, 3, 5 n.p. Accessed at
https:// back2godhead. com/ lord- buddha/ .
Rocher, L. 1986. The puranas. Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
_

The Buddha As Avatara of Visnu in The Mahapurana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Buddha As Avatara of Visnu in The Mahapurana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Hindu Studies 2021;1–19 doi:10.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

*Corresponding author: bclough9377@gmail.com

Abstract: This article examines the formation of Vaisnava theology’s conception of

With respect to Hindu traditions assimilating Buddhist ones, a major theme of

Theories about the historical development of the Buddhavatara theology

For permissions, please email journals.permissions@oup.com

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jhs/hiab006/6219682 by Qatar National Library user on 22 March 2022

You might also like