6

Vedas are the highest in the hierarchy of Sanathan dharma.

Most celebrated avatars never deny Vedas and in fact, followed and authorized Vedas.

Is there any possibility of an anti-Vedic avatar?

hanugm
  • 31,700
  • 11
  • 70
  • 175
  • 2
    If buddha is considered avatars of Vishnu, then yes. But even Sri Vaishnava don't consider him avatar – TheLittleNaruto Dec 06 '20 at 23:01
  • 3
    @TheLittleNaruto - who said they don't consider him as avatar ? He is Vishnu avatar. He is anti-Vedic. The reason is to mislead the demonic people from getting power by chanting Vedas. – ram Dec 06 '20 at 23:59
  • @ram oh ok! But Sri Vaishnava don't consider him vishnu Avatar. They rather pick Balram – TheLittleNaruto Dec 07 '20 at 01:34
  • 3
    @TheLittleNaruto - that is only as far as the dashavataram (10 avatars) is concerned - where we say Balaram instead of Buddha. However, Bhagavatam describes 24 avataras - which are all accepted by Vaishnavas e.g. Kapila avatar. Buddha is definitely an avatar of Vishnu accepted by Vaishnavas. But we don't worship him because we know his purpose (to do Veda Ninda to lead demoniac away from Vedas). Even within avatars there are categories like Parashuram, who is a Jiva with powers of Bhagavan. In fact, there are innumerable other avataras. – ram Dec 07 '20 at 01:58
  • What do you mean anti-Vedic? No one needs to authorize vedas. That just is. That’s how you should see that. Isvara’s breath doesn’t wait for any Avatars authorization right? . There is however a mandate that any Avatar must be able to utter Vedic mantras. The tongue organ, design, twists and evolution for an Avatar baby must be geared towards that. Of course this is tribal knowledge – Gopal Anantharaman Dec 07 '20 at 06:05
  • @GopalAnantharaman I mean avatars contradicting vedas. – hanugm Dec 07 '20 at 09:56
  • 1
    @ram Thanks. Just now I got the reference you told. – hanugm Dec 08 '20 at 14:58
  • 1
    Parasuram is not jiva.. he is avataraof vishnu only @ram can you provide valid reference where it says parasuraama is jiva.. He is the 2 of the avatar who is still present in this earth in physical form. He created Kerala and Udupi just by throwing axe, He defeated Kartivirya arjuna who kept Ravana in prison singlehandedly. He taugth bheesma, Drona, kripa and karna. He is the knowledge of Bheesma which came out as vishnushashranama – Prasanna R Dec 08 '20 at 16:37
  • 1
    parasurama kshetra that udupi is having anantheshwara temple were Parasuram is worshipped in Linga form and as Narayana.. – Prasanna R Dec 08 '20 at 16:42
  • @PrasannaR https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/21040/what-scriptures-describe-parashurama-as-an-avesha-avatara-of-vishnu – hanugm Dec 08 '20 at 17:17
  • Only srimad bhagavtam is passed without interpolation inthat it is mentioned prithu and Balarama are avesha avatara if that is the case why Parasurama is not mentioned explicitly in srimad bhagavatha @hanugm – Prasanna R Dec 09 '20 at 02:53
  • @PrasannaR - all that is right. Ravana was not an avatara of Bhagavan, but a Jiva with immense powers. Kartavirya arjuna was a Shakti-avesha avatara (jiva with one particular shakti of bhagavan). Parashurama was a svarupa-avesha avatara (jiva with almost full powers of bhagavan). Rama was a purna-avatara (Bhagavan himself). That's why Ravana was defeated by Kartavirya was defeated by Parashurama was defeated by Rama. – ram Dec 09 '20 at 06:09
  • 1
    @ram defeat of Parasurama is illusion to delude general public and an asura who is residing in stomach of parasurama he had know that vishnu can never be defeated he did a penance to siva asking him a place parasuramas stomach..but siva gave it on one condition that he chooses till that time he reside.. that until unless parasurama is defeated he can stay in his stmach – Prasanna R Dec 09 '20 at 08:42
  • 1
    @PrasannaR I think we should understand Puranas as a whole instead of an individual approach. Some information that is absent in the same may be present in another. – hanugm Dec 09 '20 at 08:45
  • Here in northern India, Buddha is considered as an avatara but not in Southern India. This led to the hypothesis that inclusion of Buddha in Dashavatara was done in an attempt to assimilate Buddhists into the Hindu society, which wasn't required in South India as Jainism, & not Buddhism, was the main faith that challenged Hindu dominance. – অনু May 16 '22 at 04:04
  • No @AnubrataBit south india considers Buddha as avatara only – Prasanna R May 16 '22 at 18:21

2 Answers2

4

Yes.

Buddha is an avatar of Lord Vishnu. He deluded asuras by refusing Vedas.

Then in the Kali age, the lord was born in the Kikatas as Buddha. He deluded the asuras and flouted the Vedas.

[26, Chapter 15, Brahma Kanda, Garuda Puranam]

hanugm
  • 31,700
  • 11
  • 70
  • 175
3

Yes. God Vishnu took two incarnation and taught anti-Vedic philosophy.

As per Agni Purāṇa, Vishnu incarnated as Buddhism's Buddha and Jainism Tirthankara, and taught anti-Vedic (heterodox) nâstika doctrines.

Chapter 16 - Buddhādyatārakathanam, Agni Purāṇa


मोहयामास दैत्यांस्तांस्त्याजिता वेदधर्मकम् ।
ते च बौद्धा बभूवुर्हि तेभ्योन्ये वेदवर्जिताः ॥ ३ ॥
आर्हतः सोऽभवत् पश्चादार्हतानकरोत् परान् ।
एवं पाषण्डिनो जाता वेदधर्म्मादिवर्जिताः ॥ ४ ॥

  • 3 & 4. He (Vishnu) deluded those demons. Those, who had abandoned the path laid down in the Vedas, became the Bauddhas and from them others who had abandoned the Vedas. He then became the Arhat (Jaina). He then made others as Arhats. Thus the heretics came into being devoid of Vedic dharmas.

English Translation by N. Gangadharan

Vivikta
  • 13,289
  • 4
  • 18
  • 81
  • So basically this goes to say Buddhism and Jainism don’t lead to moksha? – Amethyst May 16 '22 at 17:19
  • 1
    Well, they have their own definition of Liberation. Buddhists have Nirvana (Jivanmukti) & PariNirvana (Videhamukti), while Jains have Nirvana leading to Moksha. But, yes, certainly, as per Hinduism, based on the present Questions & Answer thread, ultimately, those two philosophies are termed anti-Vedic, so perhaps anti-conducive to Hinduism's definition of Moksha. @Amethyst – Vivikta May 17 '22 at 16:59