This is one of the most popular misconceptions in India and Nepal. However, both Buddhist and Vedic Hindu texts tell a different story.
Since there isn’t a single Buddhist text either in the Śrāvakayāna or Mahāyāna that even hints at the idea that the Buddha was an incarnation of Viṣṇu, this is something unknown to living Buddhist traditions. Buddhists have always taken Viṣṇu simply to be one of the deities in the Kāmadhātu (Desire Realm), who is attributed with different roles and teachings by different Indian spiritual traditions. It is a misconception, from the Buddhist point of view, to say that Viṣṇu is ‘a Vedic god’, which is one of the reasons for the origin of the incarnation myth. He began to appear as an important deity within the Vedic fold from the time of the appearance of Purāṇic literature – which is about the beginning of the Common Era – in a series of texts, including the Harivaṃśa Purāṇa, the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (3.17.18), the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.23), the Garuda Purāṇa (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26), the Agni Purāṇa (Chapter 16, ‘the buddhādyavatārakathana’), the Nārada Purana (2.72), the Liṅga Purāṇa (2.71), the Padma Purāṇa (3.252), etc.
In Buddhist traditions, the Buddha is someone who has already transcended all forms of existence within the triple world (tribhuvana or tridhātu) by removing karma and kleśa, including avidyā (ignorance), from his mental continuum. His knowledge and powers are also considered to be superior to anyone in the entire universe. On the contrary, deities like Viṣṇu are taken as powerful deities, albeit samsaric beings subject to birth and death. In fact, Viṣṇu is depicted in Mahāyāna as a representative of the afflictions (kleśa); hence, his status in Buddhism is not very high and he is not looked upon either as a Creator God or the supreme caretaker of the entire world (pālanahāra) as attested in certain Hindu texts. He has some resemblance to the Viṣṇu as depicted in the Ṛgveda – a powerful deity but subordinate to Indra. He has a very minor role in Buddhism, and, in fact, he is often depicted as a lay disciple of the Buddha.
Viṣṇu appears several times in various Buddhist texts. In the Hearers’ (Śrāvaka) texts, such as the Mahāsamaya Sutta of Digha Nikāya, he comes to pay homage to the Buddha. Two things are made apparent in this sutta: Viṣṇu as a deity within the rank of the thirty-three deities that came to pay homage to the Buddha is depicted quite lowly, and the Buddha is clearly marked as being superior to all of those deities. In the Veṇḍu Sutta, Saṁyutta Nikāya, Viṣṇu recites a verse that says that those humans who pay homage to the Buddha are happy. In the Arthaviniścaya Sūtra, a Śrāvaka sūtra considered an Abhidharma, the Buddha’s body is explained as possessing the 33rd great mark of pleasantness of Mahānārāyaṇa (Nārāyana being another name for Viṣnu). The making of the statues of Tathāgata-s, repairing broken Buddhist stupas and consoling those who were scared in the previous lives – a psychological consoling considered a kind of dāna (offering) in Buddhism – are explained as the reason for acquiring such pleasantness. There are several Mahāyāna Sūtras – such as the Dharmavardhana Sūtra, the Lalitavistara Sūtra, the Akṣayamatinirdeśa Sūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Srīmahādevivyākaraṇa Sūtra, the Kārandavyūha Sūtra, the Lankāvatāra Sūtra, the Anityatāsūtra, the Daṣabhūmikasūtra Sūtra, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, the Ratnaketuparivarta Sūtra, the Saddharmapuṇdarīka, the Nārāyaṇaparipṛcchā Sūtra, etc. – in which the Buddha appears encircled by various deities – such as Viṣṇu, Śiva, Brahmā, Varuṇa, Sakra (Indra), etc. Viṣṇu appears as a disciple with a minor role, as compared to other deities, such as Brahmā and Sakra (Indra). For example, in the Lalitavistara Sūtra, Nārāyaṇa together with all the major gods bow down at the feet of the Buddha. Moreover, in other sūtras – such as the Akṣayamatinirdeśa Sūtra – the Buddha is found to tame the arrogant, haughty, aggressive and wrathful sentient beings by displaying the power equal to different gods – Indra, Brahmā, lokapālas, as well as that of Nārāyaṇa. In this context, Nārāyaṇa is used as a unit of power, something akin to how ‘horsepower’ is used to measure the power of an automobile, with one Nārāyaṇa being the strength of Viṣṇu – equivalent to the strength of 1,000,000 (one million) normal elephants approximately. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya by Vasubandhu (4th-5th AD) gives a detailed description of the strength of the Buddha, and it is calculated to be an infinite number of Nārāyaṇas.
Additionally, the Karaṇdyavyūha Sūtra reveals another interesting aspect regarding Buddhist views of various deities. It says that Nārāyaṇa was emanated by the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara from his heart. Furthermore, the same sūtra adds that Avalokiteśvara could teach sentient beings in the form of Nārāyaṇa were they to be receptive to the teachings in such a way. It is to be noted here that Avalokiteśvara – a prominent bodhisattva – is a tenth bhūmi (ground) bodhisattva, and just a single step away from achieving complete Buddhahood. However, his knowledge is still considered inferior to that of a completely and fully enlightened Buddha, such as the Śākyamuni Buddha. Again, as an interlocutor in some Mahāyāna Sūtras, such as the Nārāyaṇa Paripṛcchā Sūtra, Viṣṇu plays no greater role than that of a lay disciple asking questions to the Buddha. In such sūtras, Viṣṇu is depicted as one studying on the Bodhisattva path, striving to become a Buddha. Some traditions, such as the Theravādins in Sri Lanka, consider Viṣṇu a Dharmapāla appointed by the Buddha. He is known as Upallavanna, the deity of blue color. This description accords with the physical features of Viṣṇu as found in Vedic Hindu texts and also in Buddhist texts such as the Yogācārabhūmi, in which he is described as having three faces, greenish-yellow color, and mounted on a mythical bird called Garuḍawith with his right hand holding a wheel (sudarśana-cakra). Additionally, in the Vajrayāna tradition, he appears in certain ‘manḍala’ as a guardian deity, subordinate to the main Buddhist deity as well as the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.
Even more important is the statement of the Buddha himself on this topic. In the Dona Sutta (Droṇa Sūtra), the Buddha denies being any deity/God and instructs his interlocutor, the brāhmin Dona, to know him only as a Buddha. Here, the Buddha is compared to a fully bloomed lotus that has risen completely out of the mud of saṁsāra and is thus beyond the six categories of beings found therein. This image is quite common in Buddhist texts.
Moreover, there are numerous discrepancies between the Hindu and Buddhist accounts of the life of the Śākyamuni Buddha. Four major discrepancies are listed here:
a) The name of Buddha’s mother: In Buddhist texts, the name of Buddha’s mother is Māyādevī, but the name of Buddhāvatara Viṣṇu is Anjanā.
b) The place of his birth: Śākyamuni Buddha was born in Lumbini, but the Buddhāvatara Viṣṇu was born in Kikaṭa.
c) Teachings and activities: In the Purāṇic texts, it is said that Viṣṇu would take his worst form — māyā-moha-svarūpa (a form that deludes) — as a Buddha to distract demons (asūra) from following the Vedas. However, Śākyamuni Buddha taught a unique Dharma, which is not directed towards any demons; nor does it promote violence, hatred or delusion. We find humans, gods and many other non-humans attending his teachings with the same interest and vigor. Furthermore, the teachings of the Śākyamuni Buddha are impeccable in terms of moral conduct. It promotes universal love, compassion and happiness. The Purāṇic myth of descent in a form to delude demons literally contradicts the opinion of several learned persons – such as Jayadeva, Kṣemendra, Svāmi Vivekānanda, Sarvapalli Rādhākriṣṇana – who consider his teachings the best of Indian spiritualism. Moreover, there is not a single teaching of the Buddhāvatāra Viṣṇu extant anywhere in Vedic literature, and apart from such stories we don’t even know whether this person ever existed or not.
d) The time of his appearance: the timeframe of the appearance of Śākyamuni and Buddhāvatara Viṣṇu doesn’t match either. The Vedic Buddha was supposed to come at the beginning of Kaliyuga. According to popular calculations regarding the three yugas, it is often said that the Kaliyuga began around 3100 BCE; however, Śākyamuni Buddha was born around 500 BCE.
Therefore, apart from some superficial resemblances — such as the name, ‘Buddha’, etc. – the incarnation of Viṣṇu as a Buddha has nothing to do with the Śākyamuni Buddha. Additionally, in some traditions — Advaita Vedānta, Smarta, etc. — the Buddha is not recognized as one of the avatāras.
Similarly, Buddhist masters in ancient India, many of whom were well versed in Vedic lore, had a completely different perspective about Viṣṇu. Śaṅkarasvāmin, a Mahāyāna Buddhist master, who lived in India at the time of King Kaniṣka (c. 1st century CE), writes in his poem, the Devatāstava, that the Buddha is also accepted in Vedic texts for his good qualities. What is noteworthy, though, is that he quite clearly distinguishes the Śākyamuni Buddha from Viṣṇu. For example, the Buddha neither favors those that hold him in high regard nor disfavors those that view him antagonistically; while deities like Śiva, Viṣṇu, etc. grant boons to their followers while punishing beings that oppose them. This is because they are not free from the afflictions, unlike the Buddha, who is not tainted by any of the afflictions and is always compassionate towards sentient beings regardless of their activities. Ācārya Yaśomitra (6th century) once again cites Viṣṇu in his treatise, the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, and states that Viṣṇu displaying miracles — such as ‘virāṭa-rūpa’ (miraculous display of his grandiose form) — was of no help to sentient beings to gain liberation; on the contrary, the Buddha offers the hand of Dharma by teaching sentient beings the truth without any error. Ācārya Dharmakīrti (7th century) writes a satirical verse in the Subhāsitaratnakośa saying people accuse him of falsehood even though he speaks the truth but take the story of Rāmāyaṇa, written by the poet Vālmiki, as something true. He implies here that the story of Rāma being an incarnation of Viṣṇu is not true. Another important Buddhist author, ācārya Candrakīrti, says in the Madhyamakāvatāra that the things in the world do not arise from the entities mentioned in Vedic texts, such as the creator God, prakṛti, puruṣa, or from Nārāyaṇa. Apart from the deeper philosophical import of the statement, it is a categorical refutation of the Paurāṇic idea that Nārāyaṇa is the creator of the world. Śāntarakṣita (8th century), who was also an abbot of Nālanda University and played an instrumental role in establishing Buddhism in Tibet, wrote one of the most comprehensive refutations of all branches of Vedic-hindu traditions in his work, the Tattvasaṃgraha. His understanding of Vedic-Hindu traditions is in line with the Buddha and other Buddhist luminaries mentioned earlier. These are important witnesses of the Buddhist worldview, which not only makes categorical distinctions between the Buddha and Viṣṇu and his supposed incarnation – the Buddhāvatāra Buddha – but also emphasizes the superiority of the Buddha over all beings. All of this demonstrates the fact that not only contemporary Buddhists but Buddhist masters in ancient India too distinguished the two Buddhas. Hence, we can say that:
i) In ancient India, Buddhists wouldn’t conflate Viṣṇu with the Śākyamuni Buddha; they were well aware of their distinction, as is evident from statements by both Buddhist and non-Buddhist authors.
ii) The idea that the Buddha is an incarnation of Viṣṇu wasn’t as prominent in Indian society as it is now.
iii) Viṣṇu was always considered a minor deity in Buddhism.
Since when did this idea grip the general masses in India? As it seems, it was promoted by Vaiṣṇava sects around the 11th-12th century in India. Authors like Jayadeva, in “the Gītagovinda”, and the Kaśmirian polymath, Kṣemendra in his “the Daśāvatāracarita”, retell the story of the Buddha, adding their own ideas and extolling the belief that Buddha was an incarnation of Viṣṇu. These are poetic works (kāvyas) full of literary allegories and imagination, but neither the description nor their narration of the events coincides with the biography and the teachings of the Buddha as found in Buddhist texts. Furthermore, Mādhavācārya, one of the influential Vedāntic teachers of the 14th century, retells the old age Purāṇic myth of Viṣṇu taking a form of small boy, the Buddha, who deludes a demon with his words. Such stories in Vedic texts cast serious doubt regarding the Vedic Buddha and his teachings, and there is absolutely no connection between such myths and propaganda and the Śākyamuni Buddha at all. Realizing such anomalies, contemporary Vedic teachers such as the Saṅkharācarya of Govardhana Piṭha, Swami Niścalānanda Sarasvati, say that the Buddha as mentioned in Vedic texts and the Śākyamuni Buddha of Buddhism are two different personalities. Sometimes back, the late Satyanārāyaṇa Goyenka, a Buddhist teacher, had convinced four Saṅkharācāryas to issue a joint communique recognizing such a historical blunder.
Additionally, it is to be noted here that compared to śruti (something heard by the seers in the past without any mediation, hence, apauruṣeya), such as four Vedas; Purāṇas, categorized as smṛti (something remembered by a seer and hence mediated by humans, thus fallible) do not exercise the same amount of authority in Vedic traditions. Therefore, one can contest the authority of Purāṇas even by the standard of Vedic Hinduism. In fact, the Purāṇic stories as well as teachings within them contradict themselves on several occasions. This is also in the case of the Buddha as an incarnation of Viṣṇu attested in these texts. Swāmi Vivekananda says that that what we call Hinduism in the modern era is mostly derived from the Purāṇic corpus.
In recent times we find another misconception being circulated, connecting the incarnation myth with a certain personality called Rāma Paṇḍita, as found in the Daśaratha Jātaka. The Jātaka stories narrated by the Buddha are Buddhist texts that narrate the previous life stories of the Śākyamuni Buddha while he was striving as a Bodhisattva to become a Buddha. The text states that he was born as someone named Rāma Paṇḍita in a previous life, and that he practiced the transcendence of renunciation (naiṣkramya-pāramita). This practice is an integral part of the Buddhist path to achieve complete Buddhahood and is perfectly in line with Buddhist teachings. However, the reason this Jātaka story is often misinterpreted is due to the resemblance of the names of the characters and the plot with later Vedic texts such as the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmiki. Other than an accepted belief within Hinduism that Vālamiki was in the Tretā Yuga (a mythical timeline), there is no evidence that the Vālamiki Rāmāyaṇa was earlier than this Jātaka. In this Jātaka Rāma Paṇḍita, Lakṣamaṇa and Sītā are siblings, and characters such as Rāvaṇa don’t exist, and there is no abduction of Sītā. In all likelihood, the kernel of the Vedic-Hindu Rāyāyaṇa was extracted from this Jātaka, in which Rāma Paṇḍita embodies the virtues such as renunciation and righteousness. If Rāma Paṇḍita were Viṣnu, there would be few unwanted consequences:
i) Viṣṇu would be just an ordinary being, subject to birth and death, which was the case of Rāma Paṇḍita in this story.
ii) Furthermore, Viṣṇu would be practicing the Mahāyāna path of Buddhism and wouldn’t be a creator God, or the caretaker of the world, as depicted in Vedic texts.
Therefore, there is no rational ground for this incarnation myth. The Buddha did mention himself as belonging to the Ikṣavāku lineage, which is considered the lineage of the Vedic Rāma as well. However, we have already explained how the Buddha differs in respect to the idea of the first human being. Misconception – “The Buddha was born and died a Hindu”
Additionally, some editions of Vālmiki Rāmāyāṇa does contain a verse in the Ayodhyā Kāṇda that accuses the Tathāgata (i.e., the Buddha) being a thief. This shows that the Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa was composed after the Buddha. In any case, most modern scholars who have worked on different editions and registers of Rāmāyaṇa agree that Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa was composed much later than the Buddha.
There is no real sādhanā or method in Vedic Hinduism to venerate the Buddha, nor are Buddhist texts included within the corpus of its traditional literature. Buddhists too do not include any of the Vedic Hindu texts within their official canon. In fact, learned Vedic Hindu Paṇḍitas and scholars are discouraged to follow the Buddha, as he is portrayed as the worst form of Viṣṇu, the one to delude (māyāmohasvarūpa) those demons (asuras) who reject the authority of the Vedas. We know very well that Buddhists completely rejected the authority of the Vedas; hence, it is quite possible that this propaganda was directed towards Buddhists. This is justified further by the biographies of Ādi Saṅkara, such as the Saṅkaradigvijaya by Mādhavācārya, in which it is reported that Buddhists had to face physical persecution in the hand of Ādi Saṅkara and his follower, the King Sudhanvan, for rejecting the authority of the Vedas. Apart from calling the Buddha a ninth incarnation of Viṣṇu, traditional Vedic Hindu scholars never quoted Buddhist texts as an authority. In the same vein, the Buddha and Buddhist authors never quoted or cited any Vedic Hindu texts, other than to refute them or in order to teach their own philosophy.
