"Addressing the Critiques: Examining the Misconceptions and Realities of Buddha and Buddhism"
It has been over 2600 years since Buddha's teachings first emerged. Throughout this time, various kings rose to power, different religious sects were formed, and numerous philosophies and advancements took shape. Amidst these changes, Buddha's teachings experienced periods of disappearance, re-emergence, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding.
Many scholars with limited understanding of his teachings accused Buddha of being pessimistic and irresponsible, some even claiming that his teachings lacked nobility. When Brahminism regained dominance in India, they declared Buddha as the ninth avatar of Vishnu, and many asserted that Buddhism was a part of Hinduism. These ideas quickly spread beyond India, with the Western world accepting these new concepts and the common people subsequently adopting these beliefs.
To eliminate these long-standing beliefs and misunderstandings, it is essential to debunk the misconceptions that have been ingrained in us for generations. Therefore, this article aims to take a step forward in dispelling these fallacies and delusions. It will address three such preconceived notions and present the realities. While there are many such beliefs, we'll begin with these basic three.
Buddha is a Pessimist
It is often believed that the Siddhattha Gotama (Sanskrit: Siddhartha Gautama) was a pessimist, meaning, he habitually sees wrong in everything. He only focuses on the negative aspects as he always speak about Dukkha, sufferings and misery of the life. He did say that "life is full of misery" and therefore this words were put at the highest level stating that he was a negative person.
Maharshi Dayananda a influential person of Arya Samaj in his famous work Satyarth Prakash mentions, "According to the Buddha there is nothing but misery in the entire world- sarvasya samsarasya dukhatmakatvam... However the truth is that there is happiness as well as misery in the world. It is falsehood to say that the entire universe is full of misery".
Dr. Radhakrishnam, the second President of India says that, "... suffering is not peculiar to Buddhism, though the Buddha emphasised it overmuch. In the whole history of thought no one has painted the misery of human existence in blacker colours and with more feeling than the Buddha.... Buddha overemphasised the dark side of things. The Buddhist view of life seems to be lacking in courage and confidence. It emphasis on sorrow, if not false, is not true... Buddhism tendency is to blacken what is dark and darken what is grey... At a theoretical level , the vision of Buddhists is limited to thorny, bitter and miserable aspect of life.
Another missionary of Arya Samaj in his conference at Mandalay, Myanmar accusing Buddha and his teachings proclaims that, ".... all his is talking about suffering. There is no happiness anywhere....he is a pessimist. The Buddha taught nothing but pessimism. To use the word "Noble" (arya) for this teaching is wrong...Buddha's teaching is full of misery..."
Even in the 20th century, there were widespread ideologies and misunderstandings regarding Buddha and Buddhism. In his works "Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History" and "Hindutva: Who is a Hindu," V.D. Savarkar contended that Buddhism's influence rendered its adherents robust. He criticized Buddhism for promoting non-violence and renunciation, which he believed diminished the strength and martial spirit of ancient Indian society. Savarkar argued that this pacifist stance left India vulnerable to external invasions, leading to its eventual decline.
David E. Cooper in his work, Buddhism as Pessimism, defends Schopenhauer and many other nineteenth-century figures doctrines that Buddhism is pessimistic. According to him, the two sides of Buddha's teaching: sufferings and cessation of sufferings has inadequate reasonings, particularly because they overlook the profound difference between ordinary human existence and the enlightened state of the arahant.
Superficially, these arguments may appear logical. It is indeed true that Buddha emphasised the existence of suffering and misery. However, it would be incorrect to claim that his teachings completely lack references to happiness. Those who assert this either lack a deep scholarly understanding of Buddhism or have encountered misleading articles or books.
Dukkha (misery) is an inherent truth of life. No one in this world, regardless of wealth, education, gender, or any other distinctions, enjoys uninterrupted happiness throughout their lives.
Misery is not arbitrary; it arises from craving and aversion, which themselves stem from desire (tanha). This craving and aversion manifest on both emotional and material levels.
Materially, we desire things, and if we fail to obtain them, we experience sadness. Even if we satisfy one craving, we immediately seek more and better things. Emotionally, we become attached to feelings of happiness and satisfaction, craving them intensely. When these feelings inevitably fade, we feel sorrow, which can escalate into hatred.
This cycle persists from birth until death.
Buddha accurately identified these causes and conditions, but he did not stop there. He also presented a path to liberation that eliminates these impurities and allows for a fulfilled life. The Noble Truth of suffering is delineated in four aspects:
Nissaranattha: To come out of all the accumulated impurities (defilements)
Vivekattha: To be free from the habit of developing new impurities
Asankhatattha: To experience for oneself the unborn state where nothing arises
Amatattha: To experience for oneself the deathless state where nothing passes away.
Buddha provided the humankind with Dhamma, the universal truth, the universal law. This Dhamma when practiced properly by working on the path of morality (Sila), have mastery over the mind (Samma Samadhi) and experiential wisdom (Bhavanamay Panna) can attain the full liberation.
It would be incorrect to claim that Buddha never discussed happiness. In fact, he consistently emphasised the importance of happiness and offered a way of life through Dhamma that guided others towards happiness. He dispatched sixty arahats, who were compassionate and assisted numerous individuals throughout their lives. Their common goal was "Bahujanahitaya bahujanasukhaya" — the welfare and happiness of many people
If one looks at Dhammapada, their are in total 26 chapters on various aspects of Dhamma that focuses on happiness. One such chapter is Sukha Vagga (Chapter on Happiness) and none on Dhukka (misery), if Buddha was a gloomy and downbeat person, it would have not been possible for him to see positivity and wish of happiness of others.
He also went on saying: Mata yatha niyam puttam, ayusa ekaputtamanurakkhe; evampi sabbabhutesu, manasam bhavaye aparimanam
Just as a mother would protect with her life her son, her only some, so one should cultivate infinite selfless love towards all beings
So, if a person who has so much compassion and love for everyone, who always though to benefit other and give them the true happiness that overvalues the materialistic pleasure, how can he be a pessimist?
Avatar of Vishnu
When I was in 11th grade, a chemistry lecturer mentioned that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. At that time, I was naïve and lacked a proper understanding of Buddhism and Buddha, so I accepted his statement without question. There were over 50 students in the class, and no one objected; perhaps everyone accepted it as a fact. As my knowledge of Buddhism grew, I learned the truth, but I now understand where he and many others got this idea from.
It is strongly believed by masses that Gautam Buddha was the 9th incarnation of Vishnu, which I believe generated out of sheer ignorance and propagation that were made to suppress the scholarly literature of Buddhism and to elevate Brahminism.
One of the early traces of the claim can be seen in Vishnu Puran, Garuda Puran, Matsya Puran and Srimad Bhagvatam.
In Vishnava Puran, poet Jaydev mentions Buddha as one of the dasavatara:
nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha sruti-jatamsadaya-hridaya darsita-pasu-ghatamkesava dhrita-buddha-sarira jaya jagadisa hare
O Kesava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You! O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules of Vedic sacrifice.
Furthermore, Buddha's incarnation is mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavatam (1.3.24):
tataḥ kalau sampravṛttesammohāya sura-dviṣāmbuddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥkīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati
Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.
In Garud Puran, one of the Hindu customary law mentions all the avatars of Vishnu that goes beyond the ten mentioned in various other purans.
…His nineteenth incarnation was as Krishna and his twentieth incarnation as Balram. He will take his twenty-first incarnation as Buddha to bring the mankind back to virtuous path by preaching against the rituals and proving that it is not proper for a seeker to get bound by them. Lord Vishnu would take incarnation as Kalki and will be born to a Brahmin named Vishnuyasha to liberate the earth from the sinners
In the Matsya Purana (247) it is mentioned that:
For the establishment of righteousness and the destruction of Asuras, through asceticism, there was the 9th incarnation, in the form of Buddha of Divine splendor, with His eyes as beautiful as lotus, and with the sage Dvaipayana Vyusa as the officiating priest.
After reading such verses, one might mistakenly conclude, without understanding Gautam Buddha or Buddhism, that Buddha was the avatar of Vishnu and therefore Buddhism is connected to Vedic Dharma (Brahminism and Hinduism). However, this is a misleading, incomplete, and inaccurate assertion.
First and foremost their is no commonality in different purana, some purana mentions Buddha being 9th incarnation where as some mentioned it to be the 21st.
The date of origination of each puranas are of post-Buddhist period. As per the Writing and Speeches of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, all the puranas were written decades after the rise and fall of Buddhism and perhaps this could have been one of the reasons of decline of Buddhism.
This can also be observed in linguistic terms. Gautama Buddha delivered his teachings in his native language, Kosali, which was the everyday spoken language of the Kosala kingdom. Unlike artificially constructed languages such as Chandas or Sanskrit, Kosali was a Prakrit, meaning a natural language.
This Prakrit, which later evolved into Pali (meaning "that which protects"), preserved the words of Buddha for centuries. In contrast, all the Puranas were written in Sanskrit, which developed after Prakrit. Therefore, it would be a mistake to claim that the Puranas predicted the future, as they emerged after the linguistic context in which Buddha's teachings were originally imparted.
The Srimad Bhagavatam states that Buddha was born in Gaya (Bihar), but historically, Gautam Buddha was born in Lumbini (present-day Nepal), making this claim factually incorrect. Some might argue that the reference is to his attainment of Buddhahood in Gaya, explaining the mention. However, examining the timelines suggests that the Puranas were not predictions or prophecy but rather an attempt to reinterpret Buddhist history from a Brahmin perspective.
The questionable inclusion of Buddha in the Avatara pantheon is evident, as Brahmins never worshipped Buddha nor built temples in his honor. This makes the theory that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu highly dubious. Consequently, Dr. Ambedkar advised Buddhists not to accept this belief.
On 14 October 1956, Ambedkar administering 22 vows after renouncing Hinduism at Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur. The first 5 vows refers to the idea of incarnation whereas the 5th clearly advocates against Vishnu being avatar of Buddha.
I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara, nor shall I worship them.
I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna, who are believed to be incarnation of God, nor shall I worship them.
I shall have no faith in Gauri, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus, nor shall I worship them.
I do not believe in the incarnation of God.
I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.
On November 11, 1999, at Sarnath, Principal Vipassana Teacher Shri S.N. Goenka and the Sankaracharya of Kanchikam Kote Peetham, Sri Jayendra Saraswati, jointly declared that Gautama Buddha was not an incarnation of Vishnu.
The confusion may have arisen due to the term "Buddha" itself. "Buddha" simply means someone who has attained complete awakening and enlightenment. It is believed that there were many Buddhas before Gautama Buddha and contemporaneous with him.
The Puranas might have referred to another enlightened being when mentioning Buddha. Gautama Buddha was unique in that he taught the path to liberation and emphasized morality, which had not been done by previous Buddhas.
Therefore, claiming him as an incarnation is incorrect. Gautama Buddha was critical of the concept of "God" and rejected the caste-based hierarchy central to Vedic Dharma. Hence, this erroneous claim lacks any factual basis.
Irresponsible to denounce his family and responsibilities
I remember from my 8th or 9th grade NCERT English book that there was a chapter on the life of Gautam Buddha. It mentioned that when he encountered an old person, a sick person, and a dead person for the first time while wandering his kingdom, he was deeply moved. This led him to leave his home in the middle of the night without informing his wife and newborn son.
This account is not unique to one book; several others also assert this inaccurate incident as fact.
Such assertion makes Gautam Buddha as the most irresponsible and a selfish person who left his family in the search of peace so he can be benefited. Some went to claim that, Buddha did not leave home to help others; he chose homelessness only to satisfy his curiosity or to serve himself and, therefore, his going forth was not logical or beneficial.
Such dialogues are absurd. Gautam Buddha left his home or took Parivraja at the age of 29, how is it possible that he did not see any of these three sights before? Old-age, death and sickness in a part and parcel of the life that happens often, so how come Buddha failed to come across them earlier? Was no one getting sick in his palace or kingdom? Were his parents not getting old? Has he never got sick?
Such questions make these claims not plausible and hard to accept.
1. He Abandoned his Duty of King
In the 6th century BC, Northern India was not unified under a single sovereign state. Instead, it was divided into various monarchial (Janapada) and non-monarchial (Sangha or Gana) states, ranging in size from small to large. There were a total of sixteen monarchial states and nine non-monarchial states, among which the Sakyas of Kapilvastu were one, the family of Siddhartha Gautama.
Within the Sakya Republic, several ruling families took turns governing. At the time of Siddhartha Gautama's birth, it was Suddhodana's turn to be the king (Raja).
Therefore, even though Siddhartha Gautama was born a prince, he would never have ascended to the throne. So factually, he did not abandon his responsibilities toward his republic or his kingdom, nor did he neglect his duty to his people.
2. He left the home after witnessing old-age, sickness and death
Siddharth Gautama was from Sakya clan and they had their own Sangha. Every Shakya youth above twenty was made member of the Sangha. When Gautam Buddha reached twenty, he naturally became the member of the Sangha. He honorably accepted it.
Eight years later their arose a conflict in the Sangha. State of Sakyas and State of Koliyas had a common river dividing them, named Rohini. The water of Rohini were used by both the residents of Sakyas and Koliyas for irrigating their fields.
Every year there used to be disputes between them as to who should take the water of Rohini first and how much.
When Siddharth was 28, there was a major clash over the waters. Both Sakyas and Koliyas sought to end the find and settle the issue.
Senapati of Sakyas called a meeting declaring war on the Koliyas. He said "Our people have been attacked by the Koliyas and they had to retreat. Such acts of aggression by the Koliyas have taken place more than once. We have tolerated them so far. But this cannot go on. IT must be stopped and the only way to stop is to declare war against Koliyas. I propose that the Sangh do declare war on the Koliyas. Those who wish to oppose may speak."
Siddhartha Gautama was never in favor war and therefore after listening to Senapati, he rose from his seat and said, "I oppose this resolution. War does not solve any question. Waging war will not serve our purpose. It will sow the seeds of another war. The slayer gets a slayer in his turn; the conqueror gets one who conquers him; a man who despoils is despoiled in his turn."
He further stresses on finding a solution that does not involve war and had a firm conversation with the Senapati and requested the Sangha to oppose this. Senapati affirms that being a Kshatriya it was his duty to go on war. Yet Siddhartha refused it and kept on refusing it. Even after understanding the consequences his stood by the path of non-violence.
Senapati and Sangh gave him three options:
to join the forces and participate in the war;
to consent to being hanged or exiled; and
to allow the members of his family to be condemned to social boycott and confiscation of property.
Siddhartha Gautama could not participate in the war and he cannot let his family suffer by letting them face social boycott and confiscation of property and therefore he choose the second option that is to be either hanged or exiled. He hence, decides and request Senapati to accept his voluntary request of letting his go for Parivrajaka and leave this country.
3. He left the home middle of the night without telling anyone
When Siddhartha decided to becaome Parivrajaka, he could not do so without the consent of his parents and family. When the news broke up to Suddhodana, he had a brief conversation with Siddhartha Gautama.
However Gautami, his step-mother was in oppose of this. But Siddhartha Gautama explained her the position and seek for her permission and blessings. He later went to his wife's chamber Yeshodhara. Yeshodhara gave him a affirmation, their conversation is also discussed the article, Feminism in the thoughts of Buddha.
Yeshodhara wanted to go with Siddhartha but she cannot go because of their son Rahula. While leaving, Yeshodhara said, "All I wish is that now that you are becoming a Parivrajaka leaving behind all who are near and dear to you, you will find a new way of life which would result in the happiness of mankind."
He cast his fatherly look on Rahula and left.
This instance not just resembles his strong resolute but also shows his morals and values. Calling such a human a irresponsible person would be sheer ignorance of our intellectual wisdom.
There are many other misconceptions pertaining to Buddha and Buddhism that I aim to cater to in forthcoming articles.