and nor is buddhism a branch of hinduism.

let me hear if you disagree.

Jesus was Vishnu's 10th Awataar, Because white people needed a religion so he came here down in the earth and gave one religion.

Who gives a F**** God is god, weather he is black or white. They came here to teach us something so just learn what they are teaching, Take every good thing from different religion and be good.

well except for the mushlims,

I think their profit came down to teach them how to blow themself up. So don't learn that.

Being secular state doesn't mean that we can not talk about the religions or gods anymore.

Buddha was born in hindu state, and hindu family, but he discarded it as for him, it was not possible to gain buddhahood or enlightenment through then methods of hinduism. His father, Suddodan used to do yagya and all kinds of stuffs. But Buddha left all these to find his own way. On the core, all the religions can have the same meaning, but we can't call these are the branches or the same religion. Likewise, buddhism can have similarity with the hinduism. But it is not the branch of hindu religion. For those of use calling it uses same logic, if you read comparative religion, you'll come to know about it.
There's a Nepali monk in Thailand, serving as the chief secretary to the Raj guru, the chief monk in Thailand, who has written a whole book about it stating that buddhism is not a branch of hindu religion. I read it couple of years ago.

Jesus was also born in a jewish family, but it doesn't make him jew.

I agree with those, who said buddhism might be different than what buddha taught. Buddhism has gone way off than what buddha has taught. Afterall, buddhist teachings were documented only after 500 years of his death. So, it's obvious that there might have been the deviation. That is why, very few or none has enlightened since then. But during his time, and even after few years of his death, many ordinary human beings got enlightened.

Buddha has taught about Sangha; some might argue it is a religion. But it is not. Afterall, the enlightenment is not possible through any organised religion. Hindu people like to claim buddhism is a branch of hinduism, and buddha is a Vishnu's avatar. But many hindus are afraid to even touch buddhist texts, and would like to discard it. They raise concerns and would sometimes are afraid that buddhism would come to limelight. I've come to know that people in buddhist organisations requested the gov. to make some coins with buddhist images; but then government never implemented it. These coins can be spread all over the world, and can spread the message. But then government was very reluctant, and unfortunately, we've yet to have buddhist image in any nepali coins. Buddhist images in stamps might also have been printed very recently, if it's ever printed. The government doesn't hesitate to print the mother or father of corrupted Lok man singh karki's image or other businessman, but for buddhist image, A BIG NO. Likewise the royals or even prime ministers sometimes were always reluctant to participate in buddhist programs. There was an international buddhist conference in kathmandu few years ago. Then Crown Prince Dipendra was invited, but he just sent a message, and didn't attend it. If it was any yagya, the whole family would have shown their presence.

Buddhist people have always been living in harmony with other religions, and have been celebrating hindu festivals, and going to hindu temples. But there're different theories regarding the history of it. Recently, buddhist people have come to feel uncomfortable and some people have already starting to leave celebrating hindu festivals like Dashain. This might have also do with the hindu's claim to bring buddishm into it's umbrella.

I am not against hinduism or any sort of things. I respect all hindu gods; I worship them; I go to hindu temples, and I celebrate all hindu festivals. I've read both hindu and buddhist texts; they do have similarities. But these similarities don't make Buddha as a Vishnu's avatar or make buddhism a branch of hinduism.

Whatever Buddha taught was already there in the upanishads and vedangas. It was only that he rediscovered it and it spread to other regions of Asia.

Well, now people feel offended when someone says Buddha was in any way related to Hindus / hinduism. Hinduism is a very eclectic religion with innumerable schools of thought. many of these contradict each other and this has lead to development of varied number of thoughts / ways of lives and sects. Maybe after a few thousand years, this will lead to development of newer religions which will claim that they have nothing to do with hinduism. Thus, lets say after 2 thousand years Sai babaism or Oshoism will be different religions and they'll be at loggerheads with hindus then :-), trying to prove their different identity. No one can say that its not going to happen in future.

Buddhism is only a path to life's end. Life is a journey and we have spiritual paths to choose from. Its like going to walmart, but then there are different ways to get there. Its like all roads lead to rome (in this case after death), all you need to do is choose and stick to it.
There is no such thing as religion as its only imaginary and self fufilling, only rules (commandments or whatever u call it) to make humans behave in a fair manner without which, they would surely destroy whatever's in front of them. You see, incase you didn't notice, we humans can be good or bad. Our choice stems from our belief, our morals. Since religion can be taken so ferverently, the things it teaches, reflects our subconcious choice making abilities. THAT my friends, is the only purpose of religion. Heaven, hell, redemption, sin, angels, demons are, I feel, are like imaginary police officers, so people dont make the wrong decisions in life.
That is why I say, never take your life too seriously. We take our beliefs too strong. Let them be, go do something better. Explore how your body and mind work. Explore the world. Explore physics, and chemistry and spirituality. Cuz all that time you spend devoting to your god, in the end is just for a temporary morale and confidence boost. and in the end, you wont have time to figure out the mysteries of this life.
Peace.

I agree with Crystalcracker

Buddha is not Vishnu's Avatar

SO WHAT?

samir, you may be find stuffs of muslims or christianity or jewish in upanishads or vedas, but that doesn't make it a branch of hinduism. I'm not saying that it is not related to hinduism. All the religions are related. But the conflict will start only when some religion will try to bring it under its umbrella. I didn't start this thread to create any conflict, and I'm glad that the healthy discussion is going on now. I may be wrong, but you've to prove it.

I already explained how people feel offended, but I'm writing it again. Why do people of nepal feel offended when indians say buddha was born in India, and Mt. Everest belong to China? If it's really a branch of hinduism, why do hindus despise buddhism? Buddhist people never have problem with hinduism. It is the best example of living in harmony. But please don't call it a branch of hinduism coz' it is not. Buddha left all these and tried to find his own way. He's not even a god. He just showed the path what people can achieve, and many have achieved in his time even after death. He was not born as a god unlike other bishnu's avatars.

Both Christ (Krishna) and Buddha (Vishnu) were hindus!!

ratobhaley, if you didn't like the thread, simply say so. It may not matter to you, but it does to me. If you're asking if he's not vishnu's avatar, then whom? The answer is that he's just an ordinary human being, not GOD. What buddhists are doing by praying and worshipping him is also wrong.

Lalpari, I don't think that I need to answer to your such strong opinion.

I am a Hindu by birth and believed in Buddhism. Gautam Buddha is a hero of Huminity but I do not like the idea to put his picture in the bank note.

I don't think Buddhists consider Buddha to be a GOD!!

abc, that topic is completely different. But I do want to see buddha in coins with the value like Rs. 500 or something. They make these coins for some birthday celebrations of royals, but they never made it for buddha. It has a great value as it can be used as souveneirs.

Here is something which I find very convincing.

Religion can not be imposed by birth. It is not something which we inherit, it is something we believe in Chris,t was a Jews. I had a long discussion with two Irish guys in this issue
About, Suddhodhan & Mayawati , they were Tharus.I am not very sure about the religion they follow but definitely it is close to Hinduism. Tilaurakot was a Tharu kingdom. If you go back to history(some 100 years back), the people living in that area were predominantly Tharus. The last Tharu king's family were effected by diahorrea that spreaded very badly in that area some 80 or 90 years ago.

So far the connection of this reicarnation issue,Hinduism itself is a history book, the characters in there , are the real life people with a bit of exaggeration of course.So, may be it was just an easy way for the promoters of Hinduism to include someone calling them the reincarnation of one of the characters avoiding further conflict.
But the bright side of this manipulation is that ,they have embraced each other happily without any threat.Whoever did it but Very wise move indeed!

Feel free to disagree

amrapali, I already wrote that he was born in a hindu kingdom, controlled by newars. A language that was spoken at his time was called Pali; there's a very less influence of it on nepali, if any (I may be wrong). But it has a great influence on some other southeast-asian languages.

Please read the text before claiming; if his father and mother were tharus, why is he known as 'shakyamuni'?

Shakyamuni , does not symbolise anything. The Tharus might have called
themeselves 'Shakya Banshi' , what is in a name?
The 'Shakya' does not have to do anything with the present day Shakyas I guess. It may be the mere coincidence that majority of Shakyas are Buddhist.

The thing I have written is what I find convincing, that is it.

amrapali, you find him to be tharus for pleasure. But it has nothing to do with history. What I've read is something different. Small kingdoms used to fight with each other.

You're telling that tilaurakot was a tharu kingdom before 80 or 90 years. It shows your lack of knowledge on history (I may be wrong). It was NEPAL, no more smaller kingdoms back then. If you consider it to be tharu kingdom by looking at the population before 80 or 90 years, there might have been many kinds dominant populations that lived in that area. That population might be tharu or any other. According to your theory, somebody after 80 or 90 years is gonna consider it as muslim kingdom because the majority now are muslims there. Coming back to the original kingdom, when most of people in tilaurakot became religious, other state find it easier to attack it, and killed the inhabitants, majority being shakyas. So the text says that present day, shakyas are the ones who could escape from there.

People can make claims. If you had been to that area, you would come to know the name of indian cities kapilvastu and other similar names near that place. Some people are trying to prove that buddha was born in that Kapilvastu. I've met with some historians there who had visited the place, and told that actually the bricks making their kapilvastu were smuggled from Nepal, so the excavation or analysis can prove that it is really old brick. But we know the fact that where is the real kapilvastu. Again, I'm going to believe he was actually a tharu if it is not twisted facts like they did in kapilvastu.

please read before saying that 'shakyamuni' or 'shakya banshi' doesnot symoblise anything.

I agreed with gahugoro, his logic is significant guys. amrapali is just taking the thred to the different way because gahugoro posted the thread subjecting buddha is incarnation of vishnu or not, but amrapali is talking about budha is shakya or not and shakya is tharu etc etc. common guys whichever family is buddha from he found the way of NIRVANA and we know that Hinduism never take us to the NIRVANA and some one has already posted above that we cannot become a Bishnu but buddha shows us the path to become a buddha...................guys chill out and try not to fight and follow the path of BUDDHA to keep quite because I am seeing lots of racism popping in the world nowdays like Shilpa shetti, madeshi, pahadiya, bahun newar and now buddism and Hindusim coomon people wake up

Well,You have got a point there. But FYKI, I grew up with those anthropologists who were invloved in the extraction of Tilaurakot. I spent my winter vacation with the historians involved in it.I know each corner and stones of Tilaurakot & Lumbini. Be it the Kotia Devi out there or the small well used privately by Mayadevi. Instead of reading Tintin I spent my childhood reading all those stuffs.

May be the word Kingdom was not exactly correct, I am talking about the small zamindars. I am telling you about the stuffs that was there ( some 100 years ago).I am just pointing out one of the possibilities.You must be knowing that Tilaurakot was not that big(the area where Suddhodhan ruled) , though it is often mentioned as kingdom.

And one funny incident I would like to share here. Couple of years ago in Nepal, I met a RajShakya guy in Thamel, who thinks he is the reincarnation of Buddha, no wonder, then he was just out of one of the rehab.Later I found that some families of Shakyas are really into these reincarnation stuff.That was really absurd.

Who said Buddha is Vishnu's avatar?

I am not being argumentative here. I genuinely want to know who said Buddha is reincarnation is Bhagawan Vishnu and where.

Lot of people say so as a matter of fact. But I do not know the source of that information.

Was it foretold in Veda?
Was it mentioned in Gita?

Only place I have seen it as such was in the comic-book I had when I was little - Dus Avataar.

If it was not in scriptures, then somebody must've said it. And even if somebody did say it, how is he uniquely qualified to make such proclamation?

Or is it just a propaganda?

- just curious.

amrapali, now you're calling the kingdom as jamindar? please don't make these statements. These were called "Rajyas" like baise and chaubise rajyas before unified Nepal. "Jamindar" is completely different thing. So it was 'a shakya kingdom' and they spoke the language called pali.

The other word distorted here is the word 'reincarnation'. They must be saying that they are the descendants of buddha. The reincarnation of buddhas are completely different thing. Can you tell me which nepali word they used? If they used the word 'reincarnation', then I'd say that they don't know the meaning of it. I take these kinds of sentences being used just to ridicule the people. Buddhist people know that buddha was a shakya (not tharu), and he got married and has a son, named Rahul, who also became monk. There're no documented kids of Rahul in texts unless someone come up with another Da Vinci Code. Shakyas do believe in reincarnations as do buddhists. I've seen noone considering themselves as reincarneration except in mahayanas like karmpa, dalai lama n' rinpoches.

So please friend amrapali, let's not offend people, and promote hatreds.

Riten, if you read the above comments and have talked with people in nepal; you'll know that still many people in nepal think that buddha was merely an avatar of bishnu.