and nor is buddhism a branch of hinduism.

let me hear if you disagree.

'So please friend amrapali, let's not offend people, and promote hatreds. '
If my posts have got anything to do with the above mentioned statement , then fine, I seal my lips here.
I will open my lips some other day , some other thread which will be purely for the infos about Buddha.

Jai Desh !

Hey amrapali, you can go on telling based on your assumptions, either in this thread or other, it doesn't matter. I just saw your post, where you were dead sure about the nepali student's death in india. It proves that you simply don't care about the truth and makes your own fictious stories. But don't forget what goes comes around.

Buddha is not the avatar of vishu for one basic reason. The core teaching of buddhism, i mean the core teaching, the third turning of the wheel of dharma teaches that there is no such thing as aatma, where as in hinduism there is thing called aatma. Most people think buddhism as similar to other religion , but the fact is it is so completly different.

Heart sutra is the most popular sutra in Buddhism and is the best known perfection of wisdom text. It explains the teaching of non-attachment, which is the doctrine of emptiness (sunyata). The translation of sunyata in Nepalese language is zero. The heart sutra makes it clear that empty means “empty of self (svabhava)(aatma).”

The significance of heart sutra is that all things including material and non material things are empty. Secondly, form is not different from emptiness, and emptiness is not different from form. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Similarly, this can be said for perception, karma and consciousness.

This means all the five skandhas are empty of svabhava. Form, feeling perceptions, karma and consciousness that describe reality in Buddhism, also called pratitya samutpada, is empty. This does not mean these things do not exist, it just means that the five skandhas are not fixed and changes constantly. They are impermanent and due to this they do not have svabhava. These skandhas are not ultimate and eternal, but are actually conditional. They arise and cease. They are constantly moving and changing. These don’t have anything fixed. They are empty. In fact the five skandhas are unreal and insubstantial because the reality we are in is created by our own minds based on form, feeling, perception and consciousness. Because everything in the world is without svabhava, there is nothing we can hold on to that is fixed. We need to let go of all the desires, aversions and ego etc. Furthermore, we need to realize, that all things have “no self” even the very truth of emptiness is empty. Everything is empty in the sense it does not have svabhava is the core of the heart sutra and Buddhism.

If Buddha was a avatar of vishu, he was a very bad avatar because he is teaching completely opposite of what Hinduism is about.

Gahugoro,
Don't mix these two threads. They are totally different. I told you get the autopsy report. If it is not THE CASE, then I swear I will silence myself with a public apology.
" Don't play with the trigger, unless you know how to pull it!"

अब म केही रोचक कुरा राख्दै छु । बुद्ध हिन्दू थियो थिएन भन्दा नि शिदार्थ हिन्दू थिए । यस्मा शंका छैन ।
१, शाक्यहरु राज्य कपिल् वस्तु मा हाल् केहि घर् परिवार् मात्र शाक्यहरु छन्। कहां गए शाक्यहरु?
२, नेपाल भित्र जति शाक्यहरु छन् नि तिनको कयौं गुना बढि शाक्यहरु भारतमा छन्। उत्तर् प्रदेश् र उत्तरान्चल् प्रदेश् बिधानसभा मात्र शाक्य हरु को संख्या १५ जना भन्दा ज्यादा छन्। किन?
३, २५ सय बर्ष भन्दा पहिला त्यो क्षेत्रमा कुन भाषा बोल्दथे, अनुसंधान् को बिषय हुनु पर्द्छ। शाक्यहरु थारु वा अबधि बोल्ने जनजाति हुन सक्छ।
४, नेपाल मा जति बुद्ध बिहार् हरु छन् तिन् को कयौं गुना ज्याद अमेरिका मा छन्।
५, बुद्ध नेपालमा जन्मेको भन्न मिल्छ कि मिल्दैन? २५ सय बर्ष अगादि नेपाल् को सीमा कहा सम्म थ्यो?
६, बरु यसलाइ यसो भने कसो होला- बुद्ध जन्मेको पबित्र स्थान् लुम्बिनी, हाल् नेपाल् भित्र पर्दछ।
मित्र हरु, म आँफै पनि बुद्ध धर्मालम्बी हुं, मन मा उठेका तरङ्ग हरु लाई यहाँ बिसाएको मात्र हुं, अन्यथा न लिनु होला । अस्तु!

I am with rahulvai, your thought is significant dude......म पनि बुद्ध धर्मालम्बी हुं, but I don't have problem with that but I am proud the place called LUMBINI in Nepal.

Peace

Regarding #3 premise of Rahulvai: I think it has been well confirmed fact that people of Kapilvastu, and Lumbini at large, 2500 years ago spoke the language hitherto known as "Paali".

Regarding #5 premise: It is also a well accepted fact (I hope) that Nepal, as we know it, did not exist in any shape or form 2500 years ago, unless, you are referring to Nepal Khaldo, in which case, the boundaries you mention are the peripheral hills of Kathmandu Valley.

I think it has been well confirmed fact that people of Kapilvastu, and Lumbini at large, 2500 years ago spoke the language hitherto known as "Paali".

I don't think so. As the Kapilwastu and its surroundings were part of Bharat Barsha at that time, no part of Bharat bharsha had similar language like "pali". The origin of Pali is supposed to be Tibetian family and in modern era the language is little bit similar to Thai and Burmis languages. As Buddha spent most of his time in modern India ( Bihar and Uttar pradesh) his language must be originated from Sanskirta. The main reason behind the Buddhist manuscripts were written in Pali language is that they had been documented only after Buddhism spread in South East Asia.

Rahulvai, in the texts, I've read somewhere that buddha spoke in pali. Buddhist texts were started to get documented after 500 years of demise of buddha. I doubt if it has spread at that time.

Rahulvai wrote: "no part of Bharat bharsha had similar language like "pali". The origin of Pali is supposed to be Tibetian family and in modern era the language is little bit similar to Thai and Burmis languages. As Buddha spent most of his time in modern India ( Bihar and Uttar pradesh) his language must be originated from Sanskirta. The main reason behind the Buddhist manuscripts were written in Pali language is that they had been documented only after Buddhism spread in South East Asia."

I disagree. Here's why:

Pali language was the lingua franca in the areas that fell under Magadha hegemony, including King Suddodhana's Kapilvastu. In fact, some scholars claim that Pali itself is a derivation of more ancient language called Magadhi, which sounds quite plausible if you ask me.

Pali falls under the Prakrit language family which is significantly different from Sanskrit. Some claim that Sanskrit, as the most common scholastic language in so-called Bharat Barsha (I have issues with this term, but that is another story for another time), came much afterwards.

Much after Buddha's time, Pali language spread to Sri Lanka and other parts of Asia with the movement of Theravada Budhism.

======================================================

On a side note: I noticed there is a person here with the nick Amrapali.

If she is as knowledgeable of the etymology of her nick, then she may be able to verify what I have said above.

I say "she" because Amrapali, aka Ambapali, was a palace courtesan of unparalleled beauty in the country called Vaishaal. Intoxicated by her beauty, the king of Magadha conquered Vaishaal in order to claim her as his concubine. (Helen of Troy anyone?) Later, Amrapali - now the most influential concubine in the empire - is said to have served a single meal to Gautam Buddha, after which she renounced all her worldly possession and dedicated her life to his teaching, becoming the most modest bhikchuni.

Thanks Riten and Gahugoro, I was wrong.

RahulVai...This is what i have been saying to these people who claim BUDDHA was born in Nepal.
NO !!!BUDDHA WASN'T BORN IN NEPAL.THE BIRTHPLACE OF BUDDHA NOW LIES IN THE BOUNDARY OF NEPAL...THATS ALL!!!I have said this earlier too..

Now Nepalese are cashing this ..well there is nothing wrong cashing Buddha Nepal...Just leave that man alone DON"T PRINT HIM IN THE PAPER NOTES!!!
not only that:
Many buddist do not believe that Siddarth was the first buddha or Sidharth Gautam started buddism.Buddish started before Siddharth and he just made it popular.In a sense rebirth of an philosophy.

Sorry ImI for interrupt, what I knew that the BUDDHA is BUDDHA that means he got NIRVANA and does not need to reborn again. Yes, Siddhartha was born before in different faces and different names to become a BUDDHA. Now, the another BUDDHA(not a same Buddha whom we worship) is comming in near future name is MAITRIYA to make our world Peace and Better, lets try to live till he born......

Peace

Maaila...you are correct but slight wrong..How can siddharth be born again and again..Doesn't after getting one nirvana ...you are not suppose to be born again?

and what i don't understand . the basic teaching is not followed by buddist and christians.anyways , i am not against religion ..do what ever you want.

well...some one is finally coming :P
well we will see by that time world lasts..forget about me and you.

Thank you IMI, I mean to say that u might also heard that we had taken many lives to become a Human being, thats why the people try to do a good KARMA,and KARMA is kinda our credit history haina ra, if we do the good KARMA then we will born as a good life or creature so that god gave us this opportunity to do for GOOD KARMA for the next life. what u think? SAME the previous Buddha also promoted his life and finally got NIRVANA and he is Immortal

WOW

यो कुरो चै मलाइ साह्रै चित्त बुझ्यो ---

KARMA is kinda our credit history


मोरा खैरे हरुले हाम्रो पुर्खाको concept चोरेर यहाँ मालामाल फाइदा उठाएका रहेछन हगि ।।

भाग्य र कर्ममा के फरक छ भन्ने कुरो अमेरीकामा बुझ्न पाइदो रहेछ ।

I used to hear a lot that Buddha is Vishnu avatar during Panche time and early 90s. Lately, people seem to have changed their view. Whether somebody claims Buddha is Vishnu avatar or Vishnu is just one of many gods who are body guard of Buddha does not make any difference.

What matters is how you think and respect others. Claiming this and that merely shows we are only ego maniac, but very empty inside. May be that is why we never grow as a common citizen. Recent incident in Tarai is one example.

At the end, Truth prevails. Those true practitioners always respect each other. Only ego maniac and lazy people argue his or her system or belief is better or greater.

So you decide who you are and who is right or wrong.

gyurme, I can never disrespect hindu or any other religion. My question is only to create the harmony among people so that we don't hurt each other. My understanding is that buddhism is not a branch of hinduism; I'm open to thoughts if it is wrong.

the comparision of my questionings with terai conflicts are irrelevant.

Gautama Buddha is mentioned as an Avatar of Vishnu in the Puranic texts of Hinduism. In the Bhagavata Purana he is twenty fourth of twenty five avatars, prefiguring a forthcoming final incarnation. A number of Hindu traditions portray Buddha as the most recent of ten principal avatars, known as the "Dasavatara" (Ten Incarnations of God).

However, Siddhartha Gautama's teachings do not confirm the existence of the Creator God and consequently Buddhism falls under one of the nāstika (heterodox, literally "It is not so") schools according to other Dharmic schools, such as Dvaita. Other schools, such as Advaita, are very similar to Buddhism in nature and philosophy.

Due to the diversity of traditions within Hinduism there is no specific viewpoint or consensus on Buddha's exact position in reference to the Vedic tradition. According to popular Hindu beliefs, in the age of Kali Yuga the general populace become more ignorant in regards to spiritual values and religious life. There is a belief that at the time of Buddha's arrival many of the Brahmins in India were abusing the Vedic system for their own selfish purposes, and were especially involved in needless animal sacrifices, and that as a result Buddha appeared as an avatar to readdress the balance.

My one simple question to sundari, if you consider buddha as any other avatar, why do so many hindus still despise it? why do they hesitate to even enter or read buddhism world. I'm not talking in the context of conservative hindus like pandits. Why don't they even want to hear the name of buddha?

It is contradictory that on one hand some conservative hindus have dislikes towards buddhism, and on the other, they try to bring it into their umbrella.