Talk:Dashavatara/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A note on vandalism

I get the impression that many regular editors and watchers of this page are a little battle-weary from all the disruptive editing by people who don't respect the neutrality of Wikipedia and want the article to preference their personal beliefs. This is understandable.

Among the most egregious edits that slipped through the net were this from 15 September, which modified critical text in references and remained undetected for over 60 days, and this from 5 November, which removed a substantial chunk of information, caused the article to become structurally unsound, and was undetected for about 12 days.

Improving the overall quality of an article is often effective as a defence against vandalism, because a relatively well-written article encourages people to take pride in it and be vigilent against disruptive edits. Using 2-3 dynamic IP addresses I believe I've made substantial improvements to the article over the last few days, and I hope it might have precisely that effect. I also hope that by restructuring the article I've made it better able to accommodate new information in the future. My knowledge of the topic is limited (I come at it via an interest in Ganjifa), but I bring an outsider's perspective, free of the battle-weariness that so obviously plagues regular contributors.

I've probably more or less finished now, although you never know. I may yet be inspired to make another edit as I stare at the page in wonder at the fact that no-one, vandal or otherwise, has so far taken issue with any of my changes. 118.211.116.40 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A good place to start is to stop adding unsourced text. Another good step would be to stop inserting text before sourced summaries that are based on personal wisdom / prejudice / opinions rather than being a summary of the source in our own words to the best of one's abilities. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Evolutionary interpretation

Upon looking at the history before IP, it seems that the content on Dashavatara#Evolutionary_interpretation was already well sourced and was written[1] after consensus and discussion between an admin and other editors. I have restored the section since it hadn't been truly objected for this long period. Capitals00 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Would you please check the source again, and see the restored version of the section is indeed supported and fairly summarized? Thanks for the old discussion link. It helps. The old discussion yielded a consensus to include this section and the identified sources, which I concur with. However, the summary is not quite reflecting Nanda's critical statements and reasoning. Please take another look, particularly pages 281-282, and 308-309 where Isis Unveiled is summarized. @Joshua Jonathan: thoughts? should we merge the two versions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I had read it before I had restored earlier section as well and I found that it was not providing major views of Hindus about evolution and Dashavatara as both and the highlighted views that couldn't be backed with multiple reliable sources. But now I have written a more accurate new paragraph. Capitals00 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge the two versions, but without the list. It distracts. NB: the theme reminds me of the idea of reincarnation as a cycle of learning until liberation has been reached. The concept of evolution has influenced Hinduism/neo-Vedanta in more ways.

NB2: I find this edition confusing, and non-neutral;

• "The similarities of evolution and Dashavatara has found Hindus to be more supportive of the theory of evolution compared to adherents of Abrahamic religions. (Karkkainen, Veli-Matti (2015). Creation and Humanity: A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, Volume 3. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.)" - Eh? So, because Blavatsky (a westerner) interpreted the Dashvatara-list in an evolutionary way, Hindus are more supportive of the concept of evolution (a western concept)? In other words, Hindus are actually more modern and western than westerners? And so, actually, superior to westerners in regard to western culture? This doesn't feel right... 'You're culture is better than our culture, and we're best at your culture, so we're better than you are'. I'm overstating the point at stake now, of course, but the point is clear, isn't it?
• "In India, there were minimal references to Darwinism in the 1800s. Elements of Victorian England opposed the idea of Darwinism, though Hindus already had present notion of common ancestry between humans and animals. (Gosling, David (June 2011). "Darwin and the Hindu Tradition: Does What Goes Around Come Around?". Zygon. 46 (2): 345–347–348–353. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01177.x. Retrieved 2014-01-24.) - that's three pieces of unrelated information:

• "In India, there were minimal references to Darwinism in the 1800s." - so? What about it now? How did that change?
• "Elements of Victorian England opposed the idea of Darwinism, though Hindus already had present notion of common ancestry between humans and animals." - well, Victorian England also had a notion of Darwinism, didn't it? And what's the realtion between the first part and the second part?
• "In a survey of 909 people, 77% of its respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 85% of God-believing people said they agree with evolution as well. ("Opinions on evolution from ten countries - NCSE". Retrieved 26 March 2015.</ref>" - the title of the source says "One in seven Britons believe in creationism over evolution"; is that number different from the Indian numbers?

I didn't check the sources (yet), but I doubt that they what's being said here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

We can also keep the list (which is also interpreted in few independent sources[2]) and remove the new content which has expanded the scope of the article. I had rewritten the new content "According to Nanda, this has led to some Hindus asserting that their religion is more open to scientific theories, and has not opposed or persecuted scientists midst them like the way Christianity and Islam has"[3] which was added yesterday, instead of mentioning "Christianity and Islam", I just mentioned Abrahamic religions, per source. Because new content was echoing the Hindu views on evolution, I just brought some more content about Hindus having no conflict with evolution. Pinging @Redtigerxyz: who mostly contributed to the section[4][5] years ago and we can wait till he comments because he is still active. Capitals00 (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My comments above, on your latest additions, were probably too harsh; the article already explains that Hinduism has less problms with evolutionary theory than Christianity has. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I share JJ's concern. Nanda explains more and is critical, this article's summary of those sources doesn't. The list + evolution-speculations is fine if we trim it down to what is in the source with attributions. Despite your good effort, Capitals00, the summary isn't NPOV as it does not fairly summarize the different sides and the criticism the sources present of revisionism and Hindu reformists such as Brahmo Samaj,.... in the "Dashavatara context". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00: Please consider deleting the last new para "The similarities of evolution and Dashavatara has found Hindus to be more supportive of the theory of evolution compared to...". This comes across as WP:SOAP, its accuracy dependent on sampling etc, and above all is it really about Dashavatara? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Now it seemed like a repetition after your very recent edits. Removed. Capitals00 (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed: In a survey of 909 people, 77% of its respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 85% of God-believing people said they agree with evolution as well.

The survey does not mention anything about Dashavatara and its links to Darwin's evolution. It is WP:UNDUE here and can be interpreted as WP:SYTH and WP:POV pushing.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Etymology section

This section is self-contradictory or contains incorrect information regarding the Yuga associated with forms 8 and 9. A single sentence says the number reduces by one with each Yuga but we see both the 4-3-1-1 and 4-3-2-1 patterns listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:6390:8700:747B:A2D3:EEB3:FD1D (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion re the Buddha controversy

At the time of writing, the last good version is 27 October by User:Ms_Sarah_Welch. A list of external links in the middle of the article simply will not do.

In Ganjifa: The Playing Cards of India by Rudolf von Leyden, the text states on page 22 that: "the composition and sequence of the list of avataras are not uniform, varying according to the divergent texts of the Puranas. In the eight and ninth positions, Balarma, Krishna, Buddha and Jagannatha change places in accordance with regional beliefs or preferences."

A table similar to the following is then presented:

	Rajasthan, Nepal, Northern Deccan	Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra	Southern Deccan, Mysore	West Bengal, Orissa
Position 8	Balarma	Krishna	Balarma	Balarma
Position 9	Buddha	Buddha	Krishna	Jagannatha

Shortly thereafter, a paragraph description is given for each of 11 avatars (omitting Jagannatha). This is not a numbered list, but could be presented as a bulletted one. The list ends on page 25.

Could elements of that approach be useful here? Just putting it forward as a suggestion. 118.211.23.89 (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems usefull to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall if we've had older, more elaborate versions of this table, but I've expanded it with the info above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Where did the longer lists go?

I don't know who did this, but someone COMPLETELY re-edited this whole page and removed TWO separate lists that contained a longer and more detailed description of Vishnu's incarnations. It must have been over the past month or so, as I used to review this page often during the most recent school year. This is very disturbing, as it was a very complete & comprehensive list, and now the information is abridged & even misrepresented [who spells Krishna as Christna?!]. If there is any way that the previous pages can be reviewed [if their I.P. addresses were saved or w.e] so that we can put that information back up please? There aren't many other sites that had such a comprehensive list. Here's an example of another site that has the complete list: http://hindumythologybynarin.blogspot.com/2011/11/lord-vishnus-21-avatars-and-22-is-kalki.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.15.125 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@IP: You have either not read ther source on Christna spelling or are misrepresenting the sources! Further blogs are not WP:RS, nor is the list of 21 a "Dashavatara" list (daśa = 10). We need a peer-reviewed scholarly source to support any list of 10+. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Table list

@Joshua Jonathan: I see the 2017 thread above that you just replied to. Leyden is remarking on the various court sources of some collected art at the V&A museum during the colonial era. We can mirror Leyden's wording as a comment in a refn, but unless we have direct RS that states those avatars to be specific region/state, we should not adopt that table. The main reason is that some of the earliest surviving Sanskrit inscription that lists the Buddha as a Dashavatara is found at a UNESCO world heritage site in Mahabalipuram (Tamil Nadu, 7th-century Hindu temple, active). See the RS cited in the article. The table somewhat overstates what the Leyden source is stating and also misconstrues the complexity of the regional situation. I have a photo of the inscription somewhere in my collection, will try to dig it out and donate it to wikimedia commons in the coming weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the table this way, without the regio-specifics if necessary, but with other sources as reference fkr the various lists. Would you know of sources for 8. Balarama 9.Buddha? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

See Nakacami (2008), Mahabalipuram, Oxford Univ Press, p. 27, for example, which translates the Sanskrit inscription I mention. This very old South Indian inscription on the temple floor near its sanctum includes 8. Balarama 9. Buddha 10. Kalki. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've adjusted the references in the table. Next step is to check all the sources in the Buddha-note, to see what exactly they're stating. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Am I a Wiki-gnome now? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Which Buddha ?

Gotama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism is not the avatar of Vishnu. There is no mention of Gotama Buddha in Hindu scriptures. It is Sugata Buddha who is the avatar of Vishnu. This particular Buddha is described in Hindu scriptures such as in the Puranas as a teacher of false Dhamma who would lead his followers to hell. Sugata Buddha is NOT AN EPITHET of Gotama Buddha. Both are completely different individuals. They have different parents and different birth places. Just read the Puranas and the Tipitaka. Gotama Buddha was NEVER CONSIDERED as an avatar of any God by any Buddhist tradition. Even just before his death, Gotama Buddha has stated to his followers that after experiencing death, he would no longer experience rebirth since he had achieved Nibbana. How can such a mortal who has stopped the cycle of rebirth, be the incarnation of any God including Vishnu, who reincarnates over and over again ? Not a single Buddha of the 29 named Buddhas in Buddhist theology , bear the name of Sugata Buddha(Hindu/Brahmanical Buddha). Hence , it is clear that the historical founder of Buddhism(Gotama Buddha) and the deceptive Brahmanical counterpart of Buddha who is said to be a teacher of Mayavada(Sugata Buddha) are not the same Buddha. I request Joshua Jonathan , who reverted my edits over several pages related to the Dashavataras of Vishnu, claiming that my edits were "unconstructive" , to reconsider his decision of making such reverts. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the sources we use say otherwise. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please provide links to those "Sources". Along with proper reference(page number,verse number). Bodhiupasaka (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the article, will you? And provide some sources yourself, per WP:BURDEN. See also WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR and WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Something tells me that you are not well versed with either Buddhist or Hindu scriptures . Sugata Buddha just an "epithet" of Gotama Buddha ? Those who are well versed with scriptures will disagree.Bodhiupasaka (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Refer to this page: https://www.stephen-knapp.com/were_there_two_buddhas.htm Bodhiupasaka (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Something tells me that you don't understand which sources we use; that site is not WP:RS, nor is Dasavatar: Ten Manifestations of Godhead. At best we can say taht some people believe that there was an avatar of Vishnu, called Sugata Buddha, who lived at ca. 1800 BCE (a time when the Aryan people where about to enter India; there was no Vedic culture at that time in India). Anyway, I've added a note diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems you finally admit there is an actual possiblity that Gotama And Sugata Buddha are not the same Buddha given the scriptural evidence. And you included the source that I have provided to back it up as well. That is a start. Please read about and compare : The birth places of the two Buddhas. The practices/Philosophy propounded by the two Buddhas. The parents of the two Buddhas. You will see what I am talking about. Many Hindus today ignorantly assume that Gotama Buddha,a mortal and historical founder of Buddhism is avatar of Vishnu. But this is plain wrong. It is a Sugata Buddha. NO BUDDHIST OR HINDU scripture recognises Gotama Buddha as the avatar of any God. There is infact mention of ANOTHER Buddha in Hindu scriptures(Mahabharata) called Jabali Buddha. While Sugata Buddha is a teacher of Mayavada(false Dharma), Jabali Buddha is considered to be a thief !!

Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to this site. It shows a detailed agreement between both Hindu Acharyas and a Buddhist leader(late SN GOENKA) where they jointly state Gotama Buddha is not an avatar of Vishnu . http://circumsolatious.blogspot.com/2010/07/joint-declaration-buddha-is-not-9th.html?m=1 Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way , I have found this statement in the article problematic:"Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, is commonly included as an avatar of Vishnu in Hinduism. Buddha is sometimes depicted in Hindu scriptures as a preacher who deludes and leads demons and heretics away from the path of the Vedic scriptures". This is wrong . In Hindu scriptures , Gotama Buddha(Shakya) is considered to be the one who stopped Animal Sacrifice. It is Sugata Buddha(9th avatar of Vishnu) who deludes his followers and leads them to hell , as said in Puranas. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverting Edits to Dashavatara

Copied from User Talk:Joshua Jonathan#Reverting Edits to Dashavatara

Hello Joshua,

It seems you reverted most of my edits to dashavatara, including to restore sections that were re-written because they contain false information, spelling mistakes, false links, etc. I am a little confused as to why? Carlduff (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

End of copied part

@Carlduff: you're referring to this edit, edit-summary "not an improvement," which undid your previous four edits. My main concern was this edit by you, edit-summary " "New" easier to read descriptions, inspired by original table," which removed 5k of information. It also removed the fine nuances of position 9. So, definitely not an improvement. Unfortunately, I couldn't undo that specific edit, due to follow-up edits, so I reverted to the last version before this specific edit. I hope this explains my revert; I've re-inserted some of the info you added.

I'm not sure about the table with Puranic sources either, but I'll have to take a good look at that. I also don't agree with the subheader "Academics," as it suggests that their conclusions differ from commonly accepted opinions. Some more comments:

• Puranas: Of the eight Puranas found to list the Dashavatara, seven list the Buddha instead of Balarama, and this order seems to be the most accepted. - where exactly is the Buddha listed instead of Balarama? I see the Buddha replaced by Krishna or regional deities, but not Balarama.
• some traditions omit Krishna who replaces Vishnu as the ultimate source or origin of all avatars - Tagore 1880 diff is not an appropriate source for this
• No sources are provided for the the Puranic section.
• In your Puranic list, you wrote "Buddha, Krishna" - augh...
• I've moved the list of Puranic sources into notes; these are references. I'm really sorry for your hard work on the table, but this is sufficient for a note with references.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Oh, dear. The Puranic section listed no less than 11 citations in the table, Joshua. This is easily proven simply by looking at an earlier edit, so I don't see the point in claiming otherwise. the Description of the avatars section alone contains a lot of errors and misinformation. For example, no cyclones are mentioned in legends of Matsya; there is no demon such as 'Hiranyakashayapa' (also a false hyperlink); Hiranyakashipu is not a rakshasa; Vamana not the fourth 'descendent' of Vishnu, etc., etc. It also seems some summaries of legends are too detailed and jumble up different versions from different Puranas. To be fair, as a wall of text it is a little hard on the eyes, too. Titling one of your tables under a "academics" heading was fair given it references only academics (and does not infer they go against common belief as you claimed; proven by the fact I kept the citations to prove said common belief).

Given our last encounter I know what to expect this time, including being piled on and threatened (again) your (admin) friends, so won't bother. I think you've made your point. Carlduff (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Matsya: ce, using Lochtefeld as a source diff
• Narasimhan: Hiranyakashyapa is indeed an asura, and spelled Hiranyakashipu diff
• The article says "The fourth descendant of Vishnu, Bali"; fourth refers to Bali.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Boar or swine? (copied from User talk:Anubhav Srivastava)

Hello,

After I have provided the reason for the removal, you have not provided any reason for reverting back countering my position. I have pointed out the misrepresentation of Varaha Avtar which is not even in given references of the page or any other Wikipedia page regarding Varaha Avtar.

Here, let me emphasize again that there are biological differences between boar and swine and the iconography of Varaha in temples throughout the world is of Boar, not swine.

Hence, you should remove misrepresentation of Varaha Avtar by yourself and also clear your position. Thanks, Anubhav. Anubhav Srivastava (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Boar is the same as wild pig; wild pig being the WP:COMMONNAME, it makes sense to mention that term as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I reverted you because multiple reliable sources refer to the Varaha avatar as a pig (swine). Do a search on Google Books for yourself. Are they all wrong? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There are many books there, but are they reliable? In most RS, "boar" is used and you may check Varaha article. Even in the scriptures, Varaha has tusks..245CMR.•^👥📜 12:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wild swines have tusks, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The wild boar article says it's also known as the wild swine or common wild pig. A boar is a pig (suid). Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say stick with WP:RS that are actually cited, not uncited sources. The first source (Dasavatara) doesn't use the word "swine", but instead "boar". I haven't looked into the second source since there is no link. Also, the main article page (Varaha) never mentions "swine", but says "boar" in multiple places. If there is confusion from readers where "wild swine" is needed to describe a boar, then maybe the main article page needs to be changed too, which may require discussion there. Also, there is a negative reference to "pig" found on the Varaha page, which the word "swine" might be viewed in the same negative light, hence "boar" is mostly used? Jroberson108 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I found a copy of the second source (Majesty and Meekness) and it also doesn't use the word "swine" or "pig", but "boar". At the very least, you can just link the word "boar" to the "wild boar" page for people who don't know what it is. That should accommodate all opinions. Jroberson108 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

"boar" or "wild boar" is common usage in Indian English; its synonym "wild pig" is not used. "swine" [6] has a negative connotation in English; also refers generally to a domesticated pig; rather than a boar (wild pig). Most references e.g. Britannica, [7], [8], [9] call him a Boar, not a pig. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mohini avatar

Mohini was an Avatar of Vishnu who helped in gaining the Amrita for the gods. It's not Balarama or Budha but it is told as so. 122.162.144.17 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert war

I have given constructive edits with references which are reverted without any talking. I have mentioned how different denominations view the avatars with refs. If there is any disagreement, talk here. Cheers! Nagannaa (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nagannaa: you've been reverted four times now; as far as I can see, you're trying to diminish the relevance of the common list, and pushing a less common list to the foreground. From the article (including your additions):

others – such as the Mahabharata, Sangam Literature, Shaiva Siddhanta, Adi Sankara's Prapanchasara and Yatindramatadipika, a 17th-century summary of Sri Vaishnava doctrine – give Balarama as the eighth avatar and Krishna as the ninth. The latter version is followed by some Vaishnavas who do not accept the Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. Though no list can be uncontroversially presented as standard, the "most accepted list found in Puranas and other texts is [...] Krishna, Buddha."

References

You're ignoring this, including the list of references in note 1, with the argument diff "Rearranged table order on most ref. standards." That's a nonsense argument, of course. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for arranging. I had rearranged counting the antiquity in descending order.

Calling it 'common' is offensive and sweeping. Like calling Protestant Xtians 'common' in a liturgical chart. Better would be to point to the exact sampradaya. Nagannaa (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Avalon and Shankara's Samrtism

Avalon, Arthur (1935). Tantrik Texts Prapancha Sara Tantra Vol. XVIII. Arthur Avalon. only states that the Prapanchasara is attributed to Shankara, among other reasons because it omits Buddha from the Dashavatara, in deviance from the prevailing tradition of Shankara's time. Avalan further notes that the attribution to Shankara is questionable, and that in another hymn attributed to Shankara the sequence with the Buddha is give. Avalon does not mention the Smarta-tradition, so this is WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This is reductio ad absurdum. Cheers! Nagannaa (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If Shankara is not Smartist, then who is?

BTW Avalon's opinion does not count on Prapanchasara's authorship.

Even one can opine Shakespeare never existed! Nagannaa (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You added Avalon as a source diff:

Adi Sankara's Smartism;

References

Avalon also doesn't state that the Prapancha Sara gives "Balarama as the eighth avatar and Krishna as the ninth"; he only states that the Parpancha omits the Buddha. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Dalal and Mahabaratha

Dala gives the following sequence: Rama (Bhargava), Rama (Dasharathi), Satvata (Krishna or Balarama), not Balarama (8) - krishna (9). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This inference of Dalal is from Prapanchasara - Tri-rama or the three Ramas; Bhargava, Raghu and Yadu Nagannaa (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Morgan

Morgan gives Balarama (8) - Buddha (9), not Balarama (8) - Krishna (9). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You removed Tamil Sangam (300 BCE - 300 CE) reference which is crucial as it is in Tamil.

Mahabharata (3102 BCE - 1000 BCE) as well

These two are the most ancient with the latter being contemporaneous. Nagannaa (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

All the authors upto Shankara (700- 800 CE) opined Balarama as the eighth avatara.

After 800 Bhagavatism, Madhvism and other northern sects assimilated Buddha and Rishabhadeva to woo the converts into their denominations.

This is commonplace knowledge if we look at the ages.

This is also the reason for the decline of the two Nastika religions. Nagannaa (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Shankara's Smartism and Saiva Siddhanta are considered to be unwelcoming and default denominations in which only lapsed converts are reinducted.

All other Vaishnava sects still accept converts. Nagannaa (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Mahabaratha was definitely not written between 3102-1000 BCE; that's a WP:FRINGE point of view. You may be right that All the authors upto Shankara (700- 800 CE) opined Balarama as the eighth avatara., and that would definitely be worthy of inclusion, but it needs to be sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This age is consensual. So are you another Wendy Doniger, Audrey Truschke to post date all non Abrahamic works? Nagannaa (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensual maybe in popular religious views, but here at Wikipedia we present scholarly views and datings. To come back to All the authors upto Shankara (700- 800 CE) opined Balarama as the eighth avatara, the Puranas were written between the 3rd and 10th century CE; and Avalon indicates that at the time of Shankara the inclusion of the Buddha was well accepted, so syour statement seems to be incorrect. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sangam literature

No English source has been provided. I did indeed remove a Tamil-language source, "P202212". www.tamilvu.org. Retrieved 2023-09-12., diff; at the English Wikipedia we use WP:RS English sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

So how does quote Tamil Sangam sources if they are not available in English? Can you help?

https://www.tamilvu.org/courses/degree/p202/p2022/html/p202212.htm

Tamil Virtual Univ. is run by the TamilNadu government and this page is on the Sangam Ettutokai texts quoting the last nine avataras bareing the first - matsya Nagannaa (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm reading the page, and trying to understand the context. Tirumal was a Tamil deity, but as an epitath the name came to be used for Vishnu, right? I can't extract a date from this site, or clues for it. What does "is one of the eight books Paribadal" mean? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Buddha and Rishabadeva (first Tirthankara) were definitely not inducted until Adi Shankara. (800 CE)

Bhagavata Purana (1000 CE), the scripture of Bhagavatism inducts both in a syncretic way but with clauses.

That Sakyamuni Buddha is not the real Buddha

and Rishbhadeva was a Avadhuta, not the founder of Jainism. Nagannaa (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah: Eight Anthologies. "... the scholarship so far suggested that the earliest layers were composed sometime between the 1st century BCE and 2nd century CE, while the last layers were completed between 3rd and 5th century CE." And Paripāṭal: " 3rd or 4th century A.D." Okay, the question of when the Dashavatara developed, and when and how the Buddha came to be included, is indeed relevant. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Sangam considered Buddhist and Jain sources as 'Pura-samayam' or alien atheisms and accepted only texts adhering to Aha-samayam or native nature cults (called Hinduism later)

Much like Kami Shinto vs. Buddhism in Japan's Meiji era Shinbutsu Bunri

Chinese folk, Confucius, Taoism vs. Buddhism in China's anti Buddhist age Nagannaa (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Nayanmars and Alvars who were the successors of the Sangam age were rabid against the Pura Samayams not just because they were alien, but because they were anti nature and globalist. Nagannaa (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

In the major organised denominations which are inherited by birth, Srautism, Smartism, Saiva Siddhanta and Orthodox Sri Vaishnavism , Buddha and Rishabhadeva are rather seen as enemies.

While northern Bhagavatist cults inducted converts and reconverts by inducting the two.

The remaining Buddhists were converted to Islam (750-1800) in the subcontinent. Nagannaa (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"“Hey, you’re just a pathetic nature-spirit! I am the creator and destroyer of all beings, the paramount Lord of the Three Worlds!”"

https://theprint.in/opinion/the-pallava-dynasty-was-turning-toward-shaivism-buddhists-took-immediate-note-and-strung-up-a-narrative-where-shiva-is-immature-and-trailokyavijaya-emerges-supreme/1655737/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CHey%2C%20you%E2%80%99re%20just%20a%20pathetic%20nature%2Dspirit!%20I%20am%20the%20creator%20and%20destroyer%20of%20all%20beings%2C%20the%20paramount%20Lord%20of%20the%20Three%20Worlds!%E2%80%9D

You can see the approach of Buddhism on Hinduism. Can be read as pagan vs. missionary Nagannaa (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Dashavatara#Buddha: "The Buddha was included as one of the avatars of Vishnu under Bhagavatism by the Gupta period between 330 and 550 CE." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

However, there is no evidence, either textual, nor physical for a Gupta period assimilation Nagannaa (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

By the 8th century CE, the Buddha was included as an avatar of Vishnu in several Puranas. This assimilation is indicative of the Hindu ambivalence toward the Buddha and Buddhism, and there is also a tradition that there were two Buddhas. According to this tradition, the first was the ninth avatar of Vishnu, while the second was the historical Buddha. Conversely, Vishnu has also been assimilated into Sinhalese Buddhist culture, and Mahayana Buddhism is sometimes called Buddha-Bhagavatism. By this period, the concept of Dashavatara was fully developed.

- In the same article. Assimilation of Buddha as an avatara is NOT universal. It is a feature of Northern Bhagavatists, while all other denominations disagree. Nagannaa (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Mention of texts in table

@Nagannaa: you reinserted diff] some of the texts in the table; this is unnecessary, as those texts are already mentioned in the alinea above. You also reinserted a Tamil-text source; at the English Wikipedia we use English WP:RS. What's more, this source does not mention that Shaiva Siddhanta follows the Paripatal, or this specific list. And you blindly copied the <!-- --> make-up, which means that the source wasn't visible. Next, you added the wrong source to the text "Mahabaratha (one of the lists). And, as also already explained, Avalon does not say that the Prapanchasara gives "Balrama, Krishna"; Avalon only says that this text omits the Buddha. It's also not clear from your insertion what exact ly is disputed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I posted 'disputed' as you insisted on it. Otherwise I have read both the Sanskrit & Eng. versions. Nagannaa (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The attribution of it's authorship to Shankara is disputed; but the way you put it, it seemed disputed that the Prapanchasara gives this specific list (which, anyway, is not what Avalon says). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"Shankara's smarta tradition"

No need to add his name here; already enough info here. Besiides, it's tbee smarta-tradition that regards Shankara as it's founder, but that's probably a later understanding; the smarta-tradition pre-dates Shankara. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Saiva Siddhanta

I have removdd diff "Saiva Siddhanta (follows earlier Sangam literature)"; it's unsourced, and therefor unveriable, while according to Shaiva Siddhanta, "It draws primarily on the Tamil devotional hymns written by Shaiva saints from the 5th to the 9th century, known in their collected form as Tirumurai." And Tirumurai says: "Tirumurai in anthology supersedes Sangam literature, which is predominantly secular in nature," so this statement is disputable. Besides, there's no explanation what the implication is of "follows earlier Sangam literature." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

primarily - note

The Periyapuranam lists 74 saints of which 11 are 'Togai Adiyar' or 'Orders of saints'.

In this come Kapilar, Bharanar and the 'Poi Adimaiyilla Pulavars' or the unbound bards who followed the Sangam at Madurai presided by Sokkanathar himself.

So the entire corpus is holy in Saiva Siddhanta Nagannaa (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I trust you're right on that, but the point is that you want to make the following statement:

1. The Shaiva Siddantha tradition gives Balarama-Krishna

2. In this, it follows the Sangam literature,

3. which also gives Balarama-Krishna.

Given the fact that all denominations but ISKCON are unsourced, we can leave statement 1 unsourced for now. But for statement 2 and 3, sources would be most welcome. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to provide a source diff, but Shiva Purana, Part 4: Vayaviya Samhita: Chapter 30, Verses 56-58 and Chapter 31, verses 134-136, J.L.Shastri (1950). Siva Purana - English Translation - Part 4 of 4.</ref> is useless; chapter 30 goes to verse 53, chapter 31 goes to verse 100. It's a primary source; you probably won't find a statement there that "Shaiva Siddhanta follows this specific list of the Dashavatara." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It does. Shiva Purana is the basic Purana of Saiva Siddhanta. Nagannaa (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Check the source, will you? I checked again; those verses are not in the source. Let alone that non-existing verses can support the statement that Saiva Siddantha follows Balarama-Krishna. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Krishna and Jagannatha

This edit diff, edit-summary "Krishna and Jagannatha are synonymous (as the avatara of Vishnu)" merged the Balarama-Krishna and Balarama-Jagannatha columns. This difference is a regional difference, as explained by Leyden (see the notes at the end); please stick to it, instead of harmonizing various traditions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Jagannatha is not a regional name. It is a pan Indian name for Krishna. Puri is a temple for the siblings. It is common knowledge. Why do we need a whiteman for everything? Nagannaa (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It is even used in Sri Lanka:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridharan_Jeganathan Nagannaa (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In Kashmiri Pandits:

https://searchkashmir.org/2018/12/jagannath-sathu-on-plight-of-pandits.html Nagannaa (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Should identify the key early narratives

This article has too much discussion of the various *lists* of avatars, but not enough about their *stories*: which are the earliest texts that tell the avatars' stories in the form familiar today? Is it the Bhagavata Purana? Llajwa (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) Llajwa (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Dashavatar - Regarding buddha avatar

Buddha avatar

In "Vaswani, J.P. (2017), Dasavatara[10], Jaico Publishing House, ISBN 9789386867186()" Book there is clear mention of Vishnu-buddha avatar i.e he is son of Anjana, and born in Kikata( Gaya), while Gautama Buddha is son of Mayadevi, indicates Gautam Buddha is not avatar of Vishnu Ritij Paudel (talk) 8:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

See note 13. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You have to remove that buddha is founder of buddhism as ""Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24". Srimadbhagavatam.com. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26. Retrieved 2012-08-14.|Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24]]". Srimadbhagavatam.com. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26. Retrieved 2012-08-14." said clearly that Lord Buddha(Vishu-avatar) mother name is Anjana while Gautama Buddha mother name is Mayadevi. If not Justify? Ritij Paudel (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:OR, and try to get a grip on the basics of Wikipedia editing before you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. And try to give working links: Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24, Bhagavata Purana 1 Chapter 3: Krishna is the Source of All Incarnations, line 24. The only conclusion I can draw from this line is that this text gives another name for Buddha's mother than does the Buddhist tradition. We don't interpret primary sources; we give an overview of what relevant secondary sources state. And even that website, in a note to line 24, explicitly declares this Buddha to be Gautama Buddha. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Puranic Buddha not only has different parents. He also has a different birthplace . The Puranic Buddha was born in Bodh Gaya while the founder of Buddhism was born in Kapilavastu.

Do you still think it's the same Buddha ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have read the link that you provided. Neither does line 24 nor it's corresponding note declare that the Buddha they have mentioned is Gotama Buddha.

It is clear that they are not talking about the same Buddha. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have a source from our Garuda Purana, It is clearly written (in english also), that he( Vishnu-buddha avatar) born in kikat(i.e Bodha-gaya) (not in Lumbini) pg 872, line 26.

Ritij Paudel (talk) 7:01 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Ritij Paudel, you are absolutely right. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Therefore , the wikipedia article claiming that Gotama Buddha, the 'founder' of Buddhism being the avatar of Vishnu is completely false. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Johnson, even the sources that you have given, clearly implies that Puranic Buddha and Gotama Buddha are completely different people. So please correct the wikipedia article accordingly. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. The Puranic Buddha you're referring to is deduced from mythology; at best you can say that some people believe that there were two different Buddhas. That's already mentioned in a note. Note also that at 1800 BCE there were no Aryans nor Vedic culture in India; ergo, there wasn't a "Puranic Buddha" either. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course Puranic Buddha is mythological. I agree with you. And Gotama Buddha is an actual historical figure. That still does not justify why Gotama Buddha is included as an avatar of Vishnu in this article. Even your own sources(cannot stress that enough) implies that the Buddha they are mentioning about is not same Buddha who founded Buddhism. Your source does not even mention the founder of Buddhism by his first name, 'Gotama', and your source all states that the Puranic version of Buddha has a different mother named Anjana ! The historical founder of Buddhism, Gotama Buddha was given birth to by a woman named 'Mayadevi' . Your own link, mentions that Puranic Buddha is born in Gaya(Bodh Gaya). The historical Buddha, Gotama Buddha was born in Lumbini ! The link that you have provided does not mention anything about a 'Gotama Buddha' who was born in 'Lumbini' to a mother named 'Mayadevi;. That is, the link that you have given does not mention the historical founder of Buddhism, Gotama Buddha. All the more reason to correct the misleading article. And why are you mentioning the failed Aryan invasion theory ?

Perhaps this article which is joint agreement between Hindu and Buddhist leaders will clear up everything:https://circumsolatious.blogspot.com/2010/07/joint-declaration-buddha-is-not-9th.html I implore you to please go through this article. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:TRUTH, and stick to WP:RS, instead of hammering down your personal beliefs and interpretations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

What about in Skanda Purana in line 255-256.--Om Ram Sharma (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please try to understand that you're interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source, which is WP:OR. See also WP:DONTGETIT. Anyway, I've added some info on the two Buddhas. This should suffice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me make one thing clear. These are not my personal beliefs. These are scriptural facts. Your own links have not refuted my arguments. Instead they support them .

Please give the exact verse number of any Puranic text where it states that 'Gotama Buddha', son of Mayadevi, born in Lumbini , that is the historical founder of Buddhism is the avatar of Vishnu and I will promise not to take this discussion any further. ::::Bodhiupasaka (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

One more time: you're interpreting primary sources; at Wikipedia, we use secomdary sources, of which plenty are given. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, scriptures say otherwise and also why they are using the interpretations and commentaries of foreign authors/writers as the sources here ?, would they not mind if we were to interpret the sayings of Bible based on the sources by Indian or more particularly Hindu writers/authors ? NerdyRas007 (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add the conclusions of non-"foreign" writers as you see fit. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Old tricks

Not contributing to article improvement. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

user:Joshua Jonathan Still up to your old tricks, I see. First, you know full well primary sources are acceptable on wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#Strengths_and_weaknesses for a clear statement supporting this fact). Second, we also both know that if user:Bodhiupasaka were to provide a secondary source, you would just dismiss it anyway by making something up such as it being "too old" or whatever (just like you did on the Rig Veda talk page). Third, since you so blatantly want to own this article (against WP policy, not that anyone will do anything about it), could you at least show some basic competency and fix all your errors (which I told you about after you reverted my edit, see above)? Carlduff (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Regarding "basic competence," it would be helpfull if you refer to Wiki-policies, not to Wiki-articles. WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Statements like "Gautama Buddha was not an avatar, because this specific text mentions another name for his mother," c.q. "Gautama Buddha was not anavatar, because this specific text refers to him as sugata, which is a name, and different from the Buddha's name," are statements of faith, and interpretations. A statement like "Some Hindus argue that the Buddha was not an avatar because [arguments above]" is a statement of fact, though this too would need a secondary source. Regarding 'fixing my errors', feel free to fix what you deem wrong, but take notice of my explanations of the faults in your edits, instead of complaining about the fact that you were corrected. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan, you do realise that secondary sources are derived from primary ones ? The hint is in the name. You do realise that the link you have given all of us pertaining srimad Bhagavatam proves that Gotama Buddha is not the avatar of Vishnu ? Have you even read your own sources ? Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC) You still have not given any Hindu scriptural reference that supports your argument that Gotama Buddha, historical founder of Buddhism, son of Mayadevi, is undisputably the avatar of Vishnu. Instead you try to throw distractions by citing wikipedia rules. And avoid answering that question all together . Bodhiupasaka (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Wiki-policies are not distractions, but the basic rules of Wikipedia. Please understand that this is not about Gotama Buddha, historical founder of Buddhism, son of Mayadevi, is undisputably the avatar of Vishnu but about "Gotama Buddha, the historical founder of Buddhism, is regarded as an avatar of Vishnu," as mentioned in a multitude of sources, listed in note 1. Read those policies, and stop your WP:OR and pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan If you were competent enough to read the WP:PRIMARY article you like throwing about, you would know it links to exactly the same article I provided. I had already corrected your mistakes but you reverted my corrections and tried to bullshit me. Seriously, if you put a fraction of the effort into actually improving this article as you do into reverting other people's edits and quacking bullshit at them as its self-appointed gatekeeper, at least it would be a semi-competent article, even for you. Carlduff (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Yes, to explain what a primary source is, not to encourage original research and pov-pushing. Could you now please stop your WP:TENDENTIOUS comments? Talkpages are meant to discuss improvements to the article, not as a WP:FORUM for personal frustrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC) user:Joshua Jonathan I have already told you how to improve the article. How many times must it be pointed out, for example, that there is no such being as 'Hiranyakashyapa', that word is a dead (i.e. red) link, and Hiranyakashipu - the proper spelling - is NOT a Rakasha? Or where in your secondary sources does it say anything about cyclones in the myths of Matsya? And so on. There's some improvements you can make right now to stop spreading misinformation to people. I can't do anything, because I already tried and got reverted by a genius that thinks the Puranas - the very texts from which the Dashavatara originates - aren't as reliable as academics' books about them! Carlduff (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

POVPUSH

@Gotitbro: regarding this revert, which removed

and some Hindus argue that there were two Buddhas, a Puranic Buddha mentioned in Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24 who was the incarnation of Vishnu, and the historical Buddha, who according to them was not an incarnation of Vishna.

what makes you think that this is an WP:POVPUSH? Although it's a minority view, for some it is important, and it is a gesture of compromise to include it in this way. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The singular note suffices here, the user above who added that was clearly trying to POVPUSH the fringe theory he is trying to paste all over the article with multiple notes and additional prominence. Gotitbro (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Some sources

Wasn't sure what sub-section to add this is, so decided to start a new one where secondary reliable sources can be added and discussed. Hera are a couple to start:

• On Puranic Buddha being the Buddha of Buddhism: P.V. Kane discusses Vishnu avataras on pages 717-724 of his History of Dharmasastra, vol 2.2 and in particular how Buddha (the founder of Śākyadharma) was increasingly accepted as a canonical avatara of Vishnu in Puranic literature between the seventh and tenth century. Kane also notes early opposition to Buddha's inclusion from eg. Kumārila Bhaṭṭa because the texts and teachings he promulgated were contrary to Vedic teachings, which shows that there was a contemporaneous linking of the 'Buddha the Vishnu avatara' and Buddhist teachings. Kane further postulates that such absorption of Buddha/Buddhism into the Hindu canon and Puranic literature contributed to the dwindling of Buddhism in India. This reference and (at least, some of the) content may be useful additions to the article.
• The two Buddha theory: Philip C. Almond discusses the historiography of the theory that the (historical) 'Buddha who founded Buddhism' was different from 'Buddha the avatara of Vishnu in Hinduism' in considerable detail in his book The British Discovery of Buddhism (see pages 15-33 etc). Per Almond, this idea was promulgated by and popular among 19th c British scholars who were just discovering that Buddhism was not simply a sect of Hinduism. Note that Almond himself regards the two Buddha theory as incorrect. We can mention this briefly in the wikipedia article.
• Apparently, from sources removed in this edit by Gotitbro, the two Buddha theory may be seeing a modern revival in some Hindu-circles. If that can be supported by reliable sources then that too can be mentioned in the article, but if all we have is writings of Stephen Knapp and random websites then the idea would be too fringe to include IMO.

Feel free to add more sources on the subject, below. Abecedare (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reading this book may help Dasavatar.--Ritij Paudel (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Almond is a good source; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What's with the third paragraph in this page? It has no citations and is a dubious claim. Please look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.58.96.189 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)