Originally posted by ShivangBuchI am confused by this actually about Haygreev and Matsya avatars. What you and the link mention is Haygreev who was killed by Matsya. Serial SK has only shown Matsya to have incarnated to save Vedas and Saptarshis from JAL PRALAY. If you have ever seen BRC's Vishnu Puraan, they show Matsya first killing Hayagriva and only then saving the saptarishis. I have also learnt the other story from my parents, about how Lord Vishnu took the form of Hayagriva to kill a demon by the same name. BRC's Vishnu Puraan says their main source is Vyasa's Vishnu Purana, so I think the story of Matsya killing Hayagriva is from there, though I cannot confirm it since I don't know for sure. And the song of the film Haridarshan says something different. It has a line which says Matsya killed Shankhasur who had stolen Vedas and was hidden in water. SHANKHASUR naam ka tha daanav...Vedon ko chura ke ghusa jal me... Also further in that song, a line comes which says: Haygreev tapasya karta tha...Keval Haygreev mujhe maare...Hayshish roop Hari ne dhara...Translation is that Haygreev asked for the boon that only another Horseheaded could kill him so Vishnu also was born as Haygreev (so avatar of same name killed devil of same name). Haygreev avatar along with the first Aadi Purush are the two who are there in the list of 24 (2nd link) but not in the list of 22 (1st). Also I am always puzzled why Lakshman, Bharat and Shatrughna are not included in them when both VR and RCM (In just 1 Choupai) mention that. I think Lakshman, Bharat, and Shatrughan are not included because they are not believed to be direct amsas of Vishnu. Though VR says they were all portions of Vishnu, other puranas say that Lakshman, like Balram, is am ansa of Seshnaag and Bharat and Shatrughan were Vishnu's Sudarshan Chakra and Panchajanya reborn. So yes, ultimately they are forms of Vishnu but not direct incarnations if that makes sense.
That is what is precisely mentioned in that source that Buddha did preach against yagyas to protect devatas against evil starting to perform yagyas on earth (Now how far reliable is this and possibly added later on in SB is questionable and debatable as mentioned in that note below - strange also because Yagyas always feed Devtas and good for them but also it is true that they need to give in return to the performer what he wants). This is exactly why I find it questionable. I find it hard to believe anything which two avatars of Vishnu contradict each other. Both Rama and Krishna performed yagnas and endorsed them for the welfare of mankind, because it is the yagnas that cause rains to come and the crops to flourish. And also, by pleasing the devtas through yagnas people will always be shown their protection and mercy. If devtas were really being threatened by yagnas in Kali yug, then it would be more believable for me if Buddha had killed those sinners instead of preaching against yagnas altogether. That logic doesn't hold with me because all of Vishnu's avatars tried to teach people to reform peacefully first, and used violence only when the sinners would not listen. Had Buddha preached peace to everyone and killed the sinners who went against him, then I'd be able to consider him as Vishnu's avatar, but his teachings do not seem like the teachings of Vishnu so I find it questionable.
Also, take for example Ravan, who performed yagnas to benefit himself and then used the powers he was granted to torment the devtas. This is the exact situation Buddha was preaching against, right? However, Rama did not tell everyone to quit doing yagnas since people like Ravan were getting boons. He killed Ravan and taught everyone what happens when they misuse their powers. This is the ultimate truth of Vishnu's teachings, whether it comes in the form of Ramayan or Bhagawad Gita. He is always merciful and kind to everyone, because they are his children. However, when they misbehave and walk on the wrong path, he will give them not one, but several warnings to improve their conduct and get rid of their sins, but if the sinners still do not listen, he will punish them.
If Buddha was Vishnu's avatar, this is what I would expect him to do to the sinners who were misusing yagnas. Moreover, Kali Yug is the era of most sin. If you noticed, every one of Vishnu's avatars got more aggressive and more powerful as the yugas neared Kali Yug. Krishna taught people that one must fight for dharma, and he annihilated every sinner that walked the Earth in his time. So why would he come back to Earth in Kali Yuga as Buddha, and preach total peace when even more sin was rampant? I would expect someone like Kalki to come in Buddha's place.
If you go with that story, if Kurma & Vaaman can be counted to be active to punish the evil in some sense, this can also be counted to be acting to punish evil in some sense. And I don't think Kurma can be said to be the incarnation taken to help Devtas to get the amrit because that incarnation was helping neutrally. If we follow that logic then it should be Mohini not Kurma who helped Gods against Demons. Vishnu puraan showed that Vishnu agreed to help the devtas in the form of Kurma, because it was pre-planned by them that Mohini would come and distribute the amrit. I kind of think of Mohini and Kurma as the same since they came in close proximity.
Here is that story again with bold sentence:
Matsya, Kurma, Varah, Narsinha, Vaaman, Parshuram...None of them had Lakshmi avatar with them. Neither were they so long (first 4) to be able to give credit to incarnations of devatas of assisting them. Only Krishna and Rama's avatars were the longest, otherwise all other avatars were short. I did not mean that Lakshmi had to be present in each one, but other Gods were always present in each one, weren't they? I don't know how to explain it, but every avatar of Vishnu shares a similarity in that some God or other (besides vishnu) is always present either being a catalyst or part of the audience, but in Buddha no one is mentioned. Most importantly, the avatars always start off with Vishnu proclaiming that he will come to Earth as so and so, to help so and so. But in buddha's avatar, even vishnu is not mentioned. His birth, childhood, adulthood, nowhere are any characters familiar to Hindu puranas ever make an appearance, so it makes doubt that he is vishnu's avatar.
Btw, which source did you say had Vishnu coming down as Buddha? Is it from an actual Hindu scripture?