2

I had read occasionally on internet that Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine. So Was Tirupati Balaji a Buddhist Shrine ?

2

There's a book by K. Jamanadas "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine", whose preface starts with,

[This book] has potential credibility to create controversies unknown to historical writing and the Hindu common folks who flock to worship Tirupati Balaji as one of the supreme deities. It is also a new challenge to indologist at a time when politically imbued scholars are engaged to wash out their hands by proving and disproving claims of Hindus and the Muslims against each other as they did over the issue of Ayodhya Shrines.

Its conclusion is that

The image of Lord Venkatesvara was not sculptured by the artist as an image of Vishnu, but that of Avalokitesvara, sometimes in the reign of Kalabhras, after the period of Mamulanur, and before the period of Silappadhikaran, around 3rd to 5th century A.D.

  • This is a copy-and-paste of creative.sulekha.com/… or some other similar source. Please read my comment on Ajay's answer, and edit your answer to reference+quote+summarize like I edited Ajay's answer. – ChrisW Sep 17 '17 at 12:56
-1

The article "Is Tirupati Balaji Temple a Buddist Temple" concludes that it wasn't:

Conclusion

The Conclusion is that the Tirupati is a Vishnu temple all along. Since the temple has been built around 9th century AD. It is after 9th century AD that the hill is said to be holy place. So any account which says that the hill is holy(sri or Thiru venkata) is after 9th century AD. This applies any work or devote singing on Tirupati. The dispute seems to be primarily between Shivite and Vaishnavite, because of the Shiva Temple at the base of Tirupati which predate the Tirupati temple. Indologist seems to have introduced some confusion here. There are no inscriptions about Tripati temple, before 9th century AD, because the temple did not exist then, not because it was a Buddhist Shrine.

Its arguments are:

  • The expression "Dig underneath every Hindu temple, there will be a Buddhist temple" is rhetoric, not always true (some new temples are built on new sites)
  • The historical record (including the puranas) isn't clear
  • Early (Buddhist) temples were rock-cut, whereas this is a standalone temple
  • The earliest inscription mentioning this place mentions a hill but not a temple. The earliest inscription in the temple is from 830 AD.
  • @Swapnil just scroll down the Wikipedia article and see what your religion says. Your question how it is possible when Ramayana is only mythological is an assumption that it is not true. But your previous Buddhas before siddharata Gautama were also from Ramayana characters. If Buddha is against brahmins then why there is a concept of Maitreya Buddha? So no conflict existed between Buddha and brahmin. It is a myth created during 20th century – user12124 Sep 17 '17 at 9:12
  • @Swapnil en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_named_Buddhas You can clearly see all of the previous Buddhas are either Brahmins or Kshatriyas. Also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikshvaku_dynasty#In_Buddhist_tradition – user12124 Sep 17 '17 at 9:17
  • This answer is a copy-and-paste of the whole of controversialhistory.blogspot.fr/search/label/Silapthikaram (posted in 2011). Please read the answers to meta.stackexchange.com/q/160077/139866 and meta.stackexchange.com/q/160071/139866 -- the way to fix this is to 1) Delete this answer 2) Write an answer of your own, which a) Includes a link to the reference you want to quote b) Is a summary of the reference (or a summary of the reasoning in the reference), written in your own words c) Quotes one or more fragments from the linked reference (using block-quote formatting). – ChrisW Sep 17 '17 at 12:33
  • @ChrisW The author and me are friends. Anyhow, I will provide link – user12124 Sep 17 '17 at 12:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.