The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu???

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#41

Clear. So it is not like Bharat going to vanvas instead of Ram and Ram taking his place to rule the kingdom (a clear exchange to avoid the NIYAT KARM - The natural duty in front to accept the more convenient and preferred duty). It is like Lakshman giving the responsibility to serve Kaushalya (and Sumitra) to Urmila because he himself had to go to fulfill what was his greater identified duty.

Somewhat, except that Lakshman's assignment was temporary - only good for 14 years until RSL returned to Ayodhya. He wasn't telling Urmila to serve Kaushalya the rest of her life. A better analogy would be Rama asking Kush to become the ruler of Ayodhya after his time was done.

Again getting your point. So the dynasty was finished then? Wasn't there any distant cousin of Siddhartha who could have ruled? Wasn't there anyone outside the dynasty either to rule the subjects (Like Bharat did in case of Hastinapur)? And if Rahul himself wanted to join him in Sangha and didn't want to rule then? Who should take the privilege to become sanyasi? If any one could do it, who should have done it? Father or son?

In this case, I'm not sure about what happened to that dynasty - not very familiar w/ Nepali history. I asked last weeks MOTW - a Nepali - about it, and she said that the kingdom was probably annexed by the Senas or the Shah dynasty. Essentially, Sudhodhana's dynasty was over as a result of Siddhartha's actions.

Upanishads are said to be the different interpretations of essence Vedas (rather than pure mechanical rituals in Vedas) by sages and Geeta is God's speech and is said to be the summary and approval of those and hence the final verdict. Purans are stories and are internally contradicting and are classified into Satva, Rajas & Tamas. So what is there in Bhagwad Geeta or any other Geeta in Mahabharat inspired by God can be accepted to be a sole book to guide. It clearly says that even a leaf or a flower or a fruit or water given with love (BHAAV) is sufficient ritual. So overturning or overriding traditions is just an alternative path and not the rejection of the other alternative path if naturally taken.

Actually, I think that would only be true for Vaishnavs - Shaivyas wouldn't be using the Geeta as the sole book by which to live

It can be said to be consistent with Hinduism so far as its DOs are concerned. Not DON'Ts. What it accepts is accepted by Hinduism so if you follow the DOs, you are following Hinduism and you are not against Hinduism. You are just against the alternative path approved by Hinduism. So Hinduism has broader acceptability. That doesn't mean that the narrower beliefs or values are against the broader one. They are just one subset of the broader one which reject the other subsets.

But its DONTs very clearly negate what's allowed in Hinduism. To continue w/ my example, idolatry is not unlawful, so if a non-Hindu religion condemns idolatry and worse, cracks down on it, then it's very much anti-Hindu in that it's inserting a restriction that doesn't exist in the original.

That's perfectly fine. As Lola said, probably there is one thread on Parashuram opened in the past I don't remember.

Yeah, it would be a good idea to unlock it and resume from there, rather than open a new thread.

Quote

Bhaskari

@bhas1066

Navigator

Posted: 13 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: ShivangBuch

Hi ShivangBuch
sorry not mahatma gandhi as an avatar!! didnt come out right! 🤪 but more like sai baba i would say. he preached the same and is also prayed.

in the last point (6) i meant to say that he could be a great saint but not necessarily an avatar... in that way. emohasis on "could"

Bhargav Parasuram may not have done miracles but there are some legends saying that he did perform tasks outside the scope of a normal human. Like He went to Kalilash and learnt martial arts from Shiva himself!! He fought back the advancing ocean of the malabar and konkan coast! And he had the ability to teleport ( "mann ki gati "). He is also a chiranjeevi supposedly to be the guru of Kalki avatar.

BTW these are just my conclusion / interpretations of whatever has been said till now in this topic. i was myself trying to make out the answer to my question hence consolidated the points in favour and against Buddha as the 9th avatar. ( and wasn't successfull!!😔. still myself confused!!) . Didint mean to disapprove or offend. In fact i would be glad to have answers for these points against Buddha as it will clear my doubts ,..like the point of Mahaveera ... i didnt know that!!

No hard feelings or indignation please.

Edited by bhas1066 - 13 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Shivang

@ShivangBuch

Voyager

Posted: 13 years ago

#43

Originally posted by: bhas1066

Hi ShivangBuch

BTW these are just my conclusion / interpretations of whatever has been said till now in this topic.
Of course. That was clear in your post (although there were quite a few new added points as well). I just asked for confirmation whether what I interpreted from your summarized well compiled conclusion paragraphs was correct or not.

i was myself trying to make out the answer to my question hence consolidated the points in favour and against Buddha as the 9th avatar. ( and wasn't successfull!!😔. still myself confused!!) . Didint mean to disapprove or offend. In fact i would be glad to have answers for these points against Buddha as it will clear my doubts ,..like the point of Mahaveera ... i didnt know that!!
And the point of Geet Govind I didn't know. 😊 Well what we can get through this discussions are the logical inputs of all and we can be clearer in the process and the process is ongoing. One can't be absolutely sure in this but Varaali still has come up with many objective evidences and Lola is absolutely sure in her feelings about Buddha. So I have personally enjoyed and have gained only through this thread. Vrish and Janaki's views are also firm. Probably you are just confused because both views are firm. But both the views are very valid and logical and openminded. And logical arguments haven't actually ended. We are still in harmonization process of thoughts.

No hard feelings or indignation please.
Not at all. Where did you see hard feelings in my post???!!!!!!!!! All were questions asking for clarification or confirmation of what I understood. Questioning is not disagreement. Even logical disagreement in a debate is not what can be called hard feeling.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 13 years ago

Quote

Bhaskari

@bhas1066

Navigator

Posted: 13 years ago

#44

@ ShivangBuch
than god u r not offended!!! its just that while in some other forums esp mytho ones people are so passionate on their belief that it leads to them bashing others as they get hurt by remarks opposing their belief. hence was clarifying beforehand!! i have just only started posting and u r a senior member so thats y i was unsure.

Quote

Shivang

@ShivangBuch

Voyager

Posted: 13 years ago

#45

😊 Oh no no. Not at all offended. In fact, if I am a senior member and you are new member, then on the contrary, I am not supposed to get offended. 😃 Right? 😉 Actually I was surprised by your such worry since you must have read many of my posts by now in this thread itself only discussing about opposite views.😆

And your post in fact was one of the best posts of the thread since it was very well compiled and systematic and open minded and neutral. Highly unbiased and balanced in terms of concluding different views.

Edited by ShivangBuch - 13 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#46

We seem to be going around in circles.Presently the question in circulation seems to be twofold :

Whether Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu or not
If so, does he figure in the top 10, or in the larger group of 22?

Let me try to summarize everybody's arguments:

Vrish 's : objection to Gautama Buddha is that in his search for enlightenment, he abandoned his family / kingdom midway without providing for their future. This act of renunciation / abandonment is not sanctified by scriptures, hence this counts against him. Verdict : Cannot be considered an avatar

Janaki : allows Buddha to be an avatar but in the larger group of 22, not in the Dasha Avatar subsect

Shivang : Not all the avatars of Vishnu need to have had identical philosophies. Each avatar was distinct / different from each other. Similarly, despite all the arguments marshalled against Gautama, he can be considered an avatar. Verdict : Can be considered an avatar , that too in the top ten.

Varaali : Now,first of all, I would like to ask who's word do we take as the final authority? For me, I would like to consider Srimad Bhagavatham / Veda Vyasa as the guiding source. And here, there are answers to the questions raised in this thread.

As I said earlier, SB mentions 22 avatars of Vishnu. Let us forget the subsect of Dasha Avatars for a minute and concentrate on the bigger list of 22. In that list, there are avatars as diverse as Kurma (who did nothing put to support the mountain) , King Prithu, Sage Kapila , Mohini and the four Sanat Kumaras.

It is in this list that Buddha is included. Our problem in reconciling with Buddha seems to be the fact that the tenets that he preached seem to go against the pillars on which Hinduism stood . My answer to that is this was what he was supposed to do anyway. His birth and his preachings had been predicted at the dawn of Kali Yuga itself.

Srimad Bhagavtham, Veda Vyasa and Suta Goswami had no problems with accepting the fact that in His next incarnation as Buddha, Vishnu is not going to talk about the Vedas, yagnas, rituals, etc but will preach on more basic, fundamental social ethics.

It is also said in SB itself that such an unique / different avatar will be required because of the turbulent times the world will be passing through. Scientific knowledge would have advanced so much that men would be shooting invisible rockets / missiles into outer space which will hold a threat of not only destroying life on Earth, but lives(if at all) on other spheres as well.

So I am not going to reject Gautama Buddha's claim to avatar hood just because he did not give importance to what is considered sacrosanct in Hinduism. If SB, Vyasa and Suta have allowed him to be an avatr who am I to question it ?

But that doesn't mean I am going to start celebrating Buddha Jayanti with gusto (except maybe to wish Shivang on his birthday 😃) . That is because over a period of years, Buddha's followers have changed the colour of his teachings so much that it today stands as a separate religion which makes it difficult for us Hindus to accept them as a part of our faith, let alone accept their founder as an embodiment of our God.

Personally though I must admit that while teaching my children, I have found it more comfortable to include Balarama in, and leave out Buddha. But it is a different story that I don't give much importance to the Top Ten. I like the larger, more inclusive list of 22.

Edited by varaali - 13 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#47

Good argument by Varaali above. Buddha being one of 22 avatars I don't necessarily contest, but him being one of the 10 is more eye raising.

But if Balarama can be considered an avatar of Vishnu separate from Krishna, then why can't Lakshman, Bharat & Shatrughan be considered separate from Rama? By that count, Vishnu would have 14 avatars instead of 10, no?

In Valmiki, all 4 brothers were a part of Vishnu's avatar itself - there was no Lakshman being Sesha Naag, Bharat being Panchjanya or Shatrughan being the Sudarshan. It was right from the payasa itself. However, since Vishnu was there in that one bowl of payasa, mathematically, Rama was 1/2 Vishnu, Lakshman was 1/4 Vishnu and Bharata & Shatrughan 1/8 Vishnu. Which is why Rama is explained as a single avatar.

In the case of Krishna & Balarama, I'm not sure about what SB says, but if one goes by the Mahabharata, in Mausala Parva, @ the time Krishna sees his passing, a huge long serpant left his mouth and went into the sea, implying that Vyasa subscribed to the theory that Balarama was more an avatar of Sesha naag than Vishnu himself. OTOH, one of the other Puranas - Vishnu Puran I think - has it that 2 hairs were plucked off Vishnu's head - one white, the other black. The former became Balarama, and the latter Krishna. That theory would be more akin to the Shaivya theory of avatars, like Hanuman being born of Mahadev's limbs. Regardless, I think that in the Dasha Avatar scenario, the case for having Balarama as different from Krishna is pretty weak.

But harking back to my question @ the start of the thread, why not count Mohini as the 3rd avatar, after Kurma? After the ocean was churned, Garuda was instructed to take the mountain back to where he brought it from. Kurma's avatar was over, and Vishnu, seeing the devas and asuras fight over the amrit, and the asuras having taken possession of it, decided to trick them out of it. So he took on Mohini's form, seduced the asuras into making her the distributor, gave it all to the devas (except for Rahu-Ketu) and then took back his form again. That would seem to make Mohini the third avatar, and shift everyone else down by 1 - Varaha being the 4th, Vamana the 5th,... Rama the 8th and Krishna the 9th. Only problem for scriptural numerologists - it disrupts a major significance of the #8 and Krishna if he's no longer the 8th avatar of Vishnu.

It's true that Mohini re-surfaced on other occasions to help Mahadev against Bhashmasura, and again to help create a son Ayappa to slay Mahishi. But would that disqualify her from the list?

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#48

The curious case of King Rishabhadeva

In the case of King Rishabhadeva, it is the exact opposite of Buddha- a legitimate avatar of Vishnu being pitchforked as the founder of Jainism. In fact King Rishabhadeva did not create any new religion. It was done so by his so -called 'disciple' Arhat

King Rishabhadeva's story appears in four adhayas of the fifth skanda of Srimad Bhagavtham.

King Rishabhadeva was a devout king, in fact the very embodiment of Vedic Knowledge. When his sons were grown up, he entrusted the kingdom to the eldest one, Bharata and after instructing them on the highest knowledge (this is described in the fourth adhyaya) he begins to practice what is known as Jada Yoga- which means a kind of yoga wherin a person totally neglects his body and tries to forget that he has a body. This kind of yoga is very difficult to perform, but Lord Vishnu took this avatar to show that it is possible.

Lord Rishabhadeva became an avadoota and wandered here and there, with no clothes on his body and the hair on his face and head, all long and unkempt. People - even his own subjects-began to think him as a madman. thus wandering Rishabhadeva reached the southern state of Karnataka (the region of Konkana, Gokarna and Venka) . By this time, long creepers had entwined his hands and legs but he did not care. He stayed for sometime in the forest near a place called Kutaka and later when a fire engulfed the forest, he gave up his life.

The news of a saint / madman living in the forests reached the ears of the local king called Arhant. He began to imitate Rishabhadeva's lifestyle and taking advantage of Rishabhadeva's name began to create a new religion which rejected the authority of Vedas and believed only in self mortification of the body. This was the beginning of the Jain religion.

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#49

^^^^ So the above account rejects the idea of Mahavira as the founder of Jainism? Or was the religion that they mention actually one different from Jainism?

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#50

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
But harking back to my question @ the start of the thread, why not count Mohini as the 3rd avatar, after Kurma? After the ocean was churned, Garuda was instructed to take the mountain back to where he brought it from. Kurma's avatar was over, and Vishnu, seeing the devas and asuras fight over the amrit, and the asuras having taken possession of it, decided to trick them out of it. So he took on Mohini's form, seduced the asuras into making her the distributor, gave it all to the devas (except for Rahu-Ketu) and then took back his form again. That would seem to make Mohini the third avatar, and shift everyone else down by 1 - Varaha being the 4th, Vamana the 5th,... Rama the 8th and Krishna the 9th. Only problem for scriptural numerologists - it disrupts a major significance of the #8 and Krishna if he's no longer the 8th avatar of Vishnu.

It's true that Mohini re-surfaced on other occasions to help Mahadev against Bhashmasura, and again to help create a son Ayappa to slay Mahishi. But would that disqualify her from the list?

In that case, logically Dhanvantri should precede Mohini. So it should be Kurma- Dhanvantri- Mohini then every one else. That would mean Krishna occupying the No 10 slot. No Kalki , no Buddha. Incidentally in the list of 22, Varha is at the No 1.

Edited by varaali - 13 years ago

Quote

1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8

The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu??? - Page 5

Related Topics

Explore Topics