The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu???

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#61

Originally posted by: bhas1066
First i didnt have any answers so i was like this:

Then i started this topic and while i got some answers i got equally good opposite answers!! so i was like:

Then we began going around in circles.

And finally now i am like:

and i realized that "ALL IS MAYA!!!" THE ONE IS ALL AND ALL IS ONE!!!

so PEACE OUT!!!

Very cute cartoons.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. !!!

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#62

- Duplicate post deleted-

Edited by varaali - 13 years ago

Quote

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

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#63

Shivang

One reason I don't support the 22 avatar theory is that you have too many clones of Vishnu operating @ the same time. Incidentally, who was Dhanvantari?

If one goes by the Dasha avatar theory, no 2 avatars of Vishnu were active @ any one time. Kurma ended and then Mohini started, and so there was no overlap. As for Rama & Parashurama, I've read 2 theories about that. One is that when Parashurama accosted Rama after the latter's marriage while they were returning from Mithila to Ayodhya and Rama strung Vishnu's bow as requested, Vishnu's avatar ended in Parashurama and got transferred completely to Rama. The other one I've read is that when Kashyap ordered Parashurama to stop his massacre of Kshatriyas, that was when his incarnation ended. If one believes that Rama was born the avatar of Vishnu, then the latter explanation covers how Vishnu's incarnation could have ended in Parashurama & begun w/ Rama. Yet, another school of thought speculates that Parashurama was not a complete avatar the way any of the others were.

And if RLBS and KB are considered parts of the same avatar, then there is no case of multiple avatars co-existing. That only becomes the scenario under the 22 avatar case.

One thing that Varaali mentioned above about Buddhism - if his followers have changed the color of his teachings to make it a different religion completely different from Hinduism... Question - are they the ones 'guilty' of doing it, or was that how it started and was meant to be? On one hand, in countries like Nepal, Buddhism is virtually indistinguishable from Hinduism, and the respect of Hindu deities is even seen to a lesser extent in Thailand and Cambodia. Whereas in Tibet, Bhutan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Buddhism that they follow is by no stretch of imagination Hindu. And like I pointed out, unlike Christianity, which has a place of honor for the Old Testament but rejects Jewish books like the Torah and Talmud, Buddhism doesn't accord any importance to Hindu scriptures at all, be they Vedas or Puranas, and by most modern definitions, would qualify as being a completely different religion from Hinduism just like Sikhism is (the modern definition look @ whether 2 religions respect the same scriptures to determine and define whether one is a derivative or variation of the other)

Of course, if Hindu scriptures predicted that Buddha would come and do what he did, then he would indeed fall under the definition of an avatar. Then the question we'd have here would be whether the Buddha that was predicted and the one that actually surfaced were one and the same?

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#64

Well, there is that difference b/w Vishnu & Shiva derivatives. Vishnu's avatars would take a temporary form, like the ones listed, and once they were over, such as Rama's, they'd return to Vaikuntha dham. That's why @ the end of Rama's reign, Kaal was sent to persuade him to return, and why Krishna too was by some accounts wanted back in Vaikuntha. If they are all over the place, as well as in Vaikuntha, why would anyone bother? That's the reason I don't believe in the 22 avatars, just the 10, sans Buddha but including Mohini. As far as SB goes, I've also found it different while treating the same events from the Mahabharata @ times, and that the latter gives a better explanation (even though it itself has contradictions in some places b/w chapters)

W/ Shiva, Hanuman was carved out of him, and is immortal, but not quite a clone of him. As a result, there is no difficulty w/ Shiva & Hanuman co-existing (I have to find out more about Samba, Ashwatthama and any others)

I believe that Adhyatma Ramayan was the one that had Lakshman as Sesha Naag, Bharat as Panchjanya and Shatrughan as Sudarshan chakra. There was another account I read that claimed that Pradhyumna, rather than being Kama, was Panchjanya and Anirudha was Sudarshan Chakra, but that doesn't make sense @ all, since Krishna, unlike Rama, liberally used both these accessories.

Currently, from what I understand, most western analysis of religion classifies 2 religions as being related in any way by looking @ their holy books, and seeing whether there are any derivations, or common sourcing that would end up in them being classified as common. Under that definition, none of the religions - Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism would qualify as Hinduism for the simple reason that their books are different. For instance, nothing in the Guru Granth Sahib has any reference to events in Hindu mythology, from what I understand.

If any of these groups regarded, say, the Vedas in the same way that Christians regard the Old Testament, then one could make the claim that those religions are Hindu. But essentially, it's nowadays generally accepted that if you write a new book that's not based on any others and people follow it, you've essentially started a new religion (unless you have them worship living people, in which case it's a cult). Same goes if a group twists the scriptures of one religion enough that it can no longer be regarded as similar.

Quote

Shivang

@ShivangBuch

Voyager

Posted: 13 years ago

#65

But if Vishnu could leave Parshuram's body with Parshuram still living, same Vishnu could do with Ram living. But Parashuram was to live for long and Ram had to leave his body because all his devotees had to leave body who took birth to accompany him. Gods and devotees wanted Vishnu to be back in Vaikunth because they also wanted to be back in Vaikunth. Kaal came to take him since he had to leave THAT BODY. Now what can be our theory here is that Vaikunth is never empty without Vishnu. Vishnu is always in Vaikunth but Vishnu can be sleeping or awake. There is Vaikunth in body of us all and Vishnu lives there (Jeevatma and Parmatma both rest in the heart but one bird is self realized and the other bird is ignorant and ignorant bird can't see its another form due to the veil of maya between them - That's there in Uddhav Geeta). So it's all the matter of knowledge and realizations and parting with the body with many limitations. Vishnu leaving Parshuram could mean that his knowledge and power left him. But life was there. Soul was eternal and was still roaming around the earth. So Parshuram still had Vishnu in him like everyone of us have in us but became dormant in him or through his body. Gods wanted Ram and Krishna back in Vaikunth could mean that they wanted those realized or awaken or ever enlightened souls to leave their body with human or sansarik limitations and permanently return to their eternal free form or state or place or abode. Vishnu is Narayan and Narayan essentially means all pervasive. So if he is in Vaikunth, he can't be on earth, that theory is not really necessary to be thought to get confused and puzzle overselves.

If Vishnu is only a limited deity, then your interpretation is very very logical and supported by Mahaprayan and Gods' & Kaal's request to return (Bina aapke Vaikunth khali khali sa hai like that). Now my question is: Can't people get sayujya or saalokya mukti (merging with supreme bliss or energy or going to Supreme abode) when Vishnu avatar is active on earth? Lakshman did. He realized his actual form and Vaikunth state before Ram living his body. But due to duality (dwait) of Sheshnag and Vishnu forms, he wanted to see Vishnu awaken from his meditation on one body on earth since he was already awaken to Vaikunth level of consciousness. Reminded me 'Inception' movie. Both Shesh and Vishnu watching the same dream together and going into sleep and in the level of consciousness of earth of Treta and then coming out of that state of consciousness or meditation back to the awaken state - first Shesh who got engrossed in dream into the character of Lakshman and then Vishnu a little later. Interesting thought.

And the sources which set the plot of Mahaprayan to Vaikunth of Vishnu's incarnation, the same sources call Vishnu to be all pervasive and Supreme and living in everyone too. So I can't see any reason why two clones of Vishnu simultaneously can't do their different jobs on the earth. If you are happy to consider Hanuman to be only part of Shiv and so as RLBS (parts of Vishnu), then you can also consider Kurma, Dhanvantari & Mohini also to be part of Vishnu then (like you also believe in the possibility of Parashuram to be only a part incarnation). Same applies to Balram. But then Krishna was Poorna Purush with 16 kalaas. So if full was already active, even half of Vishnu or 1/4th Vishnu or fraction of Vishnu active along with him as his brother would be impossible according to your theory. Can't 2 bodies of self realized soul simultaneously exist on the earth?

Edited by ShivangBuch - 13 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#66

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
Shivang

One reason I don't support the 22 avatar theory is that you have too many clones of Vishnu operating @ the same time. Incidentally, who was Dhanvantari?

I don't think any of the avatars even in the set of 22 overlapped one another.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

In the 10 avatars, Dhanvantri wouldn't be in the list. I brought up Mohini b'cos after Kurma's job was done, hers began. The other 12 on the list I wasn't considering in this analysis.

All the more, Dhanvantri should be on the list. HAd it not been for Dhanvantri, Mohini would have had no job to do at all.

Edited by varaali - 13 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#67

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Incidentally, who was Dhanvantari?

Dhanvantri was the one who emerged from the depths of the milky ocean with the pot of amrita in his hands.

Incidentally, Dhanvantri is regarded as an avatar of Vishnu with full rights to worship, homa (havan - in hindi) and puja. Dhanvantri is also considered to be a divine physician / doctor / remover of all illnesses.

It is common to conduct a Dhanvantri puja / homa before occupying a newly built house (to ensure that all family members keep good health.)

The maha mantra for Dhanvantri is like this :

Om Namo Bhagavate Vaasudevaya Dhanvantraye

Amrita Kalasha Hastaya Sarva amaya vinaashanaya

Trilokanaathaya Shri Maha Vishnave namaha

(Salutations to Dhanvantri and who has the pot of amrit in his hands and who cures all illnesses. Salutations to Him who is the Lord of the three worlds and who is a form of Vishnu)

That Dhanvantri is acknowledged as a full avatar is clear from the above mantra since he is credited with the "Om namo Bhagavate... " mantra.

Though temples for him are rare, I have been to a Dhanvantri temple near Chennai, where the Lord has a silver stethoscope, probably offered by a grateful devotee.

Edited by varaali - 13 years ago

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#68

In fact I have been thinking- what was the basis on which the Dasha Avatar got shortlisted from the larger set of 22? Because it mirrors Darwin's theory of evolution?

Other than that I see no reason why say, Matsya should be accorded more importance than say Dattatreya or Dhanvantri or even Narada - who have a full set of rituals and worship accorded to them.

Among the Dasha Avataras, I have not come across anyone worshiping Matsya or Kurma. There are a few temples for Varaha but enshrined in a larger Vishnu temple. Narasimha and Vamana have stand alone temples. They are worshiped both in temples and households. Parashurama's worship is limited to certain sects - certainly not in the larger society.

Balarama / Buddha / Kalki are in the shadows.

Quote

varaali

@varaali

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#69

Originally posted by: ShivangBuch

How? When Dhanvantari came out of the ocean being churned, Kurma must still be there due to very fact that ocean was being churned until Dhanvantari emerged. Vyas and Krishna (possibly Ram too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) overlapped. Parashuram overlapped with every subsequent avatar (we may ignore this fact because of the theory of Vishnu leaving Parashuram before Ramavatar). And most important question of all - what about Krishna and Balram? What about Narad?

Ah ...yes, you are correct.

Quote

Janaki

@RamKiSeeta

Achiever

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#70

Nice discussion, guys! I didn't reply for a long time because I was content reading your posts.

But I just want to say that I too believe Vishnu never left Vaikunta. All his avatars were only amsas of him, because if Vishnu himself left Vaikunta the universe would come to an end, because it is Vishnu who rules the universe at every moment in time.😊 Lord Brahma creates it, Lord Vishnu rules it, and then Lord Shiva destroys it at the end of time.

Entire Vishnu will never have to leave Vaikunta to kill someone, because his amsas are strong enough to do it. No rakshas who was killed by him was so strong that entire Vishnu had to be reborn to kill him. Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha/Balarama/Balaji were all amsas. About Kalki I do not know since he did not even come yet.😳

And yes, it's Adhyatma Ramayana that says that Rama was an amsa of Vishnu, Lakshman an amsa of Seshnaga, Bharat an amsa of Sudarshan Chakra, and Shatrughan an amsa of the Panchajanya. This scene was shown in an old telugu movie called Sita Rama Kalyanam.

It starts from 7:09 in here:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UArbZ9BxAc0&feature=relmfu[/YOUTUBE]

and the beginning of here:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTaTn4__WSk&feature=relmfu[/YOUTUBE]

Only thing is that this movie too showed all of Vishnu being incarnated as Rama, which I believe is wrong since for me, Vishnu is always up there in Vaikunta regardless of which avatar of his is on Earth.

Edited by JanakiRaghunath - 13 years ago

Quote

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8

The 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu??? - Page 7

Related Topics

Explore Topics