Small Doubt on DashavatAra.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Malola NarasimhAya Namaha

-------------------------

 

Dear Bhaktas,

I have a small doubt. Please help me by clearing my doubt.

 

In the line of the Dasha AvatAram, Balarama comes after Krishna. But

during the end of the MahabharatA, Balarama goes back into the Ocean in

the form of a serpent. I was told the Balarama as well as Lakshmana are

the incarnations of Adi Sesha. If this is true, then how can the 9th

Avatar ( Balarama) be of Lord Vishnu's AvatarA. Some texts say the 9th

Avatara after Krishna-vatara is the Buddha-vatara.

 

NamO Narayana,

 

Malolan Cadambi

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Malolan Cadambi:

 

I will try to provide some answers to your

two questions (Listed at the end of this posting.

Please refer to them first before browsing this posting

for context):

 

(1) Question 1: Sri BalarAmA avathAram is 8th in

the series of DasAvathArams .Sri KrishNA's is 9th .

Hence KrishNAvatharam is recognized in our

sampradhAyam as the one following Sri BalarAmAvathaaram.

You can find support ofr this hierarchy in Swamy Desikan's

DasAvathaara Sthothram . Pakkathkourava pattaNa prabhruthaya:

( salutation to Sri BalarAmAvathAram ) precedes

NaathAyaiva nama: padham ( salutation to Sri KrishNA ).

 

Whether Shri BalarAmAvathAram is an amsAvathAram

like ParasurAmAvathAram is some thing other BhakthAs

would like to comment.It must be pointed out

that ParasurAmAvatharam is one in which the Lord

infused His divine powers in a pious Brahmin for

performing some miracles .During the AyOdhyA-

RaamAvathAram , the Lord pulled back all

the divine powers from ParusurAmaan. Thus,

ParasurAmAvathAram is not considered a direct

avathArAm of Sriman NaarAyaNA , although AzhwArs

and AchAryAs have paid their tributes to ParasurAman

inview of His traditional inclusion in the DasAvathArams.

 

Another point is that ParasurAman and Sri Raaman

(Chakravarthi Thirumahan ) coexisted upto a point in time.

In other words , there was an overlap of two avathArams

in time scale. Same is true for BalarAma-KrishNAvathArams.

Sriman NaarAyaNA took on the avathAram of BalarAman

to enact the role of the elder brother of KaNNan .

BalarAman was never away from KaNNan (apruthakbhUthan

in Swamy Desikan's mangaLAsAsanam). Swamy Desikan goes on

to salute the inseperable aspect of BalarAman and

KaNNan from boyhood as sugar and milk mixed together

for enhanced enjoyment of the BhakthAs (Ksheram sarkkarayEva).

Further, Swamy Desikan points out that the joint

leelais of BalarAmAn and KrishNan enriched and multiplied

the quality of our anubhavams and made that anubhavam

delectable thru such union ( thaa keLaya: prabhUthai:

guNai: jagathE asvadhantha). It is thus difficult to

separate BalarAmAvathAram from that of KrishNaa from

the enjoyment point of view. Thus we can not replace

BalarAma avathAram by BuddhAvathAram , which will leave

a jolting void . There are however more serious

objections to include BuddhAvathAram among the ten

avathArams of the Lord.Prior to discussing the

latter, let us enjoy the second half of the majestic

slOkam of Swamy Desikan to pay his salute to

BalarAman in the SaardhUla VikrIditham meter:

 

These key words on BalarAmAvathAram in Swamy Desikan's

salutation are worthy of our attention :

 

"Ksheeram sakkarayEva yaabhi: apruthaghbhUthA: prabhUthairguNai:

aakoumArakam asvadhantha jagathE KrishNasya thaa kELaya:"

 

 

(2) Question 2: In our sampradhAyam , Buddhism

and Jainism are considered as mathams that do not

accept Vedham ( Vedha Baahya Mathams)and hence are rejected

at the first step of consideration . Hence , there will

be no way to accept the founder of Buddhism , Gauthama BuddhA

as an avthAram of Sriman NaarAyaNA. The views of BuddhA

are considered nihilistic and for a fuller study of

Sri VisishtAdhvatin's objections to the views of BuddhA

and the variations thereof developed by his followers ,

Swamy Desikan's terse and brilliant monograph,

"SarvArtha Siddhi " is a must to read. Thus,

BuddhA can never be included as an avathAram of

Sriman NaarAyaNA in our sampradhAyam .

 

Best wishes,

V.Sadagopan

 

At 03:27 AM 4/28/00 +0530, you wrote:

> Sri:

> Srimathe Malola NarasimhAya Namaha

> -------------------------

>

>Dear Bhaktas,

>I have a small doubt. Please help me by clearing my doubt.

>

>In the line of the Dasha AvatAram, Balarama comes after Krishna. But

>during the end of the MahabharatA, Balarama goes back into the Ocean in

>the form of a serpent. I was told the Balarama as well as Lakshmana are

>the incarnations of Adi Sesha. If this is true, then how can the 9th

>Avatar ( Balarama) be of Lord Vishnu's AvatarA. Some texts say the 9th

>Avatara after Krishna-vatara is the Buddha-vatara.

>

>NamO Narayana,

>

>Malolan Cadambi

>

>

>

>

>

>

>------

>Now the best and coolest websites come right to you based on your

>unique interests. eTour.com is surfing without searching.

>And, it's FREE!

>http://click./1/3013/2/_/716111/_/956878908/

>------

>

>-----------------------------

> - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

>To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list (AT) eGroups (DOT) com

>Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Malolan,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

> SrI Malolan wrote :

>In the line of the Dasha AvatAram, Balarama comes after Krishna. But

>during the end of the MahabharatA, Balarama goes back into the Ocean in

>the form of a serpent. I was told the Balarama as well as Lakshmana are

>the incarnations of Adi Sesha. If this is true, then how can the 9th

>Avatar ( Balarama) be of Lord Vishnu's AvatarA. Some texts say the 9th

>Avatara after Krishna-vatara is the Buddha-vatara.

 

>SrI Sadagopan wrote:

> Whether Shri BalarAmAvathAram is an amsAvathAram

> like ParasurAmAvathAram is some thing other BhakthAs

> would like to comment.It must be pointed out

> that ParasurAmAvatharam is one in which the Lord

> infused His divine powers in a pious Brahmin for

> performing some miracles .During the AyOdhyA-

> RaamAvathAram , the Lord pulled back all

> the divine powers from ParusurAmaan. Thus,

> ParasurAmAvathAram is not considered a direct

> avathArAm of Sriman NaarAyaNA , although AzhwArs

> and AchAryAs have paid their tributes to ParasurAman

> inview of His traditional inclusion in the DasAvathArams.

 

 

The ten avatArams spoken off by our AchAryas are as per the

nArAyanIya section of MahAbhArata and also HarivamSa which

enlists the same.

 

BalarAma avatAram (8th in the list) is not taken by PerumAL

Himself directly. BalarAma is an avatAram of AdisEsha only. But,

Lord invested more potencies unto AdisEsha for performing some

leelAs as BalarAma. Though as a nitya-sUri he can perform many

leelAs, its just the will of PerumAL in investing some potencies

unto BalarAmar and thus counted as a (secondary) avatAram of

PerumAL.

 

Lakshmana is not listed in the ten avatArams though He is also

an incarnation of Adi SEsha because, the potency invested by

PerumAL on BalarAma is more than to that of Lakshmana.

 

Reg Buddha avatAram : The references in the texts like SrImad

BhAgavatam does not pertain to the Buddha who was "SiddhArta".

It refers to some Buddha of the past who fooled the athiests.

It is not a direct avatAram by PerumAL. Also, in Buddhism itself,

they talk about many Buddhas.

 

This was the explanation adiyEn heard from a vidvAn some

months back.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

---------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/22/00 11:56:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

kgk writes:

 

<< Lakshmana is not listed in the ten avatArams though He is also

an incarnation of Adi SEsha because, the potency invested by

PerumAL on BalarAma is more than to that of Lakshmana. >>

 

May I add a few words to the brilliant explanation of Sri Anand?

 

THE THREE RAMAS:

Sri RAma AvatAra:

One other reason why LakshmaNa is not listed as a separate AvatAra can be

gleaned from the vAkhyam of Aadhikavi Sage VAlmiki himself in BAla kAnDam of

Srimad RAmAyaNam (Sargam18) relating to the birth of the four sons to

MahArAja Dasaratha.

 

He says that Sri MahAvishNu manifested *half* of his amsam as Sri RAma,

manifesting the rest of his amsams in LakshmaNa, Bharatha, and Satrugna.

Together they made the AvatAra a Paripoorna (complete) one.

Referring to Sri RAma, he says -

" KousalyAjanayad RAmam sarva lakshaNa samyutham

*VishNOr ardham* mahAbhAgam putram aikshvAku vardhanam"

Referring to others, he says-

" bharathO nAma kaikeiyAmjajnE sathya parAkrama:

sAkshAth vishNO: chatur bhAga: sarvai: samudithO guNai:"

" atha LakshmaNa Satrugnou SumitrAjanayath suthou

sarvAstra kusalou veerou VishNOrardha samanvithou"

 

Thus, perhaps because LakshmaNa is an integral part (amsam) of the Lord, he

is not treated as a separate AvatAra.

 

ParasurAma AvatAra :

This AvatAra is not a direct AvatAra. Lord Vishnu entered the soul of a

brahmin son of Jamadagni (By Avesa or Anupravesa) with a specific purpose and

so ParasurAma is treated as a separate AvatAra.

 

BalarAma AvatAra

This AvatAra and that of Sri KRISHNA happened in DvApara yuga. Vasudeva's

first wife was Rohini. The second wife was Devaki. For the seventh time

Devaki conceived and it was BalarAma. But, by Lord's `Yogamaya' the foetus

was transferred from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohini. So, it is the self

same VishNu

who played a dual role as KrishNa and BalarAma, though some hold that like

Lakshmana in TrEta yuga, BalarAma in DvApara yuga was the manifestation of

Aadhisesha. BALARAMA AVATARA was not a PURNA AVATARA, say some scholars.

 

Buddha AvatAra?

Some substitute in his place BUDDHA. This is not correct. Our Sastras do not

recognize BUDDHA as one of the 10 major Avatars. And, definitely it is not

the SiddhArtha - Gouthama Buddha mentioned in history books. This was a

different Buddha called Aadhi Buddha, considered an auxiliary Avatara, not

counted as one of the 10 recognized major AvatAras of the Lord.

 

In fact, in Mahabharata Santi Parva 46.107. Bhishma tells Krishna that it is

Krishna himself who misled the wicked into wrong ways in his auxiliary

incarnation as 'Buddha'.- This may be the "Aadhi Buddha" mentioned above.

=======================================================

{ Note: For a more detailed explanation of the various AvatAras, please read

Chapter 9 "The Descending God" in my book "Hinduism Rediscovered" archived at

www.srivaishnava.org/sgati Please click on SDDS (Pre-Saranagathi) TOC and go

to Volume. 1.24 and 1.25 dated 5th December, 1996 and 1.26 dated 6th

December 1996}

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa-

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

namO nArAyaNa !

 

Dear SrI Ramanan,

> I have an explanation of Dasavathara.When we deeply note the

> incarnation of Lord right from Macha Avathara,you may see the

> development of species over the ages:

>

> 1.Macha-a Living being that could live in water

> 2.Kurma-a Living being that can live both on Land and water

> 3.Varaha-a living being that is more developed and hunt for its

> food

> 4.Narasimha-a Living being with half of animal and ahalf of

> Man's characters

> 5.Vamana-a Human being with the younger stage of life

> 6.Parasuma-a Man in forest who has the capability to take care

> of his food and shelter(kattuvasi)

> 7.Rama- An ideal citizen in a country

> 8.Balarama-Man with modernized idea to procure food through

> agriculture (self dependant)

> 9.Krishna- A man who knows the in and out of administering and

> ruling the whole country (Rajathanthri)

>

> Hope this expalanation can make some sense about Shriman

> Narayamna's Dasavatharam.

 

These various avatArams have nothing to do with the development

of species. Infact, the chronology of the avatArams are not strictly

 

according to the above listing. VarAha avatAram precedes matsya

and Koorma avatAram in time. Also, HayagrIva avatAram is regarded

as one of the very early avatArams. Also, there are vyUha

manifestations including that of sayanam at milk ocean etc.

 

The ten avatArams enlisted from the infinitely many are arranged

in a fashion that incidentally has some resemblance with the

hierarchy of species. Though this is a general hierarchy with human

 

beings regarded as the most capable in understanding Sastras

and execute either bhakti Or prapatti, the jIvAtmas in the animal

species too can perform either bhakti Or prapatti (eg: Jada Bharata

 

as a deer continued the bhakti yOga ; GajEndra continued his bhakti

 

yOga etc as it was continuation of what they had previously in

human

etc births). So, its not that only human species has all the

capabilities to perform devotion to SrIman nArAyaNa.

 

Discussions in the past has occured regarding whether Darwin's

Theory of evolution is supported by VEdAntins Or not. Some of the

members (SrI Bharat, SrI Venkat Nagarajan ....) have explained as

to

how Darwin's theory is not supported by VEdAnta. SrI Mani

Varadarajan feels that somehow it can be reconciled that Theory of

evolution of species is supported by VEdAnta. Please go through the

 

archives for more information and privately contact these members

if you want to know more of their view points.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.