"Confusing Chronology"

[Guest guest]

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

 

 

 

Confusing Chronology

 

 

 

The DvArapAlakAs (gate keepers) of the Lord, the famous Jaya and

Vijaya, descend to the earth on account of a curse. Given the alternative of

being born a hundred times as the Lord's devotees and just thrice as His sworn

enemies, they chose the latter alternative, so that their separation from the

Lord is minimised. They are thus born as HiranyAksha and Hiranyakasipu (slain by

Sri Varahaperumal and Sri Nrsimha respectively), RAvaNa and KumbhakarNa (who

meet their end at the hands of Sri Raghava) and SisupAla and Dantavakra (killed

by Sri Krishna).

 

 

 

In one of the Peria Tirumozhi pasurams, Sri Parakalan says that the DevAs,

unable to bear the harassment of Hiranyakasipu, rush to the Lord and beseech Him

to rid them of the asurA, as He did in the case of Dantavakra.

 

 

 

This is a bit confusing. Dantavakra, as we know, was one of Rukmi's friends who

battled with Sri Krishna to prevent Him wedding Sri Rugmini, and was roundly

defeated and slain by Sri Krishna. As we also know, the Krishnavatara came much

later than the NrisihmAvatAra. Therefore, how would it be logical to say that

the dEvAs cited the killing of Dantavakra as an example to the Lord, while

seeking His intervention with the chronologically senior Hiranyakasipu? The

dEvAs couldn't very well foresee, while requesting the Lord to assume the

Nrisimhavatara, that Dantavakra would be slain and that too by Sri Krishna,

whose avatara was to happen hundreds of thousands of millennia later. And, in

any case, they cite the slaying of Dantavakra in the past tense, as an event,

which had already happened. This is as if reference is made in the opening

scenes of a drama, to an occurrence slated for the closing scene, of which the

audience have no inkling. Here is the pasuram concerned-

 

 

 

"Vakkaran vAi mun keeNda MAyanE endru vAnOr

 

pukku araN tandaruLAi enna pon AgatthAnai

 

nakku ari uruvam Agi nakam kiLarndu idandu Uganda

 

Chakkara Selvan TenpEr talaivan tAL adaindu uyndEnE"

 

 

 

The DEvAs assemble before the Lord, complaining of the unbearable atrocities

perpetrated by Hiranyakasipu. They tell Him, "In KrishnAvatAra, You saved us by

killing the incorrigible Dantavakra. Similarly, do protect us from

Hiranyakasipu, who is much worse." How could the dEvAs cite something which was

yet to happen, to buttress their request for slaying of an asura who was very

much part of the horrible present? How funny would it have been, had VisvAmitra

told Dasarata, "Do send Sri Rama with me for protecting my yagya. He would

definitely deal with the RakshasAs as he did with Kamsa in Krishnavatara."!

 

 

 

Sri Thirumangai Mannan is not alone in mixing up chronologically subsequent

occurrences with prior ones. Speaking to the child Krishna intent in play, Sri

Yasoda addresses Him as the slayer of NarakAsura (which the Lord did as an

adult, with Sri SatyabhAma by His side). Was the cowherdess endowed with

foresight, so that she could know in advance that her darling child would kill

Narakasura at a much later date? Or is Sri Periazhwar, like Sri Thirumangai

Mannan, disregarding the order of history with a convenient hindsight?

 

 

 

We find that the malady of mixed chronology is not limited to the Divya

Prabandas. If these pasurams are but reflections of the Shruti, can the latter

be free from what affects the former? The Vedapurusha too mentions several

avataras, as and when the context warrants. We thus have references to the

TrivikramAvatAra at several places-

 

"ThreeNi padA vichakramE, Vishnur gOpA adAbhya:"

 

"idam Vishnur vichakramE trEdha nidadhE padam"

 

"VichakramE prithivIm Esha EtAm" etc.

 

The VarahAvatAra too finds frequent mention in the Vedas-

 

"uddhrutAsi VarAhENa KrishnEna sata bAhunA"

 

"Sa VarAhO bhootvA nyamajjat" etc.

 

 

 

The Shruti is said to be anAdi (without a beginning and an end). Like the Lord,

VedAs too are eternal. This being so, how can the Shruti chronicle a particular

avatara, which took place at a particular point of time? While an avatara is

time bound, the Vedas are not. If indeed the Shruti has existed all along, from

time immemorial, and does not have an origin, can it contain references to

events that happen at specific points in time? By the same token, would it be

possible for the Shruti to incorporate references to the Hiroshima bombing or

the First World War or to the Industrial Revolution, and still be accepted as

"anAdi" or timeless? These and similar questions do beg an answer.

 

 

 

When such questions confront us, we have to bear firmly in mind that the

VedaPurusha or Azhwars are incapable of inaccuracy, even inadvertently. While

the Vedas are "nirdOsha" and embody truth, only truth and nothing but the truth,

Azhwars have been endowed by the Lord Himself with wonderful wisdom, totally

free of any blemish that is normal in human compositions. It is therefore

axiomatic that whatever is found in Shruti or Divya Prabandas, however

inexplicable it may appear to frail human intellects like ours, must indeed be

true. Given this, how is the chronological confusion to be clarified?

 

 

 

Poorvacharyas tell us that the Lord's avataras are countless, quoting the

Purusha Sukata vakyA-"ajAyamAnO bahudhA vijAyatE". If the avataras were only ten

or thirty-two or any other definite number, the Shruti, with its penchant for

accuracy, would have definitely given the specific number of avataras, instead

of merely saying they are "many". When Swami Desikan says "DasadhA nirvartayan

bhoomikAm"(Sri Dasavatara Stotram), he is referring just to the most popular

avataras, and not limiting their number to a mere ten.

 

 

 

Similarly, contrary to popular perception, each of these avataras has been

enacted by the Lord not only once, but any number of times, over and over again,

through the innumerable YugAs, KalpAs and ManvantarAs. The Lord is Himself on

record to say that He incarnates Himself in every Yuga, as and when the need, in

the form of danger to Dharma, arises-"SambhavAmi YugE YugE", says He in the

Gita. Who knows how many YugAs have gone by, as there have been innumerable

Creations and Pralayams! Even if we were to account for one avatara of the Lord

in every Yuga, there must have been countless avataras by now, each assumed for

a particular purpose. Thus, there must have been any number of Ramavataras,

Krishnavataras, Nrisimhavataras, etc. in the annals of the unchronicled

history of this Universe and the ones before it. The Ramavatara we are familiar

with occurred in the TrEdhA Yuga of the current cycle of ChaturyugAs and the

Krishnavatara in the DvApara YugA of the same cycle. In each such group of

Yugas, the Lord incarnates Himself as Trivikrama, Varaha, Nrisimha and so on, so

that not only does He assume different avataras, He assumes the same avatara

over and over again, according to the need of the Yuga.

 

 

 

Once we are reconciled to the idea of avataras being repetitive and innumerable,

it is easy to see that the dEvatAs (in the aforesaid pasuram of Sri Thirumangai

Mannan) must have been referring to the Krishnavatara of the previous

ChaturYuga, while praying to Sri Nrisimha to dispose of Hiranyakasipu, as Sri

Krishna did of Dantavakra.

 

 

 

As the Lord is eternal, so are His avataras, though they may occupy particular

slots in Time. In the sense that they keep repeating themselves with regularity,

the avataras too are eternal, and hence there is nothing wrong in the Shruti

extolling the same. Such references do not, therefore, detract from the

anAditvam or the eternality of the Vedas.

 

 

 

Our hearts go out in gratitude to our Poorvacharyas, who have a ready, plausible

and authoritative answer for all the apparently perplexing problems and

contradictions we encounter in the enthralling world of Bhagavat anubhavam.

 

 

 

Srimate Sri LakshmINrsimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana

Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

Dasan, sadagopan