How to understand incarnation from advaita perspective ?

[Guest guest]

Pranams!

 

I am having hard time understanding the concept of "human incarnation"

like Sri Krishna, from the advaitic percpective.

 

The Brahman is pure, partless, eternal, all-pervading consciousness.

This consciousness gets reflected in individual antahkaranas giving

rise to ahankara, which inturn, because of its false identification,

gives rise to jiva, a separate entity. This explains how Jivas comes

into being from Brahman.

 

But a human incarnation is not a jiva in this sense (as I understand).

Also Brahman is 'akarta' and 'abhokta'. So what makes an incarnation

possible and how? One can squarly dismiss this by saying that it is

just vyavaharika satyam and hence there never is any incarnation. But

we had an explanation for Iswara as the creater (Brahman reflected in

Maya gives Iswara) and as if this Iswara projects himself as this

universe. But it seems we can not apply this logic for individual

incarnations. Also if it is all just mitya, there seems to be no need

of incarnations.

 

It was said in Gita that incarnations will come when ever Dharma is in

crisis. So does Brahman has a thought process going on in him to

determine when the dharma is in crisis, to project an incarnation?

 

Also what is the nature of an incarnation. Is it a Jiva or Brahman or

something like Jivanmukta ?

 

I appreciate if some one can shed some light on this topic. I am sure

there will be some logical explonation to this from the advaitic

perspective.

 

Many Thanks!

 

Regards

 

Raju

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "kanaka_raju8" <kanaka_raju8

wrote:

>

> Pranams!

>

> Also what is the nature of an incarnation. Is it a Jiva or Brahman

or

> something like Jivanmukta ?

>

> I appreciate if some one can shed some light on this topic. I am

sure

> there will be some logical explonation to this from the advaitic

> perspective.

>

> Many Thanks!

>

> Regards

>

> Raju

Namaste Raju,

 

Here is a page from my website which alludes to your

question....Tony.

 

AVATARS.

 

 

What is an Avatar? The name in Sanksrit means `to cross down', so

that could mean all Jivas, or individual entities. However it

usually refers to a Karana Janma or a person who takes birth, even

though they karmically don't need to.

 

 

 

The Universal Consciousness or `God' doesn't take birth actually per

se, but is ever the witness of this play of Maya. So many entities

rise up to eventually become vehicles, as the Avatars of Visnu.

 

 

 

It appears that this concept operates at different levels from Amsa-

Avatars or partial avatars, to Avatars and finally to PurnaAvatar

or `Fully Divine Avatars', like Krishna.

 

 

 

Like the Buddhist concept of a Bhodisattava, a Jiva puts off

Liberation or Moksha and wills another life, to come back and help

humanity.

 

This `willing' is of course is a thought hence an Ego-Mind is

preserved, otherwise there would be no rebirth or anything to take

rebirth.

 

However there is nothing to prevent such an advanced being from

taking Moksha and surrendering the ego anytime in the Avatara, from

birth onwards. At this time the Avatar would become a PurnaAvatar or

JivanMukta, a surrendered ego and fully merged in the Universal

Consciousness. So it follows that a PurnaAvatar at birth took

Moksha at that time. Becoming a Jivanmukta with a Prarabda Karma to

perform during the lifetime.

 

 

 

The signs of a Mukta are usually, being an embodiment of Love, and

having no desires/attachments, as this requires a Jiva Ego-Mind.

Other than that it takes a Mukta to recognise another one.

 

 

 

A Jiva who follows the Bhakti path, and doesn't desire to lose its

identity, would rise to a level of consciousness just short of

Moksha called the Brahmaloka. At MahaPralaya or Great Dissolution of

the Universe this Jiva would merge into Moksha.

 

 

 

All this is within the projection of Maya, of course. For nothing

ever took birth or is reincarnated--------"Who am I"?

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

I am interpolating my answers within the following post of

kanakaraju, whose words are enclosed in [ ].

 

 

[i am having hard time understanding the concept of "human

incarnation"

like Sri Krishna, from the advaitic percpective.

 

The Brahman is pure, partless, eternal, all-pervading consciousness.

This consciousness gets reflected in individual antahkaranas giving

rise to ahankara, which inturn, because of its false identification,

gives rise to jiva, a separate entity. This explains how Jivas comes

into being from Brahman.

 

But a human incarnation is not a jiva in this sense (as I

understand).]

 

VK: So far so good

 

[Also Brahman is 'akarta' and 'abhokta'. So what makes an incarnation

possible and how? One can squarly dismiss this by saying that it is

just vyavaharika satyam and hence there never is any incarnation.]

 

VK: The word `hence' above is the culprit in your argument.

Vyavaharika satyam means things appear but do not exist in the

absolute sense. They also disappear in due course. So also

incarnation `appears' and also `disappears' in due course. So

incarnations are as real as you and I are.

 

[but

we had an explanation for Iswara as the creater (Brahman reflected in

Maya gives Iswara) and as if this Iswara projects himself as this

universe. But it seems we can not apply this logic for individual

incarnations.]

 

VK: I don't understand your last sentence. Can you explain ?

 

[ Also if it is all just mitya, there seems to be no need

of incarnations.]

 

VK: Why do you say so? Within the MithyA world there are

necessities for incarnations like the situation in which Prahlada

found himself, or the situation in which the world found itself in

the presence of Ravana and Kumbhakarna.

 

 

[it was said in Gita that incarnations will come when ever Dharma is

in

crisis. So does Brahman has a thought process going on in him to

determine when the dharma is in crisis, to project an incarnation?]

 

VK: It is not brahman who has a thought process going on in him but

Ishvara, about which you yourself wrote earlier.

 

[Also what is the nature of an incarnation. Is it a Jiva or Brahman

or

something like Jivanmukta ?]

 

VK: Good. This is where you have exactly hit the nail on the head!

This is exactly what Krishna himself says it has to be a mystery to

us. See B.G. 7-24 and 9-11. His `AtmamAyA' (B.G. 4-6) is certainly

incomprehensible.

 

[i appreciate if some one can shed some light on this topic. I am

sure

there will be some logical explonation to this from the advaitic

perspective.

 

Many Thanks!

 

Regards

 

Raju]

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Thank you VK-ji,

 

I reflected upon your statement that "Iswara thinks", and following

is what I came up with. I earnestly request you to refine the

sequence of my thought process if you see some sense in it. If not,

please let me know what your line of understanding is.

 

[ VK: It is not brahman who has a thought process going on in him

but Ishvara, about which you yourself wrote earlier. ]

 

Iswara determines the need for incarnation in the vyavaharika world

and projects an incarnation for the sake of the vyavaharika world.

Even though we can not fully understand (as we are still in the grip

of avidya) for the sake of analysis, we can approximate an

incarnation's nature as similar to a jivan-mukta without prarabda.

 

When Brahman (the original, unalloyed conciousness)gets reflected in

Maya, Iswara comes into picture. When Brahman gets reflected (this is

avidya) in antahkarana (sukshma-sarira), ahankara arises. So Iswara

is like universal ahankara. But ahankara is possible only if there is

mind/antahkarana(antahkarana + reflection of brahman (chidabhasa) =

ahankara). So we assume an antahkara for Iswara, which is called

Hiranyagarbha (universal mind). Because of this ahankara the world

made of names and forms arises for Iswara which we call Virat. So

Iswara is comparable to Jiva.

 

Maya (Universal) - Avidya (Individual)

Iswara (U) - Ahankara (I) => causal body

Hiranyagarbha (U) - Antahkarana/Mind (I) => subtle body

Virat (U) - Gross Body (I).

 

An individual transacts with an external world but this os not

possible for Iswara as his gross body is his external world. As an

individual feels an urge to cure an ailment in his body, So is Iswara

feels a necessity to cure the ailment in his body (i.e when dharma is

in crisis). So he projects an incarnation.

 

So an incarnation is like the effort of Iswara to cure a desease in

his body (which is the world).

 

When a jiva gets rid of his avidya which gives rise to ahankara

(ego/individuality) Brahman alone remains. When Iswara gets rids of

Maya Brahman alone remains. So both Iswara and Jivas are only

empirical realities, not absolute.

 

 

Pranams!

 

Raju

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>

> Namaste

>

> I am interpolating my answers within the following post of

> kanakaraju, whose words are enclosed in [ ].

>

>

> [i am having hard time understanding the concept of "human

> incarnation"

> like Sri Krishna, from the advaitic percpective.

>

> The Brahman is pure, partless, eternal, all-pervading consciousness.

> This consciousness gets reflected in individual antahkaranas giving

> rise to ahankara, which inturn, because of its false identification,

> gives rise to jiva, a separate entity. This explains how Jivas comes

> into being from Brahman.

>

> But a human incarnation is not a jiva in this sense (as I

> understand).]

>

> VK: So far so good

>

> [Also Brahman is 'akarta' and 'abhokta'. So what makes an

incarnation

> possible and how? One can squarly dismiss this by saying that it is

> just vyavaharika satyam and hence there never is any incarnation.]

>

> VK: The word `hence' above is the culprit in your argument.

> Vyavaharika satyam means things appear but do not exist in the

> absolute sense. They also disappear in due course. So also

> incarnation `appears' and also `disappears' in due course. So

> incarnations are as real as you and I are.

>

> [but

> we had an explanation for Iswara as the creater (Brahman reflected

in

> Maya gives Iswara) and as if this Iswara projects himself as this

> universe. But it seems we can not apply this logic for individual

> incarnations.]

>

> VK: I don't understand your last sentence. Can you explain ?

>

> [ Also if it is all just mitya, there seems to be no need

> of incarnations.]

>

> VK: Why do you say so? Within the MithyA world there are

> necessities for incarnations like the situation in which Prahlada

> found himself, or the situation in which the world found itself in

> the presence of Ravana and Kumbhakarna.

>

>

> [it was said in Gita that incarnations will come when ever Dharma

is

> in

> crisis. So does Brahman has a thought process going on in him to

> determine when the dharma is in crisis, to project an incarnation?]

>

> VK: It is not brahman who has a thought process going on in him

but

> Ishvara, about which you yourself wrote earlier.

>

> [Also what is the nature of an incarnation. Is it a Jiva or Brahman

> or

> something like Jivanmukta ?]

>

> VK: Good. This is where you have exactly hit the nail on the head!

> This is exactly what Krishna himself says it has to be a mystery to

> us. See B.G. 7-24 and 9-11. His `AtmamAyA' (B.G. 4-6) is certainly

> incomprehensible.

>

> [i appreciate if some one can shed some light on this topic. I am

> sure

> there will be some logical explonation to this from the advaitic

> perspective.

>

> Many Thanks!

>

> Regards

>

> Raju]

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "kanaka_raju8" <kanaka_raju8

wrote:

>

> Thank you VK-ji,

>

> I reflected upon your statement that "Iswara thinks", and

following

> is what I came up with. I earnestly request you to refine the

> sequence of my thought process if you see some sense in it. If

not,

> please let me know what your line of understanding is.

>

 

Namaste Kanakaraju ji,

 

To your latest post giving a lucid explanation to the idea

of 'incarnation', let me add this following:

 

While we have the 'incarnation', avatara, described in the Puranas,

it is allegorical to the situation prevailing in an individual. The

Lord says:

Paritraanaaya sadhUnaam, vinaashaaya cha dushkritaam....sambhavaami..

 

When the daivi inclination an individual somehow develops in himself

to tread the path of dharma, eschew adharma, and inch himself

towards Mukti, there is a saadhu in him. Those forces that are

praakritik, base, that forcibly pull him towards sense-pleasures and

therefore in the path of adharma, are the inimical ones to this

saadhu in him. This is the dushkritin, the evil, in that person.

 

Now, since the endeavour in the individual is sincere, his prayers

are answered and he gets the grace of a Realized Guru. This marks

the advent of an avatara in his life. The Guru is really an

incarnation of Ishwara. With the strength drawn from the Guru's

upadesha and his exalting association, the asuras, the evil forces

are vanquished and the saadhu in the individual emerges victorious.

This victory is marked by the final accomplishment of the

eradication of Avidya, the root cause of all evil, anartha as

Acharya Shankara puts it. The avatara has accomplished his work and

vanishes leaving the individual in his native Brahmanhood.

 

Bhagavan Ramana once mentioned that 'Narakaasura vadha' by Krishna

is to be understood as the eradication of avidya by the strength of

Atma Jnanam.

 

The Apastamba sutra says: 'ayam tu paramo dharmaH yad yogena Atma

darshanam.' That is the Supreme Dharma which results in gaining

Self knowledge through yoga. Thus, dharma-samsthaapanam is

Atmadharshana anukoolam. This is what is accomplished by an

Avatara, incarnation.

 

(Perhaps 'yuge yuge' could mean this: this is just my conjecture: An

individual is said to be in kaliyuga when he is in the throes of

Avidya. So, there is a need for an avatara in each yuga.

The 'each' could mean the kaliyuga of each individual.)

 

Maybe the above explains the idea of an incarnation in the Advaitic

perspective.

 

Pranams,

subbu