Neo-Hinduism - What Is It?

[chandu_69]

 

acknowledging it and promoting it are not the same terms .

[raghu]

 

Yes. I agree that this is off topic. But the discussions arose because you did not define Classical Hinduism. Whether it is Vedic or Purna/Itihasa or something else. sambya also asked the same question. You have not replied.

 

I did discuss definitions of Classical or Traditional Hinduism in the earlier postings of this thread, especially as they differ from Neo-Hinduism. Perhaps you may wish to reread these. To quote from the very first posting on this thread, "For the purposes of this discussion, I am using "Hinduism" according to the conventional definition used historically, i.e. those religious traditions that flourished on the Indian subcontinent and owe their origins at least in theory to the Vedas and their adjunctive scriptures."

 

As far as sambya is concerned, his feelings are hurt because his guru-hero is a Neo-Vedantist. Unfortunately, not much can be done about that. Now he wants to argue and know my sampradaya details. If I acquiesce to his requests, what will likely follow is a brainless harangue about how my sampradaya is full of intolerant people which is the only plausible explanation as to why I do not accept the contradictory ideas of his Neo-Vedantic heroes as Hindu gospel.

 

 

I meant Saiva , Vaishnava, Saktha and other religions. All these did exist at that time. May be none of them felt challenged by Buddhism. Abhinavagupta was a contemporary figure. But he does not seem to have challenged Buddhist ideas.

 

I can't say for sure about Shaiva and Shakta thinkers. But as far as Vaishnava commentators are concerned, there is unambiguous criticism of Buddhism in their Vedanta commentaries, just as they have criticized everyone else including Advaita. Thus, your claims that "We do not see any Purana expert challenging Buddhism. Do we?" is wrong.

 

 

The Vaishnava Acharyas came centuries later when Buddhism was almost non existent in India.

 

Irrelevant. The issue you raised was whether or not they were opposed to Buddhism. Clearly they were, in spite of the "Buddha as avatar" concept.

[sambya]

 

Sambya, when you ask questions that are relevant to the thread and intelligent enough to dignify with a response, I will certainly answer them.

 

yes they are absolutely relevant to this thread and it is your accute lack of intelligence thats making you think otherwise !

 

anyways , i think i already have one answer . that YOU DO NOT HAVE A GURU AND DO NOT BELONG TO ANY SAMPRADAYA ! Then what is the autority of your words when you yourself do not belong to any sampradaya which is so essential to be a classical hindu .( I have asked this question atleast five times))

 

 

secondly by what idiotic reason can you say that questions like :

 

1-which time period in history can be conclusively said as the time of classical hinduism .

 

2-what are the main scriptures of 'classical hinduism ' ? examples please.... .................................................................do not hold any relevance to the thread ? they are directly reffering to the central theme-neo hinduism !!!!

 

 

and the other two questions like:

 

 

3-which is the supreme god in hinduism according to you and what is the process of determining this supremacy ?

 

4- why was this thread started ? i mean what should a man do after reading this ? ............................................................................

.............................are highly useful to anyone wishing to have a deep knowledge about neo-hinduism and what it stands for . they are also not out of topic .

 

WHY DONT YOU PROVIDE CLEAR ANSWERS INSTEAD OF DODGING THEM CONTINUOSLY ????????????

.

[sambya]

 

This is getting off topic. The thread is about Classical Hinduism vs Neo-Hinduism.

 

things are not at all getting out of topic . its just that you are evading the questions that you dont wish to answer .

 

DEFINE classical hinduism for once .

[sambya]

 

what ramakrishna practiced is "left handed tantra"(Vama marga).

 

wrong again as most of the time !!!

 

he practised dakshinaachar as found in the principle 64 types of tantra prevalent in kalikula under the guidance of bhairavi brahmani( who was a tantrik vaishnavi , her ishta being a salagram shila ) in the panchavati of dakshineswar temple premises. he did not go to vamaachar out of his own will !!

[sambya]

 

I did discuss definitions of Classical or Traditional Hinduism in the earlier postings of this thread, especially as they differ from Neo-Hinduism. Perhaps you may wish to reread these.

 

 

you did not define classical hinduism . you defined the identification point of neo hinduism and differentiated between the two concentrating mainly on neo-hinduism.

 

and whats the harm in elaborating it just once more with more emhasis on classical part for better understanding of all here( as you can see none understood it)

 

 

 

To quote from the very first posting on this thread, "For the purposes of this discussion, I am using "Hinduism" according to the conventional definition used historically, i.e. those religious traditions that flourished on the Indian subcontinent and owe their origins at least in theory to the Vedas and their adjunctive scriptures."

in this you are merely clarifying to the readers the scope and expanse of the word 'hinduism' in your essay and making the discussion convenient by using a shorter comprehensive term .

 

that does nothing to define classical hinduism and its time period or its scriptures .

 

 

 

 

 

As far as sambya is concerned, his feelings are hurt because his guru-hero is a Neo-Vedantist. Unfortunately, not much can be done about that.

no no no !! once more this is the rsult of your fertile imagination and hypothetical assumtions.

i dont believe or support this theory of neo hinduism and see places where this theory falls short of logic . that is the only reason i am arguing with you .

 

why should i get upset over someone not believeing in my guru or ideal ? everyone has his own freedom of choice( yes N-H again) . but when you intend to downplay other beliefs you must carry some basic logic which is lacking in quite a few places in your posts , unless ofcourse you agree to clarify them . and you refuse to do that....

 

 

Now he wants to argue and know my sampradaya details. If I acquiesce to his requests, what will likely follow is a brainless harangue about how my sampradaya is full of intolerant people which is the only plausible explanation as to why I do not accept the contradictory ideas of his Neo-Vedantic heroes as Hindu gospel.

 

 

 

ha ha ! that was not my intention . i promise that i wouldnt point out the level of intolerence in your sampradaya if you tell me the name .

 

by the way , how can you say that i shall acuuse someone of intolerence unless you yourself have noticed that intorence in them . hee hee !! see how confused you are ?

 

nevertheless , i'll keep my promise !

[chandu_69]

 

wrong again as most of the time

 

Most of the time may be.Did he practice Vama tantra(left handed) , yes or no?.Please answer this question.

 

he did not go to vamaachar out of his own will !!

 

Ohh i see.Did anybody force him to practice Vamatantra??.

Going by his follower's account he has apparently practiced left handed tantra but couldn't move a leaf .

 

So, you think a failed left hand tantrik can become a spiritual guru. Right?

[sambya]

 

Did he practice Vama tantra(left handed) , yes or no?.Please answer this question.

NO , in a strict sense ......

vamachar deals with madya mamsha matsya mudra and maithuna . he didnt drink madya( wine) and fell into bhava just uttering the name karana(meaning wine and cause) . he entered into samdhai merely on seeing aprostitute seeing devi in her and thus coudnt get into maithuna . his merely touched the mamshah while sadhana . this is certainly not vamachara where you have to eat mamsha drink madya indulge in maithuna etc etc.

 

 

So, you think a failed left hand tantrik can become a spiritual guru. Right?

correct !! if he failed at all( as you say) it shows his intrinsic purity which prevented him from tredding on vamamarga . i can go for such a guru . i wouyldnt presurrise any one though !!!!

[krishnaleela]

 

Some of the well known God men/women of India.

 

1. The Swaminarayan movement - Here Swaminarayan is GOD. he is considered as Krishna.

 

2. Chaitanya Maha Prabhu whom we consider as GOD.

 

3. Mata Amrithanandamayi.

 

4. Ramana Maharishi.

 

5. Mata Ananda Moyi

 

6. Sri Ragavendra.

 

You will find a complete list here.

 

http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Hinduism/Gurus_and_Saints/

 

The criticism leveled against almost all organizations in their names is similar to what you have stated.

 

I believe for 1 and 2, they are regarded by their followers as incarnation of Krishna, the same of the Bhagavatham, and not an abstract "God".

 

Besides, all examples you have pointed out are relatively recent, from the time of Muslim rule onwards; hence they may represent Hinduism's attempt at incorporating the newer influence of abrahamic faiths with what was earlier. And this trend is having its problem of going overboard - that is the neo-hinduism that acts like tradition and yet is pushing the alien dimensions.

 

Some like Swami Narayan organization are very clear about their Hindu identity inspite of showing their guru as central deity - others like Ramakrishna Math, etc. are quite clear (especially in US etc) that they are "Vedantins" (representing all relgions) and their guru is incarnation of God even as Jesus, etc. This is exactly the type of subtle difference that neo-Hinduism is playing on. It needs to be understood because it tends to be abused.

 

As for Shankaracharya etc (from before Muslim, Christian rule of India), he is regarded within the smartha tradition as Shiva's incarnation; Ramanuja of Adi-Sesha; Madhva of Bhima - the link is uniformly back to our prior deities, etc in the Puranas. But are they presented by their organizations as the central deity of worship? They have themselves made it clear that they represent the Vedas and that the object of worship of their organization is "Narayana", "Ishvara", etc - again with the central deity being from the puranas. The disciple is free to regard the guru as incarnation of a deity; but this is a private aspect within the tradition - they are not trying to "make" the next public Purana around their guru making him/her the central object of worship. That trend is neo.

[chandu_69]

 

NO , in a strict sense ......

 

Ha, he went there but stopped shy of completing it.

 

 

vamachar deals with madya mamsha matsya mudra and maithuna . he didnt drink madya( wine) and fell into bhava just uttering the name karana(meaning wine and cause) .

 

Wow, Bhava of drinking wine and having sex.

 

Some neo-tantrik there

 

The wikipedia entry quoting his biographers say the same thing

 

quote"

He later proceeded towards tantric sadhanas, which generally include a set of heterodox practices called vamachara (left-hand path), which utilize as a means of liberation, activities like eating of parched grain, fish and meat along with drinking of wine and sexual intercourse.<sup id="cite_ref-neevel-74_42-2" class="reference">[43]</sup> According to Ramakrishna and his biographers, Ramakrishna did not directly participate in the last two of those activities, all that he needed was a suggestion of them to produce the desired result..

 

unQuote.

 

 

 

 

 

correct !! if he failed at all( as you say) it shows his intrinsic purity which prevented him from tredding on vamamarga . i can go for such a guru . i wouyldnt presurrise any one though !!!!

 

I didnt say it.The proof of the pudding is in the eating.Many tantriks of his time displayed their tantrik powers.

 

And i leave it to your judgment on his Purity that failed him in the vamamarga.

[chandu_69]

 

Besides, all examples you have pointed out are relatively recent, from the time of Muslim rule onwards; hence they may represent Hinduism's attempt at incorporating the newer influence of abrahamic faiths with what was earlier. And this trend is having its problem of going overboard - that is the neo-hinduism that acts like tradition and yet is pushing the alien dimensions.

 

Some like Swami Narayan organization are very clear about their Hindu identity inspite of showing their guru as central deity - others like Ramakrishna Math, etc. are quite clear (especially in US etc) that they are "Vedantins" (representing all relgions) and their guru is incarnation of God even as Jesus, etc. This is exactly the type of subtle difference that neo-Hinduism is playing on. It needs to be understood because it tends to be abused.

 

As for Shankaracharya etc (from before Muslim, Christian rule of India), he is regarded within the smartha tradition as Shiva's incarnation; Ramanuja of Adi-Sesha; Madhva of Bhima - the link is uniformly back to our prior deities, etc in the Puranas. But are they presented by their organizations as the central deity of worship? They have themselves made it clear that they represent the Vedas and that the object of worship of their organization is "Narayana", "Ishvara", etc - again with the central deity being from the puranas. The disciple is free to regard the guru as incarnation of a deity; but this is a private aspect within the tradition - they are not trying to "make" the next public Purana around their guru making him/her the central object of worship. That trend is neo.

 

Excellent post putting things in perspective.

 

The manufacture of avtars is the bane of hinduism.

[sambya]

 

I believe for 1 and 2, they are regarded by their followers as incarnation of Krishna, the same of the Bhagavatham, and not an abstract "God".

 

Besides, all examples you have pointed out are relatively recent, from the time of Muslim rule onwards; hence they may represent Hinduism's attempt at incorporating the newer influence of abrahamic faiths with what was earlier. And this trend is having its problem of going overboard - that is the neo-hinduism that acts like tradition and yet is pushing the alien dimensions.

 

ha thats not logic ! just beacause they are 'regarded' as incarnation of krishna is no logic to establish their avatarhood beyond doubt . just because some are abstract gods doesnt take away their avatarhood. say , what about anandamayi ma who was regarded as an incarnation of devi . there is no abstraction here . was she an avatara ?

 

just because the later 'avatars' are from post muslim christian period and are more succeptible to abrahamic thoughts doesnt make them invalid !( im not promoting them either , im talikng about the logic) by this logic avatars of pre muslim period like sankaracharya may have been influenced by buddhism and hence may be incorporating buddhism . ramanuja and madhavcharya dating from muslim period may be influenced by islam and have incorporated muslim influence !! wierd logic .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

secondly what is an avatar ? can you define that for better understanding ?

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

I believe for 1 and 2, they are regarded by their followers as incarnation of Krishna, the same of the Bhagavatham, and not an abstract "God".

You are wrong. Sri Ramakrishna is considered an Avatar of Vishnu. Rama and Krishna combined. Maa Bhairavi Brahmani convened a meeting of Pundits to prove that Sri Ramkrishna was an avatar.

 

Quotes from Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna

 

 

In 1861, Bhairavi Brahmani, an orange robed, middle-aged female ascetic appeared at Dakshineshwar. She carried with her the Raghuvir Shila, a stone icon representing Ram and all Vaishnava deities.<sup id="cite_ref-A.P.Sen-101_41-0" class="reference"></sup> She was throughly conversant with the texts of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and practiced Tantra.<sup id="cite_ref-A.P.Sen-101_41-1" class="reference"></sup> According to the Bhairavi, Ramakrishna was experiencing phenomena that accompany mahabhava—the supreme attitude of loving devotion towards the divine<sup id="cite_ref-neevel-74_42-0" class="reference"></sup> and quoting from the bhakti shastras, she said that other religious figures like Radha and Chaitanya had similar experiences.<sup id="cite_ref-43" class="reference"></sup>

 

The Bhairavi on the other hand looked upon Ramakrishna as an avatara, or incarnation of the divine, and was the first person to openly declare that Ramakrishna was an avatara.

If Swaminarayan can worshiped in Swaminarayan temples why not Sri Ramakrishna?

 

Again Please go through this thread.

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/445405-iskcon-accepts-hinduism-hinduism-iskcon-com.html

The term Sanatana Dharma has been used by different organizations to mean different things. And many people claim that Chiristianity, Islam and Judaism are part of Sanatana Dharma. The term Universal Religion is no different from Sanatana Dharma. ( Eternal religion)

All things to all people.

The Ramakrishna Movement is based on the principle of spreading Vedanta, the essence of Hinduism. Upanishidic Hinduism.

We are all aware that Hinduism based on Upanishads is different from the Puranic Hinduism. Since the Upanishads are part of the Vedas, this Hinduism has equal if not more Vedic authority than the Puranas/Itihasas.

[chandu_69]

 

 

If Swaminarayan can worshiped in Swaminarayan temples why not Sri Ramakrishna?

 

 

That is the problem hinduism faces.if so and so can be an avatara why not my own guru.So you have saibaba and several such babas claiming to be avathars.

 

Swaminarayan Atleast talked about vaishnavism and his interpretation of vaishnavism.He didnt say outrageous things like some abrahamic jealous god who promises eternal torture for nonworship is same as vishnu.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

That is the problem hinduism faces.if so and so can be an avatara why not my own guru.So you have saibaba and several such babas claiming to be avathars.

 

Swaminarayan Atleast talked about vaishnavism and his interpretation of vaishnavism.He didnt say outrageous things like some abrahamic jealous god who promises eternal torture for nonworship is same as vishnu.

So if an Avatar talks about Vaishnavism, he can be worshiped. Is that the premise.

 

Sri Ramakrishna talked about Bhakti, Brahman and the Upanishadic values.

 

BTW there was a mention about Vamachara and Sri Ramakrishna. This is a quote from a book <cite style="font-style: normal;" class="book" id="CITEREFNeevelBardwell_L._Smith1976">

 

Neevel, Walter G.; Bardwell L. Smith (1976). "The Transformation of Ramakrishna". Hinduism: New Essays in the History of Religions. Brill Archive. pp. 53–97.

 

All the quotes are from the same article.

 

The Wikipedia article also says

</cite>

 

In 1861, Bhairavi Brahmani, an orange robed, middle-aged female ascetic appeared at Dakshineshwar. She carried with her the Raghuvir Shila, a stone icon representing Ram and all Vaishnava deities.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-A.P.Sen-101_41-0"></sup> She was throughly conversant with the texts of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and practiced Tantra.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-A.P.Sen-101_41-1"></sup> According to the Bhairavi, Ramakrishna was experiencing phenomena that accompany mahabhava—the supreme attitude of loving devotion towards the divine<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-neevel-74_42-0"></sup> and quoting from the bhakti shastras, she said that other religious figures like Radha and Chaitanya had similar experiences.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-43"></sup>

I do not think the author of that book knew anything about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Otherwise he would have never written that a Tantrik from the Gowdiya Vaishnavite Parampara taught Sri Ramakrishna Vama Marga.

 

The above quote is from

 

<cite style="font-style: normal;" class="book" id="CITEREFSen2001">Sen, Amiya P. (2001). Three essays on Sri Ramakrishna and his times. Indian Institute of Advanced Study.</cite>

 

So some unknown author goes around accusing Sri Ramakrishna of practicing Vama Marga taught by a Gaudiya Vaishnavite.

 

And expect us to believe it.

 

Give me a break.

[krishnaleela]

 

That is the problem hinduism faces.if so and so can be an avatara why not my own guru.So you have saibaba and several such babas claiming to be avathars.

 

 

Right. This kind of extrapolation to suit "my pet-theory of incarnation" has become the nuisance of modern Hindu organizations. It seems " 'everyone says the same-thing Vedanta' + a tinge of non-commital puranic flavour that can suggest all things to all people - except with my guru as central deity" is a defining feature of neo-hinduism.

 

I made the couple of points I wanted to. I hope there are others also reading this than the couple who are arguing against. I want people of these organizations to look into this aspect more carefully.

[chandu_69]

 

So if an Avatar talks about Vaishnavism, he can be worshiped. Is that the premise.

 

Not at all.nada , a big no.

 

 

Sri Ramakrishna talked about Bhakti, Brahman and the Upanishadic values.

 

That makes him a guru not avatar.

 

 

 

BTW there was a mention about Vamachara and Sri Ramakrishna. This is a quote from a book <cite style="font-style: normal;" class="book" id="CITEREFNeevelBardwell_L._Smith1976">Neevel, Walter G.; Bardwell L. Smith (1976). "The Transformation of Ramakrishna". Hinduism: New Essays in the History of Religions. Brill Archive. pp. 53–97.

 

All the quotes are from the same article.

 

The Wikipedia article also says

</cite>

 

I do not think the author of that book knew anything about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Otherwise he would have never written that a Tantrik from the Gowdiya Vaishnavite Parampara taught Sri Ramakrishna Vama Marga.

 

The above quote is from

 

<cite style="font-style: normal;" class="book" id="CITEREFSen2001">Sen, Amiya P. (2001). Three essays on Sri Ramakrishna and his times. Indian Institute of Advanced Study.</cite>

 

So some unknown author goes around accusing Sri Ramakrishna of practicing Vama Marga taught by a Gaudiya Vaishnavite.

 

And expect us to believe it.

 

No need to believe the person who says vaishnavite was a tantric.But then who is Bhairavi Brahmani???

 

Ramakrishna has done tantrik practices in burial grounds is an established fact.Whether he has done those practices to prove their unsuitability is another point.

 

 

Give me a break.

 

Sure, you need a break and use that break to read quran to understand what ramakrishna told about islam.Whether Allah shares the same attributes as vishnu/krishna.

 

Find out from islamic scholars what happens(as per quran) to those who worship Kaali devi instead of Allah.

[sambya]

krishnaleela you have not yet answered what is your defination of avataar .

 

what are the key determining points of avataar ?

 

 

[url="http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/450204-study-concept-avatar.html"]

[Kali_Upasaka]

Chandu. Back to Islam. Your favorite peeve. Please at least read the article on Sri Ramakrishna in Wikipedia before posting. Learn who Maa Bhairavi Brahmani is from that article.

 

I said give me a break. You know what it means?

 

It means;

Stop picking on me. stop victimising me, or stop criticising me

 

English idioms.

 

BTW who has vested the authority of deciding about Avataras on you?

[sambya]

 

BTW who has vested the authority of deciding about Avataras on you?

 

he had a confidential dream last night where vishnu came as a prominent VHP leader and instructed him to behead all the muslims and establish two specific avataars--swaminarayan and chanitanya ! shhhh......... !

[chandu_69]

 

Chandu. Back to Islam. Your favorite peeve. Please at least read the article on Sri Ramakrishna in Wikipedia before posting. Learn who Maa Bhairavi Brahmani is from that article.

 

 

But you are denying the info from wikipedia regarding left hand tantric practices of ramakrishna , so i asked you for a different source.

 

 

I said give me a break. You know what it means? It means; Stop picking on me. stop victimising me, or stop criticising me

 

Sorry if i gave the impression of picking you on a personal basis.I am not here to make enemies or friends.

 

 

 

[bTW who has vested the authority of deciding about Avataras on you?

 

No, i havent got any authority.But i take the lord's words to determine who is an avatar and who is not.

 

:Gita 4:6: Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

 

4:7 Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I

descend Myself.

 

4:8: In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after

millennium.

 

So far none of the claimed avatars have annihilated the miscreants.

[chandu_69]

 

he had a confidential dream last night where vishnu came as a prominent VHP leader and instructed him to behead all the muslims and establish two specific avataars--swaminarayan and chanitanya ! shhhh......... !

 

I neither had a dream nor i have any contacts whatsover with any hindu organisations.

 

Btw,Beheading is not a hindu practice.

 

Please check the post 96

[chandu_69]

 

Chandu. Back to Islam. Your favorite peeve.

 

Why? does it bother you if i am knowledgeable about islam?.

[sant]

 

Making wild accusations or quoting later scriptures can not change facts. One could be a scholar in Bhagavatham and Bagavad Gita. That does not necessarily make him an Vedic scholar.

 

sorry sorry what do you mean by this?

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

But you are denying the info from wikipedia regarding left hand tantric practices of ramakrishna , so i asked you for a different source.

As per the Wikipedia article Maa Bhairavi Brahmani

 

 

In 1861, Bhairavi Brahmani, an orange robed, middle-aged female ascetic appeared at Dakshineshwar. She carried with her the Raghuvir Shila, a stone icon representing Ram and all Vaishnava deities. She was throughly conversant with the texts of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and practiced Tantra. According to the Bhairavi, Ramakrishna was experiencing phenomena that accompany mahabhava—the supreme attitude of loving devotion towards the divine and quoting from the bhakti shastras, she said that other religious figures like Radha and Chaitanya had similar experiences.

So if you want to believe that a Gaudiya Vaishnavite follower who knew the Bhakthi sasthras and who worshipped Raghubir sila initiated Sri Ramakrishna into Vama Marga tantra, you may. But I do not.

 

 

 

No, i havent got any authority.But i take the lord's words to determine who is an avatar and who is not.

 

:Gita 4:6: Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

 

4:7 Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I

descend Myself.

 

4:8: In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after

millennium.

 

So far none of the claimed avatars have annihilated the miscreants.

So as per the above definition Chaitanya Maha Prabhu and Swaminarayan are not Avataras. I do not know about Swaminarayan. But about Chitanya Maha Prabhu I am sure he was an Avatara.