Mahavishnu's Dasavatharam [Archive]

View Full Version : Mahavishnu's Dasavatharam

S.Balaji

16th January 2006, 06:11 PM

Shall we exchange information and thoughts on Sri Vishnu's 10 avatars....

I heard this 10 avatar is strikingly similar to Darwin's evolution theory also which sounds quite interesting...

Looking forward to healthy and constructive information on the 9 avatars till date and the 10th one which is expected during the kaliyug....

lalitha

17th January 2006, 04:20 PM

Idiappam

18th January 2006, 03:55 AM

We have fish - warm blooded ok!
We have tortise - a reptile
We have the Pig and the Lion -- mammals
Vamana - we can assume as human
the rest - only the lord know what!

How close can that be with Darwin's evolution stuff? Or is something missing there?

Surya

18th January 2006, 04:27 AM

PARASURAM -
RAM-
BALARAM-
KRISHNA-

Ppl with a brain know what. HUMANS! :lol2:

Sandeep

18th January 2006, 07:33 AM

//
VAMANA - DWARF
PARASURAM -
//

You may have heard this.

Vamana kicked Mahabhali (King of Kerala) down to pathala. But Kerala itself was created by Parashurama (who was born after Vamana). How did that happen?

My answer: When Vamana kicked Maveli down to pathala he did it so hard that Kerala also went below sea and sensing the mistake Vishnu came again as Parashurama and lifted it up.

George Bush is trying the same in Iraq :lol:

Anyway one thing is clear Gods had great interest Kerala (Gods own country). After all the first two human Avatars spend good amount of time in Kerala. ;)

Sandeep

18th January 2006, 07:39 AM

I dont understand why Vishnu took the avatar of Balaraman. He didnt do anything more that what Lakshmanan(avatar of Anandan) did for Sri Raman.

Surya

18th January 2006, 09:17 AM

Thanks for the info on Kerala, Vamana, and Parasuram. :)

I've often wondered about Balram also.

Now... I thought that Lakshman was the avatar of Aatheseshaa. :? or is Anandan another name for Aatheseshaa? :)

Sandeep

18th January 2006, 10:41 AM

Thanks for the info on Kerala, Vamana, and Parasuram. :)

Hope you didnt take the "my answer" part seriously. There is no mythological background to that.

I've often wondered about Balram also.
I have often seen Balaraman replaced by Buddha (I have never before seen Kalki being mentioned as Buddha) :?

Now... I thought that Lakshman was the avatar of Aatheseshaa. :? or is Anandan another name for Aatheseshaa? :)

They are the same; the snake, Vishnu and MahaLakshmi resides on in Vaikuntam. Have you heard about Ananda Pathmanabha temple in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (popular more for historical reasons than mythology).

devapriya

18th January 2006, 10:53 AM

[tscii:337af44dac]Friends,

I saw Avatars being looked more Scientifically by Uppuma in another thread and I QUOTE it here for friends
[quote]I got this from one of my Archives downloaded, without the source, a beautiful view of Vedic Avathars of Lord- Vishnu, which is linked to Darwin’s Theory, and we feel how Great is Indian Vedic Civilisation from 5000 years or earlier.

உயிரியல் கொள்கையாக விளங்கும் டார்வின் கோட்பாட்டை விளக்குவதாய்த் திருமாலின் 10 அவதாரங்கள் அமைந்துள்ளன. நீரில் வாழும் உயிராக மச்சாவதாரம், நீரிலும் நிலத்திலும் வாழும் தன்மையுடைய உயிராக கூர்மவதாரம், நிலத்திலே மட்டுமே வாழுகின்ற தன்மையுடைய விலங்காக வாரக அவதாரம், பிறகு விலங்கும் மனிதனுமாக நரசிம்ம அவதாரம், அதன் பின்னரே வளர்ச்சி அடைந்த முழு மனிதனாக கிருஷ்ணன், இராமன் அவரதாங்கள்.

அதில் மனிதனை நெறிப்படுத்தும் தத்துவங்களை மீறிய ஒரு விஞ்ஞான அதிசயம் பொதிந்து கிடப்பதுதான் முக்கியம். உயிர்களின் வளர்ச்சியை பரிணாமப் படிகளாக உலகுக்கு அறிவித்த டார்வின் சித்தாந்தம் இந்துமத இதிகாசங்கள் பொருந்தி இருப்பதைக் காணலாம்.
டார்வினுக்கு நமது இந்து மதத்தில் உள்ள 10 அவதாரங்களைத் தெரிய வாய்ப்பு இல்லை. ஆரம்பத்தில் உயிரனங்கள் தண்ணீரில் தோன்றியது. பிறகு அதே உயிரினம் தண்ணீரிலும் நிலத்திலும் வாழும் தகுதி பெற்றது. அதன் பிறகு நிலத்தில் வாழும் விலங்குகள். அடுத்து படிப்படியாக அந்த விலங்குகள் வளர்ச்சி பெற்று குரங்காகி அதிலிருந்து மனிதன் தோன்றினான். இந்த மூன்று அவதாரங்களை கவனித்தால் டார்வின் விஞ்ஞானியின் பரிணாமக் கொள்கையோடு ஒத்துப் போகிறது. இங்கேயும் செல் [ஜீன்] விஷயம் தெரிகிறது. மனிதனுக்கு அவனது ஜீன்கள் என்ற ஜீவ அணுவில் ஏற்கனவே எல்லாம் கற்றுக் கொடுக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. எதை, எந்த காலகட்டத்தில் அவன் கண்டுபிடிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற விதி ஏற்கனவே நிர்ணயிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. அப்படித்தான் இருக்கவேண்டும் என்ற விதி. அதன்படிதான் மனித குலம் வளர்ந்து வருகிறது என்கிறார்கள் ஆராய்ச்சியாளர்கள்.
மீனில் ஆரம்பித்த அவதாரம் 5-வது அவதாரமாக வருவது வாமன அவதாரம். வாமன அவதாரம் என்பது விஞ்ஞான ரீதியாக பரிணாம வளர்ச்சியில் மிகச் சரியானது. இந்துமத இதிகாசங்கள் ஆயிரக்கணக்கான ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பே அறிந்து வெளியிட்டுள்ள அறிவியல் செய்தி.
மற்ற அவதார புருஷர்களைவிட இவர் குள்ளமானவர்! நான்கு அவதாரங்களை அடுத்து மிகச் சரியாக விடுபட்ட [ மிஸ்ஸிங் லிங்க் ] இந்த குள்ளமான வாமன அவதாரம். விஞ்ஞானத்திற்கு ஒரு முன்னோடியாக இருக்கிறது.
''மிஸ்ஸிங் லிங்க் ''என்பது உயிரின வளர்ச்சிப் படிகளில் அடிக்கடி உபயோகிக்கப்படும் ஒரு சொல். '' விட்டுப்போன கண்ணி '' குரங்கிலிருந்து மனிதன் தோன்றினான் என்று விஞ்ஞானம் ஒப்புக் கொண்டாலும் குரங்குக்கும் மனிதனுக்கும் இடையில் ஏதோ ஒன்று இருக்கிறது. அந்த மிஸ்ஸிங் லிங்க் எதுவென்று விஞ்ஞானிகள் அவ்வப்போது தலையை பிய்த்துக் கொள்கிறார்கள். ஆனால் குரங்குக்கும் மனிதனுக்கும் உள்ள உருவ ஒற்றுமையைப்
பார்த்தால் விடுப்படவில்லை என்பது தெளிவாகுகிறது.
டார்வின் சித்தாந்தப்படி உயிர்கள் தண்ணீரில்தான் உருவாயிற்று என்று 200 ஆண்டுகளுக்குமுன்னால்தான் ஆச்சரியமாக கண்டறியப்பட்டு. இந்து மத இதிகாசங்கள் ஆயிரக்கணக்கான
ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்னமே முதல் அவதாரமாக 1.' மச்ச அவதாரம்' என்று மிகச் சரியாக காட்டியுள்ளது.
2. 'கூர்ம அவதாரம்' [மை வடிவம்].
3. 'வராக அவதாரம்' 4.காட்டுக்கு ராஜாவான சிங்கத்திற்கு 'சிம்மாவதாரம்'.
5. மிருகங்களிலிருந்து முதுகுத் தண்டு நிமிர ஆரம்பித்த குள்ள ஜீவனான 'வாமன அவதாரம்.
6வது பரசுராம அவதாரம், 7வது அவதாரம்
இராம அவதாரம் 8வது பலராம அவதாரம்.
எல்லாமே மனிதன் சாதாரணக் கருவிகளான வில்
ஈட்டி, கோடாரியை பயன்படுத்திய காலகட்ட அவதாரங்கள்!
A beautiful application of SCIENTIFIC idea on Ancient Indian HERITAGE, and Valluvar refers the Vamana Avatar, and Paripadal of Sangam Lit. gives complete Ten Dasavahara.
Uppuma.
[/quoe
Please discuss.

devapriya

[/tscii:337af44dac]

kannannn

18th January 2006, 10:39 PM

hmm... intersting thread. But IMHO, the so called missing link is not explained by the Vamana avatar. Richard Leaky (one of the world's foremost paleontologists and discoverer of the 'Turkana Boy'), in his book, 'The Origin of Mankind' states that the exact evoulution from ~100,000 BC to ~20,000 BC (or around that time) is a point of bitter fighting between experts and can be argued about endlessly. But for the most part, the chain in the evolution of modern man has been sorted out through fozziled remains. And evolution of modern man has mainly to do with the size of brain. The height factor is not of much consequence. This thread reminds me of one of the arguments of the christian right: adam and eve were apes!! :shock: I wonder if we are veering to the same path!

devapriya

23rd January 2006, 10:53 AM

Friend-Kannannn,

I have read many Church articles saying no much proofs for Fossils to date beyond 4000BCE World Creation.

Can you please give me links to Scientifice views please.

My posting was only for a discussion.

kannannn

23rd January 2006, 05:32 PM

How different is the conservative, right leaning church from our own conservative hindutva preaching organisations? Not much different I guess. So you cant believe people, coming up with museum worth millions in Kentucky to show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, to show scientific acumen. Anyway, check out this link for starters: http://www.becominghuman.org/ You however need a flash player to view the amazing documentary on human evolution.

Surya

24th January 2006, 06:41 AM

Hope you didnt take the "my answer" part seriously. There is no mythological background to that.

Yeah, I know, but it provided a more humourous view on that. :D

I have often seen Balaraman replaced by Buddha (I have never before seen Kalki being mentioned as Buddha) :?

Yeah me niether....It can't be because Kalki comes to destroy the world, to put an end to it.

shoyonika

15th March 2006, 08:31 PM

The ten incarnations of Lord Sri Vishnu are:-
Matsya
Koorma
Varaaha
Narasimha
Vamana
Bhargava(Parashurama)
Sri Rama
Sri Krishna
Buddha
Kalki

These avataras are mentioned in all Puranas including the famous SrimadBhagavatha. and please do not relate our lord`s holy avataras with darwin or anyone, as it has nothing to do with the theory of origins of species.

S.Balaji

15th March 2006, 10:20 PM

Shoyonika...

Buddha is not part of this list... It should be Balarama.... in place of Buddha

shoyonika

15th March 2006, 11:28 PM

Buddha is the ninth avatar of Lord, and balarama is the avatar of Adishesha.

kannannn

15th March 2006, 11:37 PM

Buddha is the ninth avatar of Lord, and balarama is the avatar of Adishesha.

shoyonika, I strongly condemn such statements. Does it say anywhere in the puranas that Buddha is the ninth avatar? My friend is a practising Buddhist and I can assure you that Buddhists are deeply offended by such statements and depictions of Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Have you read the history and teachings of Buddha? They go against all prescribed norms of the hindu religion. How can you then include his name in this?

mahadevan

15th March 2006, 11:49 PM

Buddha is the ninth avatar of Lord, and balarama is the avatar of Adishesha.

Shoyonika, Buddha said there is no God, if he is an avatar of vishnu then there is some great inconsistency in the teachings of vishnu in his avatars.

indian224080

16th March 2006, 12:21 AM

kannannn

16th March 2006, 12:32 AM

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 12:32 AM

shoyonika, I strongly condemn such statements. Does it say anywhere in the puranas that Buddha is the ninth avatar? My friend is a practising Buddhist and I can assure you that Buddhists are deeply offended by such statements and depictions of Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Have you read the history and teachings of Buddha? They go against all prescribed norms of the hindu religion. How can you then include his name in this?

I make no haste in writing such articles. Please do your research in SrimadBhagavatham as homework for which I`ll give you the reference too. Secondly, Buddha taught the anti-veda path for a reason which if mentioned, would hurt the sentiments of others, nevertheless, he is also an avatar of Lord Vishnu.
refer to SrimadBhagavatha:-http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto2/chapter7.html
under this link, check the 37th shloka. and http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto6/chapter8.html under 19th shloka.

kannannn

16th March 2006, 12:41 AM

You indeed do make haste in writing such articles. I don't need any homework from you. When was the Bhagawatham written? When did Buddha live? What is the reason for Buddha's anti-veda path (see my above posting for an explanation of Buddha's teachings). This is again the campaign of the sangh-parivar and even hindus before them appropriate Buddhism, since they know that the teachings of Buddhism threatened the very existence of hinduism. You do your homework shoyonika. I post this link for your reference:
http://www.ambedkar.org/buddhism/Depicting_Buddha_as_Hindu.htm

You can also search the net for Buddhism. Your challenge is to make a Buddhist accept that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. What is the use if you can't convince Buddhists themselves.

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 12:42 AM

indian..., let me clear a few things for you. According to Buddha, even if god existed, he is subject to the same changes are humans. Is this not against the stated hindu belief of the omnipotent god? He also said that it is therefore of no use to pray god. What you sow is what you reap. God doesn't enter the equation in this. The only way to break the cycle of life and death is through Nirvana and not through praise of god. Is this not against the hindu philosophy of 'sarvam krishnarpanam'? Then how come Buddha came into the list? I am waiting for your answer.

Before questioning others, do learn by yourself some points atleast, atleast correct points.
The teachings of Buddha never denies gods existence, but it says once has to achieve salvation through rigourous punishments to the body. He also said that good karma leads you into the light of nirvana whereas bad karma shows you to the world of yama. And what did you say about Buddha telling no use in praying to god?
Then why does he sit in the holy lotus posture and meditate? Now you are hurting Buddhists by saying that they are praying to Buddha in their temples without any use, be careful. This is offensive.

kannannn

16th March 2006, 12:44 AM

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 12:48 AM

kannannn

16th March 2006, 12:48 AM

The teachings of Buddha never denies gods existence, but it says once has to achieve salvation through rigourous punishments to the body. He also said that good karma leads you into the light of nirvana whereas bad karma shows you to the world of yama. And what did you say about Buddha telling no use in praying to god?
Then why does he sit in the holy lotus posture and meditate? Now you are hurting Buddhists by saying that they are praying to Buddha in their temples without any use, be careful. This is offensive.

There you go. Ignorant to the core. I already mentioned that Buddha did not deny the existence of god. Buddha initially thought that the route to salvation is by punishing the body. But he later realised that it not through punishment but through good karma that one attains nirvana. And FYI meditation does not only mean thinking about god and praying to him (that's why you need to come outside the sphere of god and see other things in life). If I meditate thinking about Buddha it doesn't mean that I am praying him. Write only if you are sure about something.

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 12:50 AM

And I am not done. A similar campaign was started recently by the 'sangh parivar' to include sikhs into hinduism. After widespread condemnation and violence by sikhs in Punjab and other sikh majority areas, they had to relent and retreat.
whether anyone believes it or not, Buddhists too are Hindus as are Sikhs, and no need to prove what already is true.

kannannn

16th March 2006, 12:52 AM

You can also search the net for Buddhism. Your challenge is to make a Buddhist accept that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. What is the use if you can't convince Buddhists themselves.
There is no need to convince anyone about it that Buddha is an avatar of Lord. And about SrimadBhagavatham well it was written by Sage Sri KrishnaDwaipayana or Badarayana or Veda Vyasa( all are the names of a single person) who had predicted all that is happning now beforehand itself. He said the Lord will appear as Buddha to cleanse the soul of men from impurities.

And Buddha means 'the enlightened'. Even accepting that the authors of Bhagaawtam foresaw the event, how do you know that they ment 'Gouthama Buddha'. It could have been any enlightened one. Even Mahaveer. And what is the use if Buddhists, who know more about their religion don't accept your points. Wait, there is a name for someone talking to themselves about something others don't believe.

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 12:55 AM

There you go. Ignorant to the core. I already mentioned that Buddha did not deny the existence of god. Buddha initially thought that the route to salvation is by punishing the body. But he later realised that it not through punishment but through good karma that one attains nirvana. And FYI meditation does not only mean thinking about god and praying to him (that's why you need to come outside the sphere of god and see other things in life). If I meditate thinking about Buddha it doesn't mean that I am praying him. Write only if you are sure about something.
me and ignorant?
where did you come accross all this typo errors? do post them so that I can try correct atleast ones which are not beyond repairs. Meditation means what? fixing your mind in one particular direction, and meditating thinking of Buddha without praying him?
does this sentence make any sense?

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 01:00 AM

And Buddha means 'the enlightened'. Even accepting that the authors of Bhagaawtam foresaw the event, how do you know that they ment 'Gouthama Buddha'. It could have been any enlightened one. Even Mahaveer. And what is the use if Buddhists, who know more about their religion don't accept your points. Wait, there is a name for someone talking to themselves about something others don't believe.

we know he was Gowthama Buddha because the SrimadBhagavatham directly mentions the lineage of Buddha as of Rishi Gowthama and has the same names that buddhists use today they are Gowthama, Siddhartha, Shuddhodani, and Shakyamuni to name a few.

kannannn

16th March 2006, 01:06 AM

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 01:17 AM

I think I am done with you. I have made my points and don't see sense in your further posts. Continue with your illogical posts. But my challenge to you remains: convince a buddhist or a sikh that they are hindus. I would especially like to see how you deal with the sikh without pushing him to take his 'talwar'. Also, try to reconcile to the fact that the teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism are contradictory to even mention them in the same sentence.

huh, Illogical posts and me? never even the same zip code. I had made it clear in the earliest posts that my intention is not to hurt anyone. But how can I expect you to understand it? now what was your challenge? do you think I am wasting my time for such useless topics? tough-luck!

mahadevan

16th March 2006, 02:22 AM

Hi Kannan/Shoyonika
Buddha does not talk of a God like what hinduism or christianity or islam refers. He does talk of devas(who are just slightly different from humans) etc and accepts God to be one of them. Importantly he does not accept a GOD that is omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity.

If you need any clarifications after reading this link http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm I more then welcome it.

kannannn

16th March 2006, 02:41 AM

Mahadevan, that's exactly what I had mentioned earlier. Buddha doesn't deny the existence of god. He just says that if god exists, he is subject to the same changes or cycle of changes as any one else. That is entirely against what is claimed in hinduism. But it is futile to explain some people.

stranger

16th March 2006, 02:46 AM

Buddha is the ninth avatar of Lord, and balarama is the avatar of Adishesha.

:rotfl:

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 09:20 PM

Buddha is and avatar of Lord Vishnu an none can deny that as it is the truth and for referencial sake, I have given the links of Moola Bhagavatham here and Dashavathara stuti and Dvadasha sthothra.
Fools can have good time laughing here.
http://sanskrit.gde.to/all_pdf/dashavatarastuti.pdf
http://sanskrit.gde.to/all_pdf/dvAdasha_stotra.pdf
http://sanskrit.gde.to/all_pdf/bhagpurNew.pdf
study these links and you wont deny Buddha as the ninth avatar of the Lord.

mahadevan

16th March 2006, 11:03 PM

Hi shoyonika
I can provide a million link like that to prove that christianity is the only sensible religion. If you look at the source of those links it would all be from the christian right wing. Similarly if you look only at the hindu right wing works, you would be in the same class as the christian right wing folks. Try to read buddisht perception of buddha, if they accept what you say than it may be acceptable. All the sanskirt lit that you provided were written centuries after buddha, Reverse engineering is the mark of these guys, unfortunately they did not know much about Jesus/Momamud, for if they have known that , jesus and Mohamud would have been the eleventh and twelth avatar of vishnu. And guess what, if you do some worthy things, few centuries from now the vedics may claim that shoyonika is the thirteenth avatar !

shoyonika

16th March 2006, 11:38 PM

Similarly if you look only at the hindu right wing works, you would be in the same class as the christian right wing folks. that is same in all cases, all cases include linguistics.

All the sanskirt lit that you provided were written centuries after buddha, correction: the bhagavatha was written more than 3000 years ago and the proof can be arranged for.

Reverse engineering is the mark of these guys, unfortunately they did not know much about Jesus/Momamud, for if they have known that , jesus and Mohamud would have been the eleventh and twelth avatar of vishnu. you yourself are inviting danger to yourself by adding names of mohammad and christ, be careful to do such mistakes in future. And for adding some info into your small brain, Dashavatara means ten avataras and even a child will laugh at your post mentioning eleventh and twelfth avataras :lol: so avoid silly mistakes(I know it is difficult for non samskrith people like you but atleast give it a try).

And guess what, if you do some worthy things, few centuries from now the vedics may claim that shoyonika is the thirteenth avatar ! lastly, I know what I am and need not be mentioned by you about my being an avatara or not. If you cant give explanation, stop posting such silly things.

stranger

16th March 2006, 11:54 PM

kannannn

17th March 2006, 12:09 AM

stranger, :lol:

Ronnie The Dutch

17th March 2006, 12:25 AM

correction: the bhagavatha was written more than 3000 years ago and the proof can be arranged for.

Was it written or orally overstated?

mahadevan

17th March 2006, 12:50 AM

Baa baa black sheep is over 7000 years old

indian224080

17th March 2006, 01:35 AM

kal thonri man thonri tamil thonri is 300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 yrs old. and was sung 90000 miles below sea level.

stranger

17th March 2006, 01:38 AM

yeah, how did ravanA fly from lanka to India over the seas to "steal" Sita?

Let us fix it.

Aeroplane was discovered by Ravana! :lol:

Americans took the credit for it. :lol:

mahadevan

17th March 2006, 03:01 AM

Hey Indianxxxx
it is kal thondri man thondra kalam, if you can comprehend some geology, learn some basics, according to them the earth in the initial phases had rocks and no sand, that is the time period Tamizh lit is quoting.

-deleted by moderator-

In addition Tamil lit is the only lit in the history of mankind to talk of 3 great floods, even bible/vedas/quran talk of only one and guess what science says, "It is 3 floods !".

I understand your limitation to comprehend such long history as your pet sanskrit in not even 2000 years old. Grow up buddy, Tamizh lit to you is like Theory of relativity to a first grader. Unfortunately the first grader does not realize that he does not understand it. But he can learn by rote 'A for apple' (just to sharpen the memory, with the ardent hope that in future it could be put to better use), so you sit with your bosses to learn the A for apple, I mean Vedas.

indian224080

17th March 2006, 03:49 AM

It would have been better if u had told tamil seers wrote theory of relativity. God forbid!!!!

S.Balaji

17th March 2006, 12:45 PM

Shoyonika and others....

Instead of waging an ego war , its better if we present anything with a valid and authentic proof and then substantiate it...

Noone here is to degrade you or defame you ....
pls be clear on this....

Pl also dont take it personally

regards

mahadevan

17th March 2006, 08:34 PM

indian224080

17th March 2006, 08:50 PM

indian224080 wrote: "It would have been better if u had told tamil seers wrote theory of relativity. God forbid!!!!"

That is your style buddy, we claim only the truth no fabrication, it is borne out of the fact that we have real accomplishments well attested by science, whereas you have to always do reverse engineering even to produce simple and sensible things from sanskrit lit.

Haa haa haa...Man u rock!!!!
So Tamil which stretches from NA to Japan and Arctic to Antartic is attested by science. Cooool...Which science attested it pally?
BTW is the yummy crow curries also attested by World Health Org.?

kannannn

17th March 2006, 09:35 PM

Mahadevan, interestingly, I found this from the link you provided. I wonder how some people would react to this. If they indeed think Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, they should accept this fact too.. Now let them decide and tell us if Buddhism's views are right or Hinduism's views are right.

From buddhistinformation.com: "The Buddhist view is that gods may lead more comfortable lives and be addicted to all the sense pleasures, but in terms of wisdom might be inferior to humans. They are even represented as coming to receive instruction from monks and even lay persons. Later on with the Hindu revival and proliferation of God-cults the Buddhists were increasingly vocal against the pretensions of God and his retinue of lesser gods. Nargarjuna the Indian Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century CE expressed a commonly shared Buddhist view when he wrote:
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods."

mahadevan

18th March 2006, 12:07 AM

yes Kannan according to buddha, the God that we define in hindu/christian/islam is non existant

shoyonika

21st March 2006, 06:21 PM

yes Kannan according to buddha, the God that we define in hindu/christian/islam is non existant First confirm among yourselves whether Buddha said god existed or he said god did not:lol:
Lord incarnated as Buddha to separate the people from what is bad and what is good. At the end of Dwapara, and advent of Kali eon, Dharma began to fall short and people stopped performing vedic rites. So the Lord decided to be born among them and lead the anti-vedic people away from the austere ones. That time he took birth in Shoddhodana`s house and preached against the vedas, so that he could easily separate the anti-vedic people from the true followers of veda. Lastly during Buddha`s time, hinduism did not exist, people were vedics or anti-vedics.

shoyonika

21st March 2006, 06:25 PM

That is your style buddy, we claim only the truth no fabrication, it is borne out of the fact that we have real accomplishments well attested by science, whereas you have to always do reverse engineering even to produce simple and sensible things from sanskrit lit. One says science does not make anything good, other needs science to prove their language`s antiquity, yaar Indian, cant they be united atleast in one thing? :lol:

shoyonika

21st March 2006, 06:33 PM

We do not allow our egos to enter our brains during postings. Those without any knowledge can be taught, those with complete knowledge need no teachings, but, people with half-baked knowledge are things of concern for the whole society. Me and others, as someone wrote, are not waging any wars, but are correcting what is misunderstood here. We do not speak without any proofs as some here do it just for timepass sake. Lastly we are least bothered about people who are not eager to accept facts against their own egos.

mahadevan

21st March 2006, 08:51 PM

Lastly during Buddha`s time, hinduism did not exist, people were vedics or anti-vedics.

Oh my goodness truth from the devil's mouth. Finally atleast one vedic fantic accepts that Hinduism is not vedic.
Yes you are absolutely correct they were vedics or anti-vedics, beef eating or vegetarian, cow slaughtering or holistic, women supressors or mother goddes worshipers, dogmatic or rational, like shoyonika or stranger... the list may go on and on

First confirm among yourselves whether Buddha said god existed or he said god did not
Shoyonika if you just read our conversation may be more than once you will understand, if not let me summarize it for you, do you want the summary in sanskrit, we can call is Buddhasutra and say that it predated rig. Belive me SRS would get some proof for it from the web

one says science does not make anything good
Nobody said that, looks like you have some serious problems in reading. Stop imagining and wake up.

Those without any knowledge can be taught, those with complete knowledge need no teachings, but, people with half-baked knowledge are things of concern for the whole society.

Happy to note that you have finally diagnosed your problems, hope we can have sane discussions going forward

We do not allow our egos to enter our brains during postings

Only those with both the mentioned attributes can make such a statement , the absence of one in you is a way too conspicuous in your postings ! any guess which one it is ?

mahadevan

21st March 2006, 11:37 PM

shiyonika wrote: 'We do not speak without any proofs as some here do it just for timepass sake'

hey in my very first posting addressed to you, I asked a very simple proof, show me what is worthy in vedas, you still have not done that. And you are talking about proofs ? does it not sound ludicrous ?

selvakumar

23rd March 2006, 11:15 AM

Friends, I read this in Brihat Parashara Hora Sashtra by Rishi Parashara

Not sure whether the one related with Buddha is true or not.

"From Sun came the incarnation of Ram, from Moon that of Krishna, from Mars that of Narasimha, from Mercury that of Buddha, from Jupiter that of Vamana, from Venus that of Parashurama, from Saturn that of Kurma (Tortoise), from Rahu that of Varaha (Pig) and from Ketu that of Pisces (Fish) occurred. Incarnations other than these also are through the Planets. The beings with more Paramatmaāńś are called divine beings. "

shoyonika

23rd March 2006, 07:06 PM

For what???

To become STUPID???? no.
why do you need to become what you already are? :lol:

shoyonika

23rd March 2006, 07:26 PM

Hey Indianxxxx
it is kal thondri man thondra kalam, if you can comprehend some geology, learn some basics, according to them the earth in the initial phases had rocks and no sand, that is the time period Tamizh lit is quoting. Sanskrit lit does not have such scientific stuffs, keep reading recipe for beef fry and cow curry buddy.
In addition Tamil lit is the only lit in the history of mankind to talk of 3 great floods, even bible/vedas/quran talk of only one and guess what science says, "It is 3 floods !".
yes yes and through all those thousands of years you were trying the recipes to savour the taste? or counting years remaining for 2006?
Speak sane. The period in which you refer to as tamil lit evolved is the time on earth when no plants or any life could be find. If plants and animals had not evolved, how do you expect tamil to? Brain is something and it does not cost. so Use it
What about 3 floods which science says and is not present in Vedas? See who speaks about Vedas? Have you ever heard of pralayas? these are the 3 floods which you and your scientist are trying to prove. According to Samskrith lit, after the end of each eon(yuga), a great devastation occurs, and for your information, after the end of yugas of Krtha, Treta and Dwapara, Kaliyuga is the 4th yuga and that seems to correct your misconception about tamil talking about great floods, I do not say that tamil does not speak, but as all the time, all have always borrowed from Samskrith.

shoyonika

23rd March 2006, 07:56 PM

I understand your limitation to comprehend such long history as your pet sanskrit in not even 2000 years old. Grow up buddy.
Before advicing, its better for you to grow-up. If what you say above is true in your vision, then do not speak anymore of science every now and then, because the scientists whom you take for granted are the ones who have proved the existence of Samskrith even before the tamil lit or whatever was born. As NASA(since you are still practising A for Apple, let me tell you what this stands for; National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has already proved that Sethu(bridge built by Sri Rama across the ocean) is not a myth, but a reality as satellite picture clearly show the bridge which existed lakhs of years before tamil lit even found its existence. But to your info, Samskrith Ramayana has already described its existence. So proofs are what you asked for and what you`ve got.

shoyonika

23rd March 2006, 08:21 PM

Oh my goodness truth from the devil's mouth. Finally atleast one vedic fantic accepts that Hinduism is not vedic.
Yes you are absolutely correct they were vedics or anti-vedics, beef eating or vegetarian, cow slaughtering or holistic, women supressors or mother goddes worshipers, dogmatic or rational, like shoyonika or stranger... the list may go on and on
ooh I dont think you are so priveleged to speak with Vedic people. For your level, only we are enough. Hinduism in my mention refers to the term defining the caste. Had you really used your brains, you could have got the real meaning. Hinduism term was coined by the westerners in the late 18th century european works and gazzettes when differentiating between the christianity and islam. No Vedic propagates the existence of the term Hindu in Vedas because in Bharatha, Varnashrama Dharma was followed and not casteism as the europeans had not yet arrived, and if you can try to think about it ones more and let me know your doubts.

Shoyonika if you just read our conversation may be more than once you will understand, if not let me summarize it for you, do you want the summary in sanskrit, we can call is Buddhasutra and say that it predated rig. Belive me SRS would get some proof for it from the web
huh to give summary in Samskrith, you will have to reincarnate atleast a hundred times. So speak only in your level and never higher than what you are. What can you call it? Buddhasutra? just check the real meaning of this word avoid using such words which offend other`s feeling.

Nobody said that, looks like you have some serious problems in reading. Stop imagining and wake up.
then there are many nobodies here. No use of talking to useless. I am very well awake and now it is you people`s time to awaken.

Happy to note that you have finally diagnosed your problems, hope we can have sane discussions going forward
Yes and no.
yes I too am happy to have finally diagnosed my problem about how foolish you are. No, we cannot have sane discussions until you leave the thread.

hey in my very first posting addressed to you, I asked a very simple proof, show me what is worthy in vedas, you still have not done that. And you are talking about proofs ? does it not sound ludicrous ? I have to prove the antiquities of Vedas to you? this ofcourse sounds funny. Now coming to proofs, what is the use of giving you proofs? you wont understand them. So leave it as it is.

mahadevan

23rd March 2006, 09:36 PM

Before advicing, its better for you to grow-up. If what you say above is true in your vision, then do not speak anymore of science every now and then, because the scientists whom you take for granted are the ones who have proved the existence of Samskrith even before the tamil lit or whatever was born. As NASA(since you are still practising A for Apple, let me tell you what this stands for; National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has already proved that Sethu(bridge built by Sri Rama across the ocean) is not a myth, but a reality as satellite picture clearly show the bridge which existed lakhs of years before tamil lit even found its existence. But to your info, Samskrith Ramayana has already described its existence. So proofs are what you asked for and what you`ve got.

Read an article about Neanderthals in english, does it mean that the brits/english are older than Neanderthals ? is this your vedic logic ? keep it to your self, I can never stoop to that low a level.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hinduism in my mention refers to the term defining the caste
:lol: :lol: :lol:

No Vedic propagates the existence of the term Hindu in Vedas because in Bharatha, Varnashrama Dharma was followed and not casteism as the europeans had not yet arrived, and if you can try to think about it ones more and let me know your doubts.

Clearly shows your complete lack of understanding of Varnashrama Adharma. By "europeans" did you mean the vedics ? just clarifyiing.

yes yes and through all those thousands of years you were trying the recipes to savour the taste? or counting years remaining for 2006?
Speak sane
Unlike the vedics we do not have blind faith, all that I said was that Tamils had a great knowledge of historical past. To quote the poetic exaggeration about the antiquity of the tamil, they used this great knowledge of past.

Have you ever heard of pralayas? these are the 3 floods which you and your scientist are trying to prove. According to Samskrith lit, after the end of each eon(yuga), a great devastation occurs, and for your information, after the end of yugas of Krtha, T

Any great devastation cannot be construed to be floods, please try to understand the whatever you are quoting.

I do not say that tamil does not speak, but as all the time, all have always borrowed from Samskrith.
Sanskrit is the mother of all mongrels, it borrowed the intellectual content and language basics from Tamil and prakrits, and it is less than 2000 years old. Though it is artificial it lacks some of basic qualities like clarity for a language.

shoyonika

23rd March 2006, 10:25 PM

Read an article about Neanderthals in english, does it mean that the brits/english are older than Neanderthals ? is this your vedic logic ? keep it to your self, I can never stoop to that low a level.
I dont read about people of your kind, so I dont talk about it.

Clearly shows your complete lack of understanding of Varnashrama Adharma. By "europeans" did you mean the vedics ? just clarifyiing.
For your clarification, No. by europeans I never meant Vaidikas(as Vedics are called in Samskrith)and about Varnashrama dharma(adharma is what you people follow).

Unlike the vedics we do not have blind faith, all that I said was that Tamils had a great knowledge of historical past. To quote the poetic exaggeration about the antiquity of the tamil, they used this great knowledge of past.
now you are getting angry :lol: I never meant to tease your language. We believe Vedas right from Vedic times unlike you who are so much confused about what to follow that you almost forgot tamil until 1920s until someone started tamil movement and you say tamil existed before Samskrith? :lol:
Just quote one sentence in Samskrith mentioning existence of tamil. Whereas take one from me about Vedas pre-existing your literature
Saint Arunagirinatha`s tiruppugazh
nada vindu kalaadi namo nama|
VEDA MANTRA swarupa namo nama||
got it?

Any great devastation cannot be construed to be floods, please try to understand the whatever you are quoting.

oho then was there a separate flood for tamils after each yuga?

Sanskrit is the mother of all mongrels, it borrowed the intellectual content and language basics from Tamil and prakrits, and it is less than 2000 years old. Though it is artificial it lacks some of basic qualities like clarity for a language.
Correction
Samskrith is the Mother of all languages and whatever children say, Mother Samskrith will always protect her children like Prakrit, and tamil also. Borrowing intellectual knowledge and contents from Prakrit? http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0840004.html see under this link 15th and 16th lines. also read digambara sutras in ardhamagadhi and maharashtri, you yourself will become a devotee of Samskrith. and borrowing from tamil? that would mean Ramayan is in tamil and kambar was older than Valmeeki Rshi.
Less than 2000 years? dont you know where to add and minus zeroes?
Lacks clarity? :lol: Just listen to your pronounciation and a Samskrith speaker`s pronounciation. You will know all by yourself Magadevan.

mahadevan

24th March 2006, 12:01 AM

I dont read about people of your kind, so I dont talk about it.
I know, your attitude is more like a frog in the well, a kind of like those madarassas pupil in pakistan.

and about Varnashrama dharma(adharma is what you people follow).
Please finish the statement, sorry you are writing in english and not sanskrit, to derive some sacred meaning from unfinished statements.

now you are getting angry I never meant to tease your language. We believe Vedas right from Vedic times unlike you who are so much confused about what to follow that you almost forgot tamil until 1920s

You cannot make me angry buddy, to quote Mr Vivek 'This is not the first time I am interacting with fools'

Unllike dead sanskrit and vedic, we have been having a glorious and living Tamil culture.

until someone started tamil movement and you say tamil existed before Samskrith?
Just quote one sentence in Samskrith mentioning existence of tamil. Whereas take one from me about Vedas pre-existing your literature
Saint Arunagirinatha`s tiruppugazh
nada vindu kalaadi namo nama|
VEDA MANTRA swarupa namo nama||
got it?

Bengali lit talks about english does that mean english as a language is older than bengali ? Tamil lit true to its schloraliness talks about the entire world good and bad, sanskrit is like the frog in the well. Sanskrit lit is a lit with no sanity, happy that it did not mention Tamil, though it is derived from it.

Just listen to your pronounciation and a Samskrith speaker`s pronounciation. You will know all by yourself Magadevan.
Try writing Thamizl id sanskrit, you would see the deficiency in sanskrit inspite it being an artificial language. Sanskrit is a language not fit enough to be declared as a clasical language even by the govt of India :roll:

Badri

24th March 2006, 04:54 AM

Moderator's Note: Kindly see the Dos and Donts of this section. I am reproducing the relevant guideline here

4. All languages are important and contribute to human progress. So no more language superiority issues either. Academic discussions are acceptable, provided they are not taken too far to the personal level and disparaging comments made.

The discussions in this thread are very close to violating the above guideline. Participants are advised to cease their personal arguments, as well as arguments on languages, which have no bearing on the title of this thread.

mahadevan

24th March 2006, 06:15 AM

agreed boss, let us get to the topic

S.Balaji

24th March 2006, 03:43 PM

Badri

I wish you had stepped in a bit earlier but its fine now..

Lets go with the topic only and not venture into any personal attacks

bye

shoyonika

24th March 2006, 07:51 PM

Thanks Badri, It was so kind of you to intervene. Hope this solves the problem. Thanks again. Bye.

nilavupriyan

28th July 2006, 02:01 PM

buddha is referenced in hindu sri baghavadham...what an interesting detail...

it is said balram is an avatar of lord Adhisheshan..then the remaining one avatar is buddha????...confusing

dsath

28th July 2006, 02:10 PM

My dad always said that 'Buddha said that there was no God and people made him a God'. Now he is being made into an Avatar, wonder what's next?

nilavupriyan

28th July 2006, 02:17 PM

My dad always said that 'Buddha said that there was no God and people made him a God'. Now he is being made into an Avatar, wonder what's next?

rama dint mention him as God I guess...he lived as a normal human being...does that mean he is not an avatar?..

Badri

28th July 2006, 02:18 PM

There is a lot of confusion about that! Buddha did not actually say there is no God.

When asked if there was a God, he kept silent. Popular tradition says silence is consent, but somehow, Buddha's silence has been construed to be denial!

And why did he keep quiet about it? The reason being that the Buddha's quest was not to find God. It was to find the reason for suffering and the means to end it. He discovered that God did not have anything to do with both. He found that the cause for suffering was desire and the means to end it was by following the Eightfold path.

In all this teachings, he never once denied the existence of God, neither did he confirm it. And for this reason, many Lamas say that Buddhism is not atheistic as much as it is agnostic.

nilavupriyan

28th July 2006, 02:31 PM

the samething is said in hinduism too....karma decides our life...this pavam punniyam concept is in hindu mythology too!

sats

15th August 2006, 07:10 AM

Iskcon maintains that Buddha is one of the avatars . But what more even confusing is , they dont consider Krishna as an avatar of vishnu, they place Krishna above Vishnu.

Rohit

16th August 2006, 12:13 AM

Buddha did not believe in God of any form or function

Basic Points Unifying The Theravada and the Mahayana

1. The Buddha is our only Master.

2. We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.

3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.

The above point categorically rules out the existence of Creator God/Isvara

4. Following the example of the Buddha, who is the embodiment of Great Compassion (mahaa-karu.naa) and Great Wisdom (mahaa- praj~naa), we consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth.

5. We accept the Four Noble Truths, nameley Dukkha, the Arising of Dukkha, the Cessation of Dukkha, and the Path leading to the Cessation of Dukkha; and the universal law of cause and effect as taught in the pratiitya-samutpaada (Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination).

The above point also categorically rules out the existence of Creator God/Isvara

6. We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned things (samskaara) are impermanent (anitya) and dukkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anaatma).

Anaatma means, without Atman/Soul/Self, which categorically rules out the existence of Paramatma/Isvara/God

7. We accept the Thirty-seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment (bodhipak.sa-dharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.

8. There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment, according to the ability and capacity of each individual: namely as a disciple (sraavaka), as a Pratyeka-Buddha and as a Samyak-sam-Buddha (perfectly and Fully Enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a Samyak-sam-Buddha in order to save others.

9. We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

Source: Walpola Rahula; The Heritage of the Bhikkhu; (New York, Grove Press, 1974); pp. 100, 1137-138.

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahaya na

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/basicpoints.html

Badri

16th August 2006, 06:12 AM

Rohit: What you have quoted are beliefs of Buddhism! It is what the followers believe. How can we take it to be incontrovertible proof of the Buddha's personal beliefs themseleves?

Buddhism is based on the Buddha's teachings and interpretations thereof. How then can we assume things that he didnt specifically teach? Keeping silent on the God question is clearly different from negating the existence of said God. If on the other hand, you say his silence implies the non-existence of such an entity, then, I would have to ask you, the Buddha, for instance, did not speak of the American continent. Does it mean he said there is no such continent in existence?

If the Buddha had categorically gone on record saying there is no God, I would accept that Buddhism is atheistic.

For instance, check the story in this link.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/35/story_3562_1.html

I quote from a section of it

In fact, Buddhism is generally considered to be not atheistic but agnostic, in that, the Buddha himself did not deny the existence of God. The Indian teacher and social reformer teacher called Sakyamuni Buddha is reported to have either kept silent when asked whether God existed, or in other cases to have said that his Noble Eightfold path led to enlightenment and deathless peace, and did not require faith or belief in a divine being or supreme creator. "Buddhism Without Beliefs," by the former monk and Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor, offers a fine argument for the agnostic thinking of basic Buddhism.

There is a whole lot of "deistic" beliefs in Buddhism itself. Here are just a few.

In the Mahayana system, a variety of celestial Buddhas and bodhisatvas came to be revered and looked to for assistance on the path to enlightenment.

Especially devotional is Pure Land Buddhism, a subdivision of Mahayana that began in China. Pure Land Buddhists revere and call on the name of the Amitabha Buddha, who will grant them entrance to the paradisical "Pure Land" after death.

As Buddhism spread into cultures with existing religious beliefs, it incorporated local deities and religious practices into the Buddhist system. For instance, in China, a popular boddhisatva became the female deity Kuan-yin, the giver of children.

Finally, Tibetan Buddhist cosmology features a vast number of divine beings

kannannn

16th August 2006, 06:58 AM

Intrigued by the many comments and arguments in this thread, I got myself the book 'Early Buddhism and the Bhagavad Gita' by Kashi Nath Upadhyaya. The book offers a comprehensive comparison of the Buddhism and Bhagavat Gita, both chronological and ideological, and turned out to be very interesting.

As regards the idea of God in Buddhism, the author has this to say: "Buddha rejects the notion of a creator or controller-God, as also the idea of an in-dwelling divinity from personal, impersonal, individual or universal (jeevatma or sarvabhutantaratma). He rejects the views of God as creator or father, comrade or lover that confuses the reality of God with the finite modes of human thought. God is there not by virtue of any relationship to or comparison with other things, but in its own right as a reality of a quite different nature."

The author further says: "The Buddha is gainst all means of conceptualising the unconceptional. He is against such prayers and worships which take the character of private communications and selfish bargainings and present God on the model of wordly beings, meting out earthly favours to men. In Buddhism, the supreme law (Dhamma) is independent of God or gods".

In summary, Buddha was not a disbeliever of God. He was against invoking God for personal welfare. Infact, he believed that God has nothing to do with attaining Nirvana.

Badri

16th August 2006, 07:08 AM

In summary, Buddha was not a disbeliever of God. He was against invoking God for personal welfare. Infact, he believed that God has nothing to do with attaining Nirvana.

My point exactly, made in my initial post on this subject. The Buddha gave mankind a method of getting rid of sorrow. There was no place in the whole process of an entity called God. To believe that this God would somehow solve our problems involves either no effort or wrong effort. Instead, he advocated Right Effort, by doing which, man can attain dukha nivritti and sukha prapti.

That is all. No mention of non-existence of God.

Personally, I believe this philosophy myself! God can take care of himself. We need to find out who we are. We have to enquire for ourselves, involve ourselves in the right effort and finally discover the path to bliss. To instead pray to this God and solicit his grace in the aforementioned dukha nivritti and sukha prapti amounts either to no-effort or wrong-effort.

However, that said, I cannot condone this rampant arguement that the Buddha argued against the existence of God, which he did not.

Rohit

16th August 2006, 12:05 PM

Badri: The belief in God itself is a belief; and nothing else. Now when anyone talks about beliefs, then he/she is talking about a belief against another belief; and one’s belief cennot be better/truer than anyone else’s belief.

....the Buddha, for instance, did not speak of the American continent. Does it mean he said there is no such continent in existence?If Buddha did knew/saw American continent, he wouldn’t have kept silent when asked about its existence. Instead, he would have answered affirmatively of its existence. Such is not the case with God. One has to go through the entire teachings of Buddha and arrive at an appropriate conclusion. Simple beliefs wouldn’t serve.

Badri

16th August 2006, 12:12 PM

Not so sure about that, Rohit. I understand that ultimately it is still a beleif. So are you saying he kept silent bcos he didnt want to make a belief of disbelief in god?

In the ultimate analysis, as propounded by Sankara as well, there is no such entity as God.

There is only the Self.

From that point of view, there is no argument at all, and I fully agree with you, Rohit!

bingleguy

16th August 2006, 12:16 PM

Other than Sri Rama and Sri Krishna ... all the other incarnations of Mahavishnu are instant !

Wat is said about Kalki ? is that instant or is that a full life incarnation ?

Badri

16th August 2006, 12:38 PM

Other than Sri Rama and Sri Krishna ... all the other incarnations of Mahavishnu are instant !

Wat is said about Kalki ? is that instant or is that a full life incarnation ?

Depends on how you view Parasurama and Balarama. At least with Balarama, not too sure if he is an avatar, but Parasurama is considered to be one of the ten and it is not instant avatar.

Neither is Matsya for that matter, for the fish is said to have grown litle by little over a period of time.

bingleguy

16th August 2006, 12:41 PM

True badri .... Parasuraamaa n Balaramaa are not instant avataars ....

bingleguy

16th August 2006, 12:42 PM

Mahavishnu is said to have his Adiseshan as Lakshmana when he took his Sri Rama avatar .... does Adisheshan form a part of his companion in every avatar ?

Badri

16th August 2006, 01:16 PM

Mahavishnu is said to have his Adiseshan as Lakshmana when he took his Sri Rama avatar .... does Adisheshan form a part of his companion in every avatar ?

Even that is only a popular story. Valmiki makes no mention of Lakshmana being Adisesha. All he says is Vishnu himself became all the four brothers.

It might have probably come up from the short temper that Lakshmana had. Obviously, people had to explain that away somehow. They cant accept Vishnu with that much anger. So they perforce made him Adisesha, for a snake's quick temper is in part of many stories

bingleguy

16th August 2006, 01:20 PM

Oh .... what does Valmiki intend to say if all the four are the same ??? If all the four are Vishnu himself ... why Sri Rama seperately is the crux ?

Rohit

16th August 2006, 11:55 PM

Not so sure about that, Rohit.!It is not just you Badri; the feeling is universal among the believers. On the other hand, one can only be certain of the transitory nature of consciousness and the uncertainties that result in such variances.

I understand that ultimately it is still a beleif. So are you saying he kept silent bcos he didnt want to make a belief of disbelief in god?A disbelief in something is nothing but the negation of the belief in something; therefore, a belief of disbelief in something is nothing but the negation of the very belief in something. :) :thumbsup:

Rohit

17th August 2006, 12:20 AM

There is only the Self. :D

Rohit

17th August 2006, 12:30 AM

From that point of view, there is no argument at all, and I fully agree with you, Rohit!I am glad to hear that we agree, at least, on one thing; and that is, there is no such entity as God. :) :thumbsup:

Badri

17th August 2006, 05:47 AM

Oh .... what does Valmiki intend to say if all the four are the same ??? If all the four are Vishnu himself ... why Sri Rama seperately is the crux ?

tataH padma palaashaakhsaH kRitvaa aatmaanam caturvidham |
pitaram rocayaamaasa tadaa dasharatham nRupam || 1-15-31

And then that lotus-petal-eyed one agreeing to manifest himself in fourfold way chose Dasharatha to be his father.

Kritvaa aatmaanam chaturvidam - literally, made himself fourfold

This is from Valmiki Ramayana Balakanda, Sarga 15 Shloka 31

bingleguy

17th August 2006, 09:01 AM

Good Quote Badri ....
the remaining Q still remain .....
why was Rama of prime importance, when the fourfold were the same ?

Badri

17th August 2006, 09:11 AM

All four had their roles, one more than the other. That is all. Take a movie where Sivaji Ganesan plays both the detective and the thief. The difference is not in the person, only in the roles being played.

I have always considered the Ramayana to be a abject lesson in Advaita. All beings are one, as Krishna declares later on. Only their roles differ and the four Daasarathis clearly demonstrated that truth.

bingleguy

17th August 2006, 09:13 AM

OH !

Pretty interesting !

i feel, i can probe my questions .... :-) which i feel would not be disturbing u much !

Badri

17th August 2006, 09:16 AM

No, go ahead. Or if this is not relating to Dasavatharas, then open a new thread, so that we will not be disturbing the others

bingleguy

17th August 2006, 09:20 AM

Thanks ...
No No... pertaining to Dasavataaraas only !

Badri

17th August 2006, 09:21 AM

In which case, feel free to ask your questions. I will try to answer what I can

bingleguy

17th August 2006, 09:22 AM

Out of all the avataars/incarnations .... which is the quickest and which is the longest ?

I feel, Vaamana avataar is the quickest and Krishna is the longest !

Does Vamana growth stages being defined ?

Badri

17th August 2006, 09:34 AM

One cannot quite tell exactly how long each avatar was simply because timelines are not mentioned in the Puranas.

Ramayana says Rama was on the Earth for 11,000 years but as has been previously pointed out, there is a poetic notation wherein 1000 could actually be 4, which would put the entire 11000 to a mere 11*4 =44

As to the Vamana vs Krishna question, yes, going by the details of their stories, Krishnavatara is definitely longer than Vamana.

However, the record for the shortest avatara should go to Narasimha for he appeared, killed Hiryankasipu, blessed Prahlada and vanished, all in the matter of minutes.

Badri

17th August 2006, 09:38 AM

Does Vamana growth stages being defined ?

Srimad Bhagavatham says that Vishnu appeared in his original form to Kaspyapa and Aditi and then, like an actor, changed into a Brahmachari.

yat tad vapur bhaati vibhūṣaṇaayudhair
avyakta-cid-vyaktam adhaarayad dhariḥ
babhūva tenaiva sa vaamano vaṭuḥ
sampashyator divya-gatir yathaa naṭaḥ

yathaa natah means like an actor. He came with his ornaments (vibhushana) and weapons (aayudhair) but even as they watched, (sampashyator) with divine speed (divya gatir) he became the dwarf brahmachari (vamano vatuh) like an actor (yathaa natah)

bingleguy

17th August 2006, 12:01 PM

Narasimha avataar has been quick ...

coz infact Hiranya has to be killed at the instant of time which is neither day nor night, probably indicating an instance ... which is pretty fast ! So appearing hold him n kill him at that instant should have happenned in a moment !

Infact Narasimha has appeared for many other ppl too i believe .... He entered into one of the body of Adi Sankaracharya's deciple ... to save him ! So he has appeared again ......... What is the story of Lakshmi Narasimha ? Who is Yoga Narasimha ?

Badri

17th August 2006, 12:42 PM

Only the first appearance can qualify as the avatara. the subsequent appearances of the same deity are visions and such like. The yoga narasimhas that you find in several temples and the Narasimha-like manifestation in Sankara's disciple belong to this category only.

As far as LakshmiNrisimha goes, legend has it that when Narasimha killed Hiranya, he was such an Ugramoorthy that none of the Devas, starting Brahma could approach him. They thought if Lakshmi approached him, he might become a little santham, but even she was afraid to go close to him.

Finally, they reckoned that since the avatara came as a result of Prahlada's bhakthi, only he can appease the lord. Thus, Prahlada prays to Narasimha and his anger comes down. Thereafter, Lakshmi goes to him and he seats her on his lap, thus bringing the aidheegam of Lakshminrisimha.

bingleguy

17th August 2006, 12:51 PM

Oh ok ! But has any other other avataar/incarnation has appeared at later point of time ..... even am not sure of Ugra Narasimha in Adi Sankara's disciple - whether he came again .... probably he is a factor like or just the ugram/anger feeling that came up in the disciple compared to that of narasimha !

Is there any reason for us to have Yoga Narasimha behind Chakkarathaazhwar in Srirangam ?

Badri

17th August 2006, 01:02 PM

Then there is the story of Chenchu Lakshmi, according to which Vishnu as Narasimha, even after the purpose of incarnation was over, did not immediatley return to Vaikuntha. He instead roamed the forests near Ahobhilam in AP and was a terror to everyone.

In order to bring him back, Lakshmi was supposed to have taken birth among the Chenchu tribe which still inhabits the regions of the Nallamalai forests of Andhra Pradesh, spread over the districts of Mahaboobnagar, Kurnool, Prakasam and Guntur. She, as a hunter woman, subdued Narasimha and eventually married him. The Divine Pair then returned to Vaikuntha. Even now, the Chenchus believe Narasimha to be their son-in-law and celebrate the wedding of their girl Chenchu Lakshmi with the Lord.

This story is given in the Vishnu Purana, but not Srimad Bhagavatham

Badri

17th August 2006, 01:06 PM

Oh ok ! But has any other other avataar/incarnation has appeared at later point of time .

Yes, Rama and Krishna for instance have appeared to many people as visions.

Tulsidas was visited by Rama and Lakshmana after he prayed to Hanuman for their vision.

It is said the saint Tyagaraja had a vision of Rama.

Meera is said to have seen Krishna.

Many are the devotees of Vittala (another form of Krishna) who are said to have seen and interacted with Panduranga.

Badri

17th August 2006, 01:12 PM

Is there any reason for us to have Yoga Narasimha behind Chakkarathaazhwar in Srirangam ?

Narasimha was in his Jwala Narasimha aspect (effulgent flame like form) when he destroyed that dark mass of ignorance called Hiranya.

Therefore, he is believed to be resident in the Sudharshana, which is also Mahajwalachakram.

The joint worship of Sudarshana-Narasimha is prescribed by both Pancharatra and Vaighanasa Agamas. The Padma Samhita, which is a Mantragama shastra (contains information about mantras and rituals or Agamas) speaks of the presence of Lord Narasimha with sixteen arms in the Sudarshana Yantram -Shodasayudha corresponding to sixteen spokes of the Mahasudarshana.

Thus the Chakkarathazhwar Sannidhi in Srirangam (which is incidentally my ooru).

I personally believe it is the Ugra aspect of both Sudarshana and Narasimha as well as the "destruction of evil" aspects of both that has resulted in this joint worship.

Nakeeran

17th August 2006, 01:18 PM

Mr. Badri

I thought Parasurama avatar is the longest as it lasted 3 avatars , up to Krishna avatar

Badri

17th August 2006, 01:22 PM

Parasurama is moot point.

It is said that he came only with 4 kalas to accomplish his task. Rama came with 12 and when Rama met Parasurama, the 4 kalas of Bhargava Rama were transferred to Dasaratha Rama, thereby making Rama shodasakala paripoorna i.e with all 16 kalas that mark divinity.

Thereafter, Parasurama became just a chiranjeevi, but not an avatar.

Of course, all this is just "mennuvatharku yetho aval". From an advaitic standpoint, none of this holds valid.

Rohit

25th August 2006, 05:47 PM

Rohit is a proper noun and a name given to Hindu males.

The word Rohit at its root signifies the colour red. As can be seen from the various meanings or definitions below, the colour red is implicit in each,

It is derived from Sanskrit, it means the "First rays of the sun". The early morning sunlight usually has a lot of reddish tint.

It is also said to be derived from the Sanskrit word Rohitah, which signifies a red coloured deer - a form, which Brahma once took.

Rohit is also one of the names of the Hindu God Vishnu, when He first arrived on earth as a beautiful red fish. It appears in the Vishnu Sahasranaam ("1000 names of Vishnu").

Rohit also means a person who leads to growth and development of his family (a commonly held belief in Hindu families).

Rohit is a popular name for Hindu males, and is widely used in the Hindi films.

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

:) :thumbsup:

lord_labakudoss

9th January 2007, 09:25 PM

This is a good thread. Could you tell me the earliest mention of the avatars? Is it in Srimad Bhagavatam?
Thanks...

Sudhaama

15th February 2007, 09:12 AM

:D
Starting with the Avatars as I know ... .

MATSYA - FISH
KOORMA - TORTOISE
VARAGHA - PIG
SIMHA - LION
VAMANA - DWARF
PARASURAM -
RAM-
BALARAM-
KRISHNA-
KALKI / BUDHA-

How does this relate with the evolution theory of Darwin ? I find the topic very interesting but hardly know much on this - would like to be enlightened on this and the avatars.

The name VARAHA does not mean so cheap as the PIG... But the BOAR (Pig-faced but with protruded Two Teeth). The Boar eats only the underground Vegetations like Potatoes.

It is true that the renowned German Vedic Research Scholar Dr. Max Muller... was the first to pinpoint the Scientific Reasoning synchronising with the Sequence of Awathaaras.

I have already written in detail on this point... under another Thread Mahabharatha. However I will repeat here in brief.

According to the Scientist Dr. DARWIN on EVOLUTION OF LIFE on Earth...

(1) The First ever creation started from water... which can survive in WATER ONLY. Thus it synchronises with MACHA AWATHARA.(Fish)

(2) Second one.. was the one which can survive both in water and also on Land, whose food was the water-born creatures. It synchronises with KOORMA AWATHAARA..(Tortoise)

(3) Third.. the First Creature on Land... Vegetarian living mostly on the banks adjacent to water sources like Rivers... eating underground Vegetations in general.. VARAHA AWATHAARA (Boar)

(4) Fourth.. a mighty creature with basic-wisdom which could hunt and command over other creatures... NARASIMHA (Lion Plus Man)

(5) Fifth.. the First MANKIND.. Total Brainy creature without much of Physical might... exclusive Vegetarian, Soft-natured Friend of all other Creatures... but Small in Body-shape and size... VAMANA.

(6) Sixth.. Robust Creature with Complex might of Brain and Physique. Always fighting with other creatures, on a wise- purpose...PARASURAMA.

(7) Seventh ... the Fully developed creature without Tail... Mankind of high Wisdom, which could advance over Forest life.. develop Crops and Fruits on new Farms. Which could identify and discern the Nature's effect on Earthly creatures. The best Creature loved mostly by all other creatures.. could lead all other creatures.. inculcating the high-spirits of Unity, concerted endeavour on facing common problems..etc. The creature giving importance to FAMILY-SPIRIT and MUTUAL BONDAGE.. Synchronises with RAAMA Awathara.

(8) Eighth... the best Leader Guide and Advisor to all other Creatures... by high wisdom and Far-sightedness... BALARAMA.

(9) Ninth... Fully developed Man which could lead a most advanced life, over the Forest life.... the Greatest ever creation, who lived without any weapon but only Love and affection towards one and all, ensuring Unity under Diversity.. The most Intellectual creature, which could dominate and win over all other creatures... even the mightiest in physical strength.. by means of high wisdom only... Synchronises with KRISHNA
.

kannannn

15th February 2007, 04:44 PM

Sudhaama

16th February 2007, 09:21 PM

Mr. Sudhamma, I am sorry to say, but your observations are flawed. It is indeed surprising that when scientists, until recently, had been grappling with the problem of finding the transitional species that conquered land from water, you have, with an air of authority, claimed that tortoise represents the link in the chain of Darwanian evolution. Could you provide a reference please? There is more to discuss on your observations, but that can wait for later.

Dear kannannn,

I am sorry to note You are diverting the topic towards a different direction... rather on the Scientific veracity... far contrary to the scope of this Thread on Epics.

If we break our heads too much on the veracity of a Vedic Scholar's findings, we can never find the end of it...

.. since both the Subjects involved viz. Science and Religion are two Great Oceans... whose real depth one can never fathom.

There are several Scientific disputes amongst the Scientists still prolonging unendingly... and perhaps this may be one amongst them.

But my point is not based on Darwin's findiings but Dr. Max muller's Religious findings based on Dr Darwin's Scientific findings.

Whatever be the intricate Scientific truth ultimately..(which is yet to be unravelled)...

..we notice practically, Tortoise is the exactly matching amphibian in this case, radically tallying with Darwin's categorisation at the second stage of Life-evolution...

.. mainly on factors like food as water-creatures, living parallelly in water as well as the adjacent land banks/ coasts...

.. alongwith such other unique phenomena...unparallel compared to other species falling under the same category as amphibian.

The factors quite relevant under this purview are...

The most exemplary creature Tortoise can support on its back any heavy object... far contrary to its soft-body...

... and also can shrink and contain its whole body within its Shell..

.. a rare characteristics and potentiality... which has been quoted in Geetha and Upanishads repeatedly under various contexts.

Besides Tortoise matches very well to Lord Vishnu in several aspects...

...mainly by the sense of Support to the Dependants... even under the struggling circumstances and challenging ordeals of Life-ocean...

..which Vishnu proves and establishes by His vital role in Koorma-awathara.
.

kannannn

19th February 2007, 12:23 AM

Dear Mr. Sudhaama, to be frank I have not read Dr. Max Muller's writings. What I do know is that Tortoise is a reptile and not strictly an amphibian like the frog and scholars don't disagree that reptiles themselves represent the next evolutionary stage from amphibians. But you are right that Tortoise does exhibit the qualities that would confirm with what we expect from the Supreme God. I was just perturbed that you brought Darwin into the discussion (which is not right). Please continue the discussion on Dasavataram.

Rohit

24th February 2007, 03:55 AM

KALKI/BUDDHA

anbu_kathir

7th March 2007, 08:51 PM

Sudhaama.. I think your order is incorrect. 5th was Vamaana, who is said to be a short statured Brahmin ( human ). 6th was Parasurama ( again a Brahmin and human ) , then Rama, Balarama, Krishna and Kalki follow.

More information here.

http://www.srivaishnavam.com/stotras/dasavatharam_meaning.htm

Love and Light

Sudhaama

7th March 2007, 09:05 PM