Concept of Avatara

[Madhavan]

Yajvan: Just a question: What particular Siva sutras are you quoting from? agamas? Somewhere else? I am not familiar with all this. From your original post, re 'incarnation of Siva' in Saiva Siddhanta, there is no such thing. Siva-realised soul, yes. Again, perhaps its just in wording. Certainly 'incarnation' is not the same as 'avatar' is it? My understanding is that 'avatar' is a Vaishnava concept. Siva does not come to Earth in a human form, other than as Satguru. Thanks for any clarification Aum Namashivaya

Avatar is not a vaishnavite concept, but a vedic one....

Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19:

" dashA ityayam vai harayO ayam vai dasha cha sahasrANI bahooni anantAni cha tadEtat brahma
apoorvam anaparam abaahyam ayamAtmA brahma sarvAnubhooriti anushAsanam"

harayah - The forms of Hari
dashA iti - are ten ( matsya, koorma,....)
ayam vai - this Parabrahman indeed
cha sahasrANi - the thousand(infinite) forms ( vishwaroopa, etc ), who are also called Hari
bahooni - and many other forms
anantAni cha - innumerable forms of Hari also.
tadEtat brahma - this ParamAtman

apoorvam - having none to precede, He is from eternality
anaparam - having none to follow, ( everlasting )
anantaram - having none besides him.
abAhyam - without whom there is none
ayamAtmA brahma - this self is Brahman
sarvAnubhoohu - He is the perceiver of All,
iti anushAsanam - thus is the doctrine of the Veda.

You might find a different rendering for these verses, but the connection of Hari with ten forms(dasha iti) should be interpreted in accordance with purANas too

The routine translations of these verses such as referring these verses as ten yoked horses of Indra etc, are useless, and have no authority to backup the interpretation.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Avatar is not a vaishnavite concept, but a vedic one....

Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19:

" dashA ityayam vai harayO ayam vai dasha cha sahasrANI bahooni anantAni cha tadEtat brahma
apoorvam anaparam abaahyam ayamAtmA brahma sarvAnubhooriti anushAsanam"

harayah - The forms of Hari
dashA iti - are ten ( matsya, koorma,....)
ayam vai - this Parabrahman indeed
cha sahasrANi - the thousand(infinite) forms ( vishwaroopa, etc ), who are also called Hari
bahooni - and many other forms
anantAni cha - innumerable forms of Hari also.
tadEtat brahma - this ParamAtman

apoorvam - having none to precede, He is from eternality
anaparam - having none to follow, ( everlasting )
anantaram - having none besides him.
abAhyam - without whom there is none
ayamAtmA brahma - this self is Brahman
sarvAnubhoohu - He is the perceiver of All,
iti anushAsanam - thus is the doctrine of the Veda.

You might find a different rendering for these verses, but the connection of Hari with ten forms(dasha iti) should be interpreted in accordance with purANas too

The routine translations of these verses such as referring these verses as ten yoked horses of Indra etc, are useless, and have no authority to backup the interpretation.

Namste M,

I do not differ with what you say, yet how would one reconcile the 10 forms fore-mentioned, and the 20 called out in the Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 1 Valli 3?

Also - IMHO Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19 , part of the Madhu Brahmana section, is focused on madhu-vidya. When we get to 2.5.19, it is the last mantram of this section. Previous to this, the subject matter is Brahman and madhu and the relationship thereof.

Alluding to the avatar of Hari ( a most delightful discussion), I do not see this as the main purport of this valli. I see this calling out the many forms 'for 10 and hundreds of His organs are yoked. He indeed is 10 (dasha iti) and thousands (cha sahasrani), many and endless-infinite (anantAni cha)'.

I see 10's and 1000's calling out the notion of of the fullenss of the absolute and the relative... I see this as the same way Purusa is called out Rig Veda mantra (10.90.1)
A thousand heads hath Purusa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet,
On every side , pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide.


As you mention, this sloka can be viewed differently. My intent is not to inspire an intellectual debate on this matter, just a view that tries to keep the spirit of the previous 18 mantras in mind.

pranams,

[Agnideva]

Namaste Madhavan,

Avatar is not a vaishnavite concept, but a vedic one....

Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19:

This is very interesting information, something I hadn't heard of before ... thanks. I, like EM, was under the impression that Avatar was a concept that comes from the Vaishnava Agamas (Pancharatras) in which Avatar forms are called Vibhava Rupa.

The version of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which I reference (translated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta) also speaks of the 10 as organs, as Sri Yajvan has indicated above.

II-v-19: This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi said, �(He) transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known. The Lord on account of Maya (notions superimposed by ignorance) is perceived as manifold, for to Him are yoked ten organs, nay, hundreds of them. He is the organs; He is ten and thousands � many and infinite. That Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior. This self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman. This is the teaching.

It is nevertheless interesting to see the alternative reading.

Aum Namah Shivaya,
A.

[Madhavan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namste M,

I do not differ with what you say, yet how would one reconcile the 10 forms fore-mentioned, and the 20 called out in the Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 1 Valli 3?

Also - IMHO Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19 , part of the Madhu Brahmana section, is focused on madhu-vidya. When we get to 2.5.19, it is the last mantram of this section. Previous to this, the subject matter is Brahman and madhu and the relationship thereof.

Alluding to the avatar of Hari ( a most delightful discussion), I do not see this as the main purport of this valli. I see this calling out the many forms 'for 10 and hundreds of His organs are yoked. He indeed is 10 (dasha iti) and thousands (cha sahasrani), many and endless-infinite (anantAni cha)'.
As you mention, this sloka can be viewed differently. My intent is not to inspire an intellectual debate on this matter, just a view that tries to keep the spirit of the previous 18 mantras in mind.

pranams,

madhu-vidyA means the science of immortality. To give a consistant interpretation would involve the whole of madhu vidya, which we can take up as a separate thread (at a later time). You may post your interpretation( not just translation) of the madhu vidya if you wish.

The ten major forms of Hari are well known from the purANas.( his main avataras). Srimad Bhagavatam has mentioned many other forms, which maybe called amsAvatAras.( avatAras such as kapila, vyAsa etc). Rig veda mentions about the madhu vidya associated with viSNu.(rg 1.154.5) It also mentions about the vAmana(trivikrama) avatAra (rig 1.154.2,3). ShatapAtha brAhmana also deals with the vAmana avatAra of viSNu. There is much more vedic support. Thus, avatAras are not just purANic but a vedic concept.

The thousands and infinite of forms refer to the purusha in his virAt rUpa. Knowing this Purusha, one attains immortality. That is how it is connected with madhu vidyA.

[Madhavan]

Namaste Madhavan,


This is very interesting information, something I hadn't heard of before ... thanks. I, like EM, was under the impression that Avatar was a concept that comes from the Vaishnava Agamas (Pancharatras) in which Avatar forms are called Vibhava Rupa.

The version of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which I reference (translated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta) also speaks of the 10 as organs, as Sri Yajvan has indicated above.

It is nevertheless interesting to see the alternative reading.

Aum Namah Shivaya,
A.

I am aware of atleast four ways in which this passage is rendered. But one should choose mukyArtha wherever possible. The reference to Hari in the verse is the hint that it is talking about Hari whose mukhyArtha is almost always viSNu, who by his mAyA becomes manyfold. The whole of madhu vidyA makes an excellent reading, but most translations make it look very ordinary, and missing all subtle meanings. I will try to post more on this..

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

madhu-vidyA means the science of immortality. To give a consistant interpretation would involve the whole of madhu vidya, which we can take up as a separate thread (at a later time). You may post your interpretation( not just translation) of the madhu vidya if you wish.

The ten major forms of Hari are well known from the purANas.( his main avataras). Srimad Bhagavatam has mentioned many other forms, which maybe called amsAvatAras.( avatAras such as kapila, vyAsa etc). Rig veda mentions about the madhu vidya associated with viSNu.(rg 1.154.5) It also mentions about the vAmana(trivikrama) avatAra (rig 1.154.2,3). ShatapAtha brAhmana also deals with the vAmana avatAra of viSNu. There is much more vedic support. Thus, avatAras are not just purANic but a vedic concept.

The thousands and infinite of forms refer to the purusha in his virAt rUpa. Knowing this Purusha, one attains immortality. That is how it is connected with madhu vidyA.

Namaste M,
a fair assessment on the matter. What you offer is inspiring and encouraging to read, yet we may differ on this notion of madhu-vidya ' means the science of immortality' . I can see how this fits, yet when I look to the roots here, of madhu , I do not derive immortality. This madhu-vidya qualifies as brahma vidya that bestows Immortality, this is where we agree, and this is a good thing.

Here is how I view madhu-vidya:
I see it as the inter-connectedness of everything in creation. All is connected. That is, this honey, madhu, मधु madhu, of delight, a sense of infinite correlation and mutual cooperation and interdependence of all existing things in the universe. Nothing is unconnected, the unity of existence. Examples for my orientation from the Madhu Brahmana 2.5.1 to 2.5.14:

• The earth is honey (Madhu) of all beings. All beings are the honey of this earth.
• These waters are honey to all beings , All beings are honey to these waters.
• The air is honey of all beings, All beings are honey to this air.
• The quarters ( the directions)...
• Lightening is honey of all beings ...
• Akasha is honey of all beings ...
• Moral order/Dharma/rita is honey of all beings...
• Satyam is honey of all beings ...
• This cosmic being Virat is honey of all beings ( some may wish to call this hiranyagarbha)

The slokas are my orientation on this matter. The next sloka goes on to describe how ' Atman is the essence/ruler of all beings. Just as spokes are held together by the hub'

And vidya , विद्या vidyā, absolutely means knowledge, yet it also also means meditations, some use the term formula or way of thinking. So the Madhu vidya is a meditation on the interconnectedness with everything, and that is Brahman. When this vidya is done correctly, Immortality is the fruit.

If we differ that is fine, as we show two ways to look at this knowledge.

My reference points are Sri Aurobindo, Kapali Shastri, Krishnananda and Sivananda that contribute to my POVs.

Thank you for responding and considering my post...


pranams

[Madhavan]

Actually this is true, at least in regard of Agamic shaivism.

BTW original verse of Gita re incarnation of Lord goes like "tadAtmAMshaM sRijAmyaham" and not popularly accepted "tadAtmAnam". Lord Himself never incarnates in any single limited being, but He acts through Gurus and siddhas.

That is an interesting info. But is there any proof in your assessment that "tadAtmAMshaM sRijAmyaham" is the original verse?

Regardless, gItAchAryan himself is an avatAra, and using his words to prove otherwise is a self defeating argument. Numerous references to incarnations are made within the scope of Gita itself.

4.5 - where the Lord talks of many of his births.

9.11 - clearly mentions about the descent of the Lord in the human form, and he is called a fool who considers his body to be like other mortals.

10.31 - a reference to the rAma avatAra is made here.

The primary difference between an avatAra and a siddha(guru) is

1. An avatAra's birth is merely in name, and is not due to a previous karma. He is born with a specific mission. He is Ishvara tulya in all respects, and the body he sports is merely objective oriented.

2. A guru or siddha is one who has undergone previous kArmic births, and has finally come to know his true nature by sAdhana. Though he inherits the jnAna of Ishvara, he is still different from Ishvara in the sense he is bereft of the 'aham' that Ishvara posseses, so he does not declare that "I am the referrent of all vedas" like Krishna declares. He also does not have any role whatsoever with the realm of dual creation as the concluding verses of vedanta sutras confirm.

[atanu]

Avatar is not a vaishnavite concept, but a vedic one....
Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19:
" dashA ityayam vai harayO ayam vai dasha cha sahasrANI bahooni anantAni cha tadEtat brahma
apoorvam anaparam abaahyam ayamAtmA brahma sarvAnubhooriti anushAsanam"
harayah - The forms of Hari
dashA iti - are ten ( matsya, koorma,....)
-----

Namaste Madhavan,

I wonder where from Kurma, matsya etc. came from? Hehe?

That the ten harayO are the ten organs -- five of cognition and five of locomotion is very logical since it has been explained in the same upanishad that the one who breathes is the one God (hridaya within), and and He has all these organs.

Please do not mind my saying so, but I am a bit wary about the translations from Dvaita.com. A translation, which you may take or discard:

II-v-19: This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi said, ‘(He) transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known. The Lord on account of Maya (notions superimposed by ignorance) is perceived as manifold, for to Him are yoked ten organs, nay, hundreds of them. He is the organs; He is ten and thousands – many and infinite. That Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior. This self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman. This is the teaching.

Note: Though the translation has already been cited above, but I wished to point out that "This self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman" and that there is no matsya kurma etc.


Om

[atanu]

------he is still different from Ishvara in the sense he is bereft of the 'aham' that Ishvara posseses, so he does not declare that "I am the referrent of all vedas" like Krishna declares. He also does not have any role whatsoever with the realm of dual creation as the concluding verses of vedanta sutras confirm.

Namaste Madhavan,

I am sorry to say that Kapila Muni (in Bhagavatam) also teaches exactly the same as Krishna teaches.

Krishna also says to Arjuna :"You and I have had many births, you know of none, I know all". Does He mean only 10 Avataras? And if so, then why He does not say ten only?

Guru is Brahma Vishnu Mahesvara and is Bhagawan Himself -- a Karuna Avatara.

Krishna is such a jagat Guru. He has taken up Purusha Vidya from Ghora Angirasa, notwithstanding what puranas may or may not say.

Yes. Self is the referrent of Vedas and it can speak as Kapila Guru or Krishna Guru.

Om

[atanu]

An appeal

Let this thread be pure Siva Sutras. Avatara discussion may reside in a separate thread, if everyone agrees.

Om