Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Small Doubt on DashavatAra.

From the Bhakti List Archives

Ramanbil • May 22, 2000 


In a message dated 5/22/00 11:56:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
kgk@md2.vsnl.net.in writes:

<< Lakshmana is not listed in the ten avatArams though He is also
   an incarnation of Adi SEsha because, the potency invested by 
   PerumAL on BalarAma is more than to that of Lakshmana. >>

May I add a few words to the brilliant explanation of Sri Anand?

THE THREE RAMAS:
Sri RAma AvatAra:
One other reason why LakshmaNa is not listed as a separate AvatAra can be 
gleaned from the vAkhyam of Aadhikavi Sage VAlmiki himself in BAla kAnDam of 
Srimad RAmAyaNam (Sargam18) relating to the birth of the four sons to 
MahArAja Dasaratha.

He says that Sri MahAvishNu manifested *half* of his amsam as Sri RAma, 
manifesting the rest of his amsams in LakshmaNa, Bharatha, and Satrugna. 
Together they made the AvatAra a Paripoorna (complete) one.
Referring to Sri RAma, he says -
" KousalyAjanayad RAmam sarva lakshaNa samyutham
  *VishNOr ardham* mahAbhAgam putram aikshvAku vardhanam"
Referring to others, he says- 
" bharathO nAma kaikeiyAmjajnE sathya parAkrama:
  sAkshAth vishNO: chatur bhAga: sarvai: samudithO guNai:"
"  atha LakshmaNa Satrugnou SumitrAjanayath suthou
   sarvAstra kusalou veerou VishNOrardha samanvithou"

Thus, perhaps because LakshmaNa is an integral part (amsam) of the Lord, he 
is not treated as a separate AvatAra.

ParasurAma AvatAra :
This AvatAra is not a direct AvatAra. Lord Vishnu entered the soul of a 
brahmin son of Jamadagni (By Avesa or Anupravesa) with a specific purpose and 
so ParasurAma is treated as a separate AvatAra.

BalarAma AvatAra
This AvatAra and that of Sri KRISHNA happened in DvApara yuga. Vasudeva's 
first wife was Rohini. The second wife was Devaki. For the seventh time 
Devaki conceived and it was BalarAma. But, by Lord's `Yogamaya' the foetus 
was transferred from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohini. So, it is the self 
same VishNu
who played a dual role as KrishNa and BalarAma, though some hold that like 
Lakshmana in TrEta yuga, BalarAma in DvApara yuga was the manifestation of 
Aadhisesha. BALARAMA AVATARA was not a PURNA AVATARA, say some scholars. 

Buddha AvatAra?
Some substitute in his place BUDDHA. This is not correct. Our Sastras do not 
recognize BUDDHA as one of the 10 major Avatars. And, definitely it is not 
the SiddhArtha - Gouthama Buddha mentioned in history books. This was a 
different Buddha called Aadhi Buddha, considered an auxiliary Avatara, not 
counted as one of the 10 recognized major AvatAras of the Lord.

In fact, in Mahabharata Santi Parva 46.107. Bhishma tells Krishna that it is 
Krishna himself who misled the wicked into wrong ways in his auxiliary 
incarnation as 'Buddha'.- This may be the "Aadhi Buddha" mentioned above.
=======================================================
{ Note: For a more detailed explanation of the various AvatAras, please read 
Chapter 9 "The Descending God" in my book "Hinduism Rediscovered" archived at 
www.srivaishnava.org/sgati  Please click on SDDS (Pre-Saranagathi) TOC and go 
to Volume. 1.24 and  1.25 dated 5th December, 1996 and 1.26 dated 6th 
December 1996}
Dasoham
Anbil Ramaswamy


 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. 
Remember the good 'ol days
http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/4/_/716111/_/959023935/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@eGroups.com
Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information