|| Mythological Masti :: Doubts & Discussions || (Page 4)

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 14300

Posted: 02 May 2011 at 11:36pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by visrom

I am back to the Dasha Avtar book again. In that again it was mentioned that the Yadavs had become vain and proud of their own powers, also because they felt they had Krishna with them they could do anything. Therefore they started destroying each other.

But here again, there is another factor involved - Gandhari. She has cursed Krishna for having allowed all her 100 sons to die, even though He had to power to prevent that. She had cursed Krishna that He would die a lonely death along with the entire Yadav clan. So, the Yadavs destroying themselves and Lord Krishna being hit by a hunter's arrow was due to Gandhari's curse.

But Parshuram is someone I am unable to accept, and I am happy that I am not alone. LOL

Maybe the Kshatriyas whom he detroyed had done something drastically wrong. Can't say.

There are also some varying opinions on the 9th avtar of Lord Vishnu. Dasha Avtar names Buddha as the 9th avtar, whereas in many temples of Lord Krishna I find Balram mentioned as an avtar of Vishnu. Both are things I am unable to accept.

I feel Balram was an avtar of Sesh Nag, just like Lakshman. (B R Chopras Mahabharat always showed Balram with a snake shaped crown.)

Would like to know your opinions on this too.

Visrom

In the Ramayan forum, Vibhishna (another poster) theorized that Mohini was the 3rd avatar of Vishnu after Kurma, during the samudra-manthan, and that the rest of the avatars except Kalki move one slot down. In other words, Varaha was #4, Narasimha #5 and so on. In fact, if Buddha's advent is not there in any of the scriptures preceding him, I don't believe that he's the avatar either. I don't think Mohini can be bunched w/ Kurma the way LBS are bunched w/ Rama, or Balaram is bunched w/ Krishna.

In Valmiki, RLBS were all avatars of Vishnu as a result of the division of the payasa - there is no Lakshman being sesha-nag, or Bharat being panchajanya or so on. In one of the Puranas, it says that Krishna and Balaram were both formed by plucking a white hair and a dark hair from Vishnu's head, so that would make Balaram a part of the same Vishnu avatar. Note that in the Mahabharat, Balaram's end is shown w/ a huge serpent leaving his mouth, symbolizing Sesha-nag, but in Valmiki's Ramayan, Lakshman is taken by Indra to Vaikuntha, and he does not turn into a serpent, as shown in both RS and AS Ramayanas.

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

Vishakha_Sakhi, visrom, vanadhi,

jaisiyaram

Groupbie

Joined: 26 April 2011

Posts: 106

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:07am | IP Logged

Originally posted by _Vrish_

Originally posted by JanakiRaghunath

^ Yeah, I also like Vaman avatar. Bali was not completely innocent and he was out to get the throne of Indra so that the Danavas could rule the Devas, which would eventually result in Adharma ruling Dharma. Vishnu could never let that happen, so I can see complete justification in Vaman Avatar.

It is Parashuram's avatar in which I cannot see justification, and I still find it hard to believe Vishnu could have slaughtered innocent humans, esp since Ram and Krishna avatars were all about the protection of innocent beings. It doesn't make sense.

Actually, no! There was nothing adharm about Bali - he got his culture from Prahlad/Virochan. The reason his war against Indra was started was not his ambitions, but rather b'cos Indra killed Virochan out of jealousy that Vishnu was happy w/ Virochan's behavior, and to make things worse, Indra even desecrated Virochan's body so that it couldn't get a proper cremation. This is what enraged Bali and took him to war. Don't conflate Devas == Dharm, and Asuras == Adharm, there were virtuous asuras like Prahlad, Virochan, Bali, Vibheeshan, while there were a lot of vile things Indra did, like hide Raja Sagar's horse in pataal near the ashram of Rishi Kapila, and cause the death of Sagar's 60,000 sons. Or Indra's affair w/ Ahalya - in fact, that was the reason he lost his powers when it came to fighting Ravan and Indrajit.

In fact, here, Vishnu too was displeased w/ Indra, and refused to help him, w/ the result that Bali had no trouble overrunning Devalok. The reason Vishnu did ultimately intervene was due to Aditi's tapasya - she couldn't bear to see the Devas humiliated, and begged Vishnu to forgive her son and help him. And this is where I disagree w/ Vishnu - he should have just declined her, and told her that he supports dharm, be it from the devas or the asuras, and right now, the asuras were on the side of dharm. During his reign, Bali did not persecute the denizens of bhulok like say Hiranyaksha did. So Vamana avatar was not really needed.

Bali's action can be justified and there must be valid reasons but if he would have proceeded, he must have ended ruling on all three worlds.. which was actually the matter of worry for all lords..

So apart from vamana avatar, devs had no other options to stop him..

Edited by jaisiyaram - 03 May 2011 at 7:07am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Vishakha_Sakhi, vanadhi,

Debipriya

Senior Member

Joined: 03 March 2010

Posts: 810

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:39am | IP Logged

* About Vamana Avataar- Raja Bali was a noble soul indeed, if compared to Indra. But he had the vice- Pride in him and Shri Hari wanted to cure him from that. That's why He took the Vamana Avtaar. It was necessary to make Bali realise the Benevolence of the Lord, the Emptiness of matrialistic desires (which Bali was aiming at while doing the 'yagna' for the designation of Indra). The Lord knew about the good qualities of Bali and wanted to 'correct' his vision and also to confer 'Devotion' in him. These are the main reasons why Vamana Avataar was necessary.

(Had a nice discussion with Lola regarding this some time back. Here I tried to post from that convo. I guess, she will be able to explain it more in details after her exam. )

* And regarding Buddha- Knowledge (/ Enlightenment), Silence, Peace-- These qualities of The Lord can be found in Gautama Buddha. He is the true embodiment of 'Pragnya'/ True Knowledge. We can find all these traits in Shri Ram and Shri Krishna Avataar as well, but in Gautama Buddha these characteristics were evident throughout his whole life.

In the same way, Anger is another quality of the Lord, which can be found in Parashuram, as I have mentioned in my earlier posts.

* We should remember that ALL the 'qualities' in their 'Pure Form' are a part of Shri Hari. So the characteristics ('gunavali') of any avataar can be directly linked to the Lord, if we try to relate the Pure Quality ( independent of the person/ being, it has expressed itself) with the Lord.

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

Vishakha_Sakhi, ShivangBuch, lola610, vanadhi, JanakiRaghunath,

.Vrish.

IF-Veteran Member

Joined: 25 October 2008

Posts: 14300

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 1:24pm | IP Logged

Debipriya

This is a better justification of the Vamana avatar than the other ones - be it Aditi's tapasya to Vishnu, or Indra approaching him for support.

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya, Vishakha_Sakhi, lola610, vanadhi, JanakiRaghunath,

JanakiRaghunath

IF-Stunnerz

Joined: 20 August 2008

Posts: 36182

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:16pm | IP Logged

As I have exams now and can't reply to everyone individually, I'll just try to address everyone all at once, hope you guys don't mind.

About Parashuram Avatar:

I guess Debipriya is right in that we cannot analyze all of Vishnu avatars since only Ram and Krishna were lifelong ones. All the avatars came to finish some purpose or other and left immediately. It's still hard to justify why Parashuram killed all the innocent Kshatriyas, but I guess if we look at it broadly, Vishnu is the father and creator of all beings so if he takes away some of his own creation, we cannot fault him as we would ordinary humans. God is beyond sin and we cannot attribute the same rules to him as we do our fellow humans. God creates and God destroys, and if he as Parashuram destroyed a bunch of people whom we consider innocent, he prob had his reasons. Maybe the weight really was too much for Bhudevi, and maybe those Kshatriyas all had bad qualities we do not know about. Either way, after he completed the purpose of his avatar, Parashuram gave all his powers to the next avatar, Ram, and left to meditate.

About Bali:

I agree that Bali was good in comparison to other avatars, and also that not all Asuras were bad and that Indra himself had done many sins, but Bali did have pride and Vishnu had to break him of it. Also, he was not completely unjust to him, as after Bali offered Shri Hari his head and was pushed into Paatal Lok, Vishnu was very pleased with him and granted him the boon that he would be the Indra of the next Manvantara. It is written in the shastras that the throne of Indra is not occupied by the same person in every Manvantara. Each manvantara has its own Indra and the current Indra ruling us is the one who asked Vishnu to become Vaman. The Indra of the next manvantara will be Bali Chakravarthy, as per Vishnu's promise.

Also, another reason that vaman avatar came which struck me as I went to sleep last night is that an Indra cannot change in one manvantara. Whomever the Indra is remains in that post till the end of that manvantara, and though Bali Chakravarthy was a Dharmatma, Vishnu could not let him take the post of Indra till the manvantara ended, because that would be going against the law of the heavens. So he did grant Bali the post of Indra, only in the next manvantara. It is said that till that time comes, Bali is the King of Paatal Lok (even now) and is waiting for the manvantara to end.

In this manner, Vaman avatar was totally justified. He both kept the heavenly law intact and also granted Bali his wish.

About Dashavatar:

It is in Vaishnavism that Balram is considered an avatar of Shri Hari. In the Bhagavat Mahapuraan, he is said to be an amsa of Sheshnaag and this sourse also hints that Lakshman was an avatar of Seshnaag as well. Adhyatma Ramayan is the source that says Lakshman was Seshnaag and Bharat and Shatrughan both were the Sudarshan Chakra and Panchajanya respectively. Tulsidas Ramayan also follows this version.

But Valmiki Ramayan is also correct, because if you think about it, Seshnaag was an amsa of Shri Hari himself, so if Lakshman was an incarnation of Seshnaag, he was ultimately an incarnation of Vishn as well, wasn't he? And both Sudarshan Chakra and Panchajanya were Vishnu avatars as well.

Edited by JanakiRaghunath - 03 May 2011 at 2:19pm

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya, Vishakha_Sakhi, lola610, vanadhi,

lola610

Viewbie

BollyCurry Buzzer

Joined: 03 November 2008

Posts: 7056

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 6:12pm | IP Logged

As far as Parshuram and Vaaman (but more so Vaaman), I think there's definitely scope for threads of their own because we're already seeing multiple possible answers as to what was the purpose for their incarnations, so it would make for a nice possibly long debate. Unless... everyone feels like it's all sorted out already and I'm just late? Either way I don't have much to add as far as Parshuram is concerned because his was a one-track avtaar, one purpose to fulfill and it had nothing to do with setting a good example for the world so virtue need not be expected from him. But Vaaman, I would like to discuss in more detail because Raja Bali is one of my favorite characters, and like Debipriya mentioned from our earlier conversation, I see his ultimate welfare in what Vaaman did. It is made obvious in the Bhaagvat that between Bali and Indra, Bali was the better guy - he had several opportunities to kill Indra that he did not take up but did not go through with it because he was too honest for that. Then his righteous disagreement with Shukrachaarya before that last yagya... I went through a whole list of evidence on Bali's greatness in the recent poll on "which king you would be", there are several. So I think in doing what he did, Vaamanji rescued him from the trap of materialism and helped him avail of the more permanent rewards of devotion. Indrapad is such an aana-jaana affair, everyone who's had it has fallen over and over again... tricking Ahilya, getting run out of swarg by Asur after Asur (hilarious accounts of this are in the Dheeraj Kumar Om Namah Shivay thread courtesy of Aditi and Neela, for whoever's interested), taking panga with Krishna during the Govardhan and then Paarijaat incidents... it's understandable that God wouldn't want someone who is so virtuous and pure at heart to be tainted by Indrapad and go through all of that.

Ok so all of that was not really doubts&discussions thread material, it was definitely an example of what could use its own thread Ermm

Sorry guys!

As far as Lakshman/Balram as Sheshnaag or Vishnu, many puraans refer to Sheshji as an expansion of Vishnu so I guess that makes them kinda interchangeable.

A question of my own - anybody know the source of the story we get in ASR, when Shri Ram enters Mata Kaikeyi's chamber first upon returning to Ayodhya and gives everyone a big surprise by revealing that her hand in his exile was really all for the best? He mentions that during her youth, her dad's kingdom was tormented by Ravan's grandfather Sumaali and his demonic associates, and she made a vow that she would somehow or the other cause his downfall. Something like that. I really liked that revelation because of the redemptive aspect of it, very comforting thought.

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya, Vishakha_Sakhi, ShivangBuch, vanadhi, JanakiRaghunath,

visrom

Viewbie

Joined: 26 November 2009

Posts: 23451

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:28pm | IP Logged

Lola, even if Kaikeyi had not made any vow, the thought that Kaikeyi indirectly caused Ravan's destruction is anyway comforting.

I was mentioning this in the RS Ramayan thread, where Lakshman tells Ram that he was feeling guilty about having left Seeta alone in the forest and because that had caused the war and destruction, to which Ram says that no one is responsible for what happens in this world. It's all because of fate. Ravan had to be killed, so Ravan's destiny made for itself a path. Kaikeyi's momentary wickedness was because of fate. She regretted her actions and asked Ram for forgiveness. Ram had anyway never held any grudge against her. Kaikeyi's past life...her father's fight with Ravan(as you mention above), Dasharath making Kaikeyi his charioteer, Dasharath granting boons to Kaikeyi are all created by Ravan's ultimate destiny.

The following 6 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya, Vishakha_Sakhi, lola610, vanadhi, Nandiniraizaada, JanakiRaghunath,

lola610

Viewbie

BollyCurry Buzzer

Joined: 03 November 2008

Posts: 7056

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:46pm | IP Logged

agreed Vis, especially in the context of the scene you posted at the other thread (will join you there in a bit!). but not everyone shares that outlook, and when taking it as an ordinary narrative and oversimplifying all these complex moves of "vidhi ka vidhaan", they still tag Kaikeyi as the "vamp" and Vibhishan as the "traitor" and so on... then these kinds of stories are a great for maintaining that level of respect that all the characters deserve for having been a part of the divine plan.

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Debipriya, Vishakha_Sakhi, vanadhi, JanakiRaghunath,

Page 4 of 28

Posted: 02 May 2011 at 11:36pm | IP Logged

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:07am | IP Logged

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:39am | IP Logged

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 1:24pm | IP Logged

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 2:16pm | IP Logged

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 6:12pm | IP Logged

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:28pm | IP Logged

Posted: 03 May 2011 at 7:46pm | IP Logged

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Search

Join India-forums Today!

Here's why members would love to be a part of India-Forums.com:

Join Us Close