what is an avatar?

[harishankar]

Without going into too many technical terms (not being an expert myself), let me try and explain what an Avatara is to my knowledge:

An Avatara is a manifestation of the formless divine in an Earthly form come down as a reflection of very intense Tapas of a Bhaktha or Bhakthas. The form of the Avatara depends upon the nature of the Tapas. A very fast-paced and intense Hiranyakashipu brought down a very fearsome Narasimha Avatara while a more calm Raavanaa brought down a similarly Saatvic Raama Avatara.

(Important Side Note: It is important to note and realise that characters like Hiranyakashipu and Raavanaa were not actually Rakshasas or Asuras as is the popular notion but great Bhakthas and Tapasvis who strayed from the path of righteousness because of the arrogance that the power their intense Tapas gave them. Raavanaa's Shiva Bhakthi was so great that even a Hanumaan was dazzled by the beauty of his Tejas or divine brightness)


What is important to me is this:

1. The Avatara is not bound by the limitations of the Earthly form which has been taken.

2. At the same time the Avatara will not violate the Natural Laws to which the form is subject to, even while remaining free of their constraints.

So while Rama and Krishna came in Human forms, they were certainly not bound to Human Laws or Limitations (as far as knowledge goes) but at the same time they did not violate the same Cosmic Laws which bound the normal human form...

I hope this is clear...

[Agnideva]

Thanks for the response Harishankar. A few follow-up questions/comments:

Originally Posted by harishankar

A very fast-paced and intense Hiranyakashipu brought down a very fearsome Narasimha Avatara while a more calm Raavanaa brought down a similarly Saatvic Raama Avatara.

Speaking of the three modes (sattva, rajas and tamas), if Rama was of sattvic character, does that mean Narasimha was of tamasic character? Could Narasimha be a Rudra form of Vishnu? And, which mode is attributed to Krishna … sattva or rajas?

Hiranyakashipu and Raavanaa were not actually Rakshasas or Asuras as is the popular notion but great Bhakthas and Tapasvis who strayed from the path of righteousness because of the arrogance that the power their intense Tapas gave them.

I think you’re right about this one. Anyone who turns out greedy and arrogant as a result of his own power can be termed a rakshasa. In the Ramayana, as you know, Ravana started out as a good person and turned evil after gaining power. Ravana’s brother, wife, grandfather and others were all of sattvic character.

Raavanaa's Shiva Bhakthi was so great that even a Hanumaan was dazzled by the beauty of his Tejas or divine brightness)

I’ve always found it very interesting that both Rama and Ravana were devotees of Shiva in the Ramayana.

So while Rama and Krishna came in Human forms, they were certainly not bound to Human Laws or Limitations (as far as knowledge goes) but at the same time they did not violate the same Cosmic Laws which bound the normal human form...

I am inclined to believe the same, but the stories say otherwise. In the Puranas, for example, Krishna is said to have lifted a mountain to save the villagers from a deluge. I personally think that many of these Purana stories were made up later around already existing myths.

With Regards.

[harishankar]

Agnideva,

I am glad to have been of help. As I said before, I am not very technical and I am very limited when it comes to quoting the scriptures. I have picked up a lot of knowledge from other sources, so you must excuse my lack of coherence.

About your question I think Narasimha could be termed as a very Raajasic-type Avatara (in the sense that Narasimha was very active, powerful and was so swift in action). At least that is how I understand it.

With regard to Avataras performing supernatural acts, I don't know, to be honest... I also think that Krishna is one of the most misunderstood Avataras among the whole Dasa Avataras.

I think the essence of Krishna is not the life of Krishna, but the teachings of Krishna as embodied in the Bhagavad Gita. I think Krishna should be considered as the Cosmic Teacher, first and foremost and only then as the Avatara of Ishwara.

It is important to understand that a lot of the Puraanaas that we know about today may be interpreted in different ways at different levels of human knowledge and understanding...

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by harishankar

I think the essence of Krishna is not the life of Krishna, but the teachings of Krishna as embodied in the Bhagavad Gita. I think Krishna should be considered as the Cosmic Teacher, first and foremost and only then as the Avatara of Ishwara.

Yes, I couldn’t agree more. Both Rama and Krishna are first to be considered as great teachers of dharma. It is not Krishna’s life that is to be emulated, but his teachings. On the other hand, Rama is more of a role model on how to live and act.

It is important to understand that a lot of the Puraanaas that we know about today may be interpreted in different ways at different levels of human knowledge and understanding...

Surely there is lots of meaning and knowledge in the Puranas. However, I believe that the purana stories are written allegorically and not to be taken as literal truth. And, perhaps a lot of the symbolism is lost to us now, so many people take them literally.

Apart from presenting philosophy and theology in a symbolic format, the puranas have also come to incorporate a lot of folk tales over the years. I’ve heard that there have been many recensions of the epics and puranas because they’ve been edited continuously for centuries.

[I am free]

Hi Harishankar,

Originally Posted by harishankar

I think Krishna should be considered as the Cosmic Teacher, first and foremost and only then as the Avatara of Ishwara.

I dont think I understand what you mean by this.

regards.