Is Lord Krishna the only Purnavatara or are there more we do not know about?

[Terese]

I know in reality there are innumerable incarnations, but is it possible that Lord Krishna may not be the only full incarnation of Narayana?

 

[Madhuri]

I know in reality there are innumerable incarnations, but is it possible that Lord Krishna may not be the only full incarnation of Narayana?

Yep. There's the Dasavatar, for instance. They are all direct forms of Vishnu.

 

[SomeRandom]

Depends on who you ask. But if I recall correctly there's like at least 3 full avatars. I think.

 

[Terese]

Yep. There's the Dasavatar, for instance. They are all direct forms of Vishnu.

Direct? Yes. But are they full manifestations of the Lord?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Haha you know, what I would say... Lord Gauranga...but that is a Gaudiya thing.

 

[wizanda]

only full incarnation of Narayana?

Isn't Kalki a full incarnation of Vishnu as well; since in Kalki Purana it says he will be all that remains after the Mahapralaya?

 

[Terese]

Isn't Kalki a full incarnation of Vishnu as well; since in Kalki Purana it says he will be all that remains after the Mahapralaya?

Kalki has not appeared yet, so he doesn't count.

 

[Madhuri]

Direct? Yes. But are they full manifestations of the Lord?

They are full manifestations.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know in reality there are innumerable incarnations, but is it possible that Lord Krishna may not be the only full incarnation of Narayana?

For me, all the nine are equal.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

I know in reality there are innumerable incarnations, but is it possible that Lord Krishna may not be the only full incarnation of Narayana?

Even within the viśiṣṭādvaita theology there is consensus (afaik) that at least rāma, varāha, nṛsimha, hayagrīva, etc (al most all excepting perhaps paraśurāma, pṛthu, etc) are pūrṇāvatāras, and see no difference b/w say rāma and kṛṣna.
The tattvavāda theology accepts all avataras excluding, those like balarāma, pṛthu, nara, nārada (śaktyāveśa) etc., as pūrṇāvataras.
Only the bengal school views only kṛṣṇa as pūrṇāvatara, afaik.
But again, i don't think there can be unanimous consensus on this amongst different schools, ever!
Kṛṣṇastu bhagavān svayaṃ need not necessarily mean only kṛṣṇa is bhagavān.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[Terese]

Only the bengal school views only kṛṣṇa as pūrṇāvatara, afaik.

How? Are you saying that Lord Krishna is a partial incarnation of Maha-Vishnu or unfit to be named as a Purnavatara with the exclusion of Bengal schools?

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

How? Are you saying that Lord Krishna is a partial incarnation of Maha-Vishnu

The term partial can be very misleading. There can be no parts in viṣṇu (neha nānāsti kincana) and hence no partial. The nirṇaya can be like this, kṛṣṇa is an avatāra of viṣṇu, and the avatāra cannot possess something that is not there in the mūla-rūpa. From the śāstra perspective, see Śrīmadbhagavadgīta 11-45, 46 wherein arjuna after having seen the viśvarūpa of kṛṣṇa pleads Him to return to His original form which is:
kirīṭinaṁ gadinaṁ cakrahastaṁ ... rūpéṇa caturbhujena the form holding mace, discus, four-armed adorned with diadem! Further, this four-armed form is called His Natural Form (svakaṁ rūpaṁ, 11-50). The point being, as far as i've been made to understand from the śāstras, almost all avatāras are as pūrṇa as mūlarūpī-viṣṇu without an iota of difference or gradation of any sort amongst them with the sole exclusion of āveśa avatāras (which have been made unambiguous in the śāstras itself).

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Terese]

The term partial can be very misleading. There can be no parts in viṣṇu (neha nānāsti kincana) and hence no partial. The nirṇaya can be like this, kṛṣṇa is an avatāra of viṣṇu, and the avatāra cannot possess something that is not there in the mūla-rūpa. From the śāstra perspective, see Śrīmadbhagavadgīta 11-45, 46 wherein arjuna after having seen the viśvarūpa of kṛṣṇa pleads Him to return to His original form which is:
kirīṭinaṁ gadinaṁ cakrahastaṁ ... rūpéṇa caturbhujena the form holding mace, discus, four-armed adorned with diadem! Further, this four-armed form is called His Natural Form (svakaṁ rūpaṁ, 11-50). The point being, as far as i've been made to understand from the śāstras, almost all avatāras are as pūrṇa as mūlarūpī-viṣṇu without an iota of difference or gradation of any sort amongst them with the sole exclusion of āveśa avatāras (which have been made unambiguous in the śāstras itself).

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Thank you for your perspective.

 

[Jainarayan]

The term partial can be very misleading. There can be no parts in viṣṇu (neha nānāsti kincana) and hence no partial. The nirṇaya can be like this, kṛṣṇa is an avatāra of viṣṇu, and the avatāra cannot possess something that is not there in the mūla-rūpa. From the śāstra perspective, see Śrīmadbhagavadgīta 11-45, 46 wherein arjuna after having seen the viśvarūpa of kṛṣṇa pleads Him to return to His original form which is:
kirīṭinaṁ gadinaṁ cakrahastaṁ ... rūpéṇa caturbhujena the form holding mace, discus, four-armed adorned with diadem! Further, this four-armed form is called His Natural Form (svakaṁ rūpaṁ, 11-50). The point being, as far as i've been made to understand from the śāstras, almost all avatāras are as pūrṇa as mūlarūpī-viṣṇu without an iota of difference or gradation of any sort amongst them with the sole exclusion of āveśa avatāras (which have been made unambiguous in the śāstras itself).

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Yeah, I don't understand the terminology of full or partial avatar, incarnation, manifestation or expansion. I've seen all those terms used. It seems the term used for Srimati Radha, Srimati Sita, Tulsi Devi are "incarnations" of Maa Lakshmi. Why they are not avatars when their consorts are is something I don't know. Maybe these are all just different words for the same concept?

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no problem in using the word avatara for Srimati Radharani, Mother Sita and Mother Tulsi. Partial avatara is used for Sages, they do not have full attributes of the deity. Of course, for an advaitist like me all beings and things (living and non-living) are the same. There are many different schemes and many differing lists. For that matter, even the avatara list varies in some sampradayas.

 

[Jainarayan]

OK, now I got the idea of "partial".

 

[निताइ dasa]

Oh

The term partial can be very misleading. There can be no parts in viṣṇu (neha nānāsti kincana) and hence no partial. The nirṇaya can be like this, kṛṣṇa is an avatāra of viṣṇu, and the avatāra cannot possess something that is not there in the mūla-rūpa. From the śāstra perspective, see Śrīmadbhagavadgīta 11-45, 46 wherein arjuna after having seen the viśvarūpa of kṛṣṇa pleads Him to return to His original form which is:
kirīṭinaṁ gadinaṁ cakrahastaṁ ... rūpéṇa caturbhujena the form holding mace, discus, four-armed adorned with diadem! Further, this four-armed form is called His Natural Form (svakaṁ rūpaṁ, 11-50). The point being, as far as i've been made to understand from the śāstras, almost all avatāras are as pūrṇa as mūlarūpī-viṣṇu without an iota of difference or gradation of any sort amongst them with the sole exclusion of āveśa avatāras (which have been made unambiguous in the śāstras itself).

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

oh how I've missed your answers prabhuji. They always make me smile. Please accept my Pranams /\

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste,

It seems the term used for Srimati Radha, Srimati Sita, Tulsi Devi are "incarnations" of Maa Lakshmi. Why they are not avatars when their consorts are is something I don't know. Maybe these are all just different words for the same concept?

I too think that they perhaps innocently used different words for the same concept. However, i disagree with translating avatāra as incarnation (as in a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality) or worse as reincarnation, for the sheer reason that the translation betrays the intent of usage in the scriptures. Sītā is considered an avatāra in most scriptures, rādhā too, but differently in different saṁpradāyas, and as far as tuḷsī, i don't think scriptures consider her avatāra of lakṣmī, but only with āveśa of śrī.

Please accept my Pranams /\

My praṇāmas to you too prabhuji

श्रीमद्वासिष्ठकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ॥

 

[Peter Vredevold]

It is believed that Kalki can be considered as the last form that will introduce earth new Yuga, since we may not know if human beings will be able to survive at the end of Kali yuga.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, most of it still to go - some 426,000 years.