Question about Avatars

[ratikala]

namaskaram maitra varuni ji :namaste

B-b-b-but, fly-fl-f-flying c-c-cars in the future seems like a pr-p-pr-pro-probability!!!

just imagine , .... if all the scientists and inventors actualy took shelter of the lord and read the vedas , puranas , upanisaids and the agamas ....., how much wiser and sucessful they would be ...

... we would have had flying cars years ago ....

Oh ...but we did

 

[Poeticus]

Bhaginī,

Yes, we most certainly did have "flying cars". And, we most certainly will have them again in the future. 'Tis the will of the Shri Gods!!

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Jainarayan;3476014]Bucking the common Vaishnava beliefs, I feel the same way as you.

I think this position is the most honest one we can have, to me personally what matters is the lessons to be learned rather then observing just the physical aspects of Avtars, and there is a need to go to the spiritual aspect which i think would be more beneficial to an individual.

Even then, it's a matter of faith and devotion, not intellectually knowing.

So true, I also think maybe Devotion (Bhakti) can lead to a intellectual knowing (Realization) of the true nature of not only Avtars but the self as well, but that is in the realm of Philosophy and personal experiences.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

namaskaram satyamevajayanti ji :namaste

jai jai , someone wise enough to say ..... '' i just don't know. ''

jai jai , again prabhu ji :namaste

Dhanyavad Mata Ji, sometimes i feel as if i just don't know anything at all about Hinduism let alone that which is called Sanatana.

Im still in the learning faze.

 

[Yogi1054]

I don't believe in avatars period, literal, metaphorical, or otherwise. Saivism doesn't have avatars. So it's fine for Vaishnavas, because it's a Vaishnava concept.

Would you consider Sharabha as an avartar of Lord Shiva?

Sharabha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vinayaka]

Would you consider Sharabha as an avartar of Lord Shiva?

Sharabha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. Any concept of avatar in Saivism comes from horizontal transfer ... transferring of a concept from another area and then applying it in the new place. I'd never heard of this until now. The article mentions Saiva scripture, but then it goes on to talk about Puranas, which are Smriti, secondary scripture, and not even recognised as much of scripture by some, including myself. The recognition of the validity of the Puranas varies widely as expressed in the other thread.

But it's fine that others believe in avatars.

I've also been told that Hanuman is an avatar of Siva, Sai Baba (Satya) claimed to be an avatar of Siva, some people say Murugan or Bhairava are avatars of Siva etc. etc.

Of course all those people felt they were right and I was wrong. That's okay too.

Still I don't believe in avatars. Mystics don't argue.

 

[Yogi1054]

Well I've learnt something new! Thanks Vinayaka - I'm more influnced by the Shakti side of things and my teacher has this picture displayed of the avtar that the Divine Mother takes

 

[Vinayaka]

Actually Shaktism doesn't put much emphasis on avatars either. Avatar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is primarily a Vaishnava concept, but does creep in in small ways in the other sects. In Vaishnavism it's practically central with Ram and Krishna being the two main ones. Devi and Siva (less so) do take on different forms or have personified aspects, but to call those avatars is losing some of the definition of avatar, which essentially means God - descended.

The worst misconception of the name is when it is applied to teachers, and in particular YOUR teacher as a point of pride, like adding more Sris than the next guy.

 

[Poeticus]

Vinayaka,

You surely dislike avatara-s, don't you?

 

[Vinayaka]

Vinayaka,

You surely dislike avatara-s, don't you?

Not at all. You mis-read me. (or maybe you're jesting, I can' tell) But I do dislike misinformation. I think we have a duty to correct misinformation. Don't you?

 

[Poeticus]

Not at all. You mis-read me. (or maybe you're jesting, I can' tell) But I do dislike misinformation. I think we have a duty to correct misinformation. Don't you?

In fact, we have the utmost of duty. I actually admire your staunch Shaivism quite a bit. It is highly similar to my position: just replace "trying to get the truth about Shaivism out there" with Vedicism. I can definitely understand your motivation and resolve, which is backed up by Shaivist scripture. It would be very comical if you were arguing with a Vaishnava and it went like this:

Vaishnava: But, Shiva had incarnations! You have to believe in this!
You: Um, no he didn't.
Vaishnava: But, in the Vishnu Purana -
You: Exactly!

- - - - - - -
Hehehe.

You and I shall get some slack in the process, but it is our duty, nonetheless.

 

[Vinayaka]

In fact, we have the utmost of duty. I actually admire your staunch Shaivism quite a bit. It is highly similar to my position: just replace "trying to get the truth about Shaivism out there" with Vedicism. I can definitely understand your motivation and resolve, which is backed up by Shaivist scripture. It would be very comical if you were arguing with a Vaishnava and it went like this:

Vaishnava: But, Shiva had incarnations! You have to believe in this!
You: Um, no he didn't.
Vaishnava: But, in the Vishnu Purana -
You: Exactly!

- - - - - - -
Hehehe.

You and I shall get some slack in the process, but it is our duty, nonetheless.

Indeed, and I think I've had that discussion. It never ends well, but now I've learned. Too old to argue. But thanks for the support.

 

[Philomath]

Staunch Shaivism FTW

 

[Yogi1054]

Actually Shaktism doesn't put much emphasis on avatars either. Avatar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is primarily a Vaishnava concept, but does creep in in small ways in the other sects. In Vaishnavism it's practically central with Ram and Krishna being the two main ones. Devi and Siva (less so) do take on different forms or have personified aspects, but to call those avatars is losing some of the definition of avatar, which essentially means God - descended.

The worst misconception of the name is when it is applied to teachers, and in particular YOUR teacher as a point of pride, like adding more Sris than the next guy.

Ok I can see where you are coming from......it's more a concept borrowed from other traditions. :yes: Avtar is one who comes to earth to save where as aspects are different persona of Ma Devi

 

[Vinayaka]

Ok I can see where you are coming from......it's more a concept borrowed from other traditions. :yes: Avtar is one who comes to earth to save where as aspects are different persona of Ma Devi

Exactly, and sometimes the words get interchanged.

 

[Poeticus]

Exactly, and sometimes the words get interchanged.

What's worse is when non-Shaiva-s think they have full authority to speak not only on behalf of Shaiva-s but on Shaivism itself.

Does it really hurt the pride of a non-Shaiva if a Shaiva doesn't believe in what the non-Shaiva believes? Especially when the Shaiva's beliefs are supported by Shaivite scripture and not mere personal gratification?

I guess so.

 

[Vinayaka]

What's worse is when non-Shaiva-s think they have full authority to speak not only on behalf of Shaiva-s but on Shaivism itself.

Does it really hurt the pride of a non-Shaiva if a Shaiva doesn't believe in what the non-Shaiva believes? Especially when the Shaiva's beliefs are supported by Shaivite scripture and not mere personal gratification?

I guess so.

This goes back to the ethnocentricity problem, and the term Hinduism. When all you see or have ever seen is a certain way, what is to be expected? This is the nature of Hinduism, and life. All I can say is "Please have a better look around, go to a variety of temples, see for yourself." Only then can a deeper understanding occur. But there is great comfort in sticking with what you know, so I can't blame people for that. Problems and misunderstandings generally only occur when someone opens his mouth.

 

[Poeticus]

But there is great comfort in sticking with what you know...

Sometimes, this is true.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vinayaka ji :namaste

No. Any concept of avatar in Saivism comes from horizontal transfer ... transferring of a concept from another area and then applying it in the new place. I'd never heard of this until now. The article mentions Saiva scripture, but then it goes on to talk about Puranas, which are Smriti, secondary scripture, and not even recognised as much of scripture by some, including myself. The recognition of the validity of the Puranas varies widely as expressed in the other thread.

But it's fine that others believe in avatars.

I've also been told that Hanuman is an avatar of Siva, Sai Baba (Satya) claimed to be an avatar of Siva, some people say Murugan or Bhairava are avatars of Siva etc. etc.

Of course all those people felt they were right and I was wrong. That's okay too.

it is not so much right and wrong as it is our way of describing things , this word ' Avatara ' it can imply incarnation , embodiment , apperance in a new form , decent ...and the ten avatara a vaisnava commonly mentions are but a fraction of the apperances or incarnations of the lord ...

Still I don't believe in avatars. Mystics don't argue.

mystics dont need to argue , you dont have to beleive anything , ....just take shelter of your lord and in time he will reveal all you need to know

 

[George-ananda]

Do you believe the Avatars are literal?

I believe Satya Sai Baba was an avatar in modern human form.