DaÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

Agraja · Post by **Agraja** » 24 Jun 2009, 00:22

Would someone explain as to why certain fundamentalists do not consider Tathagat Buddha as one of Sri Hari Vishnu's DaÃƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬ÂºÃƒâ€žÃ‚Â

Agraja · Post by **Agraja** » 25 Jun 2009, 02:56

Anyone who knows???

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 25 Jun 2009, 05:36

According to popular South Indian traditions, Maha Vishnu split his hair into two and from this Balarama and Krishna were created on Earth. Balarama is usually included as an avatar but some use Budha instead. Some stories say that Balarama is actually an incarnation of Adisesha.

Swati Tirunal's 'kamalajasya' has a stanza on Balarama. Jayadeva's Ashtapathi has ten avatara-s including Balarama and Budha saying they are all avataras of Krishna!

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 25 Jun 2009, 06:19

The belief is that SrI Adi Sankara was the first to propagate the belief that buddha was an incarnation of vishNu, in an attempt to stem the flood of conversions from hinduism to buddhism that occurred at that time. Since then, some, but not all descriptions of the daSAvatAra include buddha, with many combinations - in most sequences, balarAma is replaced by buddha.

Jayadeva, in typical oriyan tradition, believes krishNa to be God, not God incarnate. Hence, in his daSAvatAra scheme (as in all other oriyan literature and mythology), the 10 avatArs include balarAma and buddha.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 27 Jun 2009, 15:33

If Buddha is an avatar, then what about Mahavira?

Agraja · Post by **Agraja** » 27 Jun 2009, 19:22

Here's what I know. Canto 1 Chapter 3 the Bhagvata Purana provides a complete list of the twenty-two avatars of Vishnu. They go as follows:

1. The four Sanat Kumara.

2. The Varaha

4. The sages Nara and Narayan.

5. The sage Kapila.

6. Dattatreya.

7. Yagna.

8. King Rishabha.

9. King Prithu.

10. The Matsya or Fish.

11. The Kurma

12. Dhanavantri.

13. Mohini.

14. The Narasimha

15. The Vamana

16. Parashurama.

17. Sage Veda Vyasa.

18. Rama.

19. Balarama.

20. Krishna.

21. Buddha.

22. Kalki.

After listing these incarnations the Bhagavata Purana states that these are not all the avatars of Vishnu. There are innumerable avatars much like the innumerable rivulets flowing from an inexhaustible lake. Anyone who is an epitome of virtue can be considered to be an avatar of Vishnu. Some other avatars that I know which are not stated above are:

Hayagriva - the horse-headed incarnation who rescued the Vedas from the demons.

Dhanvantari - the physician of the Gods, founder of Ayurveda.

Hamsa - the swan, the vehicle of Goddess Saraswathi.

If anyone knows of any other avatars, please enlighten us.

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 08 Jul 2009, 21:44

ragam-talam wrote:If Buddha is an avatar, then what about Mahavira?

What qualifies mahAvIra for comparison with the Buddha..? he was one (actually the last) of a series of enlightened men, who were called the tIrthankara-s..

The Buddha, au contraire; introduced a new doctrine, a new school of thought, which eventually developed a very impressive epistemology and has had world-wide influence..

mahAvIra was a contemporary of the Gautama Buddha (formerly Siddhartha) alright, but his influence was not comparable to that of the Buddha.. what is interesting, is that rShabhadEva, the first or second tIrthankara, has been absorbed into the bhAgavata purANa fold by enumerating a digambara renunciate king 'RSabha' as an avatAra..

Beginnings of the digambara monk tradition can be seen towards the end of the mahAbhArata, where Suka, the son of vyAsa is seen to move around unclothed..

koyaliya · Post by **koyaliya** » 13 Jul 2009, 19:34

Jains consider Jainism to be an ancient religion and school of thought that predates Buddhism since they have records of other Jinas. Buddhism too can claim great antiquity as it records several Buddhas predating Sakyamuni Buddha in the "Buddhavamsa". Sakyamuni also clearly states that he is following the "tradition of the Buddhas",

"But it is the custom of my Buddha lineage. Several thousands of Buddhas have gone by seeking alms"
Both Buddha and Mahavira might have built upon the pre-existing meditative teachings in north-eastern India at that time, which also explains some of the similarities in terminolgy.

in the above, sakyamuni = gautama, the contemporary of mahavIra.
this is quoted from wiki, which is not necessarily the most authoritative source.

not saying the two were equal - or unequal for that matter - just quoting a reference that says neither was the first of his kind, according to their own accounts.

i've always been curious about why the dasavatar were selected the way they were. personally, i like jayadeva's way of settling the balarama-buddha dispute; after all, krishna was the paripurnavatar with all possible manifestations of avatarhood...

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 14 Jul 2009, 08:39

koyaliya wrote: not saying the two were equal - or unequal for that matter - just quoting a reference that says neither was the first of his kind, according to their own accounts..

Sankara wasn't the first advaitin, RAmAnuja wasn't the progenitor of visiSTAdvaita siddhAnta, Christ wasn't the first rabbi to lead a messianic cult...

Nonetheless, all of them and Buddha McSuddhOdana represent a certain kind of pioneer in their respective schools.. I don't think mahAvIra fits into the group.. My learning in Jaina theology is at best sketchy.. I welcome a more authoritative, better-informed argument..

koyaliya wrote:i've always been curious about why the dasavatar were selected the way they were. personally, i like jayadeva's way of settling the balarama-buddha dispute; after all, krishna was the paripurnavatar with all possible manifestations of avatarhood...

I too have been curious in as much as the date of the 'dasAvatAra' concept.. as opposed to the 23+ avatAra-s.. This separation of the ten from the others is quite old.. Almost a millennium old...

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 17 Jul 2009, 13:01

Agraja wrote:
Hamsa - the swan, the vehicle of Goddess Saraswathi.

If anyone knows of any other avatars, please enlighten us.

1. I don't think hamsavatara is the same as the mount of sarasvati..

2. I think there is a form of vishNu called SimsumArA, that holds up the upper worlds, while AdisEsHa is his form holding up the earth and the other worlds..

krishnaa · Post by **krishnaa** » 17 Jul 2009, 23:01

According to the Bhagavatam (either 5th or 6th canto... dont remember, will check and tell soon), once, the four kumaras, sanaka, sanandana, sanatkumar and sanAtana asked lord brahmA some questions, when they could not be answered, mahAvishnu accepted the form of a swan (hamsa) and explained to them. It is said in the bhAgavatam that just as the swan separates water from milk, in the same way, the doubts of the kumaras were separated from their knowledge. Very complex and scientific section in the Bhagavatam. The beautiful milk white form of hamsAvatAra is described in an exellent way.

Agraja · Post by **Agraja** » 18 Jul 2009, 01:04

What you speak of Krishnaa, is in canto 11. Sri Hari Vishnu takes the form of a swan (hamsa). Analysing the word "hamsa", we can understand the true meaning of the word. "Hamsa" is formed from "aham" & "saH". "aham" = I am, "Sah"= Him. Hence Hamsa literally means "I am him (the supreme lord)". As only a swan can differentiate between pure milk and water, similarly, It is only the true lord, who can differentiate between the truth and the lies. Between the true devotees and the hypocrites. Between the clean of heart, and the immoral. We humans, can but attempt to emulate such wisdom.

On a lighter note, this ability of the swan is attributed to its slightly acidic saliva, which when put in contact with a mixture of milk and water, curdles the milk, which it eats, leaving behind the water.

krishnaa · Post by **krishnaa** » 18 Jul 2009, 11:37

Yes it is in canto 11.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 19 Jul 2009, 10:55

>On a lighter note, this ability of the swan is attributed to its slightly acidic saliva, which when put in contact with a mixture of milk and water, curdles the milk, which it eats, leaving behind the water.

Thanks. I was curious about how it does it. Has anyone seen a swan doing this?

krishnaa · Post by **krishnaa** » 19 Jul 2009, 16:59

Ayyo, i have never even seen a swan in my life as far as my memory goes...

but its described everywhere for comparisons.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 19 Jul 2009, 18:48

Swans in plenty in our lakes and they swallow small fish

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 19 Jul 2009, 21:22

VKR, make sure they are not geese. They can get quite upset and nasty very quickly. So be careful if you decide to conduct the milk experiment with them

I would not know to tell a swan even if it bit me on my back... ( the geese can definitely do that to you if you are not careful

)

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 20 Jul 2009, 09:17

vasanthakokilam wrote:>On a lighter note, this ability of the swan is attributed to its slightly acidic saliva, which when put in contact with a mixture of milk and water, curdles the milk, which it eats, leaving behind the water.

Thanks. I was curious about how it does it. Has anyone seen a swan doing this?

As swans don't get milk in their natural habitat,(no Amul/Avin/Nandini booths!) I suppose this observation must have been recorded by some poet who saw the swans being fed in some royal patron's household..

It is very possible that their saliva curdled the milk, and that they gobbled up the curd, leaving behind the whey..

For us to see this, we must get together an obliging swan, milk and protection against spca, who may cry blue murder, for 'illegal experiments inflicted on birds/animals'..

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 20 Jul 2009, 13:13

Agraja wrote:Hamsa" is formed from "aham" & "saH". "aham" = I am, "Sah"= Him. Hence Hamsa literally means "I am him (the supreme lord)". As only a swan can differentiate between pure milk and water, similarly, It is only the true lord, who can differentiate between the truth and the lies.

Hamsa is not formed of aham & saH etymologically. The word hamsa is interpreted in such a way that when we repeat "saH aham" or rather their sandhi-compound "sOham, sOham...", it appears we say hamso, hamso... which is where the hamsa (swan) comes in.

The swan is a leitmotif mainly (or only) in Advaita among the vedantic doctrines, whose name reminds one of the mahavAkyas Aham Brahmasmi / Tat Twam Asi...

I am not sure where a "true lord" comes into this.

About the Buddha entering the pantheon of Vishnu's ten main avatars, there was a level of syncretism which evolved from some similarities in symbolism between Vishnu and the Buddha

1. The reclining posture is common while depicting both the Buddha and Vishnu.
2. Both the buddha and vishnu are related to the lotus flower.
3. Both the buddha and vishnu have a chakra (dhamma chakra vs sudarshana chakra) which "they alone" are capable of setting into motion
4. Both are self-proclaimed protectors of dharma (they appear in the world embodied to resurrect Dharma when adharma prevails).
5. Both have all attributes of perfection (purushottama i.e uttama purusha)
6. Both are associated with superhuman abilities
7. Both occupy the highest place in their respective cosmic spheres
8. Both are praised by the gods as well as men
9. Both are warriors (vishnu frequently is depicted with a mace) but rarely tend to violence.
10. Both overrule vedic authority

Apart from the above, there was no antagonism between buddhists and non-buddhists (hindus). In fact they did not even consider themselves as religions distinct from each other. The only differences (which were from pre-buddhist times) were between the codified and organized practices of the brahmanas vs the unorganized nature of the shramanas. The creation of the buddhist saMgha was the turning point in the shramanic order as it introduced rules for entry and conduct in the saMgha membership, and the buddhists soon formed a canon of their own in the Pali language based on the Buddha's teachings.

The lay people (whom the buddha called pRthujjana) i.e non-buddhists deified the Buddha and considered him a God, and his high status led him to be syncretised with Vishnu as an avatar.

Agraja · Post by **Agraja** » 20 Jul 2009, 13:45

keerthi wrote:For us to see this, we must get together an obliging swan, milk and protection against spca, who may cry blue murder, for 'illegal experiments inflicted on birds/animals'..

Quite so keerthi. Besides, we always do run a risk that the swan may actually fancy our fingers more than the milk! They are quite aggressive at times!

Agraja · Post by **Agraja** » 20 Jul 2009, 13:57

srkris wrote:Hamsa is not formed of aham & saH etymologically. The word hamsa is interpreted in such a way that when we repeat "saH aham" or rather their sandhi-compound "sOham, sOham...", it appears we say hamso, hamso... which is where the hamsa (swan) comes in.

Thanks srkris! Could you please enlighten me as to where exactly is such a repetition used?

srkris wrote:I am not sure where a "true lord" comes into this.

Just my way of interpreting

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 20 Jul 2009, 20:22

vasanthakokilam wrote: VKR, make sure they are not geese. They can get quite upset and nasty very quickly. So be careful if you decide to conduct the milk experiment with them

you could find yourself on the wrong end of a wild goose chase!

Not to analyse too much, but how would acidic saliva curdle milk..?

milk curdles when exposed to salt or acid only when it is warm.. Add either to room temp. or cold milk; and lo! nothing happens...

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 21 Jul 2009, 03:09

Hey, over-analysis is what I am often chided for...that is my game... welcome

Even if somehow this saying is applied only to warm milk, is the curdling instantaneous? Or the swan will have to wait around for a while?

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 21 Jul 2009, 04:04

In fact during cold climate, we may need to keep inside the oven the container containing warm milk after adding cultured yogurt - added procedure

Agraja · Post by **Agraja** » 21 Jul 2009, 22:20

I'd say that makes evident the presence of other chemicals at work here! Really, there's no limit to the way nature can surprise you!

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 25 Jul 2009, 18:34

Agraja wrote:Thanks srkris! Could you please enlighten me as to where exactly is such a repetition used?

Some information on 'Soham' is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_%28Sanskrit%29

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 25 Jul 2009, 22:12

Swans can be more aggressive than geese. The swans in the river Thames shattered my image of those graceful qualities poets invest in them. One almost bit off my sweet little daughter's finger when she tried to feed it!
Beware of those selfish 'for me alone' cheese manufacturers!

gobilalitha · Post by **gobilalitha** » 26 Jul 2009, 08:12

well for a spot of humour, for the presnt day youngsters dasavatharam denotes Kamalahasan!!! gobilalitha

ksrimech · Post by **ksrimech** » 30 Jul 2009, 00:34

The confusion whether Buddha mentioned in Sri Vishnu Puranam and Srimad Bhagavatham is an avatara of Sri Mahavishnu. The Buddha mentioned in both the puranas is from the episode of Thirupura Samharam (Yes, the story where Paramasivan burns the 3 worlds with his gaze of the 3rd eye). Here the Buddha is supposed to have run naked in front of the asurapatnis (wifes of Thirupurasura). He is not the same as Gautama Buddha. FYI, the commonly known Gautama Buddha was an atheist and he promoted sarvashoonyavaadam (aka philisophical nihilism). Would Perumal in one avatara say vedaiScha sarvaihi ahamEva vEdyaha and the next avatara say there is no vedam, no sarvam, no aham, no eva, no vedanam and nothing exist. All there great acharyas, Adi Shankara Bhagavadpadacharya, Bhagavad Ramanujacharya and Anandatheertha Madhwacharya have all debated and won against the illogical bauddA schools (4 Schools during their time - Srautrantika, Vaibhashika, Yogachara and Madhyamika). The 32 avataras listed in Sri Vishnu Puranam have been classified as purnavataras and gaunavataras, the Rishis and acharyas. Gautama Buddha doesn't figure in that.

References from Vaishnava Schools: Thirumangaiyazhwar sums up the daSAvatAram - "meenOdu Amai kEzal ari kuralAi munnumirAmanAi thAnAi pinnumirAmAnai dAmOdaranAi kalkiyum AnAn thannai kaNNapurattu ammAntannai"- " The King of Thirunaangur is singing the praise of Saurirajan, the Lord at Thirukannapuram who became the Fish, along with the Tortoise, the Boar, the (Man-)Lion, the Dwarf, the Rama in front, Himself, the Rama at the back, the one who go tied to the Wheat Grinding Stone and (the yet to come) Kalki".

Swami Vedanta Desikan sings in his Dashavatara Stotram "icchAmIna vihArakacchapa mAhApOtrin yaddrucchAharE rakSAvAma rOSarAma karuNakAkutsa hElahalin kRIDAvallabha kalkin nidhi pratyaham". The same order (with some adjectives) have been given here too.

Hamsavatara is also an avatara of Perumal. The interpretation in Vaishnava Schools (apart from Vaishnava Advaita School) is related to Hayagriva Perumal. Here is the meaning of the 14th Sloka from Swami Vedanta Desikan's Sri Hayagriva Stotram where he sings about the Raaja Hamsam (commented by Sri V Sadagopan Swami of New York).

Fourteenth Slokam
******************

The anubhavam of the Jn~Anis , who visualize Sri HayagrIva BhagavAn in their heart lotuses is described in the 14th SlOkam :

manOgatham pasyathi ya: sadhA thvAm manIshiNAm maanasa raaja-Hamsam
svayam purObhAva vivAdha bhAja: kimkurvathE tasya girO yathArham

The thoughts on the fruits of meditating upon the sacred form of Lord HayagrIvan , described in the previous slOkam , is taken up in this slOkam.

(meaning): Oh Lord Haya-Vadhana MahA DesikA ! The Raaja Hamsams ( King Swans ) take up their abode in the divine lake known as maanasarOvar . You , who is the emperor of all thise Raaja Hamsams (sanyAsis and Yathi-varAs )choose as Your permanent abode ,the mind (manas, Saras or Poykai ) of Your upAsakAs .Thus You facilitate their efforts in meditation of You.For such people blessed by You , all the Vidhyais compete with one other to serve them . They thus become thus the sakala saasthra-parAngathALs or the celebrated experts/ exponents of all para and apara vidhyAs due to Your benovolent grace (anugraham ) .

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 30 Jul 2009, 08:44

Very nice, Krishna! So much to learn from you today!

ksrimech · Post by **ksrimech** » 31 Jul 2009, 21:23

Thank you Your Majesty!

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 01 Aug 2009, 16:06

ksrimech wrote:The confusion whether Buddha mentioned in Sri Vishnu Puranam and Srimad Bhagavatham is an avatara of Sri Mahavishnu. The Buddha mentioned in both the puranas is from the episode of Thirupura Samharam

This seems to be your personal interpretation (or rather merely the Sri-Vaishnava interpretation, where Buddha is not counted as an avatara because he is regarded as avaidika. The exception proves the rule here). The Bhagavata Purana is quite explicit in its mention of the Buddha avatar:

"TataÃƒÂ¡Ã‚Â¸Ã‚Â¥ kalau sampravÃƒÂ¡Ã‚Â¹Ã¢â‚¬Âºtte sammohÃƒâ€žÃ‚Â

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 01 Aug 2009, 19:05

ksrimech wrote:FYI, the commonly known Gautama Buddha was an atheist

He did not deny the existence of gods, he affirmed their existence (read the Sangarava Suttam). He was neither a theist nor an atheist, he was a non-theist (similar to Shankara).

For conciseness, I post the relevant part of the conversation between the Buddha and Sangarava (the brahmin), from the Sangarava suttam here:

(Both the Buddha and Sangarava below call each other by their patronymics i.e gotra)

Sangarava: "Good Gotama, are there gods?"

Buddha: "Bhaaradvaaja, it should be known with reasons, whether there are gods."

Sangarava: "Good Gotama, when asked, are there gods, it was said, it should be known with reasons, whether there are gods. Are not these words useless lies?"

Buddha: "Bhaaradvaaja, when asked are there gods, whether told there are gods, or told it should be known with reasons, a wise man should conclude that there are gods."

Sangarava: "Why did good Gotama not declare this to me earlier?"

Buddha: Bhaaradvaaja, it is taken for granted, that there are gods in the world."

Sangaarava: "Good Gotama, now I understand. It is like something overturned is reinstalled. Something covered is made manifest. ItÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s as though the path was told to someone who has lost his way. It is as though a lamp is lighted for the darkness, for those who have sight to see forms. Good Gotama has explained the Teaching in various ways. Now I take refuge in good Gotama, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus. May I be remembered as a lay disciple from today until life lasts."

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 01 Aug 2009, 23:12

There are passing references to 'deceiving and confusing the enemies of the devas' etc. Is that a consistent theme in some schools as to the purpose behind the various avatars? I have heard that before as well from an ardent follower of Madhwacharya school and he seemed to generalize that to even rAmA and krishnA avatars. A prevalent notion I am aware of is that the avatars are for destroying evil and re-esablishing dharma. But this "deceiving/confusing the enemies" part, though may be for the same purpose, seems to have a wider reach including the philosophical perspectives as well ( meaning create confusion in the minds of people who are the enemies as compared to the widely held notion of destroying them physically in real battles ).

It is possible that I am misinterpreting all this. Can someone elaborate?

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 02 Aug 2009, 00:13

vasanthakokilam wrote:But this "deceiving/confusing the enemies" part, though may be for the same purpose, seems to have a wider reach including the philosophical perspectives as well ( meaning create confusion in the minds of people who are the enemies as compared to the widely held notion of destroying them physically in real battles ).

The idea of avatAra seems to be strongly linked to the notion of a deception..

the avatAra-s are all vESa-s or (dis)guises and stotra-s describing them often use prefixes like maya/ kuhana etc, which mean delusion/masquerade...

1. vAmana - Wasn't it plain cheating to ask for three-feetslength when one wore size 4 pAdukA-s, and then chose to measure it out using a form of cosmic proportions.. Wasn't the very form of a brahmacArin an imposture..?

2.a mOhinI - A highly capitalist, non-egalitarian inequitable distribution of the spoils, perpetrated by the ultimate conman disguised as the enchantress par excellence..

2.b mOhini - made that poor ash-demon dance to Her/His tunes before pulling the switch on auto-incinerate..

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 02 Aug 2009, 07:12

I wouldn't call it deception - just Maha Vishnu is seen to outsmart the asuras in many of the avatars.

Another example is Narasimha who found the loop hole in Hiranyakashipu's boon of immortality. ie he could not die within any residence or outside any residence, during the daytime or at night, on the ground or in the sky, by any weapon, nor by any human being or animal.

[img=narasimha]http://blogs.epicindia.com/bhagavatam/i ... simha2.jpg[/img]

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 03 Aug 2009, 02:06

Interesting points. Keerthi, I liked your size 4 pAdukA description for vAmana

I see the point about deception of that kind to find some loopholes in the boon given by another godhead etc.( though it looks like our gods do not seem to foresee the potential problems of their boon-giving activities, but that is a separate topic ). At a rough level, it is like putting away the mafia chieftain on tax evasion charges rather than on the much heinous crimes since they are hard to prove in a court of law.

That I knew. But what was new from that little conversation with the madwacharya follower is at a subtler level. He would not go too deep into that. It was in a mixed company and he feared that his notions usually result in major debates and often hurt feelings. I vaguely recall that the talk of the position of Buddha as an avatar was part of the discussion.

The two things I remember are

1. The birth star of both rAmA and krishnA are inauspicious and that is not an accident.

2. The deception is not just about physical battles. It is about 'adharma' in philosophical concepts about God in the various schools, to battle these soft enemies through deception of various kinds. ( possibly putting in some statements in sacred books that are known to be false by the author but put them there anyway to confuse these soft enemies -- my own extended interpretation, beware ).

What I recall now is when he was making these statements about these other false-philosophies and the avatars are there to vanquish them and re-establish the true concept about God, the 'anti-christ' type concept came to my mind as a parallel but let us not go there too far...

That was all new to me. I asked around about this and I was a bit surprised that others thought this is no big deal and it is all part of parcel of Hinduism, may be specific to some school(s).

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 03 Aug 2009, 06:35

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 03 Aug 2009, 15:14

vasanthakokilam wrote:The birth star of both rAmA and krishnA are inauspicious and that is not an accident.

Was it their birth nakshatras or rather their thithis (ashtami and navami) that were inauspicious?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 03 Aug 2009, 23:10

hmmm... I do not quite recall what he said, but thinking about it further he probably meant the thithis.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 04 Aug 2009, 04:31

Keerthi,
I liked your post

VKokilam,
nALenna Seyyum, kOL enna Seyyum? Translated: what has the day (tithi) got to do with it, what sway do the planets and stars have too! While some popular sayings put down certain stars because they rhyme with some negative words, the gods were gracious enough to be born on navami and ashTami

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 04 Aug 2009, 06:38

Arasi: Quite true. That suits me fine personally. Traditionally even rAma and krishna bakthas treat these two dates with a negative connotation. This person I mentioned above offered the 'deceipt' theory for this and other things. It was new to me then but not to others.

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 05 Aug 2009, 20:12

vk,arasi,
thanks..

vk wrote: 2. The deception is not just about physical battles. It is about 'adharma' in philosophical concepts about God in the various schools, to battle these soft enemies through deception of various kinds. ( possibly putting in some statements in sacred books that are known to be false by the author but put them there anyway to confuse these soft enemies -- my own extended interpretation, beware ).

In the above post, i have only listed cases where ViSNu has put on guises.. I haven't given cases where he has 'cheated' or listed events of deceit by other deities..

Such acts are dubbed anIti and not adharma, and are justified by the argument of the lesser evil for the greater good and/or the end justifies the means