Reposting: Question on Incarnations

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

Again sorry for the delayed response.

> Does this mean, for realised souls there was no incarnation of Vishnu? If
> this is so what did the realised souls like Sadashiva Brah., Madhusudhana
> Sar.
> sing about and adore ? Did they perform this bhakti for the sake of normal
> people to set an easy example ? Otherwise, bhakti inspite of non-dual
> realisation
> will amount to abhimAnA? Won't it?
>

The difference is that even if they were outwardly looking at a
murti of Vishnu Bhagawan what they actually perceived was nothing other
than the imperishable atman.

> So, after all what was "really" great in Sri Krishna's embodiment ?

Have YOU tried killing an asura lately? :-)

>If He is
> same as the one Universal Soul that is all of us (as one), who are those
> "sAdhUs" and "dhushkr~ths" in that verse "parithrANAya sAdhUnAm" ? So are
> there different levels of defining a True statement..

The difference is we are afflicted by avidya and the burdens of our karma.
Even the jivanmukta must ride out the last remnants of his prarabdha
karma.  But Bhagawan only appears to be bound by karma and avidya.  Why
the necessity for such disguise?  Arjuna may have been a sadhupurusha but
he wasn't perfect.  He asked Krishna Bhagawan to show his Vishwarupa but
when he actually saw it he was stricken by terror and begged Bhagawan to
return to the form of his childhood friend.

> Otherwise Krishna's
> declaration "sambhavAmi yugE yugE" and that whole verse and many more to
> come,
> will all amount to a lie in the ultimate sense. Won't it? Please clarify ...
>

In the ultimate sense it isn't true.  Because from the highrest standpoint
there is no birth and death.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>