Dasa Avatars(In response to Shri B. Shankar)

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

>Please explain why you feel that the Shakti of Narayana cannot be an
>Avatar. Surely this presents a far better case than the Buddha.

When I said she is not an avatar, I meant she is not an avatar of nArAyaNa.
Of course she could be an avatar of Durga.

>For me the rejection of the Vedas represents an unequivocal argument
>against the Buddha as an Avatar. After all, and correct me if I am >wrong,
>the purpose of the first Avatar was to recover the Vedas from the >cosmic
>ocean to teach Brahma.

In BG Krishna says, " When dharma is at risk and adharma dominates, I will
take an incarnation".

If you interpret dharma in the above statement to mean dharma of Manu or
varNAshram dharma, then Krishna would be taking an incarnation everytime
molten metal is not being poured into the poor sUdra's eyes, ears, mouth
etc, whenever he(the sUdra) studies the vedas.

If you interpret dharma as the rejection of vedic rituals, then you would be
accusing Sri Adi Shankara of adharma.

Whatever anyone might say, buddha's teachings closely follow that of the
upanishads, though there are differences. The purpose of Buddha's rejection
of vedas could be to make people come out of ritualism.

Please visit the following web-site and see for yourself how close Buddha's
teachings are, to our own beliefs. The website is -

http://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com/buddhism.htm

And please tell me in what way did Buddha commit adharma?

Best Regards
Kalyan

_________________________________________________________________
See the stars. Upclose!
http://www.sulekha.com/movies/moviepicturegalleries.asp Bollywood
photogallery.