Dasa Avatars

[Malolan Cadambi]

> **********************************************************************
> BalarAma AvatAra
> This AvatAra and that of Sri KRISHNA happened in DvApara yuga. Vasudeva's
> first wife was Rohini. The second wife was Devaki. For the seventh time
> Devaki conceived and it was BalarAma. But, by Lord's `Yogamaya' the foetus
> was transferred from the womb of Devaki to that of Rohini. So, it is the
> self
> same VishNu
> who played a dual role as KrishNa and BalarAma, though some hold that like
> Lakshmana in TrEta yuga, BalarAma in DvApara yuga was the manifestation of
> Aadhisesha. BALARAMA AVATARA was not a PURNA AVATARA, say some scholars.
> ***********************************************************************
>
> Elsewhere it also says
>
> ***********************************************************************
> BalarAma avatAram (8th in the list) is not taken by PerumAL
>   Himself directly. BalarAma is an avatAram of AdisEsha only. But,
>   Lord invested more potencies unto AdisEsha for performing some
>   leelAs as BalarAma. Though as a nitya-sUri he can perform many
>   leelAs, its just the will of PerumAL in investing some potencies
>   unto BalarAmar and thus counted as a (secondary) avatAram of   PerumAL.
> ***********************************************************************
>
> What should I figure out from this?

These two points:

*the manifestation of Aadhisesha. BALARAMA AVATARA was not a _PURNA
AVATARA_, say some scholars.
*BalarAma avatAram (8th in the list) is not taken by PerumAL Himself
directly. BalarAma is an avatAram of AdisEsha only. But, Lord invested more
potencies unto AdisEsha for performing some leelAs as BalarAma.

> Obviously, I am not going to believe that duality exists in the state of
> liberation, inspite of an AchAryA saying it. Nor did I ever believe Sri
Adi
> Shankara's advaita, just because I was born in that tradition. If an
> AchAryA's word is perfect, why would there be another AchAryA to dispute
it?

Kalyan, you are firing an unwanted trajectory. Lets get basics right, I
never implied that all acharyas accept the same position with regard to the
atman and brahman. Irrespective of any position, all achArya-s do not give
any credit to Siddartha Gautama being the Buddha Avatara of Lord Vishnu. I
think there is proof beyond doubt that SG was not an avataram of Vishnu. It
is upto you to belive it or not, I cannot convince the horse to drink water
unless it is thirsty.

> If you still maintain that Balarama is an incarnation, you would be
lowering
> the status of nArAyaNa Himself(as Balarama was not always on the side of
> dharma.) It is upto you whether you want to believe your AchAryA and lower
> the status of nArAyaNa.

Narayana lied to the Asura-s during Mohini avatAram. For that matter,
Krishna, the butter thief is well publicised. Would that still lower the
status of nArAyana? There are many instances in the Ramayana - for example,
when Rama gets very angry after the abduction of Sita and wants to destory
the entire world - thereby displaying krOdha.

Can you accusse Bhishma of Adharma, since he sided with the Kauravas? And
Krishna, before the war clearly states that one could either have him on
their side or his army, in which Balarama was a part of. Duryodhana clearly
chose the army and the Pandavas, Krishna. In the same light as you say
above, can we accusse Kripa, Drona and Karna of adharma?

Regards,

Malolan