Dandavat Pranam,
I was recently reading Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 1 chapter 3, commentaries by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
Lord Buddha is described as an indirectly empowered incarnation, where as Sri Narada is described as directly empowered. I can understand that they are both Sakti Avesa Avatars. How can I understand the different kinds of Sakti Avesa Avataras that are indicated by these statements? Where have these different types of avatars been described in the sastras?
Thanking you in advance for your answers.
Your Servant,
Atmananda dasa
Dandavat Pranam,
I was recently reading Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 1 chapter 3, commentaries by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
Lord Buddha is described as an indirectly empowered incarnation, where as Sri Narada is described as directly empowered. I can understand that they are both Sakti Avesa Avatars. How can I understand the different kinds of Sakti Avesa Avataras that are indicated by these statements? Where have these different types of avatars been described in the sastras?
Thanking you in advance for your answers.
Your Servant,
Atmananda dasa
Prabhupada writes elsewhere in the same chapter:
"Apart from the direct incarnations, there are innumerable empowered incarnations. They are also mentioned in the revealed scriptures. Such incarnations are directly as well as indirectly empowered. When they are directly empowered they are called incarnations, but when they are indirectly empowered they are called vibhütis. Directly empowered incarnations are the Kumäras, Närada, Prthu, Sesa, Ananta, etc. As far as vibhutis are concerned, they are very explicitly described in the Bhagavad-gita in the Vibhuti-yoga chapter."
Although Sri Krsna does not say in the Gita "Of the wise I am Buddha," this seems to be how Prabhupada thinks of Buddhadeva. Mahaprabhu in his siksa to Sanatana Goswami makes such a disctinction between direct and indirect avesa avataras.
saktyavesa dui-rupa—‘mukhya’, ‘gauna’ dekhi
saksat-saktye ‘avatara’, abhase ‘vibhuti’ likhi
“Empowered incarnations are of two types—primary and secondary. The primary ones are directly empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are called incarnations. The secondary ones are indirectly empowered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and are called vibhuti."
Look to Laghu-bhagavatamrta for more insight, if anywhere.
Ananta and Sesa? Wouldn't Ananta be an expansion?
Ananta and Sesa? Wouldn't Ananta be an expansion?
vaikunthe ‘sesa’—dharä dharaye ‘ananta’
ei mukhyavesavatära—vistare nahi anta
"Lord Sesa in the spiritual world of Vaikuntha and, in the material world, Lord Ananta, who carries innumerable planets on His hood, are two primary empowered incarnations. There is no need to count the others, for they are unlimited." Here "primary" means "direct."
Another way to look at the indirect and direct avesa avataras is that when the Lord incarnates with a specific power the avesa is direct, and when a jiva is empowered by the Lord the avesa is indirect.
Aren't narada and kumaras constituted of jiva shakti. How can we put them in same category as Sesa and Ananta which are visnu tattva( I hope I am correct on this account).
Right, I mean, my question was the opposite. How can we say that Sesa or Ananta are "empowered" incarnations if they are expansions of Balarama, and therefore Visnu Tattva? They have all the power they want.
At any rate, it's time I learned to distinguish between all those terms, like manifestations, plenary portions, incarnations, avataras, svamsa, vibhinnamsa, expansions...
Aren't narada and kumaras constituted of jiva shakti. How can we put them in same category as Sesa and Ananta which are visnu tattva( I hope I am correct on this account).
'sanakädi', 'närada', 'prthu' 'parasurama'
jiva-rüpa 'brahmara' avesavatara-nama
"Some saktyavesa-avataras are the four Kumaras, Narada, Maharaja Prthu and Parasurama. When a living being is empowered to act as Lord Brahmä, he is also considered a saktyavesa-avatara."
Here Narada and the Kumaras are described along with Brhama as jiva rupa avesavataras, whereas in the following verse Sesa is described as a mukhyavesavatara.
It is confusing to me. In this quote from Hari Nama Cintamani it all breaks down to degrees. But I still don't quite understand .
“Lord Narayana, the Lord of Vaikuntha, is Lord Krsna's vilasa-vigraha or partial expansion. In Vaikuntha, Sankarsana expands as Maha-Visnu, who lies in the Causal Ocean. This is the first purusa expansion. The next purusa expansion is Garbhodakasayi Visnu, the source of Lord Brahma. He enters every universe as the purusa-avatara. He further expands as Ksirodakasayi Visnu, the Supersoul within every living entity. These three Visnus are the purusa expansions. Ksirodakasayi Visnu is the source of the incarnations like the Fish (Matsya), Tortoise (Kurma) etc. All these incarnations are forms of the Visnu principle of the Supreme Godhead, and are ornamented with sixty transcendental characteristics. The saktyavesa-avataras are jiva-tattva in whom the potency of the Lord descends. They are the Lord's separated expansions or vibhinnamsa, and are exemplified as Parasurama, Buddha, Prthu, and so on.
“The Supreme Lord's separated parts or vibhinnamsa are of two categories. Ordinary jivas possess only the first fifty of the Lord's sixty-four transcendental characteristics, and these in miniscule quantity. But in the second category of jivas, including demigods like Lord Siva and others, the same fifty characteristics are found in full potency; additionally, the next five qualities are partially evident. However, these five qualities are exhibited in full potency only by the Visnu category.
It is confusing to me. In this quote from Hari Nama Cintamani it all breaks down to degrees. But I still don't quite understand .
The difinitive book on this subject (avataras, expansions, etc.) is Sri Rupa's Laghu-bhagavatamrta. It is represented to some extent in Cc (Sanatana siksa). From my reading of various acaryas (including Sri Jiva) representing this source material I have found apparent minor contradictions as to who is the source of the avataras in this world (which Visnu) and who is who in terms of gauna (indirect) and mukhya (direct) avesa avataras.
I am not clear on exactly what your confusion is, Gandiva.
In one sense the esence of all of this break down and the purpose of books like Laghu-bhagavatamrta is to establish that Sri Krsna is svayam bhagavan. Everyone should be clear on that, and if you are, then you have got the point.
The difinitive book on this subject (avataras, expansions, etc.) is Sri Rupa's Laghu-bhagavatamrta. It is represented to some extent in Cc (Sanatana siksa). From my reading of various acaryas (including Sri Jiva) representing this source material I have found apparent minor contradictions as to who is the source of the avataras in this world (which Visnu) and who is who in terms of gauna (indirect) and mukhya (direct) avesa avataras.
I am not clear on exactly what your confusion is, Gandiva.
In one sense the esence of all of this break down and the purpose of books like Laghu-bhagavatamrta is to establish that Sri Krsna is svayam bhagavan. Everyone should be clear on that, and if you are, then you have got the point.
Thank you Maharaj,
Yes, I get that point (at least in theory), I guess my real confusion lies in understanding how jiva tattva, empowered saktyavesa incarnations , are sometimes so broadly defined like in the quotes below by Srila Prabhupada, and then incarnations such as Lord Buddha are counted amongst our Dasavataras and worshiped along with Rama and Balarama.
"Anyone, not only Lord Buddha or others, but anyone, Lord, in the Bhagavad-gitä it is stated, anyone who has got some extraordinary power, uncommon power, he's to be considered vibhu. Saktyavesavatära, there are two kinds, one directly empowered for particular mission, comes from the transcendental spiritual sky, and others, those who are in this material world, but they have got some specific power, uncommon power, not found in ordinary man. They are called vibhüti. This vibhüti (is) explained in the Bhagavad-gitä: yad yad vibhütimat sattvaà mama tejo-'àça sambhavam. That is out of the opulence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
"Yes. Saktyävesa avatära, somebody empowered by Him, not Krishna Himself. Just like Christ. Christ is also empowered incarnation.Saktyavesa avatära. Mohammed is also. Anyone who is preaching about God is empowered incarnation. Krishna-shakti vinä nähi Krishna näma-pracära. That is there in the Caitanya-caritämåta." [break]
"Yes, there are different types of Saktyävesa avatära. So when an ordinary jiva is specially empowered, he is called Saktyävesa avatära, Saktyävesa avatära, vibhüti. Yad yad vibhütimat sattvam. He is living entity, but especially empowered. Just like for certain business I give sometimes somebody power of attorney, that "He will do this. He will sign for me." Like that. He is also one of the disciples, but for particular purpose, he is given the power of attorney. In this way when a living entity is empowered specifically to do something, that is called Saktyävesa avatära. Aveña avatära. Kåñëa çakti vinä nähe näma pracära. That is explained in the... These are explained in the Caitanya-caritämåta. [break] ...çaktya. Mama tejo-'àça-sambhavam. So Saktyävesa avatära is not viñsu-tattva. He is jiva-tattva. So the Lord Jesus Christ or Lord Buddha, they come within the jiva-tattva especial power."
Yes, I get that point (at least in theory), I guess my real confusion lies in understanding how jiva tattva, empowered saktyavesa incarnations , are sometimes so broadly defined like in the quotes below by Srila Prabhupada, and then incarnations such as Lord Buddha are counted amongst our Dasavataras and worshiped along with Rama and Balarama.
I think that the term saktyavesa has a broad application in terms of its literal meaning. The Goswamis have used it in two ways, direct and indirect or primary and secondary. Then among the secondary category the definition extends quite far to include all powerful manifestations of nature (vibhutis).
As for the Dasavataras, both Parasarama and Buddha are saktyavesa avataras, and although they are secondary or indirect, being empowered jivas, they are very powerful examples of this type of avatara and thus they have been included by Jayadeva in his stotram.
Oh, the dasavatara is Jayadeva's concept? I thought it was more of a Vedic thing, like those ten avataras had been singled out in the sastra for being recurring every maha-yuga, and Jayadeva wrote a poem about them.
Oh, the dasavatara is Jayadeva's concept? I thought it was more of a Vedic thing, like those ten avataras had been singled out in the sastra for being recurring every maha-yuga, and Jayadeva wrote a poem about them.
Where in the Veda? Not in the Bhagavata.
ok thankyou Maharaj it makes more sense .
I guess it may be a sensitive issue to me because of the almost deification of Srila Prabhupada that I perceive from a certain faction and sometimes seemed to me to actually minimize Srila Prabhupada's efforts,acheivements and the bhakti process , I appreciated Srila Sridhar Maharaj's point that recognizing someone as saktyavesa avatara doesn't minimize their qualification and contribution before and that to receive that shakti one must be a fit receptacle.
I also found this
Dasavataras
Q: Lord Buddha described as one of the Dasavataras and as a saktyavesa avatara. Which is correct?
A: Both are correct. The word "dasavatara" or "dasa-avatara" denotes not a category of avataras like yuga-, lila-, manvantara-, or other avataras but the most famous list of ten avataras (in Sanskrit "dasa" = "10"). This list is to be found e.g. in Garuda Purana 1.86.10-11 (or, according to other numbering, 2.30.37). There are other lists as well, like 25 avataras in Bhagavata Purana 1.3 but these ten are the most popular ones. They are often depicted by artists and celebrated by poets like Jayadeva Gosvami in his Dasavatara-stotra.
Where in the Veda? Not in the Bhagavata.
I think if I am not mistaken Visnu Purana does talk of 10 incarnations but it does not include buddha. It includes both balarama and krsna in the ten.
Does directly and indirectly empowered have anything to do with the particular mission of the avatara? For instance, Lord Buddha was not directly giving devotional service, but just stopping violence, whereas Narada is directly giving devotional service.
The definitive book on this subject (avataras, expansions, etc.) is Sri Rupa's Laghu-bhagavatamrta.
Here is a link to a pdf of part one of this book:
Does directly and indirectly empowered have anything to do with the particular mission of the avatara? For instance, Lord Buddha was not directly giving devotional service, but just stopping violence, whereas Narada is directly giving devotional service.
No, because there are many "indirect" saktyavesa avataras who did not preach something like Buddhism. I think you are reading too much into the translated English word "indirect." It could just as well have been translated "secondary." Empowered jivas are seconday saktyavesa and Visnu-tattva empowered for a particualr purpose are primary saktyavesa.
No, because there are many "indirect" saktyavesa avataras who did not preach something like Buddhism. I think you are reading too much into the translated English word "indirect." It could just as well have been translated "secondary." Empowered jivas are seconday saktyavesa and Visnu-tattva empowered for a particualr purpose are primary saktyavesa.
Thank you! It is very clear now.
The S.B talks about sage atri pleasing three gods brahma, visnu and siva and so visnu is born as dattatreya. But dattatreya is also jiva tattva right? Similarly prabhupada mentions parasurama as visnu tattva http://www.krsnabook.com/ch82.html and some other places in S.B.
So can it be because of too much extensive books to edit there are inconsistencies in these things? But to say that is considered offensive as prabhupada's books should not be edited at any cost but by doing so actually they do disservice to them.