Incarnation of God...

[imranhasan]

Greetings to all,

 

During my initial exposure of Hindu theology, I have come accross the thought that during various times, God incarnated himself in various physical entities and that the idols worshiped by the Hindus are, in fact, images of these physical incarnations of God. Is this true? Is the idea of physical incarnations of God an essential belief of Hinduism?

 

My question with respect to the incarnations of God is: why did God need to incarnate himself in a limited physical being at any given time?

 

Thank you.

[Avinash]

There are many scriptures of Hinduism. Puranas are included in these. Some people (e.g. those belonging to Arya Samaj) do not believe in the stories written in Puranas (at least not literally). But that is their personal belief. If we go by what Puranas say, then God has incarnated many times in various forms. So, according to the scriptures of Hinduism, incarnation is an essential belief.

 

Different incarnations were for different reasons. If you mention any specific incarnation, then I will try to tell some of the reasons why that incarnation happened.

[imranhasan]

Thank you very much my brother, Avinash

 

There are many scriptures of Hinduism. Puranas are included in these. Some people (e.g. those belonging to Arya Samaj) do not believe in the stories written in Puranas (at least not literally). But that is their personal belief. If we go by what Puranas say, then God has incarnated many times in various forms. So, according to the scriptures of Hinduism, incarnation is an essential belief.

Without intending any disrespect towards any of my brothers here, can I ask if the Arya Samaj, because of not believing in the Stories of the Puranas, cannot be considered as Hindus? I ask this question only because when you say that they don't believe in God's incarnation, while "according to the scriptures of Hinduism, incarnation is an essential belief", then, it seems that those who do not accept this belief, would not be Hindus. Am I correct? I am sorry, if this is a wrong question, you may ignore answering it, as it is not even directly related to the topic of this thread.

 

Different incarnations were for different reasons. If you mention any specific incarnation, then I will try to tell some of the reasons why that incarnation happened.

Please excuse my ignorance. I am not even aware of any of these incarnations. How can I ask about the reason for any one of these. Can you pick up one, from the many and let me know why God incarnated Himself in that particular case.

Thank you very much for your time. God bless you.

[Avinash]

 

Without intending any disrespect towards any of my brothers here, can I ask if the Arya Samaj, because of not believing in the Stories of the Puranas, cannot be considered as Hindus? I ask this question only because when you say that they don't believe in God's incarnation, while "according to the scriptures of Hinduism, incarnation is an essential belief", then, it seems that those who do not accept this belief, would not be Hindus.

While I do not consider the question as wrong, it is difficult to answer. Arya Samaj was founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in 1875. He did not like what many Hindus of that time were doing. He did not like untouchability and deplorable condition of women, which were quite common in those days. He did not like worship of statues. He did not believe in the concept of incarnation. He started Arya Samaj as a reformist movement. He believed strongly in Vedas (scriptures of Hinduism) and considered them as divine and hence faultless. But he did not believe in Puranas (another set of scriptures of Hinduism), because Puranas contain stories of various incarnations; some Puranas contain various methods of statue-worship and they contain many other things which Dayanand Saraswati did not believe in. He said that the stories in Puranas were later additions by man and were not divine.

In this sense, Arya Samaj is an offshoot of Hinduism. But their beliefs are radically different from what is commonly considered as beliefs of Hinduism. For example, it is well known that Hindus go to temples, which contain statues. Arya Samajis do not believe in statue worship. In that sense, we can say that they are not Hindus. By saying this, we do not cause any disrespect to them because even they believe that they are not hindus (at least the way hindus are commonly believed to be).

So, I feel that while tryng to understand Hinduism, you can safely assume that Arya Samajis are not Hindus. If you want to learn Arya Samaj, then that should be done separately.

 

Please excuse my ignorance. I am not even aware of any of these incarnations. How can I ask about the reason for any one of these. Can you pick up one, from the many and let me know why God incarnated Himself in that particular case.

There are many incarnations. Let me take the example of Nrisimha. There was a teenager named Prahlad. His father was king Hiranyakashipu. Hiranyakashipu said that he was God and everybody should worship him. He tortured and even killed those who did not. Out of fear, many started worshipping him as God. But his own son Prahlad did not agree with him. He showed respect to his father but did not consider him as God. Hiranyakashipu tried to convince Prahlad in many ways:- by talking lovingly, by giving arguments, through threats. When nothing worked, he tried to kill Prahlad. But, because of blessings of God, Prahlad always escaped.

One day Hiranyakashipu angrily asked Prahlad, "Where is your God?"

Prahlad: "Everywhere."

Hiranyakashipu (pointing to a pillar): "Then he should be in this pillar too. If so, then let him come out of the pillar."

Saying this, Hiranyakashipu hit that pillar. Out came Lord Nrisimha (a man-lion incarnation). His form was partly man and partly lion. He killed Hiranyakashipu.

Hiranyakashipu had a boon that he could not be killed either on land or in sky, either in fire or in water, either during daytime or during nighttime, either by humans or gods or birds or animals or any other species found in the world, either inside his house or outside. Note: I have used and henceforth will be using god (lowercase 'g') to mean demigod and God (uppercase 'g') to mean supreme God.

Lord Nrisimha, being God Himself, did not belong to any of the species found in the world. He killed Hiranyakashipu in the evening, thus neither day nor night. To hill Hiranyakashipu, Lord Nrisimha put him on His lap, thus neither on land, nor in sky; neither in fire nor in water. Hiranyakashipu also had a boon that he could be killed neither inside his house nor outside. Lord Nrisimha took him to the entrance of his palace and killed him there.

[imranhasan]

Thank you very much, Avinash. Your introduction of the Arya Samaj is truly enlightening and extremely interesting. It does raise a few questions in my mind, but I think we should defer these till I understand the basic issue under consideration here. Thank you.

However, there is just one question that I would like you to briefly throw some light on. You write:

 

But he did not believe in Puranas (another set of scriptures of Hinduism), because Puranas contain stories of various incarnations; some Puranas contain various methods of statue-worship and they contain many other things which Dayanand Saraswati did not believe in. He said that the stories in Puranas were later additions by man and were not divine.

Do you mean that Mr. Saraswati rejected the divine origin of the Puranas, merely on the basis that he didn't want to believe in what they said? Did he have no academic basis of challenging the divine origin of these puranas and yet he challenged them just to get rid of some of the beliefs? Did he have ANY academic basis of challenging these beliefs propagated by the Puranas? I find this quite intriguing. Nevertheless, if you so decide, we can take this up, later.

 

There are many incarnations. Let me take the example of Nrisimha. There was a teenager named Prahlad... Lord Nrisimha took him to the entrance of his palace and killed him there.

This is an interesting and, to my mind, a fantastic story. I'd like to ask a few questions about it, but that would take us away from our basic topic. I would, therefore, try to keep any questions on this story aside, for the time being.

If I were to derive the reason for the incarnation of God at the instance referred to in the story, I'd probably term it as keeping the evil of Hiranyakashipu under check. Would this be correct?

Thank you very much for your time.

[Avinash]

 

Do you mean that Mr. Saraswati rejected the divine origin of the Puranas, merely on the basis that he didn't want to believe in what they said? Did he have no academic basis of challenging the divine origin of these puranas and yet he challenged them just to get rid of some of the beliefs? Did he have ANY academic basis of challenging these beliefs propagated by the Puranas?

That is right. He had no acadmic basic in rejecting Puranas. He rejected them because he did not like many things which Puranas contain. For example, according to his personal belief, God never incarnated but Puranas contain many incarnation stories.

Of course he gave some interpretations of Vedas and showed that we could not treat Puranas as divine if we assumed Vedas as divine. Some may consider this as academic basis. But, in reality, the basis is not really academic. Puranas did not match his personal belief, and therefore he interpreted Vedas in such a way that some of the contents of Puranas could be shown to be wrong. On that basis, he claimed that Puranas were not of divine origin.

So, irrespective of whatever method he chose to show that Puranas should be rejected, the basis was his personal belief.

 

If I were to derive the reason for the incarnation of God at the instance referred to in the story, I'd probably term it as keeping the evil of Hiranyakashipu under check. Would this be correct?

Scriptures say that, because of our limitations i.e. lack of perfect knowledge, we do not know all the reasons why God does something. A single incarnation may server many purposes. So, it is possible that Nrisimha incarnation was for other reasons as well. However, if you consider the main reason known to man, then the reason was what you mentioned, viz., keeping the evil of Hiranyakashipu in check. Of course, it was also good for devotee Prahlad in the sense that he could see God (though in the form of man-lion).

[imranhasan]

 

Of course he gave some interpretations of Vedas and showed that we could not treat Puranas as divine if we assumed Vedas as divine. Some may consider this as academic basis. But, in reality, the basis is not really academic. Puranas did not match his personal belief, and therefore he interpreted Vedas in such a way that some of the contents of Puranas could be shown to be wrong. On that basis, he claimed that Puranas were not of divine origin.

So, irrespective of whatever method he chose to show that Puranas should be rejected, the basis was his personal belief.

I would love to know more about the Mr. Saraswati's interpretation of the Vedas and his arguments. But, obviously, that should come later.

 

Scriptures say that, because of our limitations i.e. lack of perfect knowledge, we do not know all the reasons why God does something.

I think that is a very valid argument. Indeed, we cannot fathom all the reasons and all aspects of wisdom in any of God's actions. That, truly, is a matter beyond our comprehension and knowledge.

However, when we are required to believe something about God, would it not be reasonable to seek a reason for that belief? Would I be wrong in asking for a reason to believe that God incarnated in various forms?

Please guide. God bless you.

A single incarnation may server many purposes. So, it is possible that Nrisimha incarnation was for other reasons as well. However, if you consider the main reason known to man, then the reason was what you mentioned, viz., keeping the evil of Hiranyakashipu in check. Of course, it was also good for devotee Prahlad in the sense that he could see God (though in the form of man-lion).

[Avinash]

 

However, when we are required to believe something about God, would it not be reasonable to seek a reason for that belief? Would I be wrong in asking for a reason to believe that God incarnated in various forms?

Because of our limitations, we cannot know all the reasons. But, there is nothing wrong in trying to know the reasons (at least some of those). Example: One reason known to us for Nrisimha incarnation was, as mentioned in a previous post, to check the evil of Hiranyakashipu.

[Guest guest]

Dear Imranhasan,

  

  I may not be the right person to answer this. I am just trying to explain what i understand.

  

  I think incarnation of God is required because God wants to show us that even with human body and limitations how to live. As you know best way to lead is to lead from front. Hence, God lived  life with all the limitations and shown us, that, we, as a human being also can be like him or can reach to higher spiritulity level. Someone may doubt that since God has super power it is easy to say to behave like this or stood for values, but, Existance of God in human body and their life with all the limitations can show us path how to live and remove all the doubts.

  

  I will give example of Lord Rama, who took birth as prince but went to jungle for 14 years just to keep his father's word. Though he was Lord he went through all the pain and sorrow of life but still lived the way a human should live. He, never uses any power, this shows we can also live like him. Knowingly that his wife Lord Sitamata would be kidnapped, he ran after the deer because of limitation of human being. Though he knew where Sitamata would be he took help from many others to find her but never reveal the future. He lived as if a humane being passed through all the pain and sorrows what human pass through and shown the mankind how to live. We have everything, power etc.. to be like God. This incarnation is proof of this trooth.

  

  Like wise other incarnations  also throwing light of other aspect of life and human being.

  

  As  wel known fact that it is easy to say or speak but difficult to follow, God has followed his words or as per his wise sayings. God taught us with example how to live.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There are two aspects of the question:1 Various incarnations and 2. Power in stones and images. Various incarnations serve to establish code of conduct and preach a value system to live. These incarnations may or may not be historical figures. It is immaterial. Teaching is important.There is an implicit assumption that any human being can rise to the level of God. Regarding worshipping of images and stones it is merely symbolism.Just like a flag or other embelems. The important thing is it changes the psychology and instill confidence.You select the symbol of your choice and worship it. It will change your personality.Temples of cinema idols or sport personalities or even your wife really belong to same cultural ethos

[imranhasan]

Thank you very much, Avinash,

 

Because of our limitations, we cannot know all the reasons. But, there is nothing wrong in trying to know the reasons (at least some of those). Example: One reason known to us for Nrisimha incarnation was, as mentioned in a previous post, to check the evil of Hiranyakashipu.

Thank you, for the answer. As I had stated earlier, I fully appreciate the point that because of our limitations, we may never be able to understand why God did something that he wants us to believe in. However, when I discussed this point with some of my friends (ascribing to various beliefs), there were some points raised on this concept. Most of these questions were of the nature of debate and lack of appreciation of other's position and stance. I did not have any problem in them and neither do I consider them to be of importance. However, there were a few question, that I find relevant but was unable to answer on my own. Please help me, if you find these questions relevant.

1- Does God have the ability and the power to control everything without making an appearance? If He does, then this cannot be the real reason to make an incarnate appearance. If He does not, how can we hold God to be Omnipotent? Please do comment.

2- When and where did the narrated story of Nrisimeh take place? Do we have any sources, independent of the Puranas, narrating this story?

Thank you very much, my brother. God bless you all.

[Avinash]

 

Does God have the ability and the power to control everything without making an appearance? If He does, then this cannot be the real reason to make an incarnate appearance. If He does not, how can we hold God to be Omnipotent? Please do comment.

God is omnipotent. He has the power to control everything without making an appearance. But, from this we cannot conclude that He never incarnates for the following two reasons:-

1- If God can control something by making appearance and also without this, then there is no reason to believe that one should always be better than the other. If He does something by incarnating, then one can ask why He did not do that without incarnating. So, God does have an alternative way of achieving that. The alternative is not to incarnate. But, just because we are able to give an alternative, we cannot say that the altenative is better than what God really did.

2- What if making appearance is itself one of the purposes that God wants to achieve? For example, what if together with killing Hiranyakashipu, God's purpose was also to appear before His devotee Prahlad?

 

When and where did the narrated story of Nrisimeh take place? Do we have any sources, independent of the Puranas, narrating this story?

There are some other sources also but all of those are either scriptures of Hinduism or taken from the scriptures. I am not aware of any other source.

[gHari]

 

1- Does God have the ability and the power to control everything without making an appearance? If He does, then this cannot be the real reason to make an incarnate appearance. If He does not, how can we hold God to be Omnipotent? Please do comment.

 

The answer to this paradox was given on another thread a few days ago: HERE highlighted within the commentary to God's statement.

Sometimes the leader of a country will send his delegates to perform a function, while at other times he will want to appear himself; perhaps because of who will be there or because of his personal interest in the matter.

I must admit I have used that same argument in my mind when I hear of little girls strapping on bomb vests and blowing up buses. How impotent she must think her god is? But then I guess she thought that because of god's order in the scripture, she was actually doing his will. That is why he created her.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother. God bless you for your enlightening posts.

 

God is omnipotent. He has the power to control everything without making an appearance. But, from this we cannot conclude that He never incarnates for the following two reasons:-

1- If God can control something by making appearance and also without this, then there is no reason to believe that one should always be better than the other. If He does something by incarnating, then one can ask why He did not do that without incarnating. So, God does have an alternative way of achieving that. The alternative is not to incarnate. But, just because we are able to give an alternative, we cannot say that the altenative is better than what God really did.

I assure you, my brother, I never meant that. Please allow me to express my apologies, if my statement implied my suggesting that an alternative course would have been better for God. I really did not mean it that way.

What I had actually meant was that when we believe and agree upon that God has the power to control all kinds of evil without making an appearance, then to say that God made a certain incarnation for checking the evil of 'X' cannot be the main reason for that incarnation. There must be some other reason that can be termed as a main reason. Controlling any evil may be a secondry cause, but not the primary cause. Don't you agree?

 

2- What if making appearance is itself one of the purposes that God wants to achieve? For example, what if together with killing Hiranyakashipu, God's purpose was also to appear before His devotee Prahlad?

My dear brother, I am really not in a position to say what may have been the reason for any of the incarnations of God. 'What if' will only lead us to conjecture about God's actions. As you have rightly stated, because of our limited knowledge, we cannot do that. Does the scripture that informs you about God's incarnation not inform you why God, who normally has preferred not to make an appearance, decided to make an appearance in a particular situation? I am sure, that the reason given by the scripture would really be the most important one.

 

There are some other sources also but all of those are either scriptures of Hinduism or taken from the scriptures. I am not aware of any other source.

So, I would be correct in saying that the only primary source of the information regarding God's incarnation is a particular scripture, that is held to be divine. Is that correct?

[gHari]

The holiest scripture, Srimad-Bhagavatam known as the cream of the Vedas reveals why it is that God comes in Person. Verse 10.33.36:

<CENTER>anugrahAya bhaktAnAM

mAnuSaM deham AsthitaH

bhajate tAdRzIH krIDa

yAH zrutvA tat-paro bhavet

</CENTER>

anugrahAya--to show mercy; bhaktAnAm--to His devotees; mAnuSam--humanlike; deham--a body; AsthitaH--assuming; bhajate--He accepts; tAdRzIH--such; kriDAH--pastimes; yAH--about which; zrutvA--hearing; tat-paraH--dedicated to Him; bhavet--one becomes.

When the Lord assumes a humanlike body to show mercy to His devotees, He engages in such pastimes as will attract those who hear about them to become dedicated to Him.

 

This text is from SrImad-BhAgavatam (10.33.36). The Supreme Personality of Godhead has innumerable expansions of His transcendental form who eternally exist in the spiritual world. This material world is only a perverted reflection of the spiritual world, where everything is manifested without inebriety. There everything is in its original existence, free from the domination of time. Time cannot deteriorate or interfere with the conditions in the spiritual world, where different manifestations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are the recipients of the worship of different living entities in their constitutional spiritual positions. In the spiritual world all existence is unadulterated goodness. The goodness found in the material world is contaminated by the modes of passion and ignorance.

The saying that the human form of life is the best position for devotional service has its special significance because only in this form can a living entity revive his eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The human form is considered the highest state in the cycle of the species of life in the material world. If one takes advantage of this highest kind of material form, one can regain his position of devotional service to the Lord.

Incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead appear in all the species of life, although this is inconceivable to the human brain. The Lord's pastimes are differentiated according to the appreciating capacity of the different types of bodies of the living entities. The Supreme Lord bestows the most merciful benediction upon human society when He appears in His human form. It is then that humanity gets the opportunity to engage in different kinds of eternal service to the Lord.

Special natural appreciation of the descriptions of a particular pastime of Godhead indicates the constitutional position of a living entity. Adoration, servitorship, friendship, parental affection and conjugal love are the five primary relationships with KRSNa. The highest perfectional stage of the conjugal relationship, enriched by many sentiments, gives the maximum relishable mellow to the devotee.

The Lord appears in different incarnations--as a fish, tortoise and boar, as ParazurAma, Lord RAma, Buddha and so on--to reciprocate the different appreciations of living entities in different stages of evolution. The conjugal relationship of amorous love called parakIya-rasa is the unparalleled perfection of love exhibited by Lord KRSNa and His devotees.

[Eternal Law]

 

Incarnation of God...

why did God need to incarnate himself in a limited physical being at any given time?

 

According to the religion of Vedanta, the incarnation of God means the embodiment of divine qualities and divine powers. It takes place whenever and wherever such a manifestation is necessary. The Lord Krishna, in speaking of divine incarnations, said:

‘Wherever true religion declines and irreligion prevails and whenever the vast majority of mankind, forgetting the highest ideal of life, travel on the path of unrighteousness which leads to the bottomless abyss of ignorance, and sorrow, the Supreme Being manifests His divine powers to establish righteousness and true spirituality, by assuming a human form and living in our midst, but at the same time showing to all that He is the real master of nature and absolutely free from all the bondages of the world and its laws’.

Ordinary people, whose spiritual eyes are not open, may not see the difference that exists between his actions and those of a common mortal and may treat him like an ordinary man; but those, who are highly advanced in spirituality, who understand the true nature of the individual soul and of God and of their mutual relation, see the difference at once, recognize his divinity and worship him as the ideal embodiment of divine powers and divine qualities.

Lord Krishna, says in the Bhagavad Gita:

‘People who are deluded by My mysterious power of maya, do not know Me as unborn and unchanging; I am not manifest to them. They unintelligently regard Me in the light of an ordinary being with a material form which is the result of past actions, and know not that I assume at will glorious and holy forms for the protection of the world’.

[imranhasan]

Thank you very much, all my brothers. God bless you.

 

In this post, I will refrain to post my questions on your answers. However, I will post another related question, which may appear to some as irrelevant to this thread. Nonetheless, I really feel that this may help me understand the idea of the belief in incarnation of God. My question is:

 

However large the numbers of the incarnations that one may believe in, it seems that normally God does not make a known physical appearance in this physical world. Why is that so? Why does God not make a known physical appearance, generally?

 

Will greatly appreciate your thoughts as well as some information on what the scriptures say about it?

 

Thank you, very much indeed. God bless you all.

[gHari]

 

Thank you very much, all my brothers. God bless you.

In this post, I will refrain to post my questions on your answers. However, I will post another related question, which may appear to some as irrelevant to this thread. Nonetheless, I really feel that this may help me understand the idea of the belief in incarnation of God. My question is:

However large the numbers of the incarnations that one may believe in, it seems that normally God does not make a known physical appearance in this physical world. Why is that so? Why does God not make a known physical appearance, generally?

Will greatly appreciate your thoughts as well as some information on what the scriptures say about it?

Thank you, very much indeed. God bless you all.

That is what He does. And He does whatever He wants, whether we can understand His motives or not. I know you are eager to meet Him, but that may not change His desire, or maybe it will attract Him. That would be special, and make you feel good since He's not always hanging out at the mall every day on display crushing the fun of everybody who wants to forget Him and just party on.

 

He is present in every atom, and in the heart of every living entity, moving and non-moving, but in that form He can only be seen by advanced yogis. He is visible in His original form somewhere in one of the universes in the world at every moment in the Nitya-lila.

 

It is not that He is snubbing us here at this time - we just aren't qualified to be in His presence. He wouldn't want to embarrass us, or spoil the learning program to perfect our love for Him. Even on our puny planet, few are qualified to meet President Bush. Consider how much more important is God.

 

The final explanation I have heard is that the separation leads to a much more satisfying eventual meeting for both God and us. The common cliche "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" explains this phenomenon.

 

So if you want direct association with God now, you can consider the parable of the Upanishads in which two birds are sitting in a tree. One bird is eating the fruit of the tree, while the other is watching waiting for his bird friend to stop eating and turn to him. So in the heart both the soul and God rest. The soul however is attached to eating the fruit of the tree of the body. But God is there to help at every moment if we give Him a chance (stop eating the fruit of the body and senses and mind).

[gHari]

From Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.34

bhAvayaty eSa sattvena

lokAn vai loka-bhAvanaH

lIlAvatArAnurato

deva-tiryaG-narAdiSu

 

bhAvayati--maintains; eSaH--all these; sattvena--in the mode of goodness; lokAn--all over the universe; vai--generally; loka-bhAvanaH--the master of all the universes; lIlA--pastimes; avatAra--incarnation; anurataH--assuming the role; deva--the demigods; tiryak--lower animals; nara-AdiSu--in the midst of human beings.

 

Thus the Lord of the universes maintains all planets inhabited by demigods, men and lower animals. Assuming the roles of incarnations, He performs pastimes to reclaim those in the mode of pure goodness.

 

PURPORT

There are innumerable material universes, and in each and every universe there are innumerable planets inhabited by different grades of living entities in different modes of nature. The Lord (ViSNu) incarnates Himself in each and every one of them and in each and every type of living society. He manifests His transcendental pastimes amongst them just to create the desire to go back to Godhead. The Lord does not change His original transcendental position, but He appears to be differently manifested according to the particular time, circumstances and society.

Sometimes He incarnates Himself or empowers a suitable living being to act for Him, but in either case the purpose is the same: the Lord wants the suffering living being to go back home, back to Godhead. The happiness which the living beings are hankering for is not to be found within any corner of the innumerable universes and material planets. The eternal happiness which the living being wants is obtainable in the kingdom of God, but the forgetful living beings under the influence of the material modes have no information of the kingdom of God. The Lord, therefore, comes to propagate the message of the kingdom of God, either personally as an incarnation or through His bona fide representative as the good son of God. Such incarnations or sons of God are not making propaganda for going back to Godhead only within the human society. Their work is also going on in all types of societies, amongst demigods and those other than human beings

REFERENCE:

Unlimited Forms of Godhead

The Avataras