06-12-2007, 08:08 PM
Viren,
Agree that Yechuri's attempt is feeble, tentative and occasionally untrue.
Regarding Balarama being an avatAra, I think this is present in the famous "dashAvatAra-stuti" written by jayadeva in his book "gIta-govindam".
http://www.guruvayurappantemple.org/pdfs/D...ra_Sanskrit.pdf
In that stuti, ten avatAra of "keshava" are mentioned. But curiously the krishna avtar is missing from the list! Instead he lists "balarAma" or "haladhara" as the avatAra between rAma and buddha.
The refrain is:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->keshava dR^ita (avatAra-name) sharIra/rUpa, jaya jagadIsha hare.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Referring to balarAma it says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->keshava dR^ita haladhara-rUpa, jaya jagadIsha hare.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only explanation I can give is that instead of considering the 10 avatAra's as those of vishNu, the writer claims them to be avatAra's of kR^ishNa. Therefore listing him as his own avatAra becomes superfluous. Henec balarAma as an avatAra.
I guess someone more conversant with gaudIya vaishnavism could clarify this issue better.
P.S. Some interesting discussion here
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index....wtopic=275
Agree that Yechuri's attempt is feeble, tentative and occasionally untrue.
Regarding Balarama being an avatAra, I think this is present in the famous "dashAvatAra-stuti" written by jayadeva in his book "gIta-govindam".
http://www.guruvayurappantemple.org/pdfs/D...ra_Sanskrit.pdf
In that stuti, ten avatAra of "keshava" are mentioned. But curiously the krishna avtar is missing from the list! Instead he lists "balarAma" or "haladhara" as the avatAra between rAma and buddha.
The refrain is:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->keshava dR^ita (avatAra-name) sharIra/rUpa, jaya jagadIsha hare.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Referring to balarAma it says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->keshava dR^ita haladhara-rUpa, jaya jagadIsha hare.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only explanation I can give is that instead of considering the 10 avatAra's as those of vishNu, the writer claims them to be avatAra's of kR^ishNa. Therefore listing him as his own avatAra becomes superfluous. Henec balarAma as an avatAra.
I guess someone more conversant with gaudIya vaishnavism could clarify this issue better.
P.S. Some interesting discussion here
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index....wtopic=275