Incarnations - A Discourse

Dear John,

I am attaching your message, that prompted this long reply. (Kindly bear with the length)

Actually, both. This Gita commentary I'm reading suggests this: when things get really out of whack down here, really evil, and enlightened soul, free from the cylces of samsara, voluntarily incarnates as a great teacher. Since this soul had achieved reunion with the Divine Principle, technically they are an avatar of the Divine. What do you think of this?

This is what I have to say in reply:

This clearly refers to Incarnations and not Re-births. In Hindu Mythology, Lord Vishnu took several Avatars to destroy evil. There are lot of points here that I do not understand. In the 14th Chapter of The Gita, Krishna describes the characteristics of the Divine and the Demonic and I am using this as a basis for my arguments.

Let me take the Ramayana or the avatar of Rama. The chief purpose of this incarnation was to slay Ravana, the demon king of Lanka. In fact throughout the story, the two are projected as opposite poles. I do not find Ravana to be Evil Personified. He was a great and noble king, peerless warrior and looked after his subjects well - in other words he performed his official and personal duties to the best of his ability. He was kind, generous and amiable. I am not saying he was the epitome of virtue. He did have his flaws - his lust for women. But one must remember that Ravana was born to a sage and the princess of the demons. So his natural instincts could have been that of a demon (Isnt, blaming an lion for being a lion, unfair?)

In spite of that he displayed some good characteristics, presumably inherited from his father. What I am confused about is this:

Why was Ravana considered the representative of all things evil? He had an equal mix of the good and the evil, just like every other human being. Why was he singled out to be tainted? Who can be more evil that Kaikeyi, the step mother of Rama, who plotted against his ascension, thus indirectly killing her husband (who died in sorrow when Rama left for the forest)? But Rama was ready to forgive her. Agreed Ravana lusted after a married woman. But he displays none of the qualities described as demonic, by Krishna in the Gita except for this one.

My grandfather has something interesting to say about this. He says that Ravana was a great man and being greater than you and I, he ought to have known better than to lust after a married woman. So his failing was greater than that of a normal man, because he was blessed with greater wisdom. Makes sense, but I think Ravana was held responsible for his natural instinct. Even after abducting Sita, he did not take her forcefully, but patiently waited for her consent which shows he is not an animal. In all probability, a man, whose mind though blinded by love and lust, had full control over the appetites of his body.

The same can be said for Duryodhana in Mahabharatha (He displays such loyalty and love towards his friends that it sometimes astounds me) and in almost all other incarnations of Vishnu, the so called villain, is not actually a villain. Atlease not more villanous than any of us :-))

Rama displayed none of the characteristics of a Great Teacher or the Divine Soul. He slayed the abductor of hsi wife to reclaim her (Sounds a bit like Troy?) Yes, Krishna can be called the Teacher. Again he imparted his wisdom to Arjune who was naturally divine and not to Duryodhana. If you notice, Krishna held a natural affection for The Pandavas, which made Duryodhana distrust him. (I think it is only natural)

Belief in the theory of Karma (re births) and Avatars (reincarnations) again presupposes that one is a believer. I am a sceptic. In fact, I don't believe in belief and so they hold no value to me. Rather I think these theories, as put forward in the scriptures, are used to emphasise the difference between good and evil. They could well be elements of good story-telling.

There is no scientific proof of the existence of re births. Maybe I do not have the "vision". But I'd rather believe in something I "can see" than something I think I may/may not be "capable of seeing." One more question: Is your message an interpretation of the commentator or is this theory of Avatar, really mentioned in the Bhagavadgita. I am currently trying to read the Gita in Sanskrit without any interpretations as much as possible. But I am finding it difficult as my knowledge of Sanskrit is very meagre.

I may be very wrong in my conclusions.. So I would like to hear your opinions on my scepticism. Since you have read a lot, you may have some refutations (based on your vast knowledge in philosophy) which I am very interested in hearing.

Awaiting your reply on Avatars...

cheers,
Meera.

--X--

If this discussion continues to grow interesting, I will publish the same.