2

In ShreemadDeviBhagawatam, First Skandha, Fourth Chapter
Conversation between Vishnu and Brahma

Vishnu says-

शक्तिरूपं महाभाग किं पृच्छसि पुनः पुनः॥ ५२॥
O Highly Fortunate Brahma! even after realizing the Highest Aadyaa Shakti, why are you asking about Her Nature again and again?

यदिच्छः पुरुषो भूत्वा विचरामि महार्णवे।
कच्छपः कोलसिंहश्च वामनश्च युगे युगे॥५६॥
By Her will, I assume this human like body and roam in this great ocean.
And sometimes I assume Tortoise, Human-lion, Dwarf forms in various Yugas.

न कस्यापि प्रियो लोके तिर्यग्योनिषु सम्भवः।
नाभवं स्वेच्छया वामवराहादिषु योनिषु॥५७॥

Who in the world endears birth in wombs of inferior animals? There is none.
O Brahma! do I take these inferior births of tortoise, boar et cetera, because I want to?

विहाय लक्ष्म्या सह संविहारं को याति मत्स्यादिषु हीनयोनिषु।
शय्यां च मुक्त्वा गरुडासनस्थः करोमि युद्धं विपुलं स्वतन्त्रः ॥ ५८ ॥

O Brahma! leaving the pleasures with Lakshmi, who in the world beseeches for birth in heinous and inferior wombs of fish, tortoise, boar et cetera.
Who is that independent man, who leaves the majestic bed of AdiShesha or the grand seat of GarudaRaaja, and becomes assiduous towards the desire of fighting great wars and conflicts?

From the above words of Narayana, it is clear thus- Narayana does not like taking inferior births and incarnations.

So why does He do it?

As in SwiftPushkar's answer, the reason is thus- Vishnu takes Avataara according to need (Human-lion form necessary to kill Hiranyakashipu, Tortoise form necessary to uphold Mandarachala et cetera).

But if above SwiftPushkar's reason is correct, then why does he say- I do not like it. I hate taking birth in lower wombs.

Also, He further declares-

तस्मान्नाहं स्वतन्त्रोऽस्मि शक्त्यधीनोऽस्मि सर्वथा।
तामेव शक्तिं सततं ध्यायामि च निरन्तरम्॥६१॥
Therefore, I am not independent, I am always appurtenant to that AdyaShakti.
I meditate incessantly that Shakti only.

नातः परतरं किञ्चिज्जानामि कमलोद्भव।
O Lotus born Brahma! I do not know anything beyond that Great AadiShakti.

So what is the point in calling Narayana as - ParaBrahma? Though there is no difference in Narayana and AdiShakti, but still

  • 4
    But avatars like boar, man lion, dwarf, tortoise,fish are not born of inferior wombs. All know that. So, I would doubt these verses. This contradict the position of preserver of Vishnu. – Sarvabhouma Jun 5 '17 at 11:30
  • 4
    What is the point in calling Narayana as Parabrahma? You can't say say these words if you think shakti and Narayana are same. Don't try to be smart. If you want to worship Devi, it is upto you. No need to please anyone here by saying "all are same but still". Vishnu would not say he hates avataras. These verses contradict the very nature of Vishnu being preserver. Also the language used in these verses is like normal people talking not gods. – Sarvabhouma Jun 5 '17 at 11:44
  • 3
    Who are the composers? All the puranas are written by same Vyasa . The answer you linked I also written from bhagavatam verses. If you believe this is written ,then you should also admit that those verses are also true. Because it is also written by same vyasa. Like you said, in your way, vyasa also wrote these only for increasing faith in Devi in devotees. Nothing else. Why are you misspelling my name everytime? o.O – Sarvabhouma Jun 5 '17 at 12:01
  • 3
    So what is the point in calling Narayana as - ParaBrahma? Vishnu is supreme not for everybody but only for the Vaishnavas. Also since u cited Devi BhAgavatam , Sri Lalita creates Brahman Kameswara from within herself and that's why she is also called Brahmajanani. , The other deities like Rudra, Vishnu etc forms the planck on which she sits..As regards why he has to even if he does not like -Its because that is his duty being the preserver of the universe. – Rickross Jun 5 '17 at 17:30
  • 3
    Some Puranas contain tamasic verses like we can see here in the Devi Bhagavata. Those verses are impure, they are darkness and ignorance. Those tamasic verses are contrary to the teachings of the pure sattvic Puranas (Srimad Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana, etc), and also contrary to the teachings of the Sruti and Smriti. It is impossible to learn true Vedic knowledge from such impure verses. For this reason acaryas advised us to stay away from those impure tamasic texts if we want our spiritual wellbeing and if we want to learn true Vedic wisdom, ie sanatana dharma "eternal Vedic truth". – brahma jijnasa Jun 8 '17 at 12:36
6

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदाऽऽत्मानं सृजाम्यहम्।।4.7।।

"yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnirbhavati bhArata,
abhyutthAnam adharmasya tadAtmAnam sRjAmyaham"

BG 4.7


परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम्।
धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय संभवामि युगे युगे।।4.8।।

paritrANAya sAdhUnAm vinAzAya ca duSkRtAm
dharma samsthApanArthAya sambhavAmi yugE yugE"

BG 4.8

Narayana takes avatara for the above reasons.

  • Yes. But if this is so, then why would Krishna say- I hate lower birth yet took incarnation. – user9392 Jun 5 '17 at 12:41
  • 7
    @AnuragSingh Birth by its nature is undesirable and it is every jeeva's goal to transcend the cycle of birth and death. We should also learn to hate the idea of taking birth. Only then will we be motivated to strive for mukti. Narayana takes avatara in spite of the trauma of having to go through the process of birth, out of compassion for us - the jeevas and because it is his dharma to preserve the universal dharma. – user1195 Jun 5 '17 at 12:58
  • 2
    @moonstar2001 "....it is his dharma to preserve the universal dharma." . He doesnt have any Dharma. He mentions it in BG that there is no duty for Him. But ya only out of His compassion for living beings He descends to this world. – Vishal prabhu lawande Jun 6 '17 at 10:06
  • @Vishalprabhulawande The supreme brahman is above everything but in his capacity as the preserver of the universe, he does have a dharma. – user1195 Jun 6 '17 at 10:16
  • 2
    @moonstar2001 There is no difference between Krishna and Supreme Brahman. krishna/Vishnu is indeed the Supreme personality of Brahman. Western indologists like Max Muller have purposely mistranslated the parts of MB. read MadhvaCharya's Tatparya nirnaya; commentary on MahaBharat. When we have our own Acharya's commentary why read westerner's translation? – Vishal prabhu lawande Jun 7 '17 at 4:33

You must log in to answer this question.