Why Vishnu has avatars but Shiva and Brahma do not.
Of the Hindu trinity, Bishnu (Vishnu) did not originally have a body. Perhaps for that reason, he was the most prime God of the Pantheon and Shiva and Brahma were merely later day additions. Plus since he did not have a body he was allowed to have tons of incarnations (avatars) but Shiva and Brahma did not have any incarnations because they had body.
This one can infer from etymological phonetics; eg Sanskrit: Bi = without (as in Birata, Birati = discontinuous, break etc) Sh comes from sharira. Bisu, Bishnu etc. (the article explains why the phonetics alter like this) Bishnu = Without Body. Hence avatars are what are descended !
The article was written in 2011, after which many of my own understandings developed, when I realized the other possible meanings are in compliance with what I have been calling the Sun Theory (of phonetics analysis) where all linguistic objects are merely parts or conjugations of a near meaning of Sun in various hypothetical or real languages as they might have existed or formulated. In that analysis Bishnu (Vishnu) is Bi+Sun. where Bi is as in Big or Bahu or Maha. Sun (Lord) the great.
Plus in that unified understanding bishnu means (basa+agni = Life Fire etc) In that unification there are no different Gods but all philosophical forms of Sun (Vishnu is no different from Shiva, because they are both Life Fire = Sun)
All Gods have been formulated since time immemorial from the original Sun (Lord).
Just in short. It needs more attention from me and you to digest the ideas. Here is the article. (which still needs to re-toned)
“1 mistake in this article: I spotted as soon as I committed but haven’t fixed it, time crunch; (in Indonesian jalan is path because its a variant of chalan, and we know in India what chalan is: movement, it may still be connected with water because chal and jal are variants and water moves unlike stones)
this also means how careful one needs to be with inferences from the meaning of words (at some level you will anyway be correct, but you will need to take many circles) “
As an Indian citizen and resident as well as a keen observer or a passionate learner I have a need where no one can point a finger and say this is BS what you think about your culture. I think we have overtly and overly at times propelled a nationalistic cultural sentiment which has many incorrect basis. Without much research and thinking into our own base of knowledge Vs our experience Vs what others know about us and the world in general we can not arrive at a globally acceptable truth.
eg it’s often erroneously thought that all of Hinduism and the ancient Sanskrit and Veda based progress or cultural renaissance happened inside present day India. In-fact much of it has happened inside India of present day in many ways, I believe, but what are the ways? And why there has been a dearth of true knowledge?
I think as much as we have failed in many of our intellectual and nationalistic pursuits we haven’t taken it as a national priority sans the nationalistic toned rhetorics we do to initiate verbal duels. eg there is a Sanskrit University in Odisha and there are many so-called scholars who give us sermons on what we ought to believe which merely have a politico-religious connection. But when it comes to true scholarship I believe there is hardly much to cater to the present day needs of Odisha in particular and India in general.
eg language, the way it’s evolved in the last few years, check various prints-edition media and literature that is being written, is amazingly progress oriented. On the other hand language has also evolved quite much in the last century. But in keeping with that and our technological needs we haven’t generated much resources as well as we have almost forgotten the need for creating a contemporary and time-flow understanding of Sanskrit, its ancient rules in present day understanding and it’s development if any and the introduction of such into school curricula with an intention and ability to train the students rather than satisfy our virtual ego perpetuated by various myths that has made true knowledge and progress a victim.
Imbeciles are more vocal everywhere than any true intellectuals who can contribute in a way it has an enlightening impact on our progress to understand our culture and sociolinguistic aspirations. I will therefore stop here from my vision that are in terms of abstract notions of my own experience albeit quite understandable by anyone and make a specific example of how useful a little deeper insightful thinking is into understanding simple questions that I believe must inspire us if we were to truly appreciate our rich culture.
Why Bishnu of our trinity or tri-murty has so many incarnations and the other two do not? It’s a natural question (which is not allowed as such in religion, but the question of God is not strictly religion centric as far as scholarship is concerned.) So also we can question the formulations of various religions and understand about them as long as our quest is scholarly.
Recently I have done some analysis in Sanskrit which I transLIT as “SansKRu Ta” from its original. The formula I implemented is to decide the meaning of every letter by studying their usage in various circumstances. Perhaps Sanskrit like Chinese used a 1-syllable/letter words and defined a powerful grammar with its limited usage-scope which needed to be modified and mistake-ified in order to generate the present day forms of many usage with the vast usage-scope of present day. This in itself might have been ancient practice, to enlarge the scope of rules of original forms of Sanskrit, with age.
It also may have been a great effort by many powerful proponents of our culture in ancient times say 800 years ago, to see to it that the language retained a uniform rule with the local heterogeneity formulated to cope with local sociolinguistic needs. eg Indonesia had a different formulation from ours and so on, despite of the inherent uniformity in understanding the usage of the language which continued as long as it did and many useful forms of such rules were lost.
So we lost the power of Sanskrit and it became an increasingly difficult task to unify the evolving languages. As long as Sanskrit was effective and lively we did see the exact same usage in different countries with their variations of usage mere local phonetics and other practical phenomena. I have also remarked that Sanskrit in itself may not be a language but a refined and powerful ontology, semantics and language analysis, therefore it never had a written script, it was done in all the languages that used it, in that case too it was necessary that it’s proponents saw to it that it’s rules are maintained across countries of then.
With the idea that one needs to find the meaning of every letter, how some letters are hidden or lost or transformed into other letters, what are the rules of conjugation, what are the rules of adjectives, if any, rules of particles if any etc, one can initiate a whole new branch of Sanskrit study with its modern prospectives. This will see us into understanding so many things about our own culture that we did not see or were not ready to see. eg by comparatively analysing how Sanskrit usage varies from present day India (barat) to present day Indonesia/Java/Malaya (again barat, kalimantan barat, papua barat etc) we can create a new paradigm for Sanskrit study.
I have analysed elsewhere how library is translated into Indonesian Vs Indian. Prapustakaan in Indonesia and Pustaka-alaya (or grantha-gara in case of India which I did not mention but in my sophisticated Sanskrit analysis granthagara can be just granthaGru altho Pra-grantha or Pra-pustaka is also a good use) Notice that Indonesian transLIT seems to be exactly same as Indian transLIT. Also we need to explore extra-dimensions in transLIT where we don’t need to write Tha, for a heavy accent of the Ta. the ta-soft and ta-heavy can be noticed from the situation. In Japanese transLIT ta is used also for soft as it’s for heavy ta, eg Tabeta in Japanese transLIT but we would write this as ThabeTa in Indian transLIT the first Ta being a heavy-ta and the last one in not being one)…amazing isn’t it? we need to modernize everything we know lest everything we know will be lost like we lose science, our understanding of our own culture our heritage and our sanity.
So we need to understand meaning of every letter of Sanskrit depending on where and how they are used in the sentence or word-formation. I have found plenty of them but you don’t see my mind do you? I have discussed that all the heavy sounds and letters were possibly later day addition e.g. we had just Ka, then we found Ga because Ga is a heavy form of Ka, then a heavy Ga which we call Gha in sanskrit. From all the heavy forms of all letters we see that we got a Ha and so on, actually Ha is always a heavy form of A. This knowledge set of Indian like languages which loosely we say Sanskrit (but it may be a fictitious notion) has formed our alphabet. Also it is to be noted that Sanskrit uses all it’s letters in a matra/symbol form and allows it to sit left, right, top, bottom, straight, reverse, plain, decorated way. This makes it look very complicated so when we do our analysis we need to open them up so that a matra sitting right to a letter may be brought to the left of that letter and it can be readily seen that the sound is inherited at a place the rule does not say it should be. Sanskrit needs much effort to be understood but every educated fella should be capable of doing this. Unfortunately there is often more fuss and less substance.
Note also that a Pa and Ba are interchangeable.
The Bha or Va is actually a heavy form of a Ba. Therefore Bharat can be written as Barat remembering that Ba denotes both soft and heavy Ba but in this case the latter. The Pha or Fa therefore needs to be denoted as a Pa only. Then all these are interchangeable because Pa<<>>Ba. Now I think you can do a good analysis of Sanskrit and discover a new thing or two about our culture.
I give you a nugget.
I have found that the Ba/Pa when conjugated acts like a of/from preposition and Ja when conjugated to word end denotes relation to the parent word (Ja decays into Ya or Ia therefore RaJa>>RaYa or RaIa or Rai or Ray or Roy) eg SamiPa (near/close) is perhaps Sama+I+Pa (because SamaJa Pa >>SamaI Pa >>Samipa) Samaipa. Now Sama = equal/with therefore SamaJa is “in relation to Sama”, “in relation to with” sense, a Pa here gives “of” in the sense of “to be” therefore SamaJaPa is “to be with OR with to be” meaning close/near.
like soft-Ba >> heavy-Ba, soft-ta goes to heavy-ta or tha, the latter also goes to Da. Da is a heavy form of ta. Sanskrit really did not have as many letters as we say there are in Devanagari, Sanskrit is a set of rules we have formulated to understand in a scientific way what was available to us from ages. Now “Da” can be heavier further and give us a heavy-Da or Dha. Also “Da” is spoken in two ways, as in “Dear” and another in “The” as also its heavier form. There is a way to understand everything we have so far in Indian-like spoken languages, we can transLIT them with fewer rules than the “internet using” mass has produced for its emailing and messengering in yahoo/msn.
So here is why Bishnu does have 10 incarnations and others not. It will blow your mind, prepare.
BiShNu Ba + I + Sh + Na + U. Now this is not necessarily exactly how Bishnu was in ancient times, it simply might have been Ba+Sh or Ba+Sh+Na (the latter Na may be a Ra or La or may be a later day addition to specify some meaning) The I may have come from Ja >> Ia, therefore it was BaJaSh, BaJa >> Bi, meaning “related to Ba”. This Bi is used in millions of circumstances in India based languages to mean “without” It might have come from “related to of/from” therefore without. SO Bi is without, as in “Bi rata” meaning discontinuation or without continuity, (Bi often comes with an “at” as in Bi At Pa Ti = Bitpati = Bipati = danger/calamity etc, I am not explaining At, I haven’t thought enough about it, but it’s also present in “Ataeba”=therefore.
SO in “At E Ba” E is a particle which is used in present day Bengali/Odia/Japanese with the same meaning to specify a direction of place/person/time) “At” may specify “this”. analyse all words with an “At” by carefully/knowledgeably de-conjugating it, you will be amazed how this “this” was used in ancient languages. AtEBa is “to this, from ” which is nothing but “from this”. Because “this” is specified by the “to” howsoever, it has no other role here. SO “from this” means therefore, it’s an “inference” and every time you make an inference in English you use Therfore, in Indian/Sanskrit based languages you use “Ataeb”.
So Bi meant without. “Sh” is manifestly “sharira” or body. BiSh would automatically mean without body. BiShNu therefore is the prime God of Indian like, Hindu like culture who does not have a body. He manifests Himself through his bodily incarnations which are 10 in number, including the penultimate BudHa. If you do not have a body but you exist (ghosts are like that but they do not have incarnations or do they?) you need a body-form to express yourself.
Damn power cut!! I will write tomorrow.. (my inverter can’t take any more load) The power was off for couple hours when the inverter was backing up, despite of the fact that I switched off most of my gadgets like the ceiling fan etc, the inverter started complaining. I had to save/upload my article in the middle to switch off my computer since I didn’t wanna lose an article that I took 1 or 2 hours to write. Everybody got up, from the beep, but that’s not my fault apart from my computer they were also running their gadgets and eventually they were gonna get up.
Guess what? it’s raining outside. It’s amazingly soothing. The power’s come back and amazingly again, after several criticisms in the last few months I do not see much power cut offs anymore, arbitrarily, because of slight rains, I think some people heard my criticisms about being too careless about power-cuts.
Ok SO BiShNu was created as a God without a body. SO He may have been borrowed from a religious conscience which was not primarily one that necessitates bodily thinking. The VedaJa people may have considered only Bishnu, then later day addition by a group of pontiffs of a different school of religion may have come up with a need for having/creating more than one God with a body-form. Either from the original or borrowed, grew a constant need for creating different Gods with different philosophies that gave rise to a pantheon of Gods of polytheistic nature which may be continuing to this day. eg Shiba is related to thousands of different philosophies, as is all other Gods.
Kompira DaiGongen, Kama Deba, Hindu myth-God of love who does not have much worship value in Hinduism is considered an honorable God in Japan with a beautiful temple devoted to him as his name DaiGongen literally meaning MahaDev suggests. I analyzed the meaning of Kompira to “Kama Prabu” in Indian from “KonPira”bu in Japanese. I say Pirabu because that is exactly how many a Japanese even in present day would say >> “Prabu” or “Prabhu”. The PraBu is a heavy-Bu or bhu, in ancient days it may have been a softer bu therefore the soft Japanese traditions to this day says pirabu. Comparative language studies will pave a great way for studying Sanskrit and ancient culture.
Here is the meaning of ShiBa. Evidently therefore it is : ShJaBa >> ShiBa therefore, it means “from a body”, Ba for from, Sh for Sharira, body. Shiba has a body, he can not demand incarnations.
The missile BrahMos takes its name from BrahmaPutra River that flows in India and BanglaDesh and Moskva river of Russia. BrahmaPutra is a word-formation like JayaPutra city of Indonesia. Both Indonesia and India have a great deal of history that involves Sanskrit and Hinduism. In-fact as I noted above there are many Barat in Indonesia as well. In ancient times when India was actually called Barat it existed in many geograhies including present day Papua which is just above Australia continent. All the countries, Tai-land, Laos, MyanMar, Malaya, Indonesia, Cambodia.. they all have their culture, life, language greatly influenced by the fact that Ancient India or Barat was present in all these lands. The present day India is only a part of this great history.
In-fact India’s culture is incomplete without linking its great history and customs to these far-fetched lands. Just today I analyzed the meaning of the name “NonTaBuri” in Tai-land (the ta is a heavy-ta therefore tha)and it’s a highly cognate of NanDaPuri. See that as I noted above the da is a heavy form of the ta and Pa<<>>Ba therefore NonTaBuri is without any doubts Nandapuri of Indian myth/story books. If we find such ideas in any of our ancient descriptions we know where the actual nandapuri was located, near Bangkok.
Indonesia has cities like SuraBaya, which in my analysis either means “from-related to-Sura”, Sura either means God or indomitable fighter, a great warrior, there-fore SuraBaya is from being Godly or from being a brave warrior. That is how the cities were established in their cultural conscience. In-fact there are cities like JayaKarta and Jakarta. these two cities are just variants of each other. Jaya means victory or related to victory, more correctly. because Ja letter of Sanskrit would mean victory, Ya is just another Ja that gives “related to”. Jaya =related to victory. Wikiedia gives a wrong etymology of karta. It says performed which is actually in Sanskrit “kruta” NOT “karta”. Kruta is performed or acted, as in Sanskrit = SansKRUTA itself. SO the Karta in Jakarta or Jaya-karta is performer or one who performs the action, in this case a Godly person, a King or a warrior or the founder/icon of the city.
So JaKarta or JayaKarta means one who has won, the King who has won. Now talking about karta, there is also a YogyaKarta. Yogya would sound like Jogya which means in Sanskrit base: suitable candidate/place/time etc. SO here it means a suitable performer, a suitable King, a suitable warrior or founder. Interestingly it could also be a cognate of JaG-nJa, where the n was extinct with time (happens a lot in Sanskrit, all letters/sounds are liable to extinction if they are rendered very soft) So JaGnJa became Jag-nYa or Jagya and quite swiftly Jogya. The meaning of Jag-nya is a fire-ritual performed in ancient times for various religious reasons, Kings performed it for victory in war, for peace, for prosperity. To this day individuals perform this. (My father did) To this day house owners are called Gruha-Karta. A karta is one who performs because he owns. So Yogya-karta meant one who performed a Jag-nYa ritual, a King/founder as an owner of the city. Yogya-karta therefore meant a suitable King or a ritual performing owner King who founded the city.
In the quoted paragraph below some words of Indonesian origin I need to review again, as mentioned at the top of this article, see below, “jalan” means path. [which is a variant of Indian “chalan” but both words may be connected to the mobility nature of “jal”=water]. Other words may or may not need some more review, e.g. dwipa and negara. But for now I am confident. Barat has a meaning of east/west [from top of my memory, but might have actually come from the location of Barat=India, one needs to completely confirm the meaning in Indonesian and if any real connection can be made. As I have described in another article: to be linked later, in ancient times maps might have been conceptualized based on how God Bishnu is sleeping in a city, region, country and from there a relative east/west might have been found. That means there is a east/west variance depending on which part wa actually refered as Barat=India in a given ancient chronology]
Indonesia is such an interesting country, there are cities which are called SaHaSra Vijaya literally meaning in Sanskrit “1000 victory”. (note that Vijaya could actually be BuJaya, heavy-bu, Bu meaning land/place/kingdom/city/village. ) There are also cities which are called Jalan-this and Jalan-that, this is the Jala we use pretty frequently, meaning water or in this case all the ocean that surrounds Indonesia. There are more than 13000 islands that constitute Indonesia. Indonesia is quite long although pretty narrow compared to most country in its proximity. The word negara is also used quite frequently which is nothing but Sanskrit for city. Jalan-negara, Jalan-depa-negara. Now depa is what we transLIT as dipa or dweepa , the island dweepa, there is also a dipa which makes the deepa-bali celebration, a festival of lights.
The island dwipa or as it’s called in Indonesia literally means two-sides or “from two sides” because in my analysis pa is a ba. , dui or dwi is two, pa/ba is of/from. water from two sides. Now you would think in an island water is from all sides not just two sides so an island would be called a chau-pa not a dwipa. If Sanskrit for island was created in India of present day or even Myanmar this would be so considering an Indian would point to an island and say look there is water on every side. But in Indonesia, the island being 1000s km long but only 20, 30, 40 kms wide at points one in ancient times riding his horse would frequently run into both sides of ocean and therefore name it a dwipa. He would not go as far as 1000 kms or 1500 kms every now and then. SO the sanskrit word for island “dwipa” came exclusively from Indonesia and no other country, which in many places is known as a Barat.
Now putra means son so a city Jaya Putra would mean a victorious son or a son who was born when the city or Kingdom was celebrating its victory, and so on.
But brahmaputra river comes from brahma and putra. we don’t know how. But Brahma may be Bru A Mas or just Bru A Ma (which has also given Brahmadesh or Burma) Bru is a genarator for many words among them Big/great/large/important etc A may simply mean a Ba or Pa which has lost its tone and become A, a very soft letter. Mas as in MasTisk denotes head in present day language but our scholars should have been careful and said head is just MaS or even Ma. Because Mas gives MasTa =MaTa=MaTha, the ta being a heavy Ta. MaTa is head in present day languages in India. Therefore BruAMa or BruAMaS denotes a big head or important head or significant head or great head. Remember God BrahMa has 3 or 4 heads?? BraHMa for that reason is associated with consciousness. The important part of our head/mind was considered Chetana [chetana can roughly be translated as consciousess]. But it’s not clear they were as advanced to understand so much that they named a God to denote consciousness. But at some level they did associate multiple heads with a God. Since BrAMa had a body He also could not demand for an incarnation. Only Bishnu could.