Dasa Avatara's

[B. Shankar]

Namaskaram,

Further to the note by Sri Kalyan Chakravarti:

>As for devi, we know that she represents the shakthi or energy of nArAyaNa
>and therefore cannot be an avatar. Thus we are left with Buddha alone as a
>reasonable choice. The argument against Buddha is that he rejects the
>vedas. But the argument in favour is that he in not a materialist like
>Charvaka.

Please explain why you feel that the Shakti of Narayana cannot be an
Avatar. Surely this presents a far better case than the Buddha.

For me the rejection of the Vedas represents an unequivocal argument
against the Buddha as an Avatar. After all, and correct me if I am wrong,
the purpose of the first Avatar was to recover the Vedas from the cosmic
ocean to teach Brahma. Logic suffers if, several Avatars later, the purpose
has become diametrically opposite to that of the initial Avatar.  It simply
does not make any sense to me.

Pranam,

Shankar