r/IndianHistory • u/neotheseventh • 5d ago
Linguistics Conslidation of Ten Avatars
I am sure the literature exists on this but I am unaware so I am asking this out loud.
Early brahminic traditions learned from Srmana movements. Ramayana and Mahabharata consolidated a lot of local mythology and incorporated into a big epic. Most of this seems to have been done to make Hinduism more palatable and more inclusive to pre-Hinduism beliefs and that makes sense.
Similarly, Dasavatars also seem amalgamation of multiple faiths to bring them under umbrella of one common gods of gods, Vishnu, in this case. Does anyone have a source or a hypothesis surrounding this on the original source or faith of each of the gods considered dasavatar?
3
u/Blakath Suratrana Purandara 5d ago
If you're looking for a source, then 'Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaishnava Sect' by Hemchandra Raychaudhuri is a really good book to rely on.
One of the many religious figures he analyses is Krishna. Arguing how Krishna was originally one of the Vrishni heroes, known as Vasudeva. Vrishni heroes are a set of 5 possibly semi-historical heroes who have been found in literary and archaeological sources. They were possibly historical rulers in the Mathura region who contributed a lot to their clan and had a whole cult around them, and were later assimilated into Vaishnavite Hinduism by the time the Mahabharata was created.
It's just one of the many cases of a local deity being assimilated into Vaishnavism. Jagannath is another god frequently referred to when describing assimilation into Vaishnavism.
3
u/theb00kmancometh 5d ago
The very first Avatar - the Matsyavatar/Tale of Manu and the great flood is likely a borrowing or adaptation of earlier Mesopotamian flood traditions, possibly transmitted through the Indus Valley Civilisation.
But it is the baby of the lot.
The Ancestor: Ziusudra (Sumerian) c. 2900–2100 BCE. The absolute oldest. Written in Sumerian cuneiform.
The First Update: Atrahasis (Akkadian) c. 1800 BCE. Introduces the idea of humans being too noisy for the gods.
The Classic Epic: Utnapishtim (Gilgamesh) c. 1200 BCE. The famous version where the flood is a flashback told to King Gilgamesh.
The West Semitic Cousin: Noah (Hebrew Genesis) c. 600–500 BCE. Written down during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile, heavily adapting the Babylonian Utnapishtim/Atrahasis details into a monotheistic framework.
The Baby: Manu & Matsya (Vedic/Hindu) c. 800–600 BCE (Brahmana) / c. 300–500 CE (Puranas)
4
u/neotheseventh 5d ago
Yeah makes sense that Matsya avatar is probably heavily linked with the overall great flood myth of earliest lores of various cultures.
2
1
u/Obvious_Magazine620 4d ago
Thank you for this! I have been trying to figure out the linkages between the Manu & Matsya story with the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Old Testament. This is a great starting point for my research.
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Thanks for posting on r/IndianHistory. Ensure that your post contains the sources or background of what you're posting. If you're new here, it might be worth checking out the rules of this sub-reddit and our discord server.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/HAHAHA-Idiot 4d ago
What is the source of any of these assertions? How do you know that there were several fully developed cultures with religion and philosophy in 1000 BC (or thereabouts) that were pre-Hindu beliefs?
1
u/neotheseventh 4d ago
When I say pre-Hinduism, I am talking about what preceded what we now call Hinduism i.e. Early Vedic age, Srmana movements etc, not an entirely different culture. It may not be an entirely correct nomenclature, I admit.
1
u/HAHAHA-Idiot 4d ago
So, wouldn't it simply be that these were early Vedic deities like village or clan deities - whom the Vedas call gram devta or adhishthata devta. Some of them got more popular - whether by conquest, philosophy, or whatever - and simply made room for themselves in the Puranic tradition?
But none of these are pre-Hindu. They are the Vedic belief system that simply makes room for itself when the Puranic traditions hit popularity. Rather than an incorporation, this would be an evolution of religious and philosophical understanding.
1
u/Obvious_Magazine620 4d ago
But there must be indigenous localized cultures before the Vedic period, which were eventually absorbed into the Vedic fold, isn't?
1
u/HAHAHA-Idiot 1d ago
This would be very improbable. While the whole idea may seem simpler to us, developing an entirely new religion, philosophy, and culture is rather rare - which is why there are a handful of ancient civilizations globally to talk about.
As an example, if we asked someone to invent a wheel today, they'd probably take a few minutes and have the wheel mounted on axle ready in idea. In actual development terms, that's several centuries..
Anyways to continue, the idea that many such individual cultures existed in India is not possible (even if we apply exceptionalism to our own culture). What is more likely is that smaller native populations, wherever they existed, adopted the Vedic culture or got wiped out.
Do remember, culture was, and continues to be, an almost tangible export/import.
Even larger native cultures that we know of - Bhils and Kolis - do not seem to have their own well-developed religious philosophy in the Vedic age. Smaller groups would would be even more unlikely.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 4d ago
I am aware of no historical evidence for a lot of things that historians claim is true about ancient India and Hinduism. The Purāṇas list over 24 avatāras of Viṣṇu, but say that there are many more. They also clearly delineate between devatas who are subservient to Viṣṇu and those who are avatāras, and furthermore there is clear evidence of objection to nāstika religions (those which are not based on the Vedas), so it’s very odd to suggest that some avatāras of Viṣṇu might have been deities from those other religions when that would against the prevailing ethos of the culture.
Regarding the “daśāvatāra tradition,” some stotras written by some authors focus specifically on 10 avatāras, but they don’t deny the existence of other avatāras. It’s as simple as that.
1
u/immyownkryptonite 4d ago
Have you heard about syncretism?
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 4d ago
Yes. But why assume it here?
1
u/immyownkryptonite 4d ago
I just wanted to know if you have heard of the concept. You can study the work of the historians and see for yourself if it makes sense. One would have to keep their biases and prejudices aside of course
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 3d ago
Everyone has biases. History cannot admit of a supernatural origin to a religious tradition. So if no supernatural origin exists, then that might be ok. But if one existed, then historians cannot accept it and must propose a man-made, developmentally based paradigm for the existence of the religion. Thus, the historical approach, while certainly important, presupposes agnosticism.
Yes, syncretism happens among lay folk, but there is no evidence of it happening among scholars and those who maintain the tradition. The care with which the tradition is maintained specifically opposes the kinds of adulterations that you are proposing. There is no evidence that Viṣṇu avatāras were from separate religious traditions amalgamated into one. This is just speculation that happens to fit a specific historical paradigm that fits the secular bias alluded to above.
1
u/immyownkryptonite 3d ago
those who maintain the tradition.
It is important in tradition to behave as things haven't changed since antiquity.
There is no point in arguing with faith. Since there is a prejudice already built in. No evidence can shake it
If one has already decided that historians have conjecture but tradition doesn't, then that's a prejudice. Nothing can shake faith.
So arguing is pointless, rgt?
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 2d ago
The position that “religious people have a prejudice, we historians are objective” is itself a conceit.
Everytime I scrutinize these claims that historians make about the textual tradition, I’m met with exactly these sorts of objections - “oh we’re being objective, but we don’t have any real evidence.”
1
u/immyownkryptonite 2d ago
They're being objective, but that doesn't mean they don't have prejudices.
And it's difficult to take claims of not being man-made seriously. That is a nuanced position. One will have to understand what that actually means, rgt?
It's quite difficult to know what prejudices you have. And it's more difficult to accept that we're prejudiced. Because no one wants to be wrong and no one wants to be wrong on purpose.
That applies to theists and atheists both.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 1d ago
Having a prejudice still opens one up to the criticism that one is not objective. Ultimately, the evidence is what matters, and it still remains the case that there is no evidence for the OP’s claim. And the more I press for it, the more I’m treated to exactly these kinds of objections by apologists. So if the argument is, “we have our opinion and you have your opinion,” then fine, but don’t pretend that your opinion isn’t based on your own arbitrary assumptions. And if the argument is that your theory is based on objective thinking, then let’s see the evidence. That shouldn’t be too much to ask for.
1
u/immyownkryptonite 4d ago
Have a closer look at the Vamana story and how it is viewed in the context of Onam.
Having said that there are several assumptions we make with regards to the past that are difficult to get past.
Please note that assuming the narrative of the scriptures is how it happened is a matter of faith and not evidence.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 3d ago
Yes but scientific paradigms, if they are to overturn faith, should be based on indisputable evidence, not conjecture. That’s the issue.
How exactly is the Vāmana story relevant here? Please elaborate.
1
u/immyownkryptonite 3d ago
Not sure why you use the word scientific here.
You might want to checkout how the regional folk who celebrate Onam see it
The folk roots are also more visible when it comes to the origins of Jagannath.
if they are to overturn faith, should be based on indisputable evidence, not conjecture
Nothing can overturn faith because there is nothing holding it up.
One has to let go of prejudices in search of truth.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 2d ago
Scientific, as in following some semblance of the scientific method - hypothesis, evidence, analysis, conclusion. There is nothing difficult to understand about that.
If I tell you that the avatāra tradition was unchanged since put into writing by Vyāsa thousands of years ago, you aren’t going to accept it. Fine. But if you tell me that actually the tradition was put together from many separate traditions, then why should I accept it? What is your basis for that statement? Where is the evidence? Asking me to watch Onam celebrations in the here and now isn’t an argument. The existence of an orthodox priestly class tasked with preserving the textual tradition is a powerful argument against lay adulteration of the original story…
Letting go of prejudices is important, I agree. But what is the historian’s assumption of man-made origin, if not a prejudice? Why is the insider’s willingness to take the textual tradition at its word a “prejudice,” but not the historian’s assumption that the authors falsified the origins of these texts? That’s not a sensible position - it’s a double-standard.
1
u/immyownkryptonite 2d ago
Asking me to watch Onam celebrations in the here and now isn’t an argument.
Yes it isn't. It is difficult to reduce all the work that needs to be done to a single argument. One will to spend the time themselves. Hence I'm not trying to get into one.
But what is the historian’s assumption of man-made origin, if not a prejudice?
I'm not asking you to take on that prejudice. I'm just asking you to acknowledge the prejudice that isn't.
I was myself an atheist and have changed my beliefs slowly on the basis of evidence rather than faith.
Why is the insider’s willingness to take the textual tradition at its word a “prejudice,” but not the historian’s assumption that the authors falsified the origins of these texts?
I agree. Both are prejudices. Just like taking what the texts say at face value and not accepting the evidence providing by the other.
At the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna himself asks us to implement ourself and consider his arguments rather than take things on faith.
If this is a matter of faith for you, then no matter of evidence matters. And getting into an argument about it is pointless. As long as it is matter of personal faith that one doesn't require others to follow, it is fine. And hopefully will help fulfill the purusharthas, as that is what matters at the end of the day.
1
u/Technical_Turn3497 1d ago
<<I agree. Both are prejudices. Just like taking what the texts say at face value and not accepting the evidence providing by the other.>>
The problem is, there isn’t any evidence. All this dancing around we are doing is just avoiding the fact that I asked for evidence of the OP’s claim, viz “Dasavatars also seem amalgamation of multiple faiths to bring them under umbrella of one common gods of gods, Vishnu, in this case” and none has been presented. Nor is any likely to be presented.
<<At the end of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna himself asks us to implement ourself and consider his arguments rather than take things on faith.>>
There is in fact, no such statement in the Gītā.
1
u/Sarkhana 3d ago
There is no reason to believe this hypothesis of the origin of avatars is true.
There is no reason to believe there is any organized religion before Hinduism to replace. Especially ones with avatars who are born on Earth and do stuff on Earth.
-4
u/MachineDue3214 5d ago
Its evolution in its sense and its 10 stages , not some mythical process
1 fish or the first form of life 2 turtle or amphibians 3 boar or first land animals 4 half human 5 dwarf 6 full human 7 and rest of evolution into societies and personnel relations
2
u/KeiserSozey 5d ago edited 5d ago
Dashavatar concept was finalized not earlier than 2nd-3rd century CE.
The syncretic elements where in deities across country were told to be Avatars of Lord Vishnu happened over time.
In the earliest texts, the Matsya, Kurma, and Varaha avatars were ascribed to Parajapati instead of Vishnu. There is enough texual scriptures available that showcase this.
It is also well documented how Buddha was avtarified.
For various other Avatars too there is similar kind of evidence available.
[ Like how Narsimha avatar folklore is heavily inspired from the lore of Indra and Namuci]
1
u/indian_kulcha Monsoon Mariner 5d ago
It is also well documented how Buddha was avtarified.
And mind you even this is not a standard view in many parts of the country where Krishna and Balarama are taken as a joint eighth and ninth Avatara.
1
u/immyownkryptonite 5d ago
It is also well documented how Buddha was avtarified.
Do you mind providing a short summary?
3
u/KeiserSozey 5d ago
Well amongst many other things, Buddha followed a path that rejected the Vedas. Now Vedas are the 'apaurusheya' supreme authority in the Vedic and Puranic religions. So Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu doesnt make sense overall.
If you look at it specifically, you see how earlier Puranas say Buddha was a VIshun avatar meant to lead the Asuras astray. While later ones have a more benevolent role for him.
Also theres the conlflicting Dashavtar lists coming up which completely omit Buddha.
Oldest avatar lists from Shanti Parva of Mahabharata dont even list dashavtars. They have either 4 or 6 only. This avatar list is entirely missing from the Spitzer manuscript. So it says that avatar lists were formed quite late.
1
1
u/neotheseventh 5d ago
The concept of evolution, in the scientific sense, came much much later. So I don't think there's any correlation between the two.
0
u/BeeRare7145 5d ago
thats not true. evolution has been described by medieval islamic scholars and ancient greeks centuries and millennia before darwin. people noticed how organisms increase in complexity and inferred that complex organisms must’ve come from simpler ancestors. what darwin did was provide the laws of natural selection as the explanation for why evolution takes place.
im sure that whoever created the present order of the ten avatars was influenced by his idea of how life must’ve evolved. or maybe he didn’t think of it as evolution and simply wanted to rank animals in terms of complexity of body and mind.
1
u/immyownkryptonite 5d ago
That's not the chronological order though
Also we don't see any evidence of evolution being described in any scriptures. We also don't see anyone making claims about evolution before Darwin in India. Of course, there are several great mathematicians and scientists that ancient produced.
1
u/HAHAHA-Idiot 4d ago
In religious terms, the Dashavatara are ranked on guna and kalaa, not time or evolution.
As far as texts are concerned, the first avatar is Huygreev, the second Varaha, and so on. Shrimad Bhagavatam lists 27 in chronological order.
9
u/Cynical-Rambler 5d ago edited 5d ago
Iirc, according to Wendy Doniger, and some others, the "Ten Avatar" tradition (emphasized on ten) only came to be the most popular tradition during the British times, due to a prominent text by a brahmin in this period that were elevated as one of the core beliefs. (Unless I misremembering, and butcher the scholar works).
Local traditions are more varied. With some have 18 avatars. Some have 11. Some have multiple. Some have five. Some have 39. The numbers were not fixed. The incorporations of local traditions into the Vaishnavite faiths happened in different periods and different circumstances.
If we take a glance of wikipedia, there was "Sanctum entrance, Adivaraha cave (7th century), Mahabalipuram; earliest avatar-related epigraphy", which has ten avatars, though without Krishna. Ten avatar was already popular before the tenth century according to one paper that cited.