It is not at all that there is no such being that can be called an avatar, it is only that it must be understood as a totally impersonal phenomenon. If you understand an avatar as a person, then you’ve missed the mark entirely ~ Shri Amir Mourad
It is not at all that there is no such being that can be called an avatar, it is only that it must be understood as a totally impersonal phenomenon. If you understand an avatar as a person, then you’ve missed the mark entirely
~ Shri Amir Mourad
Amir Mourad talks about the inner meaning of “avatar” and the problem of attaching the idea of “personhood” to such a phenomenon.
Q: What exactly is Krishna/Christ/Cosmic Conciousness ? Is it basically sahaja sahmadhi (spontaneous enlightenment)?
Samadhi which has become well integrated would be the meaning of “being in the world but not of the world”, which is also sahaja samadhi or turiyatitta (beyond the fourth). Turiyatitta is an expansion of turiya (The Fourth, pure consciousness) – where pure consciousness pervades the three other states of wakefulness, dream, and dreamless sleep. States of mind may change and fluctuate, but underneath the flux of the mind there is a common principle of radiant intelligence, a pure existence which simply knows itself and is without any localized center. It can be understood, to use the term very loosely, as universal consciousness. This integration of universal consciousness through all possible states of mind is what it means to more fully incarnate the “logos” in the human body. It is also the inner meaning behind the “avatar”. If you want to understand the nature of Krishna, you must understand the nature of this energy that has been called Vishnu, as Krishna is a manifestation of Vishnu. Vishnu is the Preserver. When one thinks of a preserver, consider that which is a medium between two worlds – one which is visible, the other invisible. It is a joining together in a single consciousness the “relative” and the “absolute”, the “mundane” and the transcendental. The work of a seeker of truth is to make them both equated in one’s own psyche. So Krishna is often seen as an incarnation in the flesh, but specifically one which restores order to chaos in the world. There is a suggestion of being a helper to humanity of sorts, though in my understanding this is only an extension of this energy we call “Vishnu”. It is not its essential quality. To restore “order” in a world of chaos is only a matter of compassionate responsibility once one has arrived to the necessary breakthroughs of the inner life which would make one competant enough to benefit the world in such a way.
Q: Would it be correct in saying that a bodhisattva embodies that energy?
That is a Buddhist term but the gist of it is the same, except there is no room in the Buddhist scheme for the existence of God. Some would even say that a man like Gautama Buddha embodies it. Some of the Hindus regard him as another incarnation of Vishnu along with Krishna. You can think of Krishna-consciousness as being the same as what the Buddhists have called bodhichitta, the mind which is infused with compassionate desire to assist others towards their own liberation, even delaying complete freedom from the cycle of birth and death.
Q: I have heard this said before. It makes sense. So an avatar is not necessarily the “Lord of the Universe” himself but the embodiment of that energy.
Some who believe in a compassionate Supreme Being would state such a thing, but this is superstitious nonsense. Everything is an avatar, because all objects are immediate incarnations of the “divine”. But certain incarnations among these incarnations are much more conscious of their own inner reality, and these have traditionally been called avatars. Traditions like bhakti yoga may wish to exalt them as though they were some “special”, exceptional individuals who have been gifted with grace, but this in itself is an affirmation of one’s own ego. If one understands ego-consciousness to be a mere illusory appearance in the mind, ultimately empty and without any autonomy, then one will cease to both hold oneself as well as others on a glorified throne of specialness. Reverence, love, devotion, appreciation, and gratitude is one thing, but there must be absolute caution of falling into a messiah complex. Religions which believe in a god-given prophet as a messenger to humanity are especially vulnerable to this delusion. And when it comes to supporting a messiah complex, whether you believe yourself to be some cosmic savior or impose that role onto another, this still leaves much room for ego-inflation. Spiritual process is ultimately about transcending the limits of one’s identity to open a new horizon of perception which brings insight into the timeless truth of one’s nature. If the idea of an avatar becomes just one more ego-supporting concept, then even if there can be some truthfulness to the concept, it becomes a toxic temptation to continue consolidating the illusion of self. So it is not at all that there is no such being that can be called an avatar, it is only that it must be understood as a totally impersonal phenomenon. If you understand an avatar as a person, then you’ve missed the mark entirely. Consider it a cosmic principle. The nature of Jesus among the mysticism of Gnostic Christianity can also be understood in a similar vein. Christ is not merely a historical being – but a cosmic principle which can be manifested in any individual who is willing to engage in the the great work of inner transformation. Therefore every realized being has embodied it, whether or not they have used such terminologies. So within one’s own intellectual discrimination one must distinguish between two kinds of “avatars” – those ideas of the avatar which have fallen prey to the more “personal” kind, and the “avatar” which is completely devoid of any ego-identity and personal autonomy.