Is Krishna really an Avatar ?

Is Krishna an Avatar ?

In Srimad Bhagavad Gita, there is an extraordinary declaration by Krishna:

“Whenever Dharma declines and when irreligion flourishes, I will be born in each of such eras to reestablish dharma and to destroy the irreligious”

To some it is a sacred statement. But to many, it seems a far fetched one. The very idea of a God being born is a ridiculous one to them. Is there a significance to this statement ? What are its implications ? In searching for answers, I was spell bound by an explanation. Please read on.

Whenever Krishna as being born a human is discussed, Buddha and Mahavira are also discussed there. Is this comparison correct ?

Buddha and Mahavira were enlightened masters who reached that stage through rigorous sadhana (spiritual exercises). Their sadhana was to empty out whatever belonged to them- physical, mental and intellectual till they reached the empty stage.

On the other hand , we have not known Krishna to have done any Sadhana. But still his preaching on the battle field in the form of Srimad Bhagavad Gita remains the greatest gift to humankind for the last 5000 years. What differentiates Krishna from the other two ?

Osho, in his superb book, “ Krishna, the man and his Philosophy”, gives a beautiful explanation. Here are his words.

“If I empty out my inside, if I negate something in me, it will cease to be, and I will achieve a kind of emptiness. But this emptiness will be just the absence of something that I have negated.

But there is a different kind of emptiness which is not of our making: this emptiness is born out of our awareness of our being. We are empty; we are emptiness itself, so we don’t have to become it.

Emptiness is our very nature; we are it. And when we come to it, it is not the result of some sadhana, some discipline or effort. And this emptiness is multidimensional.

Krishna makes an extraordinary statement on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, one no other man of enlightenment has ever made. He tells Arjuna, ”I will continue to come whenever the world is in trouble. I will continue to come whenever religion declines and disintegrates.”

Buddha and Mahavira cannot say this. There is no statement of theirs on record that they will come back again when the earth is beset by darkness and disease, by irreligion and profanity.

Rather, they will say, ”How can we come again? We are now liberated, we have attained to mahanirvana.”

But Krishna says, ”Don’t worry, I can come back whenever this earth is in distress.” When Krishna says he can come again he only means he has no difficulty whatsoever in coming and going. It makes no difference for him. His emptiness is so total that nothing can affect it.

Mahavira and Buddha can take emptiness only in the sense of release, of liberation, moksha,

because they have longed for and labored all their lives for this liberation. So when they come

to this emptiness they feel free and relaxed. It is the point of no return for them; the question of going back does not arise.

For them, going back will mean going back to the same old world of greed and anger, of craving and attachment, of hate and hostility, of sorrow and suffering. Why go back to the rotten world of senseless strife and war and misery? Therefore when they come to emptiness they just become dissolved into it, they just disappear into the infinite. They will not talk of returning to the same corruption and horror they have left behind.

But going back to the world does not make any difference to Krishna: he can easily go back if it becomes necessary. He will remain himself in every situation – in love and attachment, in anger and hostility. Nothing will disturb his emptiness, his calm.

He will find no difficulty whatsoever is coming and going. His emptiness is positive and complete, alive and dynamic. But so far as experiencing it is concerned, it is the same whether you come to Buddha’s emptiness or Krishna’s.

Both will take you into bliss. But where Buddha’s emptiness will bring you relaxation and rest, maybe Krishna’s emptiness will lead you to immense action. If we can coin a phrase like ”active void”, it will appropriately describe Krishna’s emptiness. And the emptiness of Buddha and Mahavira should be called ”passive void”.

Bliss is common to both but with one difference: the bliss of the active void will be creative and the other kind of bliss will dissolve itself in the great void.” Thus concludes Osho.

Buddha and Mahavira strived for an empty state. But Krishna is that emptiness itself. It is this that separates a seer from an incarnate. Buddha was time bound. Krishna is timeless. Krishna is God incarnate, an avatar.