Talk:Avatar

Buddha as the Ninth Avatar

I am a Hindu, have known Hindus well-versed in the Vedas, etc. so I have reasons to believe what I was taught about Hinduism is a view being held by a sizable Hindu population. Now coming to the problem at hand:

• This is the first time I have come across Buddha being considered an avatar among the dasavatara. No, I am not a Buddhist. I am a Hindu. I firmly believe that it should not be said that considering Buddha as an avatar is the predominant Hindu view. (At least the fact that the article says Hindus believe he is an avatar and Buddhists don't is reassuring in that I can get that bit extra support!).
• The Hindus that I know believe Balarama is the eighth avatar and Krishna is the ninth. I never knew there could even be a dispute about the ninth avatar.
• There is a belief that the main reason for Vishnu taking the "great" avatars is to reduce Bhoomi bhara/bharam, the weight of the population that Bhoodevi (Earth) has to "bear", by causing widespread damage. This is shown by Parasurama killing many kshatriyas, Rama killing Ravana & his asuras, Balarama & Krishna being instrumental for the Kurukshetra war, Kalki believed to kill many more people. Buddha and Chaitanya did nothing towards this.
• I don't say Buddha must be removed from the list, just that it shouldn't be said that he is more popularly regarded as an avatar than Balarama.
• I don't think I have done many (any?) POV edits related to Hindu Mythology at all, so my POV hopefully wouldn't be considered vandalism just like the edits of many anonymous users who removed Buddha from the list.
• The article seems so wrong to me, I have an urge to "correct" it, but I doubt my corrections would be regarded as NPOV. Also I don't want to get involved in any edit wars over it (nor do I have the time for them). I also considered listing this in Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute. But I don't know if a "reasonable" consensus can be reached at all since there might probably not be enough people knowledgeable in Hindu Mythology, who are active in Wikipedia. (I feel so because even in a premier Indian college like mine, I haven't convinced enough people to contribute) But in due course as wikipedia increases in popularity I believe the page would represent a "reasonably" NPOV.
• I don't want to force my opinions on the article page, but I thought I'll (force them here:) ) at least put forth my arguments here instead of not caring about what happens to this article & allow it to become better eventually. -- Paddu 20:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In response to Paddu: You are right that this is not a majority opinion. And yet, it has great following in many areas of India. Lots of Hindus I know refer to Buddha as Buddhadeb (or Dev if you're a Hindi speaker) and do consider him a form of Vishnu come to earth. For this reason, just recently, in the Birla Mandir in Kolkata,a beautiful Radha-Krishna temple, there is a series of murtis depicting the avatars which includes Buddhadev as one. Also, your theory about Vishnu's coming down to lessen population is weak, and as far as general Avatar thought in Hinduism, at best a minority opinion (I restate that this is only my feeling). Reasoning? Well, Matsya, Varaha, Vamana and Narasimha did not do any mass killing, and Kalki's aim is to dissolve all the world and existence, not lighten the load. The point of Avatars' coming is to uphold dharma, and if that means getting rid of one person, or destroying an army, it will be done. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:14, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO it is not an opinion held by the majority of those who have been influenced by the description of Hinduism found in the internet. My theory is basically that earlier Hindus used to consider Balarama as an avatar (among the dasavatara) and not Buddha. Later, some persons started preaching the "Buddha among the dasavatara" theory since that made it appear that Hinduism is flexible enough to accomodate "competing" religions. The only references to "Buddha among the dasavatara" you could find is in the WWW or in temples built recently.

It could be argued that my version of Hinduism is outdated & the only version that holds currency today is one that includes Buddha & not Balarama as an avatar. But such a claim cannot be proven by e.g., google searches, since the Hindus which do not care what the WWW says about Hinduism outnumber those who do (e.g. because many cannot afford to learn to use a computer, many learn very minimally about computers, many do not bother searching the web for Dasavatara related topics [which is so specific, not many would be interested in it]). IMHO a description of Hinduism must include views held by a majority of the entire Hindu population, and not just a majority of those who have put up Hinduism-related websites & those who visit them.

<strong pov>I almost get the feeling that wikipedia is not working the way I expected it to, etc. Such feelings mostly lead to people leaving the project. But I believe (or at least I've forced myself to believe:) ) that eventually wikipedia will start "succeeding" ("working the way I want"), for example in the present case, once more persons knowledgeable in Hinduism become Wikipedians, I expect the article to be the way I want.</strong pov> So rather than taking any drastic steps (which includes modifying the article to suit me), I just wanted to leave a comment here (which would never be deleted, by Wikipedia rules) so the views that I have presented are not unnoticed.

Note that I am not considering "Buddha as an avatar". I am only considering "Buddha among the dasavatara". For the present, I am extremely happy that the statement which said a majority "favoured" Buddha to Balarama has been removed.

BTW I remember visiting a site which says that both Balarama & Buddha, as well as the other Avataras except Krishna are avatars of Krishna. -- Paddu 20:42, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have read quite a lot of Hindu literature and I have read several times from 3 unrelated sources/groups the view that Buddha was an avatar. Andries 19:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Buddha as an avatar is a very recent change in Hinduism to appeal to the mass Buddhist populace. I have ALWAYS learned it as Balarama is the 8th avatar of Vishnu and Krishna is the 9th and most recent. Please correctly put Balarama in the right spot at least and not on the 9th

In the Bhagavata Purana there are a large number of avatars listed, of which Balarama is the 19th, Krishna is the 20th and Buddha is the 21st. See Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 1.3. Who decides upon which avatars are included in the Dasavatars? Is there a scriptural reference to this list somewhere? GourangaUK 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu‎ where this is explored in more detail. Ys GourangaUK 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Jesus Christ as an avatar

This topic is being discussed on Talk:Hinduism#Jesus. I guess the contents of the discussion can be included in this article. Jay 12:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jesus is considered an avatar of/identified with Krishna due to similarities in the places they were born/lived (Jesus among shepherds, Krishna among cowherds). There is also a story about Mariamman (an avatar of Parvati) appearing before an Englishman (when India was a colony) and making him realise that she was none other than the Virgin Mary. I've just come to know that Buddha is identified with Dakshinamoorthi (A form of Shiva) as both are always depicted under a tree, with a few (4?) disciples. -- Paddu 06:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is not at all a well-known or accepted theory. The number of Hindus who consider Jesus an AVATAR is miniscule, and the supposed similarities between Krishna and Christ are limited to comparative religion buffs. Most Hindus see Christ as a great yogi. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:18, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I should probably have stated that these are not well-known theories. I just wanted to say about some of the beliefs that some people have. Whether wikipedia should cover them is debatable. -- Paddu 20:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, if they are going to make Buddha a avatar then why not Jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverbackman (talk • contribs)

Jesus is considered to be an earthly manifestation of the christian God. He is considered to be PART of God, yet to be not just an extention. I would say he fits the definition of an Avatar. If he is NOT an Avatar, what is he? He is part of God, so he can't be just a DemiGod. Corrupt one 00:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disam page?

There are quite a few meanings for Avatar listed on this article. Should we break out a disam page for the various meanings? We could rename this article to something like Avatar (Hinduism). Objections? —Frecklefoot 17:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that because all the usages derive from the original hindu term, and don't have extensive amounts of information, it would be better to keep them all on one page. I know others might disagree, but that would be my inclination. — MOBY 18:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Harry Palmer

I think the business about the the vague programme for self-improvement is non-famous, advertising, and vanity. It should go. Smerdis of Tlön 01:12, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is quite well known in the Netherlands. I will re-add it. Andries 18:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Gaia Online

The inclusion of Gaia Online seems to be irrelevant to the subject of avatars. I've decided to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.222.168 (talk • contribs)

Spurious Carl Sagan comment

The comment...

"This dating in the Puranas was noted by Carl Sagan to be surprisingly accurate in comparison to estimates of the Sun imploding and thus ending life on earth."

...is clearly spurious. Carl Sagan has talked about the end of the life of the sun coming in several billions of years, not just over 400,000 years from now. The only Hindu time scale comments I could find from him are from an interview at http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm where he finds it interesting that some Hindu epics use a time frame of billions of years while Western creation epics talk in thousands of years. His comments are directed at multi billion year cycles, not half million year cycles.

I am going to remove the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecarol (talk • contribs)

Avatars and Virtual Worlds

What is this doing in this article? There is a disambiguation page linked to at the top that links to the virtual reality article. There's no need to mention it here. I'm removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benna (talk • contribs)

I don't understand why this article does not make any reference to "atavar" in the more common sense as understood by internet users.

See Avatar (disambiguation), linked at the top of the article. The common usage is taken from the original Sanskrit concept explained here. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 15:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

oh yes! thanks

I'm no Supreme Being, but I've got an Avatar

And here I thought an Avatar was just an icon representing a person online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.176.194 (talk • contribs)

---

I am from Iyengar community form Bangalore, brought up and educated there. Though I used to study about Lord Buddha in the Princely State of Mysore at that time, I did not find any proposal those days falling on our ears about considering Lord Budda as an Avatar or even 11th Avatara. After migrating to Chennai(Madras), there also I did not find at any time even in general discourses any proposal as above. Therefore Wikipedia has to note that this subject has to be widely discussed now due to the whole world becoming one, before arriving at a conclusion.

--Dore chakravarty 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Balarama

How come Balarama is the *ninth* avatar ? He comes 8th and Krishna 9th, while in the 'Budha version', Krishna is 8th and Budha ninth. Tintin 00:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Madhva

Talk:Madhvacharya has some stuff that can be integrated here. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 16:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Srimad Bhagavatam List

Maybe some of the original verses from the Bhagavata-Purana can be incorporated?

Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 1, Chapter 3:

Suta said: In the beginning of the creation, the Lord first expanded Himself in the universal form of the purusha incarnation and manifested all the ingredients for the material creation. And thus at first there was the creation of the sixteen principles of material action. This was for the purpose of creating the material universe.

A part of the purusha lies down within the water of the universe, from the navel lake of His body sprouts a lotus stem, and from the lotus flower atop this stem, Brahma, the master of all engineers in the universe, becomes manifest.

It is believed that all the universal planetary systems are situated on the extensive body of the purusha, but He has nothing to do with the created material ingredients. His body is eternally in spiritual existence par excellence.

The devotees, with their perfect eyes, see the transcendental form of the purusha who has thousands of legs, thighs, arms and faces -- all extraordinary. In that body there are thousands of heads, ears, eyes and noses. They are decorated with thousands of helmets and glowing earrings and are adorned with garlands.

This form (the second manifestation of the purusha) is the source and indestructible seed of multifarious incarnations within the universe. From the particles and portions of this form, different living entities, like demigods, men and others, are created.

First of all, in the beginning of creation, there were the four unmarried sons of Brahma (the Kumaras), who, being situated in a vow of celibacy, underwent severe austerities for realization of the Absolute Truth.

The supreme enjoyer of all sacrifices accepted the incarnation of a boar (the second incarnation), and for the welfare of the earth He lifted the earth from the nether regions of the universe.Varaha

In the millennium of the rishis, the Personality of Godhead accepted the third empowered incarnation in the form of Devarshi Narada, who is a great sage among the demigods. He collected expositions of the Vedas which deal with devotional service and which inspire nonfruitive action.

In the fourth incarnation, the Lord became Nara and Narayana, the twin sons of the wife of King Dharma. Thus He undertook severe and exemplary penances to control the senses.

The fifth incarnation, named Lord Kapila, is foremost among perfected beings. He gave an exposition of the creative elements and metaphysics to Asuri Brahmana, for in course of time this knowledge had been lost.

The sixth incarnation of the purusha was the son of the sage Atri. He was born from the womb of Anasuya, who prayed for an incarnation. He spoke on the subject of transcendence to Alarka, Prahlada and others [Yadu, Haihaya, etc.].

The seventh incarnation was Yajna, the son of Prajapati Ruci and his wife Akuti. He controlled the period during the change of the Svayambhuva Manu and was assisted by demigods such as His son Yama.

The eighth incarnation was King Rishabha, son of King Nabhi and his wife Merudevi. In this incarnation the Lord showed the path of perfection, which is followed by those who have fully controlled their senses and who are honored by all orders of life.

O brahmanas, in the ninth incarnation, the Lord, prayed for by sages, accepted the body of a king [Prithu] who cultivated the land to yield various produces, and for that reason the earth was beautiful and attractive.

When there was a complete inundation after the period of the Cakshusha Manu and the whole world was deep within water, the Lord accepted the form of a fish and protected Vaivasvata Manu, keeping him up on a boat.

The eleventh incarnation of the Lord took the form of a tortoise whose shell served as a pivot for the Mandaracala Hill, which was being used as a churning rod by the theists and atheists of the universe.

In the twelfth incarnation, the Lord appeared as Dhanvantari, and in the thirteenth He allured the atheists by the charming beauty of a woman and gave nectar to the demigods to drink.

In the fourteenth incarnation, the Lord appeared as Nrisimha and bifurcated the strong body of the atheist Hiranyakasipu with His nails, just as a carpenter pierces cane.

In the fifteenth incarnation, the Lord assumed the form of a dwarf-brahmana Vamana and visited the arena of sacrifice arranged by Maharaja Bali. Although at heart He was willing to regain the kingdom of the three planetary systems, He simply asked for a donation of three steps of land.

In the sixteenth incarnation of the Godhead, the Lord as Bhrigupati annihilated the administrative class kshatriyas twenty-one times, being angry with them because of their rebellion against the brahmanas the intelligent class.

Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Sri Vyasadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavati through Parasara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and subbranches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent.

In the eighteenth incarnation, the Lord appeared as King Rama. In order to perform some pleasing work for the demigods, He exhibited superhuman powers by controlling the Indian Ocean and then killing the atheist King Ravana, who was on the other side of the sea.

In the nineteenth and twentieth incarnations, the Lord advented Himself as Lord Balarama and Lord Krishna in the family of Vrishni [the Yadu dynasty], and by so doing He removed the burden of the world.

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

Thereafter, at the conjunction of two yugas, the Lord of the creation will take His birth as the Kalki incarnation and become the son of Vishnu Yasa. At this time the rulers of the earth will have degenerated into plunderers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.32.210 (talk • contribs)

---

I have deleted the image of vishnu with its 10 avataras as one of them is that of the Buddha. The thought that Buddha is a vishnu avatara is repugnant to all buddhists. Buddha can never be an avatara of vishnu. Buddha was an ardent critic of Rigvedic religion ( now called as Hindu religion). The obstinate attempt to appropriate the name of Buddha by Bhramins (the priestly class of Hindus)is malicious. Gravely threatened by the onslaught of Buddhism which had almost destroyed the stranglehold of Bhramins over the society, they started usurping the Buddhas religion by calling him an Avatar of Visnu, in order to destroy buddhism,(Buddhism is highly critical of Bhramin supremacy and the foundation of hinduism, The Caste System). This started when the Bhramin commander, Piyushmitra shunga, of the last Mauryan Emperor,assasinated the king and took over the throne. He systematically started the persecution of Buddhist monks leading to partial annhilation of buddhism in India. Read Babasaheb Ambedkars Thoughts on the same subject on http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/19A.Revolution%20and%20Counter%20Rev.in%20Ancient%20India%20PART%20I.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.10.119 (talk • contribs)

Current Yuga

"Kali Yuga, the time period in which we currently exist, which will end in the year 428899 CE" This is a misapprehension. Which was corrected by the jnanavatar Sri Yukteswar Giri, in his book "The Holy Science", he points out that a kali yuga lasts only 1200 years, and not.. some ridiculous number as is stated here. This is obvious of course.. we no longer live in a dark age, but an atomic age, or dwapara yuga. According to this "incarnation of wisdom" who indeed has displayed more knowledge of vedic astrology than anyone else as far as I know, kali yuga ended in 1700. I just felt that this should be pointed out.

Btw, what the eff happened to the article? As I was posting this comment it suddenly vanished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.37.154 (talk • contribs)

Evolution? Citations needed

"The animal evolution and development connotations also bear striking resemblances to the modern scientific theory of Evolution." in this (current as of this post) version of the article needs some citations in order to be justly claimed.--152.19.194.43 06:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have heard (through people around me and also mythological Tamil films) that in Tamil literature (is this the right word to use here?), living beings are classified as having 1 to 6 arivu. Humans are believed to have 6 arivus (the 5 traditional senses and intelligence). The number of arivus believed to be possessed by Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha are believed to be in increasing order. -- Paddu 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Balarama

Balarāma does not mean 'one who holds a plough', it means 'strong Rama'. One of his other names, Halāyudha, means 'plough-armed'. --Grammatical error 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

I removed this text, as it reads as an mini essay WP:NOR and does not have any references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== Rational View ==

Avatara: means re-incarnation. Also literally means to come down in Sanskrit. Interpreted as a god is reborn or come down from heaven. It should be re-interpreted as the person has re-incarnated or re-created all the properties that is attributed to a particular mythical character.

For example, in the epic Ramayana, Rama, Laxman, Bharat and Shatrughan all were Vishnu's re-incarnation. Meaning that, they all had attributes of Vishnu's character. And, not that the Vishnu's soul had been literally divided into four parts and entered into the bodies of the four brothers!

I agree the above should not be put back. It is not only original research, but part of it is quite definitely incorrect. How a word "should be re-interpreted" is also opinion. chris 11:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit word daveed??!

Looks like a crazy statement:

It derives from the Sanskrit word daveed which means "descent"

The word avatāra- itself means "descent". Can anyone find "the Sanskrit word daveed" in a dictionary, I wonder? So I'm removing it.--Imz 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you are curious to know: it came from a vandalism [1]--Imz 05:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the errors produced by me

Dwayne Kirkwood, thanks for fixing what went wrong after my edits, I haven't noticed that. Probably, it's a problem of my browser :-(.--Imz 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj

Someone recently added

Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj is claimed to be an avatar of Krishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by his followers.

However, the page for Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj doesn't make any mention of this. Either his page needs to be improved, or this addition needs to be removed Dwayne Kirkwood 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Main page has been desecrated.

Can someone find how the foul language (the F-bomb) was inserted and fix it? I tried to edit, but did not find the words I wanted to remove. It must be code of some sort.

71.42.30.186 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dashavatar needs a separate article

Dashavatar is an important part in Hindu mythology and should be taken as a separate article and the Avatar page should describe the generic meaning of avatar, while pointing to the important type of Avatar- Dashavatar of Vishnu.

Regarding the 9th Avatar controversy, I dont think that there might be a possible of amicable solution. Balarama is considered to be one of the avatars by some groups, but not all. Meanwhile, Buddha was added as an avatar a long time back, ostensibly by scholars like Ramanujacharya who sought to keep Hinduism as a whole and preventing a splinter group called Buddism from being an independent body. Many other great saints in this period like Adi Sankaracharya and Madhvacharya, who brought reformation into Hinduism by bringing a lot of elements from Buddism (removing of Sacrifice elements & harsh rituals, bring Vegetarianism and most importantly the concept of Mutt from the Buddist concept of Sangha) also seem to have agreed to this.

From where I grew up both Balarama and Buddha were not accepted, and Hayagriva was thought to be an avatar. So, I believe that the 9th avatar could be described as a subject of controversy and go on to elaborate on the remaining 9 Avatars on which there is no controversy. Balajiviswanathan 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Balaji Prabhu - I would disagree on creating a new article with this for the following reasons:

• 1) Each of the ten/eleven 'Dasavatars' are already covered in depth in their own individual articles. Why seperate this list from the avatar article where it is obviously of great importance. We would just be repeating information for the sake of it.
• 2) The Dasavatar is essentially a somewhat arbitary list of 'the most popular' avatars - there is no real scriptural basis to seperate them off from other avatars which are of equal importance in the scriptures themselves.
• 3) In terms of Balarama and Buddha - The Dasavatar is a man-made list - there is no ultimate truth on if Balarama is no.9 , or if it is Buddha. We can say with authority that both are described as avatars, and very different avatars at that. As long as both Balarama and Buddha are mentioned then it covers all bases. I have added something to show both sides of the argument. Thank you for pointing that out. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Vishnu bias

I know Vishnu's avatars are the most famous avatars but this article seriously ignores vitually every other devata or devi that have avatars. Where are the avatars of Shiva (even though it isn't a strong belief in Shaivism, Ganesha and Mata Devi? Even Vaishnavas acknowldge that Vishnu's consort Lakshmi has many avatars as well as Shesha Naga who has come as Lakshman. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the information on other avatars is somewhat lacking. It should be a more general overview on the concept of avatar, including those other than Vishnu as well. As you say, even in Vaishnavism there are avatars of other personalities such as Sesha, Harihara,Shiva and Brahma etc... If the page becomes too large it could simply be split into different articles later on? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

vishnu came to earth as an avatar so that he could protect people.and so that he could see how people act. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.51.51 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I concur that the article could be expanded to include other examples of avatars. There are four avatars of Ganesha described in the Ganesha Purana and an additional eight described in the Mudgala Purana. These avatars are important in Ganapatya tradition.Buddhipriya 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Vishnu Avatara [and number 22]

I have added the list of Vishnu Avatar based on what is stated in Bhagavad Purana. It is correct and authentic. At some point I will link the SB references to suitable verses from this site - "http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/3". Dont revert the number [of Avatara] back to 25 because it is incorrect.MohanSonti 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed references to both numbers (22 and 25) as it seems largely irrelevant to the article. Thank you for supplying the text references from the Bhagavatam and tidying the list. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.
(1) The reference for SB 1.3.26 already exists as Reference #2. The link in the sub-section created another reference (#4) with same name. I did not know to edit that. Can you please fix this.
(2) I have added the word 'numerically' in the description of the list because they are actually mentioned as "First Avatara is ..." to "Twenty Second Avatara is .." in the Srimad Bhagavatam.
(3) Since the number 25 is quite famous and certainly a misconception, I think we should make it clear somewhere about how the number was arrived at. The prigin of the numbers 22 and 25 need to be clarified to the readers somewhere. IMO MohanSonti 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment. I've fixed the reference and made mention of the 25 total, but kept it out of the sub-title. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Demon Avatars?

Are only Gods allowed to have Avatars, or can other powerful supernatural beings, like Demons, have them? I would like some examples. Corrupt one 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

According to my knowledge, it is not a mainstream Hindu belief. Except there is one exception, Ayyavazhi, a Hindu sect in Southern India. They believe all the evil demons (eg. Ravana, Kansa) are avatars of the same Devil-like being called Kroni. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaitanya mentioned the avatar list?

With due respect, Chaitanya is an avatar only to his followers. They see evidence of his avatarhood where no one else sees them.

Does it make sense to include his name along with standard, undisputed avatars of Vishnu? We might as well include Swami Narayan, Sai baba and everyone else by the same logic.

As there is a separate section for other avatars, that is where Chaitanya belongs.