The rise and fall of Avatars

If in Bhagavad Gita, Krishna portrays Himself as Sakalakalavallavan (master of all trades), Shri Vaishnavism takes Narayana to the extreme. Atleast in the Bhagavad Gita, souls had some role to play. But in SV, well...sorry to say...souls are as good as dead. It's as if when Narayana is allowed to make love, the souls have to be satisfied with just masturbation...lol. And, even the masturbation is supposed to be for the pleasure of Narayana (maybe He hides and watches them doing it). LOL

Okay...this is all crazy. Kannaal kaanbathum poi, kaadhaal ketpadhum poi. Theera visaarippadhe mei. (What all is seen by the eyes is false. What all is heard by the ears is false. Only the indepth investigation is the truth.)

When people have Upanyasams that are extreme, no wonder there is a lot of violence. These Upanyasams no doubt contain invaluable truths but when wrong words or phrases are used, it entirely changes the meaning and desired effect. These Upanyasams can easily be misused like how some use the promise of 72 virgins for jihadis or when Jesus says that He has come with a sword etc.

These flaming verses and quotes that are there in the different religions are also because of Karma. A verse that was told in some context thousands of years back is interpreted the same way as if things haven't changed. Sure, something is constant always which no one can explain with words on which everything in the universe moves about and is based on. In this respect, the Muslims are a little fortunate because they do not worship a form. Ofcourse their insistence that God neither gets born nor dies to negate the possibility of avatars is erroneous because even the Hindus say that the soul is not born or dies.

There is a very important concept, if not the most important concept, pertaining to avatar. It is this...is there an unique soul, different from all other souls, called Narayana that gets born in every age as an avatar or does every soul one-day becomes an avatar? The answer is that the 2nd statement is correct. Below is the reason...

I have heard in SV supporting the 1st statement but it is erroneous. In the 5th verse of 4th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that He knows all of His births but that Arjuna doesn't know. By differentiating Himself from Arjuna this way, it can be interpreted that Krishna and Arjuna maintain this status quo always. But I have 2 arguments against this, the 1st from my own understanding which is based on evolutionary principles and the 2nd from the avatara puranas itself. The correct way to interpret what Krishna said in the above verse is that, Krishna has evolved 100% and hence knows all of the stages or births He has gone through while Arjuna is still evolving and cannot know the future stages or births to perfection. The 2nd argument from the avatara puranas is this...Rama did not become an avatar till He met the Parasurama avatar. This means that Rama was still evolving while Parasurama was already an avatar and they both were two different souls. And when they met, the role just got passed on from one to the other like in a relay race.

The error in the Hare Krishnas is that they elevate an avatar to the status of God. Doing it makes Narasimha no different than Hiranyakashipu because even Hiranyakashipu wanted to rule everyone. Vishnu means All-Pervading and this simple meaning must not be unnecessarily complicated intellectually.