17

We hear a lot about incarnations of Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva and other Gods, but were there any incarnations of Lord Bramha too?

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
Aby
  • 10,103
  • 22
  • 71
  • 143

1 Answers1

15

Yes, Brahma has taken incarnations. Here are two of them:

  1. Chandra: As I discuss in this answer, there was once a Brahmana named Kaushika who received a curse from the sage Mandavya that he would die at sunrise. As a result Kaushika's wife, who had magical powers, stopped the sun from rising. So the world was engulfed in darkness, and the gods turned Anusaya, wife of the sage Atri who was a mind-born son of Brahma, for help. Anusaya convinced Kaushika's wife to allow the sun to rise in exchange for Anusaya using her magical powers to save Kaushika's life. The gods were pleased with Anusaya and offered her a boon. Anusaya asked that Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva should all be born as her sons. They agreed, and soon enough Brahma incarnated as Chandra the Moon god (AKA Soma), Vishnu, incarnated as Dattatreya, and Shiva incarnated as the angry sage Durvasa. Here is how their births are described in chapter 16 of the Markandeya Purana:

    The moon, the stay of the life of all creatures, was born as the mind begotten son of the patriarch Atri. Well-pleased the high-souled Vishnu was born from his own body as the best of the twice-born, Dattatreya permeated by the quality of goodness. Incarnating himself Vishnu was born as the second son of Atri known under the name of Dattatreya who sucked the breast of Anusuya.... Then was born Durvasa, a portion of Rudra impregnated with the quality of darkness. Thus Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva were born as her three sons. By virtue of the boon conferred upon her by the celestials Brahma was born at the moon, Vishnu as Dattatreya and Sankara as Durvasa.

  2. Vikhanasa: Mainstream Vaishnavism is based on a set of scriptures known as Pancharatra. The Pancharatra texts consist detailed procedures to worship the sage Narayana, an ancient incarnation of Vishnu and twin brother of the sage Nara. (Arjuna and Krishna were reincarnations of Nara and Narayana respectively.) Since the Pancharatra texts originated from Vishnu himself, they are followed by pretty much all mainstream Vaishnava Sampradayas, whether Sri Vaishnavas, Madhvas, Gaudiya Vaishnavas, etc. (For more information on the Panharatra texts, see my questions here.)

    But as I discuss in this question, there is another group of Vishnu-worshippers who worship Vishnu according to a different set of texts, the Vaikhanasas. They're a tiny minority among worshippers of Vishnu, but for instance they're in charge of the famous Tirumala Venkateshwara Temple. In any case, the Vaikhanasa tradition was founded by Brahma's incarnation Vikhanasa, as described in this excerpt from S. Rangachar's book "Philosophy of Pancaratras":

    Brahma incarnated himself as Vikhanas in the Naimisharanya and then Vishnu Himself taught Brahma the mysteries of worship in the form of thirty two questions. Since God, the Bhagavan himself taught this Agama to Brahma first, Vishnu Himself is the originator of the Agama also as in the case of Pancharatra Agama. As it was Vikhanasa who gave this Agama to the world directly through his four disciples or Maharishis, namely Atri, Marichi, Kashyapa and Bhrigu, he is as said to be the Pravartaka of this Agama and hence the agama is called after him.

    And then those four sages are said to have composed texts of their own in the Vaikhanasa tradition.

On a side note, putting these two stories together, we get the interesting conclusion that Atri was the father of one incarnation of Brahma and the student of another, all the while being the son of Brahma himself!

Community
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
  • 2
    Thanks Keshav. Its interesting to know the above. However, I heard a different story regarding Dattatreya in which all 3 Bramha, Vishnu and Shiv come to Anusuya as Rishis & asked her that she has to come nude to give them alms. This they were doing in order to test her Satitva. She smartly said a woman can be nude in front of either her husband or son, hence he asked all of them to taken the form of a baby for which she will act as a mother. Lords became happy & combined to form a baby(maybe with 3 heads). Hence, Dattatreya should be an incarnation of all 3 and not Lord Vishnu alone. – Aby Mar 13 '15 at 14:32
  • I think above story is from Ramayana. – Aby Mar 13 '15 at 14:33
  • @Creator My answer discusses Pancharatra, not Panchatantra. The Panchatantra, meaning five techniques or principles, is a collection of animal stories similar to Aesop's Fables. I'm talking about Pancharatra, meaning five nights, which refers to a group of scriptures which are foundational to Vaishnavism and which discuss how to worship Vishnu's ancient incarnation sage Narayana. They're called Pancharatra because sage Narayana performed a Yagna over the course of five nights. For more information on the Pancharatra texts see, e.g. my question here: http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/3843/36 – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 13 '15 at 15:09
  • 1
    @Aby I've definitely heard some version of that story before (except without the three heads part), but I don't think it has any basis in Hindu scripture; see page 7 of this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZM-BlvaqAf0C&lpg=PA7&ots=Nlh9Q4SPRh&dq=anasuya%20brahma%20nude%20purana&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false "The story of how the trimurthi tested Anasuya's chastity in Atri's absence, requesting that she serve them food while naked, is very popular though not found in the main Puranas." – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 13 '15 at 15:33
  • 1
    @Aby And it's definitely not there in the Ramayana. As far as I'm aware, the only allusion to the story of Dattatreya is when Rama, Lakshmana, and Sita come to Atri's ashram, and Atri introduces his wife Anasuya by saying that she is a "virtuous woman ... by whom for the reason of a divine command, in a great hurry ten nights were reduced to one night": http://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga117/ayodhya_117_frame.htm That's a reference to how Anusaya helped the gods in getting the sun to rise. – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 13 '15 at 15:45
  • 1
    @Keshav- Also, Jambavan was born with amsa of chatumukha brahma. –  Jun 05 '15 at 16:01
  • 1
    @Krishna Do you have a source for that? The Bala Kanda just says that he came out of Brahma's mouth. Are there other scriptures that say that he's an Amsa Avataram of Brahma? – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 05 '15 at 16:18
  • 1
    @Keshav - Bala kanda canto 17, verse 7 , goes as follows: (brahma is saying this) Poorva meva maya srushto jambhavanruksha pungavaha ! Jrubhamanasya sahada mama vaktraadajayata!!

    Meaning: Jambhavan, the chief of bears has already been created (begotten) by me. He was born from my mouth as i was yawning.

     –  Jun 05 '15 at 17:34
  • @Krishna Yeah, but that just indicates that he's the son of Brahma. It doesn't address whether he's an Amsa Avataram of Brahma. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 05 '15 at 17:44
  • 1
    @Keshav - Yes, but he was born with amsa of brahma.. Valmiki Ramayana itself says in Balakanda Canto 17, verse 2, Beget mighty part manifestations of yourselves, capable of assuming any form and assist Lord Vishnu.... –  Jun 05 '15 at 17:57
  • 1
    @Krishna That verse doesn't mention anything about "part manifestations". It just says: satya saṃdhasya vīrasya sarveṣām no hitaiṣiṇaḥ । viṣṇoḥ sahāyān balinaḥ sṛjadhvam kāma rūpiṇaḥ || "Let mighty and guise changing helpmates be procreated to that truth abiding and valorous Vishnu who is the well-wisher of all of us" http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga17/bala_17_frame.htm – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 05 '15 at 18:06
  • @Keshav - yeah, i agree witj you...then, Hanuman cannot be rudra avataram using the same logic. Hanuman should be son of Wind god only. Anyway, that is not point of discussion, here. –  Jun 05 '15 at 18:19
  • 1
    @Krishna Well, this has nothing to do with whether Hanuman is an avataram of Shiva. All I'm saying is that just because someone is a son of a particular god does not guarantee that they're an avataram of that god. It may be true in some cases that a particular individual is both the son of a god and the avataram of that god, but it's not guaranteed. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 05 '15 at 18:34
  • @Keshav - I agree with you. Though this question has nothing to do with hanuman, Hanuman is also not avatara of Siva. One cannpt have different yard sticks for measurement. –  Jun 05 '15 at 19:34
  • @Krishna "One cannot have different yard sticks for measurement." I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that something I said implies that Hanuman cannot be an incarnation of Shiva? – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 05 '15 at 19:37
  • @Keshav- What I meant is exactly contrary? Hanuman should be son of Vayu or wind god only and not an avatara of Siva. You can quote Shiva purana etc but even there he is son of Vayu only. Even, Kamba Ramayana seems to say that Hanuman is son of Wind god who also had rudra tejas. That doesnt mean hanuman was Siva or rudra avatara. Else, he should be considered as son of Siva, which for sure he isn't. –  Jun 12 '15 at 14:29
  • @Krishna "That doesnt mean hanuman was Siva or rudra avatara. Else, he should be considered as son of Siva, which for sure he isn't." I don't really understand what you're saying. You don't need to be someone's son in order to be an incarnation of that god. Vamana was the son of Kashyapa and Aditi, not the son of Vishnu, but he was an incarnation of Vishnu. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 12 '15 at 14:50
  • @Keshav - Going by the same argument of yours, Should we not say Jambhavan is also avatara of brahma and not his son. –  Jun 12 '15 at 15:54
  • @Krishna "Going by the same argument of yours, Should we not say Jambhavan is also avatara of brahma and not his son." No, that doesn't follow from my argument at all. All I am saying is that all three of these scenarios are possible: 1. X is the son of Y and the incarnation of Y 2. X is the son of Y but not the incarnation of Y 3. X is the incarnation of Y but not the son of Y. So nothing in my argument implies that Jambavan must be the incarnation of Brahma, and nothing in my argument implies that Hanuman cannot be the incarnation of Shiva. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 12 '15 at 17:33
  • @Keshav -"..So nothing in my argument implies that Jambavan must be the incarnation of Brahma" Why shouldn't Jambhavan be brahma's incarnation? –  Jun 12 '15 at 17:42
  • @Krishna All I'm saying is that the fact that Jambavan was the son of Brahma does not either confirm or refute the notion that Jambavan is an incarnation of Brahma. Because both scenario 1 and scenario 2 from my comment above are possible. So without additional information, there's no way to tell. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 12 '15 at 17:47
  • @KeshavSrinivasan shouldn't Krishna be Narayana and Arjuna be Nara in your answer? – Suhasini Jul 06 '15 at 10:34
  • It is very pompous that you yourself call Pancharatra 'mainstream'. Both the Sri Vaishnava agama/sastras, namely Sri Vaikhanasam and Pancharatram are mainstream only! Of the many temples in the nation, almost these 2 agama worships are equally spread. Just because census wise there are more pancharatris, it does not become 'mainstream'. – Anand Sowmithiran Feb 17 '23 at 06:31