6
6
2
2
1
1
.
.
I
I
N
N
T
T
R
R
O
O
D
D
U
U
C
C
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
T
T
O
O
A
A
N
N
I
I
N
N
C
C
A
A
R
R
N
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
Several academic studies focussing on ideas of the avatar provided me with
some useful starting points for my investigations. Parrinder (1970:13), who I cited
earlier, comments that it ‘is remarkable that little has been written in European
languages on Avatars and their meaning’, and Ludo Rocher (1980:106) similarly
writes that: ‘The detailed history of Viṣṇu’s avatāras still remains to be written’.
But a number of major works subsequent to this (including some very recent ones)
have significantly rectified this situation: Frank Whaling (1980)—on Rāma; Daniel
Bassuk (1987a,1987b)—on avatar-like ideas in various cultural settings; Deborah
Soifer (1976,1991)—on The Myths of Narasiṁha and Vāmana (two major tradi-
tional avatars); Sheldon Pollock (1991)—on Rāma, Freda Matchett (2001)—on
Kṛṣṇa; André Couture (2001)—on the word “avatāra”; and Noel Sheth (2002)—on
philosophical aspects of avatar ideas.
On top of these, my potential primary sources in this area are so numerous and
diverse that I can only meaningfully introduce them as I progress, at appropriate
stages throughout my study. I will make considerable reference to these—Sanskrit
and English electronic texts (e-texts) of many of the relevant works make this a
much more practical proposition than it would otherwise be. One can, for exam-
ple, digitally scan through thousands of pages of text and quickly locate any and
every reference to the Sanskrit term avatāra (or any of its various forms, deriva-
tives, or synonyms). But I will also make much use of secondary sources, for these
provide a useful basis in highlighting key points for discussion. There are also
numerous academic works that refer in passing to ideas of the avatar, or to tradi-
tions that might impinge upon them, and I will refer to some of these—again,
there are too many for me to introduce here. Of necessity, I will focus upon as-
pects of all of these works that are of relevance to an understanding of Sathya Sai
Baba’s persona. A fuller treatment of them is beyond the scope of this work.
Whilst I will generally opt to frame my work by way of historical narratives,
there are a number of alternative approaches worth mentioning here, assorted
academic analyses of various avatar traditions. Parrinder (1970:120ff.) gives
“twelve characteristics of the Avatar doctrines”, and these initially proved useful to
me in dividing up the large number of avatar statements that Sathya Sai Baba has
1. In Hindu belief the Avatar is real….
2. The human Avatars take worldly birth….
3. The lives of Avatars mingle devine [sic] and human….
4. The Avatars finally die….
1
1
.
.
3
3
E
E
x
x
p
p
l
l
a
a
i
i
n
n
i
i
n
n
g
g
E
E
m
m
b
b
o
o
d
d
i
i
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
6
6
3
3
5. There may be historicity in some Avatars….
6. Avatars are repeated….
7. The example and character of the Avatars is important….
8. The Avatar comes with work to do….
9. The Avatar shows some reality in the world….
10. The Avatar is a guarantee of divine revelation….
11. Avatars reveal a personal god….
12. Avatars reveal a God of grace….
Whilst this is obviously problematic if taken as a rigid essentialist description—
applicable to any and every traditional account the avatars (such accounts, as we
will see, are extremely diverse)—it perhaps has some value as an indication of
some of the general questions raised in the context of some of the major avatar
traditions (i.e. “are avatars believed to be real?”; “do avatars take worldly birth?”
etc.). At the very least, it gave me a starting point in my approach to my material.
Not all would agree with my use of such a starting point. Parrinder (1970:223)
later notes that most of the above “characteristics” are applicable to Christian un-
derstandings of the Incarnation of Jesus, and, to Deborah Soifer (1991:4), this and
similar observations made by Parrinder, completely invalidate his work:
Such an approach demonstrates the danger of translating Hindu (or any non-Euro-
centric) concepts into Christian terminology and highlights the differences and in-
comparability of the two traditions on this point, rather than uphold [sic] any valid
similarities.
Soifer (1991:4-5), concludes that:
By default, studies such as Parrinder’s Avatar and Incarnation indicate that the ava-
tāra is most deeply rooted in mythology and exhibits little significance as a theologi-
cal construct.
But, whilst this criticism suits the context of her analysis of mythological motifs
occurring in traditional tales of the avatars, I would argue that she is not justified
in making such a generally dismissive statement.
Many traditional authors understood the avatar in a theological manner, and a
summary of the beliefs of some of them, given by S.K.De (1961: 250-251), shows
that they were concerned with some of the same issues that Parrinder outlines:
(i)
The supreme being, though one, can manifest himself in various forms, all
forms being real, perfect, eternal and intelligential, but there are degrees of
excellence in the character of the manifestations.
(ii)
The Avatāra is real and not illusory, but he is also supernatural (divya) and
eternally existent (nitya).