What is the position of Dattatreya? Did he teach impesonalism? Does he have eka-mukha and tri-mukha forms?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
A question that we can’t prove. What is the position of Lord Athatreya? We know that he is incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Bhagavatam describes how he has appeared as a combined manifestation, Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh also.
So sometimes there is a form of Athatreya which is ekamukhi, sometimes it’s trimukhi, and then there are many saints who are considered to be the manifestations of some way of the Athatreya and it’s also said that the Athatreya actually taught impersonalism. So, what exactly is the understanding of the Athatreya? Answer. Firstly, the Athatreya is definitely an incarnation of the Lord.
Bhagavatam mentions it. Bhagavatam also mentions about him as one of the incarnations. Now, generally, the past times of incarnations are described in various Puranas and afterwards, depending on the specific incarnation, many other stories, many other past times may come up, which are ascribed to great devotees of that particular manifestation.
So, now, whether all those past times are authentic or inauthentic, how do we know that? Actually, there is no, those past times are not given in the Vedic scriptures directly. Suppose, there are some past times of the Lord, which we talked about, not in the Puranas, but when they are there, like there is much of Ram Leela, they are not directly there in the Puranas. So, but then, later devotees of Lord Ram, it has been revealed to them.
So, like that, it’s possible that the past times of others can also be, other incarnations of the Lord also. At the same time, if it is not directly mentioned in the scriptures, then, then, we have to be a little cautious in our approach. That doesn’t mean we have to say that it is not authentic, but we have to, I’ve decided based on the content of the teachings.
So, it, actually, that particular sampradaya which is claimed to be coming from the incarnation of the Lord, is giving teachings that are overall consistent with the Vedic teachings. And to that extent, that sampradaya can be accepted and we can encourage devotees who are already connected and are committed with that sampradaya and try to continue practicing that. But understand that the universal principles of the book that I talked about in the scriptures also, but for others who have not yet committed themselves to any particular path, we can encourage them to practice devotional service in one of the four sampradayas because they are directly mentioned in the scriptures.
The Gaurikam sampradaya comes from Madhvacharya and ultimately the Lord Himself. This is mentioned in the Padma Purana. So, regarding the, as I said, the various forms of the Tatra, it’s possible that the Tatra can perform many pastimes and in those pastimes sometimes it manifests one head, sometimes it manifests three heads, and that is perfectly okay because incarnation is special, where three deities have in one sense combined together to manifest as one progeny.
So, the Bhagavatam sometimes describes that these three became three distinct personalities and in some cases, in some of the Puranas, all the three deities became one personality, that is Vatatra. So, this refers to different Yugas when the Leela happened in different ways. In Vatatra teaching impersonalism, you have to understand that Jnana Marga is an integral part of the Vedic literature and the position of Jnana is not to be denied or rejected.
It has to be contextualized. In the Procreation, the Vedas talk about Karma Kanda, the Upanishads talk about Jnana Kanda and the Puranas, especially the Sathya Purana and especially among the Sathya Purana, the Bhagavatam talks about Bhakti and Parabhakti. So, if a particular incarnation of the Lord teaches Jnana Marga, we should not think that that is in any way an objectionable because Jnana Marga is also a part of the Vedic progressive path.
The problem comes up when the Jnana Marga is thought of as the highest or the most conclusive of all the Vedic teachings. Then only it becomes a problem but the Jnana Marga is given by the Lord to the Vedas and if a particular incarnation in a specific context comes to teach that specific path, then that shouldn’t disturb our faith in the complete Vedic program because we will have to see according to the context, even the statements of the Supreme Lord and His original manifestation is Krishna. Krishna in Govardhan Vila is speaking in Namsa and is saying that actually our work only produces results and it is Krishna himself but we don’t accept his words as the absolute truth because Krishna in that context is not speaking the ultimate Siddhanta.
He is performing a Leela and in that Leela he is speaking whatever is most appropriate for the unfolding of the Leela. Same way with respect to Atharatra, I guess the teachings of the Tathagata that we have currently with us, they do seem to be impersonalistic or impersonalism can be Mayama and impersonalism can also be Brahmavada. Brahmavada is Gyanamarga definitely a Vedic path and Brahmavada is actually the essence of the Gyanamarga.
That Gyanamarga has been misappropriated by some people and made into distorted into Mayavada and that is not something which is desirable and that’s why our Acharyas sometimes condemn it. So overall when we see people who have or are following an existential culture, who have devotional habits and who are devoting themselves to a particular incarnation of God, then we should respect them and focus on and encourage them to practice the principles of the Vedic and humanist scriptures. Regarding specific scenes, generally speaking in India the concept of incarnation has been used very widely for various purposes.
And because of that it’s difficult to say which claims of a particular scene being an incarnation are true and which are not true. So if a specific incarnation is not mentioned directly in the Vedic scriptures or at least not embedded in the Vedic scriptures, then we can be we need to be cautious about accepting that. But at the same time that doesn’t mean that we have to condemn those people.
Because ultimately the purpose of the devotion is not that particular person. The purpose of the devotion is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. And that is not as damaging as when certain impersonalists directly claim that we are the incarnations of the Lord and actually I am God, you can become God.
That sort of mayavad is condemned very strongly. But in general if the path of bhakti is taught and it is taught towards a particular incarnation of the Lord, then we can focus on that aspect. And if impersonalism is taught, we also understand that as a part of the progressive Vedic plan and see it in that context.