The daśāvatāra, or ten incarnations, of Mahāviṣṇu are a cardinal note in dhārmika tradition, and a multi-layered record both of historical memory and civilisational wisdom. When we speak of a chronology, we deal not only with the sequence in which the incarnations are presented (internal chronology), but also the historical plausibility of their absolute chronology. One might wonder why the sequence need be dealt with, for it appears obvious and is generally agreed:
- Matsya
- Kūrma
- Varāha
- Narasiṁha
- Vāmana
- Paraśurāma
- Rāma
- Kṛṣṇa
- Buddha
- Kalki
Of these, avatāras 1 to 4 are said to be from the Satya Yuga, 5 to 7 in Tretā with Rāma representing the transition to Dvāpara, 8 at the transition of Dvāpara to Kali, 9 and 10 in Kali. This delineation and sequence make the daśāvatāra comparable to the theory of natural selection- it is asserted. Indeed, we may well notice the beginning from a creature of water, progression through amphibian to half-man-half-beast, to finally iterations of the complete man. This is not the only thing in the Purāṇas that throws intriguing speculations on what ancient Indians knew about reality.
But this sequence of avatāras is not their correct chronological order. There are many yuga-systems at play in the Purāṇas, primary among them the longer, Mārkaṇḍeya cycle and the shorter, Vaivasvat cycle.
In the daśāvatāra context, consider for example that Varāhāvatāra is associated with Svayambhuva Manu and Hiraṇyākṣa, while Matsyāvatāra with Vaivasvat Manu. This highlights the critical need to reconcile a daśāvatāra chronology with a manvantara-framework, and not to consider it in a yuga context alone. Let us explore the true chronological plausibility of each avatāra, before we present the actual temporal sequence of their appearance.
Matsya
Or the incarnation as fish. This avatāra appeared in the lifetime of Vaivasvat Manu, the 7th and current Manu. This detail alone prevents us from taking Matsya as the first incarnation of Mahāviṣṇu. In fact, it necessarily comes after any and all avatāras that are declaredly in earlier manvantaras. Is there a way to absolutely date this avatāra? Given that the concept of avatāra is, from a modern lens, patently supernatural, the best way to a dating is to date Vaivasvat Manu himself. As detailed in my framework for Paurāṇika chronology, there are bottom-up and top-down reasons to place Vaivasvat in the 5th millennium BC. The break in Indian skeletal record near 4500 BC offers a plausible marker for Vaivasvat’s flood story and the Matsyāvatāra.
Kūrma
Or the incarnation as an earth-bearing turtle. This avatāra appeared in the lifetime of Mahābali, with the added complication that another avatāra, Vāmana, also appeared during the same period. But when the tale of Bali and Samudra Manthana are parsed to detail we find: 1- Bali is first exiled to Pātāla, after the Vāmanāvatāra; and 2- He is later recalled for the ocean churning, when incarnates Kūrma. Thus, even against a relatively contemporary avatāra, Kūrma comes later. I argue in other places that the Samudra Manthana is memory of a proto-Neolithic revolution, which gives us a way to assign chronology to Kūrmāvatāra. A helpful detail comes from the Purāṇas- the Samudra Manthana took place in the 6th manvantara. My Paurāṇika framework gives a clear link from Bali and Samudra Manthana to Pṛthu Vainya and his decisive Neolithic revolution, and thus draws a date of ~7500 BC for Mahābali and Kūrma.
Revisit the daśāvatāra here, and recognise that the first 2 avatāras listed are those that are closest in era to the ‘current’ period- the 7th manvantara. Chronologically, the avatāras after Matsya (Paraśurāma onwards) are fully human, and both Matsya and Kūrma are fully animal. Taking the era of fully human avatāras as the ‘current period’ we find that the daśāvatāra sequence begins from the “first” avatāra of its own period (7th manvantara), and follows that up with the pre-formative avatāra of the previous period (6th manvantara).
In other words, the daśavatāra sequence demonstrates how a new cultural era of Indians recompiled, re-assimilated, recalibrated and re-contextualised the handed down history and wisdom of their ancestors. They began with Matsya and Kūrma as these were the from the ‘origin’ period of the most recent history remembered by them.
Varāha
Or the incarnation as boar. This appeared in the lifetimes of Svāyambhuva Manu and Hiraṇyākṣa Daitya. Even a cursory knowledge of manvantaras and Paurāṇika genealogy should make the true chronological position of this avatāra clear. Svāyambhuva is the first Manu, a direct son of Svāyam Bhu- or Brahmā. And Hiraṇyākṣa is the first Daitya, a direct son of Diti- who is one of the four primary matriarchs of Indian memory, the other being Satyavatī (wife of Svāyambhuva), Aditi and Danu. When viewed historically, the geological allegories of Varāhavatāra are clearly evident.
Portrayed as a belligerent Asura, Hiraṇyākṣa scours the earth for his filial and existential foes- the Ādityas. He marches at Vibhāvari, Varuṇa’s capital, and the latter submits to his banner. His consequent search for Viṣṇu reads like a massive earthquake and deluge. He pounds the earth with his club, breaking apart mountains and opening deep gorges. Then he plunges all of earth under water- the deluge, the melting of snow and rise of water levels both oceanic and riverine. This obviously disturbs the affairs of Manu and his people, who appeal to Viṣṇu to intervene. Thus manifests the universal deity in Varāhāvatāra. The battle that occurs between Varāha and Hiraṇyākṣa is also remembered as the first of twelve major Deva-Asura wars. Varāha kills the Daitya and restores earth upon the water surface, thus giving land back for Svāyambhuva Manu and his descendants to populate. The Matsya and Viṣṇu Purāṇa make no mention of Hiraṇyākṣa in their Varāhāvatāra tale, which reads in them only as a cataclysm and origin myth that well maps to the deluges humanity could have faced when glaciers, ice-sheets and icebergs melted in the Holocene.
In any absolute chronology then, Varāha is clearly the first avatāra- appearing long before Matsya and Kūrma.
The primeval Hiraṇyākṣa, for all his fury, is armed with a simple club- just as a man in the early Mesolithic would be. Even the imagination that created a vajra for Indra does not appear in his case. Svāyambhuva and Hiraṇyākṣa’s story describes the geological situation at Holocene onset, ~10000-9000 BC, and allows us to locate Varāha- the first avatāra- in the same era.
Narasiṁha
Or the incarnation as half-man, half-lion. This appeared in the lifetime of Hiraṇyakaśipu, given in genealogy as younger brother of Hiraṇyākṣa. We should allow for some license of memory, and assume more temporal distance between the two Daityas than is suggested by their fraternity. But regardless, it’s clear that Narasiṁha follows Varāha as the second avatāra, chronologically speaking. This builds on the true, fractal nature of the given daśavatāra sequence. It begins with the ‘origin’ avatāras of its current manvantara, and follows them with the ‘origin’ avatāras of absolute and mythic memory. The sequence from here on is in fact in correct temporal order, even as it completes a circle midway through the journey (forthcoming).
In Narasiṁha we also see a progression in civilisational trajectory. The era of Hiraṇyākṣa is of amoral violence and antagonism, of binary divides between Daityas and Ādityas, with internal rift even among Ādityas (as given in the tale of Indra, Tvaṣṭṛ and Vṛtra). Svāyambhuva Manu and his immediate descendants worship Devī and Sūrya, the mother goddess and sun god to put it reductively. But by the era of Hiraṇyakaśipu emerge clear moral/religious divides. The Daitya is enraged that his rebellious son, Prahlāda, worships Mahāviṣṇu- a rival god and deity of the rival Ādityas. There is also the atheistic element, where he smashes a pillar and challenges his son to show him where god is. These point to existential questions every civilisation confronts in its trajectory, and Bhārata visited them a long time ago. In Paurāṇika record, by this time we also begin finding the name of Śukrācārya as the Daitya purohita. When we see that Bhṛgu, the primeval Bhārgava ṛṣi, is an ancient and mythic name even in the Ṛgveda, this lines up with Śukra’s placement in a commensurately ancient era.
Vāmana
Or the incarnation as dwarf-man. This appeared in the lifetime of Mahābali, bringing us full circle to where the daśāvatāra begins. With Matsya as the formative myth of the ‘current era,’ the sequence returns to the avatāra that incarnates before Kūrma, chronologically speaking. Vāmana is clearly pre-Samudra Manthana, as it appears before Bali’s exile to Pātāla and the consequent invitation for him to return to churn. The chronological ordering is visually represented such:
The Paurāṇika sequence begins at the center with Matsya, the first avatāra of the 7th manvantara. Then it names the avatāra preceding Matsya, as a prologue to our current era. It then jumps back in time to the origin of it all, to the first avatāra of the first manvantara, and hence the first overall. From there it circles back, coming up to Vāmana, the avatāra preceding Kūrma. And we declare that this sequence begins at the center with Matsya because after Vāmana, it skips ahead to the current era proper- to all the mortal avatāras that follow.
Mortal Avatāras
We visit these together because their listing in the daśāvatāra sequence is in the correct temporal order. These are the fully human avatāras of the 7th manvantara, beginning with Paraśurāma, son of Jamadagni. Absolute chronology here is a contentious field. Put simply, one finds a range of dates being suggested due to 2 factors:
Debate on the date of Mahābhārata.
Difference of opinion in the reconciled genealogy of the 7th manvantara, ie, the number of generations between Vaivasvat Manu and the characters that fought in Mahābhārata.
Literature, arguments, opinions and salient issues on the above are too vast to describe in this article. But we understand that how one answers the above 2 determines the absolute chronology of the mortal avatāras. I place Mahābhārata between a wide band of 1900 - 1500 BC, favouring the earlier part. And I follow Pargiter’s genealogical reconstruction of 94 generations from Vaivasvat Manu to Kṛṣṇa. This takes Vaivasvat to ~4500 - 4000 BC, allowing us to link the commencement of 7th manvantara to the break in Indian skeletal record near 4500 BC. With a rough 25 years between generations from here on, we are met with Paraśurāma near 3500 BC. The period also represents pre-Ṛgvedic composition, through Viśvāmitra Kauśika and Jamadagni Bhārgava, as explained in this examination of Ṛgvedic chronology.
Following the trail, Rāma Dāśarathi arrives near 2700 BC and Kṛṣṇa near the Mahābhārata at ~1900 BC. Buddha of course comes at some point after this, though dates for him are also under debate and re-examination. And Kalki is the principal avatāra that is yet to come. But how do we revisit this correct chronological order for daśāvatāra under the yuga linkages given?
Reconciling Chronology, Yugas and Manvantaras
In my opinion, our failure to understand the multi-layered nature of yuga systems, and the fact that they exist in plural, has distorted even well-intentioned examinations of Paurāṇika history. At the very least, we must be conscious that the Purāṇas use a different yuga system for events of the current manvantara, and different ones for those of the previous six. This is only a basic differentiator, because within each yuga of a larger mahāyuga cycle are nested, smaller mahāyuga cycles.
For our context we may first consider the Mārkaṇḍeya Mahāyuga, a concept I borrow from JN Ravi.
This mahāyuga began with the Younger Dryas near ~12500 BC, and in earnest by Holocene onset at 9000 BC- the early period of Svāyambhuva Manu. And this is the mahāyuga being spoken of when we’re told that Varāha and Narasiṁha incarnated in the Satya Yuga. This Satya Yuga is in the Mārkaṇḍeya Mahāyuga. We are also told that Matsya and Kūrma incarnated in the Satya Yuga. This brings in a second cycle, a nested Vaivasvat Mahāyuga that commences with the 7th manvantara- and a part of the ongoing larger Mārkaṇḍeya Mahāyuga.
As the formative myth of the 7th manvantara, Matsya clearly incarnates in the Vaivasvat Satya Yuga. But yes- there’s ambiguity in this framework for Kūrma. Incarnating in the 6th manvantara, it precedes Matsya by a margin and cannot be in the Vaivasvat Satya Yuga. From the other end, the 6th manvantara is a long period after the 1st, so it cannot be in the Mārkaṇḍeya Satya Yuga either. I speculate the reference is similar to the Matsya reference. As the world-bearing tortoise in Samudra Manthana, Kūrma is the formative myth of the 6th manvantara like Matsya is to the 7th manvantara. Thus, it incarnated in a posited satya yuga of the nested, minor mahāyuga that began with the 6th manvantara.
A similar distinction is to be made for Vāmana and Paraśurāma of the Tretā Yuga. Vāmana incarnates in the Mārkaṇḍeya Tretā Yuga while Paraśurāma ushers in the Vaivasvat Tretā Yuga (by slaying Kārtavīrya Arjuna). The remaining references are exclusively in the Vaivasvat Mahāyuga. Rāma’s coronation marks the beginning of Vaivasvat Dvāpara Yuga, while Vaivasvat Kali Yuga begins with Kṛṣṇa’s death. For added elegance, by this time also commences the Mārkaṇḍeya Kali Yuga.
The final, yuga-reconciled and true temporal sequence of the daśāvatāra then is this:
Varāha (Mārkaṇḍeya Satya Yuga; 1st manvantara)
Narasiṁha (Mārkaṇḍeya Satya Yuga; 1st manvantara, or could be 2nd, arguably)
Vāmana (Mārkaṇḍeya Tretā Yuga; early/proto 6th manvantara?)
Kūrma (Posited satya yuga of nested mahāyuga cycle commencing with 6th manvantara)
Matsya (ushers Vaivasvat Satya Yuga; 7th manvantara)
Paraśurāma (ushers Vaivasvat Tretā Yuga; 7th manvantara)
Rāma (ushers Vaivasvat Dvāpara Yuga; 7th manvantara)
Kṛṣṇa (ushers Vaivasvat Kali Yuga; 7th manvantara)
Buddha (Kali Yuga; 7th manvantara)
Kalki (end of Kali Yuga and Vaivasvat Mahāyuga; end of 7th manvantara/beginning of 8th manvantara)
Endnotes
Some versions have Balarāma as the 8th avatāra and Kṛṣṇa as the 9th.
In dating avatāras, we do not neglect that they are multi-layered cultural motifs and not simply a historical note. But the date we look for is the plausible date of the initial historical memory, over which other layers accumulated over time.
The 6th manvantara is a prologue to ours in more ways than one. The first of 16 cakravartins, Pṛthu Vainya, is also located here, while the remaining 15 cakravartins are in the 7th manvantara. Located near 6000 BC in our framework, Pṛthu Vainya’s story represents the Neolithic revolution in more ways than one.
I’m aware of the specific school of thought that claims astronomical data for extremely high chronologies for Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata. To me there are 2 fundamental problems here. For one, astronomical data cannot be used as the principal bedrock for chronology. Astronomical timestamps, however hard an evidence of science, can transmit over stories and events. An astronomical reference is evidence that the recording was indeed made at the time it suggests, and not necessarily that it was made in the context suggested by the story that contains it. Secondly, even the same astronomical data can be interpreted variously and refuted by others. For recent examples of problems of the second kind in high chronologies, Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s work is a goldmine.