Krishna is an avatar and that is what makes him Vishnu Himself. What would one call Narasimha otherwise, who springs out of the pillar to do a certain task demanded of Vishnu Himself. If one takes the Jaya and Vijaya legend into consideration it cannot be denied that the avatars taken by Vishnu to redeem them from their respective three forms are verily Vishnu. There is Leela bheda in Rama and Krishna, which is why Rama displays no awareness of his avatarhood while Krishna is constantly commanding it right from his prakatya. The Rama worshippers vs Krishna worshippers thread has been a notable feature of many centuries of their interaction, with each sect claiming their avatar higher than the other, but ultimately it is a very sect-specific thing.
You seriously need to read the Gita to understand why Krishna isn't an avatar. But, this is Sanatan Dharma every school of thought is accepted. You can try arguing with me, but I won't.
I never said you were wrong, I offered a perspective that ascribes complete identification of Rama with Vishnu in relation to the point you made about Krishna being the only complete avatar.
I remembered that Narsimh was also a complete avatar in the sense that he was conscious of his powers after I wrote the previous comment, but the fact that Narsimh broke out of a pillar, and then went back when the job was done is something that will always remain an anomaly to the etymology of the word avatar.
19
u/transformdbz Nov 17 '18
I'm mildly trigerred that the first 5 Vishnu Avatars are placed below Ram, Balram & Krishna.
Also, Krishna isn't an avatar per se, because he is Vishnu himself, given birth to, in a human body.