Nice analogy Guru Maharaja. Very insightful for not having seen the actual movie and spot on.

It appears to me that in both quotes — in Time (2007) and in Times of India (2010) — Cameron sticks to the same explanation: ‘Avatar’ in the movie refers to the ancient concept of divine descent translated into the realm of modern technology. He did not say ‘but’ in the original quote from Time:

What is an avatar, anyway?

It’s an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form. In this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human’s intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body. It’s not an avatar in the sense of just existing as ones and zeroes in cyberspace. It’s actually a physical body.

The author acknowledged the term’s cyber space use in the very beginning of the article:

And some Hindu activists who habitually frisk all new releases for concealed sacrileges also needn’t worry—there are none in Avatar, or at least not more that in those little digital icons they hide themselves behind on their own e-chats.

and then moved onto discussing its primary Hindu meaning in application to the movie.

There are quite a few sources discussing this and other Hinduism-related themes of the movie quoted in this Wikipedia article.

So his movie is about an extension of the idea of downloading an identity into cyperspace to injecting intelligence into a remote biological body. Seems like the second, modern, secular definition of the word fits the movie.

A relevant excerpt from the interview, where Cameron, while acknowledging modern usages of the word, clearly says its primary definition was his idea in the movie:

What does the word avatar mean to you? It is a Hindu word for us also …
Of course, and we don’t even pronounce it correctly in the west. I understand the traditional roots of the word, which is that it is the descent or incarnation of a divine being in the flesh. Of course, that was the significance in the film, although the characters are not divine beings. But the idea was that they take flesh in another body. ‘Avatar’ is a term that’s now widely in use, as we all know, in cyber space, relating to second life, alter ego and things like that.

I am wondering, therefore, if your remark on the author’s “flaunting [his] literary ignorance” was completely accurate.

The beauty of the movie is that you see a transformation of all individuals on Pandora through both personal and mutual effort for a common cause, for the benefit of all.

Maybe we think like this: same as Jake Scully and Dr Grace, we are also avatars in this world, born here to discover our true selves, and in the process help the environment together with all individuals and life forms that exist here.

If only we could figure out how to satisfy their thirst…

Figuratively speaking, this world is Pandora. So how we can figure out to satisfy people’s thirst?

Chaitanya would say: become a guru. So, become a guru.
Inspire them. Show them a bright side of life.

If only we could figure out how to satisfy their thirst…

I can’t see how the movie is spiritual or inspirational. The plot was just the standard Hollywood battle of good versus evil. Predictably and unrealistically – good always wins.

You’ve now described the biggest problems with Hare Krishnas today: they can’t find inspiration even if it sits on top of their heads.

Are you sure you cannot see or feel anything inspirational in that movie? There’s nothing in that movie besides money making? As Lex Luthor character said in the original Superman movie, “Some people can read ‘War and Peace’ and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.”

For example, think about Srila Prabhupada, his journey, his inspiration. He found inspiration everywhere! That’s guru. Guru also means finding light, or God, everywhere! Looking at the bright side of things is another word for it.

Revelation is there around you, and when you get it, when you feel it, you also get the meaning of the word ‘avatar’ in its full, dynamic sense too. Then you go beyond dictionary.

How does this article criticize the movie?

It seems to me that you are guilty of the very crime you are condemning.Your strong words are cynical and condescending toward Hari Krishna’s. Why do you assume that all Hari Krishna’s criticize and belittle everything? Why do you call Hari Krishna a cult? Why do you say Hari Krisna’s are “always” condescending and critical? Hari Krishna doesn’t exist only within Iskon or the GBC you know.

The philosophy of Lord Chaitanya isn’t holier than thou – just the opposite. Be more tolerant than a tree and more humble than a blade of grass. Those holier than thou people exist in all religions and all walks of life. Why not consider them great practice for developing your tolerance and chill out.

I’ve seen the movie and thought it was excellent – loved the 3D and computer effects – really well done. I can’t see how the movie is spiritual or inspirational. The plot was just the standard Hollywood battle of good versus evil. Predictably and unrealistically – good always wins.

I have not seen the movie and just now read the review. I think the reviewer has negelcted the fact that the word avatara has taken on a second meaning in today’s technological world. From Oxford Press:

The icon representing the user of a virtual reality system.

This is what Cameron said about the meaning of the word in an interview with Time Magazine:

“It’s an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form.”[But] in this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human’s intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body . . . It’s not an avatar in the sense of just existing as ones and zeroes in cyberspace. It’s actually a physical body.”

So his movie is about an extension of the idea of downloading an identity into cyperspace to injecting intelligence into a remote biological body. Seems like the second, modern, secular definition of the word fits the movie.

That said, the reviewer has a positive take on the film in that he agrees with the theme of the movie, that human civilization is arrogant, conceited, etc. It has lost cite of core values and has much to learn from nature and the higher intelligence behind her:

Not succumbing to the stock trifle of sci-fi genre, James Cameron makes this question ( Why? And what on Earth (or on Pandora) do “culture”, “civilization”, and “human” stand for?) the fourth dimension of his movie—and answers it most convincingly: it’s the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elderly, self-sacrifice, respect for all life, and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature that qualify one as cultured, civilized, and human. . . .

Unfortunately for our civilization, epitomized by the human conquistadors on Pandora, from the place where we are happily getting ourselves into, we can only climb.

So I do not think this review is the best example of the problem you speak of, but it is not without fault—flaunting one’s literary ignorance while reviewing the expression of another.