the importance of lord indra

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Anand and Shri Pannvalan ji,

Faith varies from person to person. It can even vary from parent to child. And i suppose so does the definition of a value system.

I do agree with you. But please also take into consideration that there are people to whom such things are a matter of interest, as just a subject. And what may be a fruitless pursuit to one, might just be a matter of interest to another.

Deification of zoomorphic, anthropomorphic, nature elements, and so on has a lot to do with evolution of thought, evolution of society, provides clues to the movement of people, growth of civilization and so on.

If one would like to accept that the vedas are anadi, its perfectly fine. At the same time, if one wants to rely on various data, including scientific, that both humans and languages have a beginning somewhere in the timeline of this universe, then well, they too have a place under the sun.

Who knows someday in future there may be deification of various genes...

Regards.

 

[pannvalan]

I too agree that there must be a beginning for everything. But, 'anadi' here means 'no one really knows where and when it really started'.

Hence, no useful purpose will be served in researching things like these, as they will be only meaningless pursuits.

It is like this.

A person kept on digging a well, expecting water. But, even after going very deep, he could not find water.

Then only he realised that he could have stopped the pursuit and instead gone to some other location, for starting the same work afresh.

Thus he wasted much of his precious time and resources.

 

[happyhindu]

There is an other story of a similar kind but different message i came across in a story book for children.

A man wanted to dig for water. He dug very deep for a few days and then gave up thinking there is no water there.

He went to an other location and dug there, found no water and moved on again, and yet again and again to other locations.

A monk passed by. He asked the man what he was doing. The man replied he was digging for water in so many places for more than two years but has not yet found water.

The monk replied "You wasted your time and energy by digging in different areas for limited periods of time. If you have had stayed at one location and dug at the same place for all this time, you would have surely found water".

For some researching to find fruit is the goal. For some just the pursuit is the goal.

Some seek a destination in life. For some, the journey of life itself is the destination.

Its all about just the love of learning.

 

[anandb]

Maha Periavaal gives extensive explanations as to why it is pointless to investigate the origin or source of Vedas or gods. The 4 Vedas and the Upanishads are known as the "Sruti" that which was heard or seen and not created. That is why it is called Anadi or timeless because their sounds are constantly etched in space and which can never be destroyed. There is no need to determine if the Vedas preceded the Paramatman or the other way around because the Vedas are known as the breath of the Paramatman. Though the universe is created and destroyed many times the sound of the Vedas is never destroyed as it is constantly in space. The various rishis through the strength of their tapas realized these Vedas like a flash or a intuition. That is why they are called "mantradrashtas" and not "mantrakartas". Same reason why the Vedas are called "Sruti" - seen, realized and apauresheya (ie) divine and not man-made. In contrast the Puranas, Dharmashastras are called "Smiriti" or man-made.

The Maha Periavaal says beautifully, the Puranas enforce through stories what is said in the Vedas. For ex, Taitrio Upanishad says "Satyam Vadha" (speak the truth always) exemplified by stories from Harichandra. It also says "Dharmam chara" (Follow Dharma) exemplified by Yudhistira in Mahabharata. The Puranas are supposed to be taking place in each creation with slight variations. He says this கால ஆராய்ச்சி is not right in our religion as even the rishis of lore were not the creators of the Vedas. The Vedas itself was a oral tradition just before the advent of the kali. Everything is attributed to the Paramatma who resides in us as well.

For detailed explanations please read "Deivathin Kural" - 2nd part under the chapters "Vedas" and "Puranas"

 

[happyhindu]

THE FACT ABOUT INDRA i HAVE GATHERED FROM READING SEVERAL BOOKS ON HINDU mYTHOLOGY, THE PURANAS AND SEEING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CULTURE IN A RATIONAL MANNER
Siva was definetely not a Vedic God.THe Rudras were there in the Vedic times and it evolved into Siva.
I feel that prioe to the vedic people there must have been some kind of phalic (linga worship) worship.This was nit liked by the Vedic people.In fact (I do not recollect correctly now who) Indra or one of the Vedic Devas were reerred to as sisira nasyahah meaning destroyer of lingas
The Dhasha Yanja episode itself is to bring Siva into the Vedic fold and give himea shre of the Havir
Vishnu as now we know was not in the Vedas.There is an indirect reference to the Vamana Avataram by the saying he measured the three worlds with his foot steps

Shri Pbkhema Ji,

This article on wiki says Vishnu is mentioned 93 times in the vedas: Vishnu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The three strides of Vaman Purana, it seems, also appears in Vishnu Sukta of the Rig, as mentioned in the wiki article on Vishnu.

It also seems that Rudra became synonymous with Shiva during the time of the itihaasas. And looks like the period of itihasas (period when ramayana was written) predated that of the atharva: Indian epic poetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting indeed.

And more interesting is that Rudra is described as the father of the storm gods, Maruts in the Rig: Shiva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (i must go find for that verse in the rig).

So it looks like Rudra and Shiva (as the one associated with Parvati, Ganesha, Karthikeya) are likely to be two different entities.

Regards.

 

[anandb]

I have no problems about researching. My only worry is arriving to wrong conclusions based on faulty research especially in relation to Vedas. The clues for a lot of research in Vedas is in the Vedas itself and not outside it. The Maha Periavaal gives lot of answers by unraveling the Vedas itself to lay people like me. There is an entire chapter devoted to how the various sthala puranas are inter related. What he says may not be scientifically provable. But his logic and tarkha shastra is irrefutable. Just reading one chapter of these books set you thinking very hard. I personally have blind faith for the simple reason, I think, that he has no axe to grind. All he was doing was trying to make Hindus especially brahmins realize the beauty of their faith and scriptures. Nothing more.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Anand,

I admire and respect your faith and respect for Sri Mahaperiaval.

Apart from the explanations given by Mahaperiaval, there are others as well.

What may be right interpretation to one need not necessarily mean the end of it all to the other.

Am very well aware that 'science' cannot be applied to these matters.

I just hope the likes of me is free to explore and discuss things on this thread.

Thankyou.

 

[pannvalan]

Without relying on western sources like Wikipedia or any celebrated historians from outside the country, why shall we not believe the words of our own historians and other scholars? Don't we trust our own people or do we think that the premise, methodology and conclusion of them are all wrong?

If it is so, does it not show that we nurture some sort of prejudice against our own
countrymen, howsoever great they are?

 

[happyhindu]

Without relying on western sources like Wikipedia or any celebrated historians from outside the country, why shall we not believe the words of our own historians and other scholars? Don't we trust our own people or do we think that the premise, methodology and conclusion of them are all wrong?

If it is so, does it not show that we nurture some sort of prejudice against our own
countrymen, howsoever great they are?

Wiki is obviously not the best source. But it helps when an article provides the exact verses of the scripture, for a reader to look up on his / her own.

There are many Indian indologists as well as western ones. One need not choose which author to "trust". By doing so, we might become like the muslims to whom the words of Muhammad are final and must be defended at any cost, no matter how erroneous they might be to the 'others' (kafirs).

Its better to leave the author aside and simply deal with the subject matter. Each time one comes across new info, obviously the old pattern of thinking changes - and if that happens, it means one has allowed his mind to be open to change. Otherwise like an unopen parachute, the mind might simply have to fall to the ground with no hope of surviving. Without taking off the ground, the mind might just get bored or feel like still stagnant waters with no movement like a breeding place for mosquitoes.

 

[KRS]

Dear Pannvalan.

Respectfully sir, what is wrong in quoting Wikipedia? Most of the topics about India, Hinduism and such there are authored by Indians and argued and settled by Indians.

Again, I do not understand your aversion to scholorship by western folks. Because of the educational system in the west research in Indology is very much supported. In India, while such research is going on, I don't come across it much in an easy way.

While seeking truth, I usually look in to the content, not at tan author's nationality first.

Regards,
KRS

Without relying on western sources like Wikipedia or any celebrated historians from outside the country, why shall we not believe the words of our own historians and other scholars? Don't we trust our own people or do we think that the premise, methodology and conclusion of them are all wrong?

If it is so, does it not show that we nurture some sort of prejudice against our own
countrymen, howsoever great they are?

 

[pannvalan]

I never said that wikipedia shall not be referred to. In fact, it is very useful and I myself take its help, many a time.

Similarly, I do not say all that western is not authentic or cannot be relied upon. I only suggested an eclectic approach be adopted. Instead of quoting from exotic sources alone, references to indigenous research studies will make the write-up more neutral and increase its credentials.

A good and successful researcher always does this and leaves the judgement or inferences to the wisdom of the readers. Whatever suits one, may be taken as valid and more acceptable by the person concerned.

This is what I emphasize.

 

[happyhindu]

A good and successful researcher always does this and leaves the judgement or inferences to the wisdom of the readers. Whatever suits one, may be taken as valid and more acceptable by the person concerned.

This is what I emphasize.

Sir, again am not sure its about picking and choosing things as it 'suits' one.

There is no place for an individual's choice, preference or convenience when any point of research, scientific or historical, is to be validated by proper data.

One cannot expect to see or accept only select works of select historians because that is what one wants to see, and ignore other works with equal or more depth of info. For an overall picture, all sources must be looked into. In case emotions are involved, they need not be accepted. But there is nothing wrong in mentioning them.

 

[vikrama]

Dear Anand,

I admire and respect your faith and respect for Sri Mahaperiaval.

Apart from the explanations given by Mahaperiaval, there are others as well.

What may be right interpretation to one need not necessarily mean the end of it all to the other.

Am very well aware that 'science' cannot be applied to these matters.

I just hope the likes of me is free to explore and discuss things on this thread.

Thankyou.

I agree with you, madam. I have high regard for Mahaperiyaval and have read the 7 volumes of Deivathin Kural many times over. But that does not prevent me from probing into the scriptures. I do not claim to have mastered the subject but I have made some sort of study into the topic and the findings have been described in my book "Vedaneriyum Saivathuraiyum'. I will be giving excerpts from it as and when occasion arises.
Now on 'linga worship in vedas'. (sorry, you will have to resort to transliteration software, as I am short of time now.)

வேதத்தில் வரும் சிசினதேவர்கள் [ரிக் 7.21.5, 10.99.3]என்ற சொல்லுக்குக் குறி வழிபாடு செய்வோர் எனப் பொருள் கொண்டு, சில ஆங்கிலேயர்கள், இது சிவலிங்க வழிபாடு செய்யும் தென்னாட்டவரைக் குறிக்கிறது என்றும் இவர்களை வேதம் இகழ்வதால் இது ஆரிய திராவிடப் பூசல் என்றும் கூறினர். ஏழு நூற்றாண்டுகளுக்கு முன், ஆரிய திராவிடப் பிரச்னைகள் தோன்றாத காலத்தில் எழுதப்பட்ட ஸாயணர் உரையில் சிசின தேவர் என்பதற்குப் பால் நுகர்ச்சியில் வரம்பு கடந்த நாட்டம் உடையவர் என்று தான் பொருள் கூறப் பட்டுள்ளது. ஸாயணரை விடக் காலத்தால் முந்திய யாஸ்கர் என்பவர் எழுதிய நிருக்தத்தின் (அரும்பத உரை நூல்) அடிப்படையில் அமைந்ததாகவும் வேதத்தின் மொத்தக் கருத்துக்கு இயைந்ததாகவும் உள்ளது இது. கிரிபித் என்னும் ஆங்கிலேய மொழிபெயர்ப்பாளர் ஸாயணர் கருத்தையே ஏற்கிறார். இம்மொழிபெயர்ப்பே பெரும்பான்மையோரால் ஏற்கப்படுவது. எனவே சிசின தேவர் என்னும் சொல்லுக்கு சிவ வழிபாடு செய்வோர் எனப் பொருள் கூறியது ஆங்கில அரசாங்கத்தின் பிரித்தாளும் கொள்கையைக் காட்டுகிறது.

லிங்கம் என்ற வடசொல்லுக்கு அடையாளம் என்பதே முதற்பொருள். சிவன் என்ற பெயரை இறைவன் என்ற பொருளில் முதன் முதலாகப் பயன் படுத்தும் வேதப் பகுதியான ஸ்வேதாஸ்வதார உபநிடதம், சிவனுக்கு உருவமில்லை, ஆனால் பாமர மக்கள் வழிபட ஏதேனும் அடையாளம் வேண்டி இருக்கிறது என்று கூறுமிடத்தில், அடையாளம் என்ற பொருளில் லிங்கம் என்ற சொல்லைப் பயன்படுத்துகிறது. அது இன்றைய லிங்க வடிவைக் குறிப்பிடவில்லை. [The origin and early history of Saivism – C.V.Narayana Iyer p 48]

 

[DURGADASAN]

Wow Great explanation Vikrama ji... I too thought of like that only. This thread started somewhere and goes somewhere to rely whether wikipedia is good source or bad deviating from indra. Anyhow, thanks for your clarification about chichina devas.

Pranams

 

[pbkhema]

Further to my earlier post in Adityahridayam in the Naamavali Sun is called as Sisiranasanah
I do not know about the Wikepedia.I have gone thru the translation of Rg veda several times.Vishnu to my memory is mentioned 3 or 4 times and in all the Rks only the three strides are referred to

 

[anandb]

Dear Anand,

I admire and respect your faith and respect for Sri Mahaperiaval.

Apart from the explanations given by Mahaperiaval, there are others as well.

What may be right interpretation to one need not necessarily mean the end of it all to the other.

Am very well aware that 'science' cannot be applied to these matters.

I just hope the likes of me is free to explore and discuss things on this thread.

Thankyou.

Absolutely agree, HH. Am nobody to impose any rules and not that kind as well. You stated your opinion and I stated mine.

thanks

 

[KRS]

Thank you Pannvalan for the clarification.

Just to let you know that a source like Wikipedia covers most of the references on a subject, as one can challenge the validity of a statement by citing valid contra view sources. I remember one of our own erstwhile members, Sri Nacchinarkiniyan Ji urging our academically oriented members to sign in there and be contributing.

Regards,
KRS

I never said that wikipedia shall not be referred to. In fact, it is very useful and I myself take its help, many a time.

Similarly, I do not say all that western is not authentic or cannot be relied upon. I only suggested an eclectic approach be adopted. Instead of quoting from exotic sources alone, references to indigenous research studies will make the write-up more neutral and increase its credentials.

A good and successful researcher always does this and leaves the judgement or inferences to the wisdom of the readers. Whatever suits one, may be taken as valid and more acceptable by the person concerned.

This is what I emphasize.

 

[vikrama]

Further to my earlier post in Adityahridayam in the Naamavali Sun is called as Sisiranasanah
I do not know about the Wikepedia.I have gone thru the translation of Rg veda several times.Vishnu to my memory is mentioned 3 or 4 times and in all the Rks only the three strides are referred to

Dear Sri pbkhema,
seems you have mistaken sisna शिश्न for sisira शिशिर. Sisira means cold and the sun is rightly called the destroyer of cold (weather).

 

[talwan]

lord indhira

At initial period of vedic times Aryans worshipped Soorya,Chandra,Varuna and Indhira. As the knowledge on 'Brahmam'
was enhanced by Upanishads, people thought Brahma,Siva,Vishnu are superior to Indhira and they started worshiping siva,vishnu and indhira's importance was reduced.
alwan

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sri pbkhema,
seems you have mistaken sisna शिश्न for sisira शिशिर. Sisira means cold and the sun is rightly called the destroyer of cold (weather).

Its interesting, how one tiny misspelt word can cause so much difference in conveying the right meaning

Am just curious and not able to find out yet, was idol worship present during the vedic times (abt 1000 bc)?

 

[vikrama]

Its interesting, how one tiny misspelt word can cause so much difference in conveying the right meaning

Am just curious and not able to find out yet, was idol worship present during the vedic times (abt 1000 bc)?

As far as I know there was no idol worship as we understand it today. Agni was praised in so many verses and they made oblations into the fire. But it seems that the Agni referred to, was not the fire. He is described as a wise sage. He summons the other devas and performs the duties of a priest. These attributes do not fit with the fire. It was something else and the physical fire was only a symbol. So we can say that worship of symbols as representing the god was practiced then.

Aurobindo says Agni refers to the divine will. (What it means I do not know, but Bharathi translates it as courage of the intellect.)

Bharathi says that the one benefit we got from Buddhism was idol worship. Historians say that idol worship came into vogue with the birth of Mahayana Buddhism.

 

[DURGADASAN]

Both hinayana as well mahayana have the idol culture worship. Anyhow, mahayana in the interest of spreading their culture very fast, erected idols in macro sizes and might be the culture slowly entered herealso.

Pranams

 

[pbkhema]

Agni was the most sought after of the Vedic Deities,According to ne of the Rks he disappaears and the devas search for him.They want him as he brings them the Yanjabhagam.Agni comes back on conditionthat he is also given a chaare.
Incidentally I gathered the following from a research paper in Hindu Mythology.
The Devas are known as "Suras"
The demons or anti-gods are known as "Asuras:
Sura panam is an intoxicant drink.In this case Soma.
The devas were entitled to drink Soma juice and hence they were :Suras:
The Asuras were not entitled to the drink hence Asuras
I am searching for that Rk which mentions about linga destroyers

 

[ravivararo]

Dear Pbkhema ji,

Manu smriti says that[FONT=&quot] the slayer of a Brahmana, (A twice-born man) who drinks (the spirituous liquor called) Sura, he who steals (the gold of a Brahmana), and he who violates a Guru’s bed, must each and all be considered as men who committed mortal sins (mahapataka). [v.9.235.] [/FONT] .

[FONT=&quot]According to Gouthama Dharma Sastra, [/FONT]the assassin, he who drinks spirituous liquor (Soma Pana and Sura Pana), the violator of a Guru's bed, he who has connection with the female relatives of his mother and of his father (within six degrees) or with sisters and their female offspring, he who steals, an atheist, he who constantly repeats blamable acts, he who does not cast off persons guilty of a crime causing loss of caste, and he who forsakes blameless (relatives), become outcasts, Likewise those who instigate others to acts causing loss of caste and he who for a (whole) year associates with outcasts They will be called as out caste.


Pl. clarify, whether Suras can drink sura pana or not, in view of the ban on Sura pana and Soma Pana.

 

[sangom]

Your question requires as its answer the whole history of what we call Hindu religion today. I will try to compress it as much as possible. A close study of the Rigveda will show that even while the Rigveda was being compiled, there was probably a decline in the worship of Indra as the highest god. This will be evident from the Vrishaakapi sukta (Rigveda 10.86), in which Indraani seems to find fault with Indra for always being with Vrishakapi and not going to yajnas for enjoying Somapana. Perhaps the worship of some other deity with the form of a green ape was becoming popular in those days, we don't know.

Subsequent to the rise of Buddhism and its spread during the reign of Asoka and his successors, the Vedic religion of yagas etc., declined and popular sentiment had probably been influenced by the Buddhist as well as Jaina preachings. So, the Vedists (those who believed in the vedas and the religious ideas emanating therefrom) had to amend their codes to some extent. The Upanishads, some of which had become very well known by this time, also highlighted the metaphysical aspects of religion rather than the purely ritualistic one. That was when the Puranas and Itihasas came into existence. More than one redaction has been done to Mahabharata so as to suit the needs of the popular sentiment. With the concept of "avatara" coming in to practice and all avataras being ascribed to Vishnu (who was only a minor deity in the Rigveda and subordinate to Indra), Vishnu became the most worshipped. Finally, the claims of Indra and Vishnu for the pride of place in the Hindu pantheon was settled by the Bhagavata Purana, according to which Krishna, the avatara of Vishnu stopped Nandagopa from performing the annual Indra Pooja, and when Indra rained furiously for days on end in revenge, Krishna lifted the Govardhana and thus proved his superiority. Indra thus went into practical oblivion. His name is nevertheless ritualistically remembered and havis given in the homas performed by us which still retain some vestiges of the old Vedists' beliefs.