• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Krishna Vs Indra in the Rigveda (Contd. from Temples, Temples and Temples here)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shri Subbudu,

I feel we should make a distinction between devotees of Krsna and those who are into the so-called Krsna cult. Any cult prohibits intelligent enquiry because no cult can withstand rational questioning, IMO, probably. And those who may withstand rational questioning - like the atheists - do not take their association to the cult status.

Thus, in the Krsna cult, He (Krsna) is beyond any enquiry, probe, questioning and reproach. This nascent trend will be visible if you read sisupala vadha episode. The other side of the coin is that "koojaas" like Bheeshma, the Pandavas, gopis, etc., are always favoured. That is why Smt. Renuka has very appropriately posted
புத்தியுள்ள மனிதரெல்லாம் வெற்றி காண்பதில்லை
வெற்றிபெற்ற மனிதரெல்லாம் புத்திசாலியில்லை

If you want to be successful in life, keep your rationality away, blindly follow Krsna; otherwise you may end up as unsuccessful as the three hiranya (jaya-vijaya) pairs! That is the moral :)

Suradas Prabhu Hey Giridhari..

First we started on Govardhana Giridhari episode and now we are in the episode where we are blind for the Love for Krishna..Suradas Ji.. now I know..you were the only sighted one..
You were blind to the world but sighted to the Truth and thats what sight is all about.

reminds of me of a christian hymn Amazing Grace..
Was blind but now I see...

http://youtu.be/HsCp5LG_zNE


So lets wait for inputs for the next epidose of the
MEGAAAAA SERIAL...Krishna Vs Indra (In the Rig Veda)
Tune in..not to be missed....
 
Last edited:
Sangom Sir,

I feel there is a lot more to this story.

Story goes that in MBh there were 7 sons of Brahma (the term 'son of brahma' to me basically is a eupemism for men of unknown origin who had become ascetics). But only 4 of them chose to go to meet Vishnu in Vaikunta in Bhagavat Purana. And these 4 'cursed' the door-keepers, Jaya-Vijaya. Interestingly these 4 also became the part of Nimbarka Vaishnava sampradaya.

Now if we divide the characters in the story according to their loyalties, we wud have:

1) Jaya and Vijaya originally from the Vishnu camp.

2) Sanathkumaras from the Brahma camp.

The Brahma Camp 'cursed' 2 members of the Vishnu Camp resulting in Jaya and Vijaya being reborn 3 times as anti-Vishnu; usually as devotees of Shiva. So the outcome of the 'curse' was:

3.a) Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakasipu
3.b) Ravana and Kumbhakarna
3.c) Shishupala and Dantavakra

Does this mean the story of Jaya Vijaya was 'created' to cause a merger between the Vishnu camp and Shiva camp with the Brahma Camp as a mediator?

From the historic pov, it is interesting to note that the cave temples of Jaya-vijaya, Vaikuntha, Swargapuri, Tiger (Puli), Serpant (Naga), were carved out by 'Jain' ascetics in 1st century BC in Kalinga (near Bhuvaneshwar at Udayagiri-Khandagiri). These cave temples bring the Puli-Naga connection into light again. (there are also other 'Jaina' caves that depict the dasavataras).

Interestingly, the Jaya-Vijaya cave at Kalinga has a bodhi tree carved in its central compartment. The Anantha cave and Ganesh cave are in the same vicinity. According to Brahmanda Purana , Anantha the Naga was a close friend of Vishnu.

If we take the characters in point 3 into consideration, we wud have further connections as follows:

3.a) In Puranas, Andhaka was the son of Shiva-Parvati but was given in adoption to Hiranyaksha; only to be killed by Shiva for lusting after Parvati. But the Varaha-Perumalcave temple at Mahabalipuram shows a scene of Varaha avatara rescuing Bhoodevi kidnapped by the demon Hiranyaksha.

3.b) When Valmiki (who btw was supposedly from the Boya tribe) wrote Ramayana, we do not know if he was aware of puranas. But the links between puranas and itihasas are amazing. Now the Ramayana basically is a story where Rama defeats Ravana with the help of a bunch of monkeys. Some say the boyars themselves were 'ban' (forest) 'jaras' (dwellers), so Valmiki basically brings his own people, that is, the forest-dwelling banjaras such as savaras and boyas into a 'merger' scene with the Aryan (naga) king, Rama. Am taking Rama to be a Naga because he was born in the line of the Naga king Takshaka.

3.c) IMO, Krishna killing Sisupala was merely dynastic struggle for power and kingship (and also some sibling rivalry perhaps), all within the same family.

Am thinking perhaps all these are tribal stories belong to the time period when the autroasiatic speakers (Nagas) and dravidian speakers (old Persian / old aryan asuras) were merging after tribal fights (by creating stories). And i suppose this was long before the Indo-Eupropean speakers arrived on the scene. Perhaps the IE speakers merely recorded pre-existing stories and preserved them in their own language Sanskrit. What are your views on this sir?

Regards.

Smt. HH,

I have not so far gone so deep into these topics and so I cannot claim any knowledge at all. Hence I take whatever data you have marshalled as correct. But on one point I have some doubt: why should Jains of 1st. century BC Kalinga go about depicting instructive scenes of tribal mergers and associations, unless they were the Digambara sect who believe in the puranas? Have you any idea?

The Brahma-followers, I read somewhere, were actually followers of some Abrahamic religious line - probably trickling in through the north east and since it was unacceptable to the other Sanatana Dharmis, they made Siva cut off one of Brahma's five heads first, then made sanakaadi quartet to curse their father that his worship will come to a full-stop. (I am sure scribes never had so much power anywhere, anytime, in this world ;)). Considering this fact, a mediation by Brahma-followers etc., seems to me to be difficult to prove with adequate supporting evidence/s.

Sanakaadis IMHO are like the ubiquitous அரிசி மாவு (rice flour) in a typical tabra kitchen; it can be put to many uses and also to correct mistakes committed in cooking to some extent. Their name bestows a certain unpolluted halo. But the fact that these four fellows desired to be five-year olds for eternity raises doubts; is it because a six-year old in those satya yuga times was an adult male?

I will raise another aspect, less scholarly, still interesting. Kamsa decided to kill all children when a disembodied voice (aśarīri) announced that his would- be killer is growing hale and hearty in gokula. Now the name Sisupala means "one who protects infants" and Krsna has been fated to kill him. Does it not show that Krsna is a very enigmatic birth, giving trouble to his biological parents, foster parents, friends and followers (Pandavas) as well as enemies and despisers (Kauravas, Sisupala and a multitude who were tricked and eliminated by Krsna)? So, with such a track record how can any புத்தியுள்ள மனிதன் be a Krsna devotee? That was probably why our SD scribes hit upon the sex aspect and overplayed it :) and வெற்றிபெறும் மனிதர்கள் become Krsna devotees.
 
Shri Subbudu,

Your posts 45 and 46 are interesting. Well, i do not think kings really followed any laws, esp in wars. Everything is fair in love and war you see. So indiscriminate killing, power struggle, capturing women, etc were all part of their way of life.

Lets put it this way, after all the wars and struggles, the best man won. And those whom the best man protected, felt he was worthy enough to be raised to godhood (because he protected them).

Regards.

While there is nothing much to argue with much of what you say. The picture that one gets if we read the existing edition of mahabharata is different. The kings were expected to follow laws especially during wars. Otherwise this incident would not have been highlighted prominently. Krishna would not have the need to speak in defense of his actions. Further there were many laws broken during Kurukshetra war. These were considered a matter of shame. On the contrary in modern times, our respect for laws during wars have been far worse. In this particular episode me thinks Sishupala deserved to be killed. His actions were not acceptable or normal even as per the times depicted in mahabharata
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smt. HH,

I have not so far gone so deep into these topics and so I cannot claim any knowledge at all. Hence I take whatever data you have marshalled as correct. But on one point I have some doubt: why should Jains of 1st. century BC Kalinga go about depicting instructive scenes of tribal mergers and associations, unless they were the Digambara sect who believe in the puranas? Have you any idea?

The Brahma-followers, I read somewhere, were actually followers of some Abrahamic religious line - probably trickling in through the north east and since it was unacceptable to the other Sanatana Dharmis, they made Siva cut off one of Brahma's five heads first, then made sanakaadi quartet to curse their father that his worship will come to a full-stop. (I am sure scribes never had so much power anywhere, anytime, in this world ;)). Considering this fact, a mediation by Brahma-followers etc., seems to me to be difficult to prove with adequate supporting evidence/s.

Sanakaadis IMHO are like the ubiquitous அரிசி மாவு (rice flour) in a typical tabra kitchen; it can be put to many uses and also to correct mistakes committed in cooking to some extent. Their name bestows a certain unpolluted halo. But the fact that these four fellows desired to be five-year olds for eternity raises doubts; is it because a six-year old in those satya yuga times was an adult male?

I will raise another aspect, less scholarly, still interesting. Kamsa decided to kill all children when a disembodied voice (aśarīri) announced that his would- be killer is growing hale and hearty in gokula. Now the name Sisupala means "one who protects infants" and Krsna has been fated to kill him. Does it not show that Krsna is a very enigmatic birth, giving trouble to his biological parents, foster parents, friends and followers (Pandavas) as well as enemies and despisers (Kauravas, Sisupala and a multitude who were tricked and eliminated by Krsna)? So, with such a track record how can any புத்தியுள்ள மனிதன் be a Krsna devotee? That was probably why our SD scribes hit upon the sex aspect and overplayed it :) and வெற்றிபெறும் மனிதர்கள் become Krsna devotees.

Dear Sangom,

Some how you always drag in sex in most of of your post when you are losing your ground..

but thats Ok..you are entitled to your opinion



We will take a commercial break in the MEGAAA SERIAL and will be back shortly..



YouTube - Salt-N-Pepa - Let's Talk About Sex
 
Last edited:
While there is nothing much to argue with much of what you say. The picture that one gets if we read the existing edition of mahabharata is different. The kings were expected to follow laws especially during wars. Otherwise this incident would not have been highlighted prominently. Krishna would not have the need to speak in defense of his actions. Further there were many laws broken during Kurukshetra war. These were considered a matter of shame. On the contrary in modern times, our respect for laws have been far worse. In this particular episode me thinks Sishupala deserved to be killed. His actions were not acceptable or normal even as per the times depicted in mahabharata

Subbudu,

An able writer could have made Krsna deserving to be killed, in the very same episode; such was the power to which I referred in passing, in my post. The moral from Krsna is IMO that "success is what success does" or " End justifies the means". If we go by what Smt. HH postulates, BHO should be our modern day Krsna, is it not?
 
Smt. HH,

I have not so far gone so deep into these topics and so I cannot claim any knowledge at all. Hence I take whatever data you have marshalled as correct. But on one point I have some doubt: why should Jains of 1st. century BC Kalinga go about depicting instructive scenes of tribal mergers and associations, unless they were the Digambara sect who believe in the puranas? Have you any idea?
It really beats my understanding also. Why are these caves called 'jaina caves' when they are depicting Dasavataras. Maybe it is because Jaina dieties are also carved out in the caves as a continuation of the early Hindu dieties. So perhaps they were first hindu and then became Jain. From my end, have only mentioned the classification of Ferguson and Burgess who call these rock-cut shelters as 'jaina' caves [Source: Cave Temples of India, by James Ferguson and James Burgess].

The Brahma-followers, I read somewhere, were actually followers of some Abrahamic religious line - probably trickling in through the north east and since it was unacceptable to the other Sanatana Dharmis, they made Siva cut off one of Brahma's five heads first, then made sanakaadi quartet to curse their father that his worship will come to a full-stop. (I am sure scribes never had so much power anywhere, anytime, in this world ;)). Considering this fact, a mediation by Brahma-followers etc., seems to me to be difficult to prove with adequate supporting evidence/s.
Any idea sir, around when did the Brahma followers come into india? Am curious to know which is the abrahamic line sir. So far i thot Siva cutting off one of the heads of Brahma is related to the story of Bhairava of the Kapalikas.

Sanakaadis IMHO are like the ubiquitous அரிசி மாவு (rice flour) in a typical tabra kitchen; it can be put to many uses and also to correct mistakes committed in cooking to some extent. Their name bestows a certain unpolluted halo. But the fact that these four fellows desired to be five-year olds for eternity raises doubts; is it because a six-year old in those satya yuga times was an adult male?
Seriously its sorta funny to think they wanted to be only 5 year olds.

I will raise another aspect, less scholarly, still interesting. Kamsa decided to kill all children when a disembodied voice (aśarīri) announced that his would- be killer is growing hale and hearty in gokula. Now the name Sisupala means "one who protects infants" and Krsna has been fated to kill him. Does it not show that Krsna is a very enigmatic birth, giving trouble to his biological parents, foster parents, friends and followers (Pandavas) as well as enemies and despisers (Kauravas, Sisupala and a multitude who were tricked and eliminated by Krsna)? So, with such a track record how can any புத்தியுள்ள மனிதன் be a Krsna devotee? That was probably why our SD scribes hit upon the sex aspect and overplayed it :) and வெற்றிபெறும் மனிதர்கள் become Krsna devotees.
Sir, there is a curious connection between Gods and the ones that get killed. Wendy Doniger's book 'Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology' is quite an interesting read (available for free on google books). She brings out stories where various Gods kill their own devotees (Eg: stories where Shiva kills his own devotees, Krishna kills his own devotees, etc). This motif (of a God figure killing his own followers) is quite a puzzle.

But am thinking of this possibility, esp after going thru another book called "Alternative Krishnas" by Guy Beck (its obvious there were many Krishnas). Am thinking that the stories were created to facilitate tribal integration. Maybe the followers got killed by someone else (by some other tribe), but in order to appease the losers and to facilitate (tribal) integration with them, the scribes were given the job of (fradulently) portraying that the killer was in fact a 'form of' Krishna or Shiva.

So perhaps if X and his tribesmen killed Y and Y's tribesman, then scribes would create a story that Y was infact a 'form of' X. And since X and Y were now the same figure, the killed king also becomes a 'form of' the protector deity. In this way the warring tribes now integrate since their protectors-kings are now considered the same 'form'.

Am just thinking this is a possibility (it still remains a puzzle why wud any diety kill his own followers).

Regards.
 
Though i do not agree with a large part of the book, these particular lines are worth pondering about, from Wendy Doniger's book "Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology" (page 55-56):

"The beleif that the gods create evil for man in order that man should depend on the gods - and the priests - recurs in the Sanskrit texts. The gods find evil necessary for their very existence; they allow the demons to thrive in order that they themselves may thrive as gods, to force men to worship them. The gods' desire for a balance of good and evil may be selfish in origin but it is also philosophically justifiable.....thus there are both benevolent and malevolent reasons for the gods to create and tolerate evil.."

Perhaps this is the reason why gods tolerate 'evils' before they destroy those 'evils'.
 
Dear Shri Nara,
Regarding discrepancy in the three pairs of births, I remember to have read in `Vyasar Virundu' by Late Rajaji. Another possible source could have been heard from the stories told my maternal grand mother. I am not sure of the source. I will be glad to know the source of Dantavakra coming in three pairs of births to improve my knowledge. thanks.
 
Shri.Sangom has given reference to Mahabharata in his post no 44.When I opened and started reading page 77 of xxxvi Icame across the following"Rukmi,Ekalavya and Salya the king of Madras are here'.
I want to know whether there was a kingdom in Madras(present capital city of TAMINADU state) during Mahabharata period.
I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.
Recently,I happen to read the story of Mira Bai, who lived in 1500to1550 and was a princess and a saintly person and was famous for her lyrical poetry dedicated to Lord Krishna.
she has written"" I went to the root of things and found nothing but HIM alone.
I want to know whether there was a pattimantram on Krishna-Sisupala episode during the life time of Mira Bai or anytime before or after or we are discussing this topic for the first time in this forum.I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.
 
The epics and puranas are works of fiction. The epics are based on historical events. So they could be called historical fiction.

The Devas who are often referred to as gods are a particular sect or tribe. The Devas were neither invincible nor infallible.

Puranas are full of stories of Shiva scoring a victory over Vishnu, Vishnu scoring a victory over Shiva and also some Maharishi who defeats both Shiva and Vishnu.

Good fiction.

The conception of omniscient, omnipotent GOD does not occur in either the Epics or the Puranas.
 
Shri.Sangom has given reference to Mahabharata in his post no 44.When I opened and started reading page 77 of xxxvi Icame across the following"Rukmi,Ekalavya and Salya the king of Madras are here'.
I want to know whether there was a kingdom in Madras(present capital city of TAMINADU state) during Mahabharata period.
Sir it is not Madras (Chennai). It is the Madra Kingdom. More details are here: Madra Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recently,I happen to read the story of Mira Bai, who lived in 1500to1550 and was a princess and a saintly person and was famous for her lyrical poetry dedicated to Lord Krishna.
she has written"" I went to the root of things and found nothing but HIM alone.
I want to know whether there was a pattimantram on Krishna-Sisupala episode during the life time of Mira Bai or anytime before or after or we are discussing this topic for the first time in this forum.I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.
What Mira had for Krishna was pure love. But sir, surely that does not mean that we should stop discussing gods here. Afterall our epics are our history, and our gods are protector deities of various tribes. Whatever they (the Gods) are, however they are, they are part of us and we are part of them.
 
Shri.Sangom has given reference to Mahabharata in his post no 44.When I opened and started reading page 77 of xxxvi Icame across the following"Rukmi,Ekalavya and Salya the king of Madras are here'.
I want to know whether there was a kingdom in Madras(present capital city of TAMINADU state) during Mahabharata period.
I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.



Recently,I happen to read the story of Mira Bai, who lived in 1500to1550 and was a princess and a saintly person and was famous for her lyrical poetry dedicated to Lord Krishna.
she has written"" I went to the root of things and found nothing but HIM alone.
I want to know whether there was a pattimantram on Krishna-Sisupala episode during the life time of Mira Bai or anytime before or after or we are discussing this topic for the first time in this forum.I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.

Dear Krishnamurthy Mahodaya,

My dear sir.. I wish I could also give some answers but you know I am not as intelligent to give replies...நான் ஒரு முட்டாளுங்க

click on this song...

lots of love
renu

YouTube - Chandrababu songs (
 
Last edited:
The epics and puranas are works of fiction. The epics are based on historical events. So they could be called historical fiction.
Given that there are real places like rock-cut temples depicting stories in paintings, carvings, etc, it may not be a good idea to broadly club all itihaasa and puranic events as 'historical fiction'. Maybe some were real events (or atleast in some part) but the stories were far too greatly exaggerated.

The Devas who are often referred to as gods are a particular sect or tribe. The Devas were neither invincible nor infallible.
Some historians think the fights between Devas and Asuras were fights between two nations.

The conception of omniscient, omnipotent GOD does not occur in either the Epics or the Puranas.
Some puranas do speak of an omnipresent god like Bhagavad Purana. Vayu purana speaks of a omniscient god...Yoga Vashista is (or was made into) a part of Ramayan. Similarly Bhagavad Gita that speaks of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God is (or was made into) part of the epic Mahabharat.
 
Shri.Sangom has given reference to Mahabharata in his post no 44.When I opened and started reading page 77 of xxxvi Icame across the following"Rukmi,Ekalavya and Salya the king of Madras are here'.
I want to know whether there was a kingdom in Madras(present capital city of TAMINADU state) during Mahabharata period.
I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.
Recently,I happen to read the story of Mira Bai, who lived in 1500to1550 and was a princess and a saintly person and was famous for her lyrical poetry dedicated to Lord Krishna.
she has written"" I went to the root of things and found nothing but HIM alone.
I want to know whether there was a pattimantram on Krishna-Sisupala episode during the life time of Mira Bai or anytime before or after or we are discussing this topic for the first time in this forum.I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.
Salya belonged to the kingdom of madra. The capital of Madra was sagala. This is believed to be the modern city of sialkot in north west punjab now in pakistan. Sania Mirza's husband - I forget his name, came from there.
 
The epics and puranas are works of fiction. The epics are based on historical events. So they could be called historical fiction.

The Devas who are often referred to as gods are a particular sect or tribe. The Devas were neither invincible nor infallible.

Puranas are full of stories of Shiva scoring a victory over Vishnu, Vishnu scoring a victory over Shiva and also some Maharishi who defeats both Shiva and Vishnu.

Good fiction.

The conception of omniscient, omnipotent GOD does not occur in either the Epics or the Puranas.

Dont underestimate the value of puranas.
It gives us an understanding of the thinking of people over periods of time.
It gives us an understanding to their idea of geography. The geography is accurate within south asia.
It gives an idea of changing form of rituals
It gives an idea about different tribes that populated greater india
It gives a clue to finding more about history of India. Without puranas we would be unclear on many dynasties in India.

Yes there are many many things that dont match with science, modern history, etc but nothing much can be blamed on the writers of those times. They functioned with the limited knowledge that had been passed to them as hearsay from some ancestors. But it is still a clue of some past isnt it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Salya belonged to the kingdom of madra. The capital of Madra was sagala. This is believed to be the modern city of sialkot in north west punjab now in pakistan. Sania Mirza's husband - I forget his name, came from there.

I have one more information which should atleast make some tambrams more broadminded. There is a problem in our community like others, where we even now expect certain things from the bride's side. The incident happened when bheeshma visited the king of madra to seek the hand of kunti for Pandu. The king of Madra asked for dowry for the girl. He asked bheeshma to consider this, as it was part of Madra tradition to take gifts from boy's side. Bheeshma appeared to have been broadminded and shared quite a lot of gifts before bringing along Kunti .

Another interesting incident about Madra, which I am reminded. Karna makes fun of people of Madra. He says that in that region caste regulations are not properly followed . He makes fun of the fact that some people atleast could change their caste. I need to locate the exact page but it occurs in the war section. I think it makes a very interesting read about the people of Madra. Very Interesting indeed!
 
Dont underestimate the value of puranas.
It gives us an understanding of the thinking of people over periods of time.
It gives us an understanding to their idea of geography. The geography is accurate within south asia.
It gives an idea of changing form of rituals
It gives an idea about different tribes that populated greater india
It gives a clue to finding more about history of India. Without puranas we would be unclear on many dynasties in India.

Yes there are many many things that dont match with science, modern history, etc but nothing much can be blamed on the writers of those times. They functioned with the limited knowledge that had been passed to them as hearsay from some ancestors. But it is still a clue of some past isnt it?

Epics and Puranas are valuable sources of information. But what I want to emphasize was that they are not history.

One of the important part of the Puranas is the genealogy of the then ruling dynasty. This was written because the Kings who sponsored the writing wanted it.

It makes interesting reading. Kings who were shepherds or worse and the like claimed descendency from Surya or Chandra. Suryavamsi or Chandravamsi.

Many of the questions like the one I raised about Mahabali raises only because we take the Puranas as factual history.

There are many like me who do not believe in the Puranas to be history. But we feel disheartened when highly educated and knowledgeable persons go on TV and proclaim Puranas as factual history. Or some one claims that you can not be a Hindu unless you believe that Epics and Puranas are factual history.
 
Am puzzled by the roles played by door-keepers. Where did these door-keepers (that is, private bodyguards) of a diety come from?

Door keepers always come in pairs. Like Chanda-Prachanda, and Nandi-Bhringi (in some Shiva temples), Kala-Mahakala (in Bhairava temples), and Jaya-Vijaya (in Vishnu temples).

Jaya-Vijaya are door-keepers of Pradyumna. They are depicted as white in complexion holding a sword. For Aniruddha, the door-keepers are Amoda-Pramoda who are depicted as Red in complexion holding a spear in hand.

But of all door-keeping characters, only Jaya-Vijaya are singled out to become part of a puranic story. And somehow this story involves a "convertion process" of Vishnu worshippers into anti-Vishnu or as Shaivas.

IMO sevais and that too rather elaborate ones are performed for Jaya-Vijaya only in the Jagannatha temple. That is the only temple where the Jaya-Vijaya are treated as semi-divine figures, almost as 'deities'. The priests are Saoras (Savara tribe). In those days ban-jara merely meant a forest dweller, and did not refer to any specific tribe. There were several myriad tribes who were forest dwellers. But the specific association of the Savara tribe with Jagannatha temple of Orissa is a crucial link.

Krishna is often portrayed as anti-Indra. Linga temples have a cowherd motif. Perhaps Krishna belonged (or came to represent) the Naga-Asura combined group. Whereas Vishnu is Indra's companion in the Vedas.

Was Krishna the one who brought about the merger of vedic Vishnu and the non-vedic Shaivas?

IMO there was more than one Vishnu in the Rig veda. Vishnu of early Rig is somehow different in description from the Vaikunta-Vishnu of the later Rig. Possibly we can take into consideration that there was more than one Vishnu because Rig veda period itself could have spanned atleast a few hundred years.

So somewhere a merger seems to have happened. But "how?" is the question.
 
Last edited:
Epics and Puranas are valuable sources of information. But what I want to emphasize was that they are not history.

One of the important part of the Puranas is the genealogy of the then ruling dynasty. This was written because the Kings who sponsored the writing wanted it.

It makes interesting reading. Kings who were shepherds or worse and the like claimed descendency from Surya or Chandra. Suryavamsi or Chandravamsi.

Many of the questions like the one I raised about Mahabali raises only because we take the Puranas as factual history.

There are many like me who do not believe in the Puranas to be history. But we feel disheartened when highly educated and knowledgeable persons go on TV and proclaim Puranas as factual history. Or some one claims that you can not be a Hindu unless you believe that Epics and Puranas are factual history.
I agree.

If we were to take the real occupations and descent into account it will be very inconvenient for traditional people. This holds true for both, the rishis and the kings.

Even in recent times Puranas were meddled to promote a specific group [Ex: Sahyadri Khand of Skanda Purana was interpolated to promote Chitpavans into Brahmins during the time of the Peshwas].

There are ridiculous stories in the Puranas where animals start talking, etc. However, there is a lot more to these texts.

We need to take into account that geneology was only one part of Puranas. There is a lot of geography in puranas and itihaasas. All puranas have a sarga and pratisarga description from which we understand what concepts of God, creation, destruction, etc the puranic writers had.

No one can say Itihaasas and Puranas are factual history. Certainly they are not history. At the same time they cannot be entirely written off as fiction also. If it were entirely fictitious, it wud take a great deal of planning to make different places associated with these texts to somehow co-ordinate with one another. This is one example why they cannot be written off as pure fiction : Ramayana Research
 
Last edited:
Am puzzled by the roles played by door-keepers. Where did these door-keepers (that is, private bodyguards) of a diety come from?

Door keepers always come in pairs. Like Chanda-Prachanda, and Nandi-Bhringi (in some Shiva temples), Kala-Mahakala (in Bhairava temples), and Jaya-Vijaya (in Vishnu temples).

Jaya-Vijaya are door-keepers Pradyumna. They are depicted as white in complexion holding a sword. For Aniruddha, the door-keepers are Amoda-Pramoda who are depicted as Red in complexion holding a spear in hand.

But of all door-keeping characters, only Jaya-Vijaya are singled out to become part of a puranic story. And somehow this story involves a "convertion process" of Vishu worshippers into anti-Vishnu or as Shaivas.

IMO sevais and that too rather elaborate ones are performed for Jaya-Vijaya only in the Jagannatha temple. That is the only temple where the Jaya-Vijaya are treated as semi-divine figures, almost as 'deities'. The priests are Saoras (Savara tribe). In those days ban-jara merely meant a forest dweller, and did not refer to any specific tribe. There were several tribes who were forest dwellers. But the association of Savaras with Jagannatha temple of Orissa is a crucial link.

Krishna is often portrayed as anti-Indra. Linga temples have a cowherd motif. Perhaps Krishna belonged to the Naga-Asura group. Whereas Vishnu is Indra's companion in the Vedas.

Was Krishna the one who brought about the merger of vedic Vishnu and the non-vedic Shaivas?

IMO there was more than one Vishnu in the Rig veda. Vishnu of early Rig is somehow different in description from the Vaikunta-Vishnu of the later Rig. Possibly we can take into consideration that there was more than one Vishnu because Rig veda period itself could have spanned atleast a few hundred years.

So somewhere a merger seems to have happened. But "how?" is the question.

Regarding this merger I have a theory to offer not sure how much is valid historically.
Let me give a shot anyway.
As rightly understood by you , India was initially just a collection of different tribes. However some signs of urbanization can be seen. This lead to the Indus valley civilization and semi urban civilizations along the gangetic plains. Religions need to merge only in a urban, semi-urban context. It is in these places where different groups have to work together and marry. These semi-urban regions have given birth to the later vedic culture. The religion started becoming complex as the puranic religion began. This religion was inherently Indian. Because it came from different tribes it could easily overshadow different tribal religions. This kind of religion spread across India. In that situation different local deities were mapped to the deities of puranic religion. So your view on the different Vishnus could be true. If it is true it has happened at the time of first merger in gangetic plains. The second phase of mergers happened across India. I am not sure I can offer anything more on the subject. But this is my first shot at it.

I personally believe that gangetic basin and the tribes who live there is the key to understanding the origin of early vedic religion. The indus basin and pakistan might have offered a good case study. But the northwest India and pakistan have become culturally unstable . This might lead to difficulties in understanding history there.
 
Shri.Sangom has given reference to Mahabharata in his post no 44.When I opened and started reading page 77 of xxxvi Icame across the following"Rukmi,Ekalavya and Salya the king of Madras are here'.
I want to know whether there was a kingdom in Madras(present capital city of TAMINADU state) during Mahabharata period.
I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.
Recently,I happen to read the story of Mira Bai, who lived in 1500to1550 and was a princess and a saintly person and was famous for her lyrical poetry dedicated to Lord Krishna.
she has written"" I went to the root of things and found nothing but HIM alone.
I want to know whether there was a pattimantram on Krishna-Sisupala episode during the life time of Mira Bai or anytime before or after or we are discussing this topic for the first time in this forum.I request knowledgeable members to clarify my doubt.

Shri Krishnamurthy Sir,

In case no one has answered your doubt, "Madras" here IMO refers to the Maadra kingdom. (Kunti and Maadri, remember).

"Madra Kingdom was a kingdom grouped among the western kingdoms in the epic Mahabharata. Its capital was Sagala, modern Sialkot (in the Punjab province of Pakistan). The Kuru king Pandu's second wife was from Madra kingdom and was called Madri. The Pandava twins, Nakula and Sahadeva, were her sons. Madri's brother Shalya was the king of Madra. Though affectionate to the Pandavas, he was tricked to give support to Duryodhana and fought against the Pandavas during the Kurukshetra War. He was killed by Yudhisthira, the eldest Pandava. Other than the Madra kingdom (Eastern Madra or Purva Madra) with Sagala as its capital, it is believed that there was a Western Madra (Apara Madra) and a Northern Madra (Uttara Madra)." (C & P from here pl.)
 
shri/smt (?) Brahin,

My post #10 was a reply to Shri Subbudu. I tried to tell him one of the plus points of becoming a devotee of Krishna (though I am myself not one). That is all to it. If that looks to you as though all Krishna devotees are Sisupalas, I have no comments. :)


I do not get what you mean. What I said was that the Sanatana Dharma (SD) had one set of Gods or Devas like indra, agni, rudra etc., and then we got newer gods like varaahamurthy, Narasimha, Parasurama, Sreerama etc. Krishna as a God was introduced even later than the first batch referred to above. Hope the matter is clear.

Dear Sir,
Its true that we don't come across vishnu avataras in veda as often as agni and Indra. But my grandfather ( who studied rig and yajur in rajaveda paatashala in kumbakonam) told me that the vedas are eternal and constituted enormous verses. In kaliyuga , as the power of people came down vyasa divide the veda into 4 parts and shortened it. Moreover in satya yuga people were meditating on almighty god and were having the personal visualization of the almighty and were discovering the various forms of almighty on their own. But in kali yuga as the power and concentration of the people have decreased people are given the info of all forms of almighty , its like a readymade food.
You just have to meditate on a certain form ( which is dhyana shloka given before every mantra japa) to discover him.
 
Dear Sir,
Its true that we don't come across vishnu avataras in veda as often as agni and Indra. But my grandfather ( who studied rig and yajur in rajaveda paatashala in kumbakonam) told me that the vedas are eternal and constituted enormous verses. In kaliyuga , as the power of people came down vyasa divide the veda into 4 parts and shortened it. Moreover in satya yuga people were meditating on almighty god and were having the personal visualization of the almighty and were discovering the various forms of almighty on their own. But in kali yuga as the power and concentration of the people have decreased people are given the info of all forms of almighty , its like a readymade food.
You just have to meditate on a certain form ( which is dhyana shloka given before every mantra japa) to discover him.

Dear Shri Hariraghavendra,

You say, "Its true that we don't come across vishnu avataras in veda as often as agni and Indra". To my limited knowledge, the concept of avatāra itself does not appear in ṛgveda. viṣṇu is picturized as a சிங்கிடி (śiṅkiḍi) or sidekick of indra in ṛgveda. With due respects to your grandfather, may I humbly submit that he belonged to a generation of brahmins who had a very different world view from what is common amongst the generality of Brahmins of today. They (the brahmins of old) believed that the vedas were revealed by the Supreme God to some ṛṣis who had supernatural powers to decipher, understand and express in vedic Sanskrit, whatever was so revealed by the Supreme Power. Naturally, therefore, they were very sure that the vedas say are eternal truths and doubting or questioning the vedas is blasphemy of the worst order.

Today, however, we live in different times, different social set-up and governmental system; even the notion of castes, untouchability, ritual purity or the notion of மடி as in Tamil are all on their way out and probably illegal also. Hence there will be questioning of many of the pronouncements contained in our scriptures. As an example which comes to my mind immediately, the śatapatha brāhmaṇa says that water comes out of heat; agnerāpaḥ| apbhyaḥ pṛthivī| pṛthivyā oṣadhayaḥ |oṣadhībhyo:'nnaṃ| annād puruṣa:| thus goes the Upanishad and the first statement echoes the brāhmaṇa. Now, the brāhmaṇa comes to this major discovery, in its own words because "when the body gets heated, it perspires and produces water. So, all water must be produced by the action of heat." When one finds such highly astounding arguments, one is likely to examine the various other such grandiose claims propounded in the said brāhmaṇa as
also our other scriptures, is it not? Because our ancient people up till your grandfather's times believed that "in satya yuga people were meditating on almighty god and were having the personal visualization of the almighty and were discovering the various forms of almighty on their own", and many did not even know enough of Sanskrit to analyze and question, nor did they have the education in modern science required for such doubting and questioning, hindu scriptures ruled their minds. But such a condition cannot be expected in future, and only propositions in our scriptures and beliefs of the old people which will be able to successfully pass the critical scrutiny of modern science will appeal to the younger generation, IMHO.

Statements like "But in kali yuga as the power and concentration of the people have decreased people are given the info of all forms of almighty , its like a readymade food.

You just have to meditate on a certain form ( which is dhyana shloka given before every mantra japa) to discover him." etc., can at best be beliefs only, because we have no proof till now about the yuga cycles, whether meditating on a form of deity as per the dhyānaśloka will make him reveal his form to us, etc. It is rather more possible that people at one time imagined GOD according to their fancies and imaginations and worshipped these different deities. After the introduction of advaita philosophy all these various deities were stated to be forms of the Brahman (which is the only reality and hence the Supreme Godhead

according to advaita) — and this is what is possibly hagiographed as ṣaṇmatasthāpanam by Sankara — and from then onwards the "Almighty taking up the form in which he is worshipped" became the fashionable notion IMO. But if a person strongly thinks most of the time about a God whom he picturises as brinjal, will we be comfortable to assert that the Almighty will reveal Himself to that devotee in the form of a Brinjal?

Again take a look at any of the popular dhyānaślokas. I give below the dhyānaśloka for vīragaṇapati:

atha vIragaNapatidhyAnaM || mudgalapurANE ||

bhEtALashaktisharakAr^mukacakraKaDga |
KaTvAMgamudgaragadAMkushanAgapAshAn |
shUlaM ca kuMtaparashuM dhvajamudvahaMtaM |
vIraM gaNEshamaruNaM satataM smarAmi ||4 || rakatavarNaH

"Armed with Bhetala, the weapon of power(shakti), arrow, bow, wheel(Chakra or discus), sword, club, hammer, mace, hook, nagapasha (serpent noose), spear,

plough, and the shining axe."[15] (Red Colur).

(According to the Mudgala Purana version, flag is mentioned instead of plough).

The image of vīragaṇapati according to this dhyānaśloka is given in the attachment. It depicts 16 arms all joined on to a normal shoulder blade which can give mobility and efficacy only to two hands, like ordinary men. If this vīragaṇapati were to be realistic, its form ought to have been like that of a spider or an octopus, with eight projections on each side so that each of the imagined limb will be and can be agile. The way vīragaṇapati is picturized here, the poor God can only just about manage to sit motionless like a கொலு பொம்மை, that's all!

That such doubts came to some people even in the olden days is borne out by the legend of the shepherd who later became kāḷidāsa (in some traditions this is attributed to Tenali Raman) asking kāḷi how she would manage if she caught a cold with all her thousand noses :)

I will say, in view of the above, that let us not find with our older generations for whatever they believed; those beliefs suited them and they lived their lives peacefully with all those beliefs. But what was good for them may not be suitable for the present day world, and for the present generations. So, let us try and find out what is suitable for us today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top