Brother-Sister marriages in our Puranas

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I came across the following observations in a web page and thought I will just share this new knowledge (to me) with our members:

Svayambhuva-Manu married Shatarupa, who bore him three daughters by name Akuti, Devahuti and Prasuti. Of these Akuti was given in marriage to the Prajapati Ruchi who had through her a son and a daughter. The son was no other than Hari known by the title 'Yajusham-pati' i.e. lord of the Yajus (mantras) (Bhag. 4-1-6) and the daughter was called Dakshina. Hari as 'lord of the Yajus' was called Yajñadeva whose consort was Dakshini. She was believed to be an amsa (aspect) of Bhuti i.e. Lakshmi. The brother and sister were married as husband and wife. To these were born twelve sons who were collectively called Yama-Devas. Their names were Tosha, Pratosha, Samtosha, Bhadra, Shanti, Idaspati, Idhma, Kavi, Vibhu, Vahni, Sudeva and Rochana....

Marriage of paternal cousins, now condemned, is not unknown to Hindu tradition. Marichi and Daksha were brothers and Kasyapa, the son of the former, married Aditi and other daughters of the latter. These instances seem to bring the early Hindu marriage system into a line with the Egyptian system and suggest that the present Muhammadan custom of marrying paternal cousin sisters was not unknown to the ancient Hindus as to the Egyptians. Aegyptus, the son of Belus, gave his fifty sons in marriage to the fifty daughters of his brother Danaus....

The Biblical prophet Abraham married his own step sister Sarai. Sarai was born to Terah, the father of Abraham, by a different mother (Genesis, 11-27 ; 20-12). Moab and Ammon were born to Lob, the paternal nephew of Abraham, through the latter's two daughters. Has the Biblical couple, Abraham and Sarai, any connection with the Puratic couple Brahma and Sarasvati?)

CRADLE OF INDIAN HISTORY

 

[kunjuppu]

sangom,

always a delight to read your postings sir. you are like the proverbial thenral on a hot humid day which clears the cobwebs of boredom and misery

the egyptians married their own siblings. i have cousins married to each other, with the whispers that went amounting to something like 'keeping the wealth in the family'.

the high rate of autism and downs, i heard my sister say, in the mid east is due to marriage within the blood. i could not fathom the switch of relationship from erstwhile filial to amorous. i think these situations float on a narrow sense of morality but that is me thinking through my own perverted sense, i guess.

in the light of studies on gene and disease transmission, it has been proved beyond doubt, that it is best to marry a 3rd party, with no known blood connection. this arguement carried to some extreme, by those advocating 'no saha gothra relationships'.

all in all, with increased mobilty, physical or cyberwise, i think, we are seeing a decrease of same blood marriges in our community. a good thing too, i would say.

 

[sangom]

I fully agree with you, Sir. My only purpose was to bring this point to the notice of all our members so that we all are well-informed. While we are prohibited from marrying paternal cousin, we (South Indians) still marry ,maternal cousin and indeed a man marrying his sister's daughter was not unknown; in fact Tamil films may be still harping on that tradition, I suppose.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Thanks much for the link: CRADLE OF INDIAN HISTORY

The following message esp stuck modernists like me hard (i will not quarrel with the puranas (old history) anymore, at the same time will tread the knowledge with a wee bit of caution):

[FONT=&quot]

We should not quarrel with this ancient conception of history for even within our own generation the conception and presentation of history has been changing from decade to decade and a century hence our conceptions of history may not command the same devotion with which we cling to them now. To expect ancient histories to be in our modern forms is but a crude expectation to encompass within our smaller self the entire Universe, what it was, is and shall be. It is also want of historic sense to fail to appreciate the particular ideals of the particular ages and to condemn hastily, as mere fabrications, all the statements made about the very remote past in the national literature and tradition.

[/FONT]An absolutely delightful read sir, loved it. Thanks again for this.

Wrt the concept of Hari-Lakshmi, there is an oral tradition amongst some folk (most likely to be former jungle folk) that Devi lives high up in the hills (thirumala) with her brother and creator Narayana. But this god Narayana is also called the great ishvara or Maheswara. However, we learn from popular literature that Devi (Lakshmi) was married to Narayana.

What stuck me was the info i have been reading on the inscription-based history of assam, which calls Narakasura as the "son of narayana" (born from his union with BhuDevi) - the Bauma rulers of kalinga (noted as a kingdom of female rulers) consider their ancestry to come from Narakasura.

Was also taken in much by the iconography of temples in Java, Indonesia. We saw an idol there holding the items in the hand generally associated with Vishnu but in Java, the people (including our guide) called it the idol of Maheswara and thence, Shiva.

I have a feeling that ancient hindus had just one primeval energy. And like yin and yang, they tried to explain the play between the "male" energy and the "female" energy through connects such as Hari-Lakshmi, Narayana-Devi, Shiva-Parvati, etc...

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Thanks much for the link: CRADLE OF INDIAN HISTORY
.....
I have a feeling that ancient hindus had just one primeval energy. And like yin and yang, they tried to explain the play between the "male" energy and the "female" energy through connects such as Hari-Lakshmi, Narayana-Devi, Shiva-Parvati, etc...

I agree. It stands to reason to believe that the union of male and female producing a new life/entity was viewed by primitive tribes as the most mysterious and they tried to bestow the same function/s to their God Almighty. And, in their simplistic thoughts devoid of the abstruse (and sometimes, abstruse to a ridiculous extent), philosophies, ontologies etc., of latter day human thought, they just had one divinity by whatever name called. I do not know whether there are any folk stories, mythologies etc., depicting the primitive man quarreling over the God issue. But so far I have not come across any.

 

[sangom]

Dear HH,

On reading the "Cradle of Civilization" one aspect that struck me as somewhat illogical was the author's excessive dependence on Puranic lore to build up the earliest history (even pre-Rigvedic, in my view, because he talks of history from Brahma onwards) of the Vedic (Hindu) people. The Rigveda itself shows, if at all, only patchy memories of their early history. So, how will it be convincing to believe that the Puranas, which are doubtless of a much later date, would be able to say anything with authority about the pre-vedic history than the vedas themselves?

We have not heard of any separate tradition of history having been handed down during the vedic period orally. Had it been so, that history also would have come down to us more or less as sacrosanct as the vedas.

So, to me it appears that the paper would have appealed to the orthodox segment of the Hindus of the forties, having an infallible faith in whatever the Puranas say, but we may not find it any more than an "interesting reading".

I would like to know your views on this point.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri Sangom,

The question of Puranas is a tough one. Will reply in detail next week.

Regards.
(ps: am not of the 40s generation but am really old inside my head and i love reading about these things, n i really enjoyed the article)..

 

[nachi naga]

as per christianity adam eve existed an fornictaed and then siblings fornictaed...aarghs.one of the dumbest erudition of religion.

sanathana dharma aka hinduism now,has always maintained a cyclical order of things,rather than linear measurement.

brothersister marriages in si community exist even today especially ammas bro marrying niece or ammas ......etc...muslims in some areas marry paternal cousins too,just alike fathers sisters son...or maybe even fathers brothers kids...yaarghs.

 

[happyhindu]

NN,

Its quite possible the concept around which this bro-sis thing is based is in a diff context of things.

The wife suppsoedly signifies completeness of a relationship - she is the friend, mother, daughter, sister, and a wife to the husband. Similarly, the husband is a friend, father, brother, son and husband to the wife.

So perhaps the meaning of the Hari-Lakshmi relationship is to explain the completeness of the energy play..

 

[happyhindu]

Dear HH,

On reading the "Cradle of Civilization" one aspect that struck me as somewhat illogical was the author's excessive dependence on Puranic lore to build up the earliest history (even pre-Rigvedic, in my view, because he talks of history from Brahma onwards) of the Vedic (Hindu) people. The Rigveda itself shows, if at all, only patchy memories of their early history. So, how will it be convincing to believe that the Puranas, which are doubtless of a much later date, would be able to say anything with authority about the pre-vedic history than the vedas themselves?

We have not heard of any separate tradition of history having been handed down during the vedic period orally. Had it been so, that history also would have come down to us more or less as sacrosanct as the vedas.

So, to me it appears that the paper would have appealed to the orthodox segment of the Hindus of the forties, having an infallible faith in whatever the Puranas say, but we may not find it any more than an "interesting reading".

I would like to know your views on this point.

Shri Sangom,

I have a doubt - where were the puranas written? Perhaps the location from the where the literature was produced holds the key to deciphering who were the people who wrote the puranas over a period of time in those regions (??)...

Since Gujarat is the pancha-dravida region, could it be possible that the kumari kandam episode of land getting submerged by the sea is actually about dwaraka ? (Cud it be possible that the greeks and other folk carried the tale into their lands as atlantis)??

YouTube - Dwaraka: A Lost City of Lord Sri Krishna

Regards.

PS: i still cannot understand why wud the asuras who were deified as gods in the vedas become picturised or portrayed as demons in the puranas...please could you throw some light on it?

 

[nachi naga]

hh,

NN,

Its quite possible the concept around which this bro-sis thing is based is in a diff context of things.

The wife suppsoedly signifies completeness of a relationship - she is the friend, mother, daughter, sister, and a wife to the husband. Similarly, the husband is a friend, father, brother, son and husband to the wife.

So perhaps the meaning of the Hari-Lakshmi relationship is to explain the completeness of the energy play..

all this is ancient practice,and i am sure they had a reason.now also,we find in other threads,there are not enuff tb girls for tb boys?so,maybe such lacunae existed in ancient times,and such marriages became customs for us later generation.today thankfully science is showing us lots of good knowledge,which we can adopt and adapt.we shud listen to science first now,isn't it?

the children born from such marriages,have freaky streak in them.

 

[sangom]

Shri Sangom,

I have a doubt - where were the puranas written? Perhaps the location from the where the literature was produced holds the key to deciphering who were the people who wrote the puranas over a period of time in those regions (??)...

Scholars opine that the location or dating of the puranas is a very difficult affair. Even in the case of Bhagavata Purana, which contain references to South India, the fact that Yamuna and Ramanuja do not refer to it at all, is enigmatic. Perhaps it is a subsequent work, though interspersed with some archaic sanskrit usages in order to make it look ancient. The Vishnu Purana - which is known as "Puranaratna" has a peculiarity, viz., all the granthhas/copies from every part of India agree; this is rather unnatural for our scriptures.

Summing up, we have no evidence to state that the Puranas were composed in either S. India or N. India, but since they generally depict N. Indian scenarios, it may be that the core portion originated there and many of them underwent additions, redactions, deletions or changes as suited the genius of the priesthood in different regions and times.

Since Gujarat is the pancha-dravida region, could it be possible that the kumari kandam episode of land getting submerged by the sea is actually about dwaraka ? (Cud it be possible that the greeks and other folk carried the tale into their lands as atlantis)??

YouTube - Dwaraka: A Lost City of Lord Sri Krishna

I don't know whether Gujarat was the Pancha Dravida region. The sloka goes like this:
कर्णाटकाश्च तैलंगा द्राविडा महाराष्ट्रकाः ।गुर्जराश्चेति पञ्चैव द्राविडा विन्ध्यदक्षिणे ॥And this means that these five people live south of the Vindhyas, not that all of them live in Gujarat.Kumari kandam might have been a land mass connecting present Australia with the southern peninsular India, Malaysia etc. It seems there is some possibility for such a land mass having been there. (Some of the Australian aboriginees hold betel leaves as sacred, just as in T.Nadu, and this probably is one indirect evidence.)

The sunken area beyond Dwarka might have been a city but I don't know whether the evidence so far collected will enable us to give a final decision in this regard. Nevertheless our Hindutva people have taken it to mean that everything said about Dwarka and Krishna is true.

PS: i still cannot understand why wud the asuras who were deified as gods in the vedas become picturised or portrayed as demons in the puranas...please could you throw some light on it?

This is an important and very interesting point requiring a longish post and I will make it separate.

 

[happyhindu]

This is an important and very interesting point requiring a longish post and I will make it separate.

Thankyou very much sir. Looking forward to it. In the meantime, am going thru the atharvaveda translation on sacred-texts.com; and will note when i come across specific references for dvijas in it. So far it has all been protection charms, amulets, spells for all sorts of things (including leprosy). The atharva is rather unique in dealing with idols, tailsmen, etc - all "visible" objects of veneration - a motif not found in other vedas.

 

[sangom]

Thankyou very much sir. Looking forward to it. In the meantime, am going thru the atharvaveda translation on sacred-texts.com; and will note when i come across specific references for dvijas in it. So far it has all been protection charms, amulets, spells for all sorts of things (including leprosy). The atharva is rather unique in dealing with idols, tailsmen, etc - all "visible" objects of veneration - a motif not found in other vedas.

The Atharva Veda consists of two books, the Bhargava Samhita and the Angirasa Samhita; that is why it is known also as Bhrigu-Angirasi Samhita in the Gopatha Brahmana (I.1.5 and 8). It narrates in its own style of unbridled Brahmanical fancy the separate creation by Brahman of the rishis Atharvan and Angiras, the subsequent emanation from these two of twenty Atharvanic and Angirasic descendant sages and finally, the production by the Atharvans of the atharvana veda, by the Angiras of angirasa veda. Taittireeya Upanishad also talks about "athharvaangirasaH puchham prathishThA".

The original three vedas (known as veda thrayee) Rik, Yajus and Saaman got the names from their contents; Rik, from the root R^ch = to praise, so, hymns of praise (to the Devas): Yajus, from the root Yaj = worshipping, sacrificing: and Saaman = calming, tranquilizing, and hence 'of songs'. The Atharva Veda gets its name from its composers, Atharvan or Bhrigu and Angiras.

The Gopatha Brahmana counts the number of Vedas as five. Mahabharata, Santhi Parva, 335-40, also states as under:

चत्वारस्तॆ वयम् शिष्याः गुरुपुत्रस्तु पन्चमः ।
इह वॆदाः प्रतिष्ठॆरन्न् ऎषः व: काङ्क्षितः वरः ॥

This means, Vyasa taught the four vethat das to four of his Sishyas and the fifth one to his son. We have not enquired into what this fifth veda was/is. It is the Avesta, more appropriately, Zend Avesta. Zend corresponds to Sanskrit छान्द्. छन्दस् is another name for the Veda. Chaanda means vedic. "Upasthhaa" means a hymn according to Panini. Thus Zend Avesta correspond to Chaand Upasthhaa or vedic hymn.

There were, in those days, Varuna worshippers who stuck to
monotheism and laid considerable importance to moral character. Deva yasna or worship of Devas was also current at the time Zarathustra was born. These Indra worshippers were less scrupulous about monotheism and less careful about the place of morality in religious discipline. Both the parties lived in what today is Afghanistan and their mutual relationship was, obviously, not cordial. When Zarathustra got Divine Light and started preaching monotheism, the polytheists (Indra worshippers) came under pressure from the monotheists and finally had to move eastwards because the western flank was a stronghold of the Varunaites.

This ancient antagonism between the two groups is what gets reflected in the mirror-image between Zend Avesta and Rigveda. Even then once or twice Varuna and Mitra have been praised as Asura, but this is the exception than the rule. So, it will not be correct to say that the Asuras were praised in the Vedas.

You can find this much and more information on this topic from the book "The Hymns of Atharvan Zarathustra" by Jatindra Mohan Chatterjea which has a Foreward by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan. You can download it from

AVESTA -- Zoroastrian Archives

Unfortunately the two crucial pages of the Introduction dealing with the actual separation of the Rigvedic people from the Varuna worshipping group, is not available in it and so we have to supplement this from other web resources.

I thought of giving this small summary here so that people who want to learn more, may read the book itself. It gives a lot of fresh knowledge not usually available from anywhere else.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sir,

This is wrt the post http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/sociology/4455-brother-sister-marriages-our-puranas-2.html#post49971 It is long and have therefore divided it.

Puranas:
Is it possible to identify which parts of the puranas were added on at which points of time in history based on (possible ?) philological and archeological evidence (of places and events mentioned in the puranas)?

The purana writers are said to be diff from the composers of the Vedas (how true wud that be ??). It is obvious the purana writers had astounding knowledge of the geography of the world (but the composers of vedic hymns did not mention as many regions nor such geographical details).

Wud it be possible that some of the puranic stories are ancient (corresponding to the period earlier than the vedic period) but were an oral tradition that got written down after the vedic period?

If Sri Yamunacharya (10th century) and Sri Ramanuja did not refer to Bhagavatha Purana, wud it mean that this purana was written / composed after the 11th century?

About this Shloka:
कर्णाटकाश्च तैलंगा द्राविडा महाराष्ट्रकाः ।गुर्जराश्चेति पञ्चैव द्राविडा विन्ध्यदक्षिणे ॥
[[Karnataka, Tailanga, Dravida, Maharashtra, Gurjara are the 5 regions to the south of Vindhyas]]

I have seen this mentioned in quite a few articles on wiki. Please cud you tell me which purana is this shloka from?

[[An aside: I came across an article mentioning this shloka in the context of the recent struggle for a separate telangana. The argument goes that tailanga was a separate region while the andhras (andhrakas) constituted a separate region in the past; which is true: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/EpicIndia.jpg

Speculation or argument goes that Tailanga (Telinga or Telingana) was Dravida while Andhraka (or Andhra desa or Andhra) was Prakrit Aryan (or Mlecchas going by Mahabharat). Funny that these things are used to justify a separate statehood ages after the itihaasa period (I can understand statehood demand from a purely political view or for land development purpose but not long after the kichadi of ethnicity has been cooked).

Tribes like the Gonds (the original settlers of these regions) add more confusion to the story bcoz though Gondi language is Dravidian and related to Telugu, it is not really clear where telugu language itself is derived from]].

I suppose all these dravida regions have always shared a continuous common history. Gujarat has always been fascinating. Imo, it appears that people have always been moving from Gujarat into the current Karnataka-Andhra regions via Maharashtra; and I really won’t be surprised if Krishna bhagavan of the Mahabharat turns out to be a Chora (Chola) king.

If indeed Tailanga was Dravida, and Andhraka was Prakrit Indo-Aryan, it wud mean that the dravida speakers and the indo-aryan speakers lived alongside each other in Southern India during the Mahabharat period. Considering that the Mahabharat also mentions the Sinhalese (Indo-Aryan speakers), I wud consider that to be true. And if that is true, we can hopefully assume that indo-aryan speakers or dvijas lived in the south since the mahabharat times itself.

 

[happyhindu]

Kumari kandam and Australian aborigines:

Am not so sure abt the presence of Kumari kandam. From the Ramayana we understand that Lanka was much bigger than it is now. Possibly prior to the Ramayana period there were other (now submerged) lands which formed a bigger land mass together with southern india and Andaman-Nicobar (which broke away later). However, am not comfortable with the idea that a land-block extended all the way to Australia. Or atleast I do not think humans existed so long back as the time when the Madagascar block or the Indo-Australian plate broke up: Indo-Australian Plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reg the similarities b/w the aborigines and people of tamilnadu, the coastline dispersal theory seems to explain things better: http://www.krepublishers.com/06-Special%20Volume-Journal/T-Anth-00-Special%20Volumes/T-Anth-SI-03-Anth-Today-Web/Anth-SI-03-31-Trivedi-R/Anth-SI-03-31-Trivedi-R-Tt.pdf Definitely the austro-asiatic tribes were the earliest settler in India before they moved away towards southeast asia and Australia. So (primitive) similarities b/w these folk in India, SE Asia and Australia can possibly be expected. The sample size of one study found that M130 marker, found in southern Indians, Malaysians, New Guineans, was present in 60% of Australian Aborigines men. But then, everywhere man has changed, adapted and evolved based on his ability for adaptation, his environs, habitat and available resources.

The same study also found southern Indian yadhavs had a higher frequency of M172 (a 10,000 old derivative of M89 - the root of all the central Asian populations). From other studies too, its pretty much clear that the old-agro-pastoral groups (old Aryan or Dravidian) moved into southern india long before the later-agro-pastoral groups (new Aryan or indo-european). I do think the Dravidians (shudrAbhira) (old Aryans) were the earliest “invaders” of southern India who killed off the native austro-asiatic tribes and forcibly merged the women into themselves.

Since the shUdrAbhira (old-Aryan) came into S.India long before the New-Aryan, I do agree with the theory that there was an Indo-Aryan split somewhere in the Afghan-Persia borders and the ahUrA-asurA-worshipping-Indo-iranians moved into the south of India before the ahUrA-dEva-worshipping-Indo-Iranian (both groups were vedic, in constant clash with one another, and therefore the AIT theory goes flat). This also explains the presence of thriving settlements in south india at the same concurrent time when the IVC was flourishing in the north-west.

Staal’s explanation of the rise of the Yajurvedi also fits into this model. In short, the Yajurvedis grew much in importance, increasingly bcame the yajamans of all sacrifices and relegated the rigvedis, samavedis and the atharvans to somewhat minor roles in the sacrifices than themselves.

I think it is very possible that the yajurvedi created a “knowledge-transfer” scenario where he transferred unto himself the knowledge of the other Vedas (pls see Ravan’s story below). The yajurvedi also seems to have pushed off the atharvan from the north into the south. Imo, I still think the atharvan reached the south long before the other rig, sama or yajurvedis. So, it all seems to be a struggle of the vedis of each region b/w each other (this is another reason why I think there was no AIT).

Raavan’s story:

This was also shown in the Zee TV serial titled Raavan. According to the northie Brahmins following the Shukla Yajurved, it seems that there was only one yajurveda. Ravana wanted the praises to be directed to rudrA (who incidentally is called “devam asuram” in rigveda) as the most supreme. So he got rishis to compose hymns for rudra, compiled it all and created a division that came to be known as the “Krishna Yajur”. He then raided ashrams of rishis in all directions to force them into following the new (Krishna yajur) division (compare this to the puranic and ramayan stories of attacks by asuras (that is, raavan’s men) on rishis).

In the Zee TV serial they showed that Raavan’s men (the asuras) wud swoop down on the ashrams, arrest everyone including women and keep all of them captive until the rishis relented and accepted to switch over to the new division. According to this version, those who escaped the attacks remained Shukla Yajur. Wonder how far this version is true. Is there any other reason why Yajurveda exists as Shukla and Krishna ?

 

[happyhindu]

The sunken area beyond Dwarka might have been a city but I don't know whether the evidence so far collected will enable us to give a final decision in this regard. Nevertheless our Hindutva people have taken it to mean that everything said about Dwarka and Krishna is true..

In the 2004 tsunami, we saw its effects on the coasts of Africa, Indonesia and India.

Similarly possibly there was a (more massive?) flooding event which swallowed Dwaraka in the northwest as well as places off tamilnadu. Meaning, its effects were felt all over India and southern Europe (atlantis story). Only ancient geology can solve this, i feel.

 

[happyhindu]

The Atharva Veda consists of two books, the Bhargava Samhita and the Angirasa Samhita; that is why it is known also as Bhrigu-Angirasi Samhita in the Gopatha Brahmana (I.1.5 and 8). It narrates in its own style of unbridled Brahmanical fancy the separate creation by Brahman of the rishis Atharvan and Angiras, the subsequent emanation from these two of twenty Atharvanic and Angirasic descendant sages and finally, the production by the Atharvans of the atharvana veda, by the Angiras of angirasa veda. Taittireeya Upanishad also talks about "athharvaangirasaH puchham prathishThA".

The original three vedas (known as veda thrayee) Rik, Yajus and Saaman got the names from their contents; Rik, from the root R^ch = to praise, so, hymns of praise (to the Devas): Yajus, from the root Yaj = worshipping, sacrificing: and Saaman = calming, tranquilizing, and hence 'of songs'. The Atharva Veda gets its name from its composers, Atharvan or Bhrigu and Angiras.

The Gopatha Brahmana counts the number of Vedas as five. Mahabharata, Santhi Parva, 335-40, also states as under:

चत्वारस्तॆ वयम् शिष्याः गुरुपुत्रस्तु पन्चमः ।
इह वॆदाः प्रतिष्ठॆरन्न् ऎषः व: काङ्क्षितः वरः ॥

This means, Vyasa taught the four vethat das to four of his Sishyas and the fifth one to his son. We have not enquired into what this fifth veda was/is. It is the Avesta, more appropriately, Zend Avesta. Zend corresponds to Sanskrit छान्द्. छन्दस् is another name for the Veda. Chaanda means vedic. "Upasthhaa" means a hymn according to Panini. Thus Zend Avesta correspond to Chaand Upasthhaa or vedic hymn.

There were, in those days, Varuna worshippers who stuck to
monotheism and laid considerable importance to moral character. Deva yasna or worship of Devas was also current at the time Zarathustra was born. These Indra worshippers were less scrupulous about monotheism and less careful about the place of morality in religious discipline. Both the parties lived in what today is Afghanistan and their mutual relationship was, obviously, not cordial. When Zarathustra got Divine Light and started preaching monotheism, the polytheists (Indra worshippers) came under pressure from the monotheists and finally had to move eastwards because the western flank was a stronghold of the Varunaites.

This ancient antagonism between the two groups is what gets reflected in the mirror-image between Zend Avesta and Rigveda. Even then once or twice Varuna and Mitra have been praised as Asura, but this is the exception than the rule. So, it will not be correct to say that the Asuras were praised in the Vedas.

You can find this much and more information on this topic from the book "The Hymns of Atharvan Zarathustra" by Jatindra Mohan Chatterjea which has a Foreward by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan. You can download it from

AVESTA -- Zoroastrian Archives

Unfortunately the two crucial pages of the Introduction dealing with the actual separation of the Rigvedic people from the Varuna worshipping group, is not available in it and so we have to supplement this from other web resources.

I thought of giving this small summary here so that people who want to learn more, may read the book itself. It gives a lot of fresh knowledge not usually available from anywhere else.

Zend Avesta as the 5th veda is really interesting. I will go thru the link provided.

Wrt to the antagonism b/w the monotheists group and polytheists group in the context marked in bold in the post above, I think you refer to Mitra-Varuna being called asuras in this: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 5: HYMN LXIII. Mitra-Varuṇa.

But in the Samaveda, you can find Agni referred to as an asura, and Indra is called as the one who brings joys from asuras: Hymns of the Samaveda Indra is also called an asura himself:

O Indra, thou art far-renowned, impetuous Lord of power and might.Alone, the never-conquered guardian of mankind, thou smitest down resistless foes. As such we seek thee now, O Asura, the most wise, craving thy bounty as our share Thy sheltering defence is like an ample cloak. So may thy favours reach to us.

In the Krishna Yajur Veda, Agni is called son of self, the asura:

Uplifted and pure are the rays of Agni, Most brilliant (are they) of the son of fair countenance. The son of self, the Asura, all-knower, God, god among gods, Anointeth the ways with mead and ghee. – KYV 4.1.8

In the Krishna Yajur Taittriya Sanhita, Agni is also called an asura himself:

Thou, O Agni, art Rudra, the Asura of the mighty sky. -KYV 1.3.14.

May it make us overlords, May we be lords of wealth. Rich in cattle, in sheep, O Agni, in horses, is the sacrifice, with manly companions, ever unalterable; Rich in food is this, O Asura, rich in offspring, Enduring wealth, deep based and rich in houses. – YV.1.6.6.

Varuna is also called an asura:

O Varuna, would we avert with reverence, With sacrifices, with oblations Ruling, O wise Asura, O king –YV 1.5.11.

Other dieties are also called asuras in the Yajur veda:

Svarbhanu, the Asura, pierced the sun with darkness; the gods desired an atonement for him – KYV 2.1.2.

There was an Asura, named Etadu. He then appropriated the blessing of the sacrifice – KYV 2.6.9.

O Indra and Visnu, ye overthrew The nine and ninety strong forts of Çambara; Of Varcin, the Asura, a hundred and a thousand heroes Do ye slay irresistibly - Krishna Yajur Veda 3.2.11.

Ye Asvins, Lords of Splendour, drank full draughts ofgrateful Soma juice, And aided Indra in his deeds with Namuchi of Asura birth. As parents aid a son, both Asvins aided thee, Indra, with their wondrous powers and wisdom. Shukla YV 10.33-34.

Tanûnapât the Asura, all-possessing, God among Gods, theGod with mead and butter shall bedew the paths. SYV 27.13.

Maruts were called sons of Asura, our father:

From the sky grant us rain, O ye Maruts; Make ye to swell the streams of the strong steed. Come hither with this thunder, Pouring the waters, the Asura our father. The bounteous Maruts make to swell the waters.. –KYV 3.1.11

Aditi is called Tvashtar's guardian in the Shukla Yajur veda (this appears to be one of the reasons why some scholars opine that the asuras were adityas):

Unwasting Drop, red, eager, pressing forward, Agni I worship with repeated homage. Forming thyself with joints in proper order, harm not the Cow, Aditi widely ruling! Her who is Tvashtar's guardian, Varuna's navel, the Ewe brought forth from out the loftiest region, The Asura's mighty thousandfold contrivance, injure not in the highest sphere, O Agni. – SYV 13.43-44.

The bull as the asura's lofty nature (nandi?) - from Shukla yajurveda 33.20 to 33.22 :

Now when the Sun hath risen to-day may sinless Mitra, Aryaman,Bhaga, and Savitar speed us forth.Pour on the juice the ornament which reaches both the heaven and earth; Supply the liquid to the Bull. Thou in the first old time. As he was rising up they all revered him: self-luminous he travels, clothed in splendour. That is the Bull's, the Asura's lofty nature: he, Omniform, hath reached the eternal waters.

Savitar is called an asura in the Shukla YV 34.25 to 26:

Savitar, golden-handed, swiftly moving, goes on his way between the earth and heaven,Drives away sickness, bids the Sun approach us, and spreads the bright sky through the darksome region..May, he, gold-handed Asura, kind leader, come hitherward to us with help and favour. Driving off Râkshasas and Yâtudhânas, the God is present, praised in hymns at evening.

Savitar is also called an asura in the rigveda Rig Veda: Rig-Veda Book 1: HYMN XXXV. Savitar.

He, strong of wing, hath lightened up the regions, deep-quivering Asura, the gentle Leader.

Mitra-Varuna cause rain due to Asura's magic power in the Rigveda: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 5: HYMN LXIII. Mitra-Varuṇa

Imperial Kings, strong, Heroes, Lords of earth and heaven, Mitra and Varuṇa, ye ever active Ones, Ye wait on thunder with the many-tinted clouds, and by the Asura's magic power cause Heaven to rain. Wise, with your Law and through the Asura's magic power ye guard the ordinances, Mitra-Varuṇa.

 

[happyhindu]

Despite the references to the deities as asuras, towards the end of the Samaveda, Surya has been praised as the killer of vritra, dasyus, asuras and foes, while Indra has been praised for overthrowing the great might of the asuras. It wud mean that the rig and the early sama still carried the positive connotation of asura, but the asuras became foes in the late-sama and in the yajur veda.

The fight b/w the devas and asuras (now an inimical set) shows up in the yajur explicitly as seen in the text in this link: Yajur Veda Kanda I - it seems, it was about who got control of Agni. According to the Krishna yajurved, at one point, by deceit, the devas took away the wealth of the asuras and drove them away. So cud it be possible that the asuras at this point of time moved into south into Southern India?? There are also quite a few references to the asuras being driven away in the Yajur.

This is from the YV (taittriya) Kanda 2 abt the devas (gods) and asuras (the break-away faction) at conflict with one another. It is quite revealing. They had some sort of a re-organization, and finally accepted Indra as the leader (Krishna YV 2.2.11):

The gods and the Asuras were in conflict; the gods were mutually at variance; unwilling to accept the pre-eminence of another they went apart in four bodies, Agni with the Vasus, Soma with the Rudras, Indra with the Maruts, Varuna with the Adityas. Indra had recourse to Prajapati; he made him sacrifice with the verse for harmony; to Agni with the Vasus he offered a cake on eight potsherds, to Soma with the Rudras an oblation, to Indra with the Maruts a cake on eleven potsherds, to Varuna with the Adityas an oblation; then indeed the gods agreed to recognize Indra's pre-eminence.

Imo, the story of devas and asuras in conflict in puranas is a continuation of their fight in the Vedas. Both the groups either exiled the other on winning or made the other as slaves. This has been a typical scenario with the Indian kingdoms even ages later. The winning king either exiles the defeated king (desha brashtam) or enslaves the defeated group. The defeated group recoups in time and defeats its aggressor; and the saga keeps repeating. The frequent fights b/w devas-asuras i think is a continuum from the Vedas into the Puranas.

The gods and the Asuras were in conflict..the Asuras conquered the gods, the gods being defeated became the servants of the Asuras; from them power and strength departed; Indra perceived this; he departed in pursuit of it; he could not win it. - Krishna VY 2.3.7

The Devas, Manavas, and the Pitrs were on one side, while the Asuras, Raksases, and Piçacas on the other….Then indeed did the gods conquer the Asuras, and having conquered the Asuras, they drove away the Raksases. - Krishna YV 2.4.1

In KYV.2.4.3, I found it quite comical that the devas and asuras both hailed Gayatri, but they sought her blessings in rivalry of each other (power struggle). And the devas managed to please Gayatri and appropriated the force, might, power, strength, offspring, and cattle of the Asuras.

In the Krishna YV there still are links b/w the devas and asuras. Viçvarupa, son of Tvastr, was the domestic priest of the gods, and the sister's son of the Asuras. But Indra smote off his heads. The creatures called Indra “Thou art a Brahman slayer”. Then Indra appealed to the earth, 'Take a third part of my guilt.' Indra seems to have gone any length to keep power for himself. Here is a link mentioning that Devas married daughters of Asuras: Biographies of Asvagosha, Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, and Vasubandhu

Of all the Vedas, perhaps the Yajur holds the key to explaining how the differences b/w the dEvas and asUrAs came about.

Am not sure the squabble b/w the Indo-Iranians was about monotheism and polytheism. It seems to me that it is was that too, however it was more of a power struggle (or political struggle) b/w factious groups (it wud be like the numerous factions of the Congress or Janata dal in India, each becoming allies at one time or foes at an other time).

Some ppl opine that the asUras were the AdityAs in a power struggle against their step-siblings while others opine that the dEvas were the adityAs up against the asUrAs.

From what I have read so far, Indra, Varuna and Mitra seem to be invoked (praised) quite often in all the Vedas (sometime a deity like Parjanya is found in atharva but am told is not present in the yajur veda). Shri Saidevo had mentioned that the asuras had no varna divisions (I forgot which thread). But then Raavan was an asura and a brahmana (compare this to the Assyrian king, Ashur bani pal who was also a priest).

I do not think there was varna classification in the early vedic period. I think it came about only later. Some semblence of it showed up from the Yajurved period. Imo, the vedic classes or groups of people were majorly devas and asuras, who possibly later branched into further divisions like yakshas, gandharvas, etc…and perhaps then later into further branches like darada, kambhoja, pulinda, etc. This is a nice reading on the Deva-Asura matrix: Indian Myth and Legend: Chapter IV. Demons and Giants and Fairies

These are some interesting notes I wanted to make:

Referring to the vedic metres:

Prajapati created the gods and the Asuras; thereafter the sacrifice was created, after the sacrifice the metres; they went away in all directions, the sacrifice went after the Asuras, the metres after the sacrifice; the gods reflected, 'These have become what we are'; they had recourse to Prajapati; Prajapati said, 'Taking the strength of the metres I shall bestow it upon you.' He took the strength of the metres and bestowed it upon them. Then the metres ran away, and the sacrifice followed the metres. Then the gods prospered, the Asuras were defeated. – KYV 3.3.7

Indra, is mentioned as the son of Ekastaka:

The Ekastaka, undergoing penance, Hath borne a child, the great Indra; Therewith the gods overpowered the Asuras; Slayer of Asuras he became in his might. – KYV 4.3.11

Shukla YV 40.2 and 40.3 showing up its wrath against the asuras wrt to performance of karmas:

One, only doing Karma here, should wish to live a hundred years. No way is there for thee but this. So Karma cleaveth not to man. Aye, to the Asuras belong those worlds enwrapt in blinding gloom. To them, when life on earth is done, depart the men who kill the Self.

Krishna Yajur Ved 6.2.3:

The Asuras had three citadels; the lowest was of iron, then there was one of silver, then one of gold. The gods could not conquer them; they sought to conquer them by siege… Therefore is Rudra overlord of animals. Rudra let it go; it cleft the three citadels and drove the Asuras away from these worlds.

I found this highly intriguing Yajur Veda Kanda VI :

The sacrifice went away from the gods in the form of Visnu, and entered the earth. The gods sought him grasping hands. Indra passed over him. He said, 'Who has passed over me?' 'I am he who smites in the stronghold; who art thou?' 'I am he who brings from the stronghold.' He said, 'Thou art called he who smites in the stronghold. Now a boar, stealer of the good, keeps the wealth of the Asuras which is to be won beyond the seven hills. Him smite, if thou art he who smites in the stronghold.' He plucked out a bunch of Darbha grass, pierced the seven hills, and smote him. He said, 'Thou art called he who brings from the stronghold; bring him.' So the sacrifice bore off the sacrifice for them; in that they won the wealth of the Asuras which was to be won (védyam), that alone is the reason why the Vedi is so called. The Asuras indeed at first owned the earth, the gods had so much as one seated can espy. The gods said, 'May we also have a share in the earth?' 'How much shall we give you?' 'Give us as much as this Salavrki can thrice run round.' Indra taking the form of a Salavrki thrice ran round on all sides the earth. So they won the earth, and in that they won it therefore is the Vedi so called.

Krishna YV 6.3.9:

The Viraj dividing itself stayed among the gods with the holy power (Brahman), among the Asuras with food. The gods desired, 'May we acquire both the holy power (Brahman) and food! They saw (the rite of) these twenty nights. Then indeed they acquired both the holy power (Brahman) and food.

.

Struggle for purohitship began in the Krishna Yajur Ved - what could have been the reason then ? Imo, we might have to look into the role of the yajurvedi in creating the dharmashastras from this period onwards : Yajur Veda Kanda II

He who has a dispute for a Purohitaship should offer (a beast) with a black neck to Agni, a brown one to Soma, and one with a black neck to Agni; the Brahman is connected with Agni, the prince with Soma; on either side of (the beast) for Soma there is one for Agni; verily with brilliance, with the Brahman, he seizes on either side the kingdom, and forthwith appropriates it; they choose him as Purohita. The gods and the Asuras strove for these worlds; Visnu saw this dwarf, he offered it to its own deity; then he conquered these worlds. One who is engaged in a struggle should offer a dwarf (beast) to Visnu; then he becomes Visnu and conquers these worlds.....

If a Brahman and a non-Brahman have a litigation, one should support the Brahman; if one supports the Brahman, one supports oneself; if one opposes the Brahman, one opposes oneself therefore one should not oppose a Brahman.

 

[sangom]

In the 2004 tsunami, we saw its effects on the coasts of Africa, Indonesia and India.

Similarly possibly there was a (more massive?) flooding event which swallowed Dwaraka in the northwest as well as places off tamilnadu. Meaning, its effects were felt all over India and southern Europe (atlantis story). Only ancient geology can solve this, i feel.

Madam,

I am aware of the disaster wrought by the 2004 Tsunami, but, did it eat up any very large chunk of the sea coast anywhere?

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

This is wrt the post http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/sociology/4455-brother-sister-marriages-our-puranas-2.html#post49971 It is long and have therefore divided it.

HH,

I have read your lengthy posts once. It will require quite some effort on my part to convey my views on the various observations made by you after so much of erudition. Even so some preliminary observations are as under:

1. It is not correct to place undue reliance on the English translations given in the Sacred Books website, because many of these are old works written in the first flush of finding Indian Sacred Books by the British (and German) indologists with their newly acquired Sanskrit knowledge. You may like to find out later books written more recently, and preferably avoid those by the Hindutva group, who invariably write to fulfil their own agenda.

2. Collecting information from varied sources - Sacred Books, TV serial etc. - only helps one to find what one wants to find and then one can go on buttressing it with information which suits, and forget about what is not suitable. For example, the idea of "sudraabhira"; I do not know whether this idea has been discussed critically by any serious author and a conclusion arrived at.

Similarly about Ravana. I understand that there is (was) a lake somewhere in M.P. tribal area and even to this day the tribals worship Ravana as their God-king and, once a year, on the Vijaydasami day they celebrate by adorning a fallen statue, which they hold to be of Ravana. According to the tribals, Ravana was their just king and was killed by an inimical and cruel Rama by deciept. I forget the finer details because I read it years ago. If the tribal account is true, then the seed for the whole Ramayana is from a conflict between a tribal chief and an Aryan king for which the latter had to cross a large lake! The rest of the story most probably has been supplied by the Brahmin who composed it and very cleverly he invented Valmiki so as to assuage the feelings of the vanquished, probably.

3. According to our own books ( I don't readily remember now) the taittireeya or krishna YV happened because Yajnavalkya was not satisfied with what his teacher taught, and considered it contaminated knowledge and expressed his view to him (teacher) upon which, the story goes, the teacher cursed him and asked him to 'vomit' all that Y had learnt. On Y doing so, he made his other disciples turn into tittiri birds and eat up what Y had vomited. Y did tapas and propitiated the Sun god who appeared in the form of hayagreeva and instructed Y with the correct knowledge which is the Shukla YV. The exaggerations apart, the crucial aspect here is that KYV was the original whereas according to the Ravana serial, SYV was the older one. Who knows? Anyway, I will be the last person to drag TV serials into a serious discussion on such topics.

I will supplement this with further short posts as I go on learning and analysing the points made by you.

Regards

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Shri Sangom (please do not call me madam, its so embarrasing, plus i am less than half your age),

Please cud you recommend me to any website with the sama, yajur and atharva in sanskrit together with translation that you might consider authentic or a better job?

I found the ravan story fascinating but am not placing undue importance on it. It was just very interesting. Perhaps it makes the shukla yajurvedis feel older, original and authentic yajurvedis..i dunno. Wud you know of the reasons why the yajur exists as krishna and shukla?

Please do post on the other points in my posts. Reg the kumari kandam thing, am not convinced (so far) that man existed at the time when the indo-australian plate broke up.

Best regards.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom (please do not call me madam, its so embarrasing, plus i am less than half your age),

noted pl.

Please cud you recommend me to any website with the sama, yajur and atharva in sanskrit together with translation that you might consider authentic or a better job?

If you are conversant with Hindi, there may be books with Hindi commentaries of the traditional style. But English translations are not in the web and you may have to buy books only.

I found the ravan story fascinating but am not placing undue importance on it. It was just very interesting. Perhaps it makes the shukla yajurvedis feel older, original and authentic yajurvedis..i dunno. Wud you know of the reasons why the yajur exists as krishna and shukla?

From the story which is there in our books, it looks as though some adherents of the original YV had some rethinking on some minor points (becasue the differences between KYV and SYV are not radical) and they made necessary alterations in their recital and called it SYV, while the others called it Taittiriya and it also came to be known as KYV.

Please do post on the other points in my posts. Reg the kumari kandam thing, am not convinced (so far) that man existed at the time when the indo-australian plate broke up.

Best regards.

We do not know whether on one fine day the Indo-australian plate broke, portion of it sank into the sea leaving the present continental outline. On the contrary the break-up could have taken many eons and at some stage or the other allowed people to have some navigability and assimilation of cultures.

 

[SuryaKasyapa]

how about this?

"
Proved: Siblings sent to mate in Sariska





Almost a year after the Hindustan Times expose (Rajasthan govt sent tiger siblings to repopulate Sariska, June 29, 2009), a National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) report has finally admitted that DNA tests conducted by Bangalore-based National Centre of Biological Sciences (NCBS) found the big cats to be siblings.

The HT investigation exposed how, between June 2008 and February 2009, two sisters and their half-brother were picked up arbitrarily from Ranthambore and sent to Sariska. Siblings often find it difficult to breed and when they do, it leads to acute inbreeding depression. In spite of regular mating, the Sariska tigers have so far failed to breed.
......................................................"

here is the link

Proved: Siblings sent to mate in Sariska- Hindustan Times

 

[happyhindu]

If you are conversant with Hindi, there may be books with Hindi commentaries of the traditional style. But English translations are not in the web and you may have to buy books only.

Yes am perfectly comfortable with Hindi translations. Please do recommend some books. But now you are in the best position to confirm whether vedic dieties were referred to as asuras. I made this draft list after quite some reading. Am providing the list below (please i hope you do confirm):

1) Mitra-Varuna cause rain due to Asura's magic power in RV 5.63.
2) Agni called Asura in SV Book 1, Chapter 2, Decade 3, Hymn 6.
3) Indra brings joys from Asuras in SV Book 3, Chapter 1, Decade 2, Hymn 2.
4) Indra called an Asura himself in SV Book 6, Chapter 2, Hymn 12.2.
5) Agni called son of Asura in Krishna Yajurved 4.1.8.
6) Agni called Asura himself in KYV 1.3.14.
7) Agni called Asura in KYV 1.6.6
8) Varuna called Asura in KYV 1.5.11.
9) Savitar is called an asura in the Shukla YV 34.25 to 34.26.
10) Savitar called an asura in the Rigveda, Book 1, Hymn 35.
11) Maruts called sons of Asura in KYV 3.1.11.
12) Rudra called Asuram devam in RV 5.42.

Other characters / dieties:

1) Svarbhanu (supposedly identified later as Rahu) called Asura in KYV 2.1.2.
2) Some diety called Etadu called Asura in KYV.2.6.9.
3) Someone (a diety?) named Varcin called Asura in KYV.3.2.11.
4) Namuchi called Asura in Shukla Yajur 10.33 and 10.34.
5) Tanûnapât called Asura in Shukla Yajur 27.13.
6) The Bull praised as the lofty nature of the Asura in Shukla yajur 33.20 to 33.22.

Please cud you also confirm if Aditi is called Tvashtar's guardian in the Shukla Yajur 13.43 and 13.44.

We do not know whether on one fine day the Indo-australian plate broke, portion of it sank into the sea leaving the present continental outline. On the contrary the break-up could have taken many eons and at some stage or the other allowed people to have some navigability and assimilation of cultures.

Continental plates seperate over eons. But my doubt is whether modern humans existed abt say 25 million years ago. Generally the timeline of seperation of humans from apes is supposed to have happened over an extremely long period (abt 15 to 40 million years ago and still controversial). Worldover old cultures beleive that ppl have existed since the beginning of time. Am aware of the Chinese school of thot which believes that man lived alongside dragons. Infact they belive they descended from the dragon (!!) - or well, perhaps they descended from the smaller ones that survived later . But for now, in the absence of time-tested proof, am more apt to put it all in the category of mythology.

Regards.