Zoroastrian Account Of Devas Asura Wars

[dalsingh101]

Fascinating stuff. I finally get why buffalos are sacrificed/beheaded for Durga. It represents her own victory over Mahish asura who had turned himself into a bull.

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion2.htm

[SURYADEV]

V. good site you've discovered there Dalsingh

I've heard from quite a few Hindu-phobic sikhs the arguement against the word HINDU. They have come up with a meaning that it means gulami or slave. And it was a term used by Mughals for non-muslim indians. They deny that the term comes from the word Indus/Sindhu - as in the main river going throgh Greater Panjab.

If you look at link below there is a table that states all the lands mentioned in one of their scriptures - written in 800BCE.

Part-way down it describes greater Panjab as HAPTA HENDU (or in sanskrit SAPT SINDU). this shows that the term was used loong before the Mughals or ISlam came along.

So , don't be shy to call yourself a HINDU!!

Also note the description of PB....."vast expanse,voilence, rage and hot weather" - some things just do not change, do they?!

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm

Edited August 22, 2010 by jattboot

[dalsingh101]

So , don't be shy to call yourself a HINDU!!

Let's not go too far!!

I read the section of Chandi Charitra Ukti Bilas covering Mahikhasur's death. He isn't described in his buffalo form. In other accounts he is beheaded by Chandi (hence these sacrifices). In the section of the DG covering this, his death is described very vaguely.

Edited August 22, 2010 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

Asuras and devtay aren't gods and demons, they are simply opposing sides in a conflict. Probably the Aryans and Dravidians?

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

please Dalsingh lets not reduce everything into bland linear historical 'facts'. The Asura and Devtay are personfications of intelligences. When a person has a sattvic mentality is polite gracious considerate pious etc. it can be said, by way of illustration, that she is under the influence of a deva i.e. a subtle influence that can guide the mind of a human. The war between these opposing forces can be explained through the form of actual historic occurences. But the 'history' of the Devas and Asuras is a history of Being. Or if you like a history of consciousness and the types of consciousness that are. This is not to say that the myths may contain actual historical references but this is only one layer of the myth. Myths are written in a very complex language that contains many layers if one person studied only the myths of INdia for a millions years she still would not uncover all of the meanings in them. A better way of seeing it is that Devas represent sattva humans rajas and asura tamas. The Gunas in prakriti are intermingled, everything interpenetrates everything else. If we consider the idea of scale, the Devas can be victorious in a human indiviudal by directing his Rajasic tendency to sattvic. Or in a city like ancient Ayodhya the Devas can be victorious, where good qualities predominate. And even whole countries may be under the influence of asura or the Deva. They do say that the UK is the home of demons.

The stories of the battles between the two opposing forces cannot be explained through simply physical occurences. By this act, the value of these myths is destroyed, which are primarily meant to appeal to an individuals feeling of a higher more subtle truth. Through understanding of certain truths an individual is given a source of food which nourishes the subtler bodies. in ayurveda they say there are three types of food physical, air and food of impressions. Each food corresponds to its respective body. The myths of the Devas and Asuras provide a source of nourishment for an indivdual, by explaining away the higher significance of these stories a very much needed food is eliminated from a diet.

[kdsingh80]

When a person has a sattvic mentality is polite gracious considerate pious etc. it can be said, by way of illustration, that she is under the influence of a deva i.e. a subtle influence that can guide the mind of a human.

Well if one reads Hindu mythology and about devta's then one cannot say that above is true.Devraj Indra in mythology is always portrayed as power hungry and always tried to break the tapassaya of Rishi muni so no can get singhasan .He was always shown as a king watching Dance of beautiful apsara's and even sending them to break tapassaya of Rishi' like Vishwamitra etc.Woshipping devta's in hindu mythology is more out of fear or to fulfill the worldly Desire.

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

Well it depends how you interpret the mythology and more importantly if you possess the understanding to interpret it. In the above example you quote, Indra can be likened to to the Indriya or sense organs that are continually seeking sensory enjoyments. There is more to these stories than the mere form or external appearence but if people have degenerated by taking these stories at face value then this is a different thing altogther. In my opinion this represents a degredation of human consciousness which is made to see interrelations and create meanings for itself.

[dalsingh101]

please Dalsingh lets not reduce everything into bland linear historical 'facts'. The Asura and Devtay are personfications of intelligences.

Have to pop out so will read your post in more detail later. But what I did want to say was that yes, there are multiple dimensions in interpreting Hindu mythology and the one you seem to be using is a very valid theological perspective that exists at teh core of understanding 'Hinduism' as defined by practitioners themselves.

That being said, trying to establish the material basis of events has its value too. Even if theological interpretations you speak of essentially do away with these.

I'm just saying understanding on multiple levels isn't a bad thing, even if one of those levels is the bland linear type. If that Aryan theory is correct (and I am in no way saying that is certain), then it may do a lot to explain the emergence of codified racism in India (via caste).

I was struck by the use of the word shyaam (meaning dark) being used in the Dasam Granth to describe Mahikhasur. The narrative does suggest a powerful family trying to coerce the defeated and reeling Aryans into giving a beautiful daughter in marriage and subsequent battles taking place because of this. Thsi type of thing was still going on in Mahrajah Ranjit Singh's time, so it shouldn't shock us.

Don't completely discount historical, rational interpretations MJ, they will help enrich the philosophical type. Plus yes, I do know that the historical approach alone does not allow one to grasp the richer nature of the messages being conveyed.

Edited August 23, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Mithar]

The Aryan Invasion Theory is also a British orientalist version of Indian history. The early orientalists portrayed the Devta-Rakshas conflict told in Indic scriptures as an actual conflict between so called white Aryans and dark Dravidians in ancient times. There is enough literature on the internet to disprove the Aryan Invasion Theory. Since the invasion theory has been proven wrong for lack of evidence of an invasion and destruction by Aryans, many people who still want to beat a dead horse have now revised this theory into the "Aryan migration theory", but even that theory is very weak.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Mithar

[dalsingh101]

The Aryan Invasion Theory is also a British orientalist version of Indian history. The early orientalists portrayed the Devta-Rakshas conflict told in Indic scriptures as an actual conflict between so called white Aryans and dark Dravidians in ancient times. There is enough literature on the internet to disprove the Aryan Invasion Theory. Since the invasion theory has been proven wrong for lack of evidence of an invasion and destruction by Aryans, many people who still want to beat a dead horse have now revised this theory into the "Aryan migration theory", but even that theory is very weak.

Okay, lets start a fresh then.

What could be the material basis for the Chandi stories?

RE: the Aryan theory. We can pretty much conclude with certainty that Germans and Anglos twisted and manipulated 'Aryan invasion theory' to justify their own invasions and colonisation of darker skinned people by turning Aryans (who were essentially from around the area we know as Persia), into white men from Europe in their obviously motivated narrative.

They used this to appeal to some of our more simple ancestors to help divide and manipulate them by appealing to their egos.

An alternative to the racialised theory is that the Chandhi story under discussion is based on (partially) a battle led by some dark skinned, stocky general and that white European interpretors extrapolated quite extremely and made all of a particular side in this conflict dark skinned, hence Dravidian?

I just found it strange that the DG version has a number of references to the hue of combatants. Just for the record, I do not subscribe to the notion that light skin is superior to dark - just so you all know.

My point regards what conclusions we can draw (if any) from the Chandi myths in DG and other sources.

[Mithar]

Okay, lets start a fresh then.

What could be the material basis for the Chandi stories?

RE: the Aryan theory. We can pretty much conclude with certainty that Germans and Anglos twisted and manipulated 'Aryan invasion theory' to justify their own invasions and colonisation of darker skinned people by turning Aryans (who were essentially from around the area we know as Persia), into white men from Europe in their obviously motivated narrative.

They used this to appeal to some of our more simple ancestors to help divide and manipulate them by appealing to their egos.

An alternative to the racialised theory is that the Chandhi story under discussion is based on (partially) a battle led by some dark skinned, stocky general and that white European interpretors extrapolated quite extremely and made all of a particular side in this conflict dark skinned, hence Dravidian?

I just found it strange that the DG version has a number of references to the hue of combatants. Just for the record, I do not subscribe to the notion that light skin is superior to dark - just so you all know.

My point regards what conclusions we can draw (if any) from the Chandi myths in DG and other sources.

Where in Chandi Di Vaar or anywhere in Sri Dasam Granth does it say that the fight is between Aryans or Dravidians? The fight in Chandi Di Vaar happens in Swarg Lok where the Rakshas army take over Svarg from Inder. The Devtas return with Durga destroying the Rakshas army. Why do we equate the Devtas as being so called Aryans? or Rakshas as being so called Dravidians? This is orientalist theory.

For too long the orientalists have distorted the history of eastern countries. Even the great Persian civilization has not been spared. If you ask an Iranian, even he thinks that his ancestor was a blond haired, blue eyed Germanic.

Maybe early on way before pre historical times, there might have been a migration, but certainly not 1500 BC as orientalists claim. The Mahabharat war for example is said to have happened around 3000 BC, but according to Orientalists it happened not too long ago (around 2000 years ago).

[dalsingh101]

Kailesh gets mentioned as a location and the Himalayas too I think.

Anyone know about Kailesh?

[SURYADEV]

Kailash Parbat is in Tibet side of the Himalayas. Many people even today walk through the mountains to get there. Rather than climb the mountain the sangat are required to do parkarma of it. Thats many miles too. mansarovar lake is nearby too for ishnaan. Its wear the diamond and pearl-eating swans (Hans) live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kailash

I recall watching a program on Aastha channela while back. It showed Gurmukh Kaur (celeb yoga teacher), Sri Sri Ravi Shanker and many other gurus and spiritual leaders from india going on a yatra to Kailash and mansarovar.

Edited August 24, 2010 by jattboot

[dalsingh101]

One interesting point (of many) to note is how the side which eventually calls Chandi, is pretty much defeated, fearful and in retreat prior to Chandi's intervention.

Also, I recall that the narrative in DG describes how Kali seems to emerge as a separate entity from Chandi and they both battle with the asuras (with the help of Chandika's lion of course).

Vishnu later also participates by sending some shakti to assist the fighters.

I'm going to start a new thread on it later.

[Kam1825]

All a load of bull!

[dalsingh101]

All a load of bull!

Oh Kam, such a profound contribution. My, my, such depth...

I believe some elaboration of your above statement is warranted sir!

[Kam1825]

I just meant about the bull thats all. Not the topic or link. Personally i dont agree with the Aryan this and that. If these devte were beings of normal existance what is the poibnt of trying to reach their positions or praising their positions. Sunnai Esar Brahma ind!

What is the purpose of the Avtar Katha, etc.

This approach dos not really work for me!

[dalsingh101]

I just meant about the bull thats all. Not the topic or link. Personally i dont agree with the Aryan this and that. If these devte were beings of normal existance what is the poibnt of trying to reach their positions or praising their positions. Sunnai Esar Brahma ind!

What is the purpose of the Avtar Katha, etc.

This approach dos not really work for me!

Reading Chandi Charitra Ukti Bilas, what does one make of the warriors fighting (lets exclude devtas and asuras for the moment)? They are described in very human terms. Injured, bleeding, wailing, some running off scared. Even the God's are portrayed in very anthropomorphic terms

I think we do need to remove the Aryan/Dravidian scaffolding from the narratives myself. But then we have a few possible explanations:

1) The works are completely fictional in any historical sense but are vehicles of important ideas/concepts/theology/philosophy created by their authors.

2) The works have some historical basis but these are peripheral to their wider purpose of imparting particular ideas. The works loosely use the historical events or later mythologised versions of them and convey their message using these.

If it is 2, then some knowledge of the historical aspects although interesting, wouldn't really enhance our grasp of what the author(s) are trying to impart. But even then, it can give us glimpses of long forgotten incidents in India? For what they are worth.

Plus how do you interpret that tuk of Japji Sahib you quoted above, in context of all the other things mentioned in that section of Japji Sahib?

I've been reading Ram Katha lately and it is hard to establish if this is really exhalting Ram or just presenting his story with added emphasis on the battles, itself understandable in context of the preparation of Sikhs for jungh?

[dalsingh101]

Duplicate

Edited August 24, 2010 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

Duplicate

Edited August 24, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Kam1825]

The question is is Gurbani a point of fact or does it mentions things that are false!

[dalsingh101]

The question is is Gurbani a point of fact or does it mentions things that are false!

This is going back to that old debate about literalism versus the possible use of allegory, metaphor and existing concepts for exposition.

I thought it was pretty much nailed that Gurbani does utilise the latter? I don't think this can be accurately described as mentioning 'false' things. Regardless of whether certain deities physically existed in their presented forms or not, it still doesn't effect the message that is contained in the narratives about them.

I would still like to hear your opinion on the meaning of the Japji Sahib tuk you quoted brother. What do you think is meant by sunnai?

[dalsingh101]

If these devte were beings of normal existance what is the poibnt of trying to reach their positions or praising their positions. Sunnai Esar Brahma ind!

When you read the Chandi tales it portrays Indra as terrified in the battles with the asuras.

e.g.

Brahma got frightened and the throne of Indra was shaken. Even all the mountains fell into pieces looking at the beautiful and well armed demons...158

Taking many warriors and blowing the trumpets, he (Nisumbh) set out for the battle field. These warriors made a loud cry and attacked. At this the gods got frightened. Indra trembled in fear and made his petition before Shiva. They discussed the issue and Shiva asked about the number of warriors with him. 143

Then the gods ran away (from Mahikhasur). All of them got together and went to Kailesh mountain to settle down there. They were highly terrified in their hearts. They put on ocre robes and fled having laid down their arms. They made petitions of mercy whilst on the move.The god warriors were now crying in agony. 3

It is hard to think of these devtay as being 'praised' from such DG extracts??

[SURYADEV]

In the SGGS it is said that there are deeper more spiritual meanings than the literal translations given (ie sikhitothemax stuff).

Can the same be said of DG and SLG banis? I think the term used is exegisis.

[dalsingh101]

In the SGGS it is said that there are deeper more spiritual meanings than the literal translations given (ie sikhitothemax stuff).

Can the same be said of DG and SLG banis? I think the term used is exegisis.

Funnily enough I was just reading a very interesting account of the hugely influential work (on interpreting Gurbani) of Sahib Singh in a paper authored by Christopher Shackle. I think it is very closely related to what you mention above.

If we acknowledge the (real) problem with an excessively literal interpretation then surely we should also acknowledge the equally misleading polar opposite approach, i.e. that of an unrestrained creative metaphoric interpretation?

You can get a direct taste of Sahib Singh's work here.

Edited August 26, 2010 by dalsingh101