Tarkasur: My Take - Page 2

Originally posted by: .Reshama.

So he is still king of swarg..and he was cursed by krishna ..am i right? Dont u agree that surya dev is the better replacement for him??

Originally posted by: kkr531

yes he is still King of swarg theoretically. I don't know about krishna cursing Indra . Suryadev is suryadev he can never be Indra, Indra is a post whom any mortal can get by performing good deeds

as far as i know all devtas are fixed atleast for this kalpa.

regards
krishna

Originally posted by: kkr531

am stunned what did he exactly with pregnant woman and their fetuses? what a lowlife devta..

there are two instances actually

1) I posted a detailed story of maruts who were born of broken foetus of diti which Indra broke into pieces using his thunderbolt so that she cannot give birth to a powerful son in temples of India thread they were actually ancestors of taraka no wonder he wanted vengeance.

2) When Hinranyakashyapa was engaged in penance for Brahma Indra attacked defenseless Kayadu hiranyakashyapa's wife who was pregnant in her palace and carried her away. he was going to kill her when narada rescued her from indra and the son born to her became famous as prahlada.

Indra keeps changing with every kalpa however all the deeds mentioned by me are done by same Indra who is the present one.

regards
krishna

Originally posted by: kkr531

yes he is still King of swarg theoretically. I don't know about krishna cursing Indra . Suryadev is suryadev he can never be Indra, Indra is a post whom any mortal can get by performing good deeds

as far as i know all devtas are fixed atleast for this kalpa.

regards
krishna

Originally posted by: kkr531

Why Indra behaves like that in order to understand that we have to analyze the origin and development of Indra as a God.

Indra was a supreme God in Vedic Era he was God of thunder and rains hence very important for
civilization especially in the Hot region as India.

However as the civilization progressed many other ways of subsistence emerged and due to food circulation and trade, rain became some what less important. Hence emergence of Gods like Shiva and Vishnu with many more attributes and duties and philosophies.

Consequently Indra increasingly became identified with minor gods and some times people started attributing their own vices and devices whenever they wrote purana or itihasa. eventually he was identified with head of demigods completely open to modification and identification with ordinary people hence all the stories containing his human attributes started circulating and became popular eventually finding their way into puranas and epics.

Rakshasas or daityas were not outlandish demons or blood thirsty people as being depicted in puranas they were simply people who were outside purview of civilizations and had their own diversified cultures. Naturally as it always happens there was war among civilizations daityas
naturally became enemies of vedic religion. even though they followed their own set of valid dharmas.

Vishnu is especially supporter of devatas because devatas represented vedic order and vishnu was supported of vedic culture and also ruler of the world hence the puranic depiction of ruler of the world being on their side.

However in case of brahma he was the creator so he could not be shown favoring any body and similarly Shiva initially was god of ascetics and destruction. Followers of shiva never really cared for civilization hence they didn't mind either side.

so on the whole Vishnu can be called a racist god who favored only one part of the society. ven now vaishnavaites are fanatics for this simple reason they draw the line and can only see this world in dual ( Dvaitha) way.

Best Regards
Krishna

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

The transformation of Indra from a Vedic Indra to a Puranic Indra is well documented, and I understand that his controversial activities are all from the Puranas and the epics.

But rakshashas, asuras and others too followed Vedic norms, albeit different Vedic norms. They weren't considered outside the scope of Vedic civilization. Yavanas, or Mlechas were considered foreigners, and the rules & standards that applied to subject of kingdoms ruled by rulers who followed Vedic or even Manu's Smritis were completely different from them, and recognized as such. So for instance, if an ashwamedha horse went through an Yavana kingdom, it wasn't expected that if he didn't stop the horse, he accepted the yagna ruler's supremacy. That was different from if it went through asura or rakshasha territory

Brahma & Shiva didn't discriminate b/w them, since as you point out, they were responsible for all creation. However, Vishnu did discriminate, and that too, b/w people who already did follow Vedic norms, such as the case of Bali, as I pointed out, as well as Vidyunmali and his 2 brothers.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

It would seem to me that the asuras/rakshashas/daityas skipped the worship of the elements - sun, rain, water, air, fire, etc and went directly to the worship of Pashupata, which was the more ancient predecessor to the concept of Shiva, which would explain that difference in opinion.

So if they worshipped the lord & protector of animals, it would almost automatically make them oppose yagnas, where the havis would sometimes be ghee, but sometimes animals as well. Of course, none of the groups had any compunctions about consuming animals - that one is in fact a kalyug invention.

So the difference b/w the asuras and the Yavanas would be that while asuras, while bypassing the elements as objects of worship, would directly worship Pashupata, or later Mahadev, the Yavanas rejected the whole thing lock, stock & barrel and were either atheists, or had their own deities that had nothing to do either w/ the devas nor w/ the trinity. Is that a correct reading?