Reg. Indra - my question

[Guest guest]

Dear rajitha & learned members,

 

Namaste. In Rg Veda, a certain rishi visualizes Indra as a form having

*hasti-mukha* (Elephant-faced God like Gajanana / Ganapati).

I am looking out for that Rk but unable to trace out. If you have any reference

to this kindly let me know.

 

Also i am a bit confused about the Indra of Rg Veda and Indra of Puranas. In Rg

Veda, Indra is projected as chief deity equal to Agni

controlling the 33 devatas, god of war, thunder & lightening, killing vritra and

eventually releasing the cows and usha after smashing vala etc. This Rg vedic

tale of vritrasura samhara has vedic symbolism which i am quite aware of.

 

But when we refer our puranas (purana as i understand explicitly details out the

implicit vedic secrets thereby draws a common principle), Indra is projected as

a laughing stock having *lusty* ways of extra-marital relationship, always bent

upon committing debauchery, alluring the saints, distracting the tapasvis from

the righeous path, drinking wine and enjoying the dance of damsels (*PUB

CULTURE* in modern terminology). In short, if you take *all the vices of the

world* and comprehend a God, he is Indra.

 

I am utterly confused here as we common people are better than this God because

atleast we follow certain *MORAL PRINCIPLES* in our day-to-day life. Are we to

respect this lusty, wrathful Indra who commits debauchery?

 

Kindly clarify.

 

regs,

sriram

[Guest guest]

Thanks Sriram, for such a clear question. ( ref-your last line).

 

I have my own share of Indra based stories ( starting from the amarchitra, how

his body was tranformed to be full of " eyes " due to a curse, his escapades with

rishipathnis...).

 

Recenly I heard a discourse from Krishnapremi,( of paraNUR nera villupuram,

Tamilnadu,a very erudicte scholar, a paramavishnu bhaktha, popularly called as

Sri Sri Anna),which gave me a different view of this aspect. In a very

elucidated discourse on purushasuktha, he says that Indra is like a post.( like

a prime minister).This post has been given to several people, as a fruite of

their tapas. There are basically 3 types of devas -

some devas who are always with God, ( nithyasoorIs etc),

some devas who are given/have that post,

some devas who " temprorily " ( read - a few yugas) have those roles.

 

So when you talk of an Indra, there are these 3 Indras actually.One of these

Indras could have indulged in any of the undesirable activites, and hence would

have lost the deivathva quotient in him( and is promptly sent back to the lower

worlds, for prayaschitha). But then this " bad " actions are generalised and all

Indras get the bad name as a result. So we need to distinguish the Indra that we

refer to.

 

What this person prescribed is to read the purANA with little more detail and a

finer comb to distinguish, which is the Indra that is being described about.

 

The website of this mahapurusha

is http://www.srisrianna.org/srisri_first_html.html. ( Moderator - Pl allow this

if it is appropriate).

 

shrI harI

Gopi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shriram- I think you are talking about the vedic mantra to Indra that has been

adapted for Ganapati upasana or Homa in Smarta custom. It is RV8.81.1 and used

with .2 and gaNAnAntva gaNapatiM etc. as a triple mantra adapted for Ganapati.

 

The mantra is:

A tU na indra kShumantaM chitraM grAbhaM saM gR^ibhAya / mahAhastI dakShiNena //

 

The word mahAhastin is interpreted as one with a trunk like gaNesha but in the

actual context it means hand of indra.

 

For Smartas the vedas are the scriptural authority. The Vedas have statements

like " vishvasmAd indra uttaraH " and " nakirindra tvad uttaro na jAyan asti

vR^itrahan " etc. These mean that there is no god greater than indra. The

upanishad which is also part of the " shruti " says that brahmavidyA is

indragNYna. So it is true indra is the highest object of upAsana for a Smarta or

anyone who genuinely accepts shruti authority. Puranas and Tantras are

authorities for sectarian Hindus people so they do not have the same view of

Indra as the vedas but of other devas who they consider to be the greatest like

Shiva or Vishnu.

 

Regarding Indra's depictions there is a positive as well as a negative way of

looking at things. In many cultures like Greek, Japanese etc the great male gods

are seen virile and fertile entities. Hence there are depictions of these gods

as openly flaunting their fertility. This does not apply only to Indra. It is

also true of Shiva- we had this discussion on Linga etc. In older forms of

Shrikula that are not very common today like navanityA and ekAdashanityA shiva

is explicitly identified as manmatharUpa and all the implications of that. Some

this older imagery still lingers in Anandabhairava or kAmeshvara of the

surviving shrIkula tradition.Vishnu also has a similar tradition of depictions.

There is trailokyamohanasvamin and amongst laypeople the image of kR^iShNa. Now

such imagery can be obviously appealing to male devotees. But we know that it

might also appeal to female devotee because we have cases like Mirabai a royal

woman saint in North India and I recall a similar Vaishnavi in South India whose

name I forget.

 

However when sectarianism got polarized this same imagery which was meant in a

positive sense can be made negative. So when Vaishnavas and to certain Shaivas

rose in prominence they started providing a negative spin on the exploits of the

central god of the vedas and representing him in a bad light to enhance Vishnu

or Shiva. The vaishnavas also do this with Shiva. I saw a sthalapurana of Balaji

at a friend's house that depicts Shiva negatively. To a lesser degree Shaivas

return the favor to the Vishnu as seen in the Common Shiva purana.

 

Rajita

[Guest guest]

Dear RR-ji,

Very thought-provoking. Does this mean Indra as the object of upasana is

higher than Vishnu, Shiva and the Mother goddess herself according to the

vedas? Or have I got the interpretation wrong?

 

Thanks,

Raghav

 

 

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM, rajita_rajvasishth <

rajita_rajvasishth wrote:

 

>

>

> Shriram- I think you are talking about the vedic mantra to Indra that has

> been adapted for Ganapati upasana or Homa in Smarta custom. It is RV8.81.1

> and used with .2 and gaNAnAntva gaNapatiM etc. as a triple mantra adapted

> for Ganapati.

>

> The mantra is:

> A tU na indra kShumantaM chitraM grAbhaM saM gR^ibhAya / mahAhastI

> dakShiNena //

>

> The word mahAhastin is interpreted as one with a trunk like gaNesha but in

> the actual context it means hand of indra.

>

[Guest guest]

Respected rajitha,

 

My pranams.  Exactly the same mantra i was looking for.  Vashishta Ganapati Muni

in his composition *Ganapati gitam* mentions this mantra and explains in a

slightly different way.  He visualizes mahahasti & dakshinena as *mahahasti rupa

till the neck and the trunk as a human being*  and hence my doubt. 

 

BTW, this sort of demeaning Indra is also found in Shrimad Bhagavatam where

Krishna stops the Indrotsav at vraj bhumi. At the behest of Krishna, the local

villagers stop the worship of indra. 

 

As regards the name of vaishnava saint, it was Tarigonda Venkamamba who was

married to Lord Venkateshwara of tirupati. 

 

Thanks a lot for your quick response..

 

with warm regards,

sriram

 

--- On Fri, 1/5/09, rajita_rajvasishth <rajita_rajvasishth wrote:

 

rajita_rajvasishth <rajita_rajvasishth

Re: Reg. Indra - my question

 

Friday, 1 May, 2009, 10:15 AM

[Guest guest]

, " rajita_rajvasishth " <rajita_rajvasishth

wrote:

>

> Shriram- I think you are talking about the vedic mantra to Indra that has been

adapted for Ganapati upasana or Homa in Smarta custom. It is RV8.81.1 and used

with .2 and gaNAnAntva gaNapatiM etc. as a triple mantra adapted for Ganapati.

>

> The mantra is:

> A tU na indra kShumantaM chitraM grAbhaM saM gR^ibhAya / mahAhastI dakShiNena

//

>

> The word mahAhastin is interpreted as one with a trunk like gaNesha but in the

actual context it means hand of indra.

>

>

>

> However when sectarianism got polarized this same imagery which was meant in a

positive sense can be made negative. So when Vaishnavas and to certain Shaivas

rose in prominence they started providing a negative spin on the exploits of the

central god of the vedas and representing him in a bad light to enhance Vishnu

or Shiva. The vaishnavas also do this with Shiva. I saw a sthalapurana of Balaji

at a friend's house that depicts Shiva negatively. To a lesser degree Shaivas

return the favor to the Vishnu as seen in the Common Shiva purana.

>

> Rajita

>

 

Namaste Rajita-Ji:

 

As I understand this the term " indra " is utilized meaning " shrtShTha " . in the

6th R^icyaa indraa's left (savya) and right (daxiNa) hand is also mentioned,

which are considered to be equivalent to " left " and " right " sided curved trunk

of gaNeSha. In the aShTottara shata naamaavLi geNesha is referred as

" pa~nacahastaaya " , one with five hands. (aa no bhara dakShiNenaabhi savyena pra

mR^isha| indra maa no vasor nir bhaak||R^igveda 8-81-6 || ). There are several

references where indra expresses strength in his arms so that he could use his

vajra.

 

Often power and dexterity is often represented by hands. Incidentally in the

Jewish culture the they use hand as a good lick charm. I think it is known as

" hamaShaa " .

 

The second R^icyaa in this suuktaa expresses the concept of " R^iddhi " , " siddhi "

& " buddhi " (vidmaa hi tvaa tuvikuurmiM tuvideShNaM tuviimagham| tuvimaatram

avobhiH|| R^igveda 8-81-2 ||)

Here one finds the development or rather evolution of how brhamaNaspati evolved

into gaNesha.

 

In the 7th manDala (na yaatava indra juujuvur no na vandanaa shaviShTha

vedyaabhiH | sa shardhad aryo viShuNasya jantor maa shishnadevaa api gur R^itaM

naH || 7-21-5 ||) there is a reference of " shishnadeva " and the suukakaara

(sage vasiShTha) requests indra to prevent these lingapuujaka from coming close

to the place where yaj~na is being performed.

 

It is important to note that yaaska interprets " shishnadeva " as those who do not

observe barhmacrya (nirukta 4.19.9).

 

Kind regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Dear rajitha,

 

Namaste. Thanks a million for your clue.

 

I was referring to the musings of Ganapati Muni on Indra Gitam and Ganapati

Gitam. The Vashishta Ganapati Muni while drawing a common point between

Ganapati and Indra mentions two mantras:

 

Indra sukta: *jyEShTarAjam bharE kr^tnuM* ;

Brahmanaspati Sukta : *jyEShTarAjam brahmaNAm brahmaNaspata*

 

While commenting on *jyEShTarAja* tattva, says that *jyEShTarAja* is *yaviShTa*

/ Agni. Indra-Agni (AindrAgni) is the twin principle. Also he says

*indrajyEShTAmarudgaNA*, *bhrAtaromarutastava*. *Gana* implies Marut-ganas and

jyeshta tattva among the Marut-ganas is the BrahmaNaspati / Ganapati in other

words *Marut-Gana-pati*. Agni-Maruta Stuti in Rg Veda also extols this

twin-principle.

 

In Narada Darsana, while extolling Indra, the following mantra is mentioned

*tadirudrasya chEtati yahvam*, where

Indra is mentioned as Rudra Putra.

 

So, In Rg Veda, the Twin Principle of Indra-Agni is comprehended as

JyeShTa-KaniShTa bhrAtr^ tattva. These two principles in Puranas were

comprehended as Ganapati and Kartikeya tattva where Ganapati the JyeShTa tattva

became elder brother and Kartikeya - the kaniShTa tattva among the Marut-ganas

became the yonger brother.

 

Since, Marut-ganas emanated from Rudra, these two brothers were identified among

the Rudra Kutumba. Ganapati Muni in his *Rudra-Kutumba Stavah* extolls these

two as twin-principle of Rudra-putras as vaidyutagni-vaisvanaragni vidyas.

 

Now, the mantra which you mentioned *AtUna indra kShumantam chitram grAbham

samgr^bhAya - mahAhasti dakShiNEna* was envisioned by the Rishi Kusidi - the son

of Kanva. Thanks a lot for referring the Rg Veda Mandala Bhaga. As per

Ganapati Muni says is that this Mahahasti rupa is the maya-rupa of Indra and the

word *dakshina* implies the *form of nara*. But i don't know the basis on his

conclusion as i could not follow his analysis.

 

As per Ganapati Muni, Kanva & Gritsamada Rishis identify Brahmanaspati to be

Indra. As per Kanva, the word *Vajra* is the synonym for *Indra*. As per

Ganapati Muni, *Vajra*, though a synonym of Indra, is also comprehended as the

*Indra-Sakti* otherwise termed as IndrANi / Vajravairochani. This *vajra* is

depicted as *thunderbolt* in the hands of Indra which is Indra-Sakti.

 

After going through the *IndrANi sapthasathi* and *Indra ahasranama* of

Vashishta Ganapati Muni, i am slowly understanding the greatness & importance of

Indra of Rg Veda. Ganapati Muni used to organise *Indra Sabha* to popularize

the *upasana of Indra*. There is a powerful Indra mantra prayoga which is

generally used for pregnant ladies to prevent *miscarriages* and *abortions*.

When his

daughter-in-law had undergone series of miscarriages, Ganapati Muni initiated

her in Indra-Vidya and later she delivered a baby.

 

It is unfortunate that such an Indra is belittled in our Puranas.

 

with regards,

sriram

 

 

 

 

, " rajita_rajvasishth " <rajita_rajvasishth

wrote:

>

> Shriram- I think you are talking about the vedic mantra to Indra that has been

adapted for Ganapati upasana or Homa in Smarta custom. It is RV8.81.1 and used

with .2 and gaNAnAntva gaNapatiM etc. as a triple mantra adapted for Ganapati.

>

> The mantra is:

> A tU na indra kShumantaM chitraM grAbhaM saM gR^ibhAya / mahAhastI dakShiNena

//

>

> The word mahAhastin is interpreted as one with a trunk like gaNesha but in the

actual context it means hand of indra.

>

> For Smartas the vedas are the scriptural authority. The Vedas have statements

like " vishvasmAd indra uttaraH " and " nakirindra tvad uttaro na jAyan asti

vR^itrahan " etc. These mean that there is no god greater than indra. The

upanishad which is also part of the " shruti " says that brahmavidyA is

indragNYna. So it is true indra is the highest object of upAsana for a Smarta or

anyone who genuinely accepts shruti authority. Puranas and Tantras are

authorities for sectarian Hindus people so they do not have the same view of

Indra as the vedas but of other devas who they consider to be the greatest like

Shiva or Vishnu.

>

> Regarding Indra's depictions there is a positive as well as a negative way of

looking at things. In many cultures like Greek, Japanese etc the great male gods

are seen virile and fertile entities. Hence there are depictions of these gods

as openly flaunting their fertility. This does not apply only to Indra. It is

also true of Shiva- we had this discussion on Linga etc. In older forms of

Shrikula that are not very common today like navanityA and ekAdashanityA shiva

is explicitly identified as manmatharUpa and all the implications of that. Some

this older imagery still lingers in Anandabhairava or kAmeshvara of the

surviving shrIkula tradition.Vishnu also has a similar tradition of depictions.

There is trailokyamohanasvamin and amongst laypeople the image of kR^iShNa. Now

such imagery can be obviously appealing to male devotees. But we know that it

might also appeal to female devotee because we have cases like Mirabai a royal

woman saint in North India and I recall a similar Vaishnavi in South India whose

name I forget.

>

> However when sectarianism got polarized this same imagery which was meant in a

positive sense can be made negative. So when Vaishnavas and to certain Shaivas

rose in prominence they started providing a negative spin on the exploits of the

central god of the vedas and representing him in a bad light to enhance Vishnu

or Shiva. The vaishnavas also do this with Shiva. I saw a sthalapurana of Balaji

at a friend's house that depicts Shiva negatively. To a lesser degree Shaivas

return the favor to the Vishnu as seen in the Common Shiva purana.

>

> Rajita

>

[Guest guest]

, Gopi <antarurjas wrote:

 

> Recenly I heard a discourse from Krishnapremi,( of paraNUR nera >villupuram,

Tamilnadu,a very erudicte scholar, a paramavishnu >bhaktha, popularly called as

Sri Sri Anna),which gave me a different >view of this aspect. In a very

elucidated discourse on >purushasuktha, he says that Indra is like a post.( like

a prime >minister).This post has been given to several people, as a fruite of

>their tapas. There are basically 3 types of devas -

> some devas who are always with God, ( nithyasoorIs etc),

> some devas who are given/have that post,

> some devas who " temprorily " ( read - a few yugas) have those roles.

> ?

> So when you talk of an Indra, there are these 3 Indras actually.One >of these

Indras could have indulged in any of the undesirable >activites, and hence would

have lost the deivathva quotient in him(

 

This a either a shrI vaiShNava or some vaiShNava position. They say the same

thing about shiva. So you can safely put this aside.

 

This three indra concept you wont find it in the veda-s and can be seen only in

sectarian purANa-s which came much later.

 

If one accepts shruti as the highest authority then undoubtedly Indra is the

highest devata. This does not mean they dont have iShTa devata-s outside this

pantheon.

 

So in understanding matters like these the words of sectarian lecturers should

be ignored.

[Guest guest]

Dear raghu,

 

Concept of siva, vishnu etc. are pauranic in nature. In veda, i don't think

concept of tri-murti is there in Veda. It is Indra which is the chief deity.

 

regs,

sriram

 

, Raghavendra <mkraghavendra wrote:

>

> Dear RR-ji,

> Very thought-provoking. Does this mean Indra as the object of upasana is

> higher than Vishnu, Shiva and the Mother goddess herself according to the

> vedas? Or have I got the interpretation wrong?

>

> Thanks,

> Raghav

>

>

> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM, rajita_rajvasishth <

> rajita_rajvasishth wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Shriram- I think you are talking about the vedic mantra to Indra that has

> > been adapted for Ganapati upasana or Homa in Smarta custom. It is RV8.81.1

> > and used with .2 and gaNAnAntva gaNapatiM etc. as a triple mantra adapted

> > for Ganapati.

> >

> > The mantra is:

> > A tU na indra kShumantaM chitraM grAbhaM saM gR^ibhAya / mahAhastI

> > dakShiNena //

> >

> > The word mahAhastin is interpreted as one with a trunk like gaNesha but in

> > the actual context it means hand of indra.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The question of whether Indra is a higher object of Upasana than the other Devas

you named is conceptually incorrect in the vedic system because there is no

question of Paratvam in the veda. These devas and many more have to be given

offerings - no question of omission based on some perceived high/low hierarchy.

This is also the general Smarta view while worshiping Tantrik devas.

 

I am summarizing below for those interested some concepts I learned in

discussions with someone who practices the vedas.

 

In the vedic view other Devas like Vishnu and shiva are not belittled. They

receive their share of offerings and are called the great gods. In a certain

sense they might have an equality with Indra in their functional domains but are

certainly not greater than him as seen in the concept of Paratvam in the

sectarian thought. We get a certain impression of his supremacy in the Vedas

because he receives the largest share of offerings of Soma and other materials

and because he is present in all functional domains with each of the devas of

those domains. This is expressed in the yajur veda where each deva is combined

with indra in the expression deva X cha ma indrash cha me etc.

 

The goddess function is divided in the vedas into the maternal role: Aditi and

other roles warrior and nourisher by water etc: Sarasvati and natural cycles

like the Lunar goddesses: Anumati, Kuhu, Sinivali, Raka etc. But Sarasvati can

be seen as the main goddess who spans categories and definitely considered a

great deity.

 

One can superficially derive Paratvam from the vedas even with elementary

Sanskrit knowledge. So I do not consider this a great feat of scholarship. Such

examples are cited by sectarian Hindu who interpret vedas to support paratvam of

their deity. A common example is the Purusha Sukta that is used for both Shiva

and Vishnu.

The Purusha Sukta in the Rigveda etc says:

utAmRta tvasy eshAno yad annenAtirohati

Here ishAna is mentioned so a shaiva would say it is a sign of puruSha being

shiva so parAtvam of shiva is established

it also says:

tato vishvaM vyakrAmat

So a vaiShNava would say vyakrAmat is a verb uniquely referring to trivikrama.

So viShNu is puruSha and his parAtvam is established.

But a student of Vedas themselves has to try to understand that they are trying

to say rather than what they want see as sectarian devotee. I understand this a

devotional list and probably such discussions are not the focus here so I stop.

Rajita