asuras (demons)

[Guest guest]

So, can so called 'demons' also be great devotees of Lord Vishnu? After all, are they not essential for His lila?

[Sephiroth]

Everyone is devotee for Lord Vishnu, they just don't know about it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

the mentality of asuras/demins is temporary, but coulkd be as long as a few lifetimes. the suffering caused in demoniac life causes one to turn to god and become a devotee. if one is not careful, maya cn turn one again to become a demoniac.

 

[ajit12]

The asuras are usually called demons, but this is not a terribly good translation, for it denotes a sinister quality which is not always in the character of these beings. Strictly speaking, the asuras are the powerful beings who are opposed to the devas.

 

In Hindu mythology, the Asura are a group of power-seeking deities, sometimes misleadingly referred to as demons. They were opposed to the devas. Both groups are children of Kashyapa. The name is cognate to Aesir,Ahura which implies a common Proto-Indo-European origin for the Asura and the Aesir.

 

The negative character of the asura in Hinduism seems to have evolved over time. In general, the earliest texts have the asuras presiding over moral and social phenomena (e.g. Varuna, the guardian of rta, or Bhaga, the patron of marriages) and the devas presiding over natural phenomena (e.g. Ushas, whose name means "dawn", or Indra, a weather god).

 

Mitra, Varuna and Vritra are the most well known Asuras.

 

Asura was also another nonvedic school of philosophy which used to believe in 'DEHA-ATMAN WAAD' i.e. you body and soul are one and in order to look after the soul one must look after one's body.They also believed transmigration of Jiva.Asur yagnya used to differ from vedic yagnya in the fact that AAHUTI i.e. sacrificial offering instead of giving it to AGNI i.e. fire it was directly placed in to one'mouth under the chanting of mantras.'MAHAPRASADAM' i.e. placing food infront of a deity and then eating of the same by all present is a curious relic of Asur yagnya.

 

 

[Guest guest]

the term asura and the Hindu opposition to asuras starts from the vedic period. The Vedic religion encompassed an area roughly spreading from north central india west through pakistan, afghanistan and most of Iran (roughly Persia).

 

At some point (scholars say anywhere between 1300 - 700 BC) a man named Zarathustra was born in Afghanistan and the religion of Zoroastrianism (Parsis) is based on his teachings. He disregarded many of the multi-god beliefs of Vedism in favor of one God, Ahura Mazda (the god of wisdom). Basically this was the first revolt against nature worshipping Vedism in favor of abstract philosophical worship.

 

They became socially hostile towards the Vedic worshippers (who happened to be located more in Pakistan and India) who worshipped the devas. That is why Zoroastrianism says the daevas are evil spirits and ahuras are good. This is where Vedism gets asuras. They start feeling hostilities towards the ahura/asura worshippers of Zoroastrian Persia.

Therefore, the first concept of asura comes into what is today Hinduism.

 

Zoroastrian Vedic

good - Ahura Deva

bad - daeva asura

 

 

 

Over the centuries, the term asura as evil became popularized and as Puranic times came, more contact between the Aryan north and dravidian south became prominent. As can be inferred from early Sangam literature, the Tamil kings led attacks against the North, and won many of them.

 

This hositility may be what led the North Indian Vedic worshippers to call the new enemies from the south as asura demons because of the political and social hositiliy between the two areas during the Puranic times (100 AD - 1000 AD)

 

Then over more centuries, we modern Hindus look at asuras as just evil people because we lack the social hostility between North and south INdia or india and persia in the 21st century.

[Guest guest]

Then how did Krishna mention the term asura in Gita? if it had to come between the time you mentioned , then what did krishna mean when he said asura in many verses

 

Hari hari bol

 

Vikram

[Guest guest]

Krishna the historical person may have come years before the term asura was in use. But one must understand that the Gita was written much after. THere were three different models of the Mahabharata story before it was finalized to what we know today.

 

the writers of the later versions could have easily put in the word 'asura' in order to convey meaning to a population of people who would know what the term meant and know the significance of that implication.

 

Either way, Krishna the historical person was probably living during the Vedic times, therefore there is a pretty good chance that he could have been alive during the time asura was used in reference to the Zoroastrian Persians.

[Sephiroth]

I really don't understand with some people's possession that Asuras means real people and not demons.

 

Why don't some people accept that Asuras are Demons? Do they not believe in Demons?

 

In Islam, Muslims themselves had many times told (me and others) that supernatural beings (called Djinns) exists and many of them are Buddhist, Hindus and even Jew Djinns, living just like humans do in their own colonies. Even Christians and Buddhist believe in Supernatural beings as well.

 

So why is some Hindus seems to be reluctant to accept Asuras are supernatural beings? Why must they rationalize some odd explaination on how Asura begins? I really don't understand.

 

Oh yeah, I think they are behaving like Christians also. I have noticed that many of them don't speak of "Evil" beings. I have sat in one of the Church Sermon long time ago (a girlfriend of mine was Christian and she invited me to Sunday Service in order to convert me) and I have notice that even Priest of the Church was "scared" to speak out of Demons and "Evil" beings. I wonder why?

[ajit12]

There is no problem to speak of demons or evil beings who perhaps operate just under the surface of our world.The problem is when you call them Asuras.The vedic or puranic term for such beings is Rakshash or Pishach and not Asuras.I was pointing out this inaccuracy.

[Guest guest]

with any old explanation "asura is demonoh ok, now i know"....one should explore the question and see what this means...

 

i dont believe in supernatural beings like demons, with horns, or wierd scary faces, purple colored skin, 5 inch long claws, tails or any crazy "demons" that one would see in a hollywood movie. thats just a movie - not real life.

 

Perhaps that is one thing wrong with the Hindu culture. We are too quick to explain supernatural phenomenae mentioned in our ancient texts as being exactly literally real. We subconsiously seek approval for ourselves by not believeing that anything written in a "hindu" scripture could be faulty or misleading.

 

Perhaps the fault doesnt lie in the authors who wrote demon but rather in the readers who misrepresent the original idea.

 

Anyone using intellectual academics and logic can see that the term asura is basically the same as the Persian term ahura. How would you explain this Sephiroth? Did the Zoroastrians worship 'demons'?

 

 

[Sephiroth]

i dont believe in supernatural beings like demons, with horns, or wierd scary faces, purple colored skin, 5 inch long claws, tails or any crazy "demons" that one would see in a hollywood movie. thats just a movie - not real life.

 

You don't believe doesn't means they don't exist. Get that fact straighten. Whatever you believe or don't believe is no concern of others and it changes NOTHING.

 

Perhaps that is one thing wrong with the Hindu culture. We are too quick to explain supernatural phenomenae mentioned in our ancient texts as being exactly literally real. We subconsiously seek approval for ourselves by not believeing that anything written in a "hindu" scripture could be faulty or misleading.

 

Wrong again ... many of this events descibed in old Purana is very much to the facts. Again, you wish to ponder that the puranas is something else other than facts, that is your business. Asking us to believe what you think is facts is unethical.

 

And for your information, MANY phenomenas like Simultaneous Combustion is explained in various puranas and it still puzzled some of the scientists today.

 

Anyone using intellectual academics and logic can see that the term asura is basically the same as the Persian term ahura. How would you explain this Sephiroth? Did the Zoroastrians worship 'demons'?

 

Which came first? Vedas or Zooastrians?

[Guest guest]

//Krishna the historical person may have come years before the term asura was in use//

 

Hell no, Krisna is not a person or history, he is the supreme personality

 

//But one must understand that the Gita was written much after//

Gita was written down as it was told by the Lord using the SAME wordings, thats the magic of mantras at that time. One could write everything as it is just by going into the past

 

//the writers of the later versions could have easily put in the word 'asura' in order to convey meaning to a population of people who would know what the term meant //

 

No one wrote back anything, everyone after the Lord Vedavyasa just intepreted the same old sanskrit hymns

 

//Either way, Krishna the historical person was probably living during the Vedic times//

 

stop reading the history books , which write only cok an bul stories, read scripture and the intepretations of them by the great acharyas

 

and by the way krishna is not a historic person who takes birth and dies in the history books ..

 

Another point the person who wrote Mahabharatha -intern Srimad Bhagavadgita was infact Sri krishna during the time of mahabharatha war, so same person came in and wrote what he spoke during the battlefield of kurukshethra .

 

The logic is as simple as that Krishna spoke Gita

Then he wrote back as Vyasa

 

 

Hari bol

 

Vikram

[Guest guest]

You don't believe doesn't means they don't exist. Get that fact straighten. Whatever you believe or don't believe is no concern of others and it changes NOTHING.

---------------------

 

 

while it may be true that regardless of what i believe, that doesnt constitute reality, it is also true that such beings DDO NOT exist in form on this planet, Earth, 3rd from the Sun in the Milky Way galaxy. maybe somewhere else, but i dont know about that. im talking about what i know about the planet we all live on. Here on Earth, demons that look like gargoyles, dragons or other crazy monsters from movies are only from movies. They do not exist on Earth.

 

Therefore, the asuras talked about are NOT demonic creatures in the sense that they are physical monstrosities. They may be demonic in the quality that they have evil and ignorant tendencies in their personality. That way, they may be demonic.

 

------------

And for your information, MANY phenomenas like Simultaneous Combustion is explained in various puranas and it still puzzled some of the scientists today

-------------

 

Please explain how and where simulatneous combustion is explained........

 

 

-----------

Which came first? Vedas or Zooastrians

----------

 

The Vedas did but that doesnt prove anything either way. Confirming the chronology of a people or religion or belief is not proof of word use.

 

And please dont say sanskrit was a perfect language brought to human beings in its most complete form and we humans had no effect on the language itself...i hope thats not what u are going to say....

_____

 

 

------

Hell no, Krisna is not a person or history, he is the supreme personality

--------------

 

i dont know abt that. i wasnt there to know for sure, but in my opinion, krishna is not an abstract being, but rather a real historical person that had a great affect on North Indian Vaishnavism/Vedic society and eventually evolved to be a pan-Indian god.

 

----------

ita was written down as it was told by the Lord using the SAME wordings, thats the magic of mantras at that time. One could write everything as it is just by going into the past

-----------

 

 

The Gita was written hundreds of years after Krishna. It may have been preserved orally for centuries before it was written down but not written during the time of krishna. Therefore, there is ample opportunity for it to be changed slightly, either content wise or wording wise.

 

 

---------

No one wrote back anything, everyone after the Lord Vedavyasa just intepreted the same old sanskrit hymns

-----------

 

its absurd and extremely niave to believe that in some 5000-3000 year time perdiod, in a country which has probably the most creative way to celebrate God, and the second most populated area (probably throughout history), not ONE person added any sort of creative aspect at ALL.

 

Remember that the mahabharata started as a story called Jaya (i believe) and over time elongated and elaborated to become what was called the Bharata and eventually over more centuries, got more elaboratd to become what we know today as the mahabharata.

 

[moderator's note: edited to keep page from going off screen]

[Sephiroth]

... but i dont know about that.

 

No use talking further. If all you know (or care to know) is this little, I have no interest in argueing with you.

 

Please explain how and where simulatneous combustion is explained........

 

For years, cases like Human Combustion puzzled Westerners. The fact that humans can burn on their own, without any outside elements and by their own body fats made it sound like supernatural phenomena.

 

But when one studies Puranas and epics like Ramayana, you will find plenty of cases where rishis and holy women self-immolate themselves and reduce their bodies to ashes. For example, the woman sage who cursed Ravana that if he ever tries to take control of another woman, his head will exploded, did the same thing (immolate herself).

 

The Vedas did ...

 

Then you know that Asura is a term used in Vedas and probably borrowed by Zoroastrians. Which means that original meanings of Asuras are supernatural beings who symbolizes demonic qualities. Maybe in later times, Hindus refers to those in Persia and such nations as Asuras due to the way they live, but that's a different story.

[Guest guest]

-----------------------

But when one studies Puranas and epics like Ramayana, you will find plenty of cases where rishis and holy women self-immolate themselves and reduce their bodies to ashes. For example, the woman sage who cursed Ravana that if he ever tries to take control of another woman, his head will exploded, did the same thing (immolate herself).

-----------------------

 

these instances can easily be of one setting fire to themselves and self immolating themselves. that is actrually what self-immolation is. It does not mention nor imply any automatic human combustion. you are putting that into the story yourself.

 

it is unfair to imply automatic human combustion at times that vaguely fit your scenario rather than just seeing it for what it probably was, self immolation, done naturally by people.

 

----------------------------

Then you know that Asura is a term used in Vedas and probably borrowed by Zoroastrians. Which means that original meanings of Asuras are supernatural beings who symbolizes demonic qualities. Maybe in later times, Hindus refers to those in Persia and such nations as Asuras due to the way they live, but that's a different story.

----------------------------

 

Does anyone know what part of the Vedas mention the term? was it the older parts or the younger? but either way, it does not autmatically make your case correct. Just because Vedas are older doesnt mean asura is a term used for supernatural beings wth demonic qualities.

 

first of all , what is a supernatural being? have you ever seen one? has anyone? please describe one's physical makeup.

[Sephiroth]

It does not mention nor imply any automatic human combustion.

 

Believe what you like. Foolish people always likes to believe what they like. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

Just because Vedas are older doesnt mean asura is a term used for supernatural beings wth demonic qualities.

 

FACT - Asuras are terms used to describe Supernatural beings. Period. No need to explain anymore. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

first of all , what is a supernatural being? have you ever seen one? has anyone? please describe one's physical makeup.

 

Even if I describe it, what is the use? You will say I having delusion or making things up. People like you loves to believe whatever they like. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

----------------------

Foolish people always likes to believe what they like.

----------------------

 

 

Truer words have never been spoken by you

 

 

----------------------

FACT - Asuras are terms used to describe Supernatural beings. Period. No need to explain anymore.

----------------------

 

An explanation is due wherever one asks for it, so that the person asking can better understand.

 

 

-----------------------

People like you loves to believe whatever they like

-----------------------

 

Step back and take a look at yourself and see if this cant apply to you

 

Your mere dismissal of my points and adamently sticking to your beliefs without any facts to back them up shows that you have run out of excuses and have no more valid reasons why your beliefs are true.

 

 

[kshatriya_108]

where's your proof Ratheesh, that the Mahabharat is an elongated work from something called Jaya?

 

 

[Guest guest]

unfortuantely i cannot produce any direct proof or quotation as of right now. I know many people will kjump on me for this and use this as ammo against my point, but they are using what they can to win an arguement, not looking for the truth of the arguement.

 

But, Many scholars do believe that the Mahabharata came from an original work called the Jaya. I dont know if there is any concrete proof such as a text taht directly says 'mahabharata came from jaya' but some are led to believe this to be true.

 

to deny my whole arguement based on this however is extreme in the least

[Guest guest]

{Many scholars do believe that the Mahabharata came from an original work called the Jaya. I dont know if there is any concrete proof such as a text taht directly says 'mahabharata came from jaya' but some are led to believe this to be true.}

 

I think that historically it was known as Jaya. Then when interpolations were added it grew into the Mahabharata we know today. It's interesting to see how Jaya is different to Mahabharata and if there's a way to identify what has been added.

[Sephiroth]

Did anyone bothered to think that you are agreeing to Ratheesh's claims that Mahabratha was called Jaya WITHOUT a single shred of proof to his claims?

 

All I know is that original names for this "stories" are called Puranas, Smirthi and Surthi.

[Guest guest]

see, i said people would jump on it.....

 

 

but anyway, smrithi and shruti are not names of stories. they are types of stories, scriptures or text.

 

smrithi means that which is remembered and shruthi means taht which is heard.

 

smrithi encompasses all the historical experiences of different sects of Hinduism throughout the years. This includes the ramayana, mahabharata and the puranas.

 

shruthi includes all the "revealed" texts like the Vedas and Upanishads. It is supposed to be "heard" by great rishis from God

[ajit12]

The very first sloka of Mahabharata starts thus'This is Itihaas called JAY'.Kautilya writing in Arthashastra in 3rd century BC. writes' Bharata which is an extended version of an Itihaas called JAY.'Thre are a few more proofs which will be taken up later.

[Guest guest]

Hari Hari

 

Here is the proof that Mahabharata was written By Vyas (actually dictated and Ganesh was the wrote down).

 

Click on the link for the Google pramana

http://www.google.com/search?q="mahabharata+was+written+by"&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

[Guest guest]

Bol Ram

 

Copy the link into address bar form the above letter or you get nothing.

 

Rd