Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Before I reply to any of the questions, please allow me to thank you for your appreciation of my views, though I may not really merit that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which were the main gods of the Indus valley civilization?
- Thread starter Rakovsky
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gods harappa indus valley
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I wonder why! I get it without any problem. But I copy here the information provided in that.
Rakovsky
Active Member
Ok, I see it is associating draco and leviathan with makara. I guess that makes sense, as makara is a sea monster. So are leviathan and crocodiles. And the pole star for Chinese was associated with supreme god shang di, as the other stars/gods revolve around it.
So I get parpola's claim that they associate the pole star and their main god proto Varuna / proto Shiva with the crocodile/makara.
Still, it's uncomfortable. I like to think of Ishvara as nice, not monstrous. In the Babylonian and Hebrew religions, there was already a battle over this. The leading god, that of light, marduk, was fighting the reptilian tiamat of the waters and split them. Jehovah divided the heaven from earth and fought leviathan too.
I found it easy to correspond with you and like it that you are a thinking person, so that's why I wanted your comments on Parpola's pdf that I linked to above on the topic, to see if you agree with him.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Note: I think the story about 'makara' is comparatively recent (2,000 BC). In earlier times (4,000 BC), the vernal equinox sun rose after the 'Shvâna' (Dog Star, Sirius) appeared on the horizon. Wait, I will try to give you a verse from RigVeda on that. Yes, I am a thinking type of person. You see, my grandfather was a historian. I have imbibed some of his characteristics.
Varuna presided over Ursa Major (Sapta Rishis, seven sages). The following is a prayer to Varuna (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv02028.htm - verse 9):
"Para rinâ sâvîradha mat-kritâni, mâham râjannanya-kritena bhojam l
Avyushtâ in nu bhûyasîrushâsa, â no jîvân Varuna tâsu shâdhi ll
(Remove far the debts (sins) incurred by me. May I not, O King! be affected by others’ doings.
Verily, many dawns (have) not fully flashed forth. O Varuna! direct that we may be alive during them.”
BG Tilak relies on RigVeda 1.161 - verse 13 to say that the year began with the appearance of Shvâna (Dog Star, Sirius, Canis Major, Greek: Kupris):
“Suṣhupvāṃsa ṛibhavastadapṛichatāghohya ka idaṃ no abūbudhata l
śvānaṃ basto bodhayitāramabravīta samvatsara idamadyā vyakhyata ll”
(When ye had slept your fill, ye Ṛibhus*, thus ye asked, O thou whom naught may hide, who now hath wakened us?
The goat (sun) declared the hound to be your wakener. That day, in a full year, ye first unclosed our eyes.)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01161.htm
* Ribhus: the genies of the seasons.
There is more to it, but I am neither writing an essay nor a book.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Since the precession of equinoxes is completed in 25,772 years, it moves back a little less than one zodiac in 2,000 years.
D Bachmann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession#/media/File:Equinox_path.png
In 4,000 BC, it was Aries (Taurus), 2,000 BC to 0 - Pisces, 0 - 2,000 AD - Aquarius, 2,000 AD to 4,000 AD - Capricorn; roughly. I am still trying to sort it out. Anybody around who can help me with this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession#/media/File:Equinox_path.png
In 4,000 BC, it was Aries (Taurus), 2,000 BC to 0 - Pisces, 0 - 2,000 AD - Aquarius, 2,000 AD to 4,000 AD - Capricorn; roughly. I am still trying to sort it out. Anybody around who can help me with this?
Last edited:
Rakovsky
Active Member
Aupmanyav,
The thing is, for outsiders like me, we don't know if Aryans were in Harappa, so we are stuck pleading for the DNA tests to be done on the human remains and also making educated guesses based on archaeological remains, rather than automatically following what the Vedas say, even though we recognize their relevance.
Thanks also for your discussion of constellations above, but I have a hard time making sense out of all this and connecting it to Harappa's civilization, except it looks like the Vedas (whether after or during Harappa), the pole star, the "crocodile god" or a crocodile manifestation of the god are interconnected somehow.
In his section on the "Heavenly crocodile in the Veda and its Harappan background", Parpola writes:
https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Parpola_Asko_2011._Crocodile_in_the_Indu.pdf
So when you say that Varuna presided over Ursa major and the seven sages, it looks like Parpola is talking about that too in the last sentence above, along with the "seven stars of Ursa major".
He also connects Varuna with the pole star again in his discussion of the Rigveda:
Working on his idea that the IndoEuropean Varuna and the South Asian Banyan tree god were not originally related (due to being in different cultures), he concludes that when we talk about Harappa's version, we have to be talking about a proto-Varuna:
Parpola adds:
The thing is, for outsiders like me, we don't know if Aryans were in Harappa, so we are stuck pleading for the DNA tests to be done on the human remains and also making educated guesses based on archaeological remains, rather than automatically following what the Vedas say, even though we recognize their relevance.
Thanks also for your discussion of constellations above, but I have a hard time making sense out of all this and connecting it to Harappa's civilization, except it looks like the Vedas (whether after or during Harappa), the pole star, the "crocodile god" or a crocodile manifestation of the god are interconnected somehow.
In his section on the "Heavenly crocodile in the Veda and its Harappan background", Parpola writes:
https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Parpola_Asko_2011._Crocodile_in_the_Indu.pdf
Heavenly crocodile in the Veda and its Harappan background The Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka (2,19) speaks of a heavenly crocodile called Śākvara (divyaḥ śākvaraḥ śiśumāras), whose tail (puccha-) has four sections (kāṇḍa-). The prayer constituting worship of Brahma (brahmopasthāna-) begins with the words dhruvastvam asi, dhruvasya kṣitam, and ends with namaḥ
śiśukumārāya. This prayer should be muttered at dusk while facing the region of the pole star...
As it says, he who knows this heavenly crocodile, the lord of all beings (bhūtānām adhipatir), will conquer death and gain the world of heaven (jayati svargam lokaṃ). In a discussion of the śārkara sāman, the Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa (3,193-194) calls the sage Śarkara by the name śiṃśumārawhen he ascends to the heavenly world (svargaṃ lokam udakrāmat). This word appears to denote the dolphin, as it refers to an ocean animal (śiṃśumāro vai samudram atipārayitum arhati) (Lüders 1942: 66-67). ... In Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka 2,19,2, the limbs of the heavenly śiśumāra- are equated with different deities. At least in this text, the animal must be a crocodile and not a dolphin, since it is said to have forelegs and hind legs (cf. Lüders 1942: 67-68)9.
The heavenly crocodile of the Harappans seems to have been Ursa Major, which in Old Tamil is called eẓu-mīn '(constellation of ) seven stars'. Above I suggested that *eẓu 'seven' (DEDR 910) in the Indus script probably served as a rebus for *iẓu, *eẓu 'to draw, pull, drag along the ground' (DEDR 504a), from which the Malayalam term for
'reptile' is derived. In this case, eẓu-mīn could have been understood to also mean 'reptile asterism'.
According to Viṣṇu-Purāṇa 2,9,1, the heavenly form of the God Viṣṇu (which appears in the form of a
śiśumāra-) includes the pole star in its tail (tārāmayaṃ bhagavataḥ śiśumārākṛti prabho / divi rūpaṃ harer yat
tu tasya pucche sthito dhruvaḥ). If such was already the case in Harappan times, then the tail was curved
as seen in the gharial depicted on Indus seal M-292 (Figure 21), with the pole star (Thuban) added to
the seven stars of Ursa Major (Figure 46).
śiśukumārāya. This prayer should be muttered at dusk while facing the region of the pole star...
As it says, he who knows this heavenly crocodile, the lord of all beings (bhūtānām adhipatir), will conquer death and gain the world of heaven (jayati svargam lokaṃ). In a discussion of the śārkara sāman, the Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa (3,193-194) calls the sage Śarkara by the name śiṃśumārawhen he ascends to the heavenly world (svargaṃ lokam udakrāmat). This word appears to denote the dolphin, as it refers to an ocean animal (śiṃśumāro vai samudram atipārayitum arhati) (Lüders 1942: 66-67). ... In Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka 2,19,2, the limbs of the heavenly śiśumāra- are equated with different deities. At least in this text, the animal must be a crocodile and not a dolphin, since it is said to have forelegs and hind legs (cf. Lüders 1942: 67-68)9.
The heavenly crocodile of the Harappans seems to have been Ursa Major, which in Old Tamil is called eẓu-mīn '(constellation of ) seven stars'. Above I suggested that *eẓu 'seven' (DEDR 910) in the Indus script probably served as a rebus for *iẓu, *eẓu 'to draw, pull, drag along the ground' (DEDR 504a), from which the Malayalam term for
'reptile' is derived. In this case, eẓu-mīn could have been understood to also mean 'reptile asterism'.
According to Viṣṇu-Purāṇa 2,9,1, the heavenly form of the God Viṣṇu (which appears in the form of a
śiśumāra-) includes the pole star in its tail (tārāmayaṃ bhagavataḥ śiśumārākṛti prabho / divi rūpaṃ harer yat
tu tasya pucche sthito dhruvaḥ). If such was already the case in Harappan times, then the tail was curved
as seen in the gharial depicted on Indus seal M-292 (Figure 21), with the pole star (Thuban) added to
the seven stars of Ursa Major (Figure 46).
So when you say that Varuna presided over Ursa major and the seven sages, it looks like Parpola is talking about that too in the last sentence above, along with the "seven stars of Ursa major".
He also connects Varuna with the pole star again in his discussion of the Rigveda:
Working on his idea that the IndoEuropean Varuna and the South Asian Banyan tree god were not originally related (due to being in different cultures), he concludes that when we talk about Harappa's version, we have to be talking about a proto-Varuna:
Parpola adds:
Do you know what he is talking about, and have you ever heard of any stories of Shiva dying and resurrecting (even if not the normal legend)?
Rakovsky
Active Member
Aupmanyav,
This is the kind of thing that makes Hinduism at its roots, at least if taken seriously (and not as myths like you do), worrying to me. Ideas of Varuna being the main god and him taking the crocodile/water monster form and getting babies sacrificed to him (see Parpola's text), Shiva being the main god of the pantheon yet more destructive in comparison to Vishnu who is apparently not much mentioned in the Vedas, the frightening image of Kali with the skull necklace.
So it's why I wanted someone nice and thoughtful like you to take a critical eye to check up on Parpola's PDF.
This is the kind of thing that makes Hinduism at its roots, at least if taken seriously (and not as myths like you do), worrying to me. Ideas of Varuna being the main god and him taking the crocodile/water monster form and getting babies sacrificed to him (see Parpola's text), Shiva being the main god of the pantheon yet more destructive in comparison to Vishnu who is apparently not much mentioned in the Vedas, the frightening image of Kali with the skull necklace.
So it's why I wanted someone nice and thoughtful like you to take a critical eye to check up on Parpola's PDF.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I am just as perplexed. I will certainly go through the Parpola text (though it seems completely alien to me - Shiva dying and being resurrected, Sapristi). To begin with Shunahshepa is not the sacrifice of the first-born. It was the exasperation of a father at his inquisitive son. This is a forced intrusion of Abrahamic thought into a milieu in which it does not fit. This is not scholarship.
"In its incarnation as Mahiṣa Asura, the water buffalo is also connected with Śiva, the dying and resurrected husband of the goddess Devī who defeats it." How does Parpola arrive at this?
I have never disputed the importance of Varuna in the old Aryan pantheon. He was the law-giver, maintainer of the law. Sure, he could also be regarded as a father-tree. Even Krishna says in BhagawadGita that he is the banyan among all trees ('Ashwatthoham sarva-vrikshānām'). But Varuna was replaced by Indra/Parjanya/Twastr in later Vedic times. As regards the Crocodile/Ursa Major, that is just a description of the stellar positions at a given time. It does not make Crocodile the Supreme God of Aryans. The first constellations and the beginning of the New Year of Aryans have changed all the time, from Castor and Pollux (Punarvasu) to Orion (Mrigashiras) to Pleiades (Krittikās) to Aries (Ashwinis) over a period of 10,000 years with the precession of equinoxes. And another change is long overdue now. Aries (Ashwinis) is not the constellation in which the vernal equinox sun rises now.
I still do not see any Crocodile God either in Aryan or Indigenous mythology.
"In its incarnation as Mahiṣa Asura, the water buffalo is also connected with Śiva, the dying and resurrected husband of the goddess Devī who defeats it." How does Parpola arrive at this?
I have never disputed the importance of Varuna in the old Aryan pantheon. He was the law-giver, maintainer of the law. Sure, he could also be regarded as a father-tree. Even Krishna says in BhagawadGita that he is the banyan among all trees ('Ashwatthoham sarva-vrikshānām'). But Varuna was replaced by Indra/Parjanya/Twastr in later Vedic times. As regards the Crocodile/Ursa Major, that is just a description of the stellar positions at a given time. It does not make Crocodile the Supreme God of Aryans. The first constellations and the beginning of the New Year of Aryans have changed all the time, from Castor and Pollux (Punarvasu) to Orion (Mrigashiras) to Pleiades (Krittikās) to Aries (Ashwinis) over a period of 10,000 years with the precession of equinoxes. And another change is long overdue now. Aries (Ashwinis) is not the constellation in which the vernal equinox sun rises now.
I still do not see any Crocodile God either in Aryan or Indigenous mythology.
Last edited:
Rakovsky
Active Member
First, Parpola seems to be talking about proto-Varuna/proto-Shiva taking the form/vahana/manifestation of a crocodile, rather than being only a crocodile. That is, the form of a crocodile is the vehicle/vahana or method used to move around.
He has a long section I will show short excerpts from, The tribal crocodile cult of Gujarat
"The crocodile is worshipped as an object of
terror. In Baroda the crocodile god, Magar Deo, is
worshipped once a year to protect men and animals
from the attacks of these monsters, and also as a
preventive against illness.... (Dalal, i. 157)" (Crooke 1912: 9a).
....
In their documentation of sanctuaries, they researched the way in which wooden statues
of these crocodile gods were made and interviewed
oracle priests (bhagat) and other informants on their
significance. The results were published in 1971 in a
jointly authored booklet entitled Mogra Dev: Tribal
crocodile gods. ... Worship of the crocodile gods is both communal
and individual.
....
In Amba village, people said: "This
crocodile has been installed because the people did
not get sons. The tiger was eating their cattle and
the crops were spoiled. The (crocodile) god proved
good and true. All twelve months they worship the
crocodile."
terror. In Baroda the crocodile god, Magar Deo, is
worshipped once a year to protect men and animals
from the attacks of these monsters, and also as a
preventive against illness.... (Dalal, i. 157)" (Crooke 1912: 9a).
....
In their documentation of sanctuaries, they researched the way in which wooden statues
of these crocodile gods were made and interviewed
oracle priests (bhagat) and other informants on their
significance. The results were published in 1971 in a
jointly authored booklet entitled Mogra Dev: Tribal
crocodile gods. ... Worship of the crocodile gods is both communal
and individual.
....
In Amba village, people said: "This
crocodile has been installed because the people did
not get sons. The tiger was eating their cattle and
the crops were spoiled. The (crocodile) god proved
good and true. All twelve months they worship the
crocodile."
He identifies the Heavenly Crocodile of Hinduism by noting:
"The Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka (2,19) speaks of a heavenly crocodile called Śākvara (divyaḥ śākvaraḥ śiśumāras), whose tail (puccha-) has four sections (kāṇḍa-)." He then talks about the ceramics with the crocodiles and notes that the classical Indian authors said that śiśumāras meant baby killer. He also notes how crocodile cults in India were sacrificing babies to crocodiles up to the 19th century according to the records. Here he explains about the ceramics and the Indian authors:
The reverse side of moulded tablet H-172 from
Harappa (Figure 51) shows the gharial swimming in
the midst of four fish while eating a fifth one. The
obverse has an inscription that ends in Indus sign
no. 306 (U-shaped 'sacrificial vessel', modified by
sign no. 376 being added inside it) . As mentioned
above, I have interpreted the preceding sign no.
337 (intersecting circles, Figure 32) as 'earrings'
or 'bangles' (which are important in South Asian
fertility cults) = Proto-Dravidian *muruku (DEDR
4979), an exact homophone of Proto-Dravidian
*muruku 'boy child, young man' (DEDR 4978).
Muruku is the name of the principal god of the
Tamils, a counterpart of Vedic Rudra and Hindu
Skanda, both of whom are called Kumāra 'boy child,
young man' (Parpola 1994: 226-230). Hence tablet
H-172 may record a child sacrifice to the crocodile
god.
That the crocodile god should demand offerings
of children sacrificed by their own parents may
have its basis in the male crocodile's habit of eating
its own offspring, something that is expressly
mentioned a couple of times in Old Tamil texts. The
Tamil word piḷḷai used in this context (Aiṅkurunūru
24: piḷḷai tinnu mutalai) means human as well
as animal offspring.
...
In his commentary on the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka, the latter glosses the word as follows: śisūn mārayati mukhena nigiratīti
śiśumāro jalagrahaviśeṣaḥ (Lüders 1942: 81). This
straightforward and literal interpretation of the word
may actually be the correct etymology.
Sanskrit śiśu-māra- has been understood
to mean 'baby-killer' by classical Indian authors
such as Vasubandhu and Sāyaṇa. ...
the heavenly śiśumāra's connection with Śunaḥśepa
does support the traditional Indian etymology.
Harappa (Figure 51) shows the gharial swimming in
the midst of four fish while eating a fifth one. The
obverse has an inscription that ends in Indus sign
no. 306 (U-shaped 'sacrificial vessel', modified by
sign no. 376 being added inside it) . As mentioned
above, I have interpreted the preceding sign no.
337 (intersecting circles, Figure 32) as 'earrings'
or 'bangles' (which are important in South Asian
fertility cults) = Proto-Dravidian *muruku (DEDR
4979), an exact homophone of Proto-Dravidian
*muruku 'boy child, young man' (DEDR 4978).
Muruku is the name of the principal god of the
Tamils, a counterpart of Vedic Rudra and Hindu
Skanda, both of whom are called Kumāra 'boy child,
young man' (Parpola 1994: 226-230). Hence tablet
H-172 may record a child sacrifice to the crocodile
god.
That the crocodile god should demand offerings
of children sacrificed by their own parents may
have its basis in the male crocodile's habit of eating
its own offspring, something that is expressly
mentioned a couple of times in Old Tamil texts. The
Tamil word piḷḷai used in this context (Aiṅkurunūru
24: piḷḷai tinnu mutalai) means human as well
as animal offspring.
...
In his commentary on the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka, the latter glosses the word as follows: śisūn mārayati mukhena nigiratīti
śiśumāro jalagrahaviśeṣaḥ (Lüders 1942: 81). This
straightforward and literal interpretation of the word
may actually be the correct etymology.
Sanskrit śiśu-māra- has been understood
to mean 'baby-killer' by classical Indian authors
such as Vasubandhu and Sāyaṇa. ...
the heavenly śiśumāra's connection with Śunaḥśepa
does support the traditional Indian etymology.
He also notes how crocodiles show up in tablets where images match pictures of sacrifice shown on other tablets:
Sacrifice of children to a crocodile deity appears
to be attested in an unpublished moulded Indus
tablet from Dholavira in Kutch, Gujarat (Figure
48). One side of the Dholavira tablet depicts two
crocodiles, one with a fish (or a child?) in its mouth;
these two crocodiles accompany the encounter of
two partly anthropomorphic, partly animal-shaped
Harappan divinities. The other side of the tablet has
an Indus inscription of six signs12 and a kneeling
man with a child in his hands; it is unclear if he
just holding the child in the air or piercing it with
a pointed object. In any case, the man's kneeling
posture resembles that of a man in moulded
tablet M-478 (Figure 49), who is extending what
looks like a sacrificial vessel to a sacred tree.
to be attested in an unpublished moulded Indus
tablet from Dholavira in Kutch, Gujarat (Figure
48). One side of the Dholavira tablet depicts two
crocodiles, one with a fish (or a child?) in its mouth;
these two crocodiles accompany the encounter of
two partly anthropomorphic, partly animal-shaped
Harappan divinities. The other side of the tablet has
an Indus inscription of six signs12 and a kneeling
man with a child in his hands; it is unclear if he
just holding the child in the air or piercing it with
a pointed object. In any case, the man's kneeling
posture resembles that of a man in moulded
tablet M-478 (Figure 49), who is extending what
looks like a sacrificial vessel to a sacred tree.
He writes about another crocodile tablet showing sacrifice objects and what he finds as sacrifice script here:
H-1932 is a three-sided tablet. One of the sides
depicts a crocodile; another side has the text IIU,
which likely means 'two pots (of offerings)'16. It
appears that the main aim of the "sacrificial tablets"
was to obtain offspring. On the basis of its great
frequence on the "sacrificial tablets", sign no. 87
probably indicates the deity that was most frequently
supplicated for this purpose. Given all of these
reasons, as well as the evidence presented in this
paper, I propose that this sign renders the principal
Proto-Dravidian word for 'crocodile', *mōcalay,
*mocalay (DEDR no. 4952).
depicts a crocodile; another side has the text IIU,
which likely means 'two pots (of offerings)'16. It
appears that the main aim of the "sacrificial tablets"
was to obtain offspring. On the basis of its great
frequence on the "sacrificial tablets", sign no. 87
probably indicates the deity that was most frequently
supplicated for this purpose. Given all of these
reasons, as well as the evidence presented in this
paper, I propose that this sign renders the principal
Proto-Dravidian word for 'crocodile', *mōcalay,
*mocalay (DEDR no. 4952).
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Shiva is a proto-God. No predecessor to him and his mount always has been the bull. Shiva is an indigenous God and Varuna is an Aryan God. Magar Deo is a very local phenomenon like a tiger God in Ganges delta. I have not heard of any tribe sacrificing their children to a crocodile God. Even if there is a crocodile God why should it demand the sacrifice of children? There are so many things that can be offered - cocks, goats, etc.
Śākvara
- noun (masculine) a bull (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988)) an imaginary kind of Soma ox (Monier-Williams) http://www.sanskritdictionary.com/?q=śākvara&iencoding=iast&lang=sans
- Definition: a. mighty (V.); belonging etc. to the Sâman Sâkvara or to the Sakvarî verses (V.); m. draught ox, bull (C.); n. kind of ceremony (S.); Name of one of the six chief Sâmans (based on the Sakvarî verses). http://www.sanskritdictionary.com/śākvara/15248/2
- Definition: m. a bull, ox http://www.sanskritdictionary.com/śākvara/231610/1
- Definition: n. a kind of observance or ceremony, http://sanskritdictionary.com/śākvara/231611/1
"I have interpreted the preceding sign .. Muruku is the name of the principal god of the Tamils, a counterpart of Vedic Rudra and Hindu Skanda, both of whom are called Kumāra 'boy child, young man' (Parpola 1994: 226-230). Hence tablet H-172 may record a child sacrifice to the crocodile god."
Whoever wrote it, it is a very funny kind of historical research. The person interprets a IVC sign (On What basis, when everybody knows that IVC script has not been deciphered?) and intersecting circles as a fertility cult and Muruku and goes on to subscribe to a human sacrifice also. I do not find it strange that the Aryan and Hindu mixture found similarities in Rudra and Shiva, Kartikeya and Muruku, Vishnu and Rama or Krishna and assimilated them, just as we assimilated all Goddesses in Durga. That is the standard Hindu response to differences - mix them into one.
Again, how in an unpublished tablet (why did he not publish it?) which perhaps shows a crocodile with a fish in its mouth means A CHILD? Is this researcher mad or what? All this is to prove whatever the person wants to. He could also equally read a hippopotamus or a rhino in the same images - since it is a circle, it is an elephant! Rakovsky, history is not done and should not be done in this way. This is bull's excreta.
Śākvara
- noun (masculine) a bull (Monier-Williams, Sir M. (1988)) an imaginary kind of Soma ox (Monier-Williams) http://www.sanskritdictionary.com/?q=śākvara&iencoding=iast&lang=sans
- Definition: a. mighty (V.); belonging etc. to the Sâman Sâkvara or to the Sakvarî verses (V.); m. draught ox, bull (C.); n. kind of ceremony (S.); Name of one of the six chief Sâmans (based on the Sakvarî verses). http://www.sanskritdictionary.com/śākvara/15248/2
- Definition: m. a bull, ox http://www.sanskritdictionary.com/śākvara/231610/1
- Definition: n. a kind of observance or ceremony, http://sanskritdictionary.com/śākvara/231611/1
"I have interpreted the preceding sign .. Muruku is the name of the principal god of the Tamils, a counterpart of Vedic Rudra and Hindu Skanda, both of whom are called Kumāra 'boy child, young man' (Parpola 1994: 226-230). Hence tablet H-172 may record a child sacrifice to the crocodile god."
Whoever wrote it, it is a very funny kind of historical research. The person interprets a IVC sign (On What basis, when everybody knows that IVC script has not been deciphered?) and intersecting circles as a fertility cult and Muruku and goes on to subscribe to a human sacrifice also. I do not find it strange that the Aryan and Hindu mixture found similarities in Rudra and Shiva, Kartikeya and Muruku, Vishnu and Rama or Krishna and assimilated them, just as we assimilated all Goddesses in Durga. That is the standard Hindu response to differences - mix them into one.
Again, how in an unpublished tablet (why did he not publish it?) which perhaps shows a crocodile with a fish in its mouth means A CHILD? Is this researcher mad or what? All this is to prove whatever the person wants to. He could also equally read a hippopotamus or a rhino in the same images - since it is a circle, it is an elephant! Rakovsky, history is not done and should not be done in this way. This is bull's excreta.
Last edited:
Rakovsky
Active Member
Namaste Aupmanyav!
My request is that you please comprehensively read the PDF by Parpola that I linked to. Parpola goes into the questions that you are asking, like the numerous records of crocodile sacrifice up to the 19th c., the rationales imagined for the practice, the relation to Varuna, and how a child is seen on the tablet.
I do value your opinions and critical thinking, which is why I am writing here, and I hope that you will read the materials, please.
My request is that you please comprehensively read the PDF by Parpola that I linked to. Parpola goes into the questions that you are asking, like the numerous records of crocodile sacrifice up to the 19th c., the rationales imagined for the practice, the relation to Varuna, and how a child is seen on the tablet.
I do value your opinions and critical thinking, which is why I am writing here, and I hope that you will read the materials, please.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
We are in the age of Aquarius. In Bronze age, it was the winter solstice. So the earth seasons have changed by three months during this time, representing some 6,000 years. Its brightest star is beta Aquarii.
By IAU and Sky & Telescope magazine (Roger Sinnott & Rick Fienberg) - imagedownload pageabout, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15406063
Last edited:
Rakovsky
Active Member
Dear Aupmanyav,
I like writing to you and that you are thoughtful and critical minded. This is why it would be helpful for me if you actually read the paper where Parpola writes more in-depth on this topic.
That way you would also a better handle on this to see what criticisms to make and what is unnecessary to object about. So for example, you write:
And you say:
He quoted other stories of local cults sacrificing to crocodiles in his essay as well.
You ask:
Second of all, child sacrifice does not make sense, but we know that unfortunately it happened in ancient times like 3500-1500 BC in the ancient world. In the Bible, there is the story of the Sumerian Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. What kind of "god" demands this? And yet in the Bible, this kind of thing was described as happening in the pagan cultures, like sacrifice of the firstborn to Moloch. The Chinese were sacrificing people, especially servants and wive of dead nobles, along with prisoners, up to the 3rd c. BC. The Egyptians stopped it around 3000 BC as far as we can tell. In the modern era, Indian wives had a practice of burning themselves on the husbands' funerary piers. I know that it does not make sense and I believe it to be an immoral practice.
Wikipedia notes that human sacrifice has occurred at times in India. But for this to happen, it doesn't have to make sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#Indian_subcontinent
Even consider the story of Purusha Pradjapati, which is a very old legend. In it, Purusha gets sacrificed with burning logs. Does it really make sense that the gods choose to destroy him and sacrifice him? He is their own creator and should be respected, I think.
This leads me to another question I wish to raise- I want to ask you about the story of Purusha.
I like writing to you and that you are thoughtful and critical minded. This is why it would be helpful for me if you actually read the paper where Parpola writes more in-depth on this topic.
That way you would also a better handle on this to see what criticisms to make and what is unnecessary to object about. So for example, you write:
Sure, I can see that Shiva can be a god going back to Haparran times because of the resemblance to Shiva Pashupati and the tablet with the animals and the lotus pose. However, this does not show whether he was called the same thing then or had all the same associations as today. Shiva is a Sanskrit word, but we don't know that Harappans spoke Sanskrit. And also, Shiva has lots of titles. Further, we see that in the Vedas, Varuna had more prominence than Shiva apparently in c.1500 BC, at least in the records we have. So maybe it is better to think back about a kind of proto-Shiva/ProtoVaruna mix a thousand years before the Vedas were allegedly composed. Other reasons can be given.
And you say:
That is true, but we could consider a perception of the main god that could cross cultures. In non-IndoEuropean Sumer, the main mother goddess was Nammu, who I think was depicted as repitilian because she was the goddess of the waters. And it was her son who was Anu, the main sky god. In Egypt, there was Nun and Nunet who were both primordial water gods, and their activation or reproduction made the cosmos. Nunet was a water goddess, serpentlike, of the heavenly waters. My point is not that the Indus must have the same thing, but that regardless of whether they were IndoEuropean, they could have a proto-Varuna or some other god associated with the heavenly waters and in a reptilian form. Hence the association of the watery crocodile with the Vedic god of the heavens even if the crocodile did not have that association for IndoEuropeans. Such an association of the Makara with such a key element (the pole star and the heavens) could reasonably come from the Harappans if it was absent among the IndoEuropeans.
I understand. That is why it is further evidence of the connection with Makara and the civilization of 2500 BC, since the locality in question was a major Indus region (Dholaivara, Dwarka, Lothal, etc. all in Gujarat). It is like if you are studying the Mayans and find scrolls emphasizing the Caribbean crocodile and learn that there is a "very local phenomen" in the Mayan region today of emphasizing crocodiles.
I understand. This is because it was 200 years ago when it was stopped. However, Parpola produces evidence of it, quoting one record:
The word śiśumāra- literally means 'baby-killer'. The transformation of śiṃśumāra- into śiśumāracan be explained by folk etymology, but the reverse is difficult to substantiate (as the nasalization in śiṃśumāra- is never found in the word śiśu- 'child'; see Turner 1966: no. 12476 and Mayrhofer 1996: II, 641). Therefore, it is assumed that the earlier attested śiṃśumāra- is the original form...
Crocodile and human sexuality and fertility
"Women in performance of a vow used to throw
a first-born son to the crocodiles at the mouth of
Hooghly in the hope that such an offering would
secure them additional offspring (H. H. Wilson,
Essays, ii. 166 f.; Ward, ii. 318 f )" (Crooke 1926:
377). Ward provides uniquely detailed testimony on
the practice of this cruel custom in the beginning
of the 19th century, when the British had not yet
stopped it. Ward's work was first published in 1811
(in four volumes comprising 2055 pages). Crooke
quotes its second edition as having two volumes,
the latter of which came out first (in 1815).
....
"The people in some parts of India, particularly the
inhabitants of Orissa, and of the eastern parts of
Bengal, frequently offer their children to the goddess
Gangā. The following reason is assigned for this
practice: — When a woman has been long married,
and has no children, it is common for the man,
or his wife, or both of them, to make a vow to the
goddess Gangā, that if she will bestow the blessing
of children to them, they will devote the first-born
to her. If after this vow they have children, the eldest
is nourished till a proper age, which may be three,
four, or more years, according to circumstances,
when, on a particular day appointed for bathing
in any holy part of the river, they take the child
with them, and offer it to this goddess: the child is
encouraged to go farther and farther into the water
till it is carried away by the stream, or is pushed off
by its inhuman parents. Sometimes a stranger seizes
the child, and brings it up; but it is abandoned by
its parents from the moment it floats on the water..."
...
It is significant that as recently as 200 years ago,
in a fertility cult that included elements resembling
the Śunaḥśepa legend of Varuṇa, one still found in
India the practice of offering first-born children to
crocodiles. Above I have quoted the testimony given
by William Ward, from which it appears that these
offerings of the first-born were made to the goddess
Gaṅgā, not to Varuṇa. There is a connection with
Varuṇa, however, revealed by the two preferred dates
for these sacrifices.
...
That the crocodile god should demand offerings
of children sacrificed by their own parents may
have its basis in the male crocodile's habit of eating
its own offspring, something that is expressly
mentioned a couple of times in Old Tamil texts. The
Tamil word piḷḷai used in this context (Aiṅkurunūru
24: piḷḷai tinnu mutalai) means human as well
as animal offspring. In part two of the Ganges
series produced for television by BBC Bristol in
2007, it is shown that the gharial male can also
eat its newly born offspring. The same is probably
true of the South Asian river dolphin: "Male
Bottlenose Dolphins have been known to engage
in infanticide." (Wikipedia in December 2009 s.v.
Dolphin) Sanskrit śiśu-māra- has been understood
to mean 'baby-killer' by classical Indian authors
such as Vasubandhu and Sāyaṇa. In his commentary
on the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka, the latter glosses the
word as follows: śisūn mārayati mukhena nigiratīti
śiśumāro jalagrahaviśeṣaḥ (Lüders 1942: 81). This
straightforward and literal interpretation of the word
may actually be the correct etymology. In any case,
the heavenly śiśumāra's connection with Śunaḥśepa
does support the traditional Indian etymology.
Crocodile and human sexuality and fertility
"Women in performance of a vow used to throw
a first-born son to the crocodiles at the mouth of
Hooghly in the hope that such an offering would
secure them additional offspring (H. H. Wilson,
Essays, ii. 166 f.; Ward, ii. 318 f )" (Crooke 1926:
377). Ward provides uniquely detailed testimony on
the practice of this cruel custom in the beginning
of the 19th century, when the British had not yet
stopped it. Ward's work was first published in 1811
(in four volumes comprising 2055 pages). Crooke
quotes its second edition as having two volumes,
the latter of which came out first (in 1815).
....
"The people in some parts of India, particularly the
inhabitants of Orissa, and of the eastern parts of
Bengal, frequently offer their children to the goddess
Gangā. The following reason is assigned for this
practice: — When a woman has been long married,
and has no children, it is common for the man,
or his wife, or both of them, to make a vow to the
goddess Gangā, that if she will bestow the blessing
of children to them, they will devote the first-born
to her. If after this vow they have children, the eldest
is nourished till a proper age, which may be three,
four, or more years, according to circumstances,
when, on a particular day appointed for bathing
in any holy part of the river, they take the child
with them, and offer it to this goddess: the child is
encouraged to go farther and farther into the water
till it is carried away by the stream, or is pushed off
by its inhuman parents. Sometimes a stranger seizes
the child, and brings it up; but it is abandoned by
its parents from the moment it floats on the water..."
...
It is significant that as recently as 200 years ago,
in a fertility cult that included elements resembling
the Śunaḥśepa legend of Varuṇa, one still found in
India the practice of offering first-born children to
crocodiles. Above I have quoted the testimony given
by William Ward, from which it appears that these
offerings of the first-born were made to the goddess
Gaṅgā, not to Varuṇa. There is a connection with
Varuṇa, however, revealed by the two preferred dates
for these sacrifices.
...
That the crocodile god should demand offerings
of children sacrificed by their own parents may
have its basis in the male crocodile's habit of eating
its own offspring, something that is expressly
mentioned a couple of times in Old Tamil texts. The
Tamil word piḷḷai used in this context (Aiṅkurunūru
24: piḷḷai tinnu mutalai) means human as well
as animal offspring. In part two of the Ganges
series produced for television by BBC Bristol in
2007, it is shown that the gharial male can also
eat its newly born offspring. The same is probably
true of the South Asian river dolphin: "Male
Bottlenose Dolphins have been known to engage
in infanticide." (Wikipedia in December 2009 s.v.
Dolphin) Sanskrit śiśu-māra- has been understood
to mean 'baby-killer' by classical Indian authors
such as Vasubandhu and Sāyaṇa. In his commentary
on the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka, the latter glosses the
word as follows: śisūn mārayati mukhena nigiratīti
śiśumāro jalagrahaviśeṣaḥ (Lüders 1942: 81). This
straightforward and literal interpretation of the word
may actually be the correct etymology. In any case,
the heavenly śiśumāra's connection with Śunaḥśepa
does support the traditional Indian etymology.
You ask:
First of all, the explanation was that it was a fertility god, and Parpola gave examples of it being seen as one in even more modern times after the child sacrifice stopped.
Second of all, child sacrifice does not make sense, but we know that unfortunately it happened in ancient times like 3500-1500 BC in the ancient world. In the Bible, there is the story of the Sumerian Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. What kind of "god" demands this? And yet in the Bible, this kind of thing was described as happening in the pagan cultures, like sacrifice of the firstborn to Moloch. The Chinese were sacrificing people, especially servants and wive of dead nobles, along with prisoners, up to the 3rd c. BC. The Egyptians stopped it around 3000 BC as far as we can tell. In the modern era, Indian wives had a practice of burning themselves on the husbands' funerary piers. I know that it does not make sense and I believe it to be an immoral practice.
Wikipedia notes that human sacrifice has occurred at times in India. But for this to happen, it doesn't have to make sense:
The Kalika Purana was composed in Northeast India in the 11th century. The text states that blood sacrifice is only permitted when the country is in danger and war is expected. According to the text, the performer of a sacrifice will obtain victory over his enemies.[67] In the medieval period, it became increasingly common. In the 7th century, Banabhatta, in a description of the dedication of a temple of Chandika, describes a series of human sacrifices; similarly, in the 9th century, Haribhadra describes the sacrifices to Chandika in Odisha.[69] The town of Kuknur in North Karnataka there exists an ancient Kali temple, built around the 8-9th century AD, which has a history of human sacrifices.[69] Human sacrifices were carried out in connection with the worship of Shakti until approximately the early modern period, and in Bengal perhaps as late as the early 19th century.
Even consider the story of Purusha Pradjapati, which is a very old legend. In it, Purusha gets sacrificed with burning logs. Does it really make sense that the gods choose to destroy him and sacrifice him? He is their own creator and should be respected, I think.
This leads me to another question I wish to raise- I want to ask you about the story of Purusha.
Rakovsky
Active Member
Dear Aupmanyav,
Let me please ask you how the story of Purusha Prajapati fits together with the Ashvatta tree, the mother goddess and with Shiva or Varuna.
As I understand it from the Vedas, Purusha Prajapati made the Cosmos or Brahman, and then Cosmos/Brahman produced Purusha. I know that it sounds cyclical. At what point did Purusha make the Cosmic Askvatta Tree? Perhaps that was the same as Brahman/Cosmos?
Next, Purusha divided into male and female and the two persons had sex, making the rest of the gods. The female part was the mother goddess or Aditi, the mother of Varuna, right? Then, Shiva or another god killed Purusha in anger for having sex with Purusha's daughter.
This part is confusing. First of all, how is it that "Lord" Shiva (or Varuna), the "ultimate" "one" god of whom all other gods are mere manifestations, is not Purusha? Or to put it another way, why is it in the story that we read about the pre-Creation androgynous Purusha Prajapati making the cosmos and then being born of the Cosmos, and we do not read about Shiva or Varuna being the pre-Creation Being? How is it that Purusha is the first god, even before the cosmos appeared, and not Shiva or Varuna? Certainly, Purusha is not quite Shiva or Varuna, because Purusha gets killed by them.
Second of all, once Purusha has fathered Shiva, Varuna, and the other gods, how is it that they have the right, strong power, authority, ability, and choice to kill Purusha their own father? This does not seem to be a normal, reasonable, good situation or event.
Peace,
~Rakovsky
Let me please ask you how the story of Purusha Prajapati fits together with the Ashvatta tree, the mother goddess and with Shiva or Varuna.
As I understand it from the Vedas, Purusha Prajapati made the Cosmos or Brahman, and then Cosmos/Brahman produced Purusha. I know that it sounds cyclical. At what point did Purusha make the Cosmic Askvatta Tree? Perhaps that was the same as Brahman/Cosmos?
Next, Purusha divided into male and female and the two persons had sex, making the rest of the gods. The female part was the mother goddess or Aditi, the mother of Varuna, right? Then, Shiva or another god killed Purusha in anger for having sex with Purusha's daughter.
This part is confusing. First of all, how is it that "Lord" Shiva (or Varuna), the "ultimate" "one" god of whom all other gods are mere manifestations, is not Purusha? Or to put it another way, why is it in the story that we read about the pre-Creation androgynous Purusha Prajapati making the cosmos and then being born of the Cosmos, and we do not read about Shiva or Varuna being the pre-Creation Being? How is it that Purusha is the first god, even before the cosmos appeared, and not Shiva or Varuna? Certainly, Purusha is not quite Shiva or Varuna, because Purusha gets killed by them.
Second of all, once Purusha has fathered Shiva, Varuna, and the other gods, how is it that they have the right, strong power, authority, ability, and choice to kill Purusha their own father? This does not seem to be a normal, reasonable, good situation or event.
Peace,
~Rakovsky
Rakovsky
Active Member
Here I wish to reply to questions by Jainarayan , Satyamavejayanti , and Aupmanyav from the thread How to accommodate Purusha Prajapati with Shiva or Vishnu being Ishvara Svayam Bhagw
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...g-ishvara-svayam-bhagwan.191818/#post-4929355
I. Jainarayan asked:
It begins by saying that at first there was no existence or anything else, and then:
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
In this part, it sounds like it is talking about a living, breathing being or thing. This interesting passage however does not appear to talk about Purusha, Shiva, or Vishnu by name, it just posits that "That One" was breathing and came first before day, night, or "the gods". So the passage, although quite interesting does not seem to clear up the relationship or any possible conflict between Shiva and Prajapati. It mentions "that one" existing, but does not specify if it's Purusha Prajapati discussed in the story or Shiva.
II. Satyamavejayanti asked about something I wrote:
The part about Purusha dividing into halves and procreating is mentioned by Ellen Goldberg where she points to the Vedas:
The part about Prajapati getting killed, with a version of the story having Shiva being the killer, comes from Hindu texts that start with the Vedas and go on later. The Indian writer Mahadev Chakravarti in his book "The Concept of Rudra-Śiva Through the Ages" sees the Vedas and later Hindu records as having different versions of the same underlying story, where Rudra kills Purusha Prajapati in the Vedas and Shiva kills Daksha Prajapati. He mentions several sources that I put in bold:
Piero Scaruffi writes about this in his essay "A summary of the Hindu scriptures":
Asko Parpola writes similarly in his book The Roots of Hinduism, naming several passages:
An Indian writer named Vajra quotes several verses directly and reaches the same kind of conclusion about the relationship between the stories on the Historum Forum:
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...g-ishvara-svayam-bhagwan.191818/#post-4929355
I. Jainarayan asked:
Yes, indeed I have seen this passage before, even in Russian, and found it interesting.
It begins by saying that at first there was no existence or anything else, and then:
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
In this part, it sounds like it is talking about a living, breathing being or thing. This interesting passage however does not appear to talk about Purusha, Shiva, or Vishnu by name, it just posits that "That One" was breathing and came first before day, night, or "the gods". So the passage, although quite interesting does not seem to clear up the relationship or any possible conflict between Shiva and Prajapati. It mentions "that one" existing, but does not specify if it's Purusha Prajapati discussed in the story or Shiva.
II. Satyamavejayanti asked about something I wrote:
The part about Purusha creating Nature (my interpretation) and then Nature giving birth to Purusha was indeed from Purusha Sukta, especially in parts 2 and 5, below. Also it turns out that it does not name Brahman, but rather says that all is Purusha and that Purusha created the Virat Purusha that I took to be like Brahman:
Verse Two
purusha evedagam sarvam
yadbhutam yaccha bhavyam
utamritatva syeshanaha
yadanne natirohati
All this is verily the Purusha. All that which existed in the past or will come into being in the future (is also the Purusha). Also, he is the Lord of immortality. That which grows profusely by food (is also the Purusha).
Verse Five
tasmad viraadajayata
viraajo adhi purushah
sa jaato atyarichyata
pashchaad bhumimatho puraha
From Him (the Adipurusha or original Supreme Being) was born the Virat (or Virat Purusha, the immense universal form). Making this Virat as the substratum (another) purusha (or being, Brahma) (was born). As soon as he was born, he multiplied himself. Later, he created this earth and then, the bodies (of the living beings).
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/10-09/features1515.htm
purusha evedagam sarvam
yadbhutam yaccha bhavyam
utamritatva syeshanaha
yadanne natirohati
All this is verily the Purusha. All that which existed in the past or will come into being in the future (is also the Purusha). Also, he is the Lord of immortality. That which grows profusely by food (is also the Purusha).
Verse Five
tasmad viraadajayata
viraajo adhi purushah
sa jaato atyarichyata
pashchaad bhumimatho puraha
From Him (the Adipurusha or original Supreme Being) was born the Virat (or Virat Purusha, the immense universal form). Making this Virat as the substratum (another) purusha (or being, Brahma) (was born). As soon as he was born, he multiplied himself. Later, he created this earth and then, the bodies (of the living beings).
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/10-09/features1515.htm
The part about Purusha dividing into halves and procreating is mentioned by Ellen Goldberg where she points to the Vedas:
https://webcache.googleusercontent....gynous_Model_Of_God+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The part about Prajapati getting killed, with a version of the story having Shiva being the killer, comes from Hindu texts that start with the Vedas and go on later. The Indian writer Mahadev Chakravarti in his book "The Concept of Rudra-Śiva Through the Ages" sees the Vedas and later Hindu records as having different versions of the same underlying story, where Rudra kills Purusha Prajapati in the Vedas and Shiva kills Daksha Prajapati. He mentions several sources that I put in bold:
The kernel of the story is that Daksha Prajapati invited all the gods to participate in the sacrifice performed by him but excluded his son in law Rudra Shiva due to his outlandish.... behavior. ... Shiva became furious at [Daksha's actions] and shot the sacrifice with an arrow so that its embodied form fled as a deer. Shiva broke Savitr's arms, kicked out Pushan's teeth....
The nucleus of this mythology is to be found in the Vedic literature. We have ... seen that the Rgvedic tradition about the incestuous relation of a father with his daughter was elaborated in the Satapatga, Tandya, and Aiterya Brahamanas where Rudra pierced Prajapati for this crime.
...
The Puranas reproduce the story with many embellishments. The variants of the episode told in Shivaite Puranas tend to insert references to Rudra Shiva's almighty power as creator, Preserver and destroyer...[the writer gives examples]... Thus we see that the two strains of the legend, as found in the Vedic literature, namely, Prajapati insulting his daughter and disregarding Rudra-Shiva have been very cleverly accommodated in the alter literature... we have in the Satapatha and Aitareya Brahamanas the story how the gods out of their most fearful forms fashioned a divine being called Bhutavat that is Rudra to punish Prajapati for his incestuous deeds.
The nucleus of this mythology is to be found in the Vedic literature. We have ... seen that the Rgvedic tradition about the incestuous relation of a father with his daughter was elaborated in the Satapatga, Tandya, and Aiterya Brahamanas where Rudra pierced Prajapati for this crime.
...
The Puranas reproduce the story with many embellishments. The variants of the episode told in Shivaite Puranas tend to insert references to Rudra Shiva's almighty power as creator, Preserver and destroyer...[the writer gives examples]... Thus we see that the two strains of the legend, as found in the Vedic literature, namely, Prajapati insulting his daughter and disregarding Rudra-Shiva have been very cleverly accommodated in the alter literature... we have in the Satapatha and Aitareya Brahamanas the story how the gods out of their most fearful forms fashioned a divine being called Bhutavat that is Rudra to punish Prajapati for his incestuous deeds.
Piero Scaruffi writes about this in his essay "A summary of the Hindu scriptures":
Asko Parpola writes similarly in his book The Roots of Hinduism, naming several passages:
An Indian writer named Vajra quotes several verses directly and reaches the same kind of conclusion about the relationship between the stories on the Historum Forum:
http://historum.com/asian-history/60218-vaishnavism-historical-perspective-26.html
Rakovsky
Active Member
III. Aupmanyav asked on the thread I started in our forum:
In the Torah, "seven" is closely associated with Creation too, as seven days passed in the Creation story. I know however that it is not reliable to judge the intent and meaning of Hindu symbolism based on what we find in Judaism.
The book "Essays on Modern History" by J. Dalberg emphasizes how seven is repeatedly used in Hindu accounts of creation:
Aupmanyav wrote:
Sometime between 3000-1500 BC when these stories were forming, they authored the narrative of Purusha Prajapati, as seen by how common his story is, or at least a version of it, not to mention in Hinduism, but even traces of it can be found in other IndoEuropean cultures like the Scandinavian story of the giant Ymir whose dismemberment led to furtherance of Creation.
At the same time, the sampradyas commonly propose that their god, be it Shiva, Vishnu, or another god is the one ultimate Ishvara Svayam Bhagavan (eg. the one true God) and that other gods are his avatars. So I was trying to see if these two narratives and concepts - the narrative of Purusha as the first man and the concept that some god like Shiva, Vishnu, etc. is the one true Lord God Himself central to the very cosmic order, in the way that Shivaites commonly describe Shiva or Vishnu as always existing everywhere and everytime.
And so one way I proposed a solution was that Shiva(or the other god) is the ultimate god but that he birthed himself out of Purusha or a descendant of Purusha.
The issue of Shiva not being an Aryan God is not a necessary issue here, because the particular issue I was focusing on was more theoretical and hypothetical and general, rather than dealing with Shiva in particular only. Shiva was simply an example, maybe one of the clearer ones, but really any god would qualify in Shiva's place if the god's adherents gave the same magnitude of praise and labels, like every-existing, etc. That is, whether Shiva in particular was known to the composer of Purusha Sukta is not crucial, but rather the issue is whether one can posit that some god besides Purusha could be perceived by that author to still have these kinds of extreme qualities typically given to Ishvara Svayam Bhagavan, the one true Lord.
Aupmanyav wrote:
For example, we know like Aupmanyav said that Varuna was quite important, as seen from how many hymns there were to him. So we can ask what was his origin? And the answer is Aditi, who could even be from 4000-1500 BC as Aupmanyav mentioned (he gave a date of 4000 BC). And then we can ask: What is the origin of Aditi? That is a question I would give to Aupmanyav. And if we know the parent of Aditi, then who is the earliest parent we know of in Vedic Hinduism at the earliest stages? It seems that Purusha is the main one we come across who is called the first being in the Vedas and is not said to have a parent.
For any competitor to Purusha, we must ask things like whether they solve these kinds of problems like he does (unity of male and female forces), whether they are as old as him, whether it's said that they had no parent, etc.
I found Aupmanyav's answer to be reasonable in what I quoted above, and as usual, I am impressed with his familiarity with the stories. In Hindu mythology there has long been a story of the seven sages and their seven wives. The seven wives have been associated at times with the pleiades. Seven was a sacred number as Aupmanyav also pointed out.
In the Torah, "seven" is closely associated with Creation too, as seven days passed in the Creation story. I know however that it is not reliable to judge the intent and meaning of Hindu symbolism based on what we find in Judaism.
The book "Essays on Modern History" by J. Dalberg emphasizes how seven is repeatedly used in Hindu accounts of creation:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Historical_Essays_and_Studies.djvu/350
Aupmanyav wrote:
Here I was trying to resolve the following issue:
Sometime between 3000-1500 BC when these stories were forming, they authored the narrative of Purusha Prajapati, as seen by how common his story is, or at least a version of it, not to mention in Hinduism, but even traces of it can be found in other IndoEuropean cultures like the Scandinavian story of the giant Ymir whose dismemberment led to furtherance of Creation.
At the same time, the sampradyas commonly propose that their god, be it Shiva, Vishnu, or another god is the one ultimate Ishvara Svayam Bhagavan (eg. the one true God) and that other gods are his avatars. So I was trying to see if these two narratives and concepts - the narrative of Purusha as the first man and the concept that some god like Shiva, Vishnu, etc. is the one true Lord God Himself central to the very cosmic order, in the way that Shivaites commonly describe Shiva or Vishnu as always existing everywhere and everytime.
And so one way I proposed a solution was that Shiva(or the other god) is the ultimate god but that he birthed himself out of Purusha or a descendant of Purusha.
The issue of Shiva not being an Aryan God is not a necessary issue here, because the particular issue I was focusing on was more theoretical and hypothetical and general, rather than dealing with Shiva in particular only. Shiva was simply an example, maybe one of the clearer ones, but really any god would qualify in Shiva's place if the god's adherents gave the same magnitude of praise and labels, like every-existing, etc. That is, whether Shiva in particular was known to the composer of Purusha Sukta is not crucial, but rather the issue is whether one can posit that some god besides Purusha could be perceived by that author to still have these kinds of extreme qualities typically given to Ishvara Svayam Bhagavan, the one true Lord.
Aupmanyav wrote:
I am impressed with Aupmanyav's knowledge, so I want to ask him a question here. The reason why I find Purusha so important is because it's an explanation of the origin of the gods as well as of the male and female forces. To just say that we don't know the origin, while not a wrong answer, does not go far enough in tracing what we do know from Hinduism.
For example, we know like Aupmanyav said that Varuna was quite important, as seen from how many hymns there were to him. So we can ask what was his origin? And the answer is Aditi, who could even be from 4000-1500 BC as Aupmanyav mentioned (he gave a date of 4000 BC). And then we can ask: What is the origin of Aditi? That is a question I would give to Aupmanyav. And if we know the parent of Aditi, then who is the earliest parent we know of in Vedic Hinduism at the earliest stages? It seems that Purusha is the main one we come across who is called the first being in the Vedas and is not said to have a parent.
For any competitor to Purusha, we must ask things like whether they solve these kinds of problems like he does (unity of male and female forces), whether they are as old as him, whether it's said that they had no parent, etc.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Hinduism is Hinduism and not Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Depending upon the period, region, sect, and persons, you will get various answers.
Around 6,000 BC, Aditi was the God Mother (of Adityas) had no parents (but that does not mean that there were no other Gods).
Sometime after 2,000 BC, She became a daughter of Daksha Prajapati and his wife Prasuti, equivalent to Adam in Abrahamic religions. Daksha had many daughters and thirteen of them were married to Sage Kashyapa (Aditi, Diti, Kadru, Danu, Arishta, Surasa, Surabhi, Vinata, Tamra, Krodhavasha, Ira, Vishva and Muni). Fourteen of other Daksha daughters were married to the Moon God. Kashyapa had a large brood and you can check that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashyapa#Children_of_Kashyapa
Sati, the first wife of Lord Shiva also was a daughter of Daksha who immolated herself in the Daksha's yajna fire because Shiva was not honored. That led to Shiva ordering the beheading of Daksha. Later, a ram's head was affixed on his body.
Sati immolates herself, Shiva orders destruction of Daksha's yajna, Shiva carries the disintegrating body of
Sati around India/Pakistan thereby creating 52 power locations (Shakti Sthalas), a ram's head attached to Daksha's body.
Last edited: