why Indra is not worshipped?

[jignyAsu]

Don't have time to dig up the verses now. I read it in the K.M. Ganguli translation, just before the section where the pandavas go to Drupada to convince him to marry Draupadi to all five of them.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01200.htm looks like it. They were all Indras of a previous birth as Philosoraptor says.

I wonder if this account is common across all versions available of Mahabharata.

[philosoraptor]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01200.htm looks like it. They were all Indras of a previous birth as Philosoraptor says.

I wonder if this account is common across all versions available of Mahabharata.

Certainly a good question for anything quoted from Mahaabhaarata. Ganguli's translation is based on the Calcutta recension, if memory serves, as is the edition by M.N. Dutt and the revised edition published by Parimal Publications (I have both of the latter). The only other edition available in English is black-covered one started by J. Van Buitenen and which is based on the critical edition maintained by B.O.R.I. However, this latter one does not appear to be available in its entirety. If anyone knows of another unabridged, English translation based on a different recension, I would sure like to know.

[jignyAsu]

Certainly a good question for anything quoted from Mahaabhaarata. Ganguli's translation is based on the Calcutta recension, if memory serves, as is the edition by M.N. Dutt and the revised edition published by Parimal Publications (I have both of the latter). The only other edition available in English is black-covered one started by J. Van Buitenen and which is based on the critical edition maintained by B.O.R.I. However, this latter one does not appear to be available in its entirety. If anyone knows of another unabridged, English translation based on a different recension, I would sure like to know.

Yes. My thoughts are that if an idea is not repeated across several sections in Mahabharata [as in Pandavas being sons of deities] or is not backed up by popular traditions across India [like the occurance of Gita], then I do not take them seriously. If at all it is false it can possibly do more damage than help. Its kind of sad to think that we cannot read an entire scripture without caution. But then I think there is no use regretting as I have way too much Vedic wisdom remaining to be digested for my short-memory and intellect anyway.

But I am sure that there are some organizations out there trying to collect all the available versions of the Mahabharata and comparing and contrasting them.

[philosoraptor]

But I am sure that there are some organizations out there trying to collect all the available versions of the Mahabharata and comparing and contrasting them.

That's what BORI did. Actually, now that I think about it, the Sanskrit for their critical edition is available online. I don't remember the URL, but I do recall that it was put on the web by a Japanese professor, and that it was in ITRANS. If you have the patience, you might be able to find the verse.

Myself, I was mostly concerned about the idea that the Pandavas "became" Indra, as that seems to contradict the view enunciated in the MB that they got svarga, as well as the other view described in the bhAgavatam that they went to Vaikuntha.

[Sri Vaishnava]

Yes. My thoughts are that if an idea is not repeated across several sections in Mahabharata [as in Pandavas being sons of deities] or is not backed up by popular traditions across India [like the occurance of Gita], then I do not take them seriously. If at all it is false it can possibly do more damage than help. Its kind of sad to think that we cannot read an entire scripture without caution. But then I think there is no use regretting as I have way too much Vedic wisdom remaining to be digested for my short-memory and intellect anyway.

But I am sure that there are some organizations out there trying to collect all the available versions of the Mahabharata and comparing and contrasting them..

There is caution and then, there is over-caution.

What I am saying is that there should be no doubt that this particular section is authentic. I have myself heard it quoted by some vidwAns, particularly the part about nArAyaNa taking avatArAs as BalarAmA and Krishna.

Myself, I was mostly concerned about the idea that the Pandavas "became" Indra, as that seems to contradict the view enunciated in the MB that they got svarga, as well as the other view described in the bhAgavatam that they went to Vaikuntha.

No contradiction. The pAndavas were Indra in previous births, with Arjuna having an amsam of Indra. This particular section states that these Indras will take birth, perform meritorious deeds and regain svarga. It doesn't say anything about becoming 'Indras' again.

Arjuna is special because he is the jivAtmA who was Nara in a previous birth, then Indra and now, IndrAmsha as well as IndraputrA. In addition, during the Bhagavad Gita sampAshanam, it is inferred that Bhagavan entered into Arjuna as he did during the Nara avatArA (which was AvEsha avatArA) and for the duration of the Gita being spoken, Arjuna was an avEsha avatArA of Bhagavan himself.

The pAndavas attained svarga in one yuga, moksha in the other yuga. It is mere yuga bhEda in Bhagavata and MahabhArata.

[philosoraptor]

There is caution and then, there is over-caution.

What I am saying is that there should be no doubt that this particular section is authentic. I have myself heard it quoted by some vidwAns, particularly the part about nArAyaNa taking avatArAs as BalarAmA and Krishna.

Pranams. Am I missing something there? Was there a doubt about nArAyaNa taking avatAra as kRiShNa/balarAma?

No contradiction. The pAndavas were Indra in previous births, with Arjuna having an amsam of Indra. This particular section states that these Indras will take birth, perform meritorious deeds and regain svarga. It doesn't say anything about becoming 'Indras' again.

Right, and that makes more sense. And it is especially believable if the learned vidvAns have endorsed that view was well.

One interesting point is that, per the bhAgavatam, the post of Indra is occupied by a new jIva with each new manvantara. We have explicit information about the identity of each indra in our current manvantara. I'm curious to know if the 5 pANDava-s were previously any of these Indras, or if they were Indras from a previous manvantara.

Arjuna is special because he is the jivAtmA who was Nara in a previous birth, then Indra and now, IndrAmsha as well as IndraputrA. In addition, during the Bhagavad Gita sampAshanam, it is inferred that Bhagavan entered into Arjuna as he did during the Nara avatArA (which was AvEsha avatArA) and for the duration of the Gita being spoken, Arjuna was an avEsha avatArA of Bhagavan himself.

One interesting question I have had - since The Lord enters into everyone and everything as per the shruti, what is the difference when we say that He enters into a jIva who becomes an AvEsha avatAra? What is the basic difference between an AvEsha and an "ordinary" jIva since The Lord enters into both? Is it just that The Lord manifests His special energies in the chosen AvEsha, or is it something else?

The pAndavas attained svarga in one yuga, moksha in the other yuga. It is mere yuga bhEda in Bhagavata and MahabhArata.

I have read this elsewhere, that the events of mahAbhArata (as well as other epics) are cyclical. But do they recur in each cycle of 4 yugas, in each manvantara, or in every kalpa? Also, are the Pandavas from "our" dvApara-yuga the same pAndavas as in previous instances, or is it a new set of jIvas each time?

regards,

[Sri Vaishnava]

Pranams. Am I missing something there? Was there a doubt about nArAyaNa taking avatAra as kRiShNa/balarAma?

I meant that during the course of describing nArAyaNa's avatArA, vidwAns have talked about this particular section. In fact, it is in this section that nArAyaNa is also mentioned.

On a related note, this reminds me of something. I have heard that Sri kArapangAdu swami, a great vidwAn of yesteryear who gave a discourse on mahAbhArata in 1955 at Sri Parthasarathy Temple, Thiruvallikeni, complete with inner meanings and explanations using pramAnas without omitting a single sloka from the ithihAsa. And he finished his monumental discourse by conducting pattAbhishekam for Yudhishthira inside the temple premises. How I wish I had been born then, to have experienced that!

One interesting question I have had.....Is it just that The Lord manifests His special energies in the chosen AvEsha, or is it something else?

There are two types of pervasion. One is the antarAtmA who is present within everythinng, chith and achith. The other is the antaryAmin who resides specifically in the hearts of all living creatures as mentioned in the nArAyaNa suktam. The presence of the antaryAmin is only for facilitating daharOpAsaNa.

When a yOgi meditates, this antaryAmin assumes the form that he is meditating on and he is able to visualize this within his heart. In the case of the avEsha avatArA, it is this antaryAmin that is responsible. In saktyAvEsa, bhagavan gives the jivA special powers whereas for svarUpAvEsa, the antaryAmin assumes a form and acts through that jivA, as in the case of veda vyAsA.

In the case of Arjuna, it is pointed out by vedAnta desikan that he was quite calm and composed prior to the war. He had made up his mind to kill the kauravas. But it was at that particular instant on the battlefield that he became upset. Why?

Refer Gita, Sloka 2.10.

tam uvāca hṛṣīkeśaḥ prahasann iva bhārata senayor ubhayor madhye viṣīdantam idaḿ vacaḥ

Meaning: HrishikEsha (master of the indriyas), face blossoming with happiness (prahasaN) spoke the following words to the sorrowful Arjuna.

Note the two important words, 'HrishikEsha' and 'prahasan'. Why mention Bhagavan is the master of the indriyas here? Because it was Bhagavan only who had mainpulated Arjuna's indriyas deliberately to cause confusion in his mind. This was done so that the Gita discourse could begin. As he is in the hearts of everyone, it is not a difficult job for him.

'Prahasan' is interpreted by achAryA as follows: "Krishna has two thoughts now. Firstly, he is laughing at the fact that Arjuna, confusing his dharmas and in a state of ignorance, is now acting as though he is self-righteous. Secondly, Bhagavan is happy that his trick of confusing Arjuna has worked and he will now be able to give the Gita shAstrA for the benefit of all jivAtmAs".

Every name has a meaning. For instance, why does Bhagavan say, 'Aham AtmA GudakEsa'? He means the following according to vedAntA desikA, "Arjuna, you are proud of your name Gudakesa because it shows you conquered sleep for 18 days in the battle. But take a look at me. Upanishads declare I am sarvAntarAtmA, sarvasAkshi. I never sleep at all. Am I not a wonderful Being?"

I have read this elsewhere, that the events of mahAbhArata (as well as other epics) are cyclical. But do they recur in each cycle of 4 yugas, in each manvantara, or in every kalpa? Also, are the Pandavas from "our" dvApara-yuga the same pAndavas as in previous instances, or is it a new set of jIvas each time?

regards,

Possibly, probably. We cannot say for sure if these pAndavas are our pAndavas indeed since we have differences in BhAgavata and MahAbhAratA.

Apologies if I have taken the thread out of topic.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

namaskara.

Chhat puja (eastern India): the setting Surya is Devi Ratri, and the rising one is Devi Usha. But the real Deity worshipped here (through UshaRatri) is Chhati Maiya (the 6th mother). And Indra is also the sixth.

The eastern race has always belonged to Indra (not Surya). And the last time that Father India existed as One, that is in the Maurya empire, a Shudra of this race ruled over the greater India (?greater Indra?).

"X is Brahman" is not very uncommon to find in our shastras, where X can be a deity of our choice. But, it is only for Indra, that
"Brahman is Indra" is emphasised (can't recall the source), thereby illustrating the equivalence between Brahman and Indra.

The equivalence, still, in my view doesn't make the two one and same. What is implied is as follows:
In a Yagna, the sacrificer and the Hotr priest sit across Agni, facing each other. In one symbology Hotr is replaced by the Brahman priest, and the Sacrificer is seen, not unusually, as Indra himself. And as we know Brahman word is used in our shrutis to imply Brahman the deity by the use of double meaning.
So Indra and Brahman are seen as mirror image of each other. Separated by the expanse of mighty Agni, they signify two opposite, yet equivalent, ends of the same spectrum. The 6th and the 12th. On the Circle.
This is no exaggeration, no hyperbole, no flight of imagination: some plain truth is said matter-of-factly.

Indra, we know you now! accept our devotions.

[kriyarameeshh]

Sri Matre Namah,

Puranic Indra is a Chair to rule the three lokas.

Vedic Indra is much more. Indra was given a very high status in the Veda. If we consider Vedas, he is just not a demigod but a supreme Godhead.

Even in the Puranas he is spoken with a very high respect.
Some one in the thread said that he is the form of our ego. But that is not true.

There are 2 important characters in our vangmaya (scriptures) which are being completely misunderstood and made clowns.

1. Indra
2. Narada Maharshi.

but I shall stick to Indra for now.

As I said earlier, Indra is the lord of the 3 worlds. His responsibility is to ensure the safe keep of the lokas and hence would be the first one to be worried when some one makes an attempt to gain extra ordinary powers to conquer the world. It is in this process of safe keeping, he does all that is spoken of him in the Puranas.

Coming to the poin of his worship at present , again our present day rituals are more from Puranas and Tantras which are centered with Siva, Vishnu and Shakthi. That could be the reason.

Shakta system has a worship pattern and mantra for the worship of "Indrani" the Shakthi of Indra.

Indra and Indrani are considered as part of the 6 most important divine Couples
"Om Sachi Purandhara Bhyannamaha" is an invocation to them at the beginning of any pooja along with other couples, even prior to doing Ganapathi pooja.

His worship as one of the Ashta Dikpalakas (Lordships of the 8 directions) is very common.

So stop disrespecting Him and start worshiping Him.

Regards.