Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Why so few Indra devotees?

  1. #1

    Why so few Indra devotees?

    Namaste,

    So, I've noticed that both Agni and Indra are invoked more than any of the other Gods in the chief Vedas... Far more than the more-or-less Puranic deities like Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, etc.

    So, my question is (if you pardon my ignorance on this point) why are there so few or hardly any Indra devotees? I have a friend who told me that even in India it would very rare to find one. What gives?

    I can imagine Agni not being worshipped so much since I understand that Vedic fire sacrifice and worship is very ritual-specific and so, apart from that particular context one would not have to be an active adherent to Agni. But what about Indra? It seems that, if anything, there should be more admirers of this King of Heaven...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    October 2010
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    625
    Rep Power
    2262

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Namasté, Kismet,

    It seems true that there are very few devotees of Indra: to my knowledge I am the only one on this board, and I have never encountered another online or in person. I could likely write a thesis in response to your question at this point, as it's a question that I've been trying to answer for the last year. I will try to briefly write a few ideas.

    The Vedas' reputation unfortunately suffered under the British influence, being painted as superficial nonsense by deliberately-poor translations: English translations which created racial conflict in the texts (that didn't exist), downplayed the spiritual aspects in favour of the material, and sought to put down the origins of the Hindu faith as ridiculous. The reverse effect also occurred: there arose the idea that the Vedas were too complex to understand, belonging to a long-departed era, and therefore not worth the time or effort to approach. And whether for those reasons, or others, most Hindus are now far more familiar with folk tales and Purāṇas than with the Vedas. The Vedic Indra is indeed a beautiful, transcendent, glorious being. But the two most common stories known of him today are that of Kṛṣṇa/Indra/Govardhan, and that of Indra and Ahalyā, and the modern King of Devas is widely viewed as prideful, selfish, and materialistic.

    Indra has not suffered such a decline among the Buddhists and Jains, both of whom revere him as a highly elevated being, and there are some beautiful shrines and statues of him still extant, particularly in Thailand. (Look for him under the names Sakka, Śakra, Taishakuten, or Yanyā if you want to learn more about his forms elsewhere.) However, you will not find his devotion widespread in India, and to my knowledge there are no existing shrines or temples to him. His few traces at holy sites are limited to tirthas, former shrines (there exists an empty, image-less shrine at Rajarajeshwara, for instance), or monuments incorrectly attributed to him (like one of the five shore temples at Mamallapuram, now believed to be a temple to Skanda rather than Indra).

    There are still traces of him in Indian culture and memory. Many Indian boys are still given names ending with -inder, -indra, or -endra. This interesting article suggests that the name of Andhra Pradesh came from him. He is still called for help during times of drought. Many Indian temples (Suchindram in Tamil Nadu most conspicuously) bear stories associated with him. But none of this is as pervasive as one would expect for a deity that formerly had such high status; one article I read even suggested that Indra may be the oldest continuously-worshipped deity in the world. Perhaps there was difficulty, in the collective consciousness, in moving the Vedic deities from the fire-based Vedic rites to the age of image worship within temples.

    The most intriguing idea that I have run across is that god Śiva is the natural evolution of the Vedic Indra, and indeed, there are many similarities between the two Devas (even down to odd little details like the tiger skin). The wonderful David Frawley - who also has a regard for Indra and focused on Indra's mantras in his early studies of the Vedas - even makes the stunning statement, in Arise Arjuna (page 24), that:

    "If we look deeply we see that the same basic spirit is present in both Indra and Shiva. Hence good devotees of Shiva should also be devotees of Indra and vice versa, or they may not understand the inner truth of their deity. Indra-Shiva is the basic deity of the Vedas and Puranas and of the Hindu tradition as a whole, which is not to exclude other important formulations of the Divine like Vishnu and the Devi, but to show the continuity, creativity and universality of the tradition."

    So, as this book excerpt suggests, it may be that "Indra never really disappeared from popular Hinduism but lives on under another name" - thus eliminating the need or wish to honour him as a separate being.

    This is by no means an exhaustive summary, and I'd love to hear thoughts from you and/or others on the board, too.

    Indraneela
    ===
    Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
    Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.
    Last edited by Arjuni; 04 July 2011 at 09:15 PM. Reason: Forgot a word in there!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2009
    Posts
    623
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Interesting and well researched post, Indraneela. May I ask why you are a devotee of Indra, please? I hope my question will still be acceptable in respect to the OP, as perhaps your reason will help us to understand what leads one to Indra or not.

  4. #4

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Namaste Indraneela, and thank you for your informative and well-researched post. I never thought to look for more information on Indra from non-Hindu sources. I will be sure to look more into Buddhist/Jain sources from now on.

  5. #5

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Onkara View Post
    Interesting and well researched post, Indraneela. May I ask why you are a devotee of Indra, please? I hope my question will still be acceptable in respect to the OP, as perhaps your reason will help us to understand what leads one to Indra or not.
    Of course it will be acceptable (for me, that is). I hope my own (hopefully slight) and occasional deviations from the main topic of some OPs here has not been flagrant. Speaking for myself I have come from a previous message board where participants did not care overly much about the main topic at hand and, after a couple posts the discussion became relatively free-ranging. I hope my doing this has not been too irksome for my fellow posters.

  6. #6

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Dear Friend,

    Lets first of all understand a few important things, based on the knowledge provided in our scriptures...

    - What or who is "Indra"?
    "Indra" is a position which means the controller

    "Indra" is not the name of one particular individual

    - Who is qualified to get into that position?
    There are certain procedures[most of the scriptures say that one must do a lot of good deeds, hundreds of sacred yagnas, etc] in order to
    qualify.

    - Who selects the Indra?
    Saints and Maha Rushi's
    who either travel the three lokas or the ones who live beyond the three lokas[example: Maha Rushis appoint King Nahusha as temporary Indra, after current Indras war with Vrtra]

    - How long is the term?
    Every person who gets selected as Indra can stay in that position for a term of one Manvantara[which is 852000 Deva years or 30672000 human years]


    - What happens next?
    A new person is selected
    and the old one, after performing his duty, tries to unite himself with the Paramathma, or takes birth again, accordingly,
    to enjoy or suffer the results of his deeds


    - Are only devas qualified to apply?
    No, not at all...anyone including humans can become Indra[example: King Nahusha, who was a human, becoming Indra, temporarily, for a period of time]
    Also anyone who defeats the person in Indra's position in a battle[which is very rare] also can get into that position[example: Hiranyakashyapu, Bali]

    - Who is the current position holder?
    The son of Aditi and Kashyapa called "Purandara" is the current Indra of this Manvantara


    - Why do Vedic scriptures talk a lot about Indra and other devas where as the Vedanta and Puranas talk so less?
    Vedic scriptures and puranas are like computer programs and documentation books...computer programs when executed correctly
    are applications which serves the purpose of executing them....documentation books give details about these programs, the
    greater program called the operating system which allows these programs execution and much more.....
    - Its pointless to have redundant information in a program and a book
    Similarly, the Devas are like small applications which solve individual purposes ...they are the ones we invoke
    when we need fruitful results... and the operating system itself is the universal program, which is Paramathma, accommodates the other smaller applications...
    ...Many of the Vedic scripts give details regarding the Devas, allows us to invoke them for some beneficial
    purpose....the Vedanta and the Puranas give all details regarding Paramathma and the entire universe....including minor
    details regarding devatas as they are already present in Vedas....


    - Why do very less people pray Indra?
    As Sri Krishna beautifully says in Bhagavad Gita...one who prays a deva, at the end of this life reaches the deva...one who
    prays Paramathma reaches Paramathma...
    .now the person in Indras position is yet another soul which is doing its duty, which is still in this universe
    bound to enjoying the results of its previous duties....after serving the term, this individual soul also needs to seek Paramathma, just like
    you and me...so as Sri Krishna says..why search for a small lake when you have a huge reserviour of water in front of you....when
    the person in Indras position prays for the Paramathma, why should we not pray to Paramathma directly....

  7. #7

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Quote Originally Posted by SanathanaDharma View Post
    - What or who is "Indra"?
    "Indra" is a position which means the controller

    "Indra" is not the name of one particular individual
    That may very well be the case. I do not know enough to tell. Or it may be, as Indraneela pointed out, that Indra refers to Shiva or some other demigod.

    Quote Originally Posted by SanathanaDharma View Post
    - Why do Vedic scriptures talk a lot about Indra and other devas where as the Vedanta and Puranas talk so less?
    Vedic scriptures and puranas are like computer programs and documentation books...computer programs when executed correctly
    are applications which serves the purpose of executing them....documentation books give details about these programs, the
    greater program called the operating system which allows these programs execution and much more.....
    - Its pointless to have redundant information in a program and a book
    Similarly, the Devas are like small applications which solve individual purposes ...they are the ones we invoke
    when we need fruitful results... and the operating system itself is the universal program, which is Paramathma, accommodates the other smaller applications...
    Yes, this too I have considered. Not being sure though I will hopefully do more research when I find the time.

    Namaste.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    October 2010
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    625
    Rep Power
    2262

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Namasté, all,

    Thank you for taking the time to read my initial post; I worried that it was over-elaborate, but it seems discussion has been sparked which is excellent. Let me follow the order of replies, in responding.

    Onkara, to ask why I'm his devotee is to ask someone why they married their spouse or why they adore their child: there are loves that no language can express. I put a very long post up at the converts thread a couple of months ago, but the short version, sparing you that long rant, is that it seems he has always been there. I just didn't know his name before hearing Vedas, though I went through enough religions looking for him. To many he is the wretch of the Purāṇas - or other forms which I'll touch upon later in this post - but to me he is the light of the universe, worthy of every praise the Vedas give. When others speak ill of him, I consider the double-edged truth in a favourite quote of mine: "The noble and ignoble, the fallen and the sublime are all in Him."

    Kismet, the sahasranāma that I've linked to in other posts is lovely for knowing the Vedic Indra. (Message me if you want the latest version, though; the posted one lacks about fifty names and some corrections.)
    For his forms outside of India, start at the Wikipedia entry for Indra, and also try these:

    *One version of the story behind Indra Jatra Festival in Nepal. (Also, you can see the first day's raising of the Yoshin - war banner/royal emblem/lingam - at that link.)
    *The story of the founding of Angkor Wat and the naming of Kampuchea. (He's also associated with the naming of Kathmandu.)

    While still retaining an identity as an originally-Hindu god, along with Brahmā, Indra is a crucial aide and servant to both Buddha and Mahavira. He was present at both of their births and, if memory serves, bathed the newborn infant in each case. (It's been suggested that Buddha's birth parallels his.)
    In Buddhism, he is the ruler of the Trayastriṃśa Heaven (akin to Svarga) and a protector of the Buddhist faith. He often helps to illustrate the Buddha's points in stories. (A favourite of mine is here.) He is usually depicted as green and four-armed.
    In Jainism I know less about his role, except that he is a protector of the Tirthankara (enlightened being, of which there have been twenty-four, Mahavira the most recent) and is a dancer just as he was in the Vedas, rejoicing each time a new Tirthankara is born.

    Back to Hinduism, and SanathanaDharma made an excellent point, describing the Purāṇic teachings (most notably the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam's, if I'm not mistaken?), as I hoped someone would. In the Purāṇas, Indra is presented as a position which will be occupied by fourteen beings through the Ages. Thus, the term Indra refers to a job rather than a specific personality, and the one occupying this post has a limited time in the position. This must be another strong reason for the decline of Indra's worship, for if "Indra" is only a temporary rulership, then a devotee would simply be worshipping a crown or a throne, like bowing before the Crown Jewels instead of the Queen.

    Yet, there are many who bow before a monarch regardless of the throne's occupant. I have wondered, in the case of royalty, how much of veneration involves respect of the rank or position, and how much the personality and the deeds of its holder. I have my own beliefs about the fourteen/one idea and other aspects of theology in this regard...but without going into detail, I will state a belief that Indra is not as simple as only "king," and in Rig Veda it seems far more is made of his qualities and deeds than his rank; the common name Devendra and the idea of indra as a word denoting kingship, both came later. Looking at his sahasranāma - which the great Ganapati Muni compiled from Rig Veda - I find less than twenty epithets referencing kingship, and far more referring to strength, might, salvation, protection, brilliance, truth, and sacrifice, which seems peculiar praise for a job description. But, indeed, as SanathanaDharma points out: to one who accepts the Indra-as-post teachings absolutely, there is no reason at all to worship Indra. It is, in fact, a complete waste of time, like addressing a request to the Queen's secretary when the Queen herself is in the room!

    The idea of Vedas as cause-effect "programs" of sorts is interesting, and I can see how a reading of many translations, as well as the hugely elabourate rites that accompany them, would give this interpretation. But I do think that this view focuses too much on the material, gross aspects of texts and doesn't give enough credit to the ṛṣis for invoking such spiritual, devotional words, the greatest wisdom and knowledge in the history of religion worldwide. The universe is there in the Vedas...

    If the Vedas are limited in scope and subject, though, then that would indeed make the Vedas and Devatās largely irrelevant to the modern world or to our religion today. If so, why do mantras like Sāvitrī Gāyatrī and Mahā Mṛtyunjaya remain so valuable to many Hindus? Are they attempting to run limited "programs" towards enlightenment, or chanting simply out of historical memory and habit, or another idea I haven't considered yet?

    If I am completely in error, and if the being to whom I am devoted is simply the temporary Purandara, to little purpose or effect, then I hope to learn well from my mistake. But surely all Devas, as emanations of the Supreme, are qualified to guide us to their Source? Many do see the Supreme in Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and that is wonderful. But many do also find joy, wonder, and eventual enlightenment from worshipping a different form, whether because one sees the Supreme in that Deva, or because one values Him or Her as a helper and a guide, and prefers to approach the Supreme holding the hand of a Beloved Friend.

    To return for a moment to the original question: my question has been, not only why Indra has so few devotees, but why there are so few traces of him in India or Hinduism at all. There are several beings like Śani or Yama, who are feared or treated gingerly, and yet even a Śani devotee may find temples and bhajans in his god's honour. Also, the idea of Indra-as-post doesn't explain the almost-hostility that sometimes attends even the mention of his name. Kismet, I too ask sometimes, what gives? If Devas are forms taken by the Supreme to help us start thinking about the nature of God and worship in a personal way that we can understand - and more so, if an unlearned man can learn devotion even by thinking of his favourite animal one-pointedly for days, or if a hunter can bring meat from his hands and water from his mouth to God out of pure love - why is any form of the beautiful Divine treated with disdain?

    Indraneela
    ===
    Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
    Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.
    Last edited by Arjuni; 06 July 2011 at 02:57 AM. Reason: Spacing! ARGH! I r smrt an grammur gud!

  9. #9

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Namaste Indraneela,

    "...and prefers to approach the Supreme holding the hand of a Beloved Friend"

    Lets take a simple example to understand Paramathma's perspective......consider a mother who is walking with her two kids.. the older kid has been walking for a year or so....and the younger one has just learned to walk....in a busy street both of them need support...
    now, when they want to cross a busy street, will the mother, by default, ask the younger child to hold on to its elder brother, who is also holding her hands..
    or does she ask her younger child to hold her hand directly?


    .....this is the perspective of Paramathma....Paramathma is that mother who never asks her younger child to hold onto the other child who is also under her support...Paramathma is like that mother who always asks her children
    to hold Her hands directly
    ....now does that mean that the elder kid is incapable of guiding the younger one?...well there is uncertainty..it may or it may not
    [in case it looses the grip with its mother]..Devas are like the older kid which are far better than the younger ones...but still they are kids to mother...

    ...but when viewed from the mothers perspective, holding both the children is what a mother naturally does....
    and most importantly, this act is both beneficial and necessary for the children alone...not to the mother...mother does not need the guidance or
    support, on the contrary its the children who need it....


    Paramathma is that mother with infinite hands who always asks her children to hold on to her hands "directly"....only because its Paramathma who
    is beyond the three gunas and thus stable, both in and beyond the universe...even if the younger kid insists on holder its elder brothers hand, its
    still being led by the mother alone...but holding to the Paramathma directly gives "certainty"....

    anyone who is righteously in Indras position is undoubtedly superior to a commoner like me in terms of good guna..in terms of good deeds..in all the fields....
    when one reads the amount of great deeds mentioned in Mahabharata vana parva, regarding Purandara, one feels like getting up and bow to him in respect...

    but then at the end of the day, that person is also under the influence of the three gunas of prakruthi....and this is why Sri Krishna,
    like the mother in our example, in a busy street called samsara,Paramathma asks everyone of us to hold His hands directly.....as He is the Supreme Stable One....


    "why is any form of the beautiful Divine treated with disdain"...that is due to the lack of real knowledge and increase in sheer ignorance....

  10. #10
    Join Date
    October 2010
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    625
    Rep Power
    2262

    Re: Why so few Indra devotees?

    Namast,

    SanathanaDharma, thank you for your well-considered reply and for playing along with my analogy to explain where you were coming from. Examples and stories are so helpful for teaching.

    I'll provide another perspective, on worship and the choice one makes in approaching the Supreme. These are not my words, but words nonetheless that I found truly inspiring and insightful, written by P.V.R. Narasimha Rao on the e-group vedic-wisdom. I could never have summarized what I believe with such beauty or eloquence.

    "If you take things literally, Sri Krishna did say that worshipping "Me" is supreme and those worshipping "Me" reach "Me", while those who worship demigods for lower things get lower things, even those worshipping demigods for lower things worshipping "Me", but in a wrong way.

    When Sri Krishna said "I", did he mean the specific form he occupied then or the Cosmic Self that his consciousness was fully absorbed in?...

    By "I" and "Me", Krishna meant the supreme cosmic self (Aatman or Brahman) and not the specific form he occupied then. Those who worship Self do not worship Self for children or marriage or promotion or success or any limited thing. Those who worship Self with no desires and have their minds fixed on Self get self-knowledge and become free from the cycle of birth and death. On the other hands, those who worship deities for marriage, children, promotion, etc. get those when the effort is ripe. Those who worship deities for material benefits are also worshipping Self (because this material world manifests within Self, like ripples arise in ocean), but in a limited and non-liberating (binding) way.

    Suppose someone worships Ganesha, and sees Ganesha as the supreme cosmic self WITHIN whom Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc. and all the 14 worlds are created, maintained, and destroyed. After all, this is how Ganapathi Atharva Seersham described Ganesha! If one worships Ganesha with that attitude and without any desires, one is indeed worshipping "Me" as said by Krishna and one indeed gets "Me" (Self of Veda/Upanishad). One becomes liberated.

    If one worships Ganesha as the god of obstacles to remove obstacles, solve material problems and start spiritual progress, that is the lower demigod worship said by Krishna. That is lower (but necessary for many). One worshipping Ganesha like that is also in reality worshipping "Self" only, but in a limited form. Thus, is does not liberate one.

    Suppose someone worships Krishna, and sees Krishna as the supreme cosmic self WITHIN whom Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva etc and all the 14 worlds are created, maintained and destroyed. If one worships Krishna with that attitude and without any desires, one is indeed worshipping "Me" as said by Krishna and one indeed gets "Me" (Self of Veda/Upanishad). One becomes liberated.

    If one worships Krishna as the giver of children to get a child (a very dharmik thing no doubt!), that is the lower demigod worship said by Krishna. That is lower (but necessary for many). One worshipping Krishna like that is also in reality worshipping "Self" only, but in a limited form. Thus, it does not liberate one...

    One does not do something wrong by just using the word "Shiva" and the right thing by just using the word "Krishna". It's not in the name, but in "attitude". How do you visualize your god, what is your attitude, what do you want? THAT is what decides at what spiritual evolution level your worship is.

    Having said that, a person in kindergarten cannot go to PhD right away. It is NOT undesirable to study kindergarten. If you need to worship god for a specific material thing, do so. Eventually, you will reach a stage where you worship god with no desires. Every thought and action of a realized jnaani becomes a great worship of god (of "I" said by Krishna).

    * * *

    Not all forms are equal. Each form has different qualities. Self is like the stable, steady and vast ocean. People are like ripples on the surface. The ripples move and spread under the momentum of previous movement and eventually die down. When they are moving also, they are part of the ocean, but they see themselves as ripples moving in a particular way. When they die down, they lose their identity as a ripple and start seeing themselves as ocean again. That is liberation.

    Some huge waves carry a lot of ripples where they want to go. They change the surface of the ocean drastically. That is deities and incarnations. Each wave may have different qualities.

    Krishna was a deity born with all kalas, i.e. full control over the manifested world. It was like a tremendous wave that shook the entire ocean.

    Nevertheless, it is useless to compare waves and what they do on the surface. Take any wave (Krishna, Shiva, Ganesha), but see the wave not as a wave but as the ocean. Go to the depth of the ocean through that wave and become the ocean. That is liberation.

    Whichever deity you worship, see the deity as Self. See that the deity fills everyone and everything. See that the entire universes exists within that deity. Have no desires and just surrender to that deity. Then you get liberated."

    When you write of Paramathma/Krishna/Devas, there is indeed great merit in going to Krishna directly and bypassing Deva-worship as less fruitful. But seeing Devas in this way, as I do, worship of any One is the way to liberation.

    At least, though, we can agree on the need for crossing that busy street, and for being incapable of navigating its dangers, or even of approaching it without surrendering to One of greater knowledge and guidance.

    And to excerpt the same post:

    "God is infinite. Even one who has experienced god cannot describe god accurately and fully. God can only be realized through direct experience. Not once, not twice, but again and again, every second. After all, our minds are finite and god is infinite. A tumbler can only capture so much of the ocean...

    Irrespective of where you dive from, the ocean is the same. Swim in it forever."

    I will return to the original question in my next post.

    Indraneela
    ===
    Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
    Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Original Indo Iranian Homeland
    By Gill Harley in forum History of Bharata
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 05 October 2013, 05:55 PM
  2. Source material for the literal life of Christ
    By sarabhanga in forum Christianity
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10 March 2008, 07:09 AM
  3. Don't Understand this
    By atanu in forum Vedas & Brahmanas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06 August 2007, 08:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •