Some questions on Asuras

[Gunthard Mueller]

Thanks to Bernfried Schlerath to point to the mazdaa-medhaa equation. You are
right.
deva- meaning "heavenly" is certainly correct, at least for the original
meaning, though I like using "divine" because it actually uses the very same
root... And it's
difficult to tell when words based on this root in various IE linguistic
settings mean literally "heavenly" or more abstractly "god".

Steve:
thanks for your interesting comments on the Gatha - Rigveda relationship.
I am not in principle against the theory of mutually aggressive nomenclatura
in
the case of asura vs. daeuua, and you are perfectly right to point to the
close
exchange that was probably going on between the Indian and the Iranian
cultural
contexts in Rigvedic times.
But I feel that if there really was an entire cultural conflict behind this
linguistic issue, would one not assume that such a cultural conflict is
evident in more than just this particular parallel?
As I am not aware of any other such evidence, it seems to me that explaining
this development of two religious terms with a cultural conflict is like
explaining
a pot hole with an earthquake. Sorry for being a bit flowery. I do agree that
that
pot hole may be caused by an earthquake, but in that case we should find a
lot more if we go digging. And it is this evidence (which would have to be
pretty massive in the case of a cultural conflict, wouldn't you think?) which
I am at least not aware of. Maybe that evidence is there, and I am just not
aware of it? I haven't followed the issue for a while, so maybe somebody else
is more qualified than me to elaborate on what is currently input on this
issue.

Best regards,
Gunthard

gm at e-ternals.com



"B. Schlerath" schrieb:

> Concerning asura- some remarks:
> a. To explain the the post-rgvedic meaning asura- it is not necessary to
> assume conflicts between Indians and Iranians. - deva- and asura- are
> different types or aspects of gods although Varun.a, Agni, Indra and Soma
> are invoked mostly as deva, but also as asura.
> b. mazdaa is OI medhaa. Ahura Mazda is "Lord Wisdom"
> c. deva- means originally "the Heavenly one", "living in the heaven"
> Best regards Bernfried Schlerath
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK]Im Auftrag von
> Gunthard Mueller
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. Januar 2001 16:37
> An: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: Some questions on Asuras
>
> Dear Satya,
> here are some thoughts about your questions 1 and 5.
>
> Asura is related to Avestan ahura "divine being, god",
> Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda (the Asura Mahaa, as it were).
> It seems that "divine being, god", without qualification
> as "good" or "bad", is the Indo-Aryan meaning. After the
> split-up of the Indo-Aryan framework of cultures into
> an Indian and an Iranian branch, the word seems to
> have gradually aquired a potential negative tinge in
> the Indian branch. One theory assumes that this might
> have been caused by conflicts between the Indian and
> Iranian cultural complexes. The fact that the Iranians
> used this word to refer to their gods is thought to
> have inspired the Indian side to consider the word to
> refer to enemy gods, in other words, "bad gods", or demons.
> The earlier Indian texts would still refer to "good Indian
> gods" as asuras, too, but when the conflict grew stiffer,
> this usage would gradually fade out in favour of "bad
> foreign gods", and then just "bad gods/demons" in general.
> Interestingly, the Iranians also had a word for "bad gods/
> demons" -- it is related to the Indian word for "(good) god"
> (deva)...
> Which is derived from an Indo-European root meaning
> "divine being/god" which can be found in many other
> Indo-European branches.
> So we might have a case where the Indians and the Iranians
> referred to the gods of the respective others as "demons" or
> "dangerous gods".
> While this would be a nice mutually supportive parallelism,
> this theory is otherwise difficult to prop up. I am not aware
> of any conclusive external evidence in the textual sources
> to decide this matter. (I have not monitored this issue recently,
> so I may not be up-to-date.)
>
> This brings me to your question 5:
> I think one should also keep in mind that from a general
> Indo-European point of view divine forces have not
> been thought to be reliably beneficient, nor as
> reliably damaging, either...
> In the earliest Greek songs, just like in early Indian texts,
> the gods have to be INVOKED.
> By singing/praying, the god was thought to be asked
> to appear, very much in person. The god's power is exerted
> in the presence of the praying human, or it is not exerted
> at all. The god may even be invoked by some other
> human, and asked to act in favour of that other person.
> And that person may be an enemy!
> In many early texts, humans often find themselves
> incapable of pleasing all gods simultaneously. Their
> presence may be mutually exclusive. It turns out to
> be at the root of human suffering that humans can
> never be in harmony with ALL divine forces.
> In the early Greek epic, for example, it may not be enough
> to be protected by Athene. If Poseidon wants to destroy you,
> he might eventually be able to do it, even against Athene.
> The gods don't seem to have been "good" or "bad" in
> a pre-defined way -- they may act in your favour today,
> but they could also act against you tomorrow. In other
> words, they are gods who grant favours.
> But humans could do something to improve their situation.
> For one, there was "the Sun who sees everything and who
> hears everything", a formulation that is there almost
> identically in both Homeric Greek and Vedic. By fulfilling
> apparent ethical norms (in this case, not lying, not committing
> fraud, etc.) humans seem to be able to influence the gods in
> their favour.
> And it is, after all, possible to communicate with the god.
> There is a beautiful poem by Sappho in which she invokes
> Aphrodite and describes very precisely how she envisages
> the way the goddess personally arrives and talks to the singer.
> In this poem (7th/6th century BC), she actually quotes the
> goddess, who asks Sappho "What has befallen your
> heart again? Why do you call me again? What do
> you want me to do for you, you troubled soul?".
> These poems are very formulaic in structure, but
> in their best form they are exquisite expressions
> of a very personal (should I say bhakti-like...)
> relationship with the god.
> The gods are never thought of as "merely" human.
> They are always on another level, even though
> it is possible to communicate with them in song,
> in prayer, in dreams, in visions.
> For example, in the above-mentioned poem,
> Sappho very drastically describes herself as
> painfully love-sick, to the point of madness,
> but the goddess of love, smiling with her
> never-dying face, daughter of Zeus/Dyaus,
> sitting on a cheerfully painted throne, "twister
> of tricks", comes across as an incredibly serene,
> happy, extremely powerful agent who has
> everything totally under control, who always
> knows a way out, not like Sappho, who is suffering
> and feeling mentally confused.
> It is this difference that makes humans call on the
> gods for help. The Greek word "hieros", later meaning "holy",
> orginally seems to have meant just "powerful". (According
> to a popular theory it may be related to Vedic is.ira,
> such as in is.irena manasaa, which seems to be the
> equivalent of hieron menos in the Greek epic). So the gods
> were the "powerful ones". But even the human mind could
> be called hieros (the above example in Greek epic refers to
> Achilles), and in the Odyssey the word was even used once
> for a gigantic fish in the ocean.
> So while the gods, being immortal, were in a different
> dimension from humans, their qualities could be described
> with the same attributes as human qualities. And it is exactly
> this which makes it possible to communicate with them.
> They do speak Vedic and Greek, and they do smile, even if
> their smile appears on a never-dying face.
>
> Best wishes,
> Gunthard
>
> gm at e-ternals.com