Some questions on Asuras

[Satya Upadhya]

Many thanks to Gunthard Mueller, Steve Farmer, and others for their viws on
this subject. One of the things which you haven't touched so far, in my
opinion, is the fact that some very definite philosophy and practices (like
their cosmogony, for example) is discussed in several books like the
Bhagawad Gita, some of the Upanisads, Puranas, etc. Now, the question is:
should we look into these books, and examine what has been said about the
asuras here, to identify in effect who the asuras were?

To give an example, the Visnu Purana talks of the fact that the Asuras
declared that the "slaughter (of animals in sacrifice) is not conducive to
religious merit...if Indra, after having attained to godhead by numerous
sacrifices, feeds upon sami and other woods, then an animal which eats
leaves is superior to him. If it be a fact that a beast slain in sacrifice
is exalted to heaven, why doesn not the worshipper slaughter his own father?
If a man is really satiated by the food which another person eats, then
sraadhas should be offered to people who are travelling abroad, and they,
trusting to this, should have no need to carry food along with them"
(iii.18.14-26 (tr. Muir)).

--> In the Maitrayani Upanisad is mentioned:
" Verily, Brahaspati (the teacher of the gods) became Sukra (the teacher of
the Asuras), and for the security of Indra created this ignorance ("avidya")
for the destruction of the Asuras (devils). By this (ignorance) men declare
that the inauspicious is auspicious, and that the auspicious is
inauspicious. They say that there should be attention to law (dharma) which
is destructive of the Veda and of other scripture (sastra). Hence, one
should not attend to this (teaching). It is false. It is like a barren
woman. Mere pleasure is the fruit thereof as also of one who deviates from
the proper course. It should not be entered upon"  (vii.9. (tr. Hume)).

--> Above views, it is not hard to see, are the views of the Charvakas.

--> Consider also now the cosmogony of the asuras as given in the Bhagawad
Gita--"aparaspara sambhutam kim anyat kama haitukam"--the world originated
from the union of the male and the female and that it could not have any
other cause than kama or the sexual urge. (xvi.8)

--> Above is the view of the Tantriks  as is well known.

--> Now, do the above passages (and other passages like these) need to be
studied in order to understand who the asuras originally were?

--> Also, how does one account for the fact that the Jain philosopher
Gunaratna identifies the Tantrikas with the Lokayatikas?

-Satya



_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.