N a y a k | 31

CHAPTER ONE

Mythological Tales of the Nāgas and the Asuras:

Their Narration and Interpretation

The two key agents that can be considered pivotal to the element of evil in the
Mahābhārataare the nāgas and the asuras--the former, mostly recipients of evil meted out by
the Āryans, and the latter, ostensible perpetrators of evil against the Āryans. Both of these are
the subject of various myths and myth cycles in the epic, which have been misinterpreted to
create faulty traditions of good and evil.
The evil meted out on the nāgas is often underplayed, in not just the epic itself but also
in scholarly studies on the epic; perhaps, this isbecause the majority of the nāga myths areonly
in the Ādi Parva and comprise the ‗false‘ beginning of the epic, which is seemingly unrelated, or
at best, peripheral to the main frame story of the war. These myths appear to be simply a
collection of folkloric side stories about serpents that loosely link to create a minor climactic
event that results in King Janamejayaorganizing a yajña to sacrifice all serpents. Most of these
myths, i.e. stories of Upamanu, Uttanka, Rūru, Dundhuba, Kadru and Vinata are tales in which
nāgas are either condemned or cursed for alleged infractions. Finally, a critical curse kills the

king. It is uttered by the Brāhmin boy, Śṛngin, who curses Rājā Parikṣit to be bitten by the

serpent king, Takśaka; consequently,Parikṣit‘s son, Janamejaya, vows to avenge his father‘s
death by exterminating all serpents in a sarpasattra. Innumerable serpents are sacrificed in the
fire, but the yajña is eventually halted by Astika, the son of a Brāhmin father and a serpent
mother, to save the serpent race.Takśaka, the chief alleged culprit, escapes, along with many
other serpents, and so ends this false beginning of the epic with a simple declaration by Sauti
that he has narrated this story because its narration dispels fear of serpents(Mbh 158:162). And
that is that. Immediately after this, Śaunaka requests Sauti to narrate the actual Bhārata, the
story of the war, which has already been introduced in the Anukramanika Parva, prior to the
serpent stories, with Dhṛ tarāṣ ṭ ṛ a‘s lamentations and Sanjay‘s consolations and the synopsis
of the eighteen chapters of the itihāsa.
This structure of the epic—the inclusion of a second beginning, which seems unrelated
to the main story--is a curiosity,but the question is--are these nāgastories narrated onlyto
alleviate thefear of serpents of the great sages attending Kulpati Śaunaka‘s twelve-year
 N a y a k | 32

sacrifice in Naimiṣ āraṇ ya, or does this introduction mean something more? It is true that
according to geographical evidence, especially that provided by Greek writers, such as
Onesikratos, the Gangetic Plain was a land of serpents, and these reptiles were a real danger
for the Āryans (Vogel 1995, p. 1)1; hence, it is very possible that before settling down to relate
the long account of the war between the scions of the Kuru dynasty, Sauti wants to create a
conducive atmosphere, devoid of fear. However, this capsule narrative seems more than just
an invocation to create a suitable atmosphere or to protect against the deathly venom of
serpents. It is possible that the snake sacrifice is a depiction of an extreme case of animal
sacrifice. It is also possible that Sauti narrates the serpent lore only to fill in the breaks between
ritual activities at the sattra at Naimiṣ a forest, as was the norm for lengthy sattras. However, the
occasion of the sarpasattra and its execution negate thesesimple assumptions. This
sarpasattrawas the occasion when Vaiśampāyana told the story of the Great War, and this
sattradid not follow the normal practices of yajñas of similar nature.Śrautasarpasattra, as
explained by Baudhāyana in Sāmkhāyana Śrautasūtra ―wins worlds, sons, and cattle and
whoever performs it is not harmed by serpents‖ (cited in Minkowski, 1989, p. 414)2; but
Janamejaya does not perform his sattra for any of these reasons. His desire isto exterminate
the serpents and bring about anapocalypse. Moreover, referencing Baudhāyana,
Minkowskifurther states that ―the first sarpasattra was performed by the serpents themselves,
who gained their poison and became biters (damśuka) as a result of it;‖therefore the ―ǽtilogical
myth of the sarpasattra is even more surprising‖ (ibid).
Considering these antecedents to the sarpasattra in the Mahābhārata,its inclusion in the
epic‘s introduction seems to havesignificance beyond a mere ‗filler‘ story or a story about animal
abuse.In addition, the mythical elements, metaphors, and analogies of the snake sacrifice and
the individual serpent myths that lead up to the sacrifice are too vivid to be mere preventative
practices used to dispel the fear of serpents. In fact, these metaphors are so deeply reflected in
the myths of the rest of the epic, that this event can be seen as a prototype of the whole
Mahābhārata.What occurs in the rest of the epic mimics the elements of the sarpasattra, not
only in terms of actions and behaviors of the mythical characters, but also in the way that the
two frame stories are structured and organized. In fact, Minkowski proposes that there is an
interrelationship between the Mahābhārata‘s frame story and the sattra which has a ―Vedic

1
Vogel, J. (1995). Indian Serpent Lore Or the Nagas In Hindu Legend and Art. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.
2
Minkowski, C.Z. (1989) Janamejaya’s Sattra and Ritual Structure. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 109
(3), 401-420. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/604141. Accessed: April 5, 2012.
 N a y a k | 33

heritage‖ (ibid).3 ―It has been shown that the Mahābhārata‘s frame story makes use of a
technique of sustained embedding. Vedic rituals, and especially sattras, are ―composed‖
following an analogous technique. That is, the recursive system of organization is to the yajña
what embedding is to the Mahābhārata‖ (ibid).Additionally, the framework of ayajñagives the
snake sacrifice a ritualisticand pervasive significance; so much so that the epic‘s
own―dominating theme [of]vengeful, apocalyptic practices‖ (Minkowski, 2007, p. 391)4 is based
on the genocidal strategies described in Janamejaya‘syajña.Furthermore, the snake narrative
as a whole is like a metanarrative for the epic, because it capsules the story of the
Mahābhārata. This fake beginning is so significant, in fact, thatD. D. Kosambi (1965) says, ―it is
much more important than has been realized… [The] Mahābhārata, as it now stands is not
primarily the account of the great war but of the great yajña [the snake sacrifice]‖ (p. 93).5
To understand the role of this sarpasattrayajña and to see how thetreatment of the
nāgasby the Āryans is indicative of the problems of evil in the Mahābhārata, the concept of
nāgasand the snake sacrifice is examined in this chapterfromtwo main foci: evil apparent in the
holistic framework of the nāga sacrifice and specific evil evident in the interpretation of the
individual myths within this framework. Within these foci, the basis and consequence of

nāgapersecution is first traced to theṛgVedain which there are manyreferences toĀryan

usurpation of the wealth of the nāgas.Then the transformation of thenāgas into the Sṃṛti

literatures is examined, especially as it is delineated in the Mahābhārata, in whichnāgasaremore

of a metaphor for the concept of ‗the other‘; hence, the persecutionagainstthem is more
symbolic, and thisdeveloped intomyths of discriminationand subjugation.
On the other hand, the asuras in the Mahābhārata are portrayed as perpetrators of evil,
because they are assumed to embody the quality of evil. However, the appellative ‗asura‘ is not
used in the Mahābhārata for everyone who displays these unethical qualities. The main
perpetrators of evil in the Mahābhārata are postulated to be the Kauravas, specifically
Duryodhana, and the main cause for his culpability is attributed not so much to his qualities of
asura-ness but to his essential nature of being an asura; hence, his equivalency to evil is
established as an a priori. Duryodhana‘s actions are considered those of an asura, because he
is born an asura (although in a non-asura family) and everything he does to oppose the
Pāṇ ḍ avas is deemed as evil; hence establishing the Pāṇ ḍ avas as the diametrically opposing a

3
Ibid, p. 417
4
Minkowski, C. Z. (2007). Snakes, Sattras and the Mahābhārata. In Arvind Sharma (Ed.). Essays on the
Mahābhārata. (pp. 384-400). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
5
Kosambi. D.D. (1965). Ancient India a History of Culture and Civilization. New York: Pantheon Books
 N a y a k | 34

priori good. Asura then is the negative pole of the polarity of good and evil, and, for this reason,
for Hindus, ―demons are dangerous by definition regardless of intention‖ (O‘Flaherty, 1976, p.
98).6 However, these absolute claims of good and evil, (asura=evil and deva=good) cannot be
presumptive, because in Hindu mythology evil itself is indeterminate; it is neither an absolute
value nor is it an unethical one. Therefore, the term as an epithet or as an adjectival is a
misnomer, because, in actuality, the asura is not even part of the ethical framework of the
Mahābhārata, let alone a perpetrator of evil. If, on the other hand, asura is to be seen as stand-
alone term, denoting debased or unethical behavior, then every character in the Mahābhārata

(including the Divine Kṛṣṇa) is an asura at some point or another.

Thechapteron the asuraswill explain why the word asura cannot be considered as a part
of the good and evil paradigm, and how its misconception creates many ambiguities in moral
and ethical codes. Hence, applying this term to people (such as Duryodhana), to describe their
‗evil‘ actions creates an ambiguity in the moral-immoral equation of not just those characters but
also, by comparison, of the good characters. In order to explore this argument, this chapter will
first trace the etymology and definitions of the word and explain how it suffered degradation

from the earliest ṛg Vedic times to the Mahābhārata. Although the word is as old as (if not older

than) the ṚgVeda, its meaning underwent many changes, and each change, while adding a new
perspective, retained an association, through myth and allusion, to the preceding meanings,
many of which were non ethical. Hence, it cannot be considered simply in its stand-alone
definition as indicated in the Mahābhārata. Furthermore,this chapter will examine the concept
of asura in various asura myths in the Mahābhārata and re-interpret them to show that the
asuras were a part of the Āryan society and not representative of an a priori. However, because
of the abasement of the word, asura, they ‗fell‘ from grace; this fall created a mythos of evil for
which they were held responsible, and, consequently, victimized.
Additionally, to understand this metaphor of persecution that the nāgasand the
asurascreate, it must be determined who or what were the nāgas and the asuras--were they
real people or simply an Āryan concept of symbolic evil. However, to examine the problems of
evil it is not imperative to establish themas human, because even if they were a mythical
construct, the very idea of their victimization becomes archetypal and speaks of a culture in
which evil was systemic.

6
O’Flaherty, W. D. (1976). The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
 N a y a k | 35

1-A: The Nāgas

(i) Who are theNāgas?

The question whether the nāgas were a real people or only a symbolic idea of the Āryan
concept of an evil must be dealt with before any causative problems of evil can be defined.
There are records from early Kashmir that indicate that theNāgaswere aboriginal inhabitants in
India. Based on these records, it seems quite possible that some of the first encounters
between the second wave of Āryans,who were moving westward from the Indus Valley,and the
indigenous people may have occurred in Kashmir. Citing the Nīlmata Purāna, R.L. Raina
(1993) suggests that the ―Āryans penetrated into Kashmir from the southern routes, while the
valley was already inhabited by the Nāgas and the Piśācas, who did not see eye to eye with
each other‖(p.24).7Rainagives evidence, dating back to 2400 BC, of indigenous settlements in
Kashmir, which have been found in Burzahorm, 16 kilometers. east of Srinagar. In addition, he
explains that Āryan advance into the valley did not go unprotested in the beginning, but, as time
passed, the Āryans assimilated the local traditions. To prove this assimilation, Raina gives an
example of how the first enterprising Āryan settler,Candradeva, had to accept all the conditions
laid down by the Nāga chief Nila‖ (ibid). Dr. Bali (1993) also cites from Nīlmata Purāna to
present evidence that the people in Jammu and Kashmir had a Nāga connection. He cites the
example of aNāgachief exiled from Kashmir to Jammu,who wasallotted rulership of Mount
Usiraka in Jammu by Kashmir‘s Nāga king, Vibhunga. As evidence, Bali mentions that in the
Śivatemple of Sudhamahādeva in Jammu a broken triśūl has been found with the name
‗Vibhunga,‘inscribed on it inSanskrit (p. 29).8It is believed that this triśūl is from 1000 BCE
(SudhaMahādeva),9which was around the time when the Āryans were settling in the area.
J. Vogel also connects the Nāgas to kingship in Kashmir and further suggests
anassociation between their historiography and mythology. Hecites an example of the illustrious
Rājā Lalitaditya of Kashmir who often boasted of belonging to the line of NāgarājaKarkota (p
7
Raina, R. L. (1993). Mahābhārata Traditions and Kashmir’s Links with the rest of India (Bharat). In K. S. Singh (Ed.),
The Mahābhārata and its Tribal and Folk Traditions. (pp. 22-27). Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies.
8
Bali, D. R. (1993). Folk Version of Mahābhārata in Jammu Region. In K. S. Singh (Ed), The Mahābhārata and its
Tribal and Folk Traditions (pp. 28-31). Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies.
9
Sudh Mahadeva. Welcome to Jammu (web) http://www.jammu.com/jammu/pilgrimage/sudh_mahadev.htm.
Accessed: Nov. 15, 2011.
 N a y a k | 36

215),10 a serpent king mentioned in the Mahābhārata as a devotee of Baladeva,who himself is

considered a re-incarnation of Śeṣ aNāga.This perception that nāgas were actually the Nāga
tribe, and that they were not only indigenous to Kashmir but were also related to demi-godsis
furthered by R. L. Raina, who points out that ‗nāga‘ in Kashmiri means ‗a water-spring‘ and each
spring has a tutelary deity in the form of a Nāga.―This is a distinct feature of the Kashmiri
Nāgasand it may lead us to suppose that the Nāgas[were] settled around water springs in
mountainous valleys‖ (p. 23).11 In fact, the popular folk legend from theRājataraṃgiṇ īabout
Kashmir‘s formation not only situatesNāgas in Kashmir but also credits Kashmir‘s very creation

to the relationship between nāgas and Ṛṣis and gods. According to this legend, the Nāgas lived

in Lake Satisar. When a demon, Jaladeo (perhaps an Āryan enemy), began to harass them,

their father, ṚṣiKaśyapa, did penance and acquired Viṣ ṇ u‘s help to dewater the lake and

destroy the demon; the Nāgascalled thisland Kaśyapa-mir (which corrupted into Kashmir)--in
gratitude of Kaśyapa. Thus, all this evidence, whether it is offolkloric traditions, or archeological
findings, clearly suggests that Nāgas were not only real people, but they were also indigenous
inhabitants in India, and they may have been natives of Kashmir.
Aside from determining the human-ness of the nāgas, this evidence also
stronglysuggests the reason theVedic Āryanscould have borne animosity towards the Nāga
people, and it also indicates the crimes they could have committed against them. It can be
surmised that the Āryans, migrating to areas that were already inhabited, desired to acquire the
resources of the land that the indigenous people had,butthe latter opposed the incursion of the
Āryans; therefore the Āryansseized what they desired bywhatever means possible. Of course,
the question whether the Āryans were emigrants to the Indus Valley or whether they themselves
were indigenous, is still unanswered, and this question, if answered, may concretize the motive
of Āryans‘ persecution of the Nāgas. However, at this time, most scholarly evidence not only
suggests the former perspective that the Āryans were emigrants, but it also validates the
culpability of the Āryans as that of a foreign community usurping the wealth of the original
inhabitants. Butno matter the perspective—Migrationist or Indigenous Āryanist--the inflictions
that the Nāga people suffered at the hands of the Vedic Āryans cannot be invalidated, and it is
clear that the basis of injuring nāgas was established long before the Mahābhārata‘s snake
sacrifice in which king Janamejaya tried to exterminate them. In fact, as Christopher Minkowski

10
Vogel, J. (1995). Indian Serpent Lore Or the Nagas In Hindu Legend and Art. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.
11
Raina, R. L. (1993). Mahābhārata Traditions and Kashmir’s Links with the rest of India (Bharat). In K.S. Singh
(Ed),The Mahābhārata and its Tribal and Folk Traditions (pp.22-27). Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Studies.
 N a y a k | 37

says, the story of the snake sacrifice has ―more Vedic precedent than the Bhārata story itself‖
(2007, p. 386).12
This early Āryan-Nāgaenmity over the earth‘s resources of land and water is not difficult
to believe, especially in the context of the migrationist view, because it can be easily argued that
the Āryans, as new arrivals to the land, needed these resources for their survival. However, this
enmity turned to violence that the Āryans perpetrated against the Nāgas, because, the Nāgas
proved to be a daunting enemy, and this practice of persecution became abedrock for later
interpolations and myth-making. Sukumari Bhattacharji(2000) explain this as follows:
―Enemy chiefs… can withhold the water supply to an invading enemy and thus virtually
create the conditions of a siege (for the invader) and maintain these conditions
indefinitely. In later mythology cosmic interpretations were given to what was perhaps
originally a military situation. This became [Indra‘s] cosmic function, when his military
prowess had ceased to retain the former glory because the invaders were already
settled in the land. Once they had become a peacefully settled agricultural people, the
memory of early warfare became transmuted to suit the needs of the day‖ (p. 256).13

It is important to note here that some scholars, like Bhattacharji, equatenāgas and
asuras: ―Historically it may be safe to assume that Indra‘s enemies (the asuras) were the non-
Āryans (i.e. pre-Āryan on Indian soil) chiefs who offered resistance to the hordes of the Āryans;
some may even have been rival tribal leaders among the Āryans. The numerous demons seem
to have been indigenous tribal heads, rulers of petty principalities whom Indra had to defeat one
by one in order that the Āryan army could have access to wealth and land‖ (p. 253).14However,
Bhattacharji‘s use of the terms nāgasand asuras synonymously for events in the context of early
Vedic times discounts the evidence which suggests that, unlike the nāgas, the asuras were
either one of the five Āryans tribes, or at least within the Āryan fold. (This will be explained in the

next chapter). Perhaps, scholars see this synonymity because in the ṛg, Āryan enmity against

the Nāga triberesembles the animosity they bore towards the asuras. However, it is also
important to note that in epic times the terms nāga and asuraare not at all equivalent; in fact, in
epic literatures, nāgas gain ascendency, while the asuras suffer degradation. Another reason for
this perspectiveof equivalency in the concepts of nāga and asuracould bethe Vedic asura

12
Minkowski, C. Z. (2007). Snakes, Sattras and the Mahābhārata. In Arvind Sharma (Ed), Essays on the
Mahābhārata (pp.384-400). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Bhattacharji. S. (2000). The Indian Theogony Brahmā, Viṣṇu &Śiva. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
13

14
Ibid. p. 253.
 N a y a k | 38

chief,Varuna, and his association with water, rivers, and māyā—aspects that were also related
to the serpents. After Varuna‘s degradation from being the Divine Asura and keeper of ṛ ta in

the ṛg to simply lord of waters, he lives beneath the waters with his consort Varuni. There he

issurrounded by serpents of all variety--the most notorious and the most pious, such as
Takśaka, Airāvata, Padma, and Vāsuki--and all pay homage to Varuna in his underwater
palace. (Mbh 2.9).
It is also possible that the animosities the Āryans bore towards the asurasand Nāgas
people came to be seen as equivalent, because both the Nāgas and asuras were a power that
threatened the Āryans; hence, in Vedic literatures, they were both seen as practitioners of an-
ṛ ta, which, in the Vedic Āryan vocabulary, was an evil against them. As Briffault explains,
―power in egalitarian primitive society is intrinsically an evil thing; it is synonymous with power to
harm‖ (cited in Patil, 1974, p. 33).15However, Briffault also explains that ―the distinction between
‗good‘ and ‗evil powers, to which our theological ideas attach so much importance, is of little
relevance in primitive thought, and can indeed scarcely be said to exist‖(ibid).Briffault‘s claim
can certainly be applied to the Vedas, which were a-moral texts; the practices described in them
cannot be seen as ethical or unethical, let alone as exemplary of ethics; hence, to perceive
something as evil because it was so in the Vedic times is to invite ethical falsity in
norms.Therefore when the Mahābhārata, which operates within the ethical system of
dharma,claims to be fixed in the truth of the Vedas, and it portrays the nāgas as normative evil
based on Vedic conceptions; it creates ethical ambiguities.
In actuality, contrary to the Mahābhārata‘sethics-based portrayal of the nāgas, the Vedic
Āryans saw the nāgas as ‗evil‘ simply because they were equally powerful as their divines. Case
in point isVṛtra, who could have been a Nāga, and who matched Indra in strength and
surpassed him in wealth. Jaan Puhvel (1987) calls Vṛtra a ―monstrous adversary‖ (p.
50).16However, Puhvel believes that adversaries like Vṛtra were neither real nor indigenous
butpart of a wholly Āryan mythology, because theĀryan divines were inherently dualistic; and
mythical beings like Vṛtra were the flip side of their ‗good‘ divines. But, no matter what origin
Puhvel gives to Vṛtra, hisexplanation of the word Vṛtra lends meaning to the adversarial
relationship between Āryans and Nāgas. Puhvel states that ―Vṛtra‘s name is an original abstract
noun…from the same root [‗vr‘ meaning ‗to confine‘ or ‗to restrict]that yields Varuna-, thus

15
Patil. S. April (1974). Earth Mother. Social Scientist, 2 (9), 31-58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516111.
Accessed: April 5, 2012.
16
Puhvel, J. (1987) Comparative Mythology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
 N a y a k | 39

literally ‗Confinement‘, and then actively ‗Confiner, Obstructer‖ (ibid).17In fact,Monier Williams
(2005) also defines ‗vṛtṛ i‘as one who ―keeps back or wards off‖ or an ―expeller‖ (p. 922).18Puhvel
goes on to explain that ―confinement‖ can be for good or evil, just as māyā, which both Varuna
and Vṛtra use, but since Varuna uses it to maintain ṛ ta, his māyā and ‗confinement‘ can be
considered for good; whereas, Vṛtra‘s māyā and confinement is to bring evil (50-51).19Puhvel‘s
explanation of the etymology ofVṛtra and Varuna can be used to arrive at a new understanding
of Vṛtra. It is possible that Vṛtra was not a name of a single Āryan enemy—Nāga or asura--but
a generic name to refer to the quality of someone who ‗confines‘ a desired object, is powerful;

and hence a threat. For example, in the famous Indra vs. Vṛtraṛg Vedic myth, Vṛtrais not defined

as a nāga, but his ‗shoulder less‘ and ‗coiled‘ characteristics could simply have been a metaphor
to describe him as similar to a serpent who sits coiled over something he wishes to protect or
‗confine‘.
The idea that Vṛtra was a name used for someone powerful, perhaps a chief of a
Nāgatribe,is further evidenced in other Vedic hymns in which Nāgas oppose the Āryans in the

way Vṛtra does. For instance, many of Indra‘s battles to release the waters in the ṛg are against

Ahi—a term that has cognate Greek forms Ophis and Echis, meaning serpent (Bhattacharji,
2000, p. 255).20As an example, in the following hymn, Indra slays Ahi (a word Griffith translates
as dragon) to cleave the waters from the mountain.
I will declare the manly deeds of Indra, the first that he achieved, the Thunder-wielder.
He slew the Dragon [Ahi], then disclosed the waters, and cleft the channels of the

mountain torrents (RV 1.32:1).

And in this hymn, Indra once again slays Ahi to free the seven rivers.
Who slew the Dragon [Ahi], freed the Seven Rivers, and drove the kine forth from the
cave of Vala, Begat the fire between two stones, the spoiler in warrior‘[s battle, he, O

men, is Indra. (RV 11.12:3.).

In these hymns Ahi could have been a term used to refer to the Nāgas, whose chief was
the ‗confiner‘ or a vṛtra and who opposed Āryans‘ acquisition of water. But no matter the identity
of Vṛtra, the fact is that he and the Nāgas were a ―roadblock on the path of Āryan progress‖

17
Ibid. p. 50-51
18
vṛ tṛ i. In Sanskrit English Dictionary. (2005). Ed. Monier Williams. (New Ed). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
19
Puhvel, J. (1987) Comparative Mythology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bhattacharji. S. (2000). The Indian Theogony Brahmā, Viṣṇu &Śiva. New Delhi: Penguin Books
20
 N a y a k | 40

(Puhvel, 1987, p. 50)21 and their elimination was necessary for Āryan prosperity. In addition,
Puhvel states that the good and evil of ‗confinement‘, too, depends on who is jailed and who is
the jailor (ibid); hence suggesting that while Indra may have been fighting Vṛ tra for Āryan
interest, and Varuna may have been safeguarding that interest;Vṛtra, the Āryan victim, may
have been represented as the evil criminal because he opposed Āryan interest by holding back
the water, and his power threatened to bring harm to Āryan interest.
The case thatthe Nāgaswereseen as evil because they were powerful and were not easy
to subjugate by theĀryans can be made more strongly with the metaphor that the serpents may
have created in the Āryan mind. The Āryans may have known serpents in their own land of
origin. J. Vogel (1995) points out that the word nāga is related to the English word ‗snake‘ and,
consequently, is Indo-Germanic in origin (p. 6),22 which, from a migrationist perspective,
suggests that the Āryans already had a vocabulary for serpents. In addition, the Āryans also
encountered venomous serpents in India; therefore, when they met powerful human adversaries
who they feltreflected the attributes of the reptiles that were baneful to their existence, they saw
an equation between them and the dangerous serpents. This then may have contributed to the
Āryans creating myths not only aboutenemy Nāgas but also about their own gods who they

invested with powerful qualities similar to or superior to the nāgas. For example, in some ṛg

Vedic hymns, Agni is given snake-like qualities.―He [Agni] in mid-air‘s expanse hath golden
tresses; a raging serpent, like the rushing tempest‖ (RV 2.79:1). Coomaraswamy (1935) points
out that this―fire," [is] more correctly, Agni ab intra as Ahi Budhnya, Aupia, the ‗"flesh-eating,
man-hurting"‘ (kravydt . . . purusa-resanah) Agni of Atharva Veda (ref. AV III. 21. 8-9)‖ (p.
279).23Perhaps, the bite that the venomous serpentsdelivered, which, in some instances, was
capable of delivering instantaneous death was seen by the Āryans as being as lethal as Agni‘s
flesh-eating capability. For the Āryans, Agni‘s heat was a result of his tējas, and they may have
felt that the serpents possessed the same tējas (Vogel 1995, p. 15).24
The Nāgas also may have been seen to possess qualities that were beyond the Āryan
comprehension—qualities that bordered on divine mysteries. For example, Sukumari
Bhattacharji (2000) suggests that the Nāgas probably lived ―on the other side of the forest‖ (p.

21
Puhvel, J. 1987 Comparative Mythology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
22
Vogel, J. (1995). Indian Serpent Lore Or the Nagas In Hindu Legend and Art. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.
23
Coomaraswamy, A. K. (1935). Chāyā. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 55 (3), pp. 278-283.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/594829. Accessed: Dec. 15, 2011.
24
Vogel, J. (1995). Indian Serpent Lore Or the Nagas In Hindu Legend and Art. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.
 N a y a k | 41

149),25 or, from ṛg Vedic hymns, we can surmise that they lived beyond water bodies. In other

words, the Nāgas lived in places that were hard for the Āryans to traverse. These were
probably dense forests and deep water bodies that the Āryans were afraid to cross, but the
Nāgas, who were more familiar with the lay of land, were able to not only cross them but also
execute surprise attacks and then disappear. In addition, because the Āryans didn‘t have
access to the ‗other side‘, they believed that the Nāgas were hoarding wealth there. But this
ability to disappear is what the Āryans equated with the serpentsthat disappeared into the earth
after delivering a death biteand became‗invisible‘,and this was , perhaps, the most mystifying,
becauseit suggested a quality of māyā or illusion to the Āryans.In their mind, this was a divine
attribute, albeit of a dark nature; therefore, both Varuna and Indra were made to possessmāyā--
an attribute, which significantly, in earlier hymns, meant wisdom, extraordinary or supernatural
power and later came to mean ‗illusion, unreality, deception, fraud, trick, sorcery, witchcraft, and
magic. (Bhattacharji2000, p. 35).26
Another cause of envy bordering on awe may have been theĀryan belief that the Nāgas
had the secret to immortality, becausethe serpents, who the Nāgas resembled,were able to cast
off their skin and live in a new body; thus giving the impression of immortality, and this secret to

immortality the Āryans wanted to possess. In fact, a hymn in the ṛgVeda compares a serpent

gliding out of his skin to a stream of soma, the elixir which was seen as a means to attain
immortality:
Sing forth to Pavamana skilled in holy song: the juice is flowing onward like a mighty
stream. He glideth like a serpent from his ancient skin…(RVIX. 86:44).
Vogel (1995) gives another example from the Tandya-Mahabrāhmaṇ aof how the serpents‘
ability to discard their skin made them equal to the deathless Adityas:
By this sacrifice, verily, the serpents have conquered death; death is conquered by those
who will perform this sacrifice. Therefore, they cast off their old skin; and having cast the
same, they creep out of it. The serpents are Adityas; like unto the splendor of the
Adityas is the splendor of those who perform this sacrifice (p.14).27

These qualities that rendered the serpents immortal, full of tējas, andmāyāvi are what
made the Nāgas not only more powerful than the Vedic Āryans but also more wealthy, because

25
Bhattacharji. S. (2000). The Indian Theogony Brahmā, Viṣṇu &Śiva. New Delhi: Penguin Books
Bhattacharji. S. (2000). The Indian Theogony Brahmā, Viṣṇu &Śiva. New Delhi: Penguin Books
26

27
Vogel, J. (1995). Indian Serpent Lore Or the Nagas In Hindu Legend and Art. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.
 N a y a k | 42

they possessed treasures that were beyond material assets, and all this power and wealth is
what the Āryans desired to ‗steal‘ from the Nāgas, so that they could empower themselves and,
most importantly, their divines. Conversely, these were also qualities that, perhaps, came to be
seen as evil, because they made the Āryans feel threatened, and consequently, inferior.
Therefore, to overcome this sense of inferiority, they not only attacked the Nāgas and stole from
them, but they also hailed theirown criminal actions as victories. In addition,to validate these
wrongful actions, they attributed them to divine help. For example, in the following hymn, Indra
is praised for helping his worshippers kill the enemies and win riches:
For success in this battle where there are prizes to be won, we will invoke the generous
Indra, most manly and brawny, who listens and gives help in combat, who kills enemies
and wins riches (The Rig Veda, 1981, p. 154.).28

And, in this following myth, Indra helps the worshippers overcome weakness so that they can
subdue the enemy:
We call onthee, King. Mighty amid the Gods, Ruler of men, to succor us
All that is weak in us, Excellent God, make firm, make our foes easy to subdue. (RV
VI.47:6).

It was this fact of Āryan envy of the Nāgas that may actually have destroyed the Nāgas
and their way of life and, in a broader sense, brought about the end of the Indus Valley
civilization. D.D. Kosambi says,―this decline is attributed to the Āryans who destroyed the
agricultural system by breaking the embankments [perhaps, created by the Nāgas] to retain the

flood from the river water,‖ which action, he maintains, ―is symbolically referred to in the ṛgVedic

descriptions of Indra destroying Vṛtra, and releasing the waters‖ (cited in Thapar, 1993, p.
101).29In fact, the Āryan actions destroyed not just the land and its resources but also a belief
system about which we may never learn. Promatha Nath Mullick and M.N. Dutt (1934) suggest
that Nāgas themselves may not have been people but deities of the indigenous people.
Referencing an article by Kasten Rönnow, "Visvarupa in the Indian Studies", Mullick and Dutt
say that Vişvarūpa, son of Tvastra [in the Indra vs. Vṛ tra myth] was a ―serpent deity closely

connected with pre-Vedic sacrifices (p. 35).30Hence the ṛg Vedic killing of Vṛtra by Indra could

28
The Rig Veda. (1981), 3:31.22. Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty (Trans). London: Penguin Books.
29
Thapar, R. (1993)Interpreting Early India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
30
Mullick, P.N. and Dutt, M.N. (1934). The Mahabharata, A Critical Study 1934. Calcutta: Pioneer Press Allahabad.
 N a y a k | 43

have been a symbolic killing between divines-- the Āryan divine destroying an indigenous divine
to establish supremacy. Rönnow‘s suggestion is an important one, because it introduces
another kind of usurping--one that is more destructive than the material theft of land, water, and
wealth. This is the disintegration of the very foundation that holds a people together—its
connection with the mythic divine and cosmic order.
There is much polemic about the pre-Āryan, indigenous theology of the Indus Valley
people, and whether the solarity of the Āryan male divines may have supplanted the lunar
earth/mother goddess and possibly also a male nature god, perhaps an earlier form of Śiva‘s
Paśupata form. The extant literature from those early times is only Āryan, since the Indus
Valley seals have yet to be deciphered; hence this argument cannot be concretized. But the fact
that the Ṛg Vedic hymns eulogize mostly solar male gods that are obviously only Āryan carries
much weight, because, this not only creates a one dimensional gender-biased pantheon, it also
discounts the theology that must have belonged to the non-Āryans of the Indus Valley, which
may have included a chief Mother Goddess. Whatever the case may be about the gender or
nature of indigenous divines, it can be surmised that the gods of theindigenous people, (whether
they were Nāgagods or divines of other aboriginal tribes), were seen as the ‗other‘ by the
Āryans; and hence they were discredited so that the Āryans could install their own cosmology
and the supremacy of their own divines.
In the Mahābhārata, too, there is no real evidence of Nāga deities or the Nāga cosmos,
or eventhe Āryans‘ persecution of theNāgas,except in the snake sacrifice. In fact, it is also not
clear whether there were actually humans belonging to the Nāga race in epic times, because in
the myths of the Mahābhārata, the Nāgas appear both as humans and as serpents, and since
myth-making is most often symbolic and metaphoric, it is hard to determine whether the stories
in the mythsare about Nāgaswho were human, about humans who were serpent-like in
appearance and/or attributes, or about serpents who were human-like. A good example of this
ambiguity is the story of Śeṣ aNāga in Mahābhārata‘s ĀdiParva (Mbh 1.36):Śeṣ aNāga, unlike,
the other sons of Kadru, who are of ―wicked hearts,‖ is a virtuous and pious ascetic, practicing
great penances. When Brahmā sees him ―with knotted hair, clad in rags, his flesh, his skin and
sinews dried up,‖ he asks him what he is doing and why. Śeṣ a tells him that he wants to
dissociate himself from his younger brothers, who never show kindness to their cousin, Garuda,
Vinata‘s son, and wants to discard his body so that he does not have to live with them.Brahmā
then gives him a boon that he will hold the earth steady ―for the good of all creatures,‖ and he

directs Śeṣa to go underneath the earth through a passage that the Earth herself will make for
 N a y a k | 44

him. Śeṣ aenters into a hole in the earth and, going to the other side, takes on the duty of
keeping the earth steady. Clearly, in this myth, Śeṣ a‘s appearance, after he spends years in
penance, becomes like a serpent‘s, and the fact that he is able to borrow into the earth is a
serpent‘s characteristic. This myth suggests that Śeṣ a is a human being with serpent-like
qualities, which, in turn suggests that there may have been a Nāga race—or, at least a brethren
community of Nāgas—a people that may have had physical attributes that resembles serpents.
But, on the other hand, the fact that Śeṣ a is born to Kadru, the mother of serpents,creates
ambiguity abouthis human-ness.
Another example of this cryptic nature of nāgas reference in the Mahābhārata is
provided byŚiva and his association with nāgas. In fact, Śiva‘s connection with ―many dark and
dread objects, including serpents‖(Bhattacharji, 2000, p. 149),31is in almost all the texts in which
he is referenced, andhis connections with the serpents becomes integral to the portrayal of his
divinity. In the Mahābhārata, for example, Śiva‘s Paśupata weapon is a serpent, which is
revealed in Drona Parva when Arjuna, in his dream, visits Śivato ask him for the Paśupata so

that he can destroy Abhimanyu‘s killer, Jayadaratha. In Śiva‘s abode, Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa see a

―terrible serpent‖ and another ―foremost of serpents possessing a thousand hoods, of the
effulgence of fire…vomiting terrible flames‖ (Mbh7.81:13) As Arjuna and Krishna praise Śiva,
the two serpents assume the form of a bow and arrow (Mbh 7.81, 82).In addition to using
serpents as weapons, Śiva is also Nīlakantha because he swallows the deadly poison Halāhala
during the churning of the ocean (Mbh1.18:41-42), and since poison is the tējas of serpents, by
Śiva swallowing it, he takes the tējas of serpents within him and becomes one with them.Thus,
in these myths, the human element of nāgas is missing, because many of Śiva‘s attributes are
derived from serpent power; but, what can be inferred from these Śiva myths is that the
serpents were either themselves deities of a community, whose divinity Śiva assumes or that
Śiva himself was a divine for a people who were nāga-like; that is why Śiva embodiestheir most
powerful and transcendent qualities.
However ambiguous the Mahābhārata myths maybe in determining the nature of nāgas,
what is quite apparent is that the Mahābhārata inherited from the Vedic myths about
nāgastheconcept of the persecution of ‗the other‘. The metaphor of evil that the nāgascreated
in the Āryan mind became the nāga legacy in the serpent myth cycle and sacrifice in the epic,
and this became the reason for not just their elimination but also the annihilation of their world

Bhattacharji. S. (2000). The Indian Theogony Brahmā, Viṣṇu &Śiva. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
31
 N a y a k | 45

through a sacrificial ritual. How this total elimination can be accomplished through ritual sacrifice
is explained by Mircea Eliade (1959). He says a sacrifice is a ‗taking over‘ or an establishing of
a new ‗fixed point‘ or a sacred space:
All this becomes very clear from the Vedic ritual for taking possession of a territory;
possession becomes legally valid through the erection of a fire altar consecrated to Agni.
―One says that one is installed when one has built a fire altar [grahapatya] and all those
who build the fire altar are legally established‖ (ŚatapathaBrāhmaṇa, VII, 1, 1, 1-4). By
erection of a fire altar Agni is made present, and communication with the world of the
gods is ensured; the space of the altar becomes a sacred space (p, 32).32

Hence, through the medium of ritual sacrifice, a pre-existing divine or space is taken
over and a new divine and sacred space is established. In addition, Eliade goes on to explain
how a new sacred space re-creates the very cosmos of the sacrificers, replacing the old
cosmos. He explains that ―consecrating a territory is equivalent to making it a cosmos, to
cosmicizing it. For, in fact, the erection of an altar to Agni is nothing but the reproduction—on
the microcosmic scale—of the Creation (ŚatapathaBrāhmaṇa, 1. 9, 2, 29, etc.). Hence the
erection of the fire altar—which alone validates taking possession of a new territory—is
equivalent to a cosmogony‖ (p. 33).33This ‗taking possession‘ of the nāga world is the key motif
in the entire nāga myth cycle in the Mahābhārata--not just in mythical terms but also in terms of
real societal paradigms.

32
Eliade, M. (1959). The Sacred and the Profane. Willard R. Trask. (Trans). Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
33
Ibid. p. 33
 N a y a k | 46

(ii) Reinterpretation of NāgaMyths

1. Uttanka and the usurping of the nāga world

There are a number of myths within the framework of the snake sacrifice myth in the
Mahābhāratathat depict Āryan persecution of the nāgas. But the myth which makes this Āryan
usurpation of the nāgasacred space and cosmos most evident is the myth of Uttanka (Mbh 1.3).
This is an elaborate myth with various elements, each one yielding immense meaning and
lending credence to theargument about how the nāgas‘ world was usurped by the Āryans. This
myth is also rich with symbolism, suggesting many problems of evil, but the main focus of it is
on how the Nāgas are the ‗other‘ and their world was one that the Āryans hoped to control and
subjugate, or as Mircea Eliade says, to ‗cosmocize‘ in their own traditions, because, ―it must be
understood that the cosmocization of unknown territory is always a consecration; to organize a
space is to repeat the paradigmatic work of the gods‖ (Eliade, 1959, p. 32).34In other words, the
‗taking possession‘ is given a divine quality to justify it. In the Uttanka myth, a key symbol of this
cosmocization is the stick that Uttanka uses to dig a hole in the ground where Takśaka has
disappeared with the gold earrings Uttanka had obtained from king Pauśya‘s queen to give to
the wife of his guru, Veda, as his gurudakśinā. This stick represents a sacred pole. Explaining
the meaning of this stick/pole, Eliade says that one way to cosmocize the territory is to plant a
sacred pole to establish the fixed point and it is around this point that the territory can be
anointed (p. 33).35 In fact, this prevalence of cosmocizing a territory with a pole is so significant
increating a new sovereign order that even the Kuru dynasty in the Mahābhāratais established
through the practice. In the epic myth, Indra gives Vāsu (King of Cedi) a bamboo pole to ―protect
the honest and peaceful,‖ and Vāsu plants it and worships Indra (Mbh 1.63:15). This is the fixing
of a new cosmic order. This order is the orientation for the Kurus: Vāsu‘s semen, spilled from
his desire for his wife, Girika, is swallowed by an apsarā in the form of a fish who then gives
birth to twins—Matsya and Satyavati--and Satyavati becomes the matriarch of the Kuru family
(Mbh 1.63:37-78). Thus, the Kuru cosmic universe is created by connection with Indra, and
then the order is sustained by the passage which is created from the planting of Indra‘s pole,
which creates a bridge between the worlds.

34
Eliade, M. (1959). The Sacred and the Profane. Willard R. Trask. (Trans). Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
35
Ibid. p. 33.
 N a y a k | 47

Therefore, this pole not only sustains the cosmic order but it is also instrumental in
building a bridge to the ‗other side‘, which can be either the much desired world of one‘s own
divine above or the underworld of the abhorred ‗other‘ below. Eliade (1959) also explains how
the sacred pole must be kept intact in order to channelize the communication between the
worlds. He uses the example of an aboriginal wandering tribe in Australia, the Arunta, and their
divine being, Numbakulla, who cosmocized the territory of the tribe by making a sacred pole
from a gum tree, and after anointing it, he climbed up the pole and vanished into the sky—the
celestial world. Eliade also tells of how the breaking of the pole is catastrophic and the return of
chaos. Therefore the Arunta carry their sacred pole with them where ever they go and let it lead
them, making sure it never breaks (p.33).36
In the Uttanka myth in the Mahābhārata, the stick Uttanka is using, breaks, which
heralds a loss of Āryansacred space and order. But, Indrareplaces Uttanka‘s brokenstick with
his thunderbolt—a pole of energy and most sacred. Hence, Indra not only creates a divine
bridge to the other side but he also prevents the ‗chaos‘ (in Āryan construct) which could have
resulted from Uttanka‘s broken stick. Through this bridge, Uttanka descends to the other world
and becomes instrumental in Āryanizing it. In other words, this myth is the invasion of the
‗other‘s‘ sacred space by the Āryans and the establishment of their own symbolic cosmogony.
The point where Takśakahas disappeared into the ground after stealing the earrings is the ‗fixed
point‘ or ṛ ta of the Nāgas, and Uttanka digging the stick at this very sacred fixed point is

violating the others‘ cosmic order. Mircea Eliade explains that ―ṛta is the sacred space…

because it reveals the fixed point, the central axis for all future orientation…a sacred space
possesses existential value for religious man; for nothing can begin, nothing can be done,
without a previous orientation—and any orientation implies acquiring a fixed point…The
discovery or projection of a fixed point—the center—is equivalent to the creation of the world‖
(p. 21-22).37 In addition, Eliade adds that―ṛ tawas not only the fixed point of a hierophany, it was
also ―the only real and real-ly existing space‖(p. 20).38Joseph Campbell (1968) calls this fixed
point the World Navel. ―The point of entry being the center of the symbolic circle of the universe,
the Immovable Spot…around which the world maybe said to revolve. Beneath this spot is the
earth-supporting head of the cosmic serpent, the dragon, symbolical of the waters of the abyss,
which are the divine life-creative energy and substance of the demiurge, the world-generative
aspect of the immortal bring…Thus the World Navel is symbol of the continuous creation‖ (p.

36
Ibid. p. 33
37
Ibid. p. 21-22
38
Ibid. p. 20.
 N a y a k | 48

40-41).39Therefore, the Nāga world on the other side of the World Navel would be a continuation
of the Āryan world, but before the fixed point is created, it is ruled by the Nāgas and anointed by
their divines.
Therefore, when Uttanka‘s stick breaks and Indra intervenes with his thunderbolt; it
becomes theperfect symbol of Āryan hierophany, and through its piercing, the other side
isconsecretized with Āryan cosmology. Hence, what Uttanka finds on the other side are
parallelsin time and space to the Āryan world above. The other side is complete with palaces,
houses and arenas. Uttanka also seesDhāta and Vidhāta,who are weaving a clothwith threads
of black and white to represent the universe and the beings that inhabit it. There are also six
boys, representing seasons, turning a wheel that has twelve spokes marked by twenty-four
division to mark the lunar changes. There is even a parallel Indra wearing a black cloth to
display the truth and untruth of the world. But what is different about this world from Uttanka‘s
own above is that this one is the Nāgas‘ cosmos. However, Indra is able to invade this world
with the help of his thunderbolt acting as the sacred pole. His purpose in invading this space is
also clear, because when he grants Uttanka control of this world, he consecretizes it with the
Agni he creates from his horse‘s nostrils. In fact, the horse Indra is riding is Uccaiḥśravas, a
form of Agni himself, and the fire Agni emits is the sacrificial fire to destroy the Nāga world and
replace it with Indra‘s Āryanized cosmology. This evocation of Agni is like building a sacrificial
alter, because possession [of a territory] becomes legally valid through the erection of a fire alter
consecrated to Agni…[This] is nothing but the reproduction—on the microcosmic scale—of the
Creation...The erection of a fire alter…is equivalent to a cosmogony‖ (Eliade, 1959, p. 30-
31).40Hence, by sacrificing the Nāga world in the consecretizing flames of Agni, Indra and
Uttanka threaten to not only replace the Nāga cosmos with an Āryan one but also exterminate
the Nāgas, unless the creatures of the other world comply with Uttanka‘s demand of returning
the gold earrings that Takśakahas stolen from Uttanka, and this Takśaka does to save his race
and their way of life.
What is even more significant about Uttanka‘s myth is that it echoes every other
genocidal sacrifice in the epic; for example, the burning of the Khāndava in which Agni
consumes the forest and Arjuna and Krishna slaughter every creature living in it, be it beast,
piśāca, nāga, dānava or rākśasa. Also destroyed in the Khāndavafire are Takśaka‘s abode and
his family. The only ones to escape this holocaust are asura Maya, four Śṛ angaka birds

39
Campbell. J. (1968). The Hero With a Thousand Faces. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
40
Eliade, M. (1959). The Sacred and the Profane. Willard R. Trask (trans.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers.
 N a y a k | 49

Takśaka‘s son, Aśvasena, and Takśaka himself, who had not been in Khāndavaduring this
event(Mbh 2 228:42). The destruction of the Nāga world in the Uttanka myth also mirrors the
demolition caused in the churning of the ocean. And most importantly, it replicates the carnage
of the Bhārata war. Although the latter two annihilations are not consecrated by a fire alter; both
of them can be seen as sacrificial: the churning of the ocean is made a sacrifice by the planting
of Mount Mandar as a sacred pole, and the Bhārata war is ―sacrifice of weapons,‖ complete with
officials like Adhvaryu, Udgatṛ i and Sadasyas, and items like the sacred ladle, ghee, mantras,
and kuśa grass (Mbh 5.141:30-46). In addition to these replicas in the rest of the epic, Uttanka‘s
evocation of Agni in this Pauśya Parvamyth foreshadows the snake sacrifice, which occurs later
in the snake myth cycle, and in which Takśaka once again escapes.
What the Uttanka myth reveals about the epic Āryans is that even as they emerged from
the a-theistic, a-moral Vedic system into a theistic, dharma-based society; they carried with
them tendencies that the dharma constructwould classify as evil; such as, the extreme violence
perpetrated in these incidents cited above. While such extreme violence in the Vedic times may
have beenabsolved by the ṛ ta of ritual sacrifice; in the epic period, when sacrifice was replaced
by vidhi, and individual actions became a matter of personal accountability, this violence
became an immoral act of adharma. It also thoroughly violated the general ethics of ahiṃsa.
And considering that the snake sacrifice occurred after the Great War, the evil of ahiṃsa against
the Nāgas becomes even more inexcusable, because by this time, the ideals of non-violence
were hardly ‗new‘; they had already been incorporated into Āryan societal codes. Therefore, not
only did the paradigm of the Uttanka myth promote violence against the ‗other‘; it also
resurrected evil practices that the system had already expunged.

2. Vinata and Kadru: subjugation of the feminine

Another myth that is replete with mythical, symbolic and sociological paradigmatic evil is
the main myth in the snake sacrifice cycle that includes the stories of Kadru and Vinata and their
wager, the birth of the serpents, and the raison d‘être for Astika‘s existence (Mbh 1.14-17, 21-
35, and 37-58).One of the key symbolic interpretations of this long myth is that of wresting
power from a female and/ or an earth goddess to give to a ‗new‘ male god, thus creating
prototypes of cosmological annexation and female suppression.
According to the Great Goddess theories (ref. Marija Gimbutas, Johann Jakob
Bachofen, Sir James Frazer, et al) the Earth Goddess was the supreme divine, immortal, and all
 N a y a k | 50

giving, and in many world mythologies, she was symbolized as a serpent, because the serpent‘s
natural inclinations represented many of the Great Goddess‘ attributes, such as the serpent‘s
ability to shed its skin whichembodied the cyclical and triple nature of creation--birth, death, and
re-birth).In fact, this unending natural cycle that the feminine divine sustained and the serpents
represented, as opposed to the linearity of life and death of male gods, was considered
equivalent to immortality. But, as the era of the male god arrived, and time became linear with
life and death occurring in rigid linearity, this ‗secret‘ of immortality was lost, and the male gods
constantly pursued to re-discover it and possess it. Another Great Goddess element that the
serpent symbolized was the triple role of archetypal divine Triads, which was represented in the
snake‘s ability to live in three realms--burrow in the ground, swim in the water, and live on land.
Most importantly, in the era of the Great Goddess, the divine was not distant from and far and
above man; instead, this divine was in and around him (in the animals he hunted and the earth
he tilled), and he communicated with his divine at his own level of existence, literally and
figuratively. Therefore, theserpents‘ earth-bound existenceexemplified this close relationship
between man and divine. However, in the new era of male-ness, since the divine was no longer
in close proximity, but far above; the intimate relationship between man and divine severed,
transforming the divine into one who was a distant and fearsome Being living somewhere
above. And, of course, only the males claimed to know the secrets of reaching Him. One of
these secrets was flight. (Since the God was up and above, flight represents man‘s
transcendence to reach Him.) Hence, as male power became dominant, the Great Goddess
and her symbol--the serpent--were declared threatening demons, and they were ousted from
power and relegated to the underworld. There are many examples of degradation of the
serpent earth goddess in world mythologies; for example, the Norse, Jormungand; Greek,
Ophion; and the Judaic and Christian Serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Another degradation of the mother goddess and condemnation of her symbols,
especially, the serpent, can be deduced from the archetypal symbol of the moon. The moon
was associated with soma, which, by virtue of being an elixir of immortality, was connected to
the Goddess, and consequently, to the serpents. Heinrich Zimmer (1972) reasons how this
inter-symbolism came about. He postulates that the heat in India was often life threatening, and
the moon was a refreshing element. Also, since the moon controlled the waters and water
sustained life, it was naturally Amṛ ta (a-mṛ ta—not dead). Thus, dew or water was soma, and
the moon was its cup (p. 60).41 A further assumption can be made from theories that explain

41
Zimmer, H. (1974). Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization. Joseph Campbell (trans). New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
 N a y a k | 51

how the cyclicality of the moon may have contributed to its perception as the earliest symbol of
the Great Goddess: the moon‘s waxing and waning represented the women‘s monthly cycles.
However, after the linear traditions of the male god become the norm, the lunar divinities were
associated with darknessand relegated as ‗demonic‘, and theirgodly attributes wereusurped by

the solar gods. A good example of this is the Vedic dark goddess Nirṛti, who, scholars believe

was a pre-Āryan earth goddess associated with the moon. Shard Patil (1974) suggests that not

only was Nirṛtia pre-Āryan goddess but she was also highly auspicious in pre-Āryan society. He

gives an example of the non-Brāhmanical records in the Kalpasūtra of Mahāvira‘s passing on

the most auspicious night of the new moon: ‗―this occurred in the year called Candra, the
second (of the lustrum): in the month called P ṛ tivardhan, the fortnight Nandivandhana; on the

day Suvrātagni, surnamed Upasama; in the night called Devānandā surnamed Nir ṛti‘‖ (cited in

Patil, p 32).42However, when the Āryans adopted Nirṛti, they made her, her symbols, and her

rituals a dark juxtaposition to off-set their own goddesses of light so that they could ensure their

own ascendency. Hence, while Aditiwas made the mother of the Adityas, Nirṛti was relegated to

dark designs of death and calamity.One of the main reasons for slandering the lunar earth
goddess was that she possessed soma or immortality. She was the goddess of fertility, and

hence the wife of Soma, who, in the ṛg is called the King of plants. For example: ―Of all the

many Plants whose King is Soma, plants of a hundred forms…‖ (RV, X.97:18). In fact,
according to the ŚatapathaBrāhmaṇa, the new moon is the occasion of the marriage between
earth and the King ofsoma, who is the moon, and since the old moon dies and a new one is
born, that is why it is said that within death is immortality. (cited in Patil, p. 37).43 Hence,
because the earth goddess possessed soma or immortality, the Āryans persecuted her; they
desired to wrest the soma from her to give to their own solar gods.
In the Vinata and Kadru myth, all of these elements of earth mother and her
persecutionare vividly apparent. Kadru, by virtue of being the mother of serpents is the earth,
who the TaittiriyaSaṃhitā refers to as ‗Sarpa-rajni‘ (cited in Patil, p. 52).44Monier Williams
defines Kadru as tawny brown (the color of the earth), and points out that according to the

42
Patil, S. (1974). Earth Mother. Social Scientist, 2 (9), pp. 31-58.http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516111.
Accessed: Jan. 4, 2012
43
Ibid. p. 37
44
Ibid. p. 52
 N a y a k | 52

Brāhmaṇ as, she is ‗the earth personified.‘ In addition, Williams gives meaning of the word,
kadru, as brown soma vessel, and says the word is related to legends about bringing down
Soma from the heavens (p. 248).45Kadru is even referred to as Surasa in the
Rāmāyana(5:1.144-151),46 a word that is defined by Monier Williamsas ―juicy,‖ ―well-flavored,‖
―full of moisture‖ (p. 1234).47 All these meanings make Kadru unquestionably the earth goddess
and possessor of soma.
On the other hand, Vinataiscalled Suparni, mother of Suparna, (another name for
Garuda (Mbh133:7), a word for which Monier Williams gives many meanings all related to
―beautiful wings‖ or ―large birds of prey‖ (p. 1227).48She is the mother of Garuda and Aruna,
both of whom not only have the ability to fly, but they are also associated with solarity; hence,
they represent the male god. Aruna is half-formed, because Vinata breaks his gestation egg
prematurely, but he flies to the sky to be the sun‘s heralder (Mbh 1.16:18-120), and Vinata‘s
second son, Garuda, who, immediately after birth, not only has the ability to fly (Mbh 1.16-23);
hence knows the secret of transcendence, but he is so empowered that he has to reduce his
tējas so as not to burn the world in his divine agni (Mbh 1.24:2). In addition to representing
male power, Garuda also displays the arrogance of maleness by condescending to contain his
power to be benevolent to the world.Hence, Garuda is equated to Viṣ ṇu himself, who is a solar
god and the embodiment of supreme maleness, divinity, and benevolence.
However, in the serpent myth,Kadru enslaves Vinata for five hundred years through
treachery. She coerces her serpent sons to braid themselves in the white tail of the divine

horse Uccaiḥśravas so that she can win a wager against her sister. Most likely, the years of

Vinata‘s slavery signify the time it took the Āryans to replace the feminine divines of the
indigenous people with their own solar male gods. Moreover, the fact that Kadru accomplishes
Vinata‘s bondage through devious meansshows that the Āryans, whose own pantheon was
male-dominated and their means of communication with their gods was through male
Brāhmins,considered the dominance of the feminine divines perverse and threatening. Thus, it
is not surprising that when Garuda seeks to release his mother from enslavement, the result is
the elevation of male gods and catastrophe for female power: It is also not surprising that when

45
Kadru in A Sanskrit English Dictionary. (2005). Ed. Monier Williams. New Ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
46 th
Srīmad Vālmīki-Rāmāyana (2004). 7 Ed. Part 11. Gorakhpur: Gita Press.
47
Surasa in A Sanskrit English Dictionary. (2005). Ed. Monier Williams. New Ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers.
48
Suparna in in A Sanskrit English Dictionary. (2005). Ed. Monier Williams. New Ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers.
 N a y a k | 53

Garuda goes to Indraloka to bring back amṛ ta to appease the serpents and release his mother
from bondage, Indra intervenes and makes a deal with Garuda. As per this deal, Garuda is able
to fulfill his promise to the serpents of bringing them soma, and yet, the serpents are not able to
drink it (Mbh 1.34), and this ensures their destruction (which is really female power) in the snake
sacrifice. Ironically, in this myth,soma is guarded by two ferocious serpents, which clearly
indicates that in theĀryanmind, theearth goddess knew the secret of immortality, or the
knowledge of life, death and renewal, and she guarded this secret fiercely. Therefore, to gain
access to this soma, Garudahas to fight the serpents. He shreds them to pieces and takes the
soma, (Mbh1.33:1-10) which is clearly a violent act of destroying the preeminence of the
goddess to claim possession of her attributes.
To compound this violent theft, the goddess is alienated and made to suffer grave

indignities. This is described in the myth when, on his way to bringingamṛta, Garuda carves

friendships with other male divines, such as Indra and Viṣ ṇu, and exchanges boons with them;
thus, not only strengthening the power of the male, but also creating a sort of exclusive ‗males
only‘ private club. And, when Garuda does bring the soma to the serpents,which was the deal
he had made with them to get his mother released from slavery, he deviously ensures that they
are not able to drink it. Placing the bowl of soma before them, he sends the serpents off to purify
themselves, and by the time they return, Indra, with whom, Garuda has already preplanned this
event, swoops down and takes away the bowl. Hence, the serpents are reduced to merely
licking the kuśa grass on which the bowl of soma had been placed, which further diminishes
them because their tongues become forked, a distortion for which they are forever reviled (Mbh
1.34:24). This alienation and powerlessness of the progeny of the feminine divine in a male-
dominated system is a deliberate subjugation, and the subsequent shredding of their dignity is
the final death-blow—a total degradation of the feminine from which women have been suffering
ever since.
Aside from the negative impact this myth had on the status of women, it also has many
reflections in the main story of the Mahābhārata, which further belittle women. It is obvious that
Gandhāri, the mother of a hundred sons, is a representation of the earth goddess Kadru, and
her offspring, the Kauravas, typify the Nāgas.She is the incarnation of goddess Mati (Mbh
1.67:136), who Monier Williams defines as ―resolve,‖ ―understanding,‖ intelligence, and a
daughter of Dakṣ a and wife of Soma (p. 783).49 Hence not only is she associated with the earth
goddess, but she also has the steadfast and sagacious qualities of the earth. And, of course,

49
Mati in A Sanskrit English Dictionary. (2005). Ed. Monier Williams. New Ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
 N a y a k | 54

the fact that Gandhāri blindfolds herself when she marries Dhṛtarāṣṭṛa so as not to be superior

to him in any way, indicates the feminine surrendering her powers to the male. On the other
hand, Kunti is similar to Vinata, because her sons are not only progeny of divine beings, but, like
Garuda, they have divine connections. Garuda‘s friendship and male bonding with Viṣ ṇu and
Indra is similar to Arjuna‘s relationship with Indra and Kṛṣṇa. And just as this divinity facilitates
Garuda‘s claim to dominance and sabotage of the serpents, so does the Pāṇ ḍ avas‘ celestial
relationship makes them sanctimonious and always contemptuous of the Kauravas.
Considering these co-relations, it can then be surmised that just as Garuda, with the help of
divine treachery, is able to not to only re-empower his mother, but is also able to keep the
serpents bereft of the soma that was their birth right, so are the Pāṇ ḍ avas, with the help of
divine manipulations, able to gain the kingdom and keep the Kauravas bereft of the wealth that
was theirs to begin with.In fact, in this co-relation some exact parallels can also be drawn. For
example, when Gandhāri attempts to make Duryodhana‘s body invincible by removing her
blindfold and looking upon her son‘s naked body with the tējas of her vow, Kṛṣṇa, like Indra
stealing the bowl of soma from the serpents, sabotages Duryodhana by mocking him into
wearing a loincloth; thus rendering his groin area vulnerable to Bhīma‘s death blow
(Mahābhārata ).50
Other examples in the main frame story of the Mahābhāratanot only mirror the Vinata
and Kadru myth but also raise ethical questions about the standards that are established for the
sanctity of social relationships and behaviors. For example, mother and child relationships are
subverted by both mothers-- Vinata and Kadru. Vinata damages the wellbeing of her first born,
Aruna, by forcing open the egg before its gestation period is completed, so that Aruna is half
formed when he is born. And Kadru coerces her children to commit an act of treachery to cheat
her sister. By having her sons braid themselves into the tail of the white divine horse

Uccaiḥśravas, she makes the horse appear black so that she can win the wager against her

sister Vinata who, as the loser,has to become her slave for five hundred years. In the epic, too,
although the culpability is reversed, the actions of the mothers are just as damning: Gandhāri
forces the birth of her sons by striking her belly with an iron rod, just to remain at par with Kunti,
who has already birthed Yudhiṣ ṭ hira (Mbh 1.115:10-14). In fact, the implication of the iron rod

50
Mahabharata. H. J. Resnik (trans). Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. an online translation of Mahābhārata.
http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/itihasa/mahabharata/eng/gbmb05xt.html. Accessed June 6,
2011. This incident in not included in the Critical Edition and the Devanāgri edition. In other north Indian editions,
this incident ends the Bhāgavatyana Parva of the Udyoga Parva.
 N a y a k | 55

that Gandhāri uses on her fetus reaches beyond the subverted birth of the Kauravas. By using
this iron rodto wittingly bring harm to her unborn children, Gandhāriimplements the destruction
of her race, because in a reversal of Eliade‘s sacred pole symbolism of consecretizing and
sustaining a society, this iron rod violates its sacredness and use. In fact, the evil use of this
iron rod canalso be intertextualized with ―the rod of punishment held by the celestials‖

(Mbh16.1:18) that is ‗born‘ as an iron bolt in the Vṛ ṣ ṇ i clan and becomes the cause of Kṛṣṇa‘s

destruction of his own race (Mbh16.3:31-41). (This myth will elaborated later on in the chapter,

―Dharmakṣ etra or Adharmakṣ etra”.) On the other hand, Kunti, too, violates her dharma as a

mother. To keep her own good name, like Kadru, she commits the evil of a grave untruth. By
keeping the secret of Karna‘s birth to herself, she impels her five sons to commit the grievous
sins of first denouncing their brother, maligning him, and then killing him. In fact, Kunti‘s
abandonment of Karna completely undermines the role of woman as nurturer, a behavior that
ruins her son, Karna‘s life.
This stain on motherhood is further darkened and made gruesome in some other myths
of the Mahābhārata, too, such as the myth of Skanda‘s birth (Mbh.2:228-232), in which the loss
of the earth mother‘s status causes women to become cannibalistic, eating their own
progeny.Although, this myth is not a directly connected to the Kadru and Vinata myth in
symbolism, but its connotations are similar to that myth in terms of the debasement of maternal
instincts, and Vinata and Kadru (along with other earth mothers) are also made to play the key
role of evil mothers. Skanda is born from the union of Agni and Svāha, the daughter of Dakṣ a,
who disguises herself as the wives of the six great Ṛṣis (she cannot assume the disguise of the
seventh, Arundhati, because of her asceticism) that Agni desires and tricks him into
impregnating her. After receiving the six seeds of Agni, Svāha throws them on a white
mountain and afraid of being found out, changes herself into the bird Garudi and flies away,
signifying the purity and transcendence of the male god that will be born. Skanda is born from
Agni‘s seeds and he is more powerful than Indra himself. Because he is born without a mother,
or has a mother whose identity is in question, all the mothers of the world come to him to nurse
him. These are the six wives of the great Ṛṣiswho have been abandoned by their husbands for
their alleged unfaithfulness: Vinata, Kadru, Aditi, Diti, Kritika, Rohini,et al. The implication here is
that these mothers, being creators of all the creature of the cosmos—serpents, birds, gods and
dānavas are a threat to the preeminence of males, especially Brāhmins; hence they are seen as
‗unfaithful‘. This becomes clear in the myth when all the mothers come to Skanda and, in a
verse suggesting the displacement of the Great Earth Goddess, say to him: ―In days of yore, the
 N a y a k | 56

ladies were appointed as the mothers of the creatures (human), O father of deities, we desire
that they are disposed of that dignity. Let us be installed in their place. Let us be worshipped
instead of them by all the worlds. Restore us our progeny whom we have been deprived of by
them‖ (Mbh 2.230:15). Skanda is not able to give them the status of the ―mothers of yore,‖ who
were supreme earth goddesses, but he promises to give them new progeny. However, these
mothers become vicious and desire to have the ability to ―eat up‖ the progeny of mothers who,
needless to say, live within the new codes of Āryan conduct that require women to be
subservient to men. Skanda admits that the bestowing of this boon would be ―painful‖ but he
grants it, saying, ―So long as the children of the human race do not attain the youthful state in
their sixteenth years, you will afflict them in your various forms. I bestow on you a fearful and
inexhaustible spirit‖ (Mbh 2.230:19). Hence these celestial and mothers become re-empowered,
but in a terrible evil. They become ‗eaters of progeny‘ in the form of abortions, miscarriages and
childhood diseases; thus,sullying the very nature of a woman‘s motherhood.
It is true that in pre-Āryans societies, the earth goddesses werealready seen as both
benevolent and maleficent. According to Briffault, ―they [had] the power to send diseases, to
cause sterility in women and in animals, to bring famine and render earth barren; they [had] the
power to kill. [But], they [had] also the power to withhold disease and to cure, to cause fertility in
women and in the earth, to bring life. Hence, one and same deity[was] the sender of diseases
and the deity of healing, the cause of sterility and the deity of motherhood and fertility; the power
of death and the source of life.‖ (cited in Patil, 1974, p. 33-34).51 Therefore while the earth
mother might appear to have contradictory powers, this contradiction was the very reason why
she was considered the Ultimate Divine; she had the ultimate power of polarities. In fact, it was
to keep her benign and calamitous power balanced that she was the object of propitiation. But,
it is important to note that her malevolence was not considered evil. In the Skanda myth,
however, the mother‘s benignity is stolen from her by the male god, and she is reduced to
simply ‗fearful‘ and pernicious.
Aside from the environment of the degradation of women that Kadru and Vinata myth
creates, it also brings to light other problems of evils in the Mahābhārata, such as the inequity of
societal laws and the loss of dignity the ‗other‘ had to suffer just to survive. This is apparent
from the ambiguity of why some nāgas, such as Vāsuki and Śeṣa, are not only considered
saintly, but are also co-creators of the Āryans universe. In fact, the snake sacrifice is halted and
the surviving serpents are ultimately saved by these very brethren, Vāsuki, Ānanta or Śeṣ a,

51
Patil, S. (1974). Earth Mother. Social Scientist, 2(9), pp. 31-58. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516111. Accessed: Jan. 4, 2012.
 N a y a k | 57

and finally Astika, the child of Jaratkaru and his serpent wife and sister of Vāsuki, also named
Jaratkaru (Mbh1.13-28 & 63-116). Astika is able to stop the massacre of his race, because he
introduces himself to Janamejaya and his priests at the sarpasattra, not as a nāga, or a nāga-
Brāhmin hybrid, but only asaBrāhmin, and he humbles himself to propitiate the king, in
adherence to Āryandharma. However, the key to understanding Astika‘s denial of his
nāgaidentity is his desperation to secure the survival of his race. It is obvious that this rescue is
a last resort, because it occurs only when there is a threat of extinction, as is suggested by the
names of his parents Jaratkaru, (meaning: old and withered). Hence, it can be inferred that the
serpents who are able to plead the snake case are followers of the ‗Āryan‘ dharma (as opposed
to their own) and have to prove their ‗good‘, or more appropriately, ‗ārya‘ behavior to be allowed
rights-- even the right to life. It is true that Astika father‘s name is also Jaratkaru, and his race of
Yāyavara Brāhmaṇa is at the point of extinction, but, this extinction is hardly grievous; it is not
because of a genocide; it is a natural order through lack of progeny. Additionally, the Brāhmin
race, as a whole is hardly threatened by the serpents; in fact, they are protected under Āryan
law, even if they indulge in evil behavior. For example, when Garuda is born and needs to eat to
sustain himself, his mother, Vinata, directs him to consume all the beings in the Niśāda tribe.
But, she advices him not to slay any Brāhmin, ―although he maybe always engaged in sinful
practices‖ (Mbh1.29:71).The inequitable laws in Āryan society are clearly evident here: a
majority or the powerful, although immoral, continue to thrive, whereas a minority or the
powerless can only be allowed to survive if they play by the rules, even if they have to go
against their own swadharma and deny their identity.
 N a y a k | 58

(iii)The Snake Sacrifice and Its Evil Implications

It can be argued that Astika‘s very existence and the fact that he is able to stop the
snake sacrifice and save the serpents proves that Āryan society,during epic times,was
becoming assimilated, and hybrid bloodlines (such as that of Astika, who is the son of a nāga
mother and a Brāhmin father) were being accepted. However, this does not discount the fact
that blood feuds, especially against anyone perceived as the ‗other‘ were still very much a part
of this society. In fact, genocide, to wipe out entire clans, was gaining the new sanction of
dharmayuddhas, i.e. a war against anyone who was perceived as a threat to one‘s ownership.
(this will be examined in detail in the last chapter). A clear exampleof this sanction is Arjuna‘s
burning of the Khāndava forest, which he undertakes as a pretext to fulfill his vow to Agni—his
warrior dharma, but the real reason, which is never revealed, is that Khāndava is the home of
Takśaka, king of serpents. Hence, this land, which Minkowski (1989), citing Baudhāyana, states
was not only where the original [Vedic] sarpasattra took place,but also, it is another name of
Indraprastha, the city the Pāṇ ḍ avas create after burning down the Khāndava forest (p.
414).52Other examples of mass killings through a dharmayuddhain the Mahābhārata include
Paraśurāma annihilation of the Kṣ atriyas, the massacre of the dānava race by the devas,
Aśvatthāman‘s night slaughter of the Pāṇ ḍ avas, including his feticide of Uttarā and
Abhimanyu‘s son, and, of course, the Bhārata War, which itself results in the complete
massacreof the Kurus and Pāṇ cāls, and relationally, even the Yādavas.
This theme of a genocidal dharmayuddha which, in turn, leads to a whole cycle of
vengeance and vindication is a leitmotif in the epic, and this is, perhaps, the most heinous of
evils that reeks from the snake sacrifice. Two such cycles are most apparent: oneperipheral tit-
for tat cycle of vengeance begins with the sisters Vinata and Kadru and is carried through by
their progeny, the serpents and Garuda; in fact, this hostility between birds of prey and snakes
has become proverbial. The other, more significant cycle of killings begins with Arjuna‘s evil
action of burning the Khāndava and killing Takśaka‘s family, who, in turn, seeks vengeance
from Arjuna‘s posterity. Takśaka‘s son, Aśvasena, tries to kill Arjuna by becoming Karna‘s arrow
in the war, but Kṛṣṇa saves Arjuna, preventing the Nāgas from getting their revenge, but the

cycle is furthered by the Brāhmin boy Śṛngin. On the micro scale of this myth, Śṛngin evokes

the on-again-off-again friend-foe hostility between Brāhmins and Kṣ atriyas by cursing

52
Minkowski, C.Z. (1989) Janamejaya’s Sattra and Ritual Structure. Journal of the American Oriental Society,109
(3), pp. 401-420. http://www.jstor.org/stable/604141. Accessed: April 5, 2012.
 N a y a k | 59

RajaParikṣit, but, in actuality, in a master stroke, he brings the animus between the Āryans and
the Nāgas to a head by naming Takśaka as the assassin of RajaParikṣit. Consequent to the
curse, Parikṣit is bitten by Takśaka, and Parikṣit‘s son Janamejaya, seeking revenge for his
father‘s death, vows to burn all serpents in a sacrifice. Finally, in a full circle, Takśaka kills
Parikṣit, Arjuna‘s grandson, and Parikṣit‘s son burns all, but a few, serpents in a sarpasattra.
What is also a significant problem of evil is that this genocidal sattraoccurs at that liminal
time between two yugas when a new order is just about to be established. Hence, the blood
feud that fuels this sacrifice spans both yugas, and the massacre of the ‗other‘ race at the very
outset of the yuga is like a pronouncement of the commandment that will guide this yuga. Also
noteworthy is the manner in which this sacrifice is performed and for what purpose. Unlike
sarpasattras of earlier times, such as those cited in the Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa and
Śrautasūtras, where the rite was performed to harm anyone, but to provide the sacrificers with
benefits such as wealth, sons, cattle, and victory over death (Minkowski, 2007,p. 388-389);53this
particular snake sacrifice is not for any material or abstract gain. In fact, in this sarpasattra,
aside from the Takśaka, all the other Nāgasbecome victims. They are burnt, not because of
any crimes, but only because they exist, and are the ‗others.‘ Hence, their elimination by the
Āryans can be seen as a call to ethnic cleansing, a state run pogrom, so to speak, to
exterminate the ‗other.‘
The purpose of this sattra becomes even more suspicious in light of the fact mentioned
earlier, that this sattra has the same structure as the first sarpasattra, as noted by Baudhāyana
in Śrautasūtras; but that sattra was performed by the Nāgas themselves to gain poison and to
become biters (Minkowski1989, p. 414)54. Minkowski also speculates about the fact that many
of the names of Nāgas who performed the first sattra are names of Brāhmins and Kṣ atriya
kings in the Mahābhārata: For example, the Brāhmin of the original sarpasattra was

DhṛtarāṣṭṛaAirāvata,and one of the Adhvaryu was Janamejaya. In addition, Minkowski points

out that Sadasyas of the Mahābhāratasarpasattra-- Vyāsa, Śamanthaka, Uddālaka, Śvetaketu,

Aita Devāla, Nārada, Pārvata, Ātreya, Kutighata, Vātsya Śrutaśravas, Kahoda, Devaśarma,
Maudgala, Śamasaubhara) are ―the most Vedic of Brāhmins‖ (1989, p 415).55This suggests that

53
Minkowski, C. Z. (2007) “Snake, Sattras and the Mahabharata.” In Arvind Sharma (Ed) Essays on the
Mahabharata , 384-400. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
54
Minkowski, C.Z. (1989) Janamejaya’s Sattra and Ritual Structure. In Journal of the American Oriental Society,109
(3), pp. 401-420. http://www.jstor.org/stable/604141. Accessed: April 5, 2012.
55
Ibid. p. 415.
 N a y a k | 60

in the snake sacrifice, Janamejaya and his Brāhmins hope to wipe out the serpents and assume
their venomous power—a diabolic supplanting through the means of aconsecretizing fire alter.
However, no matter what the purpose of the sarpasattra in the Mahābhārata,may have
been, what is clearly evident is that it has diabolic designs, because it is necrophilic in
execution-- a practice, which, ironically may even have been non-Āryan.The evidence of this is
the manner and appearance of the priests who perform the sacrifice at Janamejaya‘s behest.
They are dressed in black, ―their eyes red from smoke, [they pour] ghee in the sacrificial fire,
according to the Vedic mantra‖ (Mbh 1.52:1). Minkowski (2007) thinks that the black dress here
could be associated to the Vratyas of Atharva Veda, who were outside the Āryan fold but had
their own ceremonies and sacrifices, and, as Minkowski suggests, this non-śrauta, abhicara
influence of sorcery in the snake sacrifice suggests an uncalled for maliciousness(p. 391).56
This malevolent intent, in fact, becomes even more questionable and egregiouswhen it
is seen in the context of the elevation that the Nāgashad gained in post Vedic literature.While, in
the Vedas, the serpents and their metaphors were mostly negative and resulted from the threat
that the serpents posed for the Āryans; in the later literatures, the characteristics of the serpents
came to be seen as not just positive but also as representing superior warriorship. In these
literatures, the Āryans acknowledged Nāgas power and elevatedthe Nāgasto almost divine
status. For example: citing from the Atharva Veda, Vogel (1995) quotes a verse: ―Homage to
Asita, homage to Tiraśchirāji, homage to Svaja [and] Babhru, homage to god-people.‖ And he
explains that the four terms, asita (―black‖), tiraśchirāji (―cross-lines‖), svaja (―adder‖?), and
babhru (―brown‖) are commonly explained as denotating certain extant species of
serpents…names of serpents which apparently are associated with four quarters of the sky‖ (p.
8).57Vogel further mentions that in the Atharva Veda the serpents are referred to as devajana
and associated with gandharvas, apsarās and yakśas (p. 10).58In the Upaniṣ ads the metaphor
of a serpenteven came to represent the highest metaphysical truth. For example: ―As an anthill
lies a slough of a snake, dead and cast off, so does lie this body dead and cast off. Brāhmaṇa,
the Alone, is this immortal breath non corporeal, the Light indeed is it.‘‖ (cited from
Bṛ hadāraņkya Upaniṣ ad4:4.7 in Gupta 2008,p. 1029)59 In his commentary to this verse from
the Bṛ hadāraņkya Upaniṣ ad, Som Nath Gupta explains that the person who is liberated
emerges from his dead body just as a snake emerges from its skin. Hence, ―Living though in

56
Minkowski, C. Z. (2007) “Snake, Sattras and the Mahabharata.” In Arvind Sharma (Ed) Essays on the
Mahabharata , 384-400. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
57
Vogel, J. (1995). Indian Serpent Lore Or the Nagas In Hindu Legend and Art. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing.
58
Ibid. p. 10
59
Gupta. S.R. (2008). The Word Speaks to the Faustian Man. Vol. 5, part 2. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass..
 N a y a k | 61

that body, the liberated one, that self of all, that ‗snake‘ of the symbolism, lives in every truth,
without the body, no more connected to it.‖(p. 1030).60 It is interesting to note that the very
serpentsthat were seen as the abhorrent‗evil‘ at one time came to represent the absolute truth
about existence in post-Vedic literature. In fact, the Mahābhāratatoo, uses the serpent as a
metaphysical symbol of discarding evil: ―as the Rūru deer casting off its old horns or the snake
casting off slough passes on without arresting notice, similarly a person who is attached
renounces all his sorrow‖ (Mbh 12.219:48).
Theremay have been many reasons for why the serpents gained ascendency in the
Mahābhārata. Since this text is a liminal myth reflecting a syncretism of the old and the new, the
new social norms included mythical elements and divines that were not a part of Vedic Āryan
traditions. These could have been in existence in the Indus Valley before the Āryans
established themselves, but with their inclusion, the Āryan society grew more secular and
tolerant. For example, in this ‗new order‘ there was a resurfacing of a powerful goddess, Devi,

(the Vedic goddesses, such as Uṣas, Aditi, Viraj, Vac, Saci etc. were almost colorless), and

Vedic divines, such as Indra and Varuna, were degraded to allow the accession of more secular
gods like Viṣ ṇu. Another factor could have been exogamy, and the non-Āryan partners could
have brought their own beliefs into the ethos, which, along with the principles of non-violence
advocated by the Āryans‘ own post-Vedic texts, such as the Upaniṣ ads, created an atmosphere
of tolerance and co-existence. Then there was the heterodox influence of Buddhism and
Jainism, which spread a different set of ideas. It can also be assumed that the non-Āryan tribes
that had opposed the Āryans in the early days had either assimilated with the Āryans, or at least
become ‗friendly‘ over time. In fact, the ambiguity of the dhārmic nature of saintly Nāgas like
Vāsuki, Ānanta, and Śeṣa indicates that many of the Nāga tribal leaders had joined forces with
the Āryans, adapted to their ways, and accepted their divines. It is true that there were other
Nāgas that continued to be antagonist. For example, the reference to the land of Takśaśila
where Uttanka goes to garner king Janamejaya‘s help to kill Takśaka is very evocative (Mbh
1.3:161). According to this incident, Janamejaya has recently returned from his victorious
invasion of Takśaśila, and the connection between Takśaśila, which Monier Williams defines as
the rock of Takśaka (p. 431),61 to Takśaka the king of serpents in unmistakable. Therefore, it is
possible that this is reference to an actual attack the Āryan king Janamejaya may have mounted
on Takśaśila the city of his enemy ruler Takśaka, who may have belonged to the Nāga race.

60
Ibid. 1030.
61
Takshaśila in A Sanskrit English Dictionary. (2005). Ed. Monier Williams. (New Ed). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers.
 N a y a k | 62

However, perhaps there was also a time when Takśaka was not an Āryan enemy, because
when the Pāṇ ḍ avas are born, among those who come to celebrate the birth are the Nāgas,
such as, Karkotaka, Vāsuki, Kaśyapa, Kunda, and even Takśaka (Mbh 1.123:45). Perhaps, it
was Arjuna‘s reprehensive actions in Khāndava that angered Takśaka and turned him against
the Kurus. But, aside from Takśaka, there are no major epic Nāga enemies at this time. Hence,
in the Mahābhārata, aside from the snake sacrifice, there are very few Nāgavictims, or myths in
which the Nāgasare persecuted. Instead, in the epic, not only are the Nāgas respected for their
good qualities but alsoNāgasare in amicable relationships with the Kṣ atriya warriors. For
example, Arjuna has a martial relationship with the Nāgaprincess, Ullupi and has a son by
her.Moreover, Ullupi is portrayed as an intelligent and strong woman with characteristic that are
superior to most women‘s. Consequently, Ullupi not only saves Arjuna‘s life but also redeems

him from his sin of killing Bhīṣma by treachery (Mbh 14.80). Then there isBhīma, who after

being poisoned by Duryodhana, ends up in Nāgaloka and is not only saved by his
Nāgagrandfather but is also gifted by him the strength of ten elephants and the antidote to
snake bite (Mbh1.128). Even Garuda, the eternal enemy of theserpents, is forced by Viṣ ṇu to
forge a friendship with serpents when Indra‘s charioteer Mātali chooses a Nāga bridegroom for
his daughter (Mbh 5.104).
In addition to this reconciliation between the Āryans and the Nāgas, the admirable
attributes of theserpents, which in Vedic times seemed to be such a cause of acrimony between
the Nāgasand the Āryans, becomeexemplaryofhighest levels of strength and acumen; so much
so that throughout the war, serpent similes are used to extol Kuru warriors‘ valor and
warriorship. For example, in Udyog Parva, proclaiming his fear and awe of the Pāṇ ḍ avas,
Dhṛtarāṣṭṛa tells Sanjaya, ―With the children hard to vanquish, the sons of Draupadi of noble
souls, who are like serpents, will the Pāṇ ḍ avas fight‖ (Mbh 5.50:38). Or ―Like a venomous
snake having accumulated its poison for a long time, he (Bhīma) will fling his strength on my
sons in the field of battle, O Sanjaya‖ (Mbh 5.51:39).Moreover, the verses pertaining to combat
often use snake similes to describe the precision and deadliness of arrows and darts shot by the
warriors from both sides. For example, Bhīṣma‘s lance is ―decked with gold, charged with great
velocity and looking beautiful like a daughter of a Nāga…like Death itself‖ (Mbh 6.105:36). Even
Kṛṣṇa is compared to a snake, when in rage he jumps of the chariot in the midst of war and
chargesBhīṣma, who has debilitated Arjuna in war: ―Keṣ ava, who was then breathing like a
snake and whose eyes were rolling in wrath‖ (Mbh.6.107:49).Obviously, by the time of the epic,
 N a y a k | 63

the Āryans had begun to recognize the superior skills of the Nāgas and had begun to respect
them for these.
In fact, it appears from other, surprisingsimiles used in the war that even those
Nāgaswho were seen in negative light in earlier times, were not recalled for their assumed
transgressions but their strength. On the other hand, the negative behavior of certain Vedic
divines was acknowledged as such. This reversal suggests unexpected connotations, fudging
the lines of distinction between the Pāṇ ḍ avas and Kauravas, and by association, between the
Vedic divines and Nāgas.For example, in the war, Duhśāsana is compared to Indra, while
Arjuna is compared to Vṛtra: ―[Duhśāsana] Endued with bravery, and prowess, again began to
check Pārtha with well-sharpened shafts like Indra resisting Vṛtra‖ (Mbh 6.111:41).Other similes
compare Bhīṣma to both Takśaka and Vṛtra, in a eulogy, Karna calls him the former when he is
in the heat of combat, and the latter, when he is struck down by Arjuna, who is shielded by
Śikhandi: ―The mighty puissant Bhīṣma possessed of sharp weapons and inflamed with rage in
battle, appears like the mighty snake Takśaka of great ferocity and virulent venom‖ (Mbh
6.108:13). And ―…Seeing him [Bhīṣma] who resembled the unconquerable Vṛtra when he had
been vanquished in days of yore by Vasva…‖ (Mbh 7.3:1).These examples are only a sampling
of the nāga-related epithets and analogies used to describe the warriors in epic times, but even
these few examples show that the nāgas were notonly analogous to superior Kṣ atriya skills but
they also held the same transcendent qualities as the Vedic divines.
The final and ultimate elevation of the Nāgas in the Mahābhārata comes at the end of
the ŚāntīParva in the story of the Nāgaking Padmanabha of Nāgapur,near Naimiṣ a(Mbh12.357-
363), who in a reverse cyclicity has the resonance of Viṣ ṇu. He is so evolved that he is reputed
to be the knower of not just a householder‘sdharma but also the Ultimate Dharma of mokṣ a. In
fact, it is to this Nāga that a Brāhmin goes to for instruction on mokṣ a, and calls him ―O you of
great wisdom, O Nāgas, who have acquired a knowledge of the Soul. It is very true that the
gods are not superior to you in any respect‖ (Mbh 12.364:7). By virtue of his sharing Viṣ ṇu‘s
name of Padmanabha, he is connected to cosmic creation, and by virtue of his snake-ness he is
Śeṣ aNāga. In addition, he also shares Viṣ ṇ u‘s solar divine function, because when the
Brāhmin comes to learn from him, he is away on a fortnight long task of drawing the sun‘s
chariot; thus displaying his beneficence towards all mankind. Hence, in this tale, the serpent,
who in the Vedic time was victimized, is now eulogized and made equivalent to the Divine.
Perhaps, this transformation occurred because this is the concluding tale of the ŚāntīParva, and
it is fitting at this point in the epic to emphasize the prevailing ideas of mokṣ a, as the Brāhmin
 N a y a k | 64

does: ―He that is yourself is verily myself, as that is myself is truly yourself. Myself, yourself, and
all other creatures, shall all have to enter into the Supreme Soul‖ (Mbh 12.364:8). It is also
fitting that these concluding words are uttered by a Brāhmin to a Nāga, perhaps to show that all
differences between the Āryans and the Nāga race have been reconciled.
However, theascendency of the serpents in the Mahābhāratais negated by the fact that
at the end of war, the Nāgas are subjected to an evil that is tantamount to a symbolic genocide.
In fact, the question that needs to be asked is if the Nāgas were so much a part of the what was
‗good‘ inĀryan society, why did Janamejaya and the Brāhmins want to wipe them out? The
answer to this question seems to be much bigger than the mere cause of Janamejaya‘s
personal vendetta or even the cycle of revenge that Arjuna and Takśaka begin; in fact, it seems
to point to a systemic problem of evil, perhaps created by the Brāhmins who needed to
eliminate any and all threats to their power. This rings true to an extent, especially when the
Buddhist records are considered. For example, while some of the Nāgarajas listed in
Mahāvyutpati(the Buddhist Sanskrit Glossary) are the same as the Āryan kings in the
Mahābhārata, in Buddhism, the Nāgasare most often presented not as serpents or as
metaphors of serpent traits, but as Nāgaswith the best of human characteristics. In addition,
and most importantly, they are devotees of the Buddha, such as Muccalinda, the Nāgarāja who
sheltered the Buddha from torrential rain for several days by spreading his hood like an
umbrella over the Buddha‘s head.Perhaps,as this Buddhist connection suggests, theBrāhmins
saw theNāgas asa people who were non-cooperative with the Āryans, choosing instead to side
with the heretical propounding of Buddhism; hence it was necessary for the Brāhmins to
eliminate them. Additionally, and specifically, since a Nāga--Śeṣ a--figured prominently in the
very creation of the Āryan cosmos, it was necessary for the Brāhmins to show that Nāga were
loyal to Āryans, so they had to get rid of all those Nāgas who did not show a devotion
toVaiṣ ṇ avism.
Another possible cause of the snake sacrifice may truly have been the
Brāhmins‘megalomaniacal lust for power. Perhaps they really did believe that they could
possess the proverbial Nāga attributes of immortality and death-delivering skills through the
transformative ritual of a Vedic fire sacrifice, and they used Janamejaya‘s revenge as an excuse
to execute this transformation. This argument is not as far-fetched as it may sound. In fact,
Wendy Doniger O‘Flaherty (1989) describes how this transfer of power is actually inherent in a
sacrifice. Doniger explains that in a sacrifice the sacrificed is, in fact, the sacrificer himself, but,
instead of the sacrificer actually sacrificing himself, he uses a substitute. Quoting Henri Hubert
and Marcel Mauss, from their book, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function, Doniger and Smith say,
 N a y a k | 65

this substitute in ―the sacrificial ritual (including the priest who acts as a buffer and guide
between the sacred and profane realms) is the ritual victim. The victim represents or "becomes"
(and thus substitutes for) both the invisible divine recipient of the offering and the human being
who makes the offering. ‗"Through this proximity the victim, who already represents the gods,
comes to represent the sacrifier [= sacrificer] also. Indeed, it is not enough to say that it
represents him: it is merged in him. The two personalities are fused together"‘ (Smith and
Doniger 1989, p. 190).62 What Hubert and Mauss mean and what Doniger is attempting to
explain through this statement in the context of the snake sacrifice is actually an indication to
adouble substitute. In the first and most obvious substitution, the Brāhmins at Janamejaya‘s fire
sacrifice were really offering themselves as a sacrifice to gain benefits. The usual animal
substitutes in Vedic fire sacrifices used to be a horse and/or the goat. However, in Janamejaya‘s
sacrifice, Janamejaya and his Brāhminsnot only perform a sarpasattra but they also sacrifice as
substitutes not one or two, but all the serpents.Hence, the second substitution in this sacrifice is
a sarpasattra itself, which, as mentioned above, was originally performed by the Nāgas to
acquire venom. Therefore, in Janamejaya‘s snake sacrifice, the Brāhminsfiguratively assume
the identity of the Nāgas andperform a real sacrifice, using all the serpents as substitutesin
order to fuse with them: Brāhmin=Naga=serpent. The reason for this double fusion is the gains
that the sacrifice promises. Normally, the gain from a ritual sacrifice included longevity and
prosperity; however, this time the Brāhmins wanted more than longevity and prosperity; they
wanted what theNāgarace had: the most powerful venom to destroy the enemy, wealth hidden
away beneath the earth, and the secret of immortality that the serpents possessed by virtue of
being the progeny of the earth goddess. This alteration of the equation of the sacrificer and
sacrificedwas perhaps the Brāhmin way of dealing with the devastation of the war, in which
everything was destroyed life, property, power. In addition, the belief systems and ideologies
were changing. Hence a ritual sacrifice in Vedic style promised not only a salvaging of what
little remained of the Āryans but also anappropriation of the ancient and famed glory of the
mystical Nāgas.
In the re-telling of the Mahābhārata when Sauti begins the tale of war and devastation
with the story of Janamejaya‘s snake sacrifice, perhaps he wants to issue a warning that war
can be so ravaging, and it can unleash so much violence that after it ends, even the attempts at
renewal are violent. However,Sauti also absolves the sacrificersof their crimes by affirming their
clemency. He ends his narration of the Mahābhārataby bringing Astika, the survivor and savior

62
Brian K. Smith and Wendy Doniger. (1989). Sacrifice and Substitution: Ritual Mystification and Mythical
Demystification. Numen,36 (2), pp. 189-224. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270036. Accessed: May 18, 2012.
 N a y a k | 66

of the Nāga race back into the story and stating that ―Astika having rescued the snakes (froma
fiery death) became filled with joy (Mbh 18.5:23). However, no matter whatthe cause of the
snake sacrifice or of Sauti‘s narration of it, the fact is that this sacrifice is actually a perpetration
of ―three crimes from which it is otherwise indistinguishable-suicide, murder, and deicide‖ (Smith
and Doniger (1989) p. 189).63 Yet this genocidal sacrifice and the serpent tales associated with
it arereplicated again and again in the Mahābhārata, creating a paradigm of behavior that
makes victims of anyone who does not conform. Sadly, since the proponents and practitioners
of this evil behavior are the supposed dharma heroes of the epic, the paradigm has become a
problematic exemplar in Hindu society.
.

63
Ibid. p. 189
 N a y a k | 67

1-B:The Asuras

(i) Who are the Asuras?

In the sixteenth chapter of the BhagavadGītā, Kṛ ṣṇa describes to Arjuna this quality--

the dark side of man—his asura side:

dambho darpobhimānaś ca krodha ḥ pāruṣ yam eva ca
ajñānaṃ cābhijātasya pārtha saṃpadam āsurīm
Hypocrisy, pride, conceit, wrath, rudeness, and ignorance, O Pārtha, belong to him who
is demoniac (BG 16.4).64
And the converse:
Ahiṉ sā satyam akrodhas tyāgaḥ śāntir apaiśunam
dayā bhūteṣ v aloluptvaṃ mārdavaṃ hrīr acāpalam
Observing non-violence, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, tranquility, freedom
from fault-finding, compassion for all, absence from covetousness, gentleness,
modesty, absence of restless (BG16.2).
And:
tejaḥ kṣ amā dhṛ tiḥ śaucam adroho nātimānitā
bhavanti saṃpadaṃ daivīm abhijātasya bhārata
Vigor, forgiveness, firmness, cleanliness, absence of quarrel, freedom from vanity, O
Bhārata belong to one who is god like (BG16.3).

These and most of the ślokas in this sixteenth chapter of the Gītā are about the unethical
quality of asura-ness and its ethical antithesis. However, in pre-epic texts, the word asura was
not related to ethics at all, and it did not define anyone‘s morality or immorality, let alone
absolute values of the same. Evil, as we know it, suggests everything bad: pain, death,
disease, violence, etcetera. In many religions there is a Demon, the absolute embodiment of
evil, who engenders all evil, and he is as coeternal as God, who is an absolute good. For
example, Satan in Christianity is the embodiment of an a priori evil, who, in the Garden of Eden,
gives Eve the apple and not only corrupts man with his evil but also unleashes all evil (pain,

64
Bhagavad-Gītā As It is. (1983) A.C. Bkaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda (trans). Lichtenstein: The Bkaktivedanta
Book Trust. (All references from the Gītā in this article are from this text).
 N a y a k | 68

violence, disease, death, etc.) on man. However, in Hindu mythology, there is no such one
absolute Evil Being responsible for all evil. So the question of the asura being a representation
of this absolute evil does not arise. In addition, in the earliest uses of the term and in
subsequent myths, asura is not even equivalent to the psychological inclinations that create evil,
such as tamas andavidya—qualities that create mythical beings like Mara of early Buddhism. In
fact, in Hindu myths, asuras are often more evolved, more ascetic, more adhering to the
principle of dharma than the devas, Brāhmins, or honored Kṣ atriyas. Wendy Doniger
O‘Flaherty (1976) says, ―Hindu gods and demons are the very embodiment of the palindrome
―Dog as a devil deified lived as a god‖ (p. 60).65 She says, demons and gods are
consubstantial—enemies and brothers from the earliest times. Demons and devas are not
opposite sides of the ethical paradigm—good and evil. The only distinguishing feature of their
relationship is the battle in which they are constantly and cyclically engaged, and only in that
they are on opposite sides. And this battle is not aboutgood against evil. In fact, this battle has
no moral content or context; it is not fought because one side is moral and the other side is
immoral; it is simply a cyclical archetype of a conflict (p. 62).66 So, in later texts when ―myths
begin to apply new moral codes to the characters of individual gods and demons in myths, a
number of inconsistencies arise, for the two groups, as groups, are not fundamentally morally
opposed‖ (p. 58).67 Therefore, when the asurasin the Mahābhārata--especially Duryodhana--
are relegated to an a priori asura-ness even before their actions can be gauged against any
empirical and relational truths, both the ethical correctness of the use of the word and the
scriptural value of the epic and the Gītābecome questionable.
Many scholars believe that the Gītā was a later interpolation in the Mahābhārata.
Perhaps that is why the meaning of the word, asura, and its antonymic deva and daivic
qualities, as described in the Gītā, are not quite in accordance with the rest of the epic. In fact,
the Gītā‘s declaration of asura qualities makes not just Duryodhana and his cohorts suspect, but
also most of the daivic heroes and many of the high Brāhmins, because, although they are
hailed as good,they all, at some point or another, display anger or lack of modesty or

forgiveness. Even Yudhiṣṭhira, who can be considered the epitome of the daivic qualities,

suffers from lack of tranquility in his addiction to gambling, and he deviates from the truth when
he declares the death of Aśvatthāman to Drona. In addition, the Brāhmins, including those that
are highly respected and cited as exemplary, such as Jamadagani Rāma, Agastya, Vasiṣ ṭ ha,

65
O’Flaherty, W. D. (1976). The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
66
Ibid. p. 62.
67
Ibid. p. 58
 N a y a k | 69

Mārkendaya, et cetera, are actually unforgiving and wrathful. In fact, some like Drona are not
only wrathfully vengeful, but they are also covetous of another‘s wealth.
Other scholars believe that the Gītā was an integral part of the Mahābhārata from the
beginning. But whether the Gītā is a later interpolation or not, is not of importance here, except
to present a perspective: if the Gītā is considered an interpolation, then this new meaning of
asura has no relationship to the asuras in the Mahābhārata, because their character cannot
retrospectively be measured against an ethical quality that did not exist in the context that
shaped their characters. And if the Gītā is not seen as an interpolation, then the predilection it
attributes to the asuras is discordant with the other aspects of the asuras in the epic, which are
a composite of the concept of asura dating back at least to the Ṛ gVeda, if not prior.
The various ways in which asura-ness is used in the Mahābhārataadds to its ambiguity.
Depending on the contexts of different myths and narrations, asura-ness denotes all or any one
of the following denigrations: (a) a slur, like a racial label; however, that hardly makes the
slurred an evil-doer; rather, the prejudice is on the part of the one who uses the slur; and
prejudice, as we know, is not only one man‘s discrimination against another, but it also denotes
a perpetrator who targets a victim; (b) long-standing enemy of the Brāhmins and gods and
sometimes all people who are considered outside the fold of Āryan ethics; but an asura is not
necessarily an evil enemy. (c) a legacy—a child born of an asura is an asura; but since evilness
is not predetermined at birth, being born asura does not necessarily determine evil to come; (d)
a genetic defect -- asura is like being born blind or lame; but once again, a genetic defect does
not make a person evil; (e) however, if a person fulfills any of the conditions—‗b‘ through ‗d‘--
and he behaves in a manner that opposes the ideals of dharma, then the slur, asura, becomes
the most damning pejorative—a synonym of evil. But, the question to ask here is that if a
person does not fulfill any of the conditions ‗b‘ through ‗d‘ and yet opposes the ideals of dharma
and performs acts of evil-ness, is he also called an asura? The answer is no.
Understanding this ambiguity of evil and the distortion of asura-ness as evilrequires
tracing the concept of asura through its origin, transformation, and concretization. The
etymology of the word asura gives little indication of its invidiousness. Monier-Williams (2005)

says that asura is a derivative from asu which, in the ṛg, means life breath; In the AtharvaVeda

it also means life of the spiritual world; but in the BhagavadPurāna, the meaning shifts to life of
a different kind—that of worldly pleasure, (which is neither evil nor against the principles of
puruṣ ārtha.) Additional definitions by Monier-Williams also add to the word‘s ambiguity:
―spiritual, incorporeal, supreme spirit but also evil spirit, and one who is an opponent of the
 N a y a k | 70

gods‖ (p. 121).68 These diametrically opposing meanings are a result of the changes this term
went through, even early on in the Ṛ g itself. In fact, the chronology of the use of asura in the
Ṛ gVedaindicates this change; in the earliest books, 2-7, asura is used in a favorable sense,
especially when it refers to Varuna, and it is replaced by the pejorative meaning in the later
books, 8-10. Sukumari Bhattacharji (2000) believes that the very root, asu, could also be a
reason for this transformation (p. 35).69 As noted above, according to Monier-Williams, asu
means life of the spiritual world or of the departed souls; hence, it is connected withpitrah.
Eventually, as Indra supplanted Varuna, the latter came to mean only chief or the chief of the
evil spirits, because he was associated with the spirit world.
Suggesting a positive denotation of asurain its earliest meaning is its most commonly
accepted etymological association with the Avestan Ahura Mazda. It also applies to the six
Amesha Spentas or the associates or divine sparks of Ahura Mazda. Bhattacharji notes that in
the Avesta, Ahura Mazda is the Lord of high knowledge and his concrete name Varana is the
same as Varuna in India (p.24).70 Some historians now contend that asura can also be equated
to the Assyrian god, Ashur, who was the head of Assyrian pantheon.
From its Avestan and Assyrian associations and from its early usage in the Ṛ g, it
appears that the appellative asura mostly signified lordship, perhaps, for someone who was also
exemplary of a ‗spiritual life‘ and who provided spiritual guidance. And in the earliest hymns of
the Ṛ gVeda, Varuna is the chief Asura or Lord. Bhattacharji notes that he (along with Mitra) is
―Samraj (=emperor) as opposed to rajan (=king)‖ (p. 25),71 which is often used for Soma and
many other gods. Wash Edward Hale (1986) also claims that in many of the earlier hymns in
the Ṛ g, the meaning of the word asura signifies not only lordship but also leadership, or even
someone who has a fighting force behind him. In addition, he suggests that this honor of
lordship was not just reserved for the gods but was also used for humans, and sometimes, even
for enemies. So anyone who had power was an asura(p. 6).72 For example:
The leader of the raid, the asura who is more excellent than any other patron, has given
me two cows together with a wagon. Tryaruna, son of Trivrsna, has distinguished
himself with ten thousand, or Agni Vaisvanara (RV 5.27.1, cited in Hale, 1986, p. 48)73

68
Asu in A Sanskrit English Dictionary (2005), Monier-Williams (Ed.) (New Edition). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Bhattacharji, S (2000) The Indian Theogony: BrahmāViṣṇu and Śiva. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
69

70
Ibid. p. 24
71
Ibid. p. 25
72
Hale, W. E. (1986) Ásura in Early Vedic Religion. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
73
Ibid p. 48
 N a y a k | 71

Hale believes that in this hymn the asura Tryaruna is human—and he has a fighting force with
whose help he has conducted a raid against his rivals.
Hale‘s interpretation also answers another very important question: were the asuras
simply mythical beings fabricated by the Āryans to describe the enemy of mythical battles or
were they real people? It is essential to address this question, especially in an exploration of
ethics, because while a people‘s gods may be invested with qualities that define the ethical
paradigms of a society, it is the people themselves who are the real agents of behavior that can
be classified as ethical or unethical. Hale‘s interpretation of Tryaruna as being human and the
other attributes and actions associated with the asuras in various mythsdemonstrate that the
asuras were not just mythical beings; they were human—perhaps a clan of people whose role in
Āryan society was capsuled in myth, as is the nature of myth‘s creation. Besides, the asuras‘
own behavior, their treatment by Āryans, and their interaction with otherĀryans are all three-
dimensional and human-like aspects that cannot simply be considered mythical allegory. And
also, if Āryans areaccepted as human, then, by the same standard, so should the asuras be
accepted.
The dāsaand asura connection is another argument that proves the human-ness
ofasuras. Hale (1986) points out that the use of dāsyu becomes rare after the Atharva Veda,
and it drops out of usage about the same time that asura begins to be used in the pejorative
sense, so the appellative asura replaces dāsyu and assumes the meaning of the latter (p.130).74
Even Monier-Williams defines dāsa as ―fiend, demon; a certain evil being conquered by Indra
(e.g. Namūci, Piprū, Sambara, Varcin). And its Ṛg Vedic meaning is given as ―savage barbarian
infidel…opp. to ārya‖ (2005, p. 477).75 Also, in the Ṛ g, asura is sometimes connected to the
quality of darkness, and this could have been the reason for the derivative, dāsa:.
O Surya, when the Asura‘s descendant, Svarbhanu pierced thee through and through
with darkness/All creatures looked like one who is bewildered, who knoweth not the
place where he is standing (RV. 5.40:5).
And:
The Atris found the Sun again, him whom Svarbhanu of the brood/of Asuras had pierced
with gloom. This none besides had power to do (RV. 5.40:9).

74
Ibid. p. 130
75
Dāsa in A Sanskrit English Dictionary (2005) M. Monier-Williams (Ed.), (New Edition). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
 N a y a k | 72

The equivalency of asura with dāsa continues in the Brāhmaṇ as. Eventually, as asura
came to denote the opposite of deva, dāsa became closer to meaning Śūdra. The passage
below from the TaittiriyaBrāhmaṇa describing the battle between Brāhmin and Śūdra obviously
replaces the ritual,archetypal battle of the gods and asuras:
The gods and asuras fought. They contended for the sun. The gods won it. Both a
Brāhmaṇa and a Śūdra fight for a piece of leather. Indeed the Brāhmaṇa is the daivic
varṇ a, the Śūdraasuric. Then one should say, ‗These prospered; these made good
prosperity.‘ The other (should say), ‗These making it inhabited, these made bad
prosperity.‘ Thus what is done well of these, what is success, the one causes that. What
is badly done, what is failure, the other strikes that. The Brāhmaṇa wins. Thus they find
the sun of the rival (TB 1.2.6.6-7 cited in Hale, 1986, p. 173-174).76

Hale‘s commentary to this passage explains that the Brāhmin and Śūdra perform a
ritual in which they act out the battle of the gods and asuras over the sun, which is represented
in the ritual by a round piece of leather. The Brāhmin plays the part of the gods and the Śūdra
the part of the asuras. Hence this passage says that the Śūdra is the asuricvarṇ a (Hale p.
174).77
This equivalency ofdāsa/Śūdra and asura, could possibly mean that the dāsa was an-
ārya, because he was a rival of the Brāhmins and did not subscribe to their practices; hence
outside of the Āryans‘ fold. Or it could refer to those Āryans who were born Āryan but did not
believe in the practices ordained by the Brāhmins, and hence they were relegated to the status
of the dāsa and disowned by the Brāhmins, who also forbad the other Āryans to acknowledge
them as anything but outside the fold. Hale, however, believes that ―this statement could also
be a recognition that the Śūdravarṇ a consists of descendants of the original inhabitants of the
land, the dāsyus, who in later texts, were called asuras. Thus the Śūdra, who is a descendant
of the historical human asuras plays the role of a mythological asurain a rite which acts out the
mythological conflict between the gods and the asuras—a conflict which itself seems to be a
mythologized version of the historical conflict between Āryans and historical human asuras (or
dāsyus)‖ (p. 174).78
While it is possible that as Hale suggest, the dāsas may have been descendants of the
historical human asuras; however, his suggestion that the asuras could have been the

76
Hale, W. E. (1986) Ásura in Early Vedic Religion. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
77
Ibid. p. 174
78
Ibid
 N a y a k | 73

descendants of the original people is questionable. Theasuras were, most likely, a distinct
faction of the Āryans who were denigrated and made the lowest of the low and called dāsa as
an insult to them. The asuraswere probably Āryans at one time, or at least they belonged to the
five Āryans tribes, and they separated, and the cause of their separation was given the attribute
of asuric. D.D. Kosambi (1967) proposes that according to Vedic myth, the Āryan clans of the
Mahābhārata could have been the descendants from the Vedic Five Tribes, which are
referenced a number of times in the various books of the ṚgVeda as janah and jatah: the five
Humans (manusah), The Five Nations (krstayah), The Five Mobile Peoples (cassanyah). This
categorizes the Ṛg Vedic Āryans not only as human ancestors but also as belonging to the
same system of clanship and pastoralism. Kosambi also points out that the names of these five
tribes appear in different hymns separately, but in one hymn to Indra and Agni, all five appear
together (p. 33)79: ―If with the Yadus, Turvasas, ye sojourn, with Druhyas, Anus, Purus, (of Indra
and Agni, come hither)‖ (RV 1.108:8, cited in Kosambi 1967, p. 33).80 This hymn denotes that all
five tribes also propitiated the same gods and had the same belief system. But, perhaps, over
time, rivalry grew among these five tribes and they began to see each other as separate. But,
to reiterate the point of their human-ness, no matter who the dāsas/asuras were—whether they
were the indigenous people or the an-Āryan among the Āryans themselves--this transformation
of the dāsa into asura clearly makes the asura human, just as the Brāhminswere human. But,
before the dāsa connection came into existence, when asura was still an appellation for lord
and/or leader with power, it had already begun to degrade.
One reason for this degradation could be that the appellative honor of lordship was given
indiscriminately--regardless of whether the recipient was mortal or divine; the word, Asura was
used for anyone who displayed power; perhaps, it was the significance of this power that
caused the process of deterioration. Wendy Doniger O‘Flaherty(1976) also suggests that the
main differentiation between asura and that which is not asura is of power, such as in terms of
powerful gods like Rudra, who must do everything to maintain their power. But this power, as in
the case of Rudra, need not be evil; it can be ascetic (p. 64).81 In the earliest Ṛg hymns, power
was not evil power; but, perhaps, when the other Āryans began to encounter threats to their
power, the might of the opposition came to be seen as threatening. This element of ‗threat‘ is
the key to understanding the negative transformation of the word, because the feeling of being
threatened is subjective and, in the threatened, it always evokes fear, anxiety, anticipated pain
79
Kosambi, D. D. (1967) “The Vedic Five Tribes.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 87, 33-39,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/596592 . Accessed: 12/01/2012 09:46.
80
Ibid.
81
O’Flaherty, W. D. (1976). The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
 N a y a k | 74

and sorrow—all feelings that can be deemed a consequence of evil. Therefore, the cause of
that threat is what could have been seen as asura: a powerful human leader could be a cause
of threat to the gods; the ever increasing power of the gods could be a threat to humans; or one
Āryan faction‘s leader could have been a threat to another faction‘s leader. Most likely, it was
this element of threat that finally sealed the fate of the word. It was also this threat that brought
Indra into the limelight as an ‗‘asura killer,‘ and from the many Indra hymns, the nature of the
threat becomes even clearer; not only does Indra subdue the power of the enemy asuras, but
he also steals their wealth to give to his loyalists, which suggests that the power of the opposing
factions could have been in physical might or in material wealth, or both:
Adorned with array of gold and jewels, they o‘er the earth a covering veil extended.
Although they hastened, they o‘ercame not Indra; their spies he compassed with the Sun
of morning (RV 1.33:8)

…Indra broke through Ilibisa‘s strong castles, and Sushna with his horn, he cut to
pieces: Thou Maghvan, for all his might and swiftness, slewest thy fighting foeman with
thy thunder (RV1.33:12).

A significant point to note in these hymns is that in all the implications of lordship,
leadership, power, and even threat, or even in Indra‘s reasons for enmity, there is no indication
that the asura is evil, equivalent to evil action, or even that his actions results in pain to others.
The asura‘s only crime seems to be that he is powerful and/or intoxicated with his power.
Ironically, this intoxication with power is also Indra‘s quality and a quality of the Brāhmins in post
Vedic texts. They, too, are constantly intoxicated with their power; furthermore, unlike the asura,
who is punished for growing too powerful or becoming too consumed with his power, Indra and
the Brāhmins destroy with impunity anything or anyone that comes in the way of their power.
Hence, if there is any consequent evil, it results from the actions of those who are not deemed
asura, such as the Brāhmins and the Āryan gods.
Hence, if the power of the gods and the Brāhmins was not a threat; then the question
that still remains to be answered is why the lordship and power of the asuraswas considered a
threat by the Āryans? One reason could be the necessity of the sacrifice. In the later books of

the Ṛ g, after the degradation of Varuna, sacrifice was seen as the only way to preserve ṛta, and

anyone who opposed ṛta and by extension, sacrifice, was condemned and debased. According

to Monier- Williams (2005), ―Rit is that which moves and with the suffix ‗a‘, it also denotes that
 N a y a k | 75

which is fixed. Therefore, we can say that this is dynamic cosmic order in flux, but its movement
is always towards a fixed point‖ (p. 223).82 The Āryans saw this order in the wonders of nature
around them and were in wonderment at how it was constantly in flux, constantly cyclical, but
always coming back to a fixed point. And that convergence into the fixed point was aesthetic
order. It was around this dynamic fixed point that they created their cosmology and myths, and,
henceforth, strove to preserve it. Initially, the natural phenomena were the mythological gods:

Mitra/Varuna, Agni, Savitŕa, Vāyu—all different aspects of the same ṛta—the same fixity. These

were impersonal gods with no anthropomorphic qualities—simply phenomena that sustained

creation. Hence, these gods or sustainers of ṛta, had to be propitiated to ensure that the

created world was sustained, and it was necessary for the humans to communicate with the
gods to ensure their passage to the sacred space of fixity and flux so that their divine presence

could preserve it. As mentioned in the last chapter, according to Mircea Eliade, ―ṛta is the

sacred space… because it reveals the fixed point, the central axis for all future orientation…a
sacred space possesses existential value for religious man; for nothing can begin, nothing can
be done, without a previous orientation—and any orientation implies acquiring a fixed
point…The discovery or projection of a fixed point—the center—is equivalent to the creation of
the world‖ (p. 21-22).83
The creation of their own world in response to the fixed point of cosmic order was the
Āryanṛ ta, and sacrifice was a means to constantly recreate and sustain this fixed point.
Through this sacrifice it was possible to not only communicate with the gods but also to ascend
to their world or facilitate their descent to the created world, and in order for this passage to be
possible, the sacrifice had to be perfect or the line of communication would break. This sacrifice
also sanctified, but more importantly it ―cosmocized‖ the territory and ensured ṛ ta, because, to
use Eliade‘s explanation again, ―It must be understood that the cosmocization of unknown
territory is always a consecration; to organize a space is to repeat the paradigmatic work of the

gods‖ (p. 33).84ṛtawas the Āryan concept to refer to the aesthetic order, which was a reflection of

the ‗paradigmatic work of the gods‘ and which was oriented around a sacred space consecrated
by hierophanic rituals; therefore, all actions of both the divines and mortals had to preserve the
perfection of this sacredspace. The key means of this preservation was the ritual of sacrifice,
82
Ritá in (Ed.), A Sanskrit English Dictionary. M. Monier-Williams (Ed.) (New Edition). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
83
Eliade, M. (1959). The Sacred and the Profane. Willard R. Trask (trans.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers
84
Ibid. p. 33.
 N a y a k | 76

and that is why the construction of the sacrificial alter, too, had to be perfect. However, it is
possible that this manner of preservation of ṛ tawas an Āryan belief, and perhaps the
indigenous people had their own order to define nature‘s fixed point, their own equivalent to ṛ ta
(if it is to be believed that the asuras were indigenous) Or, (if it is believed that the asuras were
Āryans), perhaps, there were factions in the Āryan society, and, maybe, they, too, did not
subscribe to this particular actualization ofṛ ta and had their own ways of cosmocizing the fixed
point. Or, perhaps, they did not see the Indra faction‘s fixed point as a sacred space and
wanted to create their own consecrated space.
In the earliest time when sacrifice was not the supreme means to preserve ṛ ta, Varuna,
the chief Asura, was synonymous with the cosmic order and was also the keeper of ṛ ta; thus,it
can be surmised that those who believed in his lordship were asuras, and they were adherents
of Varuna‘s ṛ ta. They participated in actions and sacrifices ordained by Varuna that sustained
the order, and, hence, they were participants in this sacred space established by the Asura
Varuna. These asuras/divineswere ―upholding that which moves and that which moves not,
Adityas, Gods protectors of all being/Provident, guarding well the world of spirits, [protecting
asuryam] true to eternal law [ṛ ta], the debt‖ (RV 2.27:4). It must be noted that in this
hymnasuryam (asuraship) is an adjectival quality of the gods or devas, making it clear that it is a

part of their character and not separate (Hale, p. 59).85 Another hymn—―Hymn to Viṣva Devah‖

is also indicative of this: ―Oh, Asuras, when ye have sheltered the worshipper who goes to
sacrifice, at eve/May we, O Vasus, ye possessors of all wealth, come then into the midst of you‖
(RV 8.27:20). Thus, these hymns provethat, initially, the asuras were not only within the fold of
ṛ ta but were also protectors of ṛ ta.
In addition, this ṛ ta did not stop at the fixity of the comic order; it was echoed as
prescriptive for people. Just like the forces of nature were moved to fixity to sustain creation, so
were the people supposed to live a life within a certain order. Whatever action a person
performed had to be to conform to the cosmic order in harmony with nature, and this ‗asu‘ is
what Monier-William‘s defines as ―life breath and also as spiritual breath‖ (p.121)86, because just
as the cosmic order was fixed, recurrent and true, so was the rhythm of life breath. Those who
acknowledged the equivalency of these rhythms of physical nature and physiology were asuras,
and for them ritual and sacrifice, which was also performed with the same regularity, not only

85
Hale, W. E. (1986) Ásura in Early Vedic Religion. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
86
Ásu in A Sanskrit English Dictionary. M. Monier-Williams (Ed.). (New Edition). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
 N a y a k | 77

ensured this conformity but also rectified any transgression. ―Thus many of the Vedic sacrifices,
especially the daily rituals, were performed as symbolic acts expressing harmony or rapport with
the forces of nature, without any desire for their fruit. Ritualistic and moral purity was regarded
as a necessary pre-requisite of the performance of such sacrifices‖(Jhingran, 1999, p. 45).87
Most scholars accept that, for the Āryans, cosmic order and human order were connected; for
example, quoting Kaegi‘s translation of the Ṛ gVeda, Surendranath Dasgupta (1975) says, ―The
hymns strongly prove how deeply the prominent minds in the people were persuaded that the
eternal ordinances of the rulers of the world were as inviolable in mental and moral matters as in
the realm of nature, and that every wrong act, even the unconscious was punished as the sin
expiated‖ (Vol. 1, p.15).88 And ―There is no caprice or disorder in the realm of [cosmic] morality‖
(Tiwari, 2007, p. 120).89For example, the sun rises, gives heat, warms people, ripens crops,
feeds people; the rain falls and nourishes the land, etc., which all indicates that the good actions
of the natural world yield good results for humans. Therefore, man‘s actions must follow the
same principle; whereby, good actions will yield good results. This was the immutable law of
ṛ ta, and to emphasize this, the Ṛ gVeda also contains hymns that tell us what actions of men
could be considered as following the principle of ṛ ta, for instance, generosity--just as nature is
generous:
Waters, you are the ones who bring us the life force. Help us to find nourishment so that
we may look upon great joy/Let us share in the most delicious sap that you have, as if
you were loving mothers/ For our well-being let the goddesses be an aid to us, the
waters be for us to drink. Let them cause well-being and health to flow over us
(RV10.9:1-4).
Or the hymn for Dawn:
Her brilliant flame has become visible once more; she spreads herself out, driving back
the formless black abyss/ The shining daughter of the sky, bringing rich gifts, is praised
by the Gautamas. Measure out the off spring and strong men as victory prizes, Dawn
the rewards that begin with cattle and culminate in horses. /Dawn, you who hold the
victory prize, bring us that brightly coloured power by which we establish children and
grandchildren./Dawn, rich in cows, rich in horses, resplendent given of gifts, shine your
riches upon us here and now(RV 1.91:1,7,13,14).

87
Jhingran, S. (1999) Aspects of Hindu Morality. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
88
Dasgupta, S. (1975) A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
89
Tiwari, K.N. (2007). Classical Indian Ethical Thought. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
 N a y a k | 78

And this connection of the moral order in the cosmos was reflected in the moral order men
followed—a symbiosis.
The man who is truly generous gives to the beggar who approaches him thin and in
search of food. He puts himself in the service of the man who calls to him from the road
and makes him a friend for times to come (RV 10.117:3).
Or
The father sacrifices for his son, the comrade for his comrade, the favorite friend for his
friend./So let praises flow back and forth between the two, between us who are mortals
and you, the immortals(RV10.117:3 & 9).

As these examples demonstrate, all actions of men to make a living, cultivate land, form
relationships, etcetera, were to follow the principle of ṛ ta. And, on a larger scale, man‘s actions
and good and badbehaviors impacted his society, because, as Tiwari (2007) says, ―morality
worth the name may be called social morality, and not individual or personal morality. Moral
point of view always refers to an individual in relation to a society and never to an individual in
relation to himself‖ (p. 3).90Also, according to Tiwari, this morality is universalized, and this
makes the prescriptive norms of morality descriptive and establishes judgment of what is right
and what is wrong. This morality can be termed ṛ ta. ―Ṛ ta amongst other things implies that
there is an eternal moral order involved in the very constitution of the universe and therefore
man has to adopt a moral point of view‖ (p. 4).91This implies that the first ṛ ta was of divine origin
and then man followed the same principles.
All evidence from the Saṃhitās suggests that during the Vedic times cosmic order was a
fixed point, and men were expected to replicate this order in their lives so that their actions re-
affirmed the fixity of the sacred space. But did they? Did men align their actions to the sanctity
of the fixed point? While the order in nature was obvious and seemingly controlled by outside
forces, how did the order in personal life follow the order of nature? And, could life be fulfilled by
following the orderliness of nature? Also, who determined what the order was? From historical

accounts and from the verses of the ṛg, we know that the Āryans were a civic-minded people

with a developed sense of polity. Their main means of livelihood was cattle, and their pride was
horses and cattle. They were also cultivators. We know this from the description of various
skirmishes over water and water rights. Therefore, to sustain their own society, they not only

90
Tiwari, K.N. (2007). Classical Indian Ethical Thought. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
91
Ibid. p. 4.
 N a y a k | 79

needed a form of social order but they also needed to ensure that this order was not disrupted,
and it remained supreme above all other orders. But, as is the normal inclination of man--
despite acknowledging social ethics and a need for personal morality, man transgresses. The
Āryans had taken this into account, and to ensure that these transgressions did not become
pervasive, they used punishment. In the beginning, it was the Lord of ṛ ta, Varuna, who

watched men with his sahasracakṣu, punished miscreants, and made sure society remained

within the periphery of this order. And people within the fold realized this, begging him for

forgiveness if they committed any an-ṛ ta or offense. There are many hymns in the ṛg

suggesting this. For example:

If we have committed offence against a hospitable friend like Aryaman or a close friend
like Mitra, or against one who has always been a comrade, or a brother, or a neighbor—
one of our own or a stranger—loosen that offence from us, Varuna (RV 5.85:7).

However, there might have been others who did not see their actions as transgressions,
or, if they did see them as such, they did not prescribe to Varuna‘s form of punishment; or
perhaps, there were some who did not transgress but were wrongfully accused; hence they
resented the order. These non-conformists could have been called asuras.
Also, this system of order and punishment had an essential anomaly, which was related
to nature itself; while man‘s transgressions could be punished with Varuna‘s noose, how could
one punish nature, which was also flawed, and it also transgressed? This flaw was that part of
divine nature that was not benevolent, such as floods, earthquakes, etcetera, which caused the
suffering of innocent people and even of those who were deeply immersed in keeping the order.
This aesthetic evil--the evil in the cosmic order itself, which independently of human action
prevented the flux of nature from converging into the fixed point --how did one explain that?
How did the cosmic order remain true with such anomalies? And, above all, how did one punish
nature for acting against these truths of ṛ ta? The Āryans had no answer to these questions; just
as these continue to plague the theist till today. To avert such cosmic evil, ritual and sacrifice
was the only answer—to appease the powers, so to speak. And the more the Āryan man didn‘t
understand, the more important sacrifice became. And, if the result that occurred from the ritual
was not what was desired, the sacrifice was blamed. But the one to suffer the most grievous
blame was the sacrificer, because he was seen to have committed errors in the rituals, which
led to the adverse result. So, every time nature became disorderly, people accused those who
failed to ensure the order; and perhaps, theseaccused were considered asura.
 N a y a k | 80

Furthermore, there may have also been some Āryans who did not believe that the
sacrifice was responsible for keeping the order, and perhaps, these non-believers rebelled
against the ṛ taof the sacrifice; hence they were seen to possess the quality of asura-ness.And,
over time, not only could there have been men who threatened the order and broke ṛ ta, but the
gods themselves were blamed for breaking the order. The very same evil that the Āryans saw in
the natural order became inherent in the gods that represented that natural order. Thus, evil
pervaded a god‘s goodness, and as the gods perpetuated this evil--the very gods who were
Asura—and good and powerful--were blamed for weakening the order, and they themselves
became representative of negativity. A good example is Varuna, who, despite the sacrifice,
could not prevent the break down. Hence, this Asura was replaced by a more powerful,
proactive god—the Deva.
What is ironic is that the deva may have been used not for his qualities of goodness and
orderliness but for his evil. The word, deva,can be etymologically associated with the Avestan
daeva, the ‗false gods‘, ‗wrong gods‘, or more fittingly, ‗daebaaman,‘ ‗the deceiver.‘ Perhaps,
with Varuna and his host of asura gods having failed them, the Āryans decided to put their faith
in the daebaaman hoping to deceive the vagaries of nature with the deceiver himself, and when
this deceiver was able to win the Āryans wealth and waters despite the caprice of nature,
Varuna, the Asura, and his righteousness were devalued. And, perhaps, because of the evil
nature of these devas, who were now given eminence, there were some in the Āryan tribes who
rejected this idea and chose to remain loyal to the original Divine, the Asura; and hence they
were relegated to being asura themselves.
Whatever the case may be in terms of the gods, eventually the asura humans were
banned from the Āryan sacrifice. They were banned from the divine experience that the Āryans
evoked through the hierophany of their daivic sacrifice. Perhaps, angry at this rejection, the
asuras began to gate-crash the sacrifice and corrupt it so that the Āryans could not have the
perfect communication with their new divines that they hoped to achieve. Or perhaps, they
began to steal the sacrifice to sustain their original fixed point--the sacred space and cosmology
that had been initially created. And the enmity continued to grow, until everything imperfect and
disruptive was seen as asura. The Mahābhārata suggests this schism between the deva-
believers and the asurasin a number of myths and passages, which also shed further light on
how the asuras belonged to the Āryan society, but their degradation and consequent fall created
acrimony between them and the celestials and their resulting factions. The mythos this rift
created also made good and evil amorphous, becausethe very idea of what is good and virtuous
was in flux.
 N a y a k | 81

The decline of virtuousness was attributed to the asuras as a consequence of their ‗fall.‘
In Vana Parva, Hanuman tells Bhīma that in an earlier time there was no varṇ a, no distinction
between dānava and deva (perhaps suggesting that all five tribes of Āryans had a common goal
in the new land) but after the deterioration of virtues (perhaps virtue of the sacrifice), societal
norms and traditions were established to sustain society. In the new order, the celestials are
established and sustained by sacrifice, and men maintain themselves by following the
ordinances of Bṛ haspati and Uśanas (Uśanas is also Śukra, who is the guru of the dānavas).
In other words, men maintain themselves by following the tradition of either the devas or the
dānavas (Mbh. 3.9.418)—the former adhering to presumptive good, and the latter to a
presumptive evil. Another example explaining the fall is of Rāhu‘s sabotage of the soma:In this
ĀdiParva myth, Rāhu, disguised as a deva, drinks the ambrosia and Narāyana cuts off his head
with his discus. Rāhu's head rises to the sky and then falls to the earth. This sabotage
becomes the genesis of the eternal enmity between Rāhu and Candra and Sūrya (Mbh. 1.5.19).
Hence, we can say, given that Candra and Sūrya are emblems of natural order, Rāhu is the
breaker of this order of the Āryanṛ ta, and his transgression causes his fall. It must, however, be
noted that Rāhu is not evil, nor is his theft of soma evil, because the soma did not belong to
thedevasin the first place. Candra and Sūrya precipitate his fall simply because he opposes the
ascendency of the devas. Nevertheless, the consequence of Rāhu‘s fall is that it condemns the
dānavas to not only eternal degradation but also habitation on earth.
The order that comes into existence on earth is ‗new‘ as Hanuman states, but even in
this new order the devas and asuras inherit the legacy of the conflict. Some scholars, like, Wash
Edward Hale (1986) suggest that the conflict between the two is related to their origins. They
believe that the asuras were aboriginal, and they cite historical and mythological references to
support the claim: that the asuras live in mountains, forests, and on the earth; they are older
than the suras, and since the earth originally belonged to them, they have animosity towards the
surasbecause they usurp what legitimately belonged to the asuras. But, these scholars also
acknowledge that the gods, nonetheless, make alliances with asuras to reap benefits for their
own worshippers, and, in addition, the asuras are often grouped with different Hindu tribes
within the fold of Āryan (p. 25).92While this argument has some merit, other proofsuggests that
the asuraswere always part of the Āryans society,but they broke away, because of differences
in belief or because of bad blood is more convincing. The asuras were not a different people;
they were not the ‗other‘in the same way that the nāgas were; neither were they considered evil;

92
Hale, W. E. (1986) Ásura in Early Vedic Religion. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
 N a y a k | 82

they just abhorred the order that their contenders instituted. In fact, in the Mahābhārata, they

are not even considered an-ārya. For example, Bhīṣma tells Yudhiṣ ṭ hira in the ŚāntīParva

that the dānavas did not even live on earth till the Treatyuga (Mbh. 12.207:41), which suggests
thatprior to that, in the Kṛ ta age, they were as celestial as the devas, and, therefore, they were
as much a part of the Āryan cosmological cycle as the devas.
The most emphatic proof of thedānavas being Āryanis that they eventually came back
into the fold, either through exogamy, or simply because, as is the nature of families, they
reconciled their differences. The familial myths in the Mahābhārata are too specific and clear to
ignore the fact that the asuras were part of Āryans, participating in much of the Āryan societal
practices. For example, both the devas and dānavas are equally involved in the churning of the
ocean, which could have been an amalgamated raid of all Āryans against the indigenous people
to acquire their wealth. Another example is in the ĀdiParva of the Mahābhārata, when Ganga
hands over Devavrata to Śāntanu. She tells Śāntanu how well versed Devavrata is in the Vedas
and other conventions and says, ―both the celestials and the asuras look on him with favor‖
(Mbh. 1.8:100), suggesting not only that the asuras were part of the same equation but also they
had equal status asdevas in the Āryan community, as per the Vedas.
Āryan marriage practices are further proof of the asurasbelonging to the same society.
Asura marriage was an integral part of the Āryans‘ marital system. According to Manu, it is sixth
on the list of favored methods, suggesting that the traditions of the asuras were not different
from the Āryans. Āpastambain his Dharmasūtra describes theasura marriage as an accepted
norm--one in which the bridegroom gives a bride price according to his free will and ability
(2.12:1).93And Manu explains that the first six kinds of marriage should be considered lawful by
Brāhmins, the last four (Gandharva, Asura, Rākśasa and Piśāca) for Kṣ atriyas, and the asura
marriage is recommended for Vaiśyas and Śūdras.94 In fact, Subhadra‘s marriage to Arjuna is
even lower than an asura marriage; it is a rākśasa marriage and is still considered lawful. If the
asuras were evil, demonic, or even the ‗other‘--the indigenous people--would their practices of
marriage have been part of Āryan societal norms, especially since marriage ensures the
continuance of a family and kingship?

93
Dharmasūtras,Patrick Olivelle (trans).(2003). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 91
94
The Laws of Manu. G. Bühler (trans.) (2006), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. From Sacred Books of the East Vol. 25, F.
Max Müler (Ed.) (1886), p. 79.
 N a y a k | 83

(ii) Reinterpretation of Asura Myths

In Hindu Mythology, the devas and asurasare part of the same family tree, and this is
evident through many myths, especially in the Mahābhārata. A myth that is often repeated in
various texts is that of the familial relationship between the devas and the asuras. The
genealogy goes back to Brāhmaṇ a and his mind-born sons. One of his sons was Dakṣ a, a
Prajāpati, who was born from Brāhmaṇ a‘s toe. Dakṣ ahad thirteen daughters, and among them
were Dānu, Diti and Aditi. All of Dakṣ a‘s daughters were married to Kaśyapa, who was Marīci‘s
son (another of Brāhmaṇ a‘s mind-borns). From Dānu, who is the elder sister, were born the
Dānavas, and from Diti were born the Daityas,95 and the progeny of Aditi were the Adityas, who
were the devas. Hence the dānavas or asuraswere the elder cousin brothers of the Adityas.
This fact of asuras being older in the same family is another key to understanding the asura
concept, because the generation gap between old and new can be cited as one cause for the
perpetual conflict between devas and asuras.

1. Madhu and Kaitabh: asuras and creation

In one of the creation myths told in the Mahābhārata, when Brahmā is born from the

lotus, arising from Viṣṇu‘s navel, the dānavas, Madhu and Kaitabh, prevent Brahmā from

creating a new cosmology, because their existence suggeststhat an older cosmic order already

exists. Moreover, thisolder order is within the parameters of same ṛta and societal mores that

Brahma hopes to establish in the new order. Madhu and Kaitabh state that, ―we are always firm
in truth and morality. None is equal to us in strength, appearance, beauty, virtue, asceticism,
charity and goodness and self-control‖ (Mbh. 3.203.19). From these words,it is clear that not
only is the older order of moral codes Āryan (a pre-form of the later establishment), it is also not
evil, because these behaviors described by the dānavas are what Āryan ethics include.

Therefore, Brahmā is hesitant or afraid to create a new order to replace it. But Viṣṇu, who, in

this new order, needs to be established as the new Supreme Divine, manipulates Madhu and
Kaitabh to end the old order. He tricks the two dānavasto give him a boon by first asking them to
ask for a boon. They respond by stating that they are the ones who should be giving boons,

95
In the Sṃṛ ti texts, the terms dānava and daitya are often interchangeable with asura.
 N a y a k | 84

once again suggesting that they are elder and in a higher position by already existing. And

Viṣṇu does ask them for a boon—that Madhu and Kaitabh should allow Viṣṇu to kill them so

that he can get on with his act of creation. The two dānavas agree but with two conditions: that

they should be killed in an open space and that they be allowed to be born as Viṣṇu‘s sons in

the new creation. Viṣṇu agrees, and seeing his uncovered thighs as the only open space, kills

them there (Mbh. 3.203:26), thus eliminating the older order to make place for the new order.
Aside from the fact that the dānavas exist before the devas and have already created
the cosmology and system of ṛ ta, many other elements also become apparent in this myth:
their request to be killed in an open space suggests that a new sacred space of the new order
must be open and not interfere with any of the spaces already occupied. But, since Madhu and
Kaitabh allow themselves to be killed, it indicates that for the new order to come into existence,

the old must be destroyed. In addition, Viṣṇu gets the dānavas to reconcile to the creation of

this new order. Moreover, they ask to be born again as Viṣṇu‘s sons, which suggests that they

are not only willing to remain in the fold, but that they also want to be part of the new Āryan
continuum of reincarnation—a concept that was gaining prevalence at this time. Hence, if

Viṣṇu, in the new order, is the Daivic Supreme and creation flows from him, then in this order

both the devas and dānavas are his sons—reincarnation of earlier Āryans.
Another important attestation to the fact that the dānavas and devas are part of the

same system is that Viṣṇu destroys this existing order on his thighs. This specificity of the

thighs is very revealing: thighs are part of the body; hence, the dānavas belong to the same
body as thedevas. Moreover, thighs are not only a part of the body that are considered most

vulnerable, but with reference to the Ṛ g Vedic Puruṣa Suktam hymn, the varṇ a that originates

from the thighs is the Vaiśyas --the varṇ a related to business, farming and financial prosperity.
Hence, this could be an insight into why a new Āryan order needed to be created: at stake was
the economic stability of evolving Āryan society, because the earlier Āryans had relied on other,
more primitive means of survival, and that earlier economic system was the most vulnerable
area in current Āryan society; it needed to be overhauled. This factor also connects directly to
Duryodhana‘s killing in the frame story of the Mahābhārata. The fatal blow that kills Duryodhana
is the one Bhīma strikes on his thighs. In the context of this myth, Duryodhana‘s killing can be
 N a y a k | 85

seen as both--the strike against his wealth and prosperity and the destruction of an old order
within the same system.
This myth of Madhu and Kaitabh is repeated in ŚāntīParva, and what is revealed in this
later interpolation is that the two demons are not born from Brahmā‘s ear wax (as in the
VanaParva myth) but from two drops of water in the divine lotus itself; thus further suggesting
that the asuras were part of the Āryan society, because, as is apparent in the myth, they share
the same cosmological space and are born from the same primordial waters. But what is
curious about this second version of the myth is that now the two asuras are not evolved and
they lack dharma (unlike in the earlier myth); instead they are embodiments of Darkness and
Ignorance. However, even this negative aspect puts them in the Āryan fold, because they are
symbolic of the post-Vedic Āryan metaphysics of evil which is equivalent to ignorance and which

always has the potential of evolvement into knowledge. The suggestion here is of Viṣṇu

dispelling pre-creation darkness of chaos by facilitating a figurative death of ignorance and

establishing an order through the knowledge of the Vedas.This ignorance is the presumptive
evil that came to be seen as the decline of righteousness after the fall of the asuras, and even
though it had no precedence of an actual evil in the older order, the new order of a civic society
needed definitive values of good and evil to sustain itself. Ironically, while the values of evil
were given new definitions, the values of good remained unchanged, and one of the key values
of good was a continuance of the belief in the logos of the Vedas. Therefore, furthering this
philosophy is the fact that Madhu and Kaitabh steal the Vedas, and Hari has to kill them to
retrieve the texts so that not only can creation be accomplished (Mbh. 12:347.38-63), but also
the new order can be established on the old foundation of the Vedas.

2. Yayāti and the origin of the Kurus

The familial relationship between devas and dānavas is not limited to the mythical, but it
also extends into the genealogy of the families of the Mahābhārata. For example, in Yayāti‘s
story (Mbh. 1.78-84), when Śukra discovers that Yayāti, despite being married to his daughter,
Devayāni, has been keeping a separate household and procreating with the dānava princess,
Sarmiṣ tha, he curses the king to lose his youth. Yayāti then begs each of his sons—two from
Devayāni and three from Sarmiṣ tha--to exchange their youth with his old decrepitude. Only
Puru, Sarmiṣ tha‘s youngest son, follows putrádharma and gives his youth to his father. To
reward him for adhering to his dharma, Yayāti makes his dānava son, Puru, king after him, and
 N a y a k | 86

it is this Puru that starts the dynasty of the Pauravas of which Janamejaya is descendent, as are
the Pāṇ ḍ avas and the Kauravas. Hence the whole Kuru lineage has a dānava blood-line.
This myth of Yayāti is multi-dimensional. While it defines the lineage of the heroes of the
Mahābhārata, it also gives very interesting insights into asura aspects, which are hardly evil.
The first and most obvious aspect is that if the dānava question is to be seen as a fault at birth,
then it must also be seen that all the heroes (Pāṇ ḍ avas and Kauravas) of the Mahābhārata
have that fault—by virtue of Sarmiṣ tha and her dānava son, Puru. Also, it is evident from this
myth that the asuras are not only considered part of the Āryan fold but are also unrelated to the
ethics of evil and good: when Yayāti marries Devayāni, he carries on an affair with Sarmiṣ tha.
If her asura birth were a matter of shame or even evil-ness, would Yayātibe involved in this
alliance? In fact, when Sarmiṣ tha propositions Yayāti, she tells him she is ―high born‘ and he
acknowledges it and even fathers three sons with Sarmiṣ tha (and two with Devayāni.) Also,
the asura is not seen as evil even by the Brāhmins, because when Śukra discovers Yayāti‘s
indiscretion, he is angered, not by the fact that Yayāti has been carrying on an affair with an
asura princess, but simply because he is having an extra marital affair; hence he is cheating on
Devayāni, and he curses Yayāti in order to curb his youthful and uncontrolled sexual desire, not
because of his involvement with a girl who could potentially be evil. In fact, if asura behavior
were evil and against dharma, Puru certainly doesn‘t show it. In actuality, it is the other
brothers—the Brāhmingirl, Devayāni‘s sons--who break putrádharma codes. Puru, on the other
hand, is the epitome of dharma, and Yayāti rewards this by making him king. In addition, when
the priests of his court oppose his choice of heir apparent, it is because Puru is the youngest,
and not because he is the son of an asura mother.
This suggestion that the dānavas were accepted simply as another (sometimes rival)
faction of the Āryans and not considered evil and abhorrent is also clear from the fact that
Śukra, a high and respected Brāhmin, serves as the guru of dānavas. In fact, Śukra, himself, as
Uśanaswas declared by goddess Ūmā as her son, after he passed out of Śankara‘s stomach
through his urethra (Mbh. 12.289:34-35). It is true that when Devayāni and Sarmiṣ tha quarrel,
it is over the question of superiority—of the Brāhmingirl or asura princess--but then this question
seems not so much of asuravs.Āryan as it is of the long-standing feud between Kṣ atriyas and
Brāhmins.
These myths demonstrate that by the time of the formation of the Mahābhārata
traditions, the asuras, who had suffered a fall in the earlier texts, were accepted back into Āryan
society, but the notoriety of their fall remained with them, as did their reduced status, and this
 N a y a k | 87

fall actually began in the Ṛ g itself, where, in the later books, the asuras began to be posed as
Āryan enemies and this trend continues in subsequent texts. For example:
Who withstands your vajra, O Indra? The godless asuras are weaponless. Destroy them
with the wheel, O drinker of Somadregs.‖ (RV 8.96:9, cited in Hale, p.83).96
Here Hale translates ―asura adevas‖ as ―godless asuras‖ and not ―asuras who are not gods‖ (p.
83),97and Indra is invoked to destroy the godless enemies who stand helpless before him as if
they were weaponless. With this meaning of ―godless,‖ the reference is obviously to those men
who did not believe in the Āryan gods that had gained supremacy, and hence had to be done
away with by Indra, who was the new leader of the pantheon. These asuraswere further
weakened in the Brāhmaṇ as by the trickery of the gods and their own ignorance; and
henceforth, the fall became complete: In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇ a the gods trick them out of
heaven (as cited in O‘Flaherty, 1976, p. 68),98 and in Chāndogya Upaniṣ ad, the asuras put the
sacrifice in their own mouth instead of in the fire; therefore they lose virtue and themselves (as
cited in O‘Flaherty, p. 68).99From there, it was only a very short step to the concept of asuras as
mythological demons.
This fall is very significant in understanding the meaning of asura in the Mahābhārata,
because in this epic, they hardly have the status they once enjoyed in the times of the early Ṛ g.
Their fall is their legacy and they are only afforded a second-class citizenship in epic Āryan
society. It is true that they prosper alongside the Āryans, and they are productive members of
the community. There is also intermarriage between them and the Āryans; however, they
remain suspect and are out-rightly condemned if they perpetrate any infractions to dharma, and,
if their power and prosperity threatens anyone, they are not only belittled for their asura-ness
but they are also often destroyed. This new status of the asuras is evident from the many epic
myths about the battles between thedevas and asuras and the repeated defeat of the asuras.
However, it is important to point out that despite the fall and loss of virtue of the asuras, the
battle is still not of good vs. evil in epic times. As Wendy Doniger states: it is simply an
archetypal and perpetual battle.(O‘Flaherty, 1976, p. 60).100 One of the reasons she gives for its
interminability is that the gods keep demons alive to keep men beholden to them. ―That is why
the victory of the gods is never complete—not because they are unable to conquer the demons
but because they do not wish to do so. For without the demons there would be no reason for
96
Hale, W. E. (1986) Ásura in Early Vedic Religion. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
97
Ibid. p. 83
98
O’Flaherty, W. D. (1976). The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
99
Ibid. p. 68
100
Ibid. p. 60
 N a y a k | 88

the gods to exist at all; without Untouchables there would be no Brāhmins‖(O‘Flaherty, 1976, p.
87).101

3. Indra-Vṛ tra battle paradigm

While, the battle between the devas and asurasis certainly archetypal, that is not the
only classification for it. Just like the initial Indra/Vṛ tra battle had a real cause and effect, but its
implications became paradigmatic for other battles; similarly, the many battles between the
devas and asuras, in various Mahābhāratamyths have their real causes and effects, but they
also mirror the archetype in that the asuras are always more powerful and the gods are always
threatened. Also, the gods always win (by whatever means possible) and the asura is either
destroyed or at least shown his inferior place but never wholly conquered. It is this archetype
that scholars cite as the victory of good over evil, or that the battle is perpetual because it is
between good and evil. Other scholars, such as Aurobindo (1922-28), call it a ―struggle
between the Gods and their dark opponents, between the Masters of Light, sons of Infinity, and
the children of Division and Night, a battle in which man takes part and which is reflected in all
his inner life and action‖ (p. 470).102 Aurobindo also distinguishes between two kinds of
people—those with Asuric nature that obstruct God-knowledge, salvation and perfection; and
those of Daivic nature (p. 470).103 While the views of these scholars that an archetypal battle
could be seen as symbolic of good and evil and the interplay of the three gunas of satva, rajas,
and tamas, is certainly one important perspective; it is not the only perspective. The mythic
asuras and devas represented in theMahābhārataand in pre-epic texts are not just symbolic of
these qualities of good and evil; neither is their perpetual battle necessarily the victory of good
over evil or even that the battle is about good and evil, because the myths suggests other
causative factors, such as economic rivalry. For example, the cause of the first battle of Indra
and Vṛ tra (as narrated in the Ṛ g, RV 1:32) is Indra‘s desire to acquire water and wealth from an
enemy. Also, the rivals of the gods—the asuras, the ones who are supposedly an ‗obstruction‘
to goodness, if measured by post-Ṛ g ethics---are actually more virtuous and more evolved in
sātvic tendencies than Indra. Moreover, the consequence of this battle is that Indra‘s impugn
theft and killing of a virtuous being,just because he is an enemy, is established as a normative
code which also differs from the original code of ṛ ta, because it corrupts the aesthetic order by

101
Ibid. p. 87
102
Aurobindo, (1922-28). Essays on the Gita, (9th Ed,).Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.
103
Ibid.
 N a y a k | 89

diverting human action away from the sacred fixed point. This is hardly a societal code worthy of
being exemplary.
The narration of this very same battle between Indra and Vṛ tra occurs thrice in the
Mahābhārata, and interestingly, Vṛ tra not only becomes more virtuous in each retelling, but he
is also, advertently, made out to be Indra‘s victim, and, most importantly, his very asura-ness is
shown as synonymous to godliness. This suggests that the Āryans were aware of the evil-ness
of destroying someone who was good, simply because he was the enemy, but having accepted
it as a dictate of their new supreme Divine, Indra and altered from of ṛ ta, they followed it as
paradigmatic behavior.

In the second retelling of this Indra/Vṛ tramyth (Mbh. 5.9-11), Tvastra, is a ―great

devotee and lord of all beings and chief among gods‖ and Indra is afraid of his power, more so,

because Tvastra creates a virtuous son with three heads, who can be considered a deva three

times over: with one mouth he reads the Vedas, with the other he drinks soma, and, with the

eyes of the third, he sees the cardinal points. Indra kills Tvastra‘s son with his vajra (after failing

to entice him with apsarās and kāma), but despite killing him, Indra‘s fear does not diminish;
instead he grows even more afraid and asks a passing woodcutter to cut off the head of the

slain ―Vişvarūpa‖. The woodcutter denounces Indra‘s action and calls the dead son of Tvastra a

―son of a ṛṣi ‖ and a Brāhmin. Hence Indra is condemned as a Brāhminkiller. Also, at that time,

neither Tvastra nor his son isasura. But then, enraged at the death of his son, Tvastra creates

Vṛ tra to avenge his son‘s death. Vṛ tra is supremely powerful and because no one can oppose
him, he is referred to as ―Mahāasura” (Great asura) (Mbh. 5:10:35). He is so powerful and

invincible that Indra needs to get Viṣṇu‘s help to destroy him, and together, through treacherous

means, they kill him. But now Indra is so guilty that he loses his godly power and hides in a lake
in diminutive form, ―as restless as a snake‖ (Mbh. 5.10:44).
In this myth, Vṛ tra is both an asura and a deva. Prior to Indra‘s killing him, when the
celestials come to Vṛ tra to request him to accept Indra‘s friendship, Vṛ tra refers to himself as
god or deva, saying, ―How can there be peace between us two—myself and Śakra? How can
there be friendship between two gods who are both powerful‖ (Mbh. 5.10:21), suggesting that
the battle is a power play between two equals—not good and bad or goodness and evil. Also,
 N a y a k | 90

when Indra kills Vṛ tra, the latter is even referred to as the fearful god V ṛ tra
“devabhayankara‖—a word that has connotations of Mahāasura. In addition, this myth gives a
clear indication of how asura power came to be seen as enemy power: all beings that practiced
virtue were a form of devas, but if one were considered a threat by the other, he was termed an
‗asura‘ by the threatened. In fact, it is possible that the Vṛ tra faction also referred to Indra as
asura, but since this story is told from the perspective of Indra‘s faction, we see only V ṛ tra as
asura.
A significant element that comes to light in this version of the myth is that while Indra
may be a deva in name, he is in no way of daivic nature, because if he were, he would not be
‗afraid‘ of the asura, and most importantly, he would not ‗lose‘ his sātvic qualities by destroying
the asura, and his sātvic-ness would not be reduced to the ‗restlessness of a nāga.‘ By the

same standard then, neither are Tvastra‘s first son or Vṛ tra of asuric nature, because there is

no indication that Tvastra‘s first son is a ―[man] of power who [is] out for the service of [his]

intellectual, vital and physical ego,‖ as Aurobindo characterizes asuric nature (p. 470).104In fact,
it is Indra who seems to fit this characterization. In addition, and by extension, neither is
Duryodhana of purely asuric nature, which is made evident in the context in which this myth is
placed: In the Udyog Parva, Śalya compares Yudhiṣ ṭ hira to the Indra of this myth, seeking to
maintain his throne, and he compares Duryodhana first to Vṛ tra and then to Nahuṣ a, who
replaces Indra on the throne as king of gods and is later deposed because of his arrogance and
disrespect of the Brāhmins. From these comparisons,it can be surmised that the reference
does not make Duryodhana an evil asura—just as Vṛ tra is not evil—but an enemy of equal
power and a threat. It is true that Duryodhana is arrogant, as Nahuṣ a was, and it is only in that
sense that he displays asuric behavior. But this same arrogance can also be seen as the
rājasic confidence of any ĀryanKṣ atriya who needed to keep himself bolstered in order to face
the enemy in war. Hence, while the quality of arrogance may be seen as an asura quality, it can
also be considered a natural inclination of a Kṣ atriya. In addition, and worthy of note in Śalya‘s
comparisons is the fact that Yudhiṣ ṭ hira, on the other hand, portrayed in the character of Indra,
comes across as more asuric in behavior and intention, because he wishes to destroy a
righteous enemy whose ascetic power threatens his own.
The first retelling of the Indra/Vṛ tra myth in the Mahābhāratais from the perspective of
the Dadhīci story in the Vana Parva, (Mbh. 3.101-102) and in this re-telling, we learn the most

104
Aurobindo, S. (1922-28). Essays on the Gita, (9th Ed.).Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.
 N a y a k | 91

about the purpose of the perpetuity of battle and its connotational relationship to the conflict
between the different factions of the Āryans. In this myth Vṛ tra is a Kalkeya of the Dānava tribe
and is a dānava by birth. The reason for the battle is that once again the celestials are afraid of
his growing power and the power of Kalkeyas. Hence they must destroy him, and to this

purpose,ṛṣi Dadhīci gives up his life so that the celestials can use his bones to make vajra. In

the battle that ensues, Indra, with the help of Viṣṇu, kills Vṛ tra with the vajra. Having lost their

leader, the asurasthen confer and decide to destroy the asceticism of the Brāhmins, and this
conferenceoccurs in the ocean where thedānavas use Varuna‘s palace as their fort. From this
base, the dānavas begin to destroy the Brāhmins and ascetics in the āśramas of Vasiṣ ṭ ha and
Cavyana and Bharadwaj.
The key element to understanding the factional conflict portrayed in this myth is that not
only do the dānavas wage their war solely against the Brāhminsbut also that the warfare of
these dānavas seems almost like guerilla warfare. They kill at night and disappear into the sea
in the morning, and like guerillas raiding a place to oust the organized establishment, they
destroy sites representative of the establishment, such as the sacrificial alters, leaving the
contents of broken jars and ghee ladles strewn all over the place. If this behavior is seen in the
context of modern times, it can be perceived as guerrilla warfare which is carried out by activists
and militants who don‘t agree with an establishmentthat they think is corrupt and tyrannical, and
they rebel against it, often using violent means. The fact that these dānavas hurt only the
Brāhminsis very indicative. It suggests a sense of resentment that certain factions of Āryan
society may have felt against the growing power of Brāhmins.
Two other meanings of this battle are most obvious: (a) the passing of an old order and
its resistance to yield place to new. Varuna and his asuras represent the old order, which is
coming to an end and Varuna is relegated to the underworld. The Brāhmins, who are the target
of the guerilla-like dānavas, are of the new order—an extension of the daivic order. But, there is
no indication that this new order is a good order, replacing an old, evil order; it is just that—a
new order, one whose evil-ness or good-ness needs to be empirically proven. (b) This is a
conflict between new establishment and those who are against the change, which is not
necessarily for the betterment of society. In fact, from the Bh ṛ gu elements of the epic, we know
the tyranny of the Brāhmins in the Āryan society and the oppression they meted out on not just
the ordinary man but also the Kṣ atriyas. Hence, we can see these guerilla asuras almost as
militant liberators. Their violent tactics may be wrong, but their purpose is more dhārmic than
 N a y a k | 92

that of Indra and Dadhīci, who assist in supporting the tyrants rather than sustaining a general
good in society.
4. Sunda and Upsunda: victims of māyā

True to the archetype of the deva-asura conflict, the asuras are always in a no-win
situation. Despite being virtuous or oppressed, they are destroyed, and, most often, it is
because they are victims of duplicity by the gods, which Indra established as rightful practice
within the bounds of ṛ ta. So, while the asuras fight with true Kṣ atriya prowess, the devas use
treachery, which takes many forms, including the employment of a woman‘s sexuality to entice
the dānavas. A good example of this is the myth of Sunda and Upsunda (Mbh. 1.208-213).
These two brothers are sons of the asura Nikumba in the race of Hiraṇ yakaśipū. They are
inseparable, and together they desire to subjugate the three worlds, so together they go to the
Vindhya mountains and practice the most severe of penances. Once again, the gods are
terrified of their ascetic power and try everything to disrupt it by using māyā, but the asura
brothers are undeterred. Finally, Brahmā appears to grant them boons, and the brothers ask
for knowledge of all weapons, māyā, and the ability of shape shifting. They also wish to be
immortal. The Grandfather grants them all but the boon of immortality, telling them that he
cannot grant that particular boon, and instead, asks them to choose their form of death. Having
implicit trust in each other, the brothers choose that only they be each other‘s agent of death.
And, so with their super powers they begin to live a life of pleasure, and, tiring of that, begin to
subjugate the three worlds, disrupting sacrifices, chasing Brāhminsout of hermitages and killing
them. They also disrupt traditions, such as sacred ceremonies, weddings, honor of pitŕis and
recitation of the Vedas. Basically, they disrupt the whole cosmic order preserved by the
Brāhmins--on earth, in heaven, and in the underworld, and then they return to Kurukṣ etra to live
as lords of the worlds, enjoying the asuric orderthey have created by throwing the
daivic/Brāhmanical system awry. To destroy these brothers, the gods device a treacherous
means—Tilottamā--a woman so brilliant and beautiful that even the gods are bedazzled.
Tilottamā appears in a single, transparent, red garment before the brothers, flaunting all her
womanly charms, and soon the brothers are fighting over her. When they both kill each other,
the daivic order is restored.
This myth proves a few points at the outset: that asura power was anti Brāhmin and a
threat to the Brāhmins; the gods were a Brāhmin buffer. In other words, it was the Brāhmins
who created the gods, and they used these gods to destroy whoever and whatever threatened
them. Also, when the Brāhmin gods couldn‘t defeat the asurasin battle, the Brāhmins used
 N a y a k | 93

whatever dirty tricks they could through the medium of gods—in this instance it is a woman.
There is also a clear disparity in the myth: the asura brothers are likened to celestials and
respected Āryan kings in terms of enjoyment of life, but, while the gods and kings are celebrated
for it, the asuras are destroyed. For instance, after subjugating the three worlds, when the
brothers return to their worldly pleasures, they are compared to the immortals who roam at will
in and around gardens and forests. In fact, when they first receive their boons from Brahmā and
return home to celebrate with their friends, sounds such as, ―Eat,‖ ―Feed,‖, ―Give,‖ Make Merry,‖
―Sing,‖ ―Drink,‖ ―Do as you like‖ are heard in every house. Thesesame behaviors and
expressions of celebrating life is mirrored in the stories of the sixteen worldly good kings that

Nārada tells Yudhiṣṭ hira after Abhimanyu is killed to convince Yudhiṣṭ hira that even the best

of kings who were true practitioners of puruṣ ārtha could not save their loved ones from death,
attesting to the fact that pleasure is the practice of Kṣ atriyas and it is sanctioned by puruṣ ārtha
(Mbh. 7.55-71). Yet, this same kāma and worldly pleasure are the cause of the asuras‘ death.
Hence, it can be said that this issue becomes one of ‗damned if he does and damned if he
doesn‘t.‘ In other words, if the asura embraces puruṣ ārtha and pursues artha and kāma, even
while observing dharma, he is perceived as becoming too powerful, and destroyed, mostly by
the gods who, in adharmicways, exploit his right to enjoyment. If he gives up the pleasure of life
and gains ascetic eminence, he is considered a threat to the Brāhminsand made to ‗fall‘ from
good-ness. And if he acts according to his suspected natural inclination, then he is condemned
for not making an effort to embrace good-ness and rise above his asura-ness. Hence, this
double standard of values makes the power of the dānavasthreatening to the established order.
But, to reiterate, the established order is not necessarily a good order.
There are many other myths in the Mahābhārata of similar nature with a similar cause—
the asura‘s poweris a threat; a similar means of asura destruction—through treachery; and a
similar effect—the asura‘s downfall. For example, in the Kaca Devayāni myth, the gods feel
threatened by the asuras, because their guru knows the formula of immortality, so they exploit
Devayāni‘s natural instinct of kāma to arrange for Kaca to learn the formula of immortality from
Śukra. Another similar myth is of sāgar manthan, where the gods are afraid to allow the

dānavas a share of the amṛ ta, and when the dānavas acquire it, the gods beg Viṣṇu to help,

who, through māyā, disguises himself as Mohini and entices the asuras to give up the amṛ ta.
In all these myths, some key facts come to light: the asuras are not evil but are perceived as
such because of the threat they pose to the hegemony of the gods. In addition, the asuras are
 N a y a k | 94

not outside the Āryan fold; they are simply an older order that the evolving Āryan sought to
replace.

5. Arjuna and Duryodhana: new generation of devas and asuras

The perpetuity of one order replacing another is quite evident in the Mahābhārata. In
most of these myths in which the order is changed through trickery, the agent of treachery is

Viṣṇu and the executer of treachery is Indra (both are brothers and Adityas). However, in the

main story of the Mahābhārata both Indra and Viṣṇu combine in the form of Arjuna, who takes

over the destruction of the dānavas, thus not only mirroring the eternal asura killers but also
their continual enmity with the dānavas. A good example of this transformation is Arjuna‘s
destruction of the Nivatakavacas (Mbh. 3.168-173) when Arjuna, on a quest to acquire celestial
weapons, is told by Indra to kill the Nivats. He is given no real reason except that Indra sees
them as his enemies, and he asks Arjuna to repay him for the divine weapons by defeating the
Nivats. Indra simply says, ‗the Nivats are my enemies—thirty million of them—destroy them.‘
But the myth is clear in depicting that the Nivats live peacefully under the ocean, not bothering
anyone, in a city more beautiful than that of the celestials, which they obtained with their
asceticism and dharma. However, Indra cannot abide this and gets a boon from Śiva that one
day he himself in a different form will destroy the Nivats and seize this city from them. Clearly,
Arjuna is Indra in a different form; he is the new Indra, and he enters the city and annihilates the
Nivats using Indra‘s vajra. Then, on his way back from destroying the Nivats, Arjuna sees a
revolving city which the dānavas Puloma and Kalkeya have won with their asceticism, and there
they live happily and peacefully without disturbing anyone, but Arjuna destroys this city of
Hiranyapura as well. Here he uses the rudra weapon, the weapon Rudra had once used for the
destruction of the dānavatriple city, Tripura. These weapons--the vajra and the rudra--are the
same celestial weapons that Arjuna brings back and uses against the Kauravas, which suggests
another transformation: the Kauravas are the asuras of old.
Another revealing factor of the Arjuna-Indra connection is that Arjuna is guided by
Indra‘s charioteer, Mātali. Commenting on these battles of Arjuna against the Nivats and the
Pulomas and Kalkeyas, Mātali even reminisces about Indra‘s battles of bygone days. He
remembers the battles when the gods, headed by Indra, fought with the demons over amṛ ta,
 N a y a k | 95

and when Indra fought with Vṛ tra, and then again, when he fought against Virocana. In fact,
Mātali sees the same pattern of Indra‘s battles in Arjuna‘s actions. Then Mātali tells Arjuna that
he has more prowess than the gods, which, of course is a clear indication of the
commencement of yet another new order—this time of warrior heroes.
Whether the battle is between devas and asuras or between warrior heroes and asuras,
these incidents of asura destruction can be seen as the paradigm of the eternal battle which is
set up to appear as the battle of good against evil and the victory of the good, but certain
illuminating elements clearly negate this: An important factor is that the battle has become
cause-less. There is no more real reason to destroy the asuras, but the old enmity exists like a
reflex action—an age-old prejudice that has lost its motive; hence the violence perpetrated
against the asuras is more pronounced. However, if virtue or goodness are an onus, then, here,
the burden of proof must necessarily rest in Arjuna‘s virtue or lack thereof, since having ‗more
prowess than even the gods‘ he is the representative of the new order. Also, he is the sole
agent of cause and effect. And he destroys both dānava cities without provocation; in fact, the
latter—Hiranyapura--is not even a conquest requested by Indra; Arjuna simply destroys the
Kalkeyas because of a rumored animosity, and, notably, in both cities, he leaves women and
children crying and wailing, a testament that his action is evil in that its consequence is the grief
of the innocent (Mbh. 3.168-173).
In addition to demonstrating a posteriori evil which is revealed through Arjuna‘s action,
this myth reverses the roles of the players in the degradation of yugas. An indication of this is in
the statement that Mātali makes. Witnessing Arjuna devastation of the demons, Mātali says, ―It
has been ordained by Pitāhmāh that this encounter will destroy creation. I see no other reason
for this battle‖ (Mbh. 3.171:22). He does not say that Arjuna is justified in his actionsbecause
they echo Indra‘s, or that the asuras are evil and always need to be destroyed; instead he
saysthis battle (unlike the previous battles of gods and demons) is without reason and will
destroy all of creation for no reason at all. Thus, Mātali‘s words point towards a total breakdown
of order and cosmology, because according to the myth of Time and the four yugas, the final
annihilation will occur when dharma has completely deteriorated. So, either this end of creation
brought about by Arjuna contradicts the orderliness of Great Time, or Arjuna‘s unprovoked and
preemptive battle to destroy the dānavasis the total deterioration of dharma; otherwise why
would creation be on the verge of destruction? Clearly, it is the latter.
Furthermore, the parallels between these and earlier battles of the devas and asurasand
the main war in the Mahābhārata can hardly be ignored: The Pāṇ ḍ avas are the newdevas with
Arjuna as the embodiment of Indra; and the Kauravas are the newasuras, who will be destroyed
 N a y a k | 96

with the same weapons the gods used against the asuras of olden times. Also, just as in all
battles, the dānavas were simply enemies—not evil, the Kauravas are also simply enemies—
not evil. In fact, just as in earlier battles, both wealth and virtue were on the side of the dānavas
and they were defeated by treachery, so it is a foreshadowing that the Kauravas may be in the
right and in similar vein, they will be defeated by deception. And since this paradigm of
consequentiality has already been drawn, we know that the consequence of the main
Mahābhārata battle will also bring grief to the innocent, and this will be perpetrated, not by the
Kauravas, the representatives of the dānavas, but by the Pāṇ ḍ avas, the new gods of the new
order.
There is no question that the Kauravas are the asuras of old, not only because of the
archetype they represent but also because this co-relation is established in many Mahābhārata
myths.To begin with, the Ādi Parvaestablishes that when the dānavas, having lost both heaven
and the underworld, had nowhere to go, they came to earth, where the same battles between
them and the devas are repeated. This not only perpetuates the cyclical battle, but it also
completes the cosmological order by taking into its fold all the three worlds. So the action moves
from the heavens to the earth, taking its cue from the fall of asuras from heaven. The ĀdiParva
introduces the myth of the origin of the dānavas on earth: ―The sons of Diti (the asuras), having
been continually defeated by the sons of Aditi (the celestials) and deprived of sovereignty and
heaven, began to take birth on earth…They took birth among earth creatures, cows, mules, and

horses, and some were even born as rākśasas and men, who became sovereign‖ (Mbh.

1:64.26-32; 64.27). So, it is clear that the asuras, at one time, enjoyed the sovereignty of
heaven but were defeated by the devas. Thus, leaving heaven, they came to earth—before the
devas. Once again, the śloka gives no indication that the asuras were evil or that their evil was
the cause of them being driven out of heaven by the gods. In this śloka, the words nirjita yudhi
(conquered in battle) simply suggest an opponent in war who has been vanquished; this foe
could be evil or good, just as the victor could be evil or good. We can also assume that if the
dānavas were sovereigns, they governed through a societal system which was not an evil
system, because they ‗enjoyed‘ their sovereignty. Therefore, morality is on the side of the
asuras, because the verse suggests that the heaven was rightfully theirs because they were
there before the gods. Furthermore, they claimed the earth before the devas even arrived
there. In the context of this paradigm of the asuras‘ legitimate right to both heaven and earth,
the legitimacy of throne of Hastināpur becomes clear; it belongs to the Kauravas, and the
Pāṇ ḍ avas are usurpers, just like the gods were in both heaven and earth, because in both
 N a y a k | 97

realms they arrived after the dānavas and snatched their wealth away from them, all in the guise
of being the victims of dānava oppression.
This ĀdiParva myth described that on earth, the dānavas continue to have conflicts with

the Āryans; and they especially oppress the Ṛṣis, a fact which weighs on Earth like a burden,

and she goes to Brahmāwith a plea to be alleviated of the weight. Brahmā, in turn, calls the
celestials, dwellers of heaven, and tells them to take birth on earth according to their respective
parts and battle the dānavas to unburden Earth. Hence, the celestials are born on earth in the

form of BrahmaṚ ṣ is and RājaṚ ṣ is. Even Narāyana follows suit, because to him, ―the most

exalted of all persons,‖ Indra, says, ‗―be incarnate‖‘ and Hari replies, ‗‖Be it so‘‖ (Mbh. 1.64-27-

49). The transference of the action from the heavens to the earth can also be seen as the

devas‘ bid to re-emphasize their cosmology in the new evolving era,because they continue to
fear the security of their particular order and they also see the wealth and power of asuras as
threatening. So the threat and fear of old remains, as does the need to eliminate both. What is
different is that asura-ness has become a legacy of birth, and the Asura is now categorized as a
race. In addition, theasuras‘ oppression of the earth-dwelling Āryans with their power and
strength can now also be seen as a quality of their ‗asura-ness‘; but, even here it is evident
thatthe power of the asuras only has the Vedic connotations of a power that threatens, which is
not necessarily evil.
A most noteworthy point of this ĀdiParva myth of origins is that on earth the
dānavasspecifically oppress the people of the four the varṇ as: ―Brāhmins, Kṣ atriya, Vaiśyas
and Śūdras‖ (Mbh. 1:64:33), which is a clear indication that by this time the varṇ āśrama had
been established in the new order of Āryan society, and it can be assumed that by this time, the
Āryans had evolved from living by the past models of myth and gods to establishing a civic
society with human societal codes, which included the social normative of varṇ aāśramadharma
and puruṣ ārtha which had replaced the divine order of ṛ ta. In other words, to use Eliade idea
of sacred space, the cosmological world that the evolving Āryans establish is not only been fully
affirmed, but it has also increased in its sacred space to include earthliness and classes of
people. This idea also has historical attestation. We know from historians that by this period,
the tribal culture and beliefs of the Āryans were transforming into early kingdoms with a
systematic mode of governance, and this governance extended toall people and races within
the Āryan fold who were now classified according to their varṇ a (Thapar, 2002, p. 119-
 N a y a k | 98

121).105And within this system was also the race of dānavas. It is important to reiterate that
although the dānavas were treated inequitably in society, they were not outside the fold. In fact,
they followed the same societal codes, lived in the same hierarchical system as the Āryans, and
enjoyed the same prosperity as the other Āryans. In fact, many of the Kṣ atriya kings and
exalted Brāhmins who fight in the Mahābhārataare the very same asuraswho reincarnated after
their fall (Mbh. (1.67:1-69).In addition, often the Āryans turn to the asuras for help, and use their
wealth and knowledge for their own aggrandizement. A good example of this is asuraMāyā,
who builds the Pāṇ ḍ avas‘ palace at Khāndavaprastha. But, this example also shows that the
use of asuric wealth is not without its price, and it remains the trigger for conflict, because it is
Khāndavaprastha and its display of wealth that provokes the next cycle of the battle—the
Mahābhārata. Furthermore, this time there is a twist in the conflict: the one who covets the
wealth is not a deva or a daivic representative; it is Duryodhana, who is an asura himself.
However, it can be argued that because, at this time, Duryodhana is unaware that he himself is
an asura, his covetousness of his rivals‘ wealth is not an asuric inclination; instead, it is more in
keeping with the archetypical, Indra-like behavior.
Duryodhana is an asura by birth—although, by legacy of myth; not by lineage. He is
born of the AsuraKāli, a fact that is revealed in the Vana Parvaafter Duryodhana is saved by the
Pāṇ ḍ avas from the Gandharvas and, as a result, he feels such shame that he wants to commit
suicide. As he contemplates death, he sees what he believes is a dream. In this dream, the
sons of Diti hear about Duryodhana‘s desire to end his life and through sacrifices and an
evocation of a goddess, they bring Duryodhana to a place where they have arranged a
sacrificial alter. When he arrives, the dānavas reveal to him that he was given as a boon to the
dānavas by Mahādeva to fight the cause of the dānavas on earth. They tell him that his upper
body is made of vajra and his lower body is made of flowers by the goddess. They also tell him
he is a celestial--a semi divine, just as the Pāṇ ḍ avas, and he is born to bring victory to the
dānavas. To help him in this mission, other dānavas have also been born on earth; for
example, Karna is the reincarnation of Naraka who Narāyana had killed in an earlier time, and
the Śamsaptakas are other powerful dānavas who will destroy Arjuna. They also mention that
the quality of asura-ness will possess the hearts of Bhīṣ ma and Drona and make them
heartless towards the Pāṇ ḍ avas and they will forget virtue, so that they will not be able to
interfere in Duryodhana‘s business (Mbh. 3.252:5-20).

105
Thapar, R. (2002). Early India. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
 N a y a k | 99

In all of this information that Duryodhana receives from the dānavas, except for Bhīṣma

and Drona‘s being possessed by the heartlessness asura-ness, (which ultimately is their own
free will), there is no mention that Duryodhana is the embodiment of evil or that he will subdue
the Pāṇ ḍ avas through evil means. In fact, his connection to the dānavasre-affirms him as a
representative victim of an age-old war. Also, despite being told that he has been born to fight
the cause of the dānavas, in this ‗dream‘ Duryodhana sees the dānavas as knowers of the
Vedas, and practitioners of sacrifices. They are also able to invoke the goddess who has made
Duryodhana‘s lower body of flowers, which, in itself is a very notable evidence, because it hints
at the respect the dānavas have for the feminine principle within Āryandharma, as opposed to
the devas who constantly use the feminine for treachery. In addition, the fact that his lower body
is made of flowers is indicative that he never perverts kāma; instead sexuality for him is always
a flowering. Clearly, here the dānavas, unlike those of earlier battles, are practitioners of high
Āryan values of the new era. Also, Duryodhana‘s upper body is made of vajra, a divine weapon
that Viṣ ṇu and Indra used to destroy Vṛ tra. This factor not only makes Duryodhana invincible
to Viṣ ṇu and Indra, but it also gives him moral superiority over them, because while Viṣ ṇu and
Indra use vajra as an offensive; Duryodhana is armored with it as a defensive.
The evidence from the above examples proves another important factor about the nature
of asuras and their role in the Mahābhārata. In these myths that are subsequent to the dānavas’
fall, the enmity of devas and asuras is no longer about the establishment of different
cosmological orders; it has shifted to the possession of power and wealth within the same order,
and more importantly, this new order pertains to temporality rather than just divinity. Hence,
when Duryodhana returns to Hastināpur and worships the Brāhminsand celebrates sacrifices
and gives generous dakśinās, following the codes of artha by giving and enjoying wealth, which
is cited as being the only ―proper use of wealth‖ (Mbh. 3.257:21-22), he is not only affirming his
participation in the divine cosmological order of the Āryans, but he is also participating in the
Āryans ideology in which the acquisition of material wealth is both a temporal sacrifice and its
consecration. However, despite his adherence to these Āryans values, Duryodhana‘s pursuit
and acquisition of wealth is perceived in the Mahābhārata as asuric, because he is born an
asura; he is labeled an asura; and whatever action he performs—even if it is ethical—it is
considered the action of an asura. But, if Duryodhana‘s desire for wealth is asuric, then both the
Kauravas and Pāṇ ḍ avas who fight to become lords and leaders of this new material order must
be seen as asuric. In addition, in light of this materiality, the archetype of the deva-
asurajuxtaposition becomes inconsequential. In fact, by reiterating the prototypical deva=good
 N a y a k | 100

and asura=evil imperative, the human imperative and moral agency of not just the asura-
Āryans but also the daivic-Āryans is negated, and their myths lose ethical and moral relevance.
From these myths and definitions of asurait is clear that the asurasin the
Mahābhārataarehuman moral agents with human qualities of both good and evil. They also try
to adhere to the ethical codes of a societal system in which they believed but which was rapidly
changing. Perhaps, the only error on their part is that they resisted change, and the Brāhmins,
who were the architects of the new social order, could not abide this. Hence, using the
degradation of the asura concept that occurred in earlier literatures as a weapon,
theytargetedthe non-conformists and labeled them as evil. However, not only are the
asurasĀryans, they are also not an embodiment ofevil; they are simply the other Āryans.
Therefore, one of the key problems of evil revealed through the reinterpretation of the
nāga and asura myths in the Mahābhāratais the victimization of the ‗other‘. The concept of the
‗other‘ has deep roots; it originated in the Vedic times when the Āryans needed to establish
themselves, and it continued through to the epic times. Admittedly, by the time of the
Mahābhārata, the imperative for civic and economic stability had facilitated much assimilation,
which occurred through various positive means, such as exogamy and acceptance of the
‗other.‘, but it also occurred through subjugation and annexation. While this acculturation did
breed some tolerance and secularization; the Vedic idea that the ‗other‘ was an-Ārya; hence
non-conforming, hence a threat, persisted among people, and when ethical ideologies were
developed, these characteristics of the ‗other‘ came to be seen as the embodiment of evil,
necessarily subject to condemnation. However, there is no evidence that the others—the nāgas
and/or the asuras were evil or that their practices were unethical. In fact, evidence from
Mahābhārata myths proves that these ‗others‘ were more exemplary in their actions and
behaviors than the characters which are considered good. Most often, as in the case of the
asuras, these ‗others‘ were actually adherents of the Āryan order, but because the
establishment felt threatened by them, they were castigated. The establishment—the creators
and keepers of the order—was the Brāhmins, who maintained the order with brutal rigidity to
ensure their own hegemony. Consequently, this concept of the ‗other‘ instituted deep societal
prejudices through which both ‗others‘—the nāgas and asuras—were constantly victimized,
sometimes to the extent of genocidal proportions, and this became a paradigm for future
generations to follow.