User talk:Kalkrishnan

Mitra-Varuna
Kalkrishnan, it is not a "thesis" that Mitra and Varuna are Asuras, this is completely undisputed. Yes, they may also be addressed as "deva", and we can state this, but your "casting doubt on the thesis" is mistaken original research. dab (&#5839;) 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful if you could point to at least one verse in Rig Veda that addresses Varuna as an Asura. Maybe it is there, but I have not seen it. Kalkrishnan 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that you have posted the reference (5.63). Thanks! Kalkrishnan 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, I just realized that it may be less clear-cut than I thought. You are certainly within your rights to ask for references, and I'll try to provide them. Scepticism is a good thing :) dab (&#5839;) 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Clearly, you are very knowledgeable in the area, so I am inclined to defer to you. However it is far from clear-cut. For another interesting example, see 3.59.6, where Mitra is individually referred to as Deva, in the 3rd person ("mitrasya devasya"). i.e., not just directly addressed as Deva as in the example twinned with Varuna, but just in talking about him. It seems that the terms Deva and Asura are not so distinctively used in the Rigveda. Kalkrishnan 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, this is true, Asuras can also be called "deva" in the Rigveda, because "deva" already assumes the generic meaning of "deity". But this means that the clearcut division of Asuras vs. Devas is a reconstruction, and is already blurred in the Rigveda. I am certain that the Asura vs. Deva families picture is widely accepted (already because of the Aesir, and Ahura and what not), but you are perfectly right that if it is a reconstruction, we have to declare it as a reconstruction. I will look into it. For the moment, you are certainly welcome to state that Mitra and Varuna are also addressed as "deva" in the Rigveda. regards, dab (&#5839;) 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)