Archeological findings unearthed recently in Tamil Nadu shake up traditional historical dates assigned to many events in India.
The finding of Poompuhar,Kaverippommpattinam,Tamil Nadu on the shores off Tamil date pushes the date of Poompuhar by at least 14,000 years.
In fact this can be as far back by 30,000 years.
‘The place is called Poompuhar. It lies on southeast India’s Coromandel coast facing the Bay of Bengal between modern Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. Its immediate offshore area has been the subject of marine archaeological investigations by India’s National Institute of Oceanography since the 1980’s — and numerous non-controversial finds of man-made structures dated between the third century AD and the third century BC have been made in the “inter-tidal zone” close to shore at depths down to 6 feet (approximately 2 metres).
These finds of structures in shallow water (some so shallow that they are exposed at low tide) have been quite widely written-up in the archaeological literature. But for some reason other discoveries that the NIO has made in deeper water off Poompuhar have attracted no attention at all. Most notably these other discoveries include a second completely separate group of structures fully three miles from the Poompuhar shore in water that is more than 70 feet (23 metres) deep. The lack of interest is surprising because to anyone with even minimal knowledge of post-glacial sea-level rise their depth of submergence is – or should be – highly anomalous. Indeed according to Glenn Milne’s sea-level data the land on which these structures were built last stood above water at the end of the Ice Age more than 11,000 years ago.
Is it a coincidence that there are ancient Tamil flood myths that speak of a great kingdom that once existed in this area called Kumari Kandam that was swallowed up by the sea? Amazingly the myths put a date of 11,600 years ago on these events — the same timeframe given by Plato for the end of Atlantis in another ocean.’
Silappadikaram refers to Buddhism in detail and the author Ilango Adigal,brother of Chera King,Cheran Chenguttuvan,was a Buddhist monk.
‘The authorship of Silappatikaram is credited to the pseudonym Ilango Adigal (“Prince-Ascetic”). He is reputed to be the brother of Chera king Senguttuvan, although there is no evidence in the Sangam poetries that the famous king had a brother. There are also claims that Ilango Adigal was a contemporary of Sattanar, the author of Manimekalai..The prologues of each of these books tell us that each were read out to the author of the other [Silappatikaram, pathigam 90]. From comparative studies between Silappatikaram and certain Buddhist and Jain works such as Nyayaprakasa, the date of Silappatikaram has been determined to be around the fifth and the sixth centuries CE’
Manimekalai ,another epic of Tamil is also Buddhist in approach and is believed to have been composed around the same time as that of Silappadikaram.
These texts have been assigned between fifth and sixth century BC.
However,as most of the events narrated in Silappadikaram take place in Poompuhar,called Kaverippommpatinam then,and Poompuhar’s date can be pushed back by 14,000 years at least,Silappatikaram can be dated around the same time.
More important is the fact that Silappatikaram refers to Buddhism extensively.
This implies Buddhism,The Buddha should be dated 11,000 years back.
But the current date assigned to Buddha is,
‘Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha’s life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era during the reign of Bimbisara (c. 558 – c. 491 BCE, or c. 400 BCE’
*The archeological finding related here and more dates arrived at based on Archeology makes one ponder over the present dates assigned to ancient history and our present concept of Time and Multiverses.
I have written on these issues under Hinduism,Astronomy,Physics.e
I am aware that the date arrived for Buddha places him before Ramayana.
It is interesting to note that many Buddhist concepts are found in the Bhagavad Gita.
Not for nothing Dr. Radhakrishnan, former President of India and a Philosopher said that ,
‘Indian Philosophy is not a view of Life, but a Way of Life’.
It is one thing to read,study the Vedas and other Hindu Texts but it is another proposition to understand its soul and ethos.
Mere Intellectual or Bhakthi approach would not help one to understand the spirit of Hinduism.
Hinduism should be lived and practiced for years to understand it in its multifarious aspects.
Mere abstraction would remain just that, an intellectual Narcissism..
Mere Bhakthi, or total surrender to God , though highly recommended, is likely to lead one into disappointment as this path is, though seems easy to say, is the toughest to practice.
One must understand that Hinduism is a personal Religion in the sense that one can practice it the way it suits him, so long it is in conformity with the Vedas.
As individuals are numerous, so are their mental attitudes.
Hence Hinduism provides four paths to follow so that people of different mindsets can follow Spirituality.
Karma Yoga, Path of Action,
Gnana Yoga, Path of Knowledge,
Raja Yoga, Path of Mental and Physical Discipline and
Bhakthi Yoga, the Path of total surrender.
The fact that one is emphasized in the Vedas and other Hindu texts, when they speak of a particular path, does not mean that the other Paths are inferior.
They are spoken this way so as to instill in the mind the conviction to follow the path that appeals to them and such sayings reinforces the attitude.
The same logic applies to Nirguna Brahman,Reality without Attributes and Saguna Brahman,Reality with Attributes.
(for details please read my article God with names and forms Yes and No)
This one can understand from the Vedas, Puranas, Ithihasas and the Slokas /Mantras.
One would, in the same breath, the Vedas talk about Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman.
One would find the Reality being described as a principle, Nirguna, in the Mahavakyas thus,
prajñānam brahma – “Prajña is Brahman” or “Brahman is Prajña”(Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
ayam ātmā brahma – “This Self (Atman) is Brahman” (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)
tat tvam asi – “Thou art That” (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)
aham brahmāsmi – “I am Brahman”, or “I am Divine” (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)
Then you find in the Narayana Suktha.
Narayanam mahagyem Viswaathmaanam Parayanam,
Vishnornukam veeryani pravosam..
or the Sri Rudram,
nama sivaya cha, Sivadharaaya Cha,
where the Individual deities are praised.
or look a the Lalitha Sahasranama, where a portion is allotted for worshiping the Devi as Nirguna, the chapter being Nirguna Upasna and another Saguna Upasna where personal deity is worshiped.
So both options are provided.
Reading one and discarding the other is not compatible with the Vedas.
Quoting Vedas in isolation lands one into situations and interpretations that run counter to Vedas themselves, as it has happened in the case of the Mimamsa.
The Karma Kanda, the portion of the Vedas that deal with duties and performance of Yagas and Yagnyas, was carried to such an extreme that only the Karmas in the form of Yagnyas were followed and the Gnana and Bhakthi were totally omitted..
And the performance of only Yagnas and sacrifices caused a revulsion among people and this one of the reasons for the raise of Buddhism.
And many Gods were worshiped in the Yagnyas.
It took all the Life of Shankaracharya to set matters right and establish the authority of the Vedas, by systematizing worship into Shanmaha, Six systems of worship.
And he reestablished the concept of Nirguna Upasna and also provided room for Saguna Upasna.
Iswara concept found in Patanjali’s yoga Sutra was reinforced by him.
Such being the case I was shocked to find an observation by Stephen Knapp who has done yeoman service to Hinduism by propagating Sanatana Dharma concept that Shankaracharya misinterpreted the Vedas!
he quotes Padma Purana and Siva Purana.
We must point out that some spiritual authorities say that Shankaracharya was an incarnation of Lord Shiva who had been ordered by the Supreme Lord to cheat the atheists. The Shiva Purana quotes the Supreme Lord as ordering Shiva: “In Kali-yuga mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings from the Vedas [Vedic literature] to bewilder them”:
dvaparadau yuge bhutva
svagamaih kalpitais tvam ca
janan mad-vimukhan kuru 1
The Padma Purana also says that Lord Shiva would descend as a brahmana sannyasi and teach Mayavada philosophy in the verse:
mayavada ashat shastram prachchanna
boudhyam uchyate moya ebe godidam
devi kalou brahmana murtina
To do this, Shankara gave up the direct method of Vedic knowledge and presented an indirect meaning which actually covered the real goal of Vedanta. This is confirmed in the Padma Purana where Lord Shiva addresses his wife, Parvati:
shrinu devi pravaksyami
patityam jnaninam api
atra ca pratipadyate
naiskarmyam tatra cocyate
“My dear wife, hear my explanations of how I have spread ignorance through Mayavada philosophy. Simply by hearing it even an advanced scholar will fall down. In this philosophy which is certainly very inauspicious for people in general, I have misrepresented the real meaning of the Vedas and recommended that one give up all activities in order to achieve freedom from karma. In this Mayavada philosophy I have described the jivatma and Paramatma to be one and the same.” 2
The Padma Purana, in the quote that follows, describes how Lord Shiva tells his wife, Parvati, that he would appear in Kali-yuga to teach the impersonalistic philosophy, which is impious and merely a covered form of Buddhism. Yet, as explained next, there was a purpose for it.
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi
kalau brahmana rupini
brahmanas caparam rupam
nirgunam vaksyate maya
sarvasvam jagato’py asya
mohanartham kalau yuge
vedante tu maha-shastre
mayaiva vaksyate devi
“The Mayavada philosophy is impious. It is covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in the form of a brahmana in Kali-yuga I teach this imagined Mayavada philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists I mislead them by describing the Supreme Lord to be without any personal form or qualities.”
Herein, Lord Shiva himself points out that to believe God has no form is not accurate and is equal to atheism. Even though this Mayavada philosophy was not good for pious people to hear because it would sway them toward an impersonalistic viewpoint, we should note that Shankara’s philosophy was just right for the time and circumstance. The Buddhists, who had spread throughout India and neglected the Vedas, believed in neither a soul nor a God and that, ultimately, the essence of everything is the nothingness or void wherein lies nirvana, freedom from all suffering. So considering how the Buddhists had followed a philosophy of what would generally be considered atheism for hundreds of years and would never have accepted a viewpoint which advocated a supreme personal God, Shankara’s was the only philosophy they would have considered. It was like a compromise between atheism and theism, but Shankara used portions of Vedic knowledge as the basis of his arguments. In this way, as Shankara traveled throughout India his arguments prevailed. Thus, Buddhism bowed and Vedic culture was brought back to prominence. Therefore, his purpose was accomplished, so much so that his Sariraka-bhasya is considered the definitive rendition of Vedanta even to the present day.’
Totally wrong interpretation.
If Bhaja Govindam is quoted to buttress the view that Shankaracharya was really only after
Bhakthi to Vishnu, what about his nirvana Shatgam ,Manisha Panchakam, Soundarya Lahari,Kanakadhara Sthavam,Subrahmanya Bhujanga,Ganesha Pancharatnam?
Shankaracharya should be studie in full an no in bits.
And if proof is needed that there are interpolations in the Puranas, Padma Purana and Shiva Purana, this is it.
This accusation against Shankaracharya is not new.
He was also called a Pseudo-Buddhist for His Advaita!
If Shankaracharya was misquoting the Vedas, then how come the Mahavakyas I have quoted above speak of Nirguna Brahmana and not Saguna Brahman, Reality without Attributes?
That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from infinite.
Then through knowledge, realizing the infinitude of the infinite, it remains as infinite alone-
Great indeed are the devas who have sprung out of Brahman.-Atarva Veda.
‘satyam jnanam anantam brahman
“Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity” -Taittriya Upanishad.
The harm the Invaders inflicted on Indians and Hindu culture is unimaginable.
Right from Max Mueller,to today’s secular authors.
But there are some well meaning people who do not understand Sanskrit propagate Hinduism do more harm to Hinduism than good.
One such is a piece in Quora where the author states that Lord Rama called Buddha a Thief!
And the article quotes Ramayana of Valmiki.
And the author asserts that there have been interpolations in the Rmayana and people should be careful in reading the Ramayana!
No doubt there have been interpolations in The Ramayana and people are aware of it
And one who knows Sanskrit and History also knows how to sift the chaff from the grain.
In the meanwhile, people who very little of Sanskrit mus refrain from writing on these issues without adequate knowledge of Sanskrit and History.
In the present case, the term Buddha means one who discusses things intellectually and nothing more,.
The term Buddha also means enlightened one according Buddhism.
So when the term Buddha is used in the Ramayana it is in the sense of one who discusses things as an Intellectual.
Buddha is venerated as a Great Philosopher for His interpretation of Reality is as aspect of Brahman.
The Sunyavada of Buddhism is very close to Advaita, though not similar.
“Valmiki Ramayana mentions Buddha in bad light.
Valmiki Ramayana has divisons called Kandas like Bala Kanda , Ayodhya kanda , Yuddha kanda etc.
Bala kanda deals with the balyam i.e childhood of sri rama. Ayodhya kanda, deals mainly with events that happened after the Rama getting married i.e preparation for coronation of Rama and Rama leaving Ayodhya.
In the beginning of Ayodhya kanda Rama was made to leave kingdom resulting in cascade of event like death of Dasaratha death , recalling of Bharatha urgently from his uncles kingdom and now Bharatha comes back to Ayodhya and comes to know about his mothers wishes , Rama’s exit to forests and death of his father . He feels very sad for the things that happened and now he thinks about going to forest with many important people like his mothers, his ministers , soldiers etc to persuade rama to accept the Ayodhya kingdom and rule as the king.
After meeting Rama the screen play starts, one by one starts requesting Rama to return to Ayodhya using their oratory and logical skills and now comes the turn of Jabali i.e one of the ministers of Ayodhya kingdom. In the replay given to Jabali shunning his logical arguments Rama criticises Buddha.
In Ayodhya Kandas chapters called Sargaa. In ayodhya kanda in 109th sarga has many poems and in the 34 poem Rama calls Buddha as theif and abuses his religion as atheistic and bad.
yathaa hi choraH sa tathaa hi buddha |
stathaagataM naastikamatra vidhhi |
tasmaaddhi yaH shaN^kyatamaH prajaanaam |
na naasti kenaabhimukho budhaH syaat 2-109-34( Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda,Sarga 109. Sloka 34)
34. yathaahi tathaa hi= It is an exact state of the case; saH= that; buddhaH= a mere intellection; choraH= (is deserves to be punished) as a thief; viddhi= and know; naastikam= an atheist; atra= here; tathaagatam= to be on par with a mere intellectual; tasaat= therefore; yaH= he who; shaN^kya tamaH= is the most suspectable; prajaanaam= (should be punished in the interest of) the people; na syaat= In no case; buddhaH= should a wise man; abhimukhaH= consort; naastikaa= with an atheist.
‘In sarga 110 & shloka 34 of Ayodhyakanda Rama saysto Bharata, ” Buddha & his followers are thieves. They don’t believe in God. It is better to be away of them.”
34. asi = you are; jyeSThaH = the eldest son; tasya = of that Dasaratha; abhivishrutaH = very well known; raama iti = as Rama; daayaadaH = the heir who can claim over the inheritance; nR^ipaiH = O; king!; tat = for that reason; gR^ihaaNa = take over; svakam = your; raajyam = kingdom; avekSasva = look after; janam = your people.
“You are the eldest son of that Dasaratha, very well-known as Rama, the heir who can claim over the inheritance. O, King! Hence, take over your kingdom and look after your people there.”
“It is an exact state of the case that a mere *intellection deserves to be punished as it were a thief and know an atheist to be on par with a mere intellectual. Therefore he is the most suspectable and should be punished in the interest of the poeple. In no case should a wise man consort with an atheist.”
* It is the word that is responding to the chanllenge, which we call intellection. Truth/God is very subtle. A mind that is caught in the net of words/arguments cannot understand truth/God.
But isn’t Hinduism a derivative of Buddhism and Jainism?… don’t you think Hinduism is just a black hole constantly changing and sucking in everything around and changing according to the geography and beliefs…. being purely pagan in its birth and then realizes knowledge and starts to adapt and reform around peoples beliefs?….
I am an amateur in my history of religion but it has always intrigued me.,… Hinduism i thought purely was a way of life….not a religion, that over the millenniums changed like Chinese whisper from location to location…. so much so there’s a depiction of Jesus Christ idol in a temple in Tamil Nadu.
I am not religious at all, because of what humans have turned GOD into…. but i am intrigued at our ways to story tell that has changed to belief over thousands of years…. Some where out there is the truth, but we can all only have an opinion of it…”
Hinduism, Sanatana Dharma is not a derivative of Jainism or Buddhism.
Jainism came later to Sanatna Dharma nd Buddhism later.
It is the other way around… Hinduism in the sense that while these two systems do not believe in the authority of Vedas,
hence called Nastika System, believe in Karma theory, Moksha called Nirvana and Rebirth.
Jainism is a strict follower of the Ethics of the Vedas more than the Vedas in emphasizing Truth, righteousness.
Buddhism reaches th Stage of Advaita but falls short of it by declaring the Reality as Sunya, Zero, Nihilism.
So much is Buddhism similar to the Advaita of Adi Shankaracharya that He was accused of being a Pseudo-Buddhist!
These systems which decried the excessive rituals( Justifiably so) of Sanatana dharma ended up with Rituals.
They decried idol worship, landed in worshiping The Tirthankara, Mahavira and Buddha!
Yes, to an extent the statement that Hinduism is like a Black hole is true, it sucks the best out of every system and assimilates it.
The reason is that while other religions were founded , had a founder and an intention to have followers.
Hinduism, Sanatana Dharma was not founded by any one nor does it have a rigid text to follow.
It observes Life, tries out various methods to face life and after life and presents them all.
One can take any thing out of it and discard what does not suit him/her.
It is based on experience and intuition along with Reason .
It listens , never dogmatic.
By assimilating what is best it consumes other religions with out a fight for it is after Truth, what ever be the source.
Let noble thoughts reach my ears from everywhere-Rig Veda.
Bhatram Karnobhi Srunuyaama Deva
Yet one point to be noted is that it precedes all religions as evidenced by archeology, astronomy, etymology of Sanskrit and Tamil
When one starts questioning other religions, one does not get as authentic proof as in Hinduism.
Rama, Krishna, Ravana, Mahabharata,Ramayana, Agastya, Shiva ,Parashurama, ..all of them have left trails that can be verified.
If one were to ask fundamental questions as to what was before Christianity you get Judaism.
For Judaism, Sanatana Dharma.
For Islam the History of the middle east just before Prophet has been erased to such an extent that one lands with Sumerian civilisation.Minoan!
The traces of Hinduism are found in Islam , Sumeria, Minoan civilization, Mayas, Incas,Polynesian Religions;
World languages trace their origins to Sanskrit and Tamil.
One finds evidence of Sanatana Dharma and Tamil, which is /was a part of Santaana Dharma,
Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia,japan, Korea, New Zealand, Fiji, Mauritius, Australia,Oman, Saudi Arabia,Romania, Bulgaria, Germany,Ireland,England, Denmark,France,Greece,Egypt, Africa, Peru, Chile, US, ….
Yes Hinduism is like a Black hole it that it is so vast one finds it difficult to comprehend it!
Many of us know the barest details of Indra, the chief of the Devathas of Hinduism.
That he was the father of Arjuna, husband of Indrani,wields Thundebolt, induced Rains in Govardhana Giri,has Vajrayudha ,rides the elephant Airavatha, his Post of Indra changes every Manvantrara and of his infamous episode involving Ahalya.
That’s about all.
Indra, atop the Airavatha Elephant,Angkorvat.
But it may be of interest to know that Indra was one of the earliest Vedic Deities mentioned in th Rigveda.
Hs father was Dayus and other Savasi.
The name Dayus is being used by the western scholars to spread a canard to disseminate information under the guise of Research papers stating that there was Proto-Indo-European or Graeco-Aryan language group and there was a tribe in the Caucasus called Aryans who entered India!
I shall be calling off this bluff in another post.
Indra (Indara) is also mentioned among the gods of the Mitanni, a Hurrian-speaking people who ruled northern Syria from ca.1500BC-1300BC.
The attributes of Zeus of the Greeks and Indra are identical.
Vedic Indra corresponds to Verethragna of the Zoroastrian Avesta as the noun verethragna- corresponds to Vedic vrtrahan-, which is predominantly an epithet of Indra.
*According to Anthony, the Old Indic religion probably emerged among Indo-European immigrants in the contact zone between the Zeravshan River (present-day Uzbekistan) and (present-day) Iran*. It was “a syncretic mixture of old Central Asian and new Indo-European elements”, which borrowed “distinctive religious beliefs and practices” from the Bactria–Margiana Culture. At least 383 non-Indo-European words were borrowed from this culture, including the god Indra and the ritual drink Soma.According to Anthony,
*I contest this claim and I shall be repudiating this point in another Post.
He under whose supreme control are horses, all chariots, the villages, and cattle;
He who gave being to the Sun and Morning, who leads the waters, He, O men, is Indra. ( Rig Veda 2.12.7, trans. Griffith)
It further states,
Indra, you lifted up the pariah who was oppressed, you glorified the blind and the lame. (Rg-Veda 2:13:12)
Indra is, with Varuna and Mitra, one of the Ādityas, the chief gods of the Rigveda (besides Agni and others such as the Ashvins). He delights in drinking soma and the centralVedic myth is his heroic defeat of Vṛtrá, liberating the rivers, or alternatively, his smashing of the Vala cave, a stone enclosure where the Panis had imprisoned the cows that are habitually identified with Ushas, the dawn(s). He is the god of war, smashing the stone fortresses of the Dasyu, but he is also is invoked by combatants on both sides in the Battle of the Ten Kings.
..The Rig-Veda frequently refers to him as Śakra: the mighty-one. In the Vedic period, the number of gods was assumed to be thirty-three and Indra was their lord. (Some early post Rigvedic texts such as the Khilas and the late Vedic Brihad-Aranyaka Upanishad enumerates the gods as the eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras, the twelve Adityas, Indra, and Prajapati). As lord of the Vasus, Indra was also referred to as Vāsava.
In Rigveda, Indra the solar god is sometimes described as golden-bodied with golden jaw, nails, hair, beard.
One Atharva Vedic verse reads, “In Indra are set fast all forms of golden hue.”
In the RV 1.65 reads, “SAKRA, who is the purifier (of his worshipers), and well-skilled in horses, who is wonderful and golden-bodied.”Rigveda also reads that Indra “is the dancing god who, clothed in perfumed garments, golden-cheeked rides his golden cart.” One passage calls him both brown and yellow. “Him with the fleece they purify, brown, golden-hued, beloved of all, Who with exhilarating juice goes forth to all the deities”:
With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his golden beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood.
—Rig Veda, Book 10, Hymn XXIII, P. 4
At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair.
While the battle between Indra and Vritra is included in the Avesta, the Zoroastrian holy book, Zoroastrianism takes a much different interpretation of Indra’s character. Rather than venerating Indra as the supreme embodiment of good, Zoroastrianism instead claims Indra to be the leader of “false gods” (which refers to virtually all gods other than Ahura Mazda, the supreme deity in Zoroastrianism). These beings are equated with demons. In the Vendidad, the most recent of the texts within the Avesta, Indra is identified as one of the six chief demons that are seen to stand opposite the six Amesha Spentas, spirits which put in place the benevolent will of Ahura Mazda.Vendidad 10.9 explains that Indra is the direct enemy of Asha Vahishta, who personifies the aspect of asha/rta or Truth. Thus, Indra is the opponent of order, truth, and righteousness. Similarly, in the Denkard, a ninth-century Middle Persian text, Indra is the arch-demon that “is the spirit of apostasy and further deceives the worldly existence of mankind” (9.3). In the Bundahishn, a Zoroastrian account of creation, Indra “freezes the minds of the creatures from practicing righteousness just like much frozen snow. He instills this into the minds of men that they ought not to have the sacred shirt and thread girdle” (27.6). The shirt and girdle are garments that must be worn by all devout Zoroastrians, thus Indra stands in diametric opposition to one of the indispensable aspects of the Zoroastrian faith. Atfrashokereti, the eschatological regeneration of good within the universe, it is said that Indra will be defeated by Asha Vahishta (34.27).
In the mythology and iconography of Indra that arose after the Vedas in the heterodox Indian schools of Buddhism and Jainism, Indra retained his role as chief of the gods. Although Jainism is non-theist, it is Indra who awards Jain founder Mahavira with a golden robe during his earthly life, and later welcomes him into heaven upon his death. Buddhists also acknowledge Indra as the original leader of the Devas, ruler of the heaven of the Thirty-three gods. All in all, Indra is rarely referred to in Buddhist texts, and when he is it is either as a minor deity (a lord of the yakṣas, for instance), or as the object of worship of the Brahmins.
Sikhs believe that there is only one god without question. However, the Gurus still mention numerous Hindu deities in the Guru Granth Sahib, including Indra. Bhagat Kabir Ji, whose hymns are found in Guru Granth Sahib Ji, mentions Indra among other Hindu gods: “Beings like Hanumaan, Garura, Indra the king of the gods and the rulers of humans—none of them know Your Glories, Lord” (Ragg Dhanaasree, Panna 691.2). Passages such as this illustrate the Sikh belief that although Indra and other personalistic dieties have been meditated upon by the minds of humans for thousands of years, they merely as a function of maya and do not allow for full a complete understanding of the one supreme God. Although the Sikhs do not worship Indra specifically, his name also appears as a part of many Sikh compound names as the ending “inder.” This ending represents the strength and virility in battle that Indra embodies, and can be used by both males and females.