> at any rate, he did decline, both in power and in moral stature: varua, who is now second to indra unlike in vi, vii and iv, is reduced to singing his praises () varua of books x and i acquires semi-demoniacal features which he did not have in the family books () the former guardian of immortality is now associated with the world of the dead () unlike in the early gveda, the [later] sahits treated varua with dread (pradhan 2014:156) > this is only a partial and gradual demonization of varua the asura, nothing like the radical demonization of indra the dava. but this is commensurate with the fleeting paurava war psychology as against the deep grudge the navas bore after their defeat > none of the names or nicknames associated with the ten kings, their tribes or their religion is attested in dravidian, munda, burushaski, kusunda, nahali, tibetan or any other nearby language. most of them, by contrast, are completely transparent as iranian names. similarly, their stated religious identification points to the mazdean tradition. yet, quite a few translators and students of the vedas insist that they are the black aboriginals, with full academic sanction, e.g.: indra subjected the aboriginal tribes of the dsas/dasyus to the aryans. (elizarenkova 1995:36) > the first reason is that those targeted by vasiha are mdhravc (rv 7:6:3), babblers defective in speech (wilson), rudely-speaking (griffith), wrongly speaking (misredend, geldner), or of disdainful words (jamison and brereton). this is not normally said of people speaking a foreign language, but of people who are comprehensible yet dont use the accent or the sociolinguistic register we are used to. still it is popularly thought that this refers to foreigners, the way the european settlers in america considered the amerindians alien
Brazil