Category Archives: Arya Samaj

The Terminology of the Vedas and European Scholars – A Book Review by Vinita Arya

Introduction

In the previous article (The Works of Pandit Gurudutt Vidyarthi – A Book Review of “The Terminology of the Vedas” – Vinita Arya see this link http://aryamantavya.in/tag/pandit-gurudutt-vidyarthi/) we saw how the late great Pandit Gurudutt Vidyarthi brilliantly yet succinctly demolished the reputation of those European scholars who claimed that they alone possess the intellectual power to correctly interpret the Sanskrit language and the Vedas.

His revelation in that tract serves as a warning to innocent readers and as a means to educate them in the three types of methods used by scholars to interpret the Vedas; namely the mythological, antiquarian and contemporary, methods (see footnote 1 at the end of this article for a summary). Pandit ji also reveals the three types of words, the yaugika, rurhi and the yoga-rurhi which should be understood when discerning the correct derivation and meaning of a Vedic word (see foot note 2). His firm preference for the last method, the contemporary method and the correct yaugika definition of Vaidik words cannot be under emphasised as in this second more detailed study of the terminology of the Vedas Pandit ji’s choice of the contemporary method and yaugik definitions are central to what he believes is the “great controversy to rage between the East and the West concerning the supremacy of the (sic) Vedic Philosophy.”

For Pandit ji the subject of the correct interpretation of Sanskrit and the Vedas is of vital importance because it involves “issues of (such) great value”, and to ignore it would be to succumb in a cowardly fashion to the increasing hegemonic global dominance of Western powers and to the frighteningly “imperfect, defective and incomplete” scholarship of their Western intellectuals. Here Pandit ji alludes to European scholars such as Professor Max Muller and Professor Monier Williams whose intellectual prowess even the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer thought was “no better than the higher class of school boys “.

This fervent call by Pandit ji for all scholars to employ “truthfulness and honest integrity” from the depths of their souls in the “righteous pursuit and discernment of the TRUTH” in order to ensure present and future world peace was a remarkably prescient one. His urgent words were written on the verge of the twentieth century, a century which saw not only the most bloodiest of world wars between the German and British orientalist powers, (ironically over whose version of Aryan supremacy was the most legitimate where previously they had been co-conspirators in misinterpreting the Vedas), but also the rise and hardening of caste divisions on the Indian political and social scene due mostly to the deliberate misinterpretations of the Vedas and Manusmriti by vested interests.

In the nineteenth century Pandit ji’s foresight to warn his fellow humans of this terrible “future world” to come if our unprejudiced and impartial Vedic scholars, who are “thorough adepts in science and philosophy” are supplanted by prejudiced scholars possessing only quasi-knowledge and who are prone “to superstition, motive, predetermination and the suppression of the truth”, seems to have largely gone unheeded by the world but in particular by the descendants of the once illustrious and dharmic people of Aryavarta.

The reason for the failure of his fellow- Indian brethren to heed his desperate advice can be accredited he maintains to them having received the highest English education and being “entirely ignorant of Sanskrit”. Their ignorance is such that they too hold like their European Professors and masters “that the Vedas are books that teach idol-worship or element worship” and that “they contain no philosophical, moral or scientific truths of any great consequence, unless they be the commonest truisms of the kitchen”.

Pandit ji doesn’t despair totally however quoting Schopenhauer again he says that; “In India, our religion (Bible) will now and never strike root; the primitive wisdom of the human race will never be pushed aside by the events of Galilee. On the contrary, Indian wisdom will flow back upon Europe, and produce a thorough change in our knowing and thinking”. These are fine words but what gives Pandit ji the confidence to predict not only the eventual failure of Christianity in India, but also in Europe from where it had originated?

It comes down to his knowledge of the works of Sayana, the great grammarian from which European scholars draw their knowledge when misinterpreting the Vedas. Pandit ji regards Sayana’s interpretations as being so diseased and unworthy of emulation that “whatsoever the value of the efforts of modern (European) scholars, their comparative philology, and their new interpretations … their so-called marvelous achievements cannot but be diseased.” He predicts that “sooner or later, the disease will develop its final symptoms and sap the foundation of the very vitality it seemed to produce. No branch of a tree can live or flourish when separated from the living stock. No interpretations of the Vedas will, in the end, ever succeed unless they are in accord with the living sense of the Vedas in the Nirukta and the Brahmanas”.

In this article therefore, some of the key examples which Pandit ji gives of such flawed diseased learning and how they are to be greatly contrasted with actual accurate interpretations of the Ved will be explained. It is sincerely hoped that the reader will be inspired by the incredible effort and depth of scholarship undertaken by Pandit ji to expose the many contradictions in the scholarship of European scholars and that he/she will in the future undertake the same effort and scholarship to take on and defeat modern “Sanskrit scholars” who are still rather worryingly determined to bring the reputation of the Vedas into shocking disrepute for their own selfish gain.

 

The Terminology of the Vedas and European Scholars – a detailed analysis

In this thirty one page piece Pandit ji focusses his criticisms on the works of two European scholars who collaborated very closely with each other throughout their professional lives; the German, Professor Max Muller and his British mentor and benefactor Professor Monier Monier-Williams. Why a strong intellectual bond and purpose between the two developed is truly worthy of another article itself however the main aim of these scholars appears to have been to distort and besmirch the reputation of the Vedas. The main reason behind their actions put succinctly was so that only Christianity, and its patron, the British Empire would flourish in India and not Vaidik Dharma and independent indigenous rule.

Pandit ji, a keen follower of Maharishi Dayanand’s liberating Vaidik mission to educate the masses, would have witnessed the usage of arguments concocted by Muller and Monier Williams by Christian missionaries in his native Punjab. These desperate men and women used such flawed Christian logic to counter the growing influence of Maharishi Dayanand, that for real Vaidik scholars like Pandit ji it became easy to call them out for it. Pandit ji however fearing for those who did not have his knowledge wrote this tract in order to warn his countrymen not to succumb naively to their fierce but deceptive proselytization.

In his second more detailed analysis of the major European Sanskrit scholars he commences his criticism by referring to Muller’s prejudiced denunciation of Schopenhauer for praising the Upanishads. Pandit ji quotes Muller as saying that the Upanishads have a “dark side” in contrast with the “bright rays of eternal truths in the Gospel”. Offering no evidence of this so-called dark side, Muller merely states that Indians ought not to study the empty idolatry and subjective worship of nature as devised by their wily priesthood but like Ram Mohan Roy of the Brahmo Samaj be “quick enough to perceive” that the true mission of their race was not to participate “in the political struggles of the world” or to expend “its energies in the exploits of war and the formation of empire” but “to concentrate all its powers for the fulfilment of the important mission reserved to it in the history of the East”. This mission he reveals is to become worthy after “gradual education in the fullness of time” to be “admitted to the truths of Christianity” which the religion of the Buddha “has served to prepare the way of Christ”.

Such blatant partisanship, designed to prevent the subjugated people of India from throwing off the yoke of colonialism and Christianity can be also seen in Monier Williams’ book – “Indian Wisdom”. The aim of this book Pandit ji strongly asserts “is to caricature the Vedic religion” by calling it “Brahmanism” and “to hoist up Christianity by the meritorious process of deliberate contrasts”. One such contrast concerns the differing aims of Christianity and “Brahmanism”. The Bible, Monier Williams maintains, regards man as being created in the image of God, but his nature having become corrupt through a taint, derived from the fall of Adam, the first representative man and the parent of the human race means that this taint can only be removed by “a vicarious death”.  This vicarious death must be undergone by “the second representative man – Christ – whose nature was divine and taintless, (who) voluntarily underwent a sinner‘s death, (so) that the taint of the old corrupted nature transferred to him might die also”.  Christ’s death however is not the central tenet of this religion but “that He rose again and lives eternally, (so) that He may bestow life for death and a participation in His own divine nature in place of the taint He has removed”.

Although Christianity is revealed here to be a very intricate, or rather confusing philosophy, Monier Williams still regards Christianity and not “Brahmanism” as being markedly superior to all other religions. He asserts that Christianity alone has “a personal God ever living to supply the free grace or regenerating spirit by which human nature is re-created and again made God-like”. While lowly “Brahmanism” whose various personal “Hindu gods melt away, on closer scrutiny, into a vague spiritual essence” and whose “personal manifestations of the Supreme Being ultimately merge in the Oneness of the Infinite”, is less attractive to the seeker seeking personal salvation Monier Williams maintains. So as to preempt any scepticism however towards his pompous proclamations of superiority he quickly adds after this that it is of course immaterial that European Christians themselves may have “lamentably fallen from its true standard” or that there exists in Europe “nominal adherents” who have disgraced the religion through “their inconsistencies and shortcomings”. What is however of utmost importance for the whole human race to acknowledge, is the esteemed Oxford Professor says, that it is only Christianity that has “the message of salvation intended by God to be gradually pressed upon the acceptance of all His intelligent creatures”.

Such arrogance, Pandit ji says has inevitably led these alleged scholars to become utterly blind to the truth. He laments their “entire ignorance of the laws of interpretation of Vedic terms” and that of modern philologists. Fed by Christian prejudices he views them as illiterates. An erudite person, fit to interpret the Vedas he establishes earlier on in his tract would be someone who is a complete master of the science of morals, poetry, geology and astronomy and well-versed in the philosophy of dharma, and characteristics, essential existences, yoga and Vedanta and the doctrines of logic or the science of evidence. In fact s/he would be “a master of all these and much more before he can lay claim to a rational interpretation of the Vedas”, Pandit ji in his ensuing analysis proves that he is such a master by the depth, quality and extensiveness of his research. Opening his introduction to the topic of the kind of words used in the Vedas, he refers to “the fourth section of the first chapter of Nirukta which opens with a discussion of this very subject, in which Yaska, Gargya, Shakatayana and all other Grammarians and Etymologists unanimously maintain that Vedic terms are all yaugika”. He briefly tells us before explaining the agreed rule, that there was at first a mild disagreement between the grammarians Yaska and Shakatayana with Gargya as the latter “maintains that only the rurhi terms are not yaugika”. However when that mistaken opinion has been effectively refuted by the other two it becomes accepted from then onwards that despite the fact that rurhi words emanate from yaugika roots, they are only laukika and never Vedic in nature as “all the Rishis and Munis, ancient authors and commentators without exception, regard all Vedic terms to be yaugika”.

The unhappy consequence of European scholars’ failure to respect that all Vedic terms are yaugika has been that arena of Sanskrit learning has become flooded by “their (erroneous) interpretations of the Vedas with forged or borrowed tales of mythology, with stories and anecdotes of historic or pre-historic personages”. To prove this point Pandit ji presents Dr Muir’s quite fantastical renderings of the Rig Ved mantras as evidence of this. According to Muir, the following historical personages are mentioned in the Rig Veda; the Rishis Kanvas, in 1. 47. 2; Gotamas, in 1. 71. 16.; Gritsamadas, in 2. 39. 8; Bhrigavas, in 4. 16. 23; and Vrihaduktha, in 10. 54. 6. Pandit ji being a serious student of Maharishi Dayanand and being aware that the cardinal rule for determining the legitimacy of any rendering of any Vedic mantra, is that it should lack any reference to any historical persons, geographical places, actual rivers, mountains, gods or goddesses etc. demolishes such conceits straightaway by providing the correct definitions of these words from Nighantu. “The words Kanva and Gritsa he reveals only signify learned men in general (see Nighantu iii. 13); the word Bhrigavah only signifies men of intellect (see Nighantu, v. 5). The word Gotama signifies one who praises; and Vrihaduktha is simply one whose ukthas, or knowledge of natural properties of objects, is vrihat or complete” he states. He also then goes on in two simple lines to destroy Max Muller’s assertion that the Rig Ved contains the story of a person called Shunah-shepa. Pandit ji explains frankly that Shepa according to Nirukta means contact and as it is suffixed to shunah or shvan, which means knowledge, the term shunah-shepa can then only mean one who has come into contact with knowledge i.e., a learned person but it does not mean a specific actual person.

The simplicity of Pandit ji’s answer here points to the truthfulness of his statement that all Vedic words are yaugika. Surprisingly even Max Muller agrees with him as he is quoted as saying that “every word (in the Vedas) retains something of its radical meaning; every epithet tells; every thought, in spite of the most intricate and abrupt expressions, is, if we once disentangle it, true, correct, and complete”. He also says that “names . . . are to be found in the Vedas, as it were, in a still fluid state. They never appear as appellatives, nor yet as proper names; they are organic, not yet broken or smoothed down”. However Muller, true to his Christian calling distorts this acknowledgement of the truth by claiming that words in only certain portions of the Vedas are yaugika. That is to say that they are only so in the “primitive strains” of the Vedas’ initial chhandas period. He denies that they are yaugik in what he calls the secondary, mantra period. The Vedic “hymns in the first chhandas period, according to him “contain “no very deep wisdom in their teaching” and in it only common things are taught, which are free from the flights of fancy.

Rig Ved 7.77 epitomises he believes the spontaneous utterances of the simple (foolish) minds of the chhandas period. In this mantra (or “hymn” as Muller prefers to call it) the prayer which is “addressed to (the) Dawn … has no reference to any special sacrifice, it contains no technical expressions, (and) it can hardly be called a hymn, in our sense of the word. It is simply a poem, expressing without any effort, without any display of far-fetched thought or brilliant imagery, the feelings of a man who has watched the approach of the dawn with mingled delight and awe, and who was moved to give utterance to what he felt in measured language”. The later Mantra period in contrast he maintains is full of technicalities and elaborate ceremonies although Muller provides no proof to back up his claim.

Muller’s simplistic designations and descriptions Pandit ji believes have been made out of both ignorance and petty prejudice. In his view Muller firstly has applied the laukik Sanskrit interpretation of the word chhandas meaning “spontaneity” to incorrectly signify the content and nature of the mantras. He should have in fact heeded Yaska’s instructions which say that “there is no difference in the meaning of mantra and chhandas”. All the Vedic mantras without exception according to Yaska are called both mantra and chhandas, because through its mantras “one learns the true knowledge of all existences” and because the Vedas are by their very nature chhandas that which produces “delight or which illumines everything, i.e. reveals its true nature”. These explanations derived also from Panini and the Shatpatha Brahman’s yaugika interpretation contain no references whatsoever to the “spontaneity” described by Muller in his interpretation. Furthermore Pandit ji attributes Muller’s faulty understanding of Vedic words to his adoption of Sayana and Mahidhara’s method of looking at them in only their rurhi sense. “It is clear then”, Pandit ji says that “if Max Muller had kept in view the canon of interpretation given in Nirukta that all Vedic words are yaugika, he would not have fallen into the fallacious anachronism of assigning different periods to different parts of the Vedas”.

If European scholars of Pandit ji’s time had sincerely and consistently adopted the yaugik sense of words when interpreting the Vedas then it would have indeed been a very significant step on their part. However if they had also removed their entrenched Christian prejudice towards the Vedas altogether that Pandit ji concludes would have been an equally important step. Removing Christian prejudices from their minds would mean no longer viewing the Vedas as being books of primitive times which consist of emotional savages offering vengeful or propitious prayers addressed to the forces of nature. Or, believing that the Vedas sometimes contain hymns of poetic exaltation, simply portraying the simple phenomena of nature in the personified language of mythology. It would mean finally accepting that throughout the Vedas, Darshans and Upanishads the higher truths of philosophy and monotheism which contain a firm conviction in the uniformity of nature, exist consistently (and not intermittently as Muller would have us believe).

The biggest mental stumbling block however faced by such scholars to achieving this, Pandit ji says is the Christian Holy Book; The Bible. Blind allegiance to the Bible and all the systems that depend on it has it seems rendered these European scholars, on the whole, unfit to comprehend that disinterested, neutral literature, in the form of the Vedas, Darshanas, Upanishads can exist without it being the product of political or religious revolutions or controversies. Determined to undermine the antiquity and eternal universal authority of the Vedas and Vedic literature, ingenious strategies have been employed by such shameless scholars as the English Orientalist Frederick Pincott who asserts, with no proof that “the old Brahmans were superstitious, dogmatic believers in the revelation of the Vedas. When Buddhism spread like wild fire, they thought of shielding their religion by mighty arguments and hence produced the darshana literature”.

If only these Christian scholars were to just admit, Pandit ji says that the most certain date in Indian history that of the Mahabharata war actually took place (at Pandit ji’s time of writing) about 4,900 years ago and that the Darshanas, and their compilers Jaimini, Vyasa, Patanjali, Gautama, Kanada and Kapila therefore, existed at least 4,900 years ago, centuries before even the first word of Buddhism was uttered in India and that even the great Shankara, a great commentator on the Vyasa sutras, who waged a manly war against Buddhism or Jainism, preached nearly 2,200 years, it would be a very important step in the right direction. Although as Pandit ji himself acknowledges, to do so would put the whole Biblical account of creation completely into question. It would also totally negate the ridiculous assumption adopted to save the face of the Bible that the Brahmins only began to make their faith seriously philosophical in the Darshanas “after the great shock which the spread of Buddhism gave to the old Indian form of faith”.

Removal of Christian prejudice in its totality however could not happen Pandit ji admits without the complete discrediting and discarding of the mythological commentaries of Sayana and Mahidhara. If these commentaries were nonexistent he contends “it would have been impossible for them (European scholars), from the mere grounds of comparative mythology or Sanskrit philology, to alight on such interpretations of the Vedas”. A typical example of the kind of misleading laukik and therefore non-yaugik interpretation of the Vedas of Sayana’s from which European scholars have drawn much erroneous inspiration, Pandit ji notes is a mantra from Rigved 9.96:

brahmā devānāṃ padavīḥ kavīnāṃ ṛṣirviprāṇāṃ mahiṣomṛghāṇām

śyeno ghṛdhrāṇāṃ svadhitirvanānāṃ somaḥ pavitramatyeti rebhan

Sayana translates this mantras thus; “God himself appears as Brahma among the gods, Indra, Agni, &c: He appears as a poet among the dramatists and writers of lyrics; He appears as Vashishtha, &c. among the Brahmanas ; He appears as a buffalo among quadrupeds ; He appears as an eagle among birds ; He appears as an axe in the forest ; He appears as the soma-juice purified by mantras excelling in its power of purification the sacred waters of the Ganges”.

Pandit ji tears this defective rendition of this particular Rigveda mantra completely apart. What is supposed to explain the central conscious being that enjoys all experience; the human spirit instead ends up explaining a God in non-Vedic pantheistic terms where everything is God. It panders to the popular prejudices and feelings of the time which were so superstitious “that the waters of the Ganges were regarded as sacred; incarnations were believed in and the worship of Brahma, Vasishtha and other rishis was at its acme”. Sayana’s non-scientific urban translation Pandit ji concludes does not mirror the universal and eternal sense of the Vedas but that of his own age. “His interpretation of brahma, kavi, deva, rishi, vipra, mahisha, mriga, shyena, gridhra, vana, soma, pavitra of all these words, without one exception, is purely rurhi or laukika”.

Yaska, the great author of Nirukta, contrastingly renders a faithful and accurate translation of this mantra as he attaches the yaugik and not the laukik sense of the mantra. So in the hands of Yaska, Sayana’s description of a pantheistic God drenched in superstition becomes a consistent and intelligible account of the experiences of the Atma, the human spirit. In Nirukta, xiv. 13 he says of this Rig Ved mantra;

“The external world as revealed by the senses finds its purpose and object, and, therefore, absorption, in this central being. The indriyas or the senses are called the devas, because they have their play in the ex- ternal phenomenal world, and because it is by them that the external world is revealed to us. Hence Atma, the human spirit, is the brahma devanam, the conscious entity that presents to its consciousness all that the senses reveal. Similarly, the senses are called the kavayas, because one learns by their means. The Atma, then, is padavi kavinam or the true sentient being that understands the working of the senses. Further, the Atma is rishir vipranam, the cognizor of sensations; vipra meaning the senses as the feelings excited by them pervade the whole body. The senses are also called the mrigas, for they hunt about their proper aliment in the external world. Atma is mahisho mriganam, i.e., the greatest of all the hunters. The meaning is that it is really through the power of Atma that the senses are enabled to find out their proper objects. The Atma is called shyena, as to it belongs the power of realization; and gridhras are the indriyas, for they provide the material for such realization. The Atma, then, pervades these senses. Further, this Atma, is swadhitir vananam, or the master whom all indriyas serve. Swadhiti means Atma, for the activity of Atma is all for itself, man being an end unto himself. The senses are called vana, for they serve their master, the human spirit. It is this Atma that, being pure in its nature, enjoys all”

The universality of application of Yaska’s translation which goes beyond all boundaries of time and space is attributed to its simplicity, naturalness and truthfulness of meaning in stark contrast to Sayana’s artificial translation which is a product of its degraded times. The true message of the Vedas Pandit ji strongly maintains therefore can only shine if the words of the texts of that living Vedic religion are interpreted strictly in their yaugika Vedic sense by all scholars Indian and non-Indian alike, without the distortion of later puranas and allied commentaries as these texts are but “a rotten remnant of the old philosophical living religion of the Vedas”.

Pandit ji accepts that such a change in thinking would indeed be remarkable. Judging by his experiences with such European scholars as Muller and Pincott he doesn’t hold much hope. While Muller recognizes that mythology is actually the degeneration of truth and that the ancients of India, Greece and Rome did indeed give the same object one name after the other in a yaugika fashion, he also unfortunately renders such “polynomy” as evidence of polytheism in the Vedic religion. Pincott on the other hand while admitting that modern day Sanskrit commentators are ignorant and that the Puranas are very modern productions cannot quite bring himself to discard the firm belief that the Rig Ved “abounds in mythological matter”.

Taking firstly Muller’s accusation that the Vedas are polytheistic Pandit ji devotes a considerable amount of space in the latter part of his critique to debunking this theory. He presents at the outset the lies which pious Christian missionaries and yet more pious Christian philologists propagate by quoting one of them as saying; “Monotheism is a belief in the existence of one God only, polytheism is a belief in the plurality of gods, (so) If we must employ technical terms, the religion of the Veda is polytheism, not monotheism”. The 27th hymn of the 1st Ashtaka of the Rigveda is provided as evidence of this as according to this particular Christian Sanskrit scholar it says: “veneration to the great gods, veneration to the lesser, veneration to the young, veneration to the old we worship the gods as well as we are able: may I not omit the praise of the older Divinities;” This translation leads this pious Christian to conclude that the religion of the Vedas are pantheism and polytheism combined and that “monotheism, in the strict sense of the word, is not found in Hinduism.”

Pandit ji uncovers further evidence of such bias by highlighting Muller’s laughable translation of a very famous Vedic mantras from the Yajurved. In Yajurved 13.4 it is said Hiranyagarbha samavartatagre bhutasya jatah patireka asita. Sa dadhara prithivim dyamutemam kasmai devaya havisha vidhema. “Hiryanyagarbha” is translated by Muller as “golden germ” which Pandit ji maintains has been done deliberately so that the true meaning “God in whom the whole luminous universe resides in a potential state” can be hidden. Not only does the author not want the reader to comprehend the Vedas’ monotheism here, but also Pandit ji says sardonically so that “someday, not in the very remote future, these Christians will discover that the golden germ means conceived by the Holy Ghost”. And where Muller does make some allusion to a monotheistic God in the case of the words “jatah patireka”, which Muller translates as “the one born Lord of all this”, Pandit ji being fully aware of the devices used by Christian missionaries to fool the gullible forewarns of “one of those future happy days, (when) this mantra of the Veda will be quoted as an emblematic of a prophecy in the dark distant past, of the advent of a Christ whom the ancients knew not”.

He stridently then provides three very clear proofs of monotheism in the Vedas; firstly from Yajurved 13.4 itself Pandit ji provides a very different translation than Muller;

“God existed in the beginning of creation, the only Lord of the unborn universe. He is the Eternal Bliss whom we should praise and adore”.

From Yajurved 17.19 in which it is said;

viśvataś cakṣur uta viśvato-mukho viśvato-bāhur uta viśvatas-pāt saṃ

bāhubhyāṃ dhamati sampatatrair dyāv-ābhūmī janayan deva ekaḥ

“Being all-vision, all-power, all-motion in Himself, He sustains with His power the whole universe, Himself being One alone”.

And finally Atharvaved 13.4.16-21 which states that;

na dvitiyo na tritiyash-chaturtho napyuchyate … sa esha eka eka vrideka eva

sarve asmin deva ekavrito bhavanti

“There are neither two gods, nor three, nor four…nor ten. He is one and only one and pervades the whole universe, All other things live, move and have their being in Him”.

Despite providing such a strident proofs of monotheism in the Vedas Pandit ji was nevertheless aware of the kind of elaborate theories critics could create to explain away such evidence. “Henotheism” was one such ingenious invention devised to counter a monotheistic interpretation of the Vedas. Muller who invented “henotheism” labelled Vedic Dharma as “henotheistic” because he believed that unlike polytheistic religions which “recognize the existence of various deities or names of deities (and therefore are polytheistic), they (henotheistic religions) represent each deity as independent of all the rest, as the only deity present in the mind of the worshipper at the time of his worship and prayer”. So according to Muller the Vedas could never be hymns to one God but to always to various gods, but just not all at the same time. This is because “according to the varying aspects of nature, and the varying cravings of human heart, it is sometimes Indra, the god of the blue sky, sometimes Agni, the god of fire, sometimes Varuna, the ancient god of the firmament, who are praised as supreme without any suspicion of rivalry, or any idea of subordination.” This alternating focus, in his view is why the Vedas are henotheistic and not monotheistic. Muller ends by justifying his choice of the word “henotheism” by saying that ” “this peculiar phase of religion, this worship of single gods, forms probably everywhere (in) the first stage in the growth of polytheism, and, deserves, therefore, a separate name”. Muller’s subsequent henotheistic interpretations of “agni” and “indra” quoted by Pandit ji show Muller’s shameful attempt to establish the existence of Vedic gods or devatas where it has never existed before. He calls Agni, “the lord of fire”, who when addressed by the poet, is spoken of as the first god, not inferior even to Indra. When Agni is invoked, he says Indra is forgotten; but there is no competition between the two nor any rivalry between them and other gods. This Muller says “is a most important feature in the religion of the Veda,” and proudly proclaims that before his scholarship “it has never been taken into consideration by those who have written on the history of ancient polytheism”.

Pandit ji rightly deduces from Muller’s pompous analysis that his sole aim in creating “henotheism” is to make Indians wrongly believe that the worship of multiple devatas was and is an essential feature of Vedic worship. By uprooting the Indian nation from its “instinctive monotheism”, Pandit ji believes, Muller hopes to make the people of India “fall down to an acquired belief in henotheism” which would further weaken its resolve to fight for self-determination and for self-realisation. He confronts Muller’s malicious disinformation strategy head on by saying that “the Vedas, the sacred books of the primitive Aryans, are the purest record of the highest form of monotheism possible to conceive. Scholars cannot long continue to misconstrue the Vedas, and ignore the laws of their interpretation”. And in proving this he quotes Yaska’s Nirukta numerous times to reject this theory. In Nirukta 1.2 it is stated that “whenever the process of an art is described, the mantra that completely describes that process is called the devata (or the index) of that process. More succinctly in Nirukta 7.1 “devata” is defined as a general term applied to those substances whose attributes are explained in a mantra. It may also denote Yaska says in Nirukta 7.4 1 a noble person: “learned men, parents, and atithis, (those guest-missionaries who have no fixed residence, but wander about from place to place benefiting the world by their religious instructions), are regarded as devatas or called by the names of devatas”. Furthermore quoting Nirukta 7.15 he says these processes, attributes, learned people all have the qualities to illuminate as Yaska says that “whatsoever or whosoever is capable of conferring some advantage upon us, capable of illuminating things, or capable of explaining them to us, and lastly, the Light of all lights, these are the fit objects to be called devatas”. And finally to dispel any notion that this illuminating quality refers to a god of illumination “agni” as professed by Muller Pandit ji cites Yajurved 23.17; which says “I present to your consideration agni which is the fruitful source of worldly enjoyments, which is capable of working as though it were a messenger, and is endowed with the property of preparing all our foods. Hear ye, and do the same”. In doing so he clearly points out that agni is only the expression of the one and only Omniscient God’s properties. It is “agni” therefore which forms the subject matter of this mantra and is its devata, and not any imaginary, mythological “god of fire”.

The devatas, or the substances, the properties which Yaska says can form the subject matter of any Vedic mantra are he explains all the things “that can form the subject of human knowledge”. He groups this infinite mass into thirty three devatas in accordance with authorities from such mantras as Yajurved 14.31 and Atharva Ved 10.22. 4-27 which state that “the Lord of all, the Ruler of the universe, the Sustainer of all, holds all things by 33 devatas”, and that “the knowers of true theology recognize the 33 devatas performing their proper organic functions, as existing in and by Him, the One and Only”. These thirty three devatas are in fact according to the Shatpatha Brahman the eight vasus, eleven rudras, twelve adityas, one indra and one prajapati. which manifest the glory of God. “The eight vasus” Pandit ji quotes directly from the Shatpatha Brahman are“1. heated cosmic bodies, 2. planets, 3. atmospheres, 4. super terrestrial spaces, 5. suns, 6. rays of ethereal space, 7. satellites, 8 stars. These are called vasus (abodes), for, the whole group of existences resides in them, viz., they are the abode of all that lives, loves, or exists. The eleven rudras are the ten pranas (nervauric forces) enlivening the human frame, and the eleventh is atma (the human spirit). These are called the rudras (from root rud to weep) because when they desert the body it becomes dead, and the relations of the dead, in consequence of this desertion, begin to weep. The twelve adityas are the twelve solar months, marking the course of time. They are called adityas as, by their cyclic motion, they produce twelve adityas are the twelve solar months, marking the course of change in all, objects, and hence the lapse of the term of existence for each object. Aditya means that which causes such a lapse. Indra is the all-pervading electricity or force. Prajapati is yajna (an active voluntary association of objects on the part of man, for the purposes of art, or association with other men for purposes of teaching or learning). It also means Pushus (the useful animals). Yajna and useful animals are called prajapati, as it is by such actions and by such animals that the world at large derives its materials of sustenance”.

The thirty three devatas enumerated above clearly pass the six tests which Pandit ji says that they must pass in order to be classified as genuine devatas. Devised by true scientists and natural philosophers these tests concern time, locality, force, human spirit, deliberate activities and vital activities. The twelve adityas, or the twelve months, satisfy the criteria of time in that its twelve solar months mark the course of time over the months and corresponding seasons which succeed each other, one after the other. The eight vasus or eight abodes fulfil the locality criteria as they enable the twelve months to exist and occur. Electricity being all pervading and therefore capable of modifying and creating effects easily passes the force test as force by its nature is the modification within matter which creates effects. Subjective knowledge possessed by the atma, the ego is the domain of the fourth test; the human spirit. Prajapati in the form of yajna and pashus (useful animals) conform to the deliberate activities part of the test, as both man and beast perform voluntary, self-conscious deliberate actions for the benefit of the world at large. Lastly, involuntary, passive modifications caused by ten of the eleven rudras known as the pranas or nervauric forces are identified as vital activities. These bodily functions are overseen by the eleventh rudra; the human spirit or the atma.

Pandit ji takes great pains to explain the correct yaugik interpretation of these devatas which form the subject matter of all mantras in the Vedas. He does this so as to disassociate them from the misleading laukik translations of European scholars such as Muller. One such mantra from Rig Veda 1.162. 1 concerns the devata – asva. This mantra is as follows:

mā no mitro varuṇo aryamāyurindra ṛbhukṣā marutaḥ parikhyan

yad vājino devajatasya sapteḥ pravakṣyāmo vidathe vīryāṇi

Muller in his ignorance translates the mantra as saying – “May Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Ayu, Indra, the Lord the Ribhus, and the Maruts not rebuke us, because we shall proclaim at the sacrifice the virtues of the swift horse sprung from the gods.” Here Pandit ji derides Muller’s evocation of an imaginary polytheistic pantheon of Vedic gods who are according to his translation are so unhappy at hearing the virtues of the swift horse being proclaimed at the sacrifice that they rebuke the poet of this mantra! He challenges Muller to prove the validity of his position, saying that he will not be able to as “even the most diseased conception of a savage shrinks from such a superstition as the “swift horse sprung from the gods”. Both Muller’s translations and the false “horse sacrifice” ashwamedha concept in the so called Puranas originate from what Pandit ji asserts is a total ignorance of the dialectic laws of the Vedas, “when words having a yaugika sense are taken for proper nouns, and an imaginary mythology (is) started”.

Muller he reveals has taken the words, “mitra”, “varuna,”, “aryama”, “ayu”, “indra”, “ribhus”, “maruts” to be proper nouns and ignoring their yaugika sense he has carelessly translated them to mean the “god of the day”, “god of the investing sky”, “the god of death”, “god of the wind”, “god of the watery atmosphere”, “celestial artists” and “storm gods” respectively. If the yaugika sense was respected then Muller would have known the literal translations of these words that mitra means a friend; varuna, a man of noble qualities ; aryama, a judge or an administrator of justice; ayu, a learned man ; indra, a governor ; ribhuksha, a wise man ; marutahs, those who practically observe the laws of seasons. Regarding the word “asva” it does not only mean horse as Muller maintains but it also means the group of three forces heat, electricity and magnetism or in fact anything that can be carried through a distance. For the last point, he quotes Maharishi Dayanand’s Rig Ved bhashyam to explain that “ashva vidya” means “the science of training horses and the science of heat which pervades everywhere in the shape of electricity. The Shathpath Brahman also states clearly that ashwa like an “animal of conveyance” has “distance-carrying properties”.  Moreover the word “devajata” which Muller translates as “sprung from the gods” because the popular laukika sense of the word dev means god, is actually revealed to mean both “brilliant qualities” and “learned men”. While the word “virya” has a very dynamic actual definition of “power-generating virtues” rather than the rather flat signification of “virtues” offered by Muller in his translation. All these authorities collectively support Pandit ji’s final translation of Rig Ved 162.1 which is that “we will describe the power-generating virtues of the energetic horses endowed with brilliant properties, or the virtues of the vigorous force of heat which learned or scientific men can evoke to work for purposes of appliances (not sacrifice). Let not philanthropists, noble men, judges, learned men, rulers, wise men and practical mechanics ever disregard these properties.” When compared to Muller’s ignorant and prejudiced translation which ruthlessly sidelines the actual devata of the mantra: ashva – the forces of heat, in favour of pure fantasy, Pandit ji’s sincere and simple yaugika based interpretation allows the science in the Vedas to shine through.

The proper yaugik interpretation of words in the Vedic mantras however uncovers not only their real scientific meaning but also how and by whom the devatas, the subject matter of the mantras ought to be used by in an ethical manner. In the mantra above for example Paramatma teaches us about the forces of heat and which persons are qualified to evoke and use them. “Scientific men” we learn, study these forces, do research on them and create appliances for the benefit of human advancement. Facilitating them in these noble endeavours are the philanthropists, noble men, judges, learned men, rulers, wise men and practical mechanics, who are cautioned by God never to disregard their properties as to do so would inhibit the progress of society. Similarly in Rig Ved 162.2 (yan nirṇijā rekṇasā prāvṛtasya ratiṃ ghṛbhītāṃ mukhato nayanti, supranajo memyad viśvarūpa indrāpūṣṇoḥ priyamapyeti pāthaḥ) Pandit ji notes, God clearly states that the right to govern (to “drink the potion of strength and of power to govern”) should only be given to those “who preach that only wealth earned by righteous means should be appropriated and spent, and (to) those born of wisdom, who are well-versed in questioning others elegantly, in the science of forms and in correcting the unwise.” Like the previous mantra which concerns ashva vidya, God is clear that the right to govern “should be practiced only by those who are possessed of righteous means, are wise, and have the capacity to govern and control.” These learned men and women being suitably qualified morally and intellectually are the only ones trusted to handle the devatas, the subject matter of the Vedas, as they are themselves by their very virtuous nature, devatas, illuminating and enlightening persons. When this profound wisdom is contrasted with Max Muller’s senseless translation of the same mantra, one can only feel sorry for the naive reader who only knows and therefore only trusts the latter. Muller’s translation makes no mention of “righteous wealth”, those “men born in wisdom”, “who have an idea of all forms”, who are “able enough to put questions elegantly” and have the right to “strength” and the “power to govern”. Instead we get a mythological version which makes a mockery of the original. His version reads; “when they load before the horse, which is decked with pure gold ornaments, the offering, firmly grasped, the spotted goat bleats while walking onwards; it goes the path beloved by Indra and Pushan.” Pandit ji in analysing such a ridiculous interpretation counts nine words that have been wrongly translated by Muller and says that this all due to the yaugika sense of the words being ignored and “the rurhi or the laukika sense being everywhere forced in the translation.”

Pandit ji pithily says in the closing stages of his study, in clear censure of Muller, Pincott and their kind that “it is clear from the above quotation, that religious teachers, parents and learned men, these alone, or the like, were called devatas and no others, in Yaska’s time. Had Yaska known of any such idolatry or henotheism or devata worship, which superstitious Hindus are so fond of, and which Professor Max Muller is so intent to find in the Vedas, or had any such worship prevailed in his time, even though he himself did not share in this worship, it is impossible that he should not have made any mention of it at all, especially when speaking of the common practice among men in general”. Quite clearly judging by the analysis of European scholars of the Vedas and Sanskrit, they were either totally unaware of this fact about Yaska or too blinded by Christian prejudice to truly acknowledge and preach it.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion what is made abundantly clear in Pandit ji’s analysis is that in order to understand the dual scientific and moral purpose of the Vedic mantras one must understand the devata, the subject matter of the mantra in question. In order to understand the correct significance of the devata of any Ved mantra, Pandit ji’s implores us to ignore the misleading mythological, antiquarian and rurhi word based methods of interpretation emanating from the mischievous Sayana centred ramblings of modern European “scholars” such Muller, Monier Williams and Pincott. Rather he requests that we fully understand and embrace the interpretation of those Vedic scholars, who use the more accurate contemporary yaugik words based method of interpretation of the Vedas, and who consult the works of great grammarians like Yaska so as to reveal the true eternal universal message of God.  If we follow the latter’s analysis, then Pandit ji says there can be no doubt that we will come to see that “element worship, or nature worship, is not only foreign to the Vedas and the ages of Yaska and Panini and Vedic rishis and munis, but that idolatry and its parent mythology, at least in so far as Aryavarta is concerned, are the products of recent times”. This is a crucial point which must be heeded not only by our Christian brothers and sisters, but our staunch Puranic and atheist ones who ironically even today rely on the faulty scholarship of these non-Indian nineteenth century academics (some of whom were barely literate in Sanskrit and had never set foot in India) to prove that our ancestors engaged in everything from beef eating, soma wine drinking to caste and gender discrimination. If, such a heartfelt recognition and adoption of the real Vedic truth can be achieved by all humans everywhere, then Pandit ji says all the damage caused by European scholars and all the terrible crimes against humanity which have resulted from their attempt to conceal the liberating word of God in the Vedas can be overturned. This surely is an important prerequisite to creating the best kind of society that all humans are craving for.

In signing off Pandit ji, stresses one last point to his readers; that while interpreting the devatas in the Vedic mantras in the correct manner our feelings towards “God the adorable”, the one true devata should always be full of profound devotion. One should always remember that God, the Supreme Soul as mentioned in Nirukta 7.4, is worshipped on account of his omnipotence. The devatas who are “but the pratyangas of this Supernal Soul” i.e. the partial manifestations of the glory of God … owe their birth and power to Him as through Him they exercise their beneficial influences by attracting properties, useful, and repelling properties, injurious”. “He alone” Yaska and Pandit ji conclude “is the All-in-All of all the devout.” We should therefore ultimately derive inspiration from such a humble final acknowledgement and tread the divine path signposted by Pandit ji and other true Vedic scholars or forever flounder in the obscurity created by Sayana, Muller, Monier-Williams, Pincott and others of their deluded ilk. The final choice to do so or not however is ours.

To read the complete version of ‘The Terminology of the Vedas and European Scholars’ by Pandit Gurudutt Vidyarthi please click on the link below and download the book ‘The Works of Pandit Gurudutt Vidyarthi’ and then go to page 69.

 

Footnotes:

  1. For a detailed understanding of what each method and each type of word entails the previous article should be read before embarking on this one. However to summarise them; the mythological method views the Vedas as being myths – “prayers from such an emotional character addressed to the forces of nature “which portray “the simple phenomena of nature in the personified language of mythology”. The antiquarian method in contrast involves the modern scholar using his modern day understanding of ancient concepts and phenomena to interpret “the books and the general literature of the period to which ancient literary records belong “. And lastly the one which Pandit ji considers to be the best; the contemporary method, which involves the modern scholar using commentaries closer in time to the exposition of the Vedas. Here he specifies the usage of commentaries such as Nirukta by Yaska and Mahabhashya of Patanjali to interpret the Vedas as to do so would be to follow the invaluable maxim that “the nearer we approximate to the literature of the period to which the Vedas belongs the greater would be our chances of the interpretations being more probable and more correct”.

 

  1. Pandit ji says in the Terminology of the Vedas that “a Yaugika word is one that has derivative meaning” i.e. which derives its meaning from its root. The word is “all connotation”, which means that an idea or feeling is invoked from that word, from the literal or primary meaning of its root and it is this connotation which determines its denotation. A rurhi word in contrast to a yaugika word has no connotative meaning “it is the name of a definite concrete object” and is determined by “an arbitrary principle” which means that its meaning is chosen at random, on a whim. This very clear demarcation between yaugika and rurhi words doesn’t exist with regards to a third class of words which can be interpreted. This class of words is called yoga-rurhi and here two words are synthetically combined into a compound denoting a third object by virtue of the combining of these two words. The relation or the interaction of phenomena are expressed in the resulting words that are created. Pandit ji gives the example here of the word kamala. “The word stands … in relation of the born to mud, the bearer, which leads the word kamala to be called pankaja as panka means mud and ja means to bear”.

रक्तसाक्षी पंडित लेखराम “आर्य मुसाफिर”

जन्म– आठ चैत्र विक्रम संवत् १९१५ को ग्राम सैदपुर जिला झेलम पश्चिमी पंजाब |
पिता का प.तारासिंह व माता का नाम भागभरी(भरे भाग्यवाली]) था | १८५० से १८६० ई. एक एक दशाब्दि में भारत मेंकई नर नामी वीर, जननायक नेता व विद्वान पैदा हुए | यहाँ ये बताना हमारा कर्त्तव्य है कि भारतीय स्वाधीनता संग्राम के हुतात्मा खुशीरामजी का जन्म भी सैदपुर में ही हुआ था | वे भी बड़े दृढ़ आर्यसमाजी थे | आर्यसमाज के विख्यात दानी लाला दीवानचंदजी इसी ग्राम में जन्मे थे | पण्डितजी के दादा का पं.नारायण सिंह था | आप महाराजा रणजीतसिंह की सेना के एक प्रसिद्द योध्या थे |
आर्यसमाज में पण्डितजी का स्थान बहुत ऊँचा है | धर्मरक्षा के लिए इस्लाम के नाम पर एक मिर्जाई की छूरी से वीरगति पाने वाली प्रथम विभूति पं.लेखराम ही थे | आपने मिडिल तक उर्दू फ़ारसी की शिक्षा अपने ग्राम में व पेशावर में प्राप्त की | फ़ारमुग़लकाल के बाद सी के सभी प्रमाणिक साहित्यिक ग्रन्थों को छोटी सी आयु में पढ़ डाला | अपने चाचा पं.गण्डाराम के प्रभाव में पुलिस में भर्ती हो गए | आप मत, पन्थो का अध्ययन करते रहे | प्रसिद्द सुधारक मुंशी कन्हैयालाल जी के पत्र नीतिप्रकाश से महर्षि दयानन्द की जानकारी पाकर ऋषि दर्शन के अजमेर गए | १७ मई १८८१ को अजमेर में ऋषि के प्रथम व अंतिम दर्शन किये, शंका-समाधान किया | उपदेश सुने और सदैव के लिए वैदिक-धर्म के हो गए |

सत्यनिष्ठ धर्मवीर, वीर विप्र लेखरामजी का चरित्र सब मानवों के लिए बड़ा प्रेरणादायी है | इस युग में विधर्मियों की शुद्धि के लिए सबसे अधिक उत्साह दिखाने वाले पं.लेखराम ही थे, इस कार्य के लिए उन्होंने अपना जीवन दे दिया| आज हिन्दू समाज उनके पुनीत कार्य को अपना रहा है | परन्तु खेद की बात है कि आर्यसमाज मन्दिरों के अतिरिक्त किसी हिन्दू के घर या संघठन में पण्डितजी का चित्र नही मिलता | आर्यों की संतान इन हिन्दुओं को नही भूलना चाहिए कि विदेशी शासकों के पोषक व प्रबल समर्थक इन्हीं मिर्ज़ा गुलाम अहमद ने अपनी एक पुस्तक में हिन्दुओं को “सैदे करीब” लिखा था | इसका अर्थ है कि हिन्दू तो मुसलमानों की पकड़ में शीघ्र आनेवाला शिकार है |

पण्डितजी अडिग ईश्वरविश्वासी, महान मनीषी, स्पष्ट वक्ता, आदर्श धर्म-प्रचारक, त्यागी तपस्वी, लेखक, गवेषक, और बड़े पवित्र आत्मा थे | एक बार पण्डितजी ने आर्यसमाज पेशावर के मंत्री श्री बाबू सुर्जनमल के साथ अफगानिस्तान में ईसाई मत के प्रचारक पादरी जोक्स से पेशावर छावनी में भेंट की | पादरी महोदय ने कहा कि बाइबिल में ईश्वर को पिता कहा गया है | ऐसी उत्तम शिक्षा अन्यत्र किसी ग्रन्थ में नहीं है | पण्डितजी ने कहा “ऐसी बात नही है | वेद और प्राचीन आर्य ऋषियों की बात तो छोड़िये अभी कुछ सौ वर्ष पहले नानकदेव जी महाराज ने भी बाइबिल से बढ़कर शिक्षा दी है| पादरी ने पूछा कहाँ है ?? पण्डितजी ने कहा देखिये—

तुम मात पिता हम बालक तेरे |
तुमरी किरपा सुख घनेरे || “

यहाँ ईश्वर को पिता ही नही माता भी कहा गया है| ये शिक्षा तो बाइबिल की शिक्षा से भी बढ़कर है| माता का प्रेम पिता के प्रेम से कहीं अधिक होता है | इसीलिए ईसा मसीह को युसूफ पुत्र न
कहकर इबने मरियम (मरियम पुत्र) कहा जाता है | ये सुनकर पादरी महोदय ने चुप्पी साध ली | इसी प्रकार अजमेर में पादरी ग्रे(Grey) ने भी इसी प्रकार का प्रश्न उठाया तब पण्डितजी ने यजुर्वेद
मंत्र संख्या ३२/१० का प्रमाण देकर उनकी भी बोलती बंद कर दी थी |

रोपड़ के पादरी पी सी उप्पल ने एक राजपूत युवक को बहला-फुसलाकर ईसाई बना लिया, पण्डितजी को सुचना मिली तो वे रोपड़ पहुंचे, तब तक रोपड़ के दीनबंधु सोमनाथजी ने उसे शुद्ध कर लिया था | पण्डितजी ने रोपड़ पहुंचकर मंडी में लगातार कई दिन तक बाइबिल पर व्याख्यान दिए | पादरी उप्पल को लिखित व मौखिक शास्त्रार्थ के लिए निमंत्रण दिया | उप्पल महोदय ने चुप्पी साध ली | घटना अप्रैल १८९५ की है |

मिर्ज़ा गुलाम अहमद ने ‘सत बचन’ नाम से एक पुस्तक छापी | उसमें यह सिद्ध करने का यत्न किया कि बाबा नानकदेवजी पक्के मुसलमान थे | इस पुस्तक के छपने पर सिखों मरण बड़ी हलचल
मची | तब प्रतिष्ठित सिखों ने पण्डितजी से निवेदन किया वे इसका उत्तर दें | उस समय पण्डितजी के सिवा दूसरा व्यक्ति इसका उत्तर देने वाला सूझता भी नही था | बलिदान से पूर्व इस विषय पर एक ओजस्वी व खोजपूर्णव्याख्यान देकर मिर्ज़ा साहेब की पुस्तक का युक्ति व प्रमाणों से प्रतिवाद किया| भारी संख्या में सिख उन्हें सुनने आये, सेना के सिख जवान भी बहुत बड़ी संख्या में वहां उपस्थित थे | आपके व्याख्यान के पश्चात् सेना के वीर सिख जवानों ने पण्डितजी को ऐसे उठा लिया जैसे पहलवान को विजयी होने पर उसके शिष्य उठा लेते हों |

पं.लेखरामजी धर्म रक्षा के लिए संकटों, आपत्तियों और विपत्तियों का सामना किया | उनके व्यवहार से ऐसा लगता है कि मानों बड़े से बड़े संकट को भी वो कोई महत्व नही देते थे | उनके पिताजी की मृत्यु हुई तो भी वे घर में न रुक सके | बस गए और चल पड़े | उन्हें भाई की मृत्यु की सूचना प्रचार-यात्रा में ही मिली, फिर भी प्रचार में ही लगे रहे | एक कार्यक्रम के पश्चात् दुसरे और दुसरे के पश्चात् तीसरे में| इकलौते पुत्र की मृत्यु से भी विचलित न हुए | पत्नी को परिवार में छोड़कर फिर चल पड़े | दिन रात एक ही धुन थी कि वैदिक धर्म का प्रचार सर्वत्र करूँ |

पंडित लेखराम तो जैसे साक्षात् मृत्यु को ललकारते थे| कादियां का मिर्ज़ा गुलाम अहमद स्वयं को नबी पैगम्बर घोषित कर रहा था और पण्डितजी को मौत की धमकियाँ दे रहा था | उसने श्रीराम पर
श्रीकृष्ण पर, गौ पर, माता कौशल्या पर, नामधारी गुरु रामसिंह पर, महर्षि दयानन्द, वेद और उपनिषद इत्यादि सब गन्दे-गन्दे प्रहार किये | उसने श्रीकृष्ण महाराज को तो सुअर मारने वाला लिखा |
पर यहाँ पं.लेखराम धर्म पर उसके प्रत्येक वार का उत्तर देते थे | जब पण्डितजी सामने आते तो खुद को शिकारी कहने वाला बिल में छुप जाता | अपने बलिदान से एक वर्ष पूर्व पण्डितजी लाहौर रेलवे स्टेशन के पास एक मस्जिद में पहुंचे, उन्हें पता चला कि मिर्ज़ाजी वहां आये हैं | मिर्ज़ा उनकी हत्या के षड्यंत्रों में लगा था| जाते ही मिर्ज़ा को नमस्ते करके सच और झूठ का निर्णय करने का निमंत्रण दे दिया | विचार करिए जिस व्यक्ति से मृत्यु लुकती-छिपती थी और नर नाहर लेखराम मौत को गली-गली खोजता फिरता था | मौत को ललकारता हुआ लेखराम मिर्ज़ा के घर तक पहुंचा|
कादियां भी मिर्ज़ा के इलहामी कोठे में जाकर उसे ललकारा | आत्मा की अमरता के सिद्धांत को मानकर मौत के दांत खट्टे करने लेखराम जैसे महात्मा विरले होते हैं |

पण्डितजी ने हिन्दू-जाति की रक्षा के लिए क्या नही किया ?? स्यालकोट में सेना के दो सिख जवान मुसलमान बनने लगे | जब सिख विद्वानों के समझाने पर भी वे नही टेल तप सिंघसभा वालों ने
आर्यसमाजियों से कहा पं.लेखराम को शीघ्र बुलाओ | पण्डितजी आये | उन युवकों का शंका-समाधान किया, शास्त्रार्थ हुआ और वे मुसलमान बनने से बचा लिए गए | जम्मू में कोई ठाकुरदास मुसलमान होने लगा तो पण्डितजी ने जाकर उसे बचाया | एल लाला हरजस राय मुसलमान हो गए | ये प्रतिष्ठित परिवार में जन्मे थे | फारसी, अरबी, अंग्रेजी के बड़े ऊँचे विद्वान थे | हरजस राय का नाम अब मौलाना अब्दुल अज़ीज़ था | वह गुरुदासपुर में Extra Assistant Commisiner रहे थे | यह सबसे बड़ा पद था जो भारतीय तब पा सकते थे | पण्डितजी कृपा से वे शुद्ध होकर पुनः हरजस राय बन गए| एक मौलाना अब्दुल रहमान तो पण्डितजी के प्रभाव से सोमदत्त बने | हैदारबाद के एक योग्य मौलाना हैदर शरीफ पर आपके साहित्य का ऐसा रंग चढ़ा कि हृदय बदल गया | वे वैदिक धर्मी बन गए |
मौलाना शरीफ बहुत बड़े कवि थे |

एक बार पण्डितजी प्रचारयात्रा से लाहौर लौटे तो उन्हें पता चला कि मुसलमान एक अभागी हिन्दू युवती को उठाकर ले गए हैं | पण्डितजी ने कहा मुझे एक सहयोगी युवक चाहिए मैं उसे खोजकर लाऊंगा | पण्डितजी युवक को लेकर मस्जिदों में उसकी खोज में निकले | उन्होंने एक बड़ी मस्जिद में एक लड़की को देखा | भला मस्जिद में स्त्री का क्या काम ? यह आकृति में ही हिन्दू दिखाई दी | पण्डितजी ने उसकी बांह पकड़कर कहा “चलो मेरे साथ |” शूर शिरोमणि लेखराम भीड़ को चीरकर उस अबला को ले आये | आश्चर्य की बात तो यह है कि उस नर नाहर को रोकने टोकने की उन लोगों की हिम्मत ही न हुई |
इसी कारण देवतास्वरूप भाई परमानन्द जी कहा करते थे कि डर वाली नस-नाड़ी यदि मनुष्यों में कोई होती है तो पं.लेखराम में वो तो कत्तई नही थी |

पं.लेखराम जी ने ‘बुराहीने अहमदियों’ के उत्तर में ‘तकजीबे बुराहीने अहमदिया’ ग्रन्थ तीन भागों में प्रकाशित करवाया | इसके छपने के साथ ही धूम मच गयी | ईसाई पत्रिका ‘नूर अफशां’ में भी इसकी समीक्षा करते हुए पण्डितजी की भूरी-भूरी प्रशंसा की | पण्डितजी इस मामले में आर्य समाज में एक परम्परा के जनक भी हैं, विरोधी यदि कविता में आर्य-धर्म पर प्रहार करते थे तो पण्डितजी कविता में ही उत्तर देते थे | जिस छंद में प्रहारकर्ता लिखता, पण्डितजी उसी छंद में लिखते थे |

मिर्ज़ा गुलाम अहमद कादियानी ने पण्डितजी को मौत की धमकियाँ देकर वेद-पथ से विचलित करना चाहा| पण्डितजी ने सदा यही कहा मुझे जला दो, मार दो, काट दो, परन्तु मैं वेद पथ से मुख नही मोड़ सकता | इसी घोष के अनुसार एक छलिया उनके पास शुद्धि का बहाना बनाकर आया | उनका नमक खता रहा | उनका चेला बनने का नाटक किया | पण्डितजी महर्षि दयानन्द का जीवन चरित्र लिखते-लिखते थक गए तो अंगडाई ली | अंगड़ाई लेते हुए अपनी छाती को खोला तो वो नीच वहीँ बैठा था, उसने कम्बल में छुरा छुपा रखा था | क्रूर के सामने शूर का सीना था, पास कोई नही था | उस कायर ने पण्डितजी के पेट में छूरा उतार दिया और भाग निकला | वो तारीख थी ६ मार्च १८९७ |

उपसंहार—धर्मवीर पं.लेखराम की महानता का वर्णन करने में लेखनी असमर्थ है | स्वामी श्रद्धानंद जैसे नेता उनका अदब मानते थे | सनातन धर्म के विद्वान और नेता पं.दीनदयाल व्याख्यान वाचस्पति कहते थे कि पं.लेखराम के होते हुए कोई भी हिन्दू जाति का कुछ नही बिगाड़ सकता | ईसाई पत्रिका का सम्पादक उनकी विद्वत्ता पर मुग्ध था | उनके बलिदान पर अमेरिका की एक पत्रिका ने उनपर लेख छापा था | ‘मुहम्मदिया पाकेट’ के विद्वान लेखक मौलाना अब्दुल्ला ने तो उन्हें ‘कोहे वकार’ अर्थात गौरव-गिरी लिखा है | पर पण्डितजी का बलिदान व्यर्थ नहीं गया, वेदों को जीवन भर पानी पी पीकर कोसने वाला मिर्ज़ा भी मरते वक़्त वेदों को ईश्वरीय ज्ञान लिखकर जाता है | पण्डितजी हम और क्या लिखे ! अपनी बात को महाकवि ‘शंकर’ के शब्दों में समाप्त करते है—–

धर्म के मार्ग में अधर्मी से कभी डरना नही |
चेत कर चलना कुमारग में कदम धरना नही ||
शुद्ध भावों में भयानक भावना भरना नही |
बोधवर्धक लेख लिखने में कमी करना नहीं ||

सुजीत मिश्र

AUM: Vatsala D. Radhakeesoon

AUM (OM)

A (अ )*,U (उ )*,M (म् )* –
Three Devanagri* letters shine in AUM*.

The Vedas* with a brush refined
paint it as the golden name for God.

Each Letter with maturity unmatched
branches further to names all- profound.

From A, Virat* flows
From A, Agni* flows,
From A, Vishwa* flows.

God illuminates the universe immense,
God is all- knowledge, omniscient,
God is in all, omnipresent.

From U, Hiranyagarbha* smiles,
From U, Vaayu* smiles,
From U, Taijas* smiles.

God is the source of light all-bright;
God creates, then destroys with all might.

From M, Ishwar*emerges,
From M, Aaditya* emerges,
From M, Praajna* emerges.

God has knowledge infinite, perfect;
God is immortal, free from damage effects.

Thus, in AUM dwell God’s attributes,
AUM is wholesome, unfailingly absolute.

Vatsala Radhakeesoon

*(अ ), *(उ ), *(म् ): Main letters used in Sanskrit and Hindi forming the word AUM

*Devanagri : The alphabet used to write Sanskrit ,Hindi and other Indian languages

*AUM: According to the Vedas, the main name of God

*Vedas: The main sacred books of Hinduism

*Virat : God who illuminates this multiform universe

*Agni: God who is all-knowledge, omniscient and worthy of adoration

*Vishwa: refers to the fact that all the world and worldly objects dwell in God and he resides in all of them

*Hiranyagarbha: God as the source of light

*Vaayu: God as being the life and support of the universe and the cause of dissolution

*Taijas: God who gives light to the sun and other luminous bodies

*Ishwar: God, whose knowledge and power are infinite

*Aaditya: God as being immortal

*Praajna: God whose knowledge is perfect and He is omniscient

This is treason: Dr. Dharmveer

This is treason 

“ Pakistan Zindabad, India will bleed with a thousand cuts, How many Afzal’s will you sentence to death when each house will given birth to an Afzal, Kasmir will win its freedom, This fight will continue till India is destroyed”. These slogans even if heard in Pakistan would have been enough to make us agitated. We would have cursed Pakistan, made some announcements condemning the episode may be even announced action, but these slogans were heard on the 9th February in India’s capital at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. These slogans were raised by the students of the university. These slogans were repeated and the sentencing of the terrorist Afzal Guru was claimed to be the murder of justice. The Supreme court of India and her constitution were cursed repeatedly. Can a country expect its very own citizens to raise such slogans in the heart of its capital city and in a university! This is the tolerance of India! and it seems that these people are very miserable living in India.

JNU Delhi, has always been notorious for its anti national activities. From treason to nudity of Hindu goddesses, everything is seen to be a sign of being progressive, liberal and freedom of expression. The very foundation of this University is anti India. When the university was established it had all the departments except Sanskrit. When the then HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi decided to open Sanskrit department in the university, the students organized strikes, demonstrations and protests. However the central government went ahead and opened the Sanskrit department here.

The University also organized a beef festival on its campus which could not materialize due to protests by the ABVP and other hindu organizations. All the anti national and anti social activities are in the name of progress and freedom of expression.  These activities had so far not been brought to light and therefore no action had been taken. The past governments were also with them.  The University management and officials were also guardians of the same anti national brigade. The statement of the university professors and the officials in light of this incident is the result of the same tradition that has so far continued at this university.

Sandip Patra recently said on a news channel that the students and faculty who had earlier protested against the anti social and anti national activities at the university were punished, insulted and ultimately thrown out of the university.

When Zee news first broadcast the recent incident at JNU, the whole nation was enraged. Which citizen would hate his own country and detest his own fellow countrymen and claim his behavior to be his right. Those who study with the money paid for by the country declare their treason as their freedom of expression. There cannot be a greater misfortune for a country than this.  If this incident had transpired in China, Tiananmen square episode would have been repeated by now. The more disgraceful part of this episode is the way the media, political parties like Congress, AAP and the marxists are supporting these anti national students. Some want to dismiss this episode as just another incident by some outsiders and not the students. Others are trying to defend the incident as the freedom of expression.

This episode is nothing but treason and all those who are defending it are India’s traitors. Anyone who supports a traitor is also definitely a traitor himself. This episode could come to light because it was all captured over camera. When the president of the student union was brought before the judge he declined having shouted anti India slogans and blamed it on the outsiders. When he was shown the video evidence of him shouting the slogans, he blamed it on the students of ABVP of having spoilt the JNU environment. Basically he is saying that to stop a thief from stealing is spoiling the environment.  Some shameless politicians have also adopted this line and saying that it is not confirmed who was shouting the anti national slogans. They are also saying that the police should not enter the university campus to arrest these anti national students. It is interesting to note that the Pakistan supports can stay there, pakistani spies can live there, but the police protecting Indian citizens cannot enter the university.

 

We should also note here that this is not the first incident of this kind. There has been a chronology of such events. A similar episode had happened in Hyderabad. However a camera recording was not available for that incident. There it was associated with the atrocities on the Dalits. In the Hyderabad University more than 300 students had gathered to protest against the death sentence given to Yakub Menon. Students prayed for his soul and shouted that Yakub Menon will be born in each house. One of the member of the students’ council protested against this episode and wrote a scathing piece on his Facebook page. More than 30 Yakub Menon supporters dragged him out of his room in the middle of the night, beat him up and forced him to write an apology letter and got his Facebook post removed. Is this tolerance? Is it freedom of expression or social justice? Even if you do wrong it is your freedom of expression and if someone protests you will kill him? The mother of the student approached the court after this episode. The students of the University went on a strike and amidst all this the student” Rohit” committed suicide. The politicians and the anti national forces used this episode as the atrocities of the Modi Government on the Dalits and oppressed class. Rahul Gandhi and Kejriwal went to Hyderabad University to express their solidarity with the students. No one wants to pay attention to the real cause of this incident. No one went their to dissuade the students and no one criticized their actions.

 

The JNU episode is the second in the series. The student Rohit from Hyderabad had written to the central government to intervene and put an episode to such incidents. The central government’s response was in the interest of the society and the country. But India is a nation of Jaichands. Today the Congress and the whole opposition is occupied with just one thing – to make every action and every episode as an act against the Modi Government.  While the students of JNU were shouting anti India slogans, another episode was taking place simultaneously. Pamphlets with photos of Afzal Guru and Yakub Menon were distributed. They were criticizing the death sentence awarded to these terrorists. This was organized in another liberal bastion, the press club of India. Needless to stay that the faculty members of JNU were also a part of this group.

 

Is it possible in any other country of the world to use the government institutions for anti national activities?  It can happen only in India because the enemies of the State are a part of the system and the government machinery. From Nehru to Sonia gandhi, the objective of all governments was the same – destruction of India’s culture and it traditions. It is a result of their policies that Indians do not take pride in their own country, culture and traditions. Newer generations consider our beliefs to be backward and obsolete. The Western traditions were glorified and considered ideal at the same time destroying our own values. JNU is an example of this policy. These policies have nurtured anti national elements in the country. To grab the power appeasement has been followed to such an extent that all anti national activities were ignored.

 

The protests against the JNU episode are the result of awareness in the general public. The fact that some members of the student council opposed it and that a couple of news channels like Zee news stood firm and brought this episode to light have made a judicial investigation and action possible. These traitors are weak and cowardly and most of them ran at the first sign of trouble. Some of them are still at large. If those arrested are dealt with strictly then most of the supporters and comrades would be seen absconding.

 

Anyone in public who supports Afzal guru, shouts Long live Pakistan, eulogizes terrorists is a traitor. Anyone who shouts slogans of “ Long live Khalistan, praises Bhindarwale and distributes pamphlets in support of his actions is a traitor. Those who support them are also guilty of treason. Treason is an unpardonable offense and if dealt with strictly and firmly it might restraint these anti national activities. The students, zee news and times now and the public who raised their voice against the anti national activities at JNU deserve to be lauded.

Our scriptures say that the traitors should be punished severely –

In a nation where leadership is strong and justice and punishments is severe, it does not let its subjects deviate from the righteous path.

Did the Aryans really come from outside India?: Dr. Dharmveer

The leader of opposition in Loksabha (lower house of the parliament), Mallikarjun Khadge in a recent debate said that the Aryans invaded India 5000 years ago and have been exploiting the dalits ever since. He also proclaimed that the dalits would continue the struggle against the Aryans. He also declared BJP to be a party of the outsiders who is ruling India. No one can understand the gravity of this falsehood better than the Arya Samaj. MP Swami Sumedhanand deserves commendation for having contested Khadge’s claim by protesting it in writing and getting it removed from the day’s  proceedings.

 

It was not the first time that this issue was raised in the parliament. Many years ago, an Anglo Indian remember of the Rajya Sabha (Upper house of the parliament) had raised a similar issue. No one had however understood the gravity of the situation at that time. The honorable member had said that the Indians should not consider English to be a foreign language. Indians love Sanskrit which is a language of the Aryans who too had come from outside India. When they love Sanskrit why do they dislike English and consider it to be a foreign language?

 

The theory of Aryan invasion in India is the result of British creativity to divide and rule the country.  Before the British the Muslims had invaded India and enslaved it. They used force to destroy its culture, beliefs and traditions.  The British however adopted a systematic and organized intellectual approach to achieve the same objective. Malikarjun Khadge is a victim of that same conspiratorial approach. The West is still active in its efforts to break India. Religious conversions by Muslims and Christians one hand and Naxalite and Maoist violence on the other are active in creating an atmosphere of anarchy and instability in the country. In the name of spreading modern values and trade they are destroying the moral and the cultural fabric of the society. The Aryan- Dravidian conflict is also one such approach to break India. It is a systematic effort by the West and the church to divide India into a “ Christian Nation, a Muslim nation and a Dravid nation”.  However the purpose of this discourse is the “ Aryan Invasion theory” and why it should be debunked. The Aryan invasion theory should have been quashed right at the time of independence. But for over 60 years the administration was in the hands of “ Mr. Khadge”s Party” which had considered the destruction of India, its beliefs, its traditions and its language as its primary goal. It considered the British and English language the synonym of progress and encouraged the same. Till date the students in India study that the Aryans came from outside, defeated the indigenous people, the Dravidians, drove them to the South and established their rule in India. The lie is so widespread that Congress party’s MP stands as the spokesperson of the theory and believes himself to be a non Aryan.

 

Today India has the opportunity to expunge this false theory from our educational syllabus and remove the words like “ indigenous people or Adivasis (scheduled tribes) from our administration. If Khadge had been different from the Aryans, his name would not have been Mallikarjun. If he considers BJP to be a party of the Aryans the outsiders, then he should see who he represents in the parliament, Sonia Gandhi? Khadge is an Indian and I am sure he loves his motherland, he should also then understand the conspiracy behind it.

 

Before even starting discussing this theory, I would like to mention that the word Arya is qualitative and not casteist. When the Veda says “ Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam”, it means be noble and make the whole world noble. When we wish to make the whole world noble, how does Mr. Khadge plan to remain non noble or non Aryan? The world Aryan and non Aryan is used in context of good and bad people. Manu says that Aryans and dasysus( non Aryans) live in this country. The word dasyu was used for thieves and robbers. Would Mr. Khadge still like himself to be called a non Aryan, considering what the real meaning of the word is? Do thieves and robbers have a separate caste and how can Mr. Khadge want himself to be a representative of thieves and robbers.

 

According to the ancient Indian texts and literature, Aryans are the people who believe in a noble ideology and traditions, who accept Vedas and follow the Vedic tradition. Those who believe this are Aryans and those who do not are the non Aryans. On this principle any one can be an Aryan and anyone can become an Aryan. In the Aryan tradition a wife addressed her husband as “Arya Putra” (son of a noble man). The westerners created the Aryan invasion theory out of thin air with a single objective of creating a rift and dividing the Indian society. This school of thought has long been discarded of scientific factual grounds. The enemies of India however keep raising it again and again to divide the country.

 

This conspiracy was first understood by Swami Dayanand and he contested it in his various texts. He has written that there is no evidence of the Aryans having come from outside in any of our text or literature. If the Aryans had indeed come from outside, a historical event of such great significance would have been recorded somewhere in our history. It is impossible that such an event occurred and there is no trace of it in the history. It is a kind incident that people quote for centuries.  Today if some one take asylum or a there is a terrorist attack, in either case we find the incidents mentioned. In the society there are stories, folklores and traditions. Do we find Aryan traditions anywhere else in the world? Is the language of the Aryans spoken anywhere else in the world? Has there been any evidence that it was spoken in a different part of the world in the past? The answer is a resounding NO.

 

 

Such a big race or tribe such as the Aryans could not have migrated over night from their homeland to India. There should have been evidence of this migration somewhere on the route they might have taken. If they came and conquered India then did they leave all the nations in between unconquered? If they conquered these nations too, then why do we not find any evidence of the Aryan invasion in these countries? Swami Dayanand writes that Aryans were the very first people to have inhabited India. Our texts and Swami Dayanand both believe that at the time of creation of the earth it was all submerged under water. The first part too come out of the water was Tibet and because it was the highest, man first originated there. Humans first came to India from there. They made it their home and from here they spread to other parts of the world. The Aryan invasion theory is false imaginative and at best a conspiracy.

 

All the ancient texts all over the world do not have a single mention of Aryans coming to India from outside. Some of them of course do mention that their ancestors came from India. For example Avesta, the religious and historic text from Iran mentions that their ancestors came from India and settled in Iran. When one race conquers another they commemorate their victory in several ways. They write manuscripts and inscriptions about the event, they erect pillars and stupas to mark the victory. They create history in order to ensure that the event is remembered. We do not find any such evidence in India. This further discredits the Aryan invasion theory. Various Brahman text and Manusmriti mention that Aryans came to India from Tibet and were its first Inhabitants. There is however no mention of the Aryans coming from central Asia and ousting India’s original inhabitants.

 

Are the people who are today called Dalits, Shudras or Scheduled castes really that different from the Aryans? Their clan, traditions, food habits, clothes and ornaments are all the same. Their gods and goddess are also same. They all worship Ram, Hanuman, Shiv and Ganesha. Their fasts, festivals, rite and rituals are also same. Both societies are divided into rich and poor, master and servant on the basis of level of affluence. The society is overall the same. The only difference are in education, wealth, justice and injustice. This is however a feature common to all societies all over the world. The differentiating factor of this society is the evil practice of determining the caste by birth. Because of this ignorance, hypocrisy, divide of low caste and high caste and the practice of untouchability, the British were able to take advantage of this division to spread hostility and malevolence in the country and have been doing it to this date.

 

The British had sent their messenger to Pandit Bhagwadutta to write in his texts that the Jats had come from outside. But Pandit Bhagwadutta had declined this vehemently. Where some people declined to follow the British diktat, there were others who obliged them for money or perks associated with it.

 

Rishi Dayanand understood the the British conspiracy and fought against it with evidence. Manu’s shlokas determine Aryavarta boundary as “ Aasamudrata” which is interpreted as being from Vindhyas/Satpura to the Himalayas. Swami Dayanand interprets it is as being until Rameshwaram. In his chapter on the genesis of the Vedas, Swami Dayandand writes that when we recite the Sankalp path – Aryavarte Jamboo dweepe Bharat Khande” we reiterate as the Aryans being the first people ever to have to come to India and naming it Aryavarta.

 

India was given various names during different phases of history. But there is no evidence of any name being given it before Aryavarta or Brahmavarta. This again proves the Aryan invasion theory to be bogus. The fact that Aryans came to Aryavarta from outside is self contradictory.

 

The reason that Mr. Khadge still quotes this false theory is the propaganda machinery being used to peddle this lie. The reservation system given on the basis of caste is being used as the basis to keep this falsehood alive and burning. Various christian organizations in Europe and America pump large amount of money through various agencies to keep this theory alive. Two such prominent agencies active in India are the BAMCEF – Backward And Minority Communities Employees Federation and the Indigenous Affairs Group. Several universities in Australia, Eurpose and America have set up seats to research the history of the Indigenous “Adivasi” dalit people and try to establish with DNA evidence that the adivasi DNA is different from the Aryan DNA. These organizations use the name of Jyotiba Phule and Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar to separate this group from the other Hindus. More than 200 books have been published by these organizations and distributed amongst dalits to convince them that they are different from the other Hindus. The objective is to convince the Dalits that they had nothing to do with India’s freedom movement. It was a fight of the high caste hindus for their rights. The British were their saviors who saved them from the oppression of high caste hindus who had been till then exploiting them. Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi, Shivaji or Maharani Pratap were all high caste Hindus fighting for their own rights.  These organizations do not discuss any reform movement by Swami Dayanand, Swami Shraddhanand or the Arya Samaj. They are active in instigating the dalit castes against the so called high caste Hindus. They distribute literature, show various movies to aggravate this divide. They organize seminars in different parts of the country and encouragee Dalits to participate in them. They do not allow people with an alternative view or other caste people to participate in these seminars.

BAMCEF was established in 1973 with American help by the BSP founder Kanshiram and DK Khapde. The objective of this associations to take advantage of the reservation system and increase the divide between the high caste and the low caste. Most of the people are not aware of the activities of this organization and those who are do not give it much importance. However Mr. Khadge through his speech in Loksabha proved that this idea is gaining ground. The society and the government need to be pro active in order to deal with it.

 

 

Sri Ram had said for his homeland India that “ mother and mother land are better than even the kingdom of heaven. Not only this, the Aryans have described India as a land of envy for the gods of heaven. Can a person describe any other country other than his homeland in such beautiful words as these

गायन्ति देवाः किल गितकानि

धन्यास्तु ते भारत भूमिभागे

स्वर्गापवर्गास्पद मार्गभूते

भवन्ति भूयः पुरुषाः सुरत्वात्

 

 

The lords of heaven laud those who are lucky to have been born in this divine country which is even better than heaven itself and whose people are better than the gods of heaven.

My Only True Friend By Vatsala Radhakeesoon

My Only True Friend

Hectic, hectic is mundane life;
Human beings can barely enjoy time.

To No Human Heart I’m now attached,
Fragile expectations have long ago been smashed.

‘OM,OM,OM*’ in my mind his name rhymes,
Senses, Soul connect to the Omniscient Divine;
My anger,fears, torments he deeply understands,
His justice, love ,strength aren’t like slippery grains of sand.

I feel for me he’s always there,
Whatever he does he’s always fair,
He’s my only True Friend -The Divine
whom in my life flawlessly, constantly shines.

Vatsala Radhakeesoon

*OM: According to the Vedas, the main name of God

The sad decline of the Arya Samaj By Dr. Vidhu Mayur

It is not possible to say with certainty as to when the Arya Samaj movement began to decay.  As good a guess as any on this is 1947, the year in which Punjab was partitioned into India and Pakistan.  It is probable that this dealt a grievous blow to the Arya Samaj movement because Lahore was where its heart had beat since its inception; with one fell swoop the arteries, connecting it to other parts of its body in India, were thus severed.  Whether this decline is terminal is too painful a question to contemplate. Why has the slump occurred?

For a start, the modern practice of democracy must shoulder considerable blame.  At its birth, the Arya Samaj movement adopted a constitution informed by the colonial system in place at that time. The legacy, left by the British legal and political system to India, includes the civil law guidance that charities should have in place an electoral system where leaders are elected by members who pay an annual subscription, on a one-member-one-vote basis.  There are fatal weaknesses in this because almost anyone can become a member of an Arya Samaj through the ridiculously expedient route of paying a tiny sum of money for annual membership, and by signing a form pledging allegiance to the movement.  Svami Dayanand must have recognised this flaw because, before he died, he set up the Arya Paropkarini Sabha to manage his affairs.  Crucially, this Sabha was, in legal terms, a Trust – a body run by Trustees who were not elected but appointed by him (presumably on the basis that he fully trusted them to be Aryas in the true sense of the word). Dharma is about one’s conduct being compatible with Vedic ethics – it takes a life-time (if not more) for an Arya to acquire sanskaars that signally cannot be acquired instantly.  It is true to say, therefore, that far too many so-called Samaj members, and leaders, have obtained their ‘brand’ identity through this completely insincere approach.  Amazingly, it is even possible to purchase life membership in many Arya Samajs – this is sold on the basis that, thereby, one can pay a greatly discounted annual fee!  Tragically, such is the extent of the rot that has set in within a movement intended to spread the practice of nishkaam (selfless and unconditional) yajna (altruism).  Arya Samajs are therefore dangerously vulnerable to easy infiltration and sabotage by enemies intent on weakening it; could it be that this is mainly why it has been brought to its knees?

Even worse, however, is that this system of organisation spawns leaders who are elected, exactly, as are politicians. Instead of leaders being appointed on merit, they come to the fore via popularity contests. It would be fair to say that the vast majority of Arya Samajs worldwide are and have been led by people whose political skills are far superior to their Vedic morals; greed for office is the result. Is it any surprise therefore that the sublime principles and goals Svami Dayanand Sarasvati intended for preservation and propagation by the society he set up have lapsed into dormancy?  For, politicians the world over are, essentially, populist.  Becoming popular in order to attract votes does not mix at all well with acting in a principled manner – in fact, are these two behaviours not mutually exclusive? Almost invariably, such people are more willing to compromise key principles (to remain in power) than preserving them.  For example, they fail with Principle 9 – no one should be content to promote their own good but should instead look for their own good in promoting the good of all.

Another historically alien concept that has taken root in the Arya Samaj is secular humanism.  Atheistic humanism is ultimately antithetic to the Vedic dharma – principles 1, 2 and 3 of the Arya Samaj embrace, celebrate and eulogise God, unambiguously so. Unfortunately, those who are too ignorant or lazy to worship God as taught by the Vedas tend to become followers of the idea of moral relativism that now is in the ascendancy all over the world, and consequently fail in practising principle 5 of the Arya Samaj, that is, all acts should be performed in accordance with dharma by differentiating right conduct from wrong.  How can people succeed in this if they are expected to accept that there are no absolute rights and wrongs?  And so, we see evils such as abortion, deviant sexual behaviour and mercy killing now being promoted as examples of modern day ethics.  Other such aberrations bequeathed by the so-called Age of Enlightenment are the industrialised slaughter of animals, genetic modification of living organisms and a selfish emphasis on human rights rather than selfless responsibilities – almost all resulting from the worship of science having supplanted that of God.  This explains why Samajs are following and teaching what is not truly Vedic, but a contaminated or diluted version of Dharma.

For a creed that totally rejects the idea of a hereditary caste system, it is shocking that the Arya Samaj has actually been infected with the notion of Aryan identity being inherited; it is not uncommon for people in positions of leadership uttering with pride ‘my father was a great servant of the Samaj’ or ‘I come from a strong Arya Samaj family’.  The intention behind such statements is to offer evidence of sincerity or authenticity of their qualifications for leadership or membership of the organisation, irrespective of the merits – or demerits – of their day-to-day conduct.  Nepotism, in the form of reserving committee posts for family members, is a consequence of this.  At AGMs or elections, dissensions between factions occur frequently and are settled on the basis of voter turnout.  Egos run rampant, with elections being won by those who boast their achievements most volubly.  It is a bitter irony that these so-called Aryas are, therefore, operating exactly like the corrupt Brahmins that have been the scourge of India for so long, justifying seizure of the status of dominant and self-perpetuating elite by dint of birth-right, and not on ability or merit.

Capitalism rears up its ugly head in the form of power-seekers trying to show that they have raised the most donations, held the biggest yajnas or organised the erection of big halls or new premises. Officers attend weekly meetings infrequently, but are unfailingly present at meetings of the executive committee.  The few sincere servants in each Samaj are taken for granted or sidelined.  Devout members are mocked for being unfashionably and unhealthily faithful to God.  Hypocrisy is rife, as commonly exemplified by non-vegetarianism, alcohol use or sympathy for non-Vedic religious practices and beliefs.  Fund-raising has become an end in itself with sizeable savings being deposited in bank accounts.  Herein lies a most sinister danger; because such wealth is a magnet for the corrupt to scurrilously try to acquire power as Samaj officials in order to attempt to embezzle such funds.  It is probably true to say that litigation has done more than anything else to weaken the Arya Samaj in India into a state of paralysis.  The motive behind such law suits is, usually, pecuniary gain or megalomania.  What has been completely forgotten is that the key reason for fund-raising through donations by the public is for the funds to be immediately spent on good causes; instead of making such charitable investments funds are being kept saved in ‘war-chests’ as an end in itself.

Sadly, what has also become vanishingly rare is the spirit of daana and seva; a painful irony in light of the sixth principle of Dayanand’s mission: that the prime object of the Arya Samaj is to do good to the world, that is, to promote the physical, social and spiritual good of all.  Philanthropic works or charitable schemes are so few and far between that the Samaj can no longer claim to be meaningfully active in ongoing social reform.  By becoming to depend on government funding the DAV schools have sold their soul, for he who pays the piper calls the tune.  The Indian State is secular and has no interest whatsoever in prioritising or preserving the teaching of the Vedic Dharma to schoolchildren.  For the DAV educational wing of the Arya Samaj to have sold out in this way was a monumental error.

Another fatal mistake made by the movement early in its history was to train and employ priests to run branches of the Samaj.  The deathly blow this has delivered is twofold: firstly sustaining an apathy amongst members to study the Vedas (because svaadhyaaya for them begins and ends with listening to the occasional sermon) and secondly because many priests succumb to the evil of monetary gain – ironically one of the evils of Puranic Hinduism that Dayanand wanted to stamp out most of all. The worst consequence of this is that the weekly agnihotra has become a meaningless religious ritual not dissimilar to attending a temple to worship an idol of God (in this case the idol being a fire). This hugely important point needs further explanation.  Devayajna is an act the daily performance of which is encouraged by the Vedas; this act of sacrifice is to be carried out at home for spiritual and environmental cleansing.  Instead, the vast majority of Samajists see fit to observe yajna being conducted by a priest as their main contribution towards practising the Vedic dharma.  Priests encourage this non-performance when their duty is actually as teachers, that is, to teach and propagate the domiciliary performance of yajna in community households.  Lay members capable of conducting homa are vanishingly rare.  So, purohits trained in Arya Samaj Gurukuls, with the intention of spreading the Vedic light, actually end up working to maintain darkness in community life.  This entirely thwarts not only the third principle of the Arya Samaj, namely, that it is the duty of every Arya to read, study and teach the Vedas in order to deliver the ideal of krinvanto vishvam aryam – making all humanity noble by cleansing society of wrong beliefs about God but even more importantly, failing with the seventh principle of the Arya Samaj – instilling a sense of devotion to duty, the duty to make the world a better place by promoting justice, morality and fraternal love.

The sad conclusion is that the Arya Samaj movement has, effectively, become yet another sect.  It was Dayanand’s intention to defeat sectarianism by uniting the entire human family and even having the lofty aspiration of a world with one country and one government.  Instead, Samajs behave as do other religions, such as, having their own church or temple as well as their own tribal identity.  Although communal worship is an essential means for promoting social cohesion, it should not be an end in itself.  Samajs were intended to function as adult education colleges aimed at training congregation members to (i) practise the five mahayajnas at home and (ii) go out into the world to spread the word of the Vedas.  Instead, members retreat inwards – by seeing their role as no more than attending a communal havan as their main act of worship.  It cannot be emphasised enough that the main cause of this is having priests in situ.  The great Vedic age dating back to six thousand years ago was based on preachers acting as atithis.  These were ascetics with no fixed abode who served the world by delivering Vedic education by, selflessly and dedicatedly, visiting place to place.  Our salaried priests, indolently, do the exact opposite (other than making money by conducting weddings and funerals).

The great philosopher Aristotle judged democracy to be the worst type of government.  He argued that suffrage is a type of mob rule.  Certainly, this is true for what has happened to the Arya Samaj movement – a body once great enough to play a key role in securing independence for India but now being led into irrelevance by unprincipled politicians working in cahoots with salaried priests.  Ultimately, the grass-root ‘members’ must take the blame for this downfall because of their individual diffidence and disinclination towards either practising the Vedic Dharma with dedication and diligence or, more importantly, seeing it as a major priority that the upbringing of their children is founded upon the sixteen sanskaars.  A key failing is that very few young people attend Arya Samaj meetings regularly; ultimately this is down to how parents bring up their children from infancy and whether parents bother with the Samaj themselves. Furthermore, income received from donations is embarrassingly low – the Arya Samaj movement is, effectively, failing with fund-raising. The format of the 3-hour long satsang is anachronistic i.e. belongs to a bygone era of 125 years ago. Arya Samajs are are failing to both spread Dayanand’s teachings as well as at putting them into a 21st century context.  A measure of the extent of the decline is that the websites of most branches are either quite primitive or not regularly updated; or both.

How Dayanand’s mission can be revived and resurrected is a most forbidding challenge that needs to be addressed urgently.