Category Archives: English

Arya Invasion an Analysis

myth of arya invasion

Arya Invasion an Analysis



Where man was first created?



Q.~ In Trivishtap otherwise called Tibet. Q. Were all men of one class or divided into different classes at the time of Creation?


A.~ They all belonged to one class, viz., that of man, but later on they were divided into two main classes, – the good and the wicked. The good were called Aryas and the wicked Dasyus. Says the Rig Veda, “Do ye know (there are) two classes of men – Aryas and Dasyus.” The good and learned were also called Devaas, while the ignorant and wicked, such as dacoits (robbers), were called Asura. TheAryas were again divided into four Classes, viz., Braahmana (teachers), Kshatriya (rulers or protectors), Vaishya (merchants) and Shuudra (labourers). Those who belonged to the first three classes being educated and bearing good character, were called Dwijas – twice born; whilst the fourth Class was so named because of being composed of ignorant and illiterate persons. They were also called Anaryas – not good. This division into Aryas and Shudras is supported by the Atharva Veda wherein it is said “Some are Aryas, others Shuudras.


Q- How did they happen to come here (to India) then?



A.~ When the relations between the Aryasand Dasyus, or between Devas and Asuraas, (i.e., between the good and learned, and the ignorant and wicked) developed into a constant state of warfare, and serious troubles arose, the Aryas regarding this country as the best in the whole earth emigrated her and colonized it. For this reason it is calledAryavarta – the abode of the Aryas.


Q. What are the boundaries of Aryavarta?


A.~ “It is bounded on the North by the Himalayas, on the South by the Vindyachal mountains, on the East and West by the sea. It has also on its West the Sarasvati River (Sindh or Attock) and on the East the Dhrisvati river also called the Brahmaputra which rises from the mountain east of Nepal, and passing down to the east of Assam and the west of Burma, falls into the Bay of Bengal in the Southern Sea (Indian Ocean). All the countries included between the Himalaya on the North and Vindhyachal mountains on the south as far as Rameshwar are called Aryavarta, because they were colonized and inhabited by Devas (the learned) and Aryas – the good and the noble.” Manu 2: 22, 17.


Q. What was the name of this country before that , and who were its oboriginal inhabitants?


A.~ It had no name, nor was it inhabited by any other people before the Aryas(settled in it) who sometime after creation came straight down here from Tibet and colonized this country.


Q. Some people say that they came from Iran (Persia) and hence they were called Aryas. Before the Aryas came to this country it was inhabited by savages whom the Aryas called Asuraas and Raakshasas as (demons), while they called themselves Devatas (gods). The wars between the two were called by the name Devaasura Sangraam as in the historical romances. Is this true?


A.~ It is absolutely wrong. The Veda declares what we have already repeated, i.e., “The virtuous, learned, unselfish, and pious men are called Aryas, while the men of opposite character such as docoits, wicked, unrighteous and ignorant persons are called Dasyus.”RIG VEDA 2: 51, 8. Besides , “The Dwijaas ( the twice-born) – Braahmanaas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyaas – are called Aryas, while the Shuudraas are called Anaaryas, or Non-Aryas.”ATHARVA VEDA19:62. In the face of these Vedic authorities how can sensible people believe in the imaginary tales of the foreigners. In the Devaasura wars, Prince Arjuna and King Dashratha and others of Aryavartaused to go to the assistance of the Aryas in order to crush the Asuras. This shows that the people living outside Aryavarta were called Dasyus and Malechhaas; because whenever those people attacked Aryas living on the Himalayas, the kings and rulers of Aryavarta, went to help the Ayas of the north, etc.


But the war which Ram Chandra waged in the south against Ravan – the king of Ceylon – is called not by the name of Devaasura war but by that of Raama-Raavana war or the war between the Aryas and Raakhasas. In no Sanskrit book – historical or otherwise – it is recorded that the Aryas emigrated here from Iran, fought with and conquered the aborigines, drove them out, and became the rulers of the country. How can then these statements of the foreigners be true? Besides, Manu also corroborates our position. He says, “The countries other than Aryavarta are called Dasyusand Malechha countries.”MANU 10:45, 2:23. The people living in the north-east, north, north-west were called Raakshasas. You can still see that the description of Raakshasas given therein tallies with the ugly appearance of the negroes of today. The people living in the antipodes of Aryavarta were called Nagas, and their country Pataalabecause of being situated under the feet (of those living in Aryavarta). Their kings belonged to the Naaga dynasty taking their name from that of the founder who was called Naga. His daughter Ulopi was married to Prince Arjuna. From the time of kshvaaku to that of Kauravaas and Paandavaas, the Aryas were the sovereign rulers of the whole earth, and the Vedas were preached and taught more or less even in countries other than Aryavarta. Brahma was the first of the literati. His son was called Virat whose son was Manu who had ten sons, Marichi etc., who were progenitors of seven kings beginning with Swayambhava whose off-springs were the kings beginning with Ikshvaaku. This Ikshvaaku colonized Aryavarta and was its first king. At the present moment, let alone governing foreign countries, the Aryas through indolence, negligence and mutual discord and ill-luck do not possess a free, independent, uninterrupted and fearless rule even over their own country. Whatsoever rule is left to them, is being crushed under the heel of the foreigner.


There are only a few independent states left. When a country falls upon evil days, the natives have to bear untold misery and suffering. Say what you will, the indigenous native rule is by far the best. A foreign government, perfectly free from religious prejudices, impartial towards all – the natives and the foreigners – kind, beneficent and just to the natives like their parents though it may be, can never the people perfectly happy. It is extremely difficult to do away with the differences in language, religion, education, customs and manners, but without doing that the people can never fully effect mutual good and accomplish their object. It behoves all good people to hold in due respect the teachings of the Veda and Shaastras and ancient history.


Are even women and Shudraas (low-caste) allowed to study the Vedas?


women and shudras

Are even women and Shudraas (low-caste) allowed to study the Vedas?

Q- What shall we do if they take to reading? Besides, there is no authority for their doing so. On the other hand, is condemned by the Vedas thus – Shruti “Never should women and the Shoodraas study.”

A. ~ All men and women ( i.e., the whole of mankind) have a right to study. You may go and hang yourselves. As for the text you have quoted, it is of you own fabrication, and is no where to be found either in the Vedas or any other authoritative book. On the other hand, here is a verse from the Yajur Veda that authorizes all men to study the Veda and hear it read:- God says:- “As I have given this Word (i.e., the four Vedas) which is the word of salvation* for all making [Here some one might say that by the word Jana, which we have translated into all mankind, only Dwijas are meant, as in the Smritis** ( so-called) they alone are allowed to study the Veda but not women and Shoodraas, the other half of this verse answers this objection by adding] – Braahmans, Kshatryas, Vaishyaas, Shoodraas, women, servants, aye, even the lowest of the low, so should you all do, i.e., teach and preach the Veda and thereby acquire true knowledge, practise virtue, shun vice, and consequently being freed from all sorrow and pain, enjoy true happiness.” YAJUR VEDA 26:2.

Now sir, shall we believe your word or God’s ? God’s, certainly. He who will still refuse to believe, (that women and Shoodraas are entitled to Veda learning) shall be called a Nastika (an infidel) because Manu has said, “He is an infidel who is a reviler and disbeliever of the Veda.” Does not God desire the welfare of the Shoodraas? Is God prejudiced that he should allow the study of the Veda to Dwijas and disallow it to Shoodraas?

Had God meant that the Shoodraas should not study the Veda or hear it read, why should He have created the organs of speech and hearing in their bodies? As He has created the sun, the moon, the earth, the water, the fire, the air, various food and drinks, etc., for all, so has He revealed the Veda for all. Wherever it is declared (in the books of Rishis) that the Shoodraas are debarred from the study of the Veda, the prohibition simply amounts to this that he, that does not learn anything even after a good deal of teaching, being ignorant and destitute of understanding, is called a Shoodraa. It is useless for him to learn, and for others to teach him any longer. As for you debarring women from education, that only shows your ignorance, selfishness and stupidity. Here is an authority from the Veda entitling girls to study:- “Just as boys acquire sound knowledge and culture by the practice of Brahmacharya and then marry girls of their own choice, who are young , well educated, loving and of like temperament, should girl practice Brahmacharya study the Veda and other sciences and thereby perfect her knowledge, refine her character, give her hand to a man of her own choice, who is young, learned and loving.” ATHARVA VEDA 11, 14:3, 18.


Q-Should even women read the Veda?


A. ~ Certainly. Here is an authority from the Shraut Sutra: “(In the Yajna) let the wife recite this mantra.”

Were she not a scholar of the Veda as well as of other Shaastraas, how could she in the Yajna receive the Vedic Mantraas with proper pronunciation and accent, as well as speak Sanskrit?

In ancient India, Gaargi and other ladies, – jewels among women – were highly educated and perfect scholars of the Veda. This is clearly written in the Shatpatha Brahmana. Now if the husband be well-educated and the wife ignorant or vice versa, there will be a constant state of warfare in the house. Besides of women were not to study, where will the teachers, or Girls’ schools come from? Nor could ever the affairs of the state, the administration of justice, and the duties of married life, that are required of both husband and wife [such as keeping each other happy, the wife having the supreme control over all household matters] be carried on properly without thorough education ( of men and women).

The Kshatriyaas women in ancient India, used to be well-acquainted even with the military science, or how could they have gone with their male relations and fought side by side with them in battle-fields, as Kekai did with her royal husband Dasharatha. Therefore it behoves Braahman and Kshatriyaa women to acquire all kinds of knowledge, and Vaishya women to learn trace, and the mechanical arts and the like, and Shoodraa women, the art of cooking, etc.

As men should, at the very least, learn the science of Grammar, Dharma and their profession or trade, likewise should women learn Grammar, Dharma*, Medical Science, Mathematics and the mechanical arts at the least, for without a knowledge of these, ascertainment of truth, proper behaviour towards their husbands and other people, bearing of good children, their proper up-bringing and instruction, proper management of the household affairs, preparation of foods and drinks in accordance with the requirements of Medical Science, ( so that they may act on the system like good medicine and keep the whole family free from disease and thereby make them happy), can never be effected.

Without a knowledge of mathematics, they can never keep accounts of their household properly; and without a knowledge of true religion, as taught by the Veda and other Shaastraas, they cannot know what God and Dharma are, and can never, therefore, escape going astray from the path of rectitude.

Verily, those parents have done their duty and, therefore, a thousand thanks to them, who have their best to make their children practise Brahmacharya, acquire knowledge, and perfect their character, which al help to develop both their bodies and minds to the fullest extent, so that they may accord a just and righteous treatment to all – parents, husbands, wives, fathers -in-laws, mothers-in-laws, their king and fellow subjects, neighbours, friends and offspring, etc.

Knowledge alone is the inexhaustible treasure; the more you spend it, the more it grows. All other treasures run out by spending, and the claimants inherit their shares as well. Thieves cannot steal this treasure, nor, can anyone inherit it.

It is the chief duty of the rulers, as well as of the ruled, to protect and augment this treasure.

Manu says:- “The State should make it compulsory for all to send their children of both sexes to school at the said* period and keep them there for the said** period till they are thoroughly well-educated. It should be made a penal offence to break this law. In other words, let no child – whether a girl or a boy – be allowed to stay in the house*** after the 8th year; let him remain in the seminary till his Samaavartana time, [i.e. the period of Return home****] and let no one be allowed to marry before that.” MANU 7:152.

Again says Manu:- “Of all gifts (that one can bestow on another) – water, food, animals ( as cows, and buffaloes), sesamum seeds, land, clothes, gold, and butter, etc. – that of the knowledge of the Veda is the best and the noblest.” MANU 4:233

Let all, therefore, try their utmost to disseminate knowledge with all their heart, with all their soul, and with all the material resources at their command.

That country alone prospers where Brahmacharya is properly practised, knowledge is keenly sought after, and the teachings of the Vedic religion followed.



Among the”great company of remarkable figures that  will appear to the eye of posterity at the head of the Indian Renascence, one stands out by himself with peculiar and solitary distinctness, one unique in his type as he is unique in his work. It is as if one were to walk for a long time amid a range of hills rising to a greater or lesser altitude, but all with sweeping contours, green-clad, flattering the eye even in their most bold and striking elevation. But amidst them all, one hill stands apart, piled up in sheer strength, a mass of bare and puissant granite, with verdure on its summit, a

solitary pine jutting out into the blue, a great cascade of pure, vigorous and fertilising water gushing out from its strength as a very fountain of life and health to the valley. Such is the impression created on my mind by Dayananda.

It was Kathiawar that gave birth to this puissant renovator and new-creator. And something of the very soul and temperament of that peculiar land entered into his spirit, something of Girnar and the rocks and hills, something of the voice and puissance of the sea that flings itself upon those coasts, something of that humanity which seems to be made of the virgin and unspoilt stuff of Nature, fair and robust in body, instinct with a fresh and primal vigour, crude but in a developed nature capable of becoming a great force of genial creation. When I seek to give an account to myself of my sentiment and put into precise form the impression I have

received, I find myself starting from two great salient characteristics of this man’s life and work which mark him off from his contemporaries and compeers. Other great Indians have helped to make India of today by a

self-pouring into the psychological material of the race, a spiritual infusion of themselves into the fluent and indeterminate mass which will one day settle into consistency and appear as a great formal birth of Nature.

They have entered in as a sort of leaven, a power of unformed stir and ferment out of which forms must result. One remembers them as great souls and great influences who live on in the soul of India. They are in

us and we would not be what we are without them. But of no precise form can we say that this was what the man meant, still less that this form was the very body of that spirit. The example of Mahadev Govind Ranade presents itself to my mind as the very type of this peculiar action so necessary to a period of large and complex formation. If a foreigner were to ask us what this Mahratta economist, reformer, patriot precisely did that we give him so high a place in our memory, we should find it a little difficult to answer. We should have to point to those activities of a mass of men in which his soul and thought were present as a formless former of things, to the great figures of present-day Indian life who received the breath of his spirit. And in the end we should have to reply by a counter question, “What would Maharashtra of  today have been without Mahadev Govind Ranade and what would India of today be without Maharashtra?” But even with those who were less amorphous and diffusive in their pressure on men and things, even with workers of a more distinct energy and action, I arrive

fundamentally at the same impression. Vivekananda was a soul of puissance if ever there was one, a very lion among men, but the definite work he has left behind is quite incommensurate with our impression of his

creative might and energy. We perceive his influence still working gigantically, we know not well how, we know not well where, in something that is not yet formed, something leonine, grand, intuitive, upheaving that has entered the soul of India and we say, “Behold, Vivekananda  still lives in the soul of his Mother and in the souls of her children.” So it is with all. Not only are the men greater than their definite works, but their influence is so wide and formless that it has little relation to any formal work that they have left behind Even if we leave out of account the actual nature of the work he did, the mere fact that he did it in this spirit and to this effect would give him a unique place among our great founders. He brings back an old Aryan element into the national character. This element gives us the second of the differentiae I observe and it is the secret of the first. We others live in a stream of influences;  we allow them to pour through us and mould us; there is something shaped and out of it a modicum of work

results, the rest is spilt out again in a stream of influence. We are indeterminate in our lines, we accommodate ourselves to circumstance and environment. Even when we would fain be militant and intransigent, we are really fluid and opportunist. Dayananda seized on all that entered into him, held it in himself, masterfully shaped it there into the form that he saw to be right and threw it out again into the forms that he saw to be right. That

which strikes us in him as militant and aggressive, was a part of his strength of self-definition. He was not only plastic to the great hand of Nature, but asserted his own right and power to use Life and Nature as plastic material. We can imagine his soul crying still to us with our insufficient spring of manhood and action, “Be not content, O Indian, only to be infinitely and grow vaguely, but see what God intends thee to be, determine in the light of His inspiration to what thou shalt grow. Seeing, hew that out of thyself, them. Very different was the manner of working of Dayananda. Here was one who did not infuse himself informally into the indeterminate soul ofthings, but stamped his figure indelibly as in bronze on men and things. Here was one whose formal works are the very children

of his spiritual body, children fair and robust and full of vitality, the image of their creator. Here was one who knew definitely and clearly the work he was sent to do, chose his materials, determined his conditions with a sovereign clairvoyance of the spirit and executed his conception with the puissant mastery of the born worker. As I regard the figure of this formidable artisan in God’s workshop, images crowd on me which are all of

battle and work and conquest and triumphant labour. Here, I say to myself, was a very soldier of Light, a warrior in God’s world, a sculptor of men and instituions, a bold and rugged victor of the difficulties which matter presents to spirit. And the whole sums itself up to me in a powerful impression of spiritual practicality. The combination of these two words, usually so divorced from each other in our conceptions, seems to me the very definition of Dayananda. hew that out of Life. Be a thinker, but be also a doer; be a soul, but be also a man; be a servant of God, but be also a master of Nature !” For this was what he himself was; a man with God in his soul, vision in his eyes and power in his hands to hew out of life an  image according to his vision. Hew is the right word. Granite himself, he smote out a shape of things with great blows as in granite. In Dayananda’s life we see always the puissant jet of this spiritual practicality. A spontaneous power and decisiveness is stamped everywhere on his work. And to begin with, what a master-glance of practical intuition was this to go back trenchantly to the very root of Indian life and culture, to derive from the flower of its first birth the seed for a radical new birth! And what an act

of grandiose intellectual courage to lay hold upon this scripture defaced by ignorant comment and oblivion of its spirit, degraded by misunderstanding to the level of an ancient document of barbarism, and to perceive in it its real worth as a scripture which conceals in itself the deep and energetic spirit of the forefathers who made this country and nation, a scripture of divine knowledge, divine worship, divine action. I know not whether

Dayananda’s powerful and original commentary will be widely accepted as the definite word on the Veda. I think myself some delicate work is still called for to bring out other aspects of this profound and astonishing Reve-

lation. But this matters little. The essential is that he seized justly on the Veda as India’s Rock of Ages and had the daring conception to build on what his penetrating glance perceived in it a whole education of youth,,

a whole manhood and a whole nationhood. Rammohan Roy, that other great soul and puissant worker who laid his hand on Bengal and shook her to what mighty issues out of her long, indolent sleep by her rivers and

rice-fields Rammohan Roy stopped short at the Upanishands. Dayananda looked beyond and perceived that our true original seed was the Veda. He had the national instinct and he was able to make it luminous, an

intuition in place of an instinct. Therefore the works that derive from him, however they depart from received traditions, must needs be profoundly national. To be national is not to stand still. Rather, to seize on a vital thing out of the past and throw it into the stream of modern life, is really the most powerful means of renovation and new-creation. Dayananda’s work brings

back such a principle and spirit of the past to vivify a modern mould. And observe that in the work as in the life it is the past caught in the first jet of its virgin vigour, pure from its sources, near to its root principle and therefore to something eternal and always renewable. And in the work as in the man we find that faculty of spontaneous definite labour and vigorous formation which proceeds from an inner principle of perfect clear- ness, truth and sincerity. To be clear in one’s own mind, entirely true and plain with one’s self and with others, wholly honest with the conditions and materials of one’s labour, is a rare gift in our crooked, complex and faltering

humanity. It is the spirit of the Aryan worker and a sure secret of vigorous success. For always Nature recognizes a clear, honest and recognisable knock at her doors and gives the result with an answering scrupulosity

and diligence. And it is good that the spirit of the Master should leave its trace in his followers, that somewhere in India there should be a body of whom it can be said that when a work is seen to be necessary and right, the men will be forthcoming, the means forthcoming and that work will surely be done. Truth seems a simple thing and is yet most difficult.

Truth was the master-word of the Vedic teaching, truth in the soul, truth in vision, truth in the intention, truth in the act. Practical truth, drjava^ an inner candour and a strong sincerity, clearness and open honour in the

word and deed, was the temperament of the old Aryan morals. It is the secret of a pure unspoilt energy, the sign that a man has not travelled far from Nature. It is the bardexter of the son of Heaven, Divasputra. This

was the stamp that Dayananda left behind him and it should be the mark and effigy of himself by which the parentage of his work can be recognised. May his spirit act in India pure, unspoilt, unmodified and help to give

us back that of which our life stands especially in need, pure energy, high clearness, the penetrating eye, the masterful hand, the noble and dominant sincerity.

Vedic Magaaine, 1915 47

Shri – Aurobindo





DAYANANDA accepted the Veda as his rock of firm foundation,he took it for his guiding view of life, his rule of inner existence and his inspiration for external work, but he regarded it as even more, the word of eternal Truth on which man’s knowledge of God and his relations with the Divine Being and with his fellows can be rightly and securely founded. This everlasting rock of the Veda, many assert, has no existence, there is nothing there but the commonest mud and sand; it is only a hymnal of primitive barbarians, only a rude worship of personified natural phenomena, or even less than that, a liturgy of ceremonial sacrifice, half religion, half magic, by which superstitious animal men of yore hoped to get themselves gold and food and cattle, slaughter pitilessly their enemies, protect themselves from disease, calamity and demoniac influences and enjoy the coarse pleasures

of a material Paradise. To that we must add a third view, the orthodox, or at least that which arises from Sayana’s commentary; this view admits, practically,


DAYANANDA the ignobler interpretation of the substance of Veda and

yet or is it therefore? exalts this primitive farrago as a holy Scripture and a Book of Sacred Works. Now this matter is no mere scholastic question, but

has a living importance, not only for a just estimate of Dayananda’s work but for our consciousness of our past and for the determination of the influences that shall mould our future. A nation grows into what it shall be

by the force of that which it was in the past and is in the present, and in this growth there come periods of conscious and subconscious stock-taking when the national soul selects, modifies, rejects, keeps out of all that

it had or is acquiring whatever it needs as substance and capital for its growth and action in the future: in such a period of stock-taking we are still and Dayananda was one of its great and formative spirits. But among all

the materials of our past the Veda is the most venerable and has been directly and indirectly the most potent. Even when its sense was no longer understood, even when its traditions were lost behind Pauranic forms, it

was still held in honour, though without knowledge, as authoritative revelation and inspired Book of Knowledge, the source of all sanctions and standard of all truth. But there has always been this double and incompatible tradition about the Veda that it is a book of ritual and mythology and that it is a book of divine knowledge. The Brahmanas seized on the one tradition, the Upani- shads on the otheif Later, the learned took the hymns for a book essentially of ritual and works, they went elsewhere for pure knowledge; but the instinct of the race bowed down before it with an obstinate inarticulate memory of a loftier tradition. And when in our age

the Veda was brought out of its obscure security behind the purdah of a reverential neglect, the same phenomenon reappears. While Western scholarship extending the hints of Sayana seemed to have classed it for ever as a ritual liturgy to Nature-Gods, the genius of the racelooking through the eyes of Dayananda pierced behind the error of many centuries and received again the intuition of a timeless revelation and a divine truth

given to humanity.-fin any case, we have to make one choice or another. We can no longer securely enshrine the Veda wrapped up in the folds of an ignorant reverence or guarded by a pious self-deceit. Either the Veda is

what Sayana says it is, and then we have to leave it behind for ever as the document of a mythology and ritual which have no longer any living truth or force for thinking minds, or it is what the European scholars say it is, and

then we have to put it away among the relics of the past as an antique record of semi-barbarous worship; or else it is indeed Veda, a book of divine knowledge, and then it becomes of supreme importance to us to know and to hear its message. It is objected to the sense Dayananda gave to the Veda that it is no true sense but an arbitrary fabrication of imaginative learning and ingenuity, to his method that it is fantastic and unacceptable to the critical reason, to his teaching of a revealed Scripture that the very idea is a rejected superstition impossible for any enlightened

mind to admit or to announce sincerely. I will not now examine the solidity of Dayananda’s interpretation of Vedic texts, nor anticipate the verdict of

the future on his commentary, nor discuss his theory of revelation. I shall only state the broad principles underlying his thought about the Veda as they present themselves to me. For in the action and thought of a great

soul or a great personality the vital thing to my mind is not the form he gave to it, but in his action the helpful power he put forth and in his thought the helpful truth he has added or, it may be, restored to the yet all too scanty stock of our human acquisition and divine potentiality. To start with the negation of his work by his critics,in whose mouth does it lie to accuse Dayananda’s dealings with the Veda of a fantastic or arbitrary ingenuity? Notin the mouth of those who accept Sayana’s traditionalinterpretation^ For if ever there was a monument of arbitrarily erudite ingenuity, of great learning divorced, as great learning too often is, from sound judgment and

sure taste and a faithful, critical and comparative observation, from direct seeing and often even from plainest  commonsense or of a constant fitting of the text into the Procrustean bed of preconceived theory, it is surely this

commentary, otherwise so imposing, so useful as first crude material, so erudite and laborious, left to us by the Acharya Sayana. Nor does the reproach lie in the mouth of those who take as final the recent labours of European scholarship. For if ever there was a toil of interpretation in which the loosest rein has been given to an ingenious speculation, in which doubtful indications have been snatched at as certain proofs, in which the boldest conclusions have been insisted upon with the scantiest justification, the most enormous difficulties ignored and preconceived prejudice maintained in face of the clear and often admitted suggestions of the text, it is surely this labour, so eminently respectable otherwise for its industry, good will and power of research, performed through a long century by European Vedic scholarship. What is the main positive issue in this matter? An interpretation of Veda must stand or fall by its central conception of the Vedic religion and the amount of support given to it by the intrinsic evidence of the Veda itself. Here Dayananda’s view is quite clear, its foundation inexpugnable. The Vedic hymns are chanted to the One Deity under many names, names which are used and even designed to express His qualities and powers. Was this conception of Dayananda’s an arbitrary conceit fetched out of his own too ingenious imagination? Not at all; it is the explicit statement of the Veda itself: “One existent, sages” not the ignorant, mind you, but the seers, the men of knowledge, “speak of in many ways,

as Indra, as Yama, as Matariswan, as Agni”. The Vedic Rishis ought surely to have known something about their own religion, more, let us hope, than Roth or Max Muller, and this is what they knew.*} We are aware how modern scholars twist away from the evidence. This hymn, they say, was a late production, this loftier idea which it expresses with so clear a force

rose up somehow in the later Aryan mind or was borrowed by those ignorant fire-worshippers, sun-worshippers, sky-worshippers from their cultured and philosophic Dravidian enemies. But throughout the Veda we have confirmatory hymns and expressions: Agni or Indra or another is expressly hymned as one with all the other gods. Agni contains all other divine powers within himself, the Maruts are described as all the gods, one deity is addressed by the names of others as well as his own, or, most commonly, he is given as Lord and King of the universe attributes only appropriate to the Supreme Deity. Ah, but that cannot mean, ought not to mean, must not mean, the worship of One; let us invent a new word, call it henotheism and suppose that the Rishis did not really believe Indra or Agni to be the Supreme Deity but treated any god or every god as such for the

nonce, perhaps that he might feel the more flattered and lend a more gracious ear for so hyperbolic a compliment! But why should not the foundation of Vedic thought be natural monotheism rather than this new-fangled monstrosity of henotheism? Well., because primitive barbarians

could not possibly have risen to such high conceptions and., if you allow them to have so risen, you imperil our theory of the evolutionary stages of the human development and you destroy our whole idea about the sense of the Vedic hymns and their place in the history of mankind. Truth must hide herself, commonsense disappear from the field so that a theory may flourish! I ask, in this point, and it is the fundamental point, who deals most straightforwardly with the text, Dayananda or the Western scholars?

But if this fundamental point of Dayananda’s is granted, if the character given by the Vedic Rishis themselves to their gods is admitted, we are bound, whenever the hymns speak of Agni or another, to see behind that

name present always to the thought of the Rishi the one Supreme Deity or else one of His powers with its attendant qualities or workings. Immediately the whole character of the Veda is fixed in the sense Dayananda gave to it; the merely ritual, mythological, polytheistic interpretation of Sayana collapses, the merely meteorological and naturalistic European interpretation collapses. We have instead a real Scripture, one of the world’s sacred books and the divine word of a lofty and noble religion.

All the rest of Dayananda’s theory arises logically out of this fundamental conception. If the names of the godheads express qualities of the one Godhead and it is these which the Rishis adored and towards which they

directed their aspiration, then there must inevitably be in the Veda a large part of psychology of the Divine Nature, psychology of the relations of man with God and a constant indication of the law governing man’s Godward conduct. Dayananda asserts the presence of such an ethical element, he finds in the Veda the law of life given by God to the human being. And if the Vedic godheads express the powers of a supreme Deity who is Creator, Ruler and Father of the universe, then there must inevitably be in the Veda a large part of cosmology, the law of creation and of cosmos. Dayananda asserts the presence of such a cosmic element, he finds in the Veda the secrets of creation and law of Nature by which the Omniscient governs the world. Neither Western scholarship nor ritualistic learning has succeeded in eliminating the psychological and ethical value of the hymns, but they have both tended in different degrees to minimise it. Western scholars minimise because they feel uneasy whenever ideas that are not primitive seem to insist on their presence in these primeval utterances; they do not hesitate openly to abandon in certain passages interpretations which they adopt in others and which are admittedly necessitated by their own philological and critical reasoning because, if admitted always, they would often involve deep and subtle psychological conceptions which cannot have occurred to primitive minds! Sayana minimises because his theory of Vedic discipline was not ethical righteousness with a moral and spiritual result but mechanical performance of ritual with a material reward. But, in spite of these efforts of suppression, the lofty ideas of the Vedas still reveal themselves in strange contrast to its alleged burden of fantastic naturalism or dull ritualism. The Vedic godheads are constantly hymned as Masters

of Wisdom, Power, Purity, purifiers, healers of grief and evil, destroyers of sin and falsehood, warriors for the truth; constantly the Rishis pray to them for healing and purification, to be made seers of knowledge, possessors

of the truth, to be upheld in the divine law, to be assisted and armed with strength, manhood and energy. Dayananda has brought this idea of the divine right and truth into the Veda; the Veda is as much and more a book of divine Law as Hebrew Bible or Zoroastrian Avesta. The cosmic element is not less conspicuous in the Veda; the Rishis speak always of the worlds, the firm laws that govern them, the divine workings in the cosmos. But Dayananda goes farther; he affirms that the truths of modern physical science are discoverable in the hymns. Here we have the sole point of fundamental principle about which there can be any justifiable misgivings. I

confess my incompetence to advance any settled opinion in the matter. But this much needs to be said that his idea is increasingly supported by the recent trend of our knowledge about the ancient world. The ancient civilisations did possess secrets of science some of which  modern knowledge has recovered, extended and made more rich and precise but others are even now not recovered. There is then nothing fantastic in Dayananda’s idea that Veda contains truth of science as well as truth

of religion. I will even add my own conviction that Veda contains other truths of a science the modern world does not at all possess, and in that case Dayananda has rather understated than overstated the depth and

range of the Vedic wisdom. Objection has also been made to the philological and etymological method by which he arrived at his results,

especially in his dealings with the names of the godheads. But this objection, I feel certain, is an error due to our introduction of modern ideas about language into our study of this ancient tongue. We moderns use words as counters without any memory or appreciation of their original sense; when we speak we think of the object spoken of, not at all of the expressive word which is to us a dead and brute thing, mere coin of verbal currency with no value of its own. In early language the word  was on the contrary a living thing with essential powers of signification; its root meanings were remembered because they were still in use, its wealth of force was vividly present to the mind of the speaker. We say

“wolf” and think only of the animal, any other sound would have served our purpose as well, given the convention of its usage; the ancients said “tearer” and had that significance present to them. We say “agni” and

think of fire, the word is of no other use to us; to the ancients “agni” means other things besides and only because of one or more of its root meanings was applied to the physical object fire. Our words are carefully limited to one or two senses, theirs were capable of a great number and it was quite easy for them, if they so chose, to use a word like Agni, Varuna or Vayu as a soundindex of a great number of connected and complex ideas, a key-word. It cannot be doubted that the Vedic Rishis did take advantage of this greater potentiality of their language, note their dealings with such words as gau and chandra. The Nirukta bears evidence to this capacity and in the Brahmanas and Upanishads we find the memory of this free and symbolic use of words still subsisting. Certainly, Dayananda had not the advantage that a comparative study of languages gives to the European scholar. There are defects in the ancient Nirukta which the new learning, though itself sadly defective, still helps us to fill in and in future we shall have to use both sources of light for the elucidation of Veda. Still this only affects

matters of detail and does not touch the fundamental principles of Dayananda’s interpretation. Interpretation in detail is a work of intelligence and scholarship and in matters of intelligent opinion and scholarship men seem likely to differ to the end of the chapter, but in all the basic principles,, in those great and fundamental decisions where the eye of intuition has to aid the workings of the intellect, Dayananda stands justified by the substance of Veda itself, by logic and reason and by our growing knowledge of the past of mankind. The Veda does hymn the one Deity of many names and powers; it does celebrate the divine Law and man’s aspiration to fulfil it; it does purport to give us the law of the cosmos. On the question of revelation I have left myself no space to write. Suffice it to say that here too Dayananda was perfectly logical and it is quite grotesque to charge him with insincerity because he held to and proclaimed the doctrine. There are always three fundamental entities which we have to admit and whose relations we have to know if we would understand existence at all, God,Nature and the Soul. If, as Dayananda held on strong enough grounds, the Veda reveals to us God, reveals to us the law of Nature, reveals to us the relations of the soul to God and Nature, what is it but a revelation of divine Truth? And if, as Dayananda held, it reveals them to us with a perfect truth, flawlessly, he might well hold it for an infallible Scripture. The rest is a question of the method of revelation, of the divine dealings with our race, of man’s psychology and possibilities. Modern thought, affirming Nature and Law but denyingGod, denied also the possibility of revelation; but so also has it denied many things which a more modern thought is very busy reaffirming. We cannot demand of a great mind that it shall make itself a slave to vulgarly received opinion or the transient dogmas of the hour; the very essence of its greatness is this, that it looks beyond, that it sees deeper.In the matter of Vedic interpretation I am convinced that whatever may be the final complete interpretation,

Dayananda will be honoured as the first discoverer of the right clues. Amidst the chaos and obscurity of old ignorance and age-long misunderstanding his was the eye of direct vision that pierced to the truth and fastened on that which was essential. He has found the keys of the doors that time had closed and rent asunder the seals of the imprisoned fountains.

Vedic Magazine, 1916

Palmistry: A bunch of rubbish



Palmistry is called a technique for characterization and the foretelling the future through the study of Palm. Palmist promise to tell  about your age, knowledge, heath , money, children, joy, sorrow, success and defeat, journey to foreign country etc etc. Lot of people believes in the palmistry including uneducated to well educated. It is believed that future as well as past can be decoded thru the palmistry. A lot of books can be found on this subject. You will found thousands of palmist and millions of people believing in the palmist.


  1. Beauty of the subject is that palmist till yet could not decide that lines of which hand should be considered for judging the past and future of someone.  Few say that lines of left hand should be considered while other says that lines of right hand provide more authenticated information. Some says that right hand is more active so lines of right hand should be considered while other believes that left hand is more close to heart so that should be taken into consideration. Another view is that lines of both hands should be read.


  1. There is lack of consensus on which lines denotes what.


  1. These lines on palm keep on changing time to time. In that case there is no logic in consulting the palmist. As lines are changeable so the future and the past cannot be denoted by these lines and there is not logic to ask about the present as we all know about our present.



  1. Could everyone who died in the World Trade Center have had a “life” line that was abbreviated?


  1. Palm reading works the same way a whole heap of other nonsense works.

It relies on the two principles:
– Cold reading
– Telling the sucker what they came to here.
The contents of your hand only provide a framework on which to spin the tale..


  1. Look at the tricks of the palmists they will not confirm something after looking at your lines.  They say that along palm lines are not the deciding factors of the fate.


  1. Palm reading’ is a rubbish. Its main objective it to cut pockets of the clients. Palm reader persuades the client for giving money to palm reader for the uttering garbage. Actually this is an insult to the intelligence to the customer of the palmist