Category Archives: Vedic Religion

आजकल सनातनी ने यज्ञ करना छोड दिया है ।

अग्निहोत्र के विषयमें एक महत्वपूर्ण संवाद राजा जनक और याज्ञवल्क्य के मध्य हुआ था, जिसका वर्णन शतपथ ब्राह्मणमें मिलता है।

राजा जनक याज्ञवल्क्य जी को पूछते है की क्या आप अग्निहोत्र को जानते हो? तब याज्ञवल्क्यजी उत्तर देते है की – हे राजन्, में अग्निहोत्र को जानता हूं। जब दूध से घी बनेगा, तब अग्निहोत्र होगा।

तब जनकने याज्ञवल्क्य की परीक्षा लेने के लिए प्रश्नो की शृङ्खला लगा दी।

जनक – अगर दूध ना हो तो किस प्रकार हवन करोगे?

याज्ञ – तो गेहूं और जौं से हवन करेंगे।

जनक – अगर गेहूं और जौं ना हो तो कैसे हवन करोगे?

याज्ञ – तो जङ्गल की औषधीओ से यज्ञ करेंगे।

जनक – जङ्गल की जडी-बूटी भी ना हो, तो कैसे हवन करोगे?

याज्ञ – समिधा से हवन कर लेंगे।

जनक – अगर समिधा ना हो तो?

याज्ञ – जल से हवन कर लेंगे।

जनक – यदि जल न हो तो कैसे हवन करेंगे?

याज्ञ – तो हम सत्य से श्रद्धामें हवन करेंगे।

याज्ञवल्क्यजी के उत्तर से राजा जनक संतुष्ट हुए। केवल भौतिक पदार्थो का प्रयोग कर यज्ञ करना ही यज्ञ करना नहीं होता। सत्य और श्रद्धा को धारण करना भी अग्निहोत्र ही है।

इस लिए यज्ञ नित्य करे।

Veda and Science, Vedas-Download, Vedic Religion, यजुर्वेद, वेद, वेद मंत्र, वेद विशेष, हिन्दी

व्रतग्रहण : अमृत से सत्य की ओर -रामनाथ विद्यालंकार

February 2, 2019 Rishwa Arya Leave a comment

व्रतग्रहण : अमृत से सत्य की ओर

ऋषिः परमेष्ठी प्रजापतिः । देवता: अग्निः । छन्दः आर्ची त्रिष्टुप् ।

अग्ने व्रतपते व्रतं चरिष्यामि तच्छकेयं तन्मे राध्यताम्। इदमूहमनृतात् सत्यमुपैमि

-यजु० १।५

हे ( व्रतपते ) व्रतों का पालन करनेवाले (अग्ने) अग्रनायक जगदीश्वर, राजन् व विद्वन् ! मैं ( व्रतं चरिष्यामि ) व्रत का अनुष्ठान करूंगा। (तत् ) उस व्रत को ( शकेयम् ) पालन करने में समर्थ होऊँ। ( तत् मे ) वह मेरा व्रत (राध्यताम् ) सिद्ध हो। वह व्रत यह है कि ( अहं ) मैं ( इदं ) यह ( अनृतात् ) अनृत को छोड़ कर ( सत्यम् ) सत्य को ( उपैमि) प्राप्त होता हूँ।

हे सर्वाग्रणी विश्वनायक जगदीश्वर आप सबसे बड़े व्रतपति हैं। आपने उत्पत्ति-स्थिति-प्रलय, न्याय, निष्पक्षता, परोपकार, सत्यनिष्ठा आदि अनेक व्रतों को स्वेच्छा से ग्रहण किया हुआ है, जिनका आप सदैव पालन करते हैं। अतएव आपको साक्षी रख कर आज मैं भी एक व्रत ग्रहण करता हूँ। वह मेरा व्रत यह है कि आज से मैं अमृत को त्याग कर सदा सत्य को अपनाऊँगा। अब तक मैं अपने जीवन में अनेक अवसरों पर असत्य भाषण और सत्य आचरण करता रहा हूँ, कई बार प्रलोभनों में पड़ कर मन, वाणी और कर्म से असत्य में लिप्त होता रहा हूँ। परन्तु आज मैं आपके संमुख उस असत्य से मुँह मोड़ने की प्रतिज्ञा करता हूँ। मेरे गुरु ने मुझे सिखाया है कि सत्य के ग्रहण करने और असत्य के छोड़ने में सर्वदा उद्यत रहना चाहिए। आप ऐसी शक्ति दीजिए कि इस व्रत का मैं पालन कर सकें।

यदि कभी मैं अपने व्रत को भूल कर सत्य से विमुख होने लगूं तो मेरे हृदय में बैठे हुए आप मुझे मेरा व्रत स्मरण करा कर होनेवाले स्खलन से मुझे बचा लीजिए। ऐसी कृपा कीजिए कि मैं अपने जीवन के अन्त तक इस व्रत का पालन करता रहूँ और इस व्रतपालन से मिलनेवाले सुमधुर फलों के आस्वादन से कृतकृत्य होता रहूँ।

व्रतपति जगदीश्वर के अतिरिक्त अन्य व्रतपतियों को भी मैं अपने इस व्रत का साक्षी बनाता हूँ। यदि मैं अपने राष्ट्र का प्रतिनिधि होकर संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघ में गया हूँ, तो उसके अध्यक्षरूप व्रतपति के संमुख सदा सत्य का ही पक्ष लेने की प्रतिज्ञा करता हूँ। यदि में राज्यपरिषद् का सदस्य या राज्य का कोई उच्च अधिकारी हूँ तो राष्ट्रनायक के समक्ष प्रण लेता हूँ कि मैं सदा सत्य का ही पक्षपोषण करूंगा। यदि किसी सभा का सदस्य हूँ तो उसके सभापति के संमुख, यदि मैं किसी संस्था का कर्मचारी हूँ तो उस संस्था के अध्यक्ष के संमुख, यदि किसी विश्वविद्यालय या महाविद्यालय का शिक्षक या विद्यार्थी हूँ तो उसके कुलपति या प्राचार्य के संमुख, यदि मैं किसी संघ का सदस्य हूँ तो संघचालक के संमुख और जिस परिवार का मैं अङ्ग हूँ, उस परिवार के गृहपति के संमुख मैं सदा सत्य पर ही चलने का व्रत ग्रहण करता हूँ।

इन सबके अतिरिक्त यज्ञाग्नि भी व्रतपति है। प्रभु ने सृष्टि के आरम्भ में जो व्रत उसके लिए निश्चित कर दिया था, उसी व्रत का वह आज तक पालन करता चला आया है। अतः प्रतिदिन प्रात:सायं अग्निहोत्र करते हुए उस व्रतपति अग्नि के सामने भी सत्य का व्रत लेता हूँ। उस व्रतपति अग्नि की ऊपर उठती हुई ज्वालाएँ नित्य मेरे अन्तरात्मा में सत्य की ज्योति को जागृत करती रहें।

शतपथकार का कथन है कि देवजन सत्य के व्रत का ही आचरण करते हैं, इस कारण वे यशस्वी होते हैं। इसी प्रकार अन्य भी जो कोई सत्यभाषण और सत्य का आचरण करता है, वह यशस्वी होता है।

व्रतग्रहण

पाद–टिप्पणियाँ

१. शकेयम्, शक्लै शक्तौ ।

२. राध्यताम्, राध संसिद्धौ।

३. एतद्ध वै देवा व्रतं चरन्ति यत् सत्यं, तस्मात् ते यश, यशो ह भवति य एवं विद्वांत्सत्यं वदति। -श० १.१.१.५

व्रतग्रहण -रामनाथ विद्यालंकार

Vedic Religion, यजुर्वेद, वेद, वैदिक धर्म, वैदिक विज्ञानं, हिन्दी

हे गौ माता -रामनाथ विद्यालंकार

January 31, 2019 Rishwa Arya Leave a comment

हे गौ माता।

ऋषिः परमेष्ठी प्रजापतिः । देवता सविता। छन्दः क. स्वराड् बृहती, र. ब्राह्मी उष्णिक्।

ओ३म् इषे त्वोर्जे त्वा वायव स्थ देवो वः सविता प्रार्पयतु श्रेष्ठतमाय कर्मणूऽआप्यायध्वमघ्न्याऽइन्द्राय भागं ‘प्रजार्वतीरनमीवाऽ अयक्ष्मा मा व स्तेनऽईशत माघशसो ध्रुवाऽअस्मिन् गोपतौ स्यात बह्वीर्यजमानस्य पशून् पाहि॥

-यजु० १ । १

हे गौ माता !

मैं (इषे त्वा ) अन्नोत्पत्ति के लिए तुझे पालता हूँ, (अर्जे त्वा ) बलप्राणदायक गोरस के लिए तुझे पालता हूँ। हे गौओ ! तुम (वायवः स्थ) वायु के समान जीवनाधार हो। ( देवः सविता ) दाता परमेश्वर व राजा ( श्रेष्ठतमाय कर्मणे ) श्रेष्ठतम कर्म के लिए, हमें (वः प्रार्पयतु) तुम गौओं को प्रदान करे। (अघ्न्याः ) हे न मारी जानेवाली गौओ! तुम (आप्यायध्वम् ) वृद्धि प्राप्त करो, हृष्टपुष्ट होवो। ( इन्द्राय) मुझ यज्ञपति इन्द्र के लिए ( भागं ) भाग प्रदान करती रहो। तुम (प्रजावतीः ) प्रशस्त बछड़े-बछड़ियों वाली, ( अनमीवा:६) नीरोग तथा ( अयक्ष्माः ) राजयक्ष्मा आदि भयङ्कर रोगों से रहित होवो। ( स्तेनः ) चोर (वः मा ईशत ) तुम्हारा स्वामी न बने, ( मा अघशंसः ) न ही पापप्रशंसक मनुष्य तुम्हारा स्वामी बने। (अस्मिन् गोपतौ ) इस मुझ गोपालक के पास ( धुवाः ) स्थिर और ( बह्वीः७) बहुत-सी ( स्यात ) होवो। हे परमेश्वर व राजन ! आप ( यजमानस्य ) यजमान के (पशून्) पशुओं की ( पाहि ) रक्षा करो।

हे गौ माता !

मैं तुझे पालता हूँ तेरी सेवा के लिए, अन्नोत्पत्ति के लिए और गोरस की प्राप्ति के लिए। तू सबका उपकार करती है, अत: तेरी सेवा करना मेरा परम धर्म है, इस कारण तुझे पालता हूँ।

तुझे पालने का दूसरा प्रयोजन अन्नोत्पत्ति है। तेरे गोबर और मूत्र से कृषि के लिए खाद बनेगा, तेरे बछड़े बैल बनकर हल जोतेंगे, बैलगाड़ियों में जुत कर अन्न खेतों से खलिहानों तक और व्यापारियों तथा उपभोक्ताओं तक ले जायेंगे।इस प्रकार तू अन्न प्राप्त कराने में सहायक होगी, इस हेतु तुझे पालता हूँ।

तीसरे तेरा दूध अमृतोपम है, पुष्टिदायक, स्वास्थ्यप्रद, रोगनाशक तथा सात्त्विक है, उसकी प्राप्ति के लिए तुझे पालता हूँ। हे गौओ ! तुम वायु हो, वायु के समान जीवनाधार हो, प्राणप्रद हो, इसलिए तुम्हें पालता हूँ।

दानी परमेश्वर की कृपा से तुम मुझे प्राप्त होती रहो। राष्ट्र के ‘सविता देव’ का, राष्ट्रनायक राजा प्रधानमन्त्री और मुख्य मन्त्रियों का भी यह कर्तव्य है कि वे श्रेष्ठतम कर्म के लिए तुम्हें गोपालकों के पास पहुँचाएँ राष्ट्र की केन्द्रीय गोशाला में अच्छी जाति की गौएँ पाली जाएँ, जो प्रचुर दूध देती हों और गोपालन के इच्छुक जनों को उचित मूल्य पर दी जाएँ।

शतपथ ब्राह्मण के अनुसार श्रेष्ठतम कर्म यज्ञ है। अग्निहोत्र रूप यज्ञ के लिए भी और परिवार के सदस्यों तथा अतिथियों को तुम्हारा नवनीत और दूध खिलाने-पिलाने रूप यज्ञ के लिए भी प्रजाजनों को राजपुरुषों द्वारा उत्तम जाति की गौएँ प्राप्त करायी जानी चाहिएँ।

हे गौओ!

तुम ‘अघ्न्या’ हो, न मारने योग्य हो । राष्ट्र में राजनियम बन जाना चाहिए कि गौएँ। मारी–काटी न जाएँ, न उनका मांस खाया जाए। यदि किसी। प्रदेश में बूचड़खाने हैं तो बन्द होने चाहिएँ। दुर्भाग्य है हमारा कि वेदों के ही देश में वेदाज्ञा का पालन नहीं हो रहा है। मांस मनुष्य का स्वाभाविक भोजन नहीं है, न उसके दाँत मांस चबाने योग्य हैं, न आँतें मांस पचाने योग्य हैं।

हे गौओ !

तुम अच्छी पुष्ट होकर रहो। मुझ यज्ञपति इन्द्र का भाग मुझे देती रहो, बछड़े-बछड़ियों का भाग उन्हें प्रदान करती रहो। तुम प्रजावती होवो, उत्तम और स्वस्थ बछड़े-बछड़ियों की जननी बनो । तुम रोगरहित और यक्ष्मारहित होवो। तुम मुझ सदाचारी याज्ञिक गोस्वामी के पास रहो, चोर तुम्हें न चुराने पावे। पापप्रशंसक और पापी मनुष्य तुम्हारा स्वामी न बने। पापी नर-पिशाचों को गोरस नसीब न हो। मुझ गोपालक के पास तुम स्थिररूप से रहो, संख्या में बहुत होकर रहो, जिससे मैं गोशाला चलाकर उन्हें भी तुम्हारा दूध प्राप्त करा सकें, जो स्वयं गोपालन नहीं कर सकते हैं।

हे परमेश्वर ! मुझ यजमान के पशुओं की रक्षा करो, हे राजन् ! मुझ यजमान के पशुओं की रक्षा करो।

पाद-टिप्पणियाँ

१. इष्=अन्न, निघं० २.७।

२. ऊर्ग रसः, श० ५.१.२.८ । ऊर्जा बलप्राणनयोः, चुरादिः ।।

३. दीव्यति ददातीति देवः दाता। देवो दानाद्, निरु० ७.१५ ।

४. षु प्रसवैश्वर्ययोः, भ्वादिः, घूङ् प्राणिगर्भविमोचने, अदादिः । | ( सविता सर्वजगदुत्पादकः सकलैश्वर्यवान् जगदीश्वरः-द०भा० । (सवितः) सकलैश्वर्ययुक्त सम्राट्, य० ९.१-द०भा० ।।

५. (ओ) प्यायी वृद्धौ, भ्वादिः ।।

६. (अनमीवाः) अमीवो व्याधिर्न विद्यते यासु ताः । अम रोगे इत्यस्माद् | बाहुलकाद् औणादिक ईवन् प्रत्यय:-द०भा० ।

७. बह्वीः=बह्वयः । बह्वी+जस्, पूर्वसवर्णदीर्घ, वा छन्दसि पा० ६.१.१०६ ।।

८. यज्ञो वै श्रेष्ठतमं कर्म। -श०१.७.१.५

९. अघ्न्या=गौ, निघं० २.११। अघ्न्या अहन्तव्या भवति, निरु० ११.४० । अघ्न्या इति गवां नाम के एता हन्तुमर्हति, म०भा० शान्तिपर्व २६३ ।

-रामनाथ विद्यालंकार

IMP, Myth Busters, Vedic Religion, शंका समाधान

जयंती, जन्मतिथि मनाये जाने के ऐतिहासिक प्रमाण :- डॉ वेदपाल

January 11, 2019 Rishwa Arya 2 Comments

शङ्का समाधान

डॉ. वेदपाल, मेरठ

शङ्का- आजकल व्यक्ति, महापुरुषों, संस्था के जन्मदिन, जयन्ती, विवाह दिन, मृत्यु दिन, प्रतिवर्ष तीज त्यौहार मनाते हैं। प्राचीनकाल में ऐसा देखने को नहीं मिलता आदि-आदि। क्या इस विषय में ऐतिहासिक व महर्षि अभिमत प्रमाण हैं?

वृद्धिचन्द्र गुप्त, जयपुर

समाधान- आपके विस्तृत शङ्कात्मक लेख का सार शङ्का के रूप में यहाँ उद्धृत कर दिया गया है। व्यक्ति के द्वारा क्रियमाण कर्मों को नित्य, नैमित्तिक एवं काम्य इस रूप में विभक्त कर समझना सुगम रहेगा। नित्यकर्म वह कर्म हैं, जो व्यक्ति के द्वारा प्रतिदिन किए जाने चाहिए। इन कर्मों का ऐहिक प्रयोजन स्वल्प है, किन्तु आमुष्यिक प्रयोजन अतिमहत्त्वपूर्ण है। यथा-सन्ध्या, अग्निहोत्र आदि। ये वैयक्तिक तथा लौकिक प्रयोजन के स्वल्प होने पर भी पारमार्थिक दृष्टि से महत्त्वपूर्ण हैं।

नैमित्तिक कर्म- किसी निमित्त को दृष्टिगत रखकर किए जाने वाले कर्म नैमित्तिक हैं, क्योंकि निमित्त के न रहने पर इन कर्मों का आयोजन नहीं होता है। एतद्विषयक परिभाषा है-‘‘निमित्तापाये नैमित्तिकस्यापाय:’’। संस्कार तथा संस्कारों के अवसर पर होने वाले यज्ञ आदि भी नित्य न होकर नैमित्तिक ही कहलाते हैं।

काम्य कर्म- व्यक्ति द्वारा किन्हीं विशिष्ट कामनाओं (जैसे पुत्र की कामना से पुत्र्येष्टि, वर्षा की कामना से वर्षेष्टि आदि यज्ञ विशेष) को दृष्टिगत रखकर किए जाने वाले कर्म हैं। इनमें विभिन्न प्रकार के लौकिक कर्म-आयोजन के साथ कामना पूत्र्यर्थ किए जाने वाले यज्ञ आदि भी परिगणित किए जा सकते हैं। इस प्रकार यदि आप देखें, तब तीनों अवसरों (नित्य, निमित्त [नैमित्तिक], कामना) पर होने वाले यज्ञ भी पृथक्-पृथक् हैं।

जन्मदिन आदि मनाने का ऐतिहासिक व महर्षि प्रतिपादित प्रमाण विषयक आपका प्रश्न इस रूप में देखा जाना चाहिए कि उसका शास्त्र अथवा महर्षि मन्तव्यों से विरोध अथवा अविरोध किस रूप में है? जन्मदिन, किसी संस्था का स्थापना दिवस, उसकी रजत, स्वर्ण आदि जयन्ती, व्यक्ति की वैवाहिक वर्षगांठ तथा मरण दिवस-बलिदान दिवस जिसे कभी शहीदी दिवस कहा जाता है को मनाए जाने का प्रयोजन क्या है?

सामान्यत: जन्मदिन, संस्था का स्थापना दिवस, उसकी रजत, स्वर्ण आदि जयन्ती का अवसर-इनके मनाने का प्रयोजन यदि एक क्षण के लिए ठहरकर यह अवलोकन करना है कि जीवन अथवा संस्था के उद्देश्य पूर्ति की दशा में किए जाने वाले प्रयत्न क्या ठीक प्रकार किए जा रहे हैं अथवा न्यूनता है? इत्यादि के विचारपूर्वक किए जाने वाले आयोजन का निश्चय ही शास्त्र से अविरोध है, भले ही शास्त्रकारों ने इसका विधान न किया हो। इसी प्रकार किसी बलिदान (गुरु तेगबहादुर, बन्दा बैरागी, महर्षि दयानन्द, स्वामी श्रद्धानन्द, पं. लेखराम आदि-आदि) को स्मरण करना उसी विशिष्ट तिथि को सम्भव है। यदि कोई कुल, समाज अथवा राष्ट्र ऐसे अवसर पर किन्हीं प्रेरक घटनाओं का स्मरण कर उन महापुरुषों के द्वारा प्रतिपादित मार्ग पर चलने का संकल्प ले और विगत वर्ष का अवलोकन कर प्रेरणा ग्रहण करता है, तब इसे भी शास्त्राविरोधी मानना चाहिए, किन्तु किसी मरणदिन के अवसर पर उस मृतात्मा के नाम पर श्राद्धादि कर्म निश्चय ही शास्त्र-विरोधी होंगे।

आपकी अन्तिम शङ्का तीज-त्यौहार के सन्दर्भ में यह विवेच्य है कि शास्त्र पर्व का विधान करते हैं। पर्व के स्थान पर ही त्यौहार शब्द का प्रयोग है। तीज शब्द तृतीया तिथि का वाचक है। हिन्दुओं के (पौराणिक जगत् के) पर्व संवत्सर प्रारम्भ के बाद हरयाली तीज-श्रावण मास के शुक्ल पक्ष की तृतीया से प्रारम्भ होते हैं। अत: त्यौहार से पूर्व तीज शब्द का प्रयोग प्रारम्भ हुआ होगा, किन्तु इस तृतीया (तीज) का पर्व शास्त्रविहित नहीं है। हाँ, वैदिक संस्कृति में विहित पर्व (पर्व अभिप्राय है जोड़, सन्धि इसलिए शुक्ल एवं कृष्ण पक्ष के सन्धि-पर्व दिन अमावस्या एवं पूर्णिमा हैं।) अर्थात् अमावस्या-पूर्णिमा के दिन मनाने का विधान है। दर्शपौर्णमासेष्टि के साथ चातुर्मास्येष्टि सभी पर्व इन दिनों में ही सम्पन्न होते हैं। आजकल रक्षाबन्धन के नाम से प्रसिद्ध श्रावणी उपाकर्म श्रावण पूर्णिमा के दिन ही होता है। इन पर्व-दिन में शास्त्र इष्टि (यज्ञ) का विधान करते हैं।

श्रौत सूत्रों के पश्चवर्ती काल (गृह्यसूत्रों) में अष्टका भी विहित हैं। महर्षि दयानन्द श्रावणी आदि चातुर्मास्येष्टि के साथ दर्शपौर्णमास के समर्थक हैं। राम-कृष्ण के जन्म की तिथियां उल्लिखित हैं, किन्तु याज्ञवल्क्य, मनु आदि की अज्ञात हैं। इस सन्दर्भ में ऐतिहासिक परिस्थितियां भी कम उत्तरदायी नहीं हैं। गुरुवर विरजानन्द दण्डी के जीवन संघर्ष पर विचार करें, तो स्पष्ट होगा कि उनकी जन्मतिथि आदि स्मरण करने वाला कौन था?

IMP, Vedic Religion, आचार्य श्रीराम आर्य जी, पाखण्ड खंडिनी, हिन्दी

मृतक श्राद्ध पर 21 प्रश्न

October 3, 2018 Rishwa Arya Leave a comment

प्रश्न १.–

पितर संज्ञा मृतकों की है या जीवितों की ? यदि जीवितों की है तो मृतक श्राद्ध व्यर्थ होगा। यदि मृतकों की हैं तो – आधत्त पितरो गर्भकुमार पुष्करसृजम”।

| (यजुर्वेद २-३३) “ऊर्ज वहन्तीरमृतं घृतं पयः कीलालं परिश्रुतम् ।। स्वधास्थ तर्पयतमे पितृन्’ ।।

(यजुर्वेद २-३४) “आयन्तु नः पितरः सोम्यासोऽग्निष्वात्तः पथिभिर्देवयानैः ।

(यजुर्वेद १८-५८) इत्यादि वेद मंत्रों से पितरों का गर्भाधान करना, अन्नजलं, दृ आदि का सेवन करना, आना-जाना-बोलना आदि क्रियायें करने वाला बताया गया है, जोकि मृतकों में संभव नहीं है।

इससे पितर संज्ञा जीवितों की ही सिद्ध है। अतः मृतकों का श्राद्ध करना अवैदिक कर्म है ।

प्रश्न २.– | जीवात्मा की गति जब निजकर्मानुसार होती है तो मृतक श्राद्ध की क्या आवश्यकता है ?

प्रश्न ३.– | जब जीवात्मा में लिंगभेद नहीं होता है तो शरीर त्यागने के बाद उसे पितर आदि मानना कैसे बनेगा ? उपनिषद में जीवात्मा को

| “नैव स्त्री न पुमानेषु न चैवायं नपुंसकः। / यद् यच्छरीरं आधत्ते तेन तेन स युज्यते ।।

| (श्वेताश्वेतर उपनिषद ५-१०) अर्थात् जीवात्मा स्त्री, पुरुष या नपुंसक भेद वाला नहीं है। वह जिस-जिस शरीर में जाता है, वैसा ही कहलाता है ।

प्रश्न ४.–

शरीर त्याग के पश्चात् जीवात्मा के लौकिक सम्बन्ध पिता-पुत्रादि के नष्ट हो जाते हैं तो उनके पुत्रादि के दिये पदार्थ वे कैसे प्राप्त करते हैं ?

प्रश्न ५.–

जो अविवाहित रहते हुए मर जाते हैं उनके पितर (मरने के बाद पौराणिक कल्पनानुसार उनकी आत्मा के) न बनने से उनकी मोक्ष कैसे होगी ? भीष्म पितामह व शुकदेव जी की क्या गति हुई होगी ?

प्रश्न ६.–

जिनका वंशनाश हो जाता है, क्या वे पितर भूखे ही मरते रहते हैं ? यदि हां तो क्यों ?

प्रश्न ७.– | किन जीवों का पुनर्जन्म होता है किनका नहीं होता है, किनकी मोक्ष हो जाती है इसका पता लगाने का क्या साधन आपके पास है ? और बिना पता लगाये मृतक का श्राद्ध करना निरर्थक क्यों नहीं है ?

प्रश्न ८.–

मरने पर स्थूल शरीर नष्ट हो जाता है, सूक्ष्म शरीर को भूख-प्यास से कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं होता है न उसे भोजनादि का ग्रहण होता है, तब

आपके पितर भोजन कैसे करते है ?

. प्रश्न ९.– | श्राद्ध में जो पदार्थ दिया जाता है; यदि वह पुनर्जन्म प्राप्त जीवों की यानियों के स्वाभाविक भोजन के अनुकूल न हो तो श्राद्ध से क्या लाभ होगा ?

प्रश्न १०.–

यदि एक पुरुष के चार बेटे चार दूरस्थ नगरों में एक ही दिन, एक ही समय उनका श्राद्ध करें तो उनकी आत्मा चारों स्थानों पर श्राद्ध ग्रहण करने व खाने को कैसे जा सकेंगी ? क्योंकि एक देशीय जीव एक समय पर एक ही स्थान पर विद्यमान हो सकता है ?

प्रश्न ११.–

श्राद्ध का अधिकार सभी जातियों को क्यों नहीं है ?

प्रश्न १२.– | जिन जातियों को श्राद्ध का अधिकार नहीं होता है उनके पितर तो भूखे ही मरते होंगे या दूसरों का माल छीनकर खाते होगे ? उस दशा में उनके झगड़े-फिसाद की शान्ति कौन कैसे करता होगा ? मरने के बाद भी जीवों में ऊँच-नीच का भेद कायम रहना आप क्यों मानते हैं ?

प्रश्न १३.– | मरने के बाद लापता जीवात्माओं के पास पण्डित जी श्राद्ध का मालटाल पहुँचा देते हैं इसका प्रमाण क्या है ?

प्रश्न १४.–|

जब लापता शरीर विहीन जीवात्माओं के पास आप माल पहुँचाना मानते हैं तो परदेश गये लोगों के नाम पर भोजनों का थाल भी क्यों नहीं पहुँचाकर

उन्हें भूख-प्यास से तृप्त कर देते हैं ?

प्रश्न १५.– | कौवों और पितरों का श्राद्ध से क्या सम्बन्ध है जो श्राद्धों में कौवों को भोजन कराया जाता है ? क्या वे पितरों के प्रतिनिधि हैं ?

प्रश्न १६.:

वर्षा ऋतु में क्वार में जब नदी-तालाबों में सर्वत्र जल भरा रहता है, आकाश में बादल पानी लिये खड़े रहते हैं तब जलदान पितरों को करने की क्या

आवश्यकता है ? ग्रीष्म की प्रचण्ड गर्मी में ज्येष्ठ-वैसाख में जलदान क्यों नहीं किया जाता है जबकि पानी की सभी का सख्त जरूरत होती है ?

प्रश्न १७.–

वर्ष भर में केवल एक बार खिला करके पितरों को साल भर तक भूखा मारना और अपना पट दिन में तीन बार रोजाना भर पेट भोजन करके भरते रहना अपने बुजुर्ग पितरों के साथ निकृष्टतम मजाक नहीं है ?

क्या पितरों का हाजमा इतना खराब होता है कि एक बार वाकर साल भर तक उसे हजम भी नहीं कर पाते हैं ?

प्रश्न १८.– | महाभारत अनुशासन पर्व अध्याय ३२ में लिखा है कि – ‘‘चिकित्सक, मन्दिर का. पुजारी, दूध बेचने वाला, गायत्री जाप व संध्या करने वाला, वेतन लेकर पढ़ाने वाला, इन ब्राह्मणों को यज्ञदान व श्राद्ध में नहीं बुलाना चाहिये । यदि इनको बुलाया जावेगा तो दान का फल नष्ट हो जावेगा तथा यज्ञ-दान व श्राद्ध करने वाले के पितर घोर नरक में जाते हैं।

प्रश्न यह है कि क्या उपरोक्त कर्म करना, पुराण पढ़ना आदि महापाप

कर्म है जो वैसा करने वालों को महापापी माना है ? इनको श्राद्धादि में बुन्नाने का पाप तो श्राद्ध कर्ता द्वारा किया जाता है तो उसके कुकर्म का फल स्वयं विना किये पितरों को क्यों भोगना पड़ता है ?

प्रश्न १९.–

जबकि महाभारत वन पर्व अध्याय १३ श्लोक ७७ (गीता प्रेस) में स्पष्ट लिखा है –

आयुषोऽन्ते प्रहादेव क्षीण प्रायः कलेवरम् ।

सम्भवत्येव युगपदयोनो नास्त्यन्तराभवः’ ।। अर्थात् – एक शरीर त्यागकर दूसरे शरीर को जीव तत्क्षण ग्रहण कर लेता है । वह विना स्थूल शरीर के आश्रय बिना एक क्षण भी नहीं रहता है। गीता २-२२ ने भी जीव के तुरन्त पुनर्जन्म की पुष्टि की है। तब पुनर्जन्म प्राप्त जीवों के लिए श्राद्ध करना मिथ्या कर्म क्यों नहीं है ? क्योंकि प्रत्यक्ष में जन्मे हुए वालको व वड़ों को किसी को भी उनके पूर्व जन्म के स्थान में दिया हुआ श्राद्ध पदार्थ नहीं पहुँचता है ।

प्रश्न २०.–

बतादें कि पितर से तात्पर्य आपका जीवात्मा से हैं या शरीर से है। अथवा जीव संयुक्त शरीर से है ? यदि जीवात्मा से है तो मरने के बाद रिश्ता ही समाप्त हो जाता है । यदि शरीर से है तो वह भस्म होकर समाप्त हो जाता है । यदि जीव संयुक्त शरीर से है तो पितर जीवित पुरुष हुए न कि मृतक ! तब श्राद्ध मुर्दो के नाम पर गलत होगा ।

प्रश्न २१.–

भविष्य पुराण ब्राह्म पर्व अध्याय १८४ श्लोक ५६ में लिखा है

| ‘‘मृतान्न मधु माँसं च यस्तु भन्जीथ ब्राह्मणः ।।

स त्रीण्यहान्युपवसेदेका – हं चोदके वसेत् ।। अर्थात् – जो ब्राह्मण मुर्दे के निमित्त (श्राद्ध का) अन्न, शराब व मांस का सेवन करे वह तीन दिन उपवास करे और एक दिन जल में बैठा रहे तब शुद्ध होगा। इससे स्पष्ट है कि श्राद्ध भोजन किसी भी ब्राह्मण को नहीं करना चाहिए । तब क्या पौराणिक ब्राह्मण श्राद्ध खाकर उक्त प्रकार से प्रायश्चित करते हैं ?

‘‘लाजपतराय अग्रवाल” नोट – | श्री आचार्य डा० श्रीराम आर्य जी द्वारा रचित समस्त खण्डन मन्डनात्मक

Dr. Dharmveer Paropkarini Sabha Ajmer, IMP, Social Reform, Vedic Religion, Yog, श्रेष्ठ आर्य, हिन्दी

योग किया नहीं जाता, जीया जाता है: आचार्य धर्मवीर

September 10, 2018 Rishwa Arya 3 Comments

योग किया नहीं जाता, जीया जाता है

वर्तमान समय में योग एक बहुत प्रचलित शब्द है, परन्तु अपने अर्थ से बहुत दूर चला गया है। योग के सहयोगी शब्दों के रूप में समय-समय पर कुछ शब्दों का प्रयोग होता रहता है- योगासन, योग-क्रिया, योग-मुद्रा आदि। इसी प्रकार कुछ अलग-अलग क्रियाएँ, जिनसे प्रयोजन की सिद्धि हो सकती है, उनका भी योग नाम दिया गया है- राजयोग, मन्त्रयोग, हठयोग आदि। इनसे परमात्मा की प्राप्ति होना अलग-अलग ग्रन्थों में बताया गया है। मूलत: योग शब्द का अर्थ जोडऩा है। जोडऩा गणित में भी होता है, अत: संख्याओं के जोडऩे को योग कहते हैं। जिस कार्य से प्रयोजन की सिद्धि न हो, उसे वह नाम देना निरर्थक है। योग में किसी से जुडऩे का भाव अवश्य है। हम समझते हैं, योग प्रात:काल-सायंकाल करने की चीज है। योग चाहे आसन के रूप में किये जायें, चाहे साधना के रूप में। आसन के रूप में योगासन स्वास्थ्य के लिए किये जाते हैं, किन्तु पूरे दिन स्वास्थ्य-विरोधी आचरण करते हुए योगासन करके कोई स्वस्थ नहीं हो सकता, क्योंकि प्रात:काल-सायंकाल योगासन करके शरीर को सक्रिय तो कर लिया, परन्तु भोजन और विश्राम के द्वारा ऊर्जा का संग्रह किया जाता है। भोजन, विश्राम यदि ठीक नहीं तो आसन व्यर्थ हो जाते हैं। व्यायाम, आसन, प्राणायाम आदि से तो तन्त्र को दृढ़ता और सक्रियता प्रदान की जाती है। उसी प्रकार योग-साधना का प्रयोजन परमेश्वर से मिलना है, उससे जुडऩा या उस तक पहुँचना है। यदि योग परमेश्वर तक पहुँचने के उपाय का नाम है, तो विचार करने की बात यह है कि उस परमेश्वर की प्राप्ति का यत्न तो प्रात:काल सायंकाल घण्टा-दो-घण्टा किया जाये, उससे दूर होने के काम सारे दिन किये जायें तो कल्पना कर सकते हैं कि हम कब तक परमेश्वर को मिल सकेंगे? यह तो ऐसा हुआ जैसे प्रात:काल-सायंकाल अपने गन्तव्य की ओर दौड़ लगाना और दिनभर उसके विपरीत दिशा में दौडऩा। ऐसा व्यक्ति जन्म-जन्मान्तर तक भी अपने लक्ष्य को प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता। इसी प्रकार पूरे जीवन प्रात:-सायं सन्ध्या, योग करते रहने वाला कभी भी परमेश्वर तक नहीं पहुँच सकता, क्योंकि वह उद्देश्य की ओर थोड़े समय चलता है, उद्देश्य के विपरीत अधिक समय चलता है। ऐसा व्यक्ति लक्ष्य से दूर तो हो सकता है, परन्तु लक्ष्य तक कभी भी नहीं पहुँच सकता।

योग परमेश्वर तक पहुँचने का उपाय है, तो यह कार्य कुछ समय का नहीं हो सकता। जैसे कोई व्यक्ति यात्रा पर निकलता है, तो सभी कार्य करते हुए भी उसकी यात्रा, उसी दिशा में निरन्तर आगे-आगे बढ़ती रहती है। मार्ग में वह सोता है, खाता है, बात करता है, किन्तु उसकी न तो यात्रा की दिशा बदलती है, न यात्रा पर विराम लगता है और वह देरी से या जल्दी गन्तव्य तक पहुँच ही जाता है। इसी कारण वेदान्त दर्शन में साधना कब तक करनी चाहिए- इस प्रश्न के उत्तर में कहा गया है- आ प्रायणात्तत्रापि दृष्टम्। लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति तक साधना करने का विधान किया गया है, अत: योग केवल प्रात:काल-सायंकाल की जाने वाली क्रिया नहीं है। यह जीवनरूपी यात्रा है, जिसका प्रयोजन परमेश्वर तक पहुँचना या उसे प्राप्त करना है। यह यात्रा तब तक समाप्त या पूर्ण नहीं हो सकती, जब तक लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति न हो जाये। यह जीवन-यात्रा कैसे सम्भव है? इसको बताने वाले अनेक शास्त्र हैं, परन्तु योगदर्शन इसका सबसे अधिक व्यवस्थित, उपयोगी एवं सरल शास्त्र है। इस सारे योगदर्शन को संक्षिप्त किया जाये, तो तीन सूत्रों में बाँधा जा सकता है, शेष शास्त्र तो इन सूत्रों का व्याख्यान है।

प्रथम योग कैसे होता है, यह सूत्र में कहा गया है- योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोध:। चित्त की वृत्तियों के निरोध-अवरोध करने का नाम योग है। जब चित्त की वृत्तियाँ अर्थात् उनका बाह्य व्यापार रुक जाता है, तो प्रयोजन की प्राप्ति हो जाती है। अगले सूत्र में बतलाया गया है, वह प्रयोजन क्या है, जो चित्त के बाह्य व्यापार को रोकने से सिद्ध होता है? तो पतञ्जलि मुनि कहते हैं- तदा द्रष्टु: स्वरूपे अवस्थानम्। चित्त का कार्य ही आत्मा को संसार से जोडऩा है, जब उसे संसार से जोडऩे के काम से रोक दिया जाता है तो वह बाहर के व्यापार को छोड़ कर भीतर के व्यापार में लग जाता है। उसके भीतर का व्यापार आत्मदर्शन कहलाता है, जब वह स्वयं में स्थित होता है तो अपने में स्थित परमात्मा का भी उसे सहज साक्षात्कार होता है, अत: योग परमात्मा के साक्षात्कार करने का नाम है। जब हमारा चित्त हमारी आत्मा में नहीं होता तो निश्चित रूप से विपरीत दिशा में लगा होता है। क्योंकि मन एक क्षण के लिए भी निष्क्रिय नहीं रहता, अत: मनुष्य के सोते, जागते, वह कार्य में लगा रहता है, तब यदि वह अन्तर्मुखी नहीं होगा तो निश्चित रूप से बहिर्मुखी होगा। उसी को बताने के लिये पतञ्जलि मुनि ने सूत्र बनाया है- वृत्तिसारूप्यमितरत्र चित्त की वृत्तियों का निरोध न करने की दशा में चित्त सांसारिक व्यापार में ही लगा रहता है। यह स्वाभाविक और अनिवार्य है।

योग एक यात्रा है, जो जीवन के प्रयोजन को प्राप्त करने के लिए की जाती है। इस योग को समझने के लिए एक और विधि हो सकती है। संक्षेप में योग क्या है- जैसे एक शब्द में योग को समझाना हो तो कैसे समझा जाये? एक शब्द में योग को जानना हो तो वह शब्द है- ईश्वरप्रणिधान। प्रणिधान शब्द का अर्थ है- समर्पण। जब कोई साधक सिद्ध बन जाता है, अपने जीवन के लक्ष्य को प्राप्त कर लेता है, तब वह ईश्वर के प्रति अपना समर्पण कर देता है। जब व्यक्ति में समर्पण आता है, तब उसे अपना कुछ भी पृथक् रखने की इच्छा नहीं रहती, सब कुछ उसे उसका ही लगता है, जिसके प्रति वह समर्पित होता है। इसकी व्याख्या करते हुए व्यास जी कहते हैं- ऐसे साधक के कर्मों में- ईश्वरार्पणं तत्फलसंन्यासो वा, जैसे वह या तो स्वामी से पूछ कर कार्य करता है, उसके आदेश का पालन करता है और स्वयं कोई कार्य करता है तो उसे स्वामी के अर्पण कर देता है अर्थात् किये हुए कार्य के फल की इच्छा नहीं करता। ईश्वर और उसके मध्य स्वामी-सेवक का सम्बन्ध होता है, जैसे- श्रेष्ठ सेवक सदैव स्वामी को प्रसन्न करना चाहता है, सदा स्वामी के हित साधन में तत्पर रहता है, उसी प्रकार उपासक अपने उपास्य को प्रसन्न करने में तत्पर रहता है। स्वामी के आदेश की प्रतीक्षा करता है, आज्ञा पालन कर प्रसन्न होता है, अपने को धन्य समझता है, कृत-कृत्य मानता है।

ईश्वरप्रणिधान का महत्त्व समझने के लिये योगदर्शन के सूत्रों पर चिन्तन करना अच्छा रहता है। सूत्रों पर विचार करने से पता लगता है कि योग के अंगों में सबसे महत्त्वपूर्ण शब्द ईश्वरप्रणिधान है। योग दर्शन में साधना, समाधि की सिद्धि के बहुत सारे उपायों में पहला मुख्य उपाय बताया है, ईश्वरप्रणिधान। पतञ्जलि ने सूत्र लिखा है- समाधिसिद्धिरीश्वर- प्रणिधानात्- ईश्वरप्रणिधान से समाधि सिद्ध हो जाती है। व्यास कहते हैं- ईश्वरप्रणिधान से परमेश्वर प्रसन्न होकर तत्काल उसे अपना लेता है।

कुछ विस्तार से योग समझाते हुए योगदर्शन के दूसरे पाद में, जिसे साधन पाद कहा गया है, उसमें क्रिया योग और अष्टांग योग का व्याख्यान किया है। इन दोनों स्थानों पर ईश्वरप्रणिधान का उल्लेख किया गया है। क्रिया योग का पहला सूत्र है- तप: स्वाध्यायेश्वरप्रणिधानानि क्रियायोग:। तप, स्वाध्याय और ईश्वरप्रणिधान क्रिया योग के तीन अङ्ग हैं। इसी प्रकार अष्टांग योग में सर्वप्रथम यम-नियमों की चर्चा की गई है- यम, नियम, आसन, प्राणायाम, प्रत्याहार, धारणा, ध्यान व समाधि। इन आठ अंगों में प्रथम दो हैं- यम और नियम। यम हैं- अहिंसा, सत्य, अस्तेय, ब्रह्मचर्य और अपरिग्रह। नियम हैं- शौच, सन्तोष, तप, स्वाध्याय और ईश्वरप्रणिधान। इस प्रकार नियमों में अन्तिम है- ईश्वरप्रणिधान। विस्तार से जब योग का कथन किया जाता है तो उसे अष्टांग योग कहते हैं। इसमें भी ईश्वरप्रणिधान है। कुछ कम विस्तार से योग के अंग बतलाये गये हैं- तप: स्वाध्यायेश्वर प्रणिधानानि क्रियायोग:। इसमें भी ईश्वरप्रणिधान है तथा समाधि पाद में एक शब्द में जब योग की बात की गई है तो भी कहा गया- समाधिसिद्धिरीश्वर- प्रणिधानात्। अर्थात् एक शब्द में योग ईश्वरप्रणिधान है। यही उपासना है।

उपासना का अर्थ समझने के लिए उपनिषद् में एक सुन्दर दृष्टान्त आया है। वहाँ कहा गया है- जैसे भूखे बच्चे माँ की उपासना करते हैं, उसी प्रकार देवता अग्निहोत्र की उपासना करते हैं। उपासना ऐच्छिक नहीं है, जब इच्छा हुई की, जब इच्छा हुई नहीं की। समय मिला तो कर ली, नहीं समय मिला तो नहीं की। उपासना एक आन्तरिक भूख है, एक आवश्यकता है, जिसे पूरा किये बिना रहा नहीं जा सकता। एक भूख से पीडि़त बालक को माँ की जितनी आवश्यकता लगती है, उतनी ही तीव्र उत्कण्ठा एक उपासक के मन में उपास्य के प्रति होती है। तब उपासना सार्थक होती है। मनुष्य जिससे प्रेम करता है, जिसे चाहता है उसके निकट रहना चाहता है, उसी प्रकार परमेश्वर को उपासक अपने निकट देखना चाहता है। सदा अपने प्रिय की निकटता की इच्छा करना ही उपासना है।

जनसामान्य के मन में उपासना करने को लेकर बहुत संशय रहता है। उपासना कैसे प्रारम्भ की जाये, चित्त की वृत्तियों को कैसे रोका जाये, मन परमेश्वर में कैसे लगे आदि-आदि। जो लोग उपासना के अभ्यासी हैं, उनके अनुभव नवीन साधक के लिये उपयोगी हो सकते हैं। जहाँ तक मन को एकाग्र करने का प्रश्न है, मन कभी खाली नहीं रहता, उसकी रचना प्रकृति से हुई है, अत: वह स्वाभाविक रूप से सांसारिक विषयों की ओर दौड़ता है। उसे हम रोकना चाहते हैं, वह रुकने का नाम नहीं लेता। ऐसी परिस्थिति में मन को नियन्त्रित करने का सरल उपाय है- अपने पूर्व कार्यों का चिन्तन करना। इसमें प्रतिदिन प्रात:-सायं अपने दिनभर, रातभर के कार्यों पर विचार करने का विधान तो है ही, यदि दिन में जब भी खाली समय मिले, अपने पिछले कार्यों के विचार में मन को लगाया जाये, तो मन सरलता से अपने कार्यों पर विचार करने में व्यस्त हो जाता है। आज के, कल के, सप्ताह के या मास के कार्यों पर चिन्तन करते-करते मन अनायास ही उपासक के नियन्त्रण में हो जाता है। मन अपेक्षा करने लगता है कि उसे किसी कार्य में लगाया जाये, उसी समय मन को वाञ्छित कार्य में लगाया जा सकता है। उपासना की सफलता और उपासना में गति लाने के कई सरल नियम हैं, उनमें उपासना के लिए स्थान और समय का निश्चित करना भी आता है। निश्चित स्थान और निश्चित समय उपासक को उपासना के लिये प्रेरित करते हैं। उपासना में बैठने के बाद आसन को सहज भाव से बिना बदले उपासक कितने समय बैठ सकता है, यह महत्त्वपूर्ण है। वस्तुत: आसन में इन्द्रियों को एकाग्र करने में सबसे सहयोगी क्रिया यही है कि उपासक कितनी देर तक आँखें बन्द करके बैठ सकता है? इन सामान्य बातों से उपासना में रुचि और गति दोनों बढ़ती हैं।

अब हमारी समझ में आ सकता है कि योग केवल प्रात:काल और सायंकाल किया जाने वाला व्यायाम नहीं, अपितु चौबीस घण्टे आनन्द में रमण करने का नाम है। जब हम जागते हुये, प्रात:काल के समय ब्रह्ममुहूर्त में सन्ध्या करते हैं, तब आँख बन्द करके योग करते हैं। सूर्योदय के समय सबके साथ बैठकर घी, सामग्री, समिधा से अग्निहोत्र करते हैं, यह भी उपासना है। अग्निहोत्र के लाभ बतलाते हुए ऋषि दयानन्द कहते हैं- यज्ञ में मन्त्रों के पढऩे से परमेश्वर की उपासना भी होती है। हम कह सकते हैं- यह आँख खोलकर अग्निहोत्र करना उपासना ही है। इसी प्रकार चौबीस घण्टे के व्यवहार में भी उपासना होनी चाहिए, तब उपासना क्या होगी? तब उपासना यम-नियम का पालन करना, दुकान करना, खेती करना, मजदूरी करना, नौकरी करना, सब कुछ उपासना होगी। उस समय यम-नियमों का पालन हो रहा होगा। इस प्रकार अकेले उपासना करना सन्ध्या है, परिवार के साथ उपासना करना अग्निहोत्र है और पूरे दिन सबके साथ, सभी प्रकार का व्यवहार यम-नियम पूर्वक करना सार्वजनिक उपासना है। यही योग है।

सामान्यजन की धारणा रहती है कि मुक्ति तो परमेश्वर की वस्तु है, वह उसकी कृपा व उसकी उपासना से मिलती है। यह बात सब लोग मानते और समझते हैं परन्तु संसार के विषय में ऐसा समझते हैं कि यह ईश्वर की वस्तु नहीं है या उससे विपरीत वस्तु है, इसीलिए संसार की वस्तुओं को पाने के लिए हम ईश्वर के विपरीत चलना आवश्यक मानते हैं। जबकि सच तो यह है कि संसार भी उसी ईश्वर का है जिसकी मुक्ति है, फिर जिस योग की साधना से ईश्वर मुक्ति देता है, वही ईश्वर योग की साधना करने से संसार के सामान्य सुख से वञ्चित क्यों रखेगा? योग संसार से होकर मुक्ति तक जाने का मार्ग है, इसलिए संसार का सुख भी बिना योग के मिलने की कल्पना नहीं की जा सकती। इस प्रकार संसार योग का विरोधी नहीं, योग की प्रयोगशाला है।

योग जीवन की यात्रा है, इसमें कभी गति तीव्र होती है, कभी मध्यम और कभी मन्द। इतना ही सब उपासना काल के बीच अन्तर है। इसी भाव को कृष्ण जी ने गीता के निम्न श्लोकों में कहा है-

नैव किञ्चित् करोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित्।

पश्यञ्शृण्वन्स्पृशञ्जिघ्रन्नश्नन्गच्छन्स्वपञ्श्वसन्।।

प्रलपन्विसृजन्गृöन्नुन्मिषन्निमिषन्नपि।

इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्त इति धारयन्।।

English, IMP, Vedic Religion

The Swastik Symbol : Shri Virjanand Devkarni (translate by :Vinita Arya)

December 15, 2017 Rishwa Arya 3 Comments

The Svastik Symbol:The The Most Ancient Depiction of AUM – Acharya VirjanandDevkarni (including PDF of his groundbreaking Hindi book – Svastik Chinn (AUM KaPracheentamRoop)

AUM

In the dharmic tradition of India (or Aryavart to give its ancient name), the marking of the Svastik symbol has been going on since very ancient times.The symbol has been found mainly and repeatedly on India’s ancient coins, seals, utensils and homes.At India’s most ancient, historical sites – MohenjoDaro, Harappa and Lothal, seals bearing the anticlockwise left handed facingsymbol

have been found at excavations. Evidence in the form of pictures of these ancient seals can be seen at the end of this article.

In addition to this, the Svastika symbol can be found formed on ancient Indian stamped (punch marked) coins, cast metal copper seals, seals of Ayodhya, Arjunayangan, Eran, Kaad, Yaudheya, Kuninda, Kaushambi, Takshashila, Mathura, Ujjaini, Ahichhatra, Agroha, ancient statues, cooking vessels, rubies, prayer ritual vessels (such as the yajnakund – a vessel for the performance of yajna a purificatory fire ceremony), spoons, ornaments and weapons. The Svastika symbol can be found in abundance on ancient historical artefacts belonging to the Maurya and Shunga Dynasty. On a Buddhist statue obtained from Japan the Svastika symbol can be seen drawn on its chest. Even today in the life of ordinary Indian people one can see that the symbol’s use is widespread. Every day one can see the symbol on houses, temples, cars etc. and on other types of vehicles. Even Hitler had made this symbol his own.

The Svastika symbol has also been found in its many forms outside India on ancient remains in countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Tibet, Babylonia, Austria, Chaldea, Persia, Phoenicia, Armenia, Laconia, Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, America, Brazil, Mexico, Africa, Venezuela, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Russia, Switzerland, France, Peru, Columbia etc.

A question worth pondering over now is; what is the real nature of the Svastika symbol which has been found in such great numbers over such extensive areas of land?

After much confusion, discussion, debate and deep research, I have arrived at this conclusion that the Svastika symbol is an amalgamation of two “AUM” signs written in an artistic style in the ancient known script of Brahmi.

The greatest distinguishing feature of the Svastika symbol is that if looked at from any of the four sides it always reads ‘AUM’.

In ancient India there were sixty four writing systems of which the Brahmi script was one of them. The way in which “AUM” was written in this script was as follows –

= AUM= M ( • ) signifies the “anusvar” or the accompanying nasal sound or letter M.

After adding both together its form is like this: .

AUMhere is formed by the joining of =AU and = M or the (• )anusvar.

If this AUM sign is also written twice in an artistic manner then its form becomes as shown below-

The AUM form in Figure 1 can be seen on Arjunayangan and Ujjaini seals (see the AUM (Svastik) form on page 20 of the pdf Hindi book). The AUM (Svastika) form in Figure 2 and the clockwise right handed form like this are seen nowadays throughout India.

Due to ignorance of the script, writers have changed it during the interval of thousands of years from the left handed to the right handed form. Of the Svastika symbols drawn by artists today only fifteen percent of the symbols are left handed which is interesting as only a few right- handed examples of Svastika have ever been found.

As the writing of the ordinary script changed, other prevailing customary writing styles also changed. However among ordinary people the deeply ingrained AUM (Svastik) word remained unchanged. For thousands of years it has existed in its ancient form having been given a spiritual wrapping. Nevertheless as seen below, from the fifth to fourteenth centuries the symbolused to depict AUM changed and the examples given below are very different from the ॐ symbol which is currently used –

This symbol ॐrepresenting AUM is its changed form.Some ignorant people call it the “pauranik AUM” and regard ‘ओ३म्’ as the AUM belonging to the Arya Samaj. The only difference however is in the scripts. Ordinary people continue to this day to write the ॐ symbol which is about a thousand years old. There are nevertheless those who depict the symbol ॐ by writing ‘ओ३म् in the modern day prevailing script, like these examples of AUM being written in different modern-day scripts–

In this way the difference between ॐ and ओम् is only that of scripts used over a passage of time and not one rooted in sectarian differences. The left handed AUM symbol was changed to the right handed AUM symbol due to ignorance and in some places its anusvar has been removed. Similarly today the symbols ऊँ and the invertedare written on both sides of some cars, houses, doors. This dual method of writing seems to have been adopted when writing AUM in its Svastika form.

Some people are under the misconception that the Svastika symbol should only be drawn in its right handed form like this: because it is a spiritual symbol and being so it should only face the right. The main argument is that if it were left-handed it would be inauspicious. In the spirit of good will it is humbly asserted to the proponents of such an argument, that this supposed difference between the left and right is pure fantasy and it bears no connection with any auspicious and inauspicious form. The left handed form is adopted also in the Arya writing style. While starting to write the symbol from the right occurs in the Kharosthi, Arabic/Urdu, Farsi, Sindhi etc. scripts which are derived from the scripts of non-Arya, Ashura countries.

The prevalence of the Svastika symbol was such that the rulers Sher Shah Suri, Islam Shah Suri. Ibrahim Shah Suri and even a Mughal ruler marked their coins with this symbol. It can also be found on the seals of the Maharaja of Jodhpur Jasvant Singh’s contemporary, the ruler of Pali, Hemraj.

On numerous ancient Indian inscriptions, copper plates and manuscripts, the line ‘AUM svasti” is written. Moreover the traditional blessings that are given at the end of the yajnas which are part of Indian rituals are “AUM svasti, AUM svasti, AUM svasti”. In such places the AUM form is regarded as being one that lends auspiciousness and it is supposed to bring good fortune. The meaning of AUM and Swasti have become so intertwined that it has become difficult to identify the difference between the first and second. For this reason in religious rituals the meaning of ‘AUM svasti’ is on the one hand ‘in the remembrance of AUM, Paramatma (Supreme Spirit), the bestower of good fortune’ and on the other hand it is ’may AUM, Paramatma look to our welfare’.

Maharishi Yaskacharya writes in the ‘Nirukta’ that:

Svasti – ityavinashinam

Astirabhipujitahsvastiti

Nirukta 3.20

This sukta from Nirukta means that Svasti is the name of the indestructible. There are three indestructible things in this universe – matter, the soul and God (prakriti, jeev and Ishvar). Matter cannot by itself be for the welfare of the soul because, matter is inert. The soul is not the embodiment of well-being as it can only wish for its own well-being. What cannot be attained from within can be taken from others. For this reason Isvar, God, the embodiment of well-being, who acts for our welfare and so delivers all remaining justice, is the only accomplished one, after whom ‘svasti’ and its representation ‘AUM’ can be named. This explains why the ancient Aryans at the beginning of each auspicious deed remembered God in their oral and written depiction of the ‘svasti’ form. AUM Svasti in its written form has gradually over time become just a religious symbol, and its written script-related form has become largely forgotten. God acts for our well-being, he makes us happy, keeps us healthy and in order to explain these kinds of sentiments, the word AUM was changed into the Svastika symbol. So in fact it is a symbol depicting God. In India today, five forms of the Svastika symbol are prevalent. For instance –

Indian civilisation until 5,000 years ago was spread throughout the whole world. It is for this reason that among many relics discovered the Svastika symbol has also been found in many different places and in many places it has also been seen that the symbol is still in everyday customary use. The Svastika symbol and its different forms as seen throughout the world are as follows –

In Figures 10 to 13 this type of circle ० represents the anusvar of AUM, in other words (•) represents the ‘m’ sound.

The greatest distinguishing feature of the Svastika symbol is that whichever of the four sides you look at it from it still reads ‘AUM’ in the Brahmi script. In this way this beautiful unparalleled symbol really succeeds in expressing God’s omnipresence.

In Ahichatra (modern day Bareilly), the capital of ruler Maharaja Drupad’s and Guru Dronacharya’s kingdom of Panchal, a pendant from a necklace has been found. In the middle of the pendant there is a circle like this ०and in the middle of that circle formed in the Brahmi script is = the ‘AU’ sound. Around it there is a circle formed out of = ‘m’ symbols. This is another clear example of AUM in the form of a Svastika. This type of AUM has also been written like this –

1 2 3

Nowadays AUM can be written in Devanagari and Roman letters like this –

२ओम् = ३OM

The above brief description establishes to a higher degree that the Svastika AUM symbol was spread throughout the world over an extensive area and even today it is still being used everywhere in India. However those that draw and use this symbol today are altogether unaware of the secret that this symbol was once the ancient form of AUM.

In order to establish the antiquity of the Svastika symbol, photographs of seals obtained from excavations from ancient historical sites in India have been given from which the reader will see and understand its various forms very easily (for more details and for the photographs mentioned in this article please see the pdf book SvastikChinn -AUM KaPracheentamRoopby Acharya VirjanandDaivkarnibelow).

Author’s Biography

Shri VirjanandDevkarni was born at home to his mother ShrimatiSariyandevi and father Shri DevkaranYadav on 2 December 1945 in the village of Bhagadyana in the Mahendragadh district of Harayana. Having completed the eighth standard at Yadavendra High School, Mahendragadh, he entered GurukulJhajjar in 1951 and was awarded subsequently the titles of Siddhantvachaspati, Vyakaranacharya, Darshanacharya and Itihasacharya.

He has through GurukulJhajjar’s Haryana Literature Institute (HarayanaSahityaSansthan) edited books on subjects such as the Ved, Darshan and Upanishad. Under the close guidance of Swami OmanandSaraswati he has collected artefacts belonging to ancient India for GurukulJhajjar’sHarayana State Archaeological Museum and has provided praiseworthy assistance in publicising them. In the current Arya “world” there is no-one who can match his expert status in deciphering and analysing scripts such as Brahmi, Kharosthi and Yavnani. The Government of India’s Department of Archaeology invites him to decode what is written on coins and seals that have been found during its archaeological excavations. Some of his important works are –

Maharishi DayanandaurUnkaSiddhant (Maharishi Dayanand and his Principles)
PrachinBharatiyaItihaskeSrota (The Source of Ancient Indian History)
QutbMinarEkRahasyaudghatan (An Uncovering of the Secret of QutabMinar)
MahabharatYuddh, Mahatma Buddh, Shankaracharya, Sikanderaur Harsh adikeKalkram Par VisheshRachnaye (Special works on eras such as the Mahabharat War, Mahatma Buddha, Shankaracharya, Alexander and Harsh)
SvastikChinn – AUM KaPracheentamRoop(The Swastik Symbol: The most Ancient depiction of AUM)
Agaroha’skiMrinmurtiyan (Agaroha’s Clay Sculptures)
PrachinTamrpatraevamShilaLekh (Ancient Copper Plates and Stone Inscriptions)
Bharat kePrachinMudrank (India’s Ancient Mint (Part 1))

He is the founder of the Ancient Indian History Research Council based at GurukulGautamnagar, Delhi. He has through the Council edited and published the following books –

Prachin Bharat me YaudheyGanrajya (The Yaudheya Republic in Ancient India)
Panchal RajyakaItihas (The History of the Panchal Kingdom)
Maharishi DayanandkeDharmopdesh (The Teachings of Maharishi Dayanand)
AadimSatyarth Prakash Aur Arya SamajkeSiddhant (The First Satyarth Prakash and the Principles of the Arya Samaj)
Vedaaur Arya Samaj (Ved and the Arya Samaj)
AumkarNirney (The Aumkar Judgment)

He has with the help of Paropkarini Sabha Ajmer compared Maharishi Dayanand’s famous book Satyarth Prakash with the original manuscript of this book and got the most correct version published. Swami Omanand gave him his full support when he got the Satyarth Prakash inscribed on copper plates. This copper plate version of the Satyarth Prakash is now in the Gurukul Jhajjar Museum. He has contributed through GurukulGautamnagar to the excavation of copper plates concerning the Yajurved, Samved, Ashtadhyayi, Linganushasan and Phitsutra.

The translator of Shri VirjanandDevkarni’s work “The Swastik Symbol: The most Ancient depiction of AUM” is Vinita Arya, a Freelance English Translator and Teacher committed to the Vedas and bringing its message to everyone through translating key Vaidik works into English.

Arya Samaj, English, IMP, Vedic Religion

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

July 17, 2017 Rishwa Arya 6 Comments

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:

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”.

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”.

English, IMP, Manu Smriti, Myth Busters, Vedic Religion

Opposition to Manu: Why?

April 6, 2016 Rishwa Arya 1 Comment

During the British period in India some western writers indoctrinatedin Christianity, and having vested interests in the continuance of the BritishEmpire hatched a foolproof conspiracy. They planned to inculcateantipathy in and demolish faith from the minds of Indians towards everything and everyone who traditionally was closely associated with themajesty, magnanimity and magnificence of India. These western writerssucceeded in converting to their views some of the Indians with the help ofthe imperial influence of the British and their divide-and-rule policy.

Macaulay’s educational policy also lent them a helping hand. Such Indiansthen carried on and furthered this anti-Indianism. Thus came up on thescene a group of people who made Maharishi Manu- the first law-giver,and hisManusmriti, the foremost law-book, a target of their slanderouscriticism. Things have come to such a pass that whereas disparaging Manuand decrying his Manusmrition mere hearsay and unsubstantiatedcriticism has become a mission for some sections of the society, it hasbecome a fashion with the English-knowing people in India, and an issuefor winningelections for some political parties. Very queer is the conduct of our politicians in this regard. A few years ago, soon after the split of aparticular political party, the erstwhile progeny of Manu disowned him astheir foremost father and started cursing and condemning him, hisManusmriti and his progeny from the public fora. One of the political partiesstructured a point and program, viz.,Manuvad for grabbing politicalpower. Some years ago when a statue of Manu was installed on the Jaipurpremises ofthe Rajasthan High Court in recognition of his having been thefirst law-giver, some people saw the statue as a potent danger and begansubjecting the lifeless statue to a controversy. The dispute thus created isunder the consideration of that very Hon’ble Court to decide. The fact ofthe matter is that some people regard the opposition to the statue as avery good opportunity to makethe best political capital and are trying to acquire a political identity.

One is amazed to see such peopledisregarding the Manusmriti as they have not even as much as seen the shape and size ofthe book, let alone read it, One day I confronted a person who started slighting the Manusmriti by quoting a couplet from Tulsidas. viz., ‘Dhol, pashu,shudraaurnari …. ‘attributing it in ignorance to Manu asone oftheshlokasauthored by him. It can easily be guessed from this illustration how littlethe slanderers orManu know about him and his Manusmriti.

Laymen apart, even as widely read a man as Dr. Ambedkar is sweptaway in opposition to Manu to such an extent that he sees in every antiShudraact a doing of Manu. He has attributed to Manu the anti-Shudrasayings of even Shankaracharya. And the chaos and confusion created byordinary writers in respect of Manu has a very long account. All this points to a careful and serious study of the Manusmriti hasnot been carried out.

It has been observed that there are three types or people who indulgein deprecating Manu. The first are those who have read Manu throughprejudiced commentaries written in English, and have been brought up in atradition thus developed. Such people are not acquainted with thealterations and interpolations carried out in the ancient Indian literaturethrough the ages. The second are those who have not read side by side theoriginal and the interpolated versions thoughtfully and critically. The thirdare those who have made it a point todisparage Manu on account of somemisgivings, prejudices and worst of all, even vested interests. But the factremains that Maharshi Manu neither as a man nor as a writer deserves tobe condemned. India and Indianism can take pride in him and look big anddignified.

MANU’S PLACE AND POSITION

Manu’s Position in India Maharshi Manu is the first to have given the world a well-regulated,systematized, ethical and ideal pattern of living for human beings. He is thefirst among manavas (one of the human races), the first among scripturewriters,the first among law-makers, law-givers and social philosophers,the pioneer statesman and above all the first sage-ruler. Manu is thereligious teacher who introduced the yajna-rituals. The religious scripturecomposed by him which today is known as the Manusmriti is the oldest of the Smritis. We see in our ancient history and literature right from Vedic agesdown to modem times, a long tradition of those scripture- writers, litterateurs,authors, poets and rulers who have spoken of Manu eulogistically. VedicSamhitas andBrahmanical scriptures describe Manu’s words as efficaciousand beneficent like medicine.
Maharshi Valmiki in his Ramayanaalludes to Manu as an authority in the field of religious scriptures. Ram,who is worshipped as God by the Hindus, quotes Manu’s verses to provethat his conduct has been in consonance with the directions given in thereligious scriptures. TheMahabharta proclaims at several places thatthe Manusmriti is a tried and tested constitution of life, and alludes to itswriter as the greatest preceptor and jurist. In several of the Puranas Manuhas been embellished with epithets such as the foremost sage-ruler,scripture-writer, etc. and thus has been painted as a person devoted to humanwelfare. Acharya Yaska quotes Manu’s dictum in his Nirukta in thediscussion on equal rights for sons and daughters and thus regards him asauthentic. In the ArthashastraChanakya has quoted Manu as an authority.Brihaspati, a writer of one of the Smritis regards the Manusmriti asthe most authentic document and proclaims other Smritis controvertingManu’s as unacceptable. Ashwaghosh, the Buddhist poet, quotes Manu’sdicta in his work Vajrakopnishad as evidence. Yajnavalalkya’sSmritiis based on the Manusmriti itself. All religious books and Smritis quoteManu’s words in support of the contentions contained in them. Dharsen,the king ofValabhi has declared Manuism as an authentic creed as per apetrograph of 571 A.D. DaraShikoha, the writer-son of Emperor ShahJehan describes Manu as the first and original human whom Jews,Christians and Mohammedans call Adam. GuruGovind Singh has showeredliberal eulogies on Manu in his book entitled ‘DashamGrantha’.

MaharshiDayanand, the founder of the Arya SamajacceptsManusmriti as an authority second only to the Vedas. Shri Aurobindoregards Manu as a semi-god. Shri RabinderNath Tagore, Dr. RadhaKrishanan, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru and many other national leaders have made mention of Manu in their writings as the first law-giver. A numberof jurists such as Justice A.N. Mullah, N.Raghavacharya and others haveacknowledged Manu’s set of laws as an authority. Keeping only this widelyacknowledged recognition of Manu in mind Pt. Nehru and people at largeembellished Dr. Ambedkar with the epithet ‘Modem Manu’ while presenting the Constitution of India to the LokSabha. Also, while unveiling the statue ofDr. Ambedkar, ShriR.Venkataraman, the then President of Indiaadded to the grandeur of the former’s personality by calling him “Modern Manu.”

Manu’s Recognition Overseas

Manu’s position and prestige, his magnanimity and magnificence and the extent of his influence overseas have not been any the less thanthese have been in India. The encyclopediasbrought out by the British,Americans and Germans describe Manu as the foremost among humans,as the first law-giver, as the pioneer jurist and social philosopher.Upholding Manu’s beliefs Max Mueller, A.A. Macdonnel, A.B. Keith,P.Thomas, Louis Renoy and other western writers regard the Manusmritinot only as a religious book but also a law book and describe the lawsgiven therein as universal in application and beneficial toall mankind. Sir William Jones, a judge in the Indian Supreme Court at one time learntSanskrit to have first-hand study of the Manusmriti on having realizedthe scripture’s indispensability in arriving at judgments in respect of somedisputes of Indians. He even edited the Manusmriti. The famousGerman Philosopher, FrederichNeitsche has gone to the extent of sayingthat ‘the Manusmriti is superior to the Bible as a scripture; in fact,according to him ‘It is a sin to compare the Manusmriti with the Bible’.

Books like ‘The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences’ brought out in the USA,The Cambridge History oflndia’, Keith’s ‘History of Sanskrit Literature’,A History ofDharma Shastra’ by Bharat Ratna P.Y. Kane, Dr. Satyaketu’s’DakshinPurviAurDakshin Asia Mein BhartiyaSanskriti’ (India Culturein South East and South Asia) and other similar books contain a vivid anddetailed description of the extent of the influence of the Manusmriti.These readings can make every Indian feel puffed with pride at thecountry’s ancient heritage.

We come to learn from the history of, and the petrography found onthe island of Bali, Burma, Philippines, Thailand, Champa (Vietnam), Cambodia(Kampuchea), Indonesia, Malaysia, Ceylon, Nepal etc. that varna systembased on people’s profession as propounded in Manu’s scripture has beenpractised in these countries. Paramount importance was given to the lawsenunciated by Manu, and judgements were doled out accordingly. A numberof verses of the Manusmriti have been found inscribed in the form ofpetrographs. Kings and emperors used to take pride incalling themselvesthe disciples or followers of Manu, and would feelelevated by adding oneor the other label of Manuism to their name. According to an inscriptionfound in Champa (Vietnam) Raja Jai InderVarmadeva was a follower ofManuism. According to another inscription found in UdayanVarma’s’SadokKakthom’ there is a mention of a book entitled ‘ManavNeetisar’ which isbased on the Manusmriti.ln one ofYashovarman’s inscriptions found inPrasatKompan we find quoted a verse. i.e.2.1.36 from the Manusmriti.In one of the inscriptions of Raja Jayavanna there is a mention of ministerwho was well-versed in the Manusmriti. In Bali island Manu’s socialsystem is still being practiced,the code of conduct and the constitutions ofthe aforementioned countries were and still are largely based on theManusmriti. The Philippines believe that Manu’s Smriti and another Smritiauthored by Laotse have contributed a lot to the making of their country’scode of conduct. It is in recognition of their contribution that the statues ofthe two have been installed at the gate of the legislature of that country.Howsoever much Manu may be disparaged and deprecated therelationship that has been built between us and Manu can never be undone.We can never break offwith Manu; can never put him in abeyance so longas this human society and its history are intact.Indian society regards Manu as their original ancestor as is testifiedin the country’s ancient literature. All humans are the progeny of Manu. Itis for this reason that all words meaning’man’, such as manushy, manuj,manav, manusb, have originated from the word Manu. So the writer ofthe Nirukta says while giving an etymology of these words ‘मनो: अपत्यम मनुष्य: (3-4). This means that we are calledManushya for we are theprogeny of Manu. The statement ‘मानव्य: प्रजा: in the Brahmanicalscriptures alsotestifies the same fact. The European scholars havephilologically proved that there was a time when Europe, Iran and Indiansub-continent were the members of one ethnic group. The wordsconnoting man in the languages of these regions are all derivatives of wordsoriginated from Manu, e.g., minos in Greek and Latin, mann in German.manna in Spanish, man, manis, manus, manes, etc., in English and itsdialects, nuh {with स (s) मनुस . (manus) changed into ह: (h) and म (m)getting dropped} in Iranian Persian. This fact is testified in the historicalwritings and inscriptions of these countries. Iranians regard themselves asAryans even today and believe Saptasindhu country to be the place oftheir origin. Cambodians (Kampucheans) regard themselves as the progenyof Manu. The inhabitants of Thailand consider themselves to be thedescendants of Ram who belonged to the Suryavanshi clan. Both Ramand Krishan belong to Manu’s lineage. On having read this account wecan say that no other scripture-writer or law-giver has been accorded ashigh a place or pride and prestige as Manu.

Accusations hurled at Manu and theManusmriti

Now let usconsider the charges levelled against Manu and theManusmriti which can broadly be classified in three categories:-

Manu built up a caste system based on birth.
In his social system whereas he made partisan and even inhuman laws for the Shudras. He gave privileges to Savarnas (thehigh-born, particularly the Brahmanas. Thus Manu was anti-Shudra.

iii. Manu was anti-woman. He did not allow women equal rights with men. Also Manu has spoken rather disparagingly of women.To answer these charges it will be fitting to citeevidence and examples from the Manusmriti itself rather than quoteinstances and adduce proofs from outside. A few observations are made below on the basis of some conclusionsdrawn from the Manusmriti.

B, THE REAL NATURE OF MANU’S VARNA SYSTEM

Based on merit, profession and potentiality Manu’s system has Vedic origins:-

The varna system propounded in the Manusmriti is based on anindividual’s profession, his merits and capabilities and has Vedic origins.This system finds its mention originally in three of the Vedas, viz, Rigveda(10.90.11-12), Yajurveda (31. 10-11) and Atharvaveda (19.6.506), Manuconsiders the Vedas to be of axiomatic status in religious matters. So,regarding the Varnasystem as a system propounded and sanctioned by the Vedas and considering it to be the basis of righteousness, Manu includes it in his system of administration, and disseminates his plan through hisscripture.

Varna system and castsystem as contrastingsystems:-

The determining factors in Manu’s Vedic Varna system are merits,vocation and capabilities rather than the birth of a human. Here it isessential to understand thatthe varna system and caste system arecontradictory propositions. Neither of these systemscan sustain itself whereas the other is being practiced and thus the presence of one rules out the other. The basic difference between the two can easily be understood ifwe appreciate the etymological difference of the two words. In the varnasystem it is the varna (an individual’s vocation) which is the decidingfactor whereas in the caste system it is the parentage which is of crucialimportance. Inter-changeable use of the two words is highly misleading.

The word Varna is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root ‘वृज वरने ‘ whichmeans the vocation which is chosen. Acharya Yaska clarifies theconnotation of his word in his Nirukta as follows:

वर्ण: वृनोते (2· 14) meaning thereby the word ‘Varna’ has something todo with the choice/the selection (of vocation/profession here), whereas the word ‘Jati’ has something todo with Janma:, (birth). The word jati hasbeen used as a synonym for janma (birth) and not caste as is illustratedbelow:

जाति अंध बधिरौ :blind and deaf by birth

जातिम स्मरति पौर्वीकीम :remembers his previous birth.

द्विजाति :because he is believed to be born twice.

एकजाति :Shudrabecause he has only one birthand does not have the second which is believed to take place on beinginitiated into the study-period. As per vedicvarna system the society is to be divided into fourclasses, viz,Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. As long aspeople kept on choosing one of these vocational groups on the basis ofmerit-cum-profession-cum-ability the system kept on being called VarnaVyavastha (class system). However, when birth or parentage began todetermine if one wasa Brahmana oraShudra, etc., it came to be called JatiVyavastha (caste system). An etymological study of the word Varnawhichis formed from a Sanskrit verbal root and a suffix added to it, onlyindicates that when the system(i.e. Varna Vyavastha)come into being theVarna (vocation) was selected on the basis of the concerned individual’smerit-cum-profession – cum-ability and not acquired on account of hisparentage.

No mention ofpresent-day castes and sub castes in Manu’s Varna system:

That Manu has made a mention of only four varnas and or nocastes or sub-castes is conclusive proofin support of the fact that Manu’svamavyavastha was based on vocation and performance and not on birth.

Two facts are evident from it. One, there were nocastes based on parentage during Manu’s times. Two, parentage or gotra(sub-caste) wasof no consequence in varna-vyavastha and one would not acquire a varna(vocation) on this basis. Ifduring Manu’s times birth had been the basis fordetermining varna or if there had been castes or sub-castes Manu wouldcertainly have enumerated them and also pointed out which of thembelonged to the Brahmana community and which to the Shudra community and soon and so forth. How much disregard Manu had for birth-basedaggrandizement is known from that verse in the Manusmtiti in which amention has been made with derogatory epithets like ‘Vantashi’ (one whoeats his vomit) for those who eulogised someone for his lineage orparentage (3- 109). Besides, in Manu mention had been made of anindividual’s virtues and good deeds only and not of his clan, caste or kinshipwhile showing respectfulness and reverence to him.

Purpose ofManusmritidefeated if birth-based castes accepted:

The very purpose of the composition ofthe Manusmriti would bedefeated if we accepted Manu to be a believer in castes on the basis ofbirth because the scripture has assigned different tasks to different varnas

(classes). If a person were to be a Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudraby birth he would remain in the same varna whether or not he performed the tasks allocated to that varna. The very fact that Manu has assigneddifferent roles to different varna only proves that he approves of vocationand not of birth as the basis of varnavyavastha.

Provision for change of Varna in Varna Vyavastha.

There is a very basic difference between the varnavyavastha andthe caste system. It is that there is a provision for change of varna in varnavyavastha. An important verse from the Manusmritidispelling all the doubtsin this respect is being quoted as all evidence:-

शूद्रोब्राह्मणतांएतिब्राह्मणश्चैतिशूद्रताम्।
क्षत्रियाज्जातंएवंतुविद्याद्वैश्यात्तथैवच।।(10-65)।।

Manu says in this verse that a Brahmana becomes a Shudra andvice versa on the basis of one’s merits, actions and abilities. Similarly suchan interchange also takes place between Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.

Change of Varna on neglecting prescribedduties:

There are dozens of verses in the Manusmriti which speak of provisionsfor downgrading Brahmanas to the class of Shudras on account of the former neglecting their prescribed duties and indulging in deeds ofdebased nature (See 2/37, 40, 103, 168; 4/245 etc.) and for upgradingShudras to higher varnas consequent upon their undertaking tasks of noblernature (See 9/335).

Varna vyavastha practiced up to the Mahabharta period:

The aforementioned proofs and arguments make it abundantly clearthat in Manu’s social system all people had equal rights to join any of thevarnas according to their merits and vocations, irrespective of theirparents’profession. This system continued from Rigvedic period until Mahabharata(Geeta) period, The Geeta clearly says:

चातुर्वर्ण्यंमयासृष्टंगुणकर्मविभागशः।।(4- 13)।।

The chaturvaranya (the four-class system) has been created on thebasis of people’s vocations and merits and not on their birth and parentage.

Change of Varna: Examples in history:

Hundreds of examples from Indian history can be cited in supportof the fact that Varna Vyavastha is based on an individual’s vocation andaction, and has nothing to do with his birth.

KavashAilush, a son of a slave-woman, and Vatsa, a son ofa Shudra-woman became Rigvedic Rishis for their having become seersof Mantras (exponents of vedic hymns).

ii Raja Vishvamitra who- was born of Kshatriya parentsbecame a Brahmarshi.

iiiSatyakamJabal whose birth and lineage are unknownbecameBrahmavadi Rishi (an exponent of the highest reality, Brahma)

Matanga who was born in a Chandalfamily came to be called a Rishi…
Valmiki who (according to some legends) was lowly-born acquired the fame which goes with the name of Maharishi Valmiki.
Slavewoman’sson, Vidur, became the primeministerof Raja Dhritarashtra and came to be known as a Mahatma.

vii. Shri Ram, a son of King Dashratha, and Shri Krishna, born in a Yadav family, came to be regarded as God. They became venerableeven for the Brahmanas their birth in a Kshatriya family notwithstanding.

viii. On the other hand, Ravana who was born in the clan of Pulastya Rishi came to be called a ‘demon’ for indulging in evil deeds.

Raghu, the ancestor of Rama, had a son named Pravridha. He was outcast from the Kshatriya clan due to his misdeeds and misdemeanor and became a demon.
Trishanku, originally a king became a Chandal.
Many of Vishwamitra’s sons came to be called Shudras.

The whole community acquiring a new varna.

Besides individuals we also come across examples of a whole community or a large part of it leaving its earlier varna and acquiring a new one. Some verses in the Mahabharta and the Manusmriti, with, of course some variations in the text reveal that some of the communities were Kshatriyas earlier but with the negligence of their duties, and for their not having undertaken penance to atone for their omissions and commission seven when so required by the Brahmanas, degenerated into being enlisted among the Shudras.

शनकैस्तुक्रियालोपादिमाःक्षत्रियजातयः।
वृषलत्वंगतालोकेब्राह्मणादर्शनेनच।।

पौण्ड्रकाश्चौड्रद्रविडाःकाम्बोजायवनाःशकाः।
पारदापह्लवाश्चीनाःकिरातादरदाःखशाः।।(10-43, 44)

Meaning: Owing to their having neglected their prescribed duties and not having undertaken penance even on being advised to do so by the Brahmanas some of the Kshatriya communities which came to be called Shudras were:Paundraka, Audra, Dravida, Kamboja, Yavana, Shaka, Parada, Pahalva,Cheena, Kirata, Darada, and Khasha. In addition to these some othercommunities that find a mention in the same context in the Mahabharta(Ch. 35. 17-18)are: Mekala, Lata, Kanvashira, Shaundika, Darva, Chaura,Shabara and Barbar.

Examples of change of varna are found until much later history. According to J. Wilson and I·LL. Rose the Pakharana or PushkamaBrahmanas of Rajputana, Sindh and Gujarat, and Pathak and MahavarRajputas of Aamtara in the Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh were upgraded 10 higher classes consequent upon change ofvarna (see Hindi EncyclopaediaPart 4.).

The secret ofidentical sub-castes in all the four varnas:

The identical surnames found among Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Dalitas are a firm proof not only indicating the existence of long family traditions but also showing that the members of all communities are descendants of the same one original family. Peopleinthe beginning chose a particular varna on the basis of their merits,performance and potentialities and later on came to be regarded as members of the same varna. In the times that were to come their varna in case of some, was upgraded, and in case of others downgraded forvarious reasons. For example, in some areas the people of Brahmana community continued to remain Brahmanas whereas in others they became Ksharriyas and in yet others, Shudras. During the course of time a rigid social system developed and parentage and birth became the bases of a person’s categorization which came to be called caste.

The basic elements in varnavyavastha

The basic elements of varnavyavastha as propounded in the Manusmriti are merits, vocation and capabilities, Manu does not attachany importance to an individual as such or to the varna to which hebelongs, but to the aforesaid attributes. Where these attributes abound onthe positive side the individual and his varna are accorded greater respect and reverence. Where they are in a low measure or are on the negative side the individual and his varna are given a lower recognition. Even till today no civilized system has been able to negate the elements constituting Manu’s,varnavyavastha nor is any likely to do so in future. Negating these is sure to lead to injustice and consequent discontent, protests,mismanagement and ultimately to anarchy. Such a situation is describedidiomatically in Hindi as: ‘Treating the donkey at a par with the horse’, and’driving all with the same stick’.

As a result of such a situation no country or society can progress and prosper, be happy, contented or peacefully remain disciplined,systematised or even unified. In fact such an arrangement can not be sustained for too long. Even the communistic pattern of society or government, which wears by the principle of equality for all, has not been able to ignore the elements so basic to Manu’s system. Even in that system we have public posts and social positions being given to individuals after taking intoconsideration their merits, duties and capabilities which further determinetheir perks, status and salary structure.

If we carry out a comparative analysis of the present dayadministrative and business set-up vis-a-vis the one conceived by Manuwe shall be able to see clearly the essential similarities between the two.There are four classes in the administrative hierarchy of the government,ii. Class I Gazettedofficers ii. Class II Gazettedofficers iii. Class IIIand Class IV employees. Among them the first two men are of the officer-cadre and the rest are karamcharis (workers). The basis of this classification isan individual’s potentialitiesand capabilities, and theduties assigned to him.And these very things determine the privilegesstatus and importancegiven to him. In earlier times, the possession of particular types ofpotentialities and capabilities by an individual was certified by theacademic institutions (The Gurukulas, the Ashramas and the Acharyasof the institutions) much on the same lines as is being done today (byschools. colleges. universities, etc.). In the absence of any suchcertification a semi- educated or anuneducated person has to undertake amenial job or physical labour and such a person is put in the last categoryofservice. In earlier times also a person who would not go to a teacher for acquiring knowledge or a particular skill used to undertake a job of asimilar nature and was categorized as a Shudra which means a man of alow position, a message-bearer, etc. One can easily see how similar to theword ‘Shudra’ are the connotations of words like ‘Naukar’, ‘Chakar’. ‘Sevak’, ‘Preshya’ (a message bearer), ‘servant’, orderly’, ‘a low class employee’etc.

There is not much difference between the systems of allotment ofvocation as it exists today and as it was practiced earlier. In both the casesone is permitted to practice a profession such as medicine, law or teachingonly on the acquisition of a relevant degree or diploma or certification, andnot without it. Rules and duties for all jobs are prescribed which if violatedwill entail removal from the position held by a person.

Practical opportunities for Shudras to change their varna

There are some people who have considered themselves Shudrasand for some reasons are still labouring under this erroneous impressionand thus keeping themselves deprived of human rights. The Arya Samaj regards Manu as a religious preceptor and is an ardent follower ofthe principles and systems enunciated by Manu openly invites them to getinitiated into any of the varnas they qualify for, and thus offers themconcrete opportunities to change their varna. Long before the present-dayconstitution of India came into force MaharshiDayanand declared in thelight of the dicta ofManusmriti that untouchability, notions of inequalityamong humans,casteism, denial of education to women and to those of Shudra parents, child marriage, unmatched marriage, polygamy,practice of sati system and social and economic exploitation were greatsocial evils. He also carried on a crusade against these evils. The AryaSamaj has set up gurukulas and schools some of which are exclusivelyfor women. The children born of so-called Shudra-parents have been admitted to these educational institutions. With the result hundreds ofDalitseducated there have become scholars of Sanskrit, Vedas and other holy scriptures. Why do Dalitas forget that in order to abolish untouchability numerous followers of Manu and disciplesofRishi Dayanand themselvesbecame untouchables in the eyes of the society, and yet they didn’t yield and carried on the struggle? Dalit writers who are ignorant of these developmentssee the Arya Samaj with coloured glasses. Does thisnot amountto ingratitude on their part?

A correct appraisal of the system

Manu belongs to antiquity. Although the model values of life,ethical proprieties and true form of religion described by Manu are ofuniversal nature some of the provisions made by him arealterable to suit the particular place, time and the situation. The social system which Manu took as a modeland advocated for adoption was of the bestkind during his time. This iswhy that system has been the most widely acceptedand has lasted forthousands of years. During the course of the time some of the arrangementsin that system lost their original nature and became deformed. Todaypolitical and social conditions have changed. Democracy has replacedmonarchy. Many social systemsand traditions have also changed with thepassage of time. But this does not imply that our ancient values havebecome completely unacceptable things to look down upon. If that wereour line of thinking everything connected with our ancient magnificence such as our great men, heroic personages, poets, authors, cities, holy places,monuments, buildings, literature, history, etc. all would become detractable. To carry out a proper appraisal the system a person or a thing has to beevaluated in thecontext of the situations prevailing at the time to which itbelongs.

Maharishi Manu and DrAmbedkar

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar has been the chief carrier ofthe traditionof opposing Manu, and also the main source of inspiration toanti Manuism today. It is true that as a result of birth-based casteism,inequality and untouchability practiced in society Dr. Ambedkarwas subjected to a series of acts of slight and injustice, inequitabletreatment and some consequently nightmarish experiences. It is also truethat any self-respecting educated person would have reacted along thesame lines as did Dr. Ambedkar. And yet it is also true that the treatmentmeted out toManu byDrAmbedkaron the basis of the prejudice he had nursedagainst the former and without a correct and complete understanding ofhis ideas was also an act of extreme injustice and hence uncalled for.Being a legal luminary, he is all the more to be arraigned for this excess.He provided in the constitution that in no case should an innocent personbe punished even if it leads to the acquittal of the culprit. But he himselfdidnot observe this principle in respect of Manu in his pronouncements. Heimputed to Manu a kind of social systembased on birth and parentagewhich in fact was the creation of a society subsequent to Manu’s times,and kept on accusing Manu unjustifiably and even carried on a vilificationcampaign against him. He also used extremely bitter and unpalatable wordsfor a Maharishi who is held in high esteem in the Aryan (Hindu) society.Dr. Ambedkar’s attention was repeatedly invited to the fact that he hadseveral misconceptions and biased opinions about Manu and that he shouldclear them. But he persisted in his prejudices. There were several reasonsfor this insistence. Perhaps he did not want to retract on what he hadalready written on Manu. In his own words ‘I may seem hard on Manu,but I am sure my force is not strong enough to kill his ghost’. And it is truethat the ‘ghost’ was never shed and was infact bequeathed to his followerson his death. But the big question is: Can the appraisal which flows out ofa haunted mind be called nominal, balanced. well- considered and correct?

That Dr. Ambcdkar did not know Sanskrit language is a1so a fact ofhis life. He himself admits that he had acquired knowledge on Manu andthe Manusmriti from the critiques and analysis ofManu written in Englishlanguage. Naturally, therefore, he could not takeinto account some aspectsof Manu such as the original text and the interpolations in the Manusmriti,the perspectives in which a verse has been written, etc. The learned Doctoracquired opinions and built his own views on the basis of his readings ofbiased commentaries in English. No research had been carried out on the interpolations in the Manusmriti till the times ofAmbedkar. So hedid notcome across any man or material to guide him andexplain the original fromthe subsequent motivated insertions. If these reasons had not existed hewould have perhaps not spoken so ill of Manu and the Manusmriti.

15.A statement and discussion of some of the basic beliefs ofDr. Ambedkar on Manu’s Vedic Varna system appear to be necessary soas to carry out a critical appraisal of these beliefs and also to acquire a new proofto support the contentions made in this write-up. He writes:-

* One thing I want to impress upon is that Manu did not give thelaw of caste and that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu.(Caste in India, P.16)

*It is indisputable that the Vedas lay down the theoryofChaturvamyain what is known as the Purushsukta. (Philosophy of Hinduism, P.25)

* Manu may not be responsible for the creation of caste. Manupreached the sanctity of the Varna and as I have shown varna is the parentof caste. In that sense Manu can be charged with being the progenitor if notthe author of the caste system. (Philosophy of Hinduism, P.25)

* I must admit that the Vedic theory ofvarnas as interpreted by SwamiDayanand and some others is sensible and an inoffensive thing. It did notadmit birth as a determining factor in fixing the place ofan individual insociety. It only recognized worth. (Annihilation of Caste, P.92-93)

* The essence of the Vedic conception of Varna is the pursuit of acalling which is appropriate to one’s natural aptitude. (Annihilation ofCaste, P.92)

* The Principle underlying caste is fundamentally different from theprinciple underlying varna. Not only are they fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. (Annihilation of Caste, P.92)

Dr. Ambedkar accepts unequivocally that varna system has its origin in the Vedas, that it has been handed down by the Vedas, thatManu is only an advocate of this system and not its creator, that the Vedicvarna system is logical and not at all despicable in as much as it is based onan individual’s merits, vocation and capabilities, that the Varna system and the caste system are contradictory in nature and that Manu is not thecreator of the caste system. Thus as per Ambedkar’s own admissions,Manu stands absolved of the charges of being the creator of either thecaste system or even the varna system. He being an advocate of thevarna system cannot be charged with being a supporter of the birth-basedcaste system. If varna system is ‘sensible’ and ‘inoffensive’ Manu hasdone only the desirable and nothing wrong by supporting andstrengthening the system. Manu, being a follower of Vedic faith, regardsthe Vedas and their postulates as axiomatic. Then it is no sin that hedisseminates the good provisions and principles of his religion ascommanded by the Holy Scriptures upholding this faith. Followers of allfaiths do likewise. After having converted to Buddhism Dr. Ambedkaralso disseminated Buddhist beliefs. Ifhe isjustified in doing so, Manu toois. It is surprising that even after having made admissions (which figureabove in his own words) Dr. Ambedkar detracts Manu every step of the way by holding him responsible for the caste system. How far is it justifiedto impute to Manu the creation of social systems which came into beinglong after him, and speak bitterly of him on this basis?

About 80 amendments have been carried out in the IndianConstitution in the 46 years of its existence, some of which violates the spirit of the constitution such as the one prolonging the use of Englishas an official language, the one seeking removal of the provision of givingsubsistence allowance to Muslim women, etc. Can Dr. Ambedkar be heldresponsible for these amendments and the amendments yet to come? Ifnot, how can Manu beheld responsible for the evil and depraved systemwhich developed and came to be practised long after him.

Dr. Ambedkar believes that thevarna system has given rise to thecaste system and since Manu advocated the varna system he is to blame forthe caste system. What an odd and offensive argument! Just in tune withthe caste system itself. It amounts to saying that if someone does notobserve shraddha he will go to hell alongwith his forefathers of sixgenerations only because the latter have been the forefathers of the former. Also, ifsomeone observes shraddha his six earlier generations will crossover to heaven as they are his begetters. Much on the same lines since thecaste system isan evil system so the system immediately preceding it (i.e.the varna system), should also be an evil one.

What is surprising is that a legalluminary should be leveling seriouscharges against a law giver. Dr. Ambedkar has nowhere provided in theConstitution of India that whilepunishing a culprit his parents, grandparents and ancestors should also be declared guilty only because theyhave begotten him. Only if Dr. Ambedkar had made a provision in theconstitution that people could also be declared guilty, punished andexterminated fortheir misdeeds in the past, ifnot in all cases, at least in thecase of some matters relating to nationalism! It would have gratified atleast those nationalists who believe that on the attainment of freedom thosepeople who had indulged in treason against the cause of freedom, who hadcollaborated with the imperialistic foreign rulers, who had indulged in actsof espionage and had sent the patriots to thegallows, should have been declaredoffenders and punished. The traitors to the national cause led a happy andbountiful life in the days of foreign rule by having been favoured withlanded property, pelf and position. And they or their progeny even nowcontinue to do so.

*the references are to government of Maharashtra publication of DrAmbedkar’s writings and speeches, 1979.

On the other hand the freedom fighters are going aboutfrom pillar to post on the look-out of even the basic amenities of life. Suchcharity towards treachery and such indifference towards patriotism havehardly ever been shown in any other case of a transfer of power or a changeofgovernment! If the treacherous people had been punished it would havetaught them a lesson and in turn it would have been in the larger interestofnational integrity, unity and freedom.

Manu is being held responsible for the varna system havingdegenerated later into the caste system as if Manu had been in the foreknowledgeof this degeneration, and had consciously advocated the varna systemwith a dubious design! Dr. Ambedkar is the creator of the presentconstitutional system ofIndia. But, did he know at the time of the creationof this constitution what system of government might spring from it in thefuture due to unforeseen developments? No, not at all. Similarly Manualso did not know what shape the varna system would take in the times thatwere to come.

Dr.Ambedkar is the creator and a staunch advocate of thecurrent constitutional provisions which are free from caste prejudices. Ifunfortunately, consequent upon some changes for some unforeseenreasons, the Indian constitution acquires a casteist bias hundreds of yearshence will Dr. Ambedkar be responsible for that?At that time everyreasonable person will say at the top of his voice, ”No, No. Ambedkar isanti-casteist. Why should he be labelled as the author of the caste-basedsystem?” When obviously the caste-system is at variance with the varnasystem how can Manu be dubbed as the creator of the caste system? Sothe charge that Manu was the father of the caste system cannot besustained and hence stands rebutted. The fact of the matter is that asubsequent society is the creator of the evil caste system and that verysociety is to blame for its subsistence and sustenance.

Dr. Ambedkar states that Manu ‘did not give the law of casteand that he could not do so. Caste existed long before Manu’ (Caste inIndi a, P. 16). Thus Ambedkar himself admits that Manu is responsibleneither for the creation of the caste system nor for the society practicing it.This implies that varna system was already in vogue and the society hadcome to accept it before Manu. This system was after people’s hearts. It hadbeen universally accepted as the best system at that time. It was notimposed by Manu on society. How then is Manu responsible for thesystem which society had already accepted and was practising? AsDr. Ambedkar had advocated a system acceptable to people so had Manualso promoted the varnasystem which had been liked by the people, thenthere is hardly any justificationleft for holding Manu guilty.

No system in the world is fully flawless and acceptablewithout reservation. So there is no justification at all in subjecting the wholeof Hindu religion to insulting criticism in the context of the evil caste systemwhich developed long after Manu and other Hindu social philosophers.Are all the constitutional provisions of today which boast ofbeingjust andfair, really perfect? As a matter of fact they are highly controversial,modern senseof equitability notwithstanding. Reservation for the weakersection has been provided as warranted by the present day requirements,and yet it is being violently questioned. Hundreds of years hence when theworking of the present system is recorded in history ignoring the current perspectives it is certain that the sections of the society enjoying privilegesof reservation now will be painted in the same colourBrahmanas arcbeing painted today in the context of ancient holy scriptures.

As per present constitutional provisions appointments to almost allpublic posts from the highest to the lowest have to be made on the basisofdegrees and diplomas, and performance at competitive examinations andinterviews. Nominations are made to certain posts. In only a few years ofthe coming into being ofthecurrent constitution things have come to sucha pass that the yardstick of merit is ignored with impunity and the relativesand recommendees of political leaders and officers in power alone aremostly nominated to administrative posts in utter disregard of anindividual’s merits. Interviews are supposed to be held to measure a jobseekersworth. However,jobs go not to the worthy but to the recommendeesor to those who can afford to purchase these positions. Selection listsquashed by the courts bear a testimony to it. Merit is the first casualty incase of appointments to political posts. Nepotism and favouritism are theorder of the day in this respect. Imagine a situation, which is a possibility,that some centuries hence the present constitutional arrangements getdegenerated into arrangements the basis of which becomes birth andparentage rather than the deserts of an individual. Will Dr. Ambedkar andthe constituent assembly of which he was a member be responsible for that degenerated form of things? Will anybody be justified in calling thearrangements given by him and theconstituent assembly responsible forthat degraded and decayed system? If not, Manu can also not be calledthe father of the caste system and can’t be held responsible for thesubsequenterosion of the social system he pleaded for.

A more thoughtless and dangerous statement by Dr. Ambedkaris: If you wish to bring about a breach in the system then you have got toapply dynamite to the Vedas and the Shastras (Annihilation ofCaste).

On the one hand Dr. Ambedkar believes that Vedas do not advocatethe caste system, and instead pleads only for the varna system which he believesto be logical and not despicable, it being a system based on an individual’smerits and performance. On the other he makes a highly improper andprovocative statement urging for the torching nay dynamiting, of the Vedas.How paradoxical the statements are! He has given a call for theextermination of and a complete dissociation with the Vedas, the holyShastras, the Puranas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Geeta. These holy scriptures provide a basis to and are a source ofinspiration for all good values oflife such as righteousness, inquisitiveness, literary and culturalexcellences, civilized and good conduct. Exterminationof the holy scriptures amounts to the demolition of Hindu (Aryan) civilization,culture, religion,et al.

Did Dr. Ambedkar have this as a target in mind? If Dr. Ambedkarhad felt distressed and afflicted in the Hindu fold and had wanted to be outof it, he could have jolly well renounced this faith, walk out of it and lived on as afree man withoutjoiningany particular religious community. But he couldnot, infact, do this without taking recourse to some religious faith either. Consequently he joined the Buddhist fold and came to regard the Buddhist scriptures as the carriers of ultimate truth·- this all in contrast to his callfor the renunciation of Hinduism and Hinduscriptures! Here I would like to refer to aquestion put by Mahatma Gandhi (to Dr. Ambedkar) who wantedto know how one could be a Hindu by disowning the Vedas and Shastras when nobody could be a Muslim by rejecting the Quran and nobody couldbe aChristian by rejecting the Bible.The thinking ofAmbedkar can be compared with the thinking thatsuggests that instead of treating the boils of a diseased person the patienthimselfshould be exterminated.

There is not even a remotely suggestive mention of the castesystemin the Vedas. Dr. Ambedkar admits this. Even so he has criticizedthe Vedas without justification on other counts. He has talked ofexterminating the Vedas rather than acknowledging their worth. Even onhaving converted to Buddhism he continued to deprecate the Vedas andthus defied his preceptor, the Buddha and the Buddhist scriptures in asmuch as they speak very highly of the Vedas and of those who are well-versed in the Vedas, and thus affirm their importance. Here are somequotes in support of this contention.

“विद्वा च वेदेहि समेच्च धम्मम्

न उच्चावचं गच्छति भूरिपज्वो”(Suttanipata – 292)

Mahatma Buddha says ‘The scholar who acquires the knowledgeof righteousness from the Vedas never wavers in life.’

(b)विद्वा च सो वेदगू नरो इध, भवाभवे संगं इमं विसज्जा |

सो वीतदण्हो अनिंघो निरासो अतारि सो जातिं जरोति ब्रूमीति ||(Suttanipata – 1060)

The scholar who bears the knowledge of the Vedas gets disinterestedin life and becomes indifferent to death, becomes devoid of desiresand yearning, and thus having become aimless gets disentangled from thevicious circle of life and death. (other verses supporting the idea inSuttanipata are: 322.458,503,846. I059, etc.)

Dr. Bhadanta Ananda Kausalayana, carrying forward theanti-Manu tradition promoted by Dr. Ambedkar detracts Manu only forthe sake of detracting in his book entitled ‘National Duty’. His thesis in thisbook is shallow in as much as there is neither any logic nor any appealinganalysis. An attempt has been made here to prove bad even what isundoubtedly good through misinterpretation and lopsided presentation.Whereas he resents uncharitable remarks about women made by Manu(ashe believes)he also appears to beanguishedat why the word Pujarha=’worth worshipping’ has been used for women. This amounts to taking thestand: ‘Heads, I win; tails, you lose’. He presents himself as a greatparadox. He is an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi and yet does not accept hisprecepts. He is a Buddhist and yet does not acknowledge the importanceof the Vedas and those who possess the knowledge of the Vedas, as hasbeen made out in the Buddhist literature. He took pride in proclaiminghimself as a non-Hindu (non-Vedic).

All anti-Manu writers have made certain identical remarkswhich make a biased and lopsided appraisal ofthe Manusmriti. They havenot quoted those verses which, being in consonance with the topic in thecontext, are, beyond any controversy, regarded as from the original text.These are the verses which carry charitable and amiable remarks aboutwomen and Shudras. On the other hand, these writers have decried anddisparaged Manu by quoting those verses which are doubtlessly regardedas interpolations. These writers have not cared to resolve the question whythere should be in the same context clearly self-contradictory statements.

And another relevant question is: Why should they have quoted only thecontroversial statements ignoring others? In fact, if these writers had caredto discuss this issue they would have automatically come across the answerto the question. In that case there would have been left no reason forresentment and consequent protest. Instead, a number of misgivings couldhave been avoided.

The position of the Shudras in the Manusmriti

Now let us address ourselves to the most discussed and the mostcontroversial topic regarding the Manusmriti, viz, the position of theShudras as described in the Manusmriti. If we glance even cursorily at the evidence available within the Manusmriti itself we arrive at somebasic and important facts which indicate what Manu’s attitude towards theShudras was.

The Dalits and the Backwards of Today are not among the Shudras.

Nowhere does the Manusmriti talk of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes of today asbeing the Shudras. Manu has giventhe world the varna system, and he determines the varna of a man not onthe basis of his parentage but on the basis of his merits, vocation and capabilities. This is the reason why no community or vocation as such has been included in the Shudra category. The subsequent societies andlater-day system- givers were the ones who named certain varnas and vocations asbelonging to the Shudra category. Some people of unfounded misgivingsare imputing this later development to Manu. Subsequentsocietieswere and are responsible for the degenerated systems but Manu is the one being lashed out at! What asense ofjusticeon the part of the representatives oftheDalits!

Manu’s Definition of Shudranot Applicable to present-dayDalits.

The present day Dalits and Backwards cannot be included in the Shudra category as per definition ofShudra given by Manu. According to him those who have, besides their normal birth, also a second birth calledBrahmajanma {Which takes place on being initiated into receivingeducation at the feet of the teacher for acquiring awareness of the higherreality'(Brahma)} are called dvijas (twice-born), i.e., the Brahmanas,Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Those who do not have the Brahmajanma andthus have only one birth are called Shudras. This means that a child whogoes to his teacher at the time prescribed for receiving education in theVedas and other knowledge passed down orally (with all the formal religious ceremonies performed)and also for receiving training pertinent tohis varna, is born a second time.

This Vidyajanma which has been called Brahmajanma in the holyscriptures is his second birth, However, a child who deliberately or on account of being a dullard or being incapacitated to acquire education and training in any of the three dvijavarnas remain ekjati which means theone having only one birth, a mere natural or Shudra. Besides, the man who, despite having received education and training in anyone of the threehigh varnas does not carry out the prescribed duties and obligations of thatvarna, also becomes a Shudra (See Manusmriti: 2-126,169,170, 72,10-4. etc.)

A couple of quotes from the Manusmriti as evidence to this effectmerit our attention:-

(a) ब्राह्मणःक्षत्रियोवैश्यस्त्रयोवर्णा:द्विजातयः।
चतुर्थएकजातिस्तुशूद्रोनास्तितुपञ्चमः।।(Manu. 10.4)

This means that the three varnas, i.e., the Brahmanas, the Kshatriyasand the Vaishyas are called dvijatis (dvijas, i.e., twice-born) because they have, through education, a second birth also. The fourth varnais ekjati (once-born only) because members of this varna have only onebirth, i.e., the normal birth and do not have a second birth named Vidyajanma. There are no other varnathan these four ones.

(b) शूद्रेणहिसमस्तावद्यावद्वेदेनजायते।(2-172)

It means that unless a man acquires the Brahmajanma (a second birth by undertaking the studies of the Vedas) he continues to remain like aShudra.

It means that the one who is not possessed of the courtesy of doingobeisance to others is a Shudra.

(d)प्रत्यवायेनशूद्रताम् (Manu. 4-245)

It means: A Brahmana becomes a Shudra ifhe joins the companyof depraved and evil-minded people and conducts himselfat their level.This definition of the Shudra continued to remain in operation evenuntil later days.

(e) जन्मनाजायतेशुद्र:,संस्काराद्द्विज् उच्यते|(SkandaPurana)

Every person is born a Shudra. It is onlyon the performance of theUpanayana ceremony laterthat he becomes a dvija(twice-born).This system upheld by Manu is practised on the island of Bali eventoday. There dvijatiand ekjati words are used to distinguish the dvijasfrom the Shudras. However, Shudras are not regarded as untouchablesthere.

Shudras are not Untouchables

A numberofverses in the Manusmriti indicate that Manu had anattitude of humanity, feeling and goodwill towards Shudras and by no meansdid he regard them as untouchable, depraved and hate-worthy. Manu has used for Shudras such epithets as ‘best’, ‘highest’ and ‘cleanest'” And aperson who is described so eulogistically can never be untouchable orhate-worthy, (9-335). Manu has directed Shudras to carry out in the households of dvijas such domestic chores as cooking, and some othermanual and labour-based services(1-91;9·334,335).lf some Shudracomesas a guest to the house of a dvija the latter is directed to serve him meals,(3-112). Heis also directed to take meals only after he has served meals tohis servant” who used to be Shudras in those times (3.)16). Are the servants and domestic helps in a household in the present day varna-free’civilized’society served meals in precedence over the employer? Are they given so much of consideration? How humane, respectful andconsiderate an attitude Manu had!

As per Vedic Varna system Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas andShudras have been metaphorically described to have emerged from themouth, arms, thighs and feet of Brahma (the pramatmapurusha) respectively(1-31). This leads us to three conclusions. Firstly, the membersof all the four varnas are the progeny of God and enjoy equal status. Secondly,when they are all born of the same origin, not even one varnacanbe untouchable or despicable. Thirdly the feet which are organs of thesame body cannot be untouchable or despicable vis-a-vis the other parts. With such verses in the Mamusmriti, can any objective and unprejudicedreader make the observation that Manu regarded Shudras as untouchableand hateworthy?

Special concessions to Shudras in the order of precedence

Manu has given exceptional regard to Shudras in matters of socialrecognition. In the order of precedence prescribed by Manu he accordsrespect and recognition to the first three varnas in proportion to theirmerits. And accordingly the learned are the most respectable (2-111, 112,130). But Manu has shown extra consideration for Shudras and hasprovided that the members of the dvijavarna should show prior respect toan aged Shudra, even though he be illiterate. Such respectfulness for agehas not been extended to any of the first three varnas.

मानार्हःशूद्रोऽपिदशमींगतः।(2-137)

Meaning: All elderly Shudra should be shown respect in precedenceover others who deserve to be respected only on the basis of the merits they possess-the greater the merits the more the respect.

Freedom to Shudras in the observance of religious rules and duties

(a) नधर्मात्प्रतिषेधनम्।(10-126).

It means that the Shudras are not barredfrom the observance of religious ceremonies and rites. In saying so, Manuhas allowed freedom to Shudras to observe religion. The samepoint is also made in the verse in which he says ‘we must imitate goodpoints of conduct found even in a Shudra (2-213). Vedas grant Shudras aclear right ofperformingyajna, and of reading Vedas and Shastras:

यथेमांवाचंकल्याणीमावदानिजनेभ्य: |
ब्रह्मराजन्यभ्यांशूद्रायचार्यायचस्वायचारण|य|| यजुर्वेद – (Yajurveda xxvi-2)

Meaning: I have given the benevolent Vedic sermon for all humanbeings, viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras, women, domestic help and the Shudras of the lowest degree also.

(b)यज्ञियासःपञ्चजनाममहोत्रंजुषध्वम्(Rigveda 10-53-4)

पञ्चजना: =चत्वारोवर्णाः,निषाद: पञ्चमः(Nirukta 3-8)

Meaning: Five classes of people who are entitled to performyajnashould carry out agnihotra. They are the people belonging to the fourvarnasand the fifth are the Nishadas,Manu proclaims that the postulates of the Manusmriti are in conformity with those of the Vedas. Naturally, therefore, Manu’s beliefsand views are also the same as those of the Vedas. That is the reason whywearingofupanayana has not been barred for anyone inthe discussion onthis topic in the Manusmriti. It means that one becomes Shudra only whenone does not undergo upanayana ceremony and remains uninitiated.

Shudras the least liable to punishment as per Manu’s penal code

Now let us have a look at the penal code propounded by Manu. It ishighly improper to suggest that Manu has provided for the Shudras a morestringent code of punishment, and has extended privileges and prerogativesto Brahmans. In Manu’s code merits are the yardstick, and the level ofintelligence, social status, post and position held and the likely socialconsequences of the crime are the fundamental criteria for determiningthe punishment to a wrong-doer. Manu’s code of punishment is just andequitable which is also psychologically effective. If Manu has accordedgreater respect and higher social status to higher varnas, he has alsoprovided for more rigorous punishment in the case of members of these varnaswho commit crimes. Accordingly the Shudra is the least and the Brahmanaamong all the varnas is the most liable to punishment. In case a king isinvolved in a crime he is liable to much more severe punishment.

अष्टापाद्यंतुशूद्रस्यस्तेयेभवतिकिल्बिषम्।
षोडशैवतुवैश्यस्यद्वात्रिंशत्क्षत्रियस्यच।।

ब्राह्मणस्यचतुःषष्टिःपूर्णंवापिशतंभवेत्।
द्विगुणावाचतुःषष्टिस्तद्दोषगुणविद्धिसः

(viii-337,338)

A convict in crimes like theft etc. has to be punished keeping inmind the principle that higher the varna to which he belongs the greater the punishment be meted out to him as there is expected to be greaterunderstanding on his part in respect of the seriousness of the crime, itsconsequences and social implications. Thus a Shudra is to be punished eight times severely, the Vaishya sixteen times,a Kashatriya thirty two times, Brahmana sixty four times; nay, hundred times or even 128 times more severely.

Besides, Manu has also ruled that no person-be it the preceptor,the priest or even the parents of the king should beexempted from thesaid punishment. The king should not let even a friend go scot-free. Ifsome financially well-off convict seeks exemption on the payment of alarge sum of money in lieu ofthe physical punishment due to him he too should not be let offwithout due punishment. (8.335,347)

See how just, practical, result oriented and psychologically effectiveManu’s penal code is! Ifit is juxtaposed with the present day penal code the difference will become clear. The cardinal principleoftoday’scode is: Allare equal in the eyes of law. Its first point of difference with Manu is thatwhereas in it people enjoy social prestige as per their position and status in the public and the government they are liable to only equal punishment.

The second point of difference is that the modem system is not equitable.This unequitable situation can be explained with an illustration. Suppose on trespassing into a field to graze, a lamb, a buffalo or an elephant is eachstruck with one blow of the same slick, what will be its effect on each ofthese animals? The poor lamb will break down and start bleating in pain, the buffalo willjust feel the impact and the elephant won’t even feel that ithas been given a blow. But the question is: Does it really amount to a standard measure of punishment and equitable justice? Equitable justice is that which works in normal day to day life. A he-buffalo can be controlled with just a lathi blow whereas it requires an iron-hook or a goad to tame anelephant or a lion. Let us take another illustration. If it is a question of thepayment of a fine ofRs. 1000/- a poor and penniless person will be able to pay it off with extreme hardship by borrowing the amount on exacting terms and will have to labour for a life time to repay the sum. A manbelonging to middle class will feel the pinch of it but will easily pay it off. But a wealthy person will pay off the fine with a what-do-I- care attitude! It is the result of only this unrealistic and psychologically ineffective penalsystem that whereas the poor get entrapped in the clutches of law, the people with position, pelfand power easily get away with crimes or havethemselves let off on the payment of only monetary fines. It will berevealing to cast a glance at the statistics available as to how many of thepoor and powerless on the one side and how many of the rich andresourceful on the other side have been effectively booked for offences. The latter, if at all they are sentenced, keep on paying off monetary fines foroffences only to repeat them. There is no such imbalance in Manu’s PenalCode which is extremely even handed!

The severity of punishment is perfectly proportionate to the seriousnessof the crime in Manu’s penal code. He provides for rigorous punishmentsfor serious crimes, and for lighter punishments for less serious offences to all varnas without any discrimination, whatsoever. The provision for very harsh punishment especially for the Shudras is in sharp contrast to Manu’spronounced code. Such a provision is to be found only in the spurious verses which were never composed by Manu.

Shudras are not slaves

The statement calling for engaging Shudras in slavery or for notpaying them their wages runs counter to Manu’s well-known instructions.In fact Manu has called upon the kings to give wages to servants anddomestic helps as per their status. He also emphasises that their wagesshould not be deducted without any sufficient and valid reasons. (7·125,126,8-216)

Shudrasare Savarnas

If we referto the Manusmritiin its present interpolated form wecan see a number of provisions made by Manu which have been altered bythe subsequent societies to suit their whims and requirements. Manuregards all the four varnas as savarna and anyone other than the four asnon-savarna. But the subsequent societies started putting the Shudras inthe category of non-savamas. (10-4,45)

Manu includes the artisans, sculptors, etc. among the Vaishyas (3-64,9-329; 10-99-120) but the subsequent society relegated them to the categoryof Shudras. Also, whereas Manu regards agriculture and animalhusbandry as the job of the Vaishyas (1.90) the Brahmanas and Kshatriyaswho have mostly been pursuing these professions have not been acceptedas Vaishyas by the subsequent societies including the present. How canthis categorising be accepted as prescribed by Manu?

Thus we see that the provisions which were really made by Manuare just and equitable. He has not been unfair to the Shudras or, for that matter, to any other varna.

The position of women in the Manusmriti
Women are held in highest esteem

It is clear from the internal evidence of the Manusmriti that theanti-women picture of Manu presented by some is baseless and contrary tothe facts. The provisions concerning women in Manu have been inspired byhis sense of respect, justice and goodwill and his concern for their securityand equality with men. Here are some facts of evidence in support: -Maharshi Manu is the first great man ofthe world to have given thesociety the highest ideal about women which adds remarkably to the dignity’, status and self-respect of women.

यत्रनार्यस्तुपूज्यन्तेरमन्तेतत्रदेवताः।
यत्रैतास्तुनपूज्यन्तेसर्वास्तत्राफलाःक्रियाः|| (3·56)

The correct meaning of the verse is: Gods (who stand for divine qualities, good deeds, sweet nature and blessings for the family, for obedient children and other coveted possessions) make their abode in thehousehold in which women are treated with respect. However, wherethey are not shown any respect, all ventures and undertakings end in smoke. There can be no better proof to show the reverential attitude ofManu towards women than the extremely respectful and beautifuladjectives used for women by him. He says that women in the family are instrumental in bringing good luck to the household; they are respectable; they are illuminating by their very presence and decorative in appearance;they are a symbol of prosperity; they are the mistresses and the solemanagers of the household; they are heavenly in influence; they areconducive to a smooth worldly journey (ix-11, 26, 28; v- 150). He adds that people wishing for their welfare must respect women and that those families and households in which women have to suffer slights, go to dogs.According to him the real happiness and welfare of a household lies in thehappiness and welfare of the women in it (iii-55-62). So he instructs thehusband and the wife in the household to remain happy and satisfied witheach other, not to act against each other and not to indulge in any such activity as may lead to their separation (ix-101·102). Only one verse will suffice to bring out Manu’s feelings.

प्रजनार्थमहाभागा: पूजार्हागृहदीप्तय: ॥

स्त्रिय: श्रियश्चगेहेषुनविशेषोस्तिकश्चन॥ (Manu 1-26)

It means that women bring good luck to a household throughprocreation; they deserve respect and reverence; they irradiate the housewith their presence. In fact there is no difference between the goddess ofwealth and the woman.

Son and daughter have equal status

Those unacquainted with Manu’s code will be pleasantly surprisedto be informed that Manu is the first law-giver to have ordained that sonand daughter enjoy an equal status in the family. He has also given this concept a constitutional validity. He says:पुत्रेणदुहितासमा।(9-130) whichmeans that daughter is at par with son in every respect.

Son and daughter: Equal partners in parental property.

Manu regards both the son and the daughter as equal heirs toparental property. This opinion findsa mention in theManusmriti in chapter ix-130, 192. This very view has been quoted in the Nirukta as follows:-

अविशेषेणपुत्राणांदायोभवतिधर्मत:|

मिथुनानांविसर्गादौमनु: स्वायम्भुवोsब्रवीत्|| (iii-1-4)

Meaning: In the beginning ofthe creation SvayambhuManuordained and declared that there are equal rights for sons and daughters in theancestral parental property. Manu has infact enhanced the importance ofgirls in the house-hold by laying down that only daughters (and not sons)are entitled to inherit the personal property of the mother(ix- 131).

Special instructions for the safety of women’s property:

Manu has ensured that nobody usurps the property of women under the impression that they are weaklings. He has laid down that people makingsuch attempts, howsoever close they may be to the concerned woman, should he given the same punishment as has been prescribed for thieves(ix-2 12; iii-52, viii-2,29).

Stringent punishment for crimes against women

Manu has tried to ensure the security of women by laying down thatthe kidnappers and killersof women should be awarded capital punishmentand the rapists be banished after being tortured (viii-323; ix0232, viii-352).Manu has given clear instructions for the redressal of all difficulties, big or small, facing women. Men have been instructed not to quarrel with their mother,wife and daughter (iv-180). There is a provision for punishment to persons leveling false charges against them; to those deserting women even when they are innocent; to those who fail to fulfill conjugal obligations towardswomen (viii-275,389; ix-4).

Marital Freedom to Women:

Manu has an ideal approach on the subject of marriage of a woman.He has conceded to her the freedom of marrying a man of her choice whoin her opinion is the most suitable for her (ix-90, 91). He has allowedremarriage of a widow and has also sanctioned Niyoga (temporaryattachment to a member of the opposite sex for a definite purpose such asprocreation, etc.) (ix-1 76,56-63). Marriage is a symbol of affection and respect for girls and, therefore, according to Manu dowry in any form ishighly improper and hence forbidden (i ii-51-54). Earnestly wishing for thehappiness of women he suggests that it is better to remain unmarried lifelong than to marry a wicked and vicious man (ix .89).

Joint obligations and woman’s indispensability in the performance of religious rites

The participation which women get in every field of activity enjoyed bymen in India as sanctioned by Vedic religion is of a unique nature and is notto be seen elsewhere. Here no religious rite, no social ceremony and nohousehold venture can be accomplished without women being associated.Manu also has the same creed to propound. So he entrusts the job ofaccomplishing religious rites and ceremonies to women, and gives directions that such rites should not be carried out without theirparticipation (ix- II 28, 96). During the Vedic period women enjoyed allrights such as the right to study the Vedas, right to the wearing ofyajnopavita (sacred thread), right to doyajna (sacrificial ceremony),etc. They used to embellish the position of Brahma (the director) in theyajna ceremony. They would acquire the position of seers (exponents) ofVedic hymns after having received high education. Manu who regarded the

Vedas as being of axiomatic authority in all religious matters was a greatadvocate of high education and all religious rights for women as ordainedin the Vedas. That is why he rules that all the rights relating to womenshould be carried out under their own supervision with the chanting ofVedic hymns by them. (ii-4 ;iii.28)

Preference to women

The admirers of’ladies first’ culture will be gratified to learn thatManu has instructed that we should stepaside to make way for women ona priority basis. He also rules that newly married women, unmarried girls, ailing, expectant and old women should be provided foodfirst and then only should husband and wife in the family take mealstogether.(ii.138; iil.114, 116)Al1these provisions in Manu indicate the highdegree of sense of respect and affection he had for womenfolk.

Manu not in favour of unrestrained freedom to women

It will be only pertinent to clarify in this context that Manu is anadmirer of virtues and a great detractor of vices. So he accords all respectto virtuous ladies and provides for all punishmentstovicious women.

One of the characteristics of these provisions of Manu is that he is not infavour of unlimited liberty for women which may make her unsafe andconsequentially be extremely harmful to her. So he has warned womenagainst jumping the security cover provided to her either by the father or bythe husband or by the son because such a misadventure on her part canbring a bad name to two families, her parents’ and that of herin-laws’ (v-149; ix-56) However, by no means does it mean that Manu isanti-women’s lib. This only implies that the first social requirement ofwomen is security which may be provided to her by the State’s law andorder machinery or by some man or by her own valour. Her own valour, moreoften than not, fails to protect her in a world dominated by sensualtendencies. There are instances to show that even well-armed woman dacoits have required male protection and patronage. However, it will notbe proper to assess Manu’s contentions in the present day politicalperspective. Today there is a law-enforcing government and yet thousands of women have been criminally assaulted and thus compelled togo to the dogs. The rape and subsequent killing of women is the order of the dayand the rule of law is rendered ineffectual. The real import of Manu’swords can be realized vis-a-vis a situation when there is looseness inadministration consequent upon a change in the system of governmentfollowing violent incidents. It is in such a situation that Manu’s words proveto be perfectly true.

This analysis makes it clear that the provisions made by Manu areneither anti-shudra nor anti-woman. They are in fact, extremely fair,just,impartial and even-handed. Manu has said nothing objectionable, nothing exceptionable.

E- Spurious interpolations in the Manusmriti

The aforementioned discussion leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the Manusmriti does have in it a large number of verses carryingnoble canons and commandments. However, it is also a fact that theextremely objectionable verses which anti-Manu writers have beenquoting and underscoring are imputed to Manu and hisManusmriti. Thismakes the scripture a carrier of paradoxes. If the latter type of verseswere also accepted as really from the originalManusmriti it would meanthat the book has in it on the one side just and fair rules and regulations andunfair and treasonable and hence despicable proposals and postulates onthe other. The crucial question is: Is it an acceptable position that a bookshould originally carry in it such paradoxes and self-contradictorystatements and commandments? When there are no apparently self-contradictorystatements in the compositions of even ordinary writers ofaverage intelligence how can there be such paradoxical statements in thewrite-up of such a legal luminary and religiously righteous sage. A plain, simple and incontrovertible explanation to this is one and only one: the justand noble laws and those giving due consideration to a man’s potentialities,actions and abilities are originally written by Manu and those against theseprinciples, and putting a premium on partial, unreasonable and unjustapproach are interpolations added to the Manusmriti from time to time,designed to suit the vested interests of interpolators. This explanation getsupheld as correct and just if we make a reference to the Manusmritiitself. The original verses are contextually relevant and written in a soberstyle which matches with the principle of due consideration for an individual’s merits, actions and potentialities so dearly upheld by Manu.The interpolated verses are written in a different style and are not onlyirrelevant and out of context but also thematically discordant Thus we candetermine which verses are original and which ones are interpolated. Inbrief the following can be stated as guiding principles for telling the originalfrom the interpolated:-

1.The system upheld by Manu is the Vedic Varna system (EvenDr. Ambedkar has accepted this fact). So the verses upholding theprinciple of merit-profession-potentiality are the original ones and thoseagainst it and pleading for parentage and birth as determining factors arethe motivated insertions made subsequently.There were no castes during Manu’s times. That is why Manu does not name any caste as belonging one or the other varna. Keeping this inview the logical conclusion is that the verses upholding the inheritance ofvarnas are the interpolated ones.

The verses relating to the system of due and equitable punishment quoted in the present write-up, which constitute the generallaw, are original. And the verses which talk of discriminatory rigorouspunishment only to some sections are interpolated ones.

Similarly the verses quoted here relating to the definition of Shudras, talking of a charitable attitude towards them, of the performance ofreligious rites by them of possible change from one varna to the other arefrom the original text. On the other hand those which talk of a person beinga Shudra if born of Shudra parents, which talk of untouchability, ofdiscrimination between the high and the low, and those which supportexploitation of weaker sections are interpolated ones.

Again the verses quoted in this article suggesting that women should be given due regard, should enjoy social freedom, have equalitywith men and have the right to education including the right to study the Vedas, are original and those negating these postulates are interpolations.Some readers may be interested in going deep into the question ofwhich verses are original and why, which verses are subsequent motivatedadditions and why. They are urged to refertotheManusmriti (Complete)in Hindi published by the ArshSahityaPracharTrust. 455-.Khari Baoli, Delhi. This book carries an appraisal of the book on the strength of arguments based on internal evidence and tells the original verses from theinterpolated ones on the basis of universally acceptable yardsticks. Thisedition of the Manusmriti will prove very useful in securing informationregarding the original subjects taken up in the scripture for discussion,regarding the interpolated verses clearly stating why they are decisivelyand conclusively interpolated and not original, regarding some of the popular misgivings about the Manusmriti and their resolution in aconvincing manner. This is the latest research on interpolations in theManusmriti. It is essential to make it clear here that the interpolatedverses are no longer a subject of controversy. Instead, they have beenaccepted as such decisively, conclusively and finally. It is a factsupported by written evidence that there motivatedadditions have been made to the ancient Sanskrit literature from time to time. TheMahabharata which originally carried only 10,000 verses has graduallybecomea stupendous volume of about one lakh verses. Today’s Ramayanacarries hundreds more shlokas than those in a hand-written versionwhich is about one thousand years old and which isstilllying preserved inthe Nepalese archives. The Manusmriti is also sailing in the same boat. As a matter of fact a larger number of additions, alterations andinterpolations have been carried out in it. The reason obviously is that it is more related and relevant to the day-to-day conduct and concerns of humanbeings. So it was subjected to manipulations by vested interests. Thescholars of all shades and hues are unanimous on the issue ofinterpolations in the Manusmriti. The commentaries available on it bear adirect testimony to this fact. The later-day commentaries carry a largernumber of verses. There are 170 more verses in Kullukabhatta’scommentary (12th century) than those found in that of Meghalithi (9thcentury). Till then the extra verses in the former had not been assimilatedin the main body of the commentary and so had to be given in largebrackets. There is a variation in the number of verses found in othercommentaries.

* British researchers like Wooler, J.Jolly, Keith and MacDonell andthe Encyclopedia Americana also accept that the Manusmriti carries alarge number of interpolations.

*MaharshiDayanand, the founder of the Arya Samaj regards onlythe original and interpolation-free Manusmriti as authentic. He has pointedout some interpolated verses and has urged scholars to identify other suchverses for expurgating this great work.

*Mahatma Gandhi in his book entitled ‘Varna Vyavastba’ accepts that the objectionable verses found in the Manusmriti are subsequentmotivated insertions. Dr. Radhakrishanan, Dr. Rabindemath Tagore andother national leaders and scholars too are of the same opinion.Hence the need of the hour is that the original Manusmriti shouldbe reckoned as authentic, and the opposition to Manu on the basis ofinterpolated Shlokas should be rebuttedbecause Manu and Mauusmritiare worth taking pride in and not something condemnable. We shouldnot drag such invaluable and important heritage of our country in the dirtypolitics of vested interests, and thus should not desecrate it by subjecting itto indignities and insults.

English, IMP, Veda and Science, Vedic Religion

Vedas: Sources of Science, Spirituality and Healthy Living: Acharya Ashish Arya

April 4, 2016 Rishwa Arya Leave a comment

Vedas: Sources of Science, Spirituality and Healthy Living

(Acharya Ashish Arya , Vaidic Sadhan Ashram,Tapovan,Nalapani,Dehradun, Bharat,India)

The divine knowledge of Vedas was revealed in the beginning of human civilization in the hearts of four Rishis by Almighty, is the basis of both physical as well as spiritual sciences. All the essential knowledge to live happy life in this transitory world and attain the state of total liberation is efficiently given in four Vedas. According to Maharishi DayanandSaraswatiसर्वेषांवेदानाम् ईश्वरे मुख्येsर्थे मुख्यतात्पर्यमस्ति। तत्प्राप्तिप्रयोजना एव सर्व उपदेशाः सन्ति ।(Rigvedadi-Bhashya-Bhumika)means that the main purpose of Vedas is to experience God and become enlightened by knowing the truth.Materialistic and Spiritual knowledge in Vedic hymns is given only for this very purpose. Hence, the primary object of physical sciences as well is to understand Creator through His well-designed creation. Some glimpses of physical sciences in Vedas are mentioned below with references and evidences. Some of which are even unknown to modern science today. For instance–

As is well known, there is yet no definite theory about the birth of the moon in modern science.

As per modern view, the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. Other smaller planetary bodies were also forming. One of these hit earth late in Earth’s formation process, blowing out rocky debris. A fraction of that debris went into orbit around the Earth and aggregated to form moon.

However, According to Vedas the birth of our nearest neighbor and the earth’s only natural satellite is described in the mantra of the famous AsyaVamasyaSukta, which gives almost an eyewitness account of the phenomenon, which brought the moon in existence.

सा बीभत्सुर्गर्भरसा निविद्धा नमस्वन्त इदुपवाकमीयु:|| (Rig. 1.164.8)

The mantra clearly illustrates that our neighbormoon is partof mother earth, which wasdisembodied. The earth, which was upright in the beginning and full of liquid mass at a high temperature and pressure and was constantly pierced by the fierce radiation of the sun, which produced a tremendously high pressure.Due to that high pressure the basic fluid material, by the immense force of the sun’s gravity and its own internal pressure burst out as moon at a suitable point in the earth’s orbit.

That the moon is the child of the earth with the sun as his father is confirmed by another mantra of Rigveda, in which the moon himself describes his own parentage.

द्यौर्मे पिता जनिता नाभिरत्र बन्धुर्मे माता पृथ्वी महीयम् (Rig. 1.164.33)

(The sun is my father, the progenitor; here is my navel. This great earth is my mother and ‘bandhu’ or one who binds me in bonds of affection).

2.सप्त वीरासो अधरा… ॥ Rig. 10.27.15॥According to the Veda, the total number of planets of the solar system are 10, including the asteroid belt. Out of these, the first seven came out of the sun and the last three were captured by the sun from outside by its strong gravitational field. Out of the last three, the eighth came from above, the ninth from behind and tenth from the front of the sun as it went about in its orbit around the Centre of the galaxy and the first seven plants went around the sun in their respective orbits.(Courtesy: The Cosmic Yajna by Dr.M.L.Gupta)

In addition, Millions of years before Copernicus’ discovery Holy Vedas revealed this scientific truth that the earth revolves around the sun which is clearly stated in the hymn given below.

आयं गौ: पृश्निरक्रमीद …॥(Yaj. 3/6)॥This Earth with its oceans revolves in the space around the Sun.

Moon is illuminated by Sun Light ॥Rig. 1.84.15॥ ॥Rig.10.85.9॥

Solar eclipse॥Rig. 5.40.5॥

In Atharva Veda total age of the universe (duration of one creation) is given

शतं तेs युतं हायनान् द्वे युगे त्रीणि चत्वारि … ॥Atharv. 8.2.21॥I, Creator of the cosmos creates the beautiful universe for you. Having the duration of an Ayuta(ten thousand) multiplied by a Shata( a hundred).Thus totaled ten lac a Prayuta, A million, in figure 10,000,00. Then place the digits of 4, 3 and 2 serially before the figure of ten lac (10, 000, 00) making it 432, 0000,000 years. Thus, the total duration of the universe is Four billion, thirty-two crore years.

Rigveda 1-50-4 speaks about the high speed of the light and states that the Sun quickly pervades the whole world. In the commentary on this mantra Saayanaacharyawrites : “It is remembered that the sunlight travels two thousand two hundred and two(2,202) Yojnas in half a Nimesha. According to this speed of light is 187083.97852863=187084 miles/second.

Thus the modern value of 1,86,000 miles/second for the velocity of light is close to the above value. “Saayana” wrote his commentary in the 15^th century AD, while the modern science finds out the velocity of light in 20^th century. This is praiseworthy for Vedic science.

Medical Sciences in Vedas: In eleventh chapter of Atharva Veda (11.4.16), there is mention of four kinds of Therapy: 1. Psychotherapy, 2. Naturopathy,3. Drug Therapy, 4. Surgical Therapy

114 hymns in Atharva Veda are devoted to the medical subjects. For instance –Gulgulu, bdellium,olibanu for Tuberculosis (Atharv. 19/38/1)

Dark-ColouredRajani plant (Curcuma Longa Lim) for Leprosy (Atharv. 1/23/1)

Cheepudru (PinusLongifoliaRoxb) for mental disturbance,tumors in arm-pit , pain in bone joints (Atharv. 6/127/2-3)

Arundhati (Soymidafebrifuuga) for bone fractures i (Atharv. 4/12/1)

Pippali (Piper Longum Linn) for the Insane and the patient with Rheumatism (Atharv.6/109/11) etc.

There are so many Ved mantras, which deal with the art of building ships and Aircrafts.we should think of Sh. Shivakar Bapu ji Talpade, An Indian Vedic Scientist , who utilized the ancient knowledge of Vedas, to fly an unmanned aircraft up to height of 1500 ft., eight years before his foreign counterparts.Please click the given link below, to know how this modern world is wholeheartedly accepting the glory of ancient Vedic scriptures,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgcIpoOowL4#t=15

Email: ashish.tapovan@yahoo.co.in

TapovanAshram,Nalapani,Dehradun