Tag Archives: pt Dharmadev Vidyamartand




Author : Pt Dharmadev Vidyamartand

Besides discussing the notions of transmigration of soul and theory of action, we will discuss in this chapter, whether there was magic, drinking, gambling, and polygamy during the Vedic Age.


An impression is sought to have been created by the authors of the Vedic Age that the Vedic Aryas had neither definite knowledge of the transmigration of soul nor were they interested in its theoretical aspects.

For instance it is written in this book:-

“ As the Rigvedic Aryas were full of the “Joíe de viver” (joy of life), they were not particularly interested in the life after death, much less had they any special doctrines about it. We can, therefore , glean only a few notices of life beyond, that are scattered throughout the Rigveda. In our search for any reference implicit or explicit, to rebirth or transmigration, we come across only a few doubtful passages. According to R.V.1.164.30, the soul (Jivah) of the dead one moves in its own power; the immortal one having a common origin with the mortal one (the body). But this transmigration is not certain.”

“So we may conclude that only the germs of the conception of rebirth were there, and those developed either naturally or through the influence of ideas current among the original tribes with whom the Aryans came into contact”

But careful perusal of the text will show that there are clear references to soul and its transmigration in the Vedas.

In Rigvedas it is clearly stated that the soul which inhabits this ephemeral body, is eternal, permanent and true:

rig 6.9.4

(“Behold this (individual spirit) the first being which enjoys (consequence of his actions) as it is the immortal light placed within the mortal frame. That has manifested itself. This immortal soul is staying (in the body) while it seems growing with the growth of its body.”

The theory of rebirth also finds expression in the following mantra from the Rigveda:-

rebirth in rigveda

(May I have glance at the indestructible Lord of the sense organs (i.e. the individual soul) which ever walk, through the pathways of coming (birth) and departure (death); it traverses its path with its body and even without it and having covered itself with its actions (i.e. in accordance with its good and evil actions), it comes (takes birth) again and again in the various worlds.”


The relation of soul with God and difference between the two have been clearly enunciated in the following mantra:-

rig 1.64.20

(Like two birds, there are two spirits i.e. the finite and the Supreme which, knit with the bonds of friendship, reside on the same tree (of the material universe). One of the twain (i.e. the finite spirit)

enjoys the sweet ripe fruit (and also the bitter one) produced by his good or bad actions, whereas the other (i.e. the Supreme Spirit) simply looks all around without enjoying its fruitage.”


There is clear description of the soul incarnating itself in different bodies according to one’s own actions:-

soul 1

“O individual soul! in accordance with thine actions, thou assumes the form of a woman and that of a man, sometimes thou becomes a virgin, thou walkest with the help of 21 staff when thy body becomes old and frail, thou takest birth again and again as thy face is turned towards all directions (in accordance with thy actions).

soul 2

(This individual soul, sometimes it becomes their father and sometimes their son too, and sometimes becomes their elder brother and sometimes it even becomes their younger brother. Verily, the one self of luminous soul dwelling within the mind, has taken birth before and verily it again enters the womb of the mother.)

soul 3

(O God of life, please give us eyes again in our future life and give us breath, in this world and confer on us all necessary objects of enjoyment; O most Gracious Being! May we see the rising sun for  a long time, be kind upon us and give us blessings,)

In the following mantra from Yajurveda (4. 1 5), a devotee plays to God for a good life in the birth to come:

yajurveda 4.15

(May I receive, through the grace of God, my mind again in future life, may I have life again, may I get breathe again, may my soul return again and may I be the possessor of eyes and ears again in future life; may Self Refulgent God, keep us safe from misfortune and dishonor.)

In Atharva Veda, the use of स उ जायते पुन: most certainly confirms the Vedic theory of transmigration of soul:

soul 4

(The individual soul wanders within the womb of mother and takes birth again and again in bodies of intelligent persons. It exists in past, present and future; when it becomes a father, it again enters into the body of a son with the powers of his actions.)

Reproduced below are two mantras from Atharveda in this connection:-

soul 5

(May the earth give us birth again and may the shining heavenly region and the atmosphere restore the same to us; may Soma, All Creating God, give us body again (after our death) and may the All Nourishing God, lead us on the path of peace and happiness.)

And also:-

soul 6.1

soul 6.2

(May I again receive my sense organs in my future life and may I receive my spirit, together with worldly possessions and knowledge Divine so that I may perform fire-offering on the altars and may ever attain prosperity.) `


In Vedas there is a great emphasis on action and industry. lt is clearly mentioned in the vedas that one cannot achieve progress and prosperity through mere performance of yajnas, singing euologies to God or offering prayers to him.

The Vedic Age, however, seeks to create an impression that devotees have been instructed in the Vedas to seek more and more gifts from God by flattering songs and ritualistic sacrifices.

But this is not true. For instance, it is clearly mentioned in the Rigveda that God never befriends a person Who avoids hard work or industry :

rig 4.33.15

ln Yujurveda, there is clear instruction to desire a long life full of action:

soul in yajur


In Vedic Age, very serious allegation has been made against the Rishis :-

“Absence of evil is not what they pray for. Their supreme desire is to triumph over poverty and resistance”

In the 97th  hymn of the First mandala of the Rigveda, there are 8 mantras, each of which ends with अप न: शोशुचदघम (O God destroy our sins). Some of these mantras are reproduced below:-

prayer 1

(O God, may we become yours. Destroy our sins.)

prayer 2

(May with Thy mercy, O Omnipresent Lord, all our sins be destroyed -may we never commit sins again).

prayer 3

(Just as sea is crossed through ship, may we cross this miserable world through Thy Grace – May our sins be destroyed.)


Of many misconceptions about the Vedas propagated by the authors of Vedic Age, one pertains to polygamy.

It is written in the Vedic Age:-

“The Rigveda certainly permits polygamy, though monogamy may have been the rule. Whether monogamy developed from polygamy in the Rigvedic Age as Zimmer thinks in “Altindísche Leben “, or whether polygamy is secondary as Weber believes in “Indische Studeíern” cannot be decided-Probably polygamy, though allowed, was practically confined to the “Rajanya” class. Polyandry is not referred to anywhere in the Rigveda.”

It may be stressed that monogamy is considered best in the Vedas. Some of the mantras indicating this ideal have also been referred in the Vedic Age which also acknowledges that monogamy was the rule though polygamy was allowed. For instance, in Rigvedas 1.124.32 and 1O.74.4  जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासा: means knowledge reveals itself to the scholars, just as a woman draped in her best attire, presents herself before her husband. It may also be mentioned here that the words जाया and पत्या are both singular in number and, therefore, clearly indicate monogamy.

In the following mantra from the Rigveda God has been compared to a “chaste woman” of a noble character :

rigvedic god

(He who is like the sun, the supporter of the universe, who abides on earth like a king with good friends, who is like heroes at home- and who is like the irreproachable Wife, beloved of her husband.)

In the following mantra from Rigveda, one of the four comparisons which have been made to express a devotee’s desire for God to turn to him is that of a husband for wife :-

rigveda god 1

“As kine turn to the Village, as warriors to their steeds, as loving milk-giving cows to their calves, a husband to the Wife, so may the Deity, the Upholder of the heavens, Lord of all Bliss, turn towards us”.

In the hymn about marriage in Rigveda (10.85.30) a bride is enjoined to work for the happiness and pleasure of her husband :-

rig 10.85.30

(Shining like the sun, oh, bride, full of tapas, ascend this chariot and go to thy husband”s home to add to His pleasure and happiness.)

In the following mantra, the bride has been blessed to live with her husband and never be separated :

rigveda god 2

(May you always live together happily in your home-may you lead a happy, prosperous married life.)

In the following mantra both husband and wife make a declaration that their hearts will be united with each other like water which is cool and peaceful.)

rigveda god 3

ln the following mantra, the Wife says to her husband :

rigveda god 4

(Establish me firmly in your heart. May our hearts be united.)

rigveda god 5

(May you be mine entirely. May you never even praise other women in my presence.) ‘

The following mantras may also be quoted in support of this Vedic ideal of polygamy :

rig 14.2.64

In these mantras also, there is an instruction to the couples to love each other like “chakva-chakvi ” (love birds) and use sweet words for each other.)

Because of a few similies in the Rigveda, the authors of the Vedic Age have tried to establish the existence of polygamy during the Vedic period which is very erroneous. A large number of quotations against polygamy in the vedas render such interpretations infructuous.

For instance, take the following mantra, in which a person, tortured by the worldly agonies, has been compared to a person annoyed or troubled by co-wives :-


And also in the following mantra, it is written that a person, having two wives, is pressed from both sides like a neighing horse driving a chariot which is pressed between two spokes :-

two spokes

While there is provision for only one marriage in the Vedas, in exceptional cases, “Niyoga” (temporary alliance of wife with a stranger), is permitted with a limited purpose.


Vedic Age describes dice playing as one of the principal amusements of the Vedic period. It says :-

“Dice was another amusement. The number of dice, the method of dice playing and the names of the throws are all described in detail in the various texts of this (Yajur Veda) period A ritual game of dice is played at the Agnyadheya and the Rajasuya  cennonies – so gambling is probably sought to be restricted by elevating racing and dicing to the rank of religious ceremonies.”

The book has, however, failed to mention where the details of dice playing have been given in Yajurveda. We cannot believe in what they say unless they produce some evidence in support of their contention. Such an evidence is impossible to produce. (because it is not there at all.)

Moreover there is another reason for not believing them because what they have said is quite contrary to the injunctions against gambling in the hymn l 0.34 of the Rigveda (which is entirely devoted to this subject). ln some of the mantras of this hymn, it is clearly stated that gambling bums the heart of a person like the charcoal which though apparently cool from outside, is potentially destructive.

lt is also said that the family members of a gambler-his parents, Wife, brother etc, also disown him when he runs into debt because of this game :

gambling 1

In the end there is clear instruction against gambling in the most unequivocal terms : अक्षौर्या दिव्य (O man, no gambling.)

A gambler is told that he would enjoy the blessings and pleasures of the family life only when he earns money by industry, by such work as agriculture :


It there is a provision anywhere for gambling or dice playing on the occasion of some Yajnas, it should be considered only as an interpolation without the sanction or authority of the vedas; it is, therefore, unauthentic and without merit.

One might say that even a highly religious man like Yudhistira used to gamble. But does it go to prove that gambling is a meritorious thing? We may recall what Lord Krishna had told him: if he were in Dwaraka he would never have let him indulge in this game asserting that its consequences are disasterous :

mahabharat 5

mahabharat 6

In these shlokas he counts gambling among the four vices which destroy a man’s beauty and his wealth (the other three being women, hunting and drinking).


Vedas have clearly instructed against drinking in the same way as against gambling.

Among the seven vices (even one of which makes a man sinner) is also drinking :

drinking 1

Yaskacharya has described these seven vices as follows in Nírukta :

drinking 2

(Theft, corruption, killing of righteous persons, abortion, falshehood, repeating a bad action and drinking.)

In Rigveda there is a mantra which described how the men who drink do not feel ashamed even in undressing themselves and looking at each other in naked bodies.

drinking 3

Drinking and gambling have been described in Rigveda as actions which lead to अधर्म (unrighteousness).

drinking 4

In Atharva Veda (6.7O. 1) meat eating, drinking and gambling have been placed in the same category and described as condemnable and prohibited :-

drinking 5

It is alleged in the “Vedic Age” that the risis remained intoxicated under the influence of “soma” which was misunderstood as a kind of a liquor.

In fact, the word Soma सोम: which occurs in the following mantras stands for God, who is described as the producer of all herbs, water, firmament, earth, sky, fire, sun and air illuminator and Master of the whole universe and Omnipresent.

Addressing God a devotee says; “King of this entire Universe, O Lord, Thou who art, Omniscient and Knower of everything and Repository of all virtues and Father of all “devas° purify me :

drinking 6

Can even an idiot take the word “Soma ” for a herb or a medicine in this context? There is not an iota of doubt that this word has been used only for God because He alone is and can be Omnipresent, Omniscient and the Master of the universe.

While the word ‘Soma ‘ has been used for God, at times it is also meant to denote affectionate devotion to God which is coupled with the true knowledge of His attributes. For instance, in Rigveda’s 9.108.1, it is stated:

rig 9.108.1

Here ‘soma ` is described as spiritual intoxication induced by true devotion(इन्द्राय क्रतु वितभो ).

This spiritual intoxication is naturally different from the intoxication induced by liquor or drinks.

In Rigveda and Samveda, the word soma has been described thus :-

drinking 7

(This soma which is full of sweetness ( मधुमान) is purifier( पावक: ) inducer of virtues ( देवावी ) and destroyer of all impure sentiment’s ( अधं शंसहा )

lt is clear from the above that this soma is not used for simple liquor but Spiritual intoxication which results from devotion, knowledge and purification.

In the same Vedas, Soma has been invoked for purification, strength and intellects :

drinking 8

Such a description of the ordinary liquor, which pollutes the intellects, is quite incongruous.

The following mantra, which occurs both in the Rigveda as well as Samaveda, gives a very clear cut account of Soma :

drinking 9

(O, Soma, the Illuminater  and Purifier, Thou proclaim-est immortality for all.)

This mantra leaves in no doubt about the true meaning, rather nature, of Soma-which is a declaration of Conquest over death (i.e., immortality).

The following mantras, from Rigveda also confirms that besides God, the word “Soma` means spiritual intoxication :-

drinking 10

ln the above mantras the word `soma’ has been described as giver of Peace, purifier, born of Truth and embodiment of knowledge etc.

Hundreds of mantras can be quoted to prove that the meaning of the word ‘ Soma” as interpreted by contributors to the Vedic Age is completely wrong. Their contention that the Risis remained drunk all the times is, therefore, completely baseless.





meaning of arya


Author : Pt Dharmdev Vidyamartand 

Western scholars have repeatedly said in their works that Aryas came from outside (most probably from Middle Asia) and committed a lot of atrocities on aborigins (Dravidians) who were called by Aryas as “Das “ or “Dasus ” or Anaryas.

Their view also finds its echo in the “Vedic Age” in which it is stated : “The Aryan invaders or immigrants found in India two groups of people, one whom they named the ‘Dasas ‘or ‘Dasyus ‘, and the other, ‘Nishadas ‘.”

Who are Aryans? Do Aryans form any race? First of all we will try to find out the real meaning of the word Arya. This word has been defined thus in Rigveda’s 10.65.11 :

rig 10.65.11

(Aryans are those, who practice on this earth, the vows of truth, non-violence, purity etc.) The word आर्य comes from the root ऋ which means गति प्रापणयो. According to this root, Aryas are those who have acquired knowledge, who are ever marching towards the path of progress and properity and who are actively engaged in God realisation.

sanskrit dictionary

(i.e. Arya means one who is respectable, revered, religious minded, a generous person, who is above the considerations of caste, creed and colour, who is self-poised and quiet because of implicit faith in God, who always follows the righteous path and never swerves from what is just and right, who is conscientious in performance of his duty and who avoids all that is sinful and unethical or immoral.)

Mahabharat has thus defined the “Arya”:

mahabharat arya

(He is Arya who does not inflame the hatred or jealousy once subsided, who is neither egoistic nor depressed, who does not commit sin even in misery, who does not show too much happiness even in prosperity or gets out of control; who never takes delight in others” troubles and who never regrets after giving anything in charity.)

It is clear that anybody who embodies these qualities is, आर्य irrespective of what family, society or country he belongs to or Whether his colour is black, white or wheatish.

According to Maharshi Vyas, an Arya manifests eight qualities which are :

vyas and arya

(That man is Arya who is a man of knowledge, ever-contented, self-controlled, truthful, disciplined, charitable, kind hearted and polite.)

In Nirukta Maharshi Yashka has defined the word आर्य as ईश्वरपुत्र (the son of God). The word आर्य means स्वामी (Master) परमेश्वर (God). (अर्य, स्वामी वैश्ययो: ) Thus, one who is the real son of God and obeys His commands, is आर्य. In Vedas, Upanishadas, Ramayana, Mahabharat and Gita, the word आर्य is used for a gentleman and dasyu दस्यु for the wicked.

ln Balmiki Ramayana, Narada uses the word Arya for Rama :

valmiki ramayan and arya

(Rama was religious minded, a man of pure living, looking at everybody with equal eyes and lovable like moon.)

Keeping all this in view Sri Aurbindo said :

“The word Arya expresses a particular ethical and social order of well-governed life, candour, courtesy, nobility, straight dealing, courage, gentleness, purity, humanity, compassion, protection of the weak, liberality, observance of social duties, eagerness for knowledge, respect for the wise and the learned and the social accomplishments.

“There is no word in human speech that has a nobler history. The Arya is he who strives and overcomes all outside him and within him that stands opposed to human advance. Self-conquest is the first law of his nature. He overcomes mind and its habits and he does not live in a shell of ignorance, inherited prejudices, customary ideas, pleasant opinion, but knows how to seek and choose, to be large and flexible in intelligence even as he is firm and strong in his will, for in everything, he seeks truth and freedom.

“The Arya is a Worker and a warrior. Always he fights for the coming of the kingdom of God within himself and the world.”


The word dasyu दस्यु has its root as दसु  उपक्षये Giving its deravative meaning Yaskaracharya writes in Nirukta (7.23) :

nirukta 7.23

(He is Dasyu who has very few virtues and who causes obstruction to good actions like the performance of the Yajnas)

In the Vedas, Dasyu has been described as follows :

veda and dasyu

(Dasyu is one who is cruel, hard,selfish, and who entertains thoughts of falsehood, violence, theft, deception etc.)

In Rigveda 10.65 .11  Dasyu has been stated as one who has no faith in the existence of God; but is dacoit, a thief, on betrayer of confidence, foolish, licentious, aggressor, obstructor of good deeds, selfish etc :

veda and dasyu 1

There is a great emphasis in the Vedas on the elimination of such Dasyus as they are a great threat to the society.

In Rigveda l.ll7.3 the adjective used for Dasyus is आशिवस्व (who creates trouble and causes misery). In Rigveda 4.l 6.9) दस्यु, has been described as मायावान अब्रह्मा दस्यु: (who indulges in deception and self-deception) who has no faith in the teachings of the Vedas and who is narrow-minded.

It is clearly stated in the Vedas that the difference between the Aryas and Dasyus is mainly because of their respective actions. No discrimination is, otherwise, made on the ground of caste or creed etc.

There is also instruction इन्द्र (or a king) to purify the Dasyu and uplift him forgiving his past sins.

In the followqing mantra from Rigveda (6.22. lO) for instance, it is clearly stated :

rig 6.22.10

(O. Indra, you have the power to uplift the Dasyus engaged in obstructing the religious acts and make them Arya i.e. noble, religious minded, dutiful and men of noble character.)

In the Vedas the idea of uplifting of the impure and converting all the people of the world into Aryas occurs repeatedly at several places, Here are three mantras embodying this idea :-

veda and dasyu 2

(In the first mantra righteous truthful scholars have been asked to uplift( उन्नयथ) those who are fallen

( अवहितम) and to inject new life ( पुनःजीवयथ ) in those who have committed sins or crimes ( आग: चक्रुषम् ) In the second mantra, God ordains the righteous to convert the whole universe into Arya by increasing their own will power and acquiring knowledge and wealth, by being active and freeing themselves from all selfishness and narrowness. कृण्वन्तोविश्वमार्यम is the motto of all the Aryas.

In accordance with this motto, it is the duty of all Aryas to make every effort to tum Dasyus into Aryas.

In the third mantra, a devotee prays to God, “O the preserver of noble persons, either you keep away from us those who are वृजिनम (sinners), स्तेनम(thieves) or let them also tread the righteous path.”

From these instructions and prayers, it is clear that Aryas tried to bring even Dasyus into their fold, but if they found them to be too wicked and harmful for the society as a whole, they considered it to be their duty to eliminate them. while defining Arya or Dasyus Vedas never took into consideration the lineage of a person as is clear from the following mantra :-

veda and dasyu 3

(O, the noble among the people, Indra, you destroy both the types of enemies- first, who by nature, put obstruction to performance of good deeds or those who, though born in good families, deviate from the righteous path and start indulging in low actions.

It has been rightly observed in Mahabharata that Dayus belong to all Varnas and Ashramas:-

mahabharat and dasyu

lt is thus clear that to regard Dasyus, Dasas and Panins to be of different race from Aryas and to believe that they were the original inhabitants of India, is absolutely without foundation. There is also no truth in the contention that Vedas express any feeling of animosity towards them.

If at some places such words as असिक्नीत्वचम्  have been used for them, they are not meant to be taken literally. If we take them in their proper context, they would be found to have a figurative meaning.

Even when the word “black” has been used for Dasyus the  reference is to those who are पाणी (पणव्यवहारे) selfish, अक्रतून (who have no faith) and अयज्यून(who do not perform Yajna (Rjgvedas 7.6.3).

Zardushta says in Ustavaiti :-

“That I will ask thee, tell me it right, thou living God, who is religious and who the impious, after who l wish to inquire, who of the two has the black spirit and who the bright one? Is it not right to consider the impious man who attacks me and thee, to be a black one.”

Now in the above quotation, the wicked persons have been firstly described as ‘black spirit’ and later indentified as black. Such figurative use of the word “black” “convinces us that it does not always denote colour of one’s skin rather his character.

The difference between the “Aryas` and the “Dasyus” was based on their qualities, actions and temperament and not on “racial differences”. Even Dasyus could become Aryas by reforming themselves.

Such admission has also been made atleast once in Vedic Age” itself:

“Atleast one Dasa Chief, however, named Balbuth had adopted Aryan culture and even patronised Brahmín singers and risis.”

We do not agree with the historical aspect of this episode. We have given this quotation only to drive home the point that Aryans had not come from outside.

In this context the authors of the Vedic Age comment :

“It is significant that as a rule, Indra himself has been made to combat the Dasa priest on his own initiative and not in the course of rendering merely routine assistance to Aryan chiefs. For it shows

that even in the heyday of Rigvedic culture, there was no longer a living memory of the first encounter with the aboriginal races”

The truth of the matter is that there were no such racial wars between India and dasyus or dasas. Aryans had not come from outside. They were the inhabitants of this country.

Says Swami Dayanand in his book “The Light of Truth.”

“No name had been given to this country (India) before and no one lived in it till the Aryas came to it from Tibet soon after the creation”

Dealing with the beliefthatflryas had come from Iran and the Rakshas lived in jungles before and that Aryas used to consider themselves as Devatas and there were battles between Aryas and Asuras (known as “Devasur Sangram), he further asserts :

“This is absolutely incorrect because Aryas and Asuras have been depicted in the Rigveda as :-

rig 1.51.8

(i.e. Aryas are those who are religious minded, learned and noble while Asuras or Dasas are those who are wicked, irreligious and ignorant.)

P.T. Srinivas, a well-known South Indian scholar, has also maintained in his book “Dravídian Studies ” that the “Difference between the ”Aryas” and “Dasyus’ is not racial out based on their respective qualities, actions and temperament”

He writes :-

“The Aryas and Dasyus or Dasas are referred to not as indicating different races ……… ..The words refer not to race but to cult ……. . .The Dasyus are without rites, fireless, non-sacrificers, without prayers, without rites, haters of prayers. Thus the difference between Aryas and Dasyus was not one of race, but ofcult.”

V.R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, another South Indian scholar, says :

“The fact is that the Dasyus were not non-Aryans. The theory that the Dasyus – Dravidians inhabited the Panj ab and the Ganges valley at the time of the so-called Aryan invasion of India, and overcome by the latter, they fled to South India and adopted it as their home cannot stand. To say that all India was a wild country once, and that it was civilized by the invading Dravidians first and by the invading Aryans next, cannot carry conviction home ……….. .

“In the same way we have to took upon the theory of the Dravidian race. If the Aryan race theory is a myth, the theory of the Dravidian race is a greater myth. The word Dravida is the name for the speakers of a group of South Indian languages, Tamil, Malayalam, Kanarese and Telugu.”

Muir is among the Western Scholars who have written quite a lot on “Aryas” “Dasyus” or Dravidians.

In Original Sanskrit Texts (Vol. II p. 387) Muir writes :

“I have gone over the names of Dasyus orAsuras mentioned in the Rigveda with the view of discovering whether any of them could be regarded as of non-Aryan or indigenous origin, but I have not observed anything that may appear to be of this character.”

German scholar Max Muller writes about Dasyus :-

“Dasyu simply means enemy; for instance, Indra is praised because he destroyed the “Dasyu” and protected the Aryan colour.”

At another place writing about मातुधान and राक्षस he writes :-

“They (the epithets) are too general to allow us the inference of any etymological conclusions.”

The expression “Aryan” was also given currency by him but in the later years of his life in 1888, he writes :-

“I have declared again and again that if I say Aryan, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language ………… . To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar”

Famous compiler of the Sanskrit Dictionary Roth says :-

“lt is but seldom, if at all, that the explanation of ‘Dasyu’ as referring to the non-Aryans, the barbarians, is advisable.”

In his book “Brief View of the Caste System of the North West Provinces and Oudh”, another Western scholar Nesfield clearly writes :-

“There is no division of the people as the Aryan conquerors of India and the aborigines of the country; that division is modem and that there is essential unity of the Indian races. The great majority of

the Brahmins are not of lighter complexion or of finer or better red features than any other caste or distinct in race and blood from the scavangers who swept the roads.”

Likewise many other quotations can be given to prove that some Western scholars themselves have contradicted the theory of racial differences between the Aryas and the Dravidians.


Most people hold the view that South Indian languages like Tamil, Kannda, Malyalam, and Telugu, which are collectively known as Dravidian languages, have no genetic connection with the Sanskrit language; that they are completely two sets of independent languages. This view supported and encouraged by many Western scholars for extraneous reasons, is not true. This view in fact had been mostly propagated by those who wanted to create misunderstanding and animosity among the people of the North and the South, between Dravidians and the Aryas.

For instance, South Indian scholar Tamby Pillai quoting Dr. Taylor, writes in “Tamilían Antíquary” (Vol. II No. 2)

“It was proved years ago by Dr. Taylor that a TAMILIAN Language now represented by its most cultivated branch in the South Tamil constituted the original staple of all the languages of India. The existence of a Tamilian substratum in all the modem dialects of India and of the profound influence, which the classical Tamil has exercised on the forrnation and development of both the Vedic and classical Sanskrit, is gradually coming to be recognised by students of Indian philosophy.”

Almost similar view has been expressed by Dr. Gundert and other Western scholars like Rhys Davids.

T.S. Shesh Iyangar, writes in his book “The Ancient Dravidians”:-

“Prof. Rhys Davids in his book “Buddhist India” commenting on the evolution of the Aryan languages of India maintains that the Vedic Sanskrit is largely mixed up With primitive Dravidían.”

But we consider such views to be thoroughly incorrect and ridiculous. With so many Sanskrit words to be found in Bangla, Gujarati, Marathi, Panjabi and Pali, we think it is unnecessary to prove that the mother of all these languages is Sanskrit. It is no less blasphemous to consider any of the South Indian languages, even Tamil, to be the origin of these languages.

I had the opportunity of living in South for over 20 years.

During the course of my stay there, I applied myself to the learning of these languages.

On the basis of my study I have no hesitation in saying that so many words in these languages have their origin in Sanskrit.


Some of the Kannad words which are purely Sanskrit words are :-

kannad and sanskrit

There would be no exaggeration in saying that 75% of words in Telugu version of the Mahabharata are originally Sanskrit words. Some of the Telugu words which have actually been taken from Sanskrit are :

telagu and sanskrit

To call such a language (which is full of Sanskrit words) as an independent Dravidian language and to say it has no links with Sanskrit, is very erroneous. Unfortunately people in North India,

who are not acquainted with South Indian languages, are easily misled by such false notions.


In Malyalam language there are more Sanskrit words than even in Kannad and Talugu.

Former speaker of the Lok Sabha the late Anant Shayanam Ayanger, had once rightly obseved :-

“The Sanskrit was the fountain head of all Indian languages. All Indian languages were offshoots of Sanskrit. Bengali and Telugu have about 75% Sanskrit words, while Malayalam about 90 percent. The only change was that the Sanskrit words have been absorbed with slight changes here and there.”

Some of the Malyalam words, which have their origin in Sanskrit, are :-

malyalam and sanskrit

It is also said that Tamil has an independent language having no relation with Sanskrit. To illustrate this, reference been has been Kamban Ramayana.” But it is merely an illusion. Not only in modem but also in old Tamil literature, there are many Sanskrit words. The colloquial Tamil language is also full of Sanskrit words. If we read “Kamban Ramayan ” carefully, we will find that there are many Sanskrit words in their distorted form.

In the ancient Tamil Sastra “विरूधवे”, there are many Sanskrit words like नीराह (which means to take bath etc) In नालार तिरुवाम भाषी which is considered to be Tamil Veda, there are many Sanskrit words like नैटटेकरने तिरुवाम माषी etc.

प्रकाश (light) आनंद (happiness) पूर्ति (fulfilment) are all pure Sanskrit words. In daily language also जलम{(for water) and आम(for yes) are actually Sanskrit words. Likewise many more such words can be added.

Because of shortage of alphabets in the Tamil language, Sanskrit words which find their place it it, cannot be written. This is why separate script has come into existence for Sanskrit words.

In Tamil words like नगर (town) शिव धनुष (Shiva’s arrow) अतिशोध्र(very fast)  जनकपुत्री(Janak’s daughter)  विवाह(marriage) प्रजा (subject) दम्पोती  (couple) संतोष (contenment) have their origin in Sanskrit.

These illustration sufficc to contradict the view that Tamil has nothing to do with Sanskrit. According to some Tamil as well as Sanskrit scholars, at least 50% words in Tamil have been taken from Sanskrit.

Thus we see that क is made to serve the purpose of

This is the reason why some purely Sanskritised words are found in their corrupted form in Tamil.

For instance अग्निम{cannot be pronounced in Tamil because it does not occur among the alphabets o this language as क serves the purpose क, ख, ग,घ | “अग्नि” therefore, will be written and pronounced in Tamil as आवनि.

Even भगवान is spoken in Tamil as पकवान because प  is used for प,फ,व,ग,घ . EI’ and E5 for H-7, E, ’11, U. Those who know little Sanskrit can easily find the Sanskrit origin of such Tamil words.

Likewise Sanskrit word मंडलमis Written and pronounced in Tamil as मण्डलं and अग्रजन्मन as आक्कर जन्मन  (It is because in Tamil ट is used for ट,ठ,ड, ढ  and च for च, छ,ज,झ |

The main ancient grammar of Tamil was written by Telkappíyanar, a son of Jamadagni and a disciple of Agastya. His contemporary पनम्वनार I has made it clear in the introduction to his grammar book that Telkappiyanar (whose second name was Trinadhaymagni, has full command over lndia’s Sanskrit grammar.

T.R. Shesh Ayyangar, has written in his book “The Ancient Dravidians” that this grammar was written not later than 4th century B.C. German scholar B.C. Burnell writes in his book the “Aindra school of Sanskrit Grammaríans “published in 1875, that this Tamil Grammar was based on the tradition set by Sanskrit grammar by lndra.

Telkappiyanar”s grammar Was translated by Dr. P.S. Subrahmaniam Sastri. In his introduction, he says about this ancient scholar :- “Telkappiyanar was conversant with Vedas, Dharma Sastras, Kama Sutra, early Alankara literature, the source book of Natya Sastra, Pratisakhya works and Nirukta in Sanskrit literature and made use of them in planning his grammar book.”

Thus we see that it is not because of a few sanskrit words in Tamil but because of similarly in Sanskrit and Tamil in respect of grammar, sound, sentence structure etc. that a close relationship exists between the two.

The author of Kannad a Grammar, Naga Varma “belonging to l2th century) has described Tamil, Telugu and Kannada languages as the daughters of Mother Sanskrit. The author of the Telugu grammar (belonging the 13th century), Ketana, has stated that Sanskrit is the Mother of all languages. The author of the Malayalam grammar belonging to the 14th century writes :-

kannad grammer and sanskrit

(Sanskrit is eternal and all other languages have their beginning and an end. Sometimes, the words in other languages can be easily traced to their Sanskrit origin and sometimes it is difficult to find out their origin. Examples of this have been given by the author of Malayalam Grammar in “Sanskrit Lilatilakam”

The authors of “A history of Telugu Literature” in the “Heritage of India” series have stated :-

“An analysis of Telugu, as it has been for centuries, confirms the traditional view that Telugu is derived from Sanskrit”

Dr. Narayan Rao has also expressed the same view in “History of the Telugu Language” :-

“Telugu is one of the descendants of a main Aryan Dialect.”

L. Ravi Venna has, in his book “आर्य द्रविड़ भाषा कलूटे परक्पर संबंधम” given a list of 700 Malayalam words with their Sanskrit origin.

This relationship between Sanskrit and other Dravidian languages shows how ridiculous is the view of the authors of the Vedic Age and others, who have tried to depict these languages as completely independent.

In this context it will not be out of place, to stress relation between Tamil Veda with Vedic Scriptures. It is not known with any certainty as to when The Tamil Veda was written. It is, however, believed that it was written by a Tamil Saint Tiruvalluvar in the First Century. It contains teachings on spiritual, social, political matters which appear to have been drawn from Vedic Scriptures.

We are bound to be reminded of many Sanskrit verses and passages while reading Tamil Veda. We are sure that the author of the Tamil scripture would have certainly known and read the Indian scriptures and derived inspiration from them”

In the “Vedic Age” attempt has been made at several places to establish the superiority of Dravidian civilization over the Vedic civilization. For instance, it says that Dravidian speaking mediterranean people in India were responsible for cities and city culture for a real civilisation in the true sense of the word including international trade.”

First of all, it is still doubtful that the Harappa and Mohenjodaro civilisation was influenced by Dravidians, because their script is still difficult to decipher and even these authors themselves are not sure about it.

This is a very controversial subject. Several scholars are of the view that Aryas themselves were responsible for building these cities. We, who consider Dravidians as the offshoots of Aryas, consider this whole controversy to be meaningless.

Moreover it should not be forgotten that even people in the Ramayana era were very competent in building big houses and cities. There are descriptions of big and palatial bungalows and palaces in Vedas too.

rig 2.4.3

Here there is mention of thousand pillared places in which the King and Prime Minister took their seat along with the ministers of the assembly.

ath 9.3.21

(Here there is reference to the ten roomed dwelling houses.)

Those who have read about the cities in Ramayana with their big expansive broadways, palatial storeys pirched with jewels, and fitted with thousands of canons, big gardens and trees etc., find it impossible to believe in the theory that Aryans learnt the architecture or building houses from the Dravidians. lt is mentioned that ambassadors and traders from different countries used to live there. There were also theatre houses exclusively for women.

Even description of Indraprastha falsifies the contention of the authors of the ‘Vedic Age” that the art of city building and civilisation were the contributions of the Dravidians. It is claimed that Dravidians were so advanced that they used to undertake Voyages on the ship and do trade transactions with others.

Description of such ships already exists in the vedas :-

veda and ship

As pointed out by Dr. Radha Kamud Mukaerjee in his book “Shipping in Ancient lndia”, “Aryas used to travel by ships and transact business with people from other countries”





From Book : Vedas-The Myth and Reality ( A reply to Vedic Age )

Author : Pt Dharmadev Vidyamartand

We have tried to establish in the preceding chapters that Vedas contain Divine knowledge and were revealed by God through four Risis-Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angira.

This traditional belief is quite logical and there is nothing superstitious when we realise that man would have remained Completely ignorant if such a knowledge had not been revealed to him through the Vedas.

The knowledge of the Vedas was revealed to man at the time of creation and to the question how old are the Vedas, our answer is: “as old as the human creation.”

The scholars from the East and the West have expressed contradictory statements about the time when Vedas were handed down to the humanity.

There is hardly any substance in their arguments in favour of different dates which are all purely conjectural.

We will, in the following pages give a bird’s-eye view of their conjectures.

Prof. Max Muller comes first and foremost among the Western scholars who tried to determine the age of the Vedas.

In his book “History ofAncient Sanskrit Literature ” (1859) he writes :-

“Buddhism is nothing else than a reaction against Brahmanism, and it presupposes the existence of the entire Veda i.e., of the literature emodied in the Samhitas, the Brahmnas, the Aranyakas and the Upanishads. The whole of this literature must have, therefore, been Pre-Budhistic i.e., it must have arisen before 500 B.C. The Vedanga and the Sutra literature could be approximately simultaneous with the origin and the expansion of Buddhism in its initial stages. These Sutra works, whose origin might be attributed to the period from 600 to 200 B.C., are, however, so constructed that, they, of necessity, presuppose all Brahmana literature. The Brahmanas, however, of which there are older and new ones,

containing as they do, long lists of preceptors who handed down the more ancient Brahmanas, could not possibly be compressed within less than two hundred years. We must, therefore, regard the period 800 to 600 B.C. as that required for the growth of these prose works. The Brahmanas, however, presuppose, further in their turn, the Vedic Samhitas. At least two hundred years were now necessary in order that all these collections of songs and prayers could be put together. Therefore, the period circa 1000 to 800 B.C. would be regarded as the period in which these samhitas (or collections) which were already regarded as holy sacrificial songs and authoritative prayer-books, must have been made and they must have preceded a time in which the hymns and the songs contained in them should have arisen as popular or religious compositions. This period must lie before 1000 B.C. Two hundred years more e and we arrive at 1200 to 1000 B.C. as the initial period of the Vedic poetry.”


lt should be stressed here that period of 200 years which Prof. Maxmuller has set apart for various epochs for development of the Vedic literature is the minimum in his view. He never wanted this period to be treated as final.


In his “Gifford Lectures”(1 890), he clearly stated : “We could not hope to be able to lay down any terminus a quo. Whether the Vedic hymns were composed in 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 years B.C.-no power on earth could ever fix.”


It is very unfortunate that despite his above statement, the Western scholars thought that Prof. Max Muller scientifically fixed the date of the composition of the Vedas as 1200 to 1000 B.C. Some German scholars, however, showed the courage to oppose this view. When Schroeder and Heiman extended the date of the Vedas to 2000 B.C. and 4,500 B.C. respectively, they had to face a lot of criticism for holding their conjecture against MaxMuller’s approved date of 1500 to 1000 B.C. (which in reality he had not.)


Another German scholar Winternitz has also contradicted Prof Max Muller’s view in his book “Geshcikte Indischen Literamre”.


He says, “It is now evident that the presumption of exactly two hundred years for the various literary epochs in the development of the Veda is purely arbitrary. And MaxMuller himself would not properly say such period and that our Rigveda Samhita had indeed been completed at least about 1000 B.C. He had always understood his date for Vedas of 1200 to 1000 B.C. only as the terminus a quo and in his lectures on Physical Religion that appeared in 1890, he had distinctively said, “We could not hope to be able to lay down any terminus a quo. Whether the Vedic hymns were composed in 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 years B.C., no power on earth could ever fix.”


“This purely hypothetical-and in itself entirely arbitrary- chronological fixing ofthe Vedic epochs by MaxMuller, attained in course of years, the respectability of a scientifically proved fact and everybody said that no arguments or substantial proofs were thought necessary on the score.


W.D. Whitney in his book “Oriental and Linguistic Studies” (1872) has, however, reproved this habit of thinking that Max Muller had proved the period 1200 to 1000 B.C. as the date of the Rigveda.

“Only with timidity could some scholars like Von Schroeder go back to 1500 or at most to 2000 years B.C.”


Dr. Winternitz, while quoting Weber’s words in this regard that “Any such attempt of defining the Vedic antiquity is absolutely fruitless”, goes on to add:- “In reality nothing more has been known

than that the Vedic period extends from an altogether undefined past to the Fifth century before Christ. Neither the figures 1200 to 500 nor 1500 to S00 nor 2000 to 500 which are often met with approval in the popular account about the age of the Vedic literature, have any justification. The only date justifiable is X to 500 B.C.; and as a result of the investigation of the last ten years, it could be said that it was more probable in place of 500 B.C. …… ..” We must however, guard against giving any definite figures, Where such a possibility is, by the nature of the case, excluded.”


Morris Bloomfield, the author of “ Vedic Concordance ” after making some conjectures about the age of Vedas, candidly admits: “More frankly, we do not know’


He further explains : “l, for my part, am and-l think I voice many scholars-are now much more inclined to listen to an early date-say 2,000 B.C. for the beginning of Vedic literary production, and to a much earlier date for the beginning of the institution, and of the religious concepts which the Veda has derived from those pre-historic times-which cast their shadows forward into the records that are in our hands. Anyhow, we must not be beguiled by that kind of conservatism which merely shoves Conscience into thinking that there is better proof for any later date such as 1500, 1,200 or 1,000 B.C. rather than their earlier date of 2000 B.C. “Once mere frankly, we do not know.”


Clayton, in his book “The Rígveda and Vedic Religion “- writes “From what has already been said, it will be evident that no dates can be assigned to the origin of the hymns that make up the Vedas. lndeed it is necessary to go further and to say that there is not sufficient evidence to show with any precision when the four Vedas were collected together and the Vedas themselves, as we have them, formed.

We are very much surprised to see the self-contradictory statements of the authors of the “Vedic Age” on this subject.

On the one hand, they admit that the date of the Vedas cannot be fixed and, on the other, they fix up the date as about 1000 B.C. For instance, they write at one place in their book,” The Age of the Rigveda is not known with even an approximate degree of certainty.” (Vedic Age)


“And at another place (Tenth chapter), they say :-

From a purely linguistic point of view, the Rigveda in its present form cannot be dated much earlier than 1000 B.C. The language of the Rigveda is certainly no more different from that of the Avestan Gathas than is old English from old High German and, therefore, they must be assigned to approximately the same age ……. ..Thus from general linguistic considerations, we get (for the Rigvedic language, as known to us,) an approximate date of 1000 B.C. Although the culture represented by it must be considerably older, it can hardly be pushed back considerably before 1500 B.C.” (Vedic Age)


“On linguistic grounds, the language of the Rigveda, the oldest Veda-may be said to be about 1000 B.C; but its contents may be and are certainly in the oldest parts of a much more ancient date and, its latest parts, resembling Atharvanic charms, are as surely of much later origin.” (Vedic Age)


One of the greatest Indian scholars, who wrote about the age of the Vedas, is Bal GangadharTilak.

In his book “Orion”, he has collected astronomical data in the Vedas and adduced evidence of recollection “of the Vernal Equinox falling at a time when the sun was in Orion.”


That must have been about 5000 years prior to the time when the present Indian calendar was fixed with the Venial Equinox falling at the time when the sun was in Aries, and this was in the beginning of the Christian Era. So, according to Tilak, the Vedas must be assigned to about 5,000 B.C.


Later however, Tilak noted that there were recollections traceable in the Vedas to a period when the Vernal Equinox fell at a time when the Sun in the Tisya grah. On this basis he concluded that the Vedas may be pushed back even to about 10,000 B.C. This was not generally accepted by scholars who did not believe that the calculations of these positions of the Sun could be accurate enough in these primitive times to form a basis for fixing dates.


In fact at the end of his book, Tilak himself observed :-

“Though I have ventured to write on the subject, I cannot claim to have finally solved this important problem in its bearings.”

Another Indian scholar, Dina Nath Shastri, has on the basis of the astronomical dates, expressed the view that Vedas are about 300,000 years old.



Not only there is a reference to the four Vedas in the Mahabharat but also to its Angas and Upangas.


In the Sabha Parva for instance, Bhishma Pitamaha says about Shri Krishan that he was well-versed in the Vedas and the Vedangas:-


In Adiparva there is another shloka in which there is again a reference to the Vedas and its upangas:-


(i.e. that person can not be considered areal Scholar who may have the knowledge of the Vedas and Angas and Upanishad; but is ignorant of Mahabharata.)

The following verse gives clear evidence of the existence of the Vedas and its Angus and Upanishads at the time of Mahabharata:-


In the following lines from Mahabharata, it is statcd that God, through Vedas, gives knowledge to the mankind about different forms and actions of such elements as earth, water, air, fire and light and goads man to acts of goodness :-

mahabharat 1

The authors of the Vedic Age have described the Mahabharata period as Circa 1400 B.C. while they regard the date of composition of Rigveda as 1000 B.C. The fallacy in their conjecture is proved by the reference to the Vedas and their Angas in Mahabharata itself. Well if Vedas were written at that time, they could not have been described as eternal.


The authors of the Vedic Age mention the Mahabharat period between 1400 and 1000 BC but put 1400 B.C. in bracket after the caption I “The Bharat War”‘undcrsection 8 (Historical Traditions) At other places also, they have given the same date for the Mahabharata period though the word “Probably” has been unsparingly used.

For example, they write :-

“Though the Mahabharata, in its present form, is a late production, the kernel of the story takes us back to the period between 1400 and 1000 B.C. when, as noted above, the battle was probably fought”


The following inscription however of Maharaja Pulakesin (of Chalukyas) family, found in a Jain temple, gives a definite proof that South Indian scholars believed that Mahabharata war took place around 3,000 years B.C. :-

brihat sahinta

In his book entitled Brihat-Sanhita, Varamihira, a well-known Indian astrologer, writes (13 .3) :-

“At the time of the reign of Maharaja Yudhisther, Saptarishis were in the Magha planet and by adding 2,526 years to Yudhistra`s period, there is beginning of the Shak era “.(13.3)


Al-Beruni, an Arabian historian, writes on the subject :

“According to Brahmagupta and other astronomers 4,131 years have elapsed since the commencement of Kalyuga upto 1,031 A.D. and the Mahabharata war took place about 3,479 years upto 1,03 1 A.D.

This means, according to the thought held by Indian scholars at the time of al-Beruni, the Mahabharata war took place about 2,448 B.C.


Acharya Rama Deva writes in Bharatavarsa ka itihas (1991) that in 1999 (Vikrama Era) all the Indian astrologers had unanimously calculated that Mahabharata war took place 5000 years ago. Magesthenes, who travelled India during the period of Chandragupta, writes :

“From the time of Dionysuis to Sandrokottos the lndians count 153 kings and a period of 6042 years. (When among them a republic had been thrice established.) Then these lndians also tell us that Dionysuis had been here earlier than Heracles by  15 generations.”


“This Heracles is held in special honour by the Saurasent, Indian tribe, who possesses two large cities, Mothora and Cleisobra.” and Mothora. (Mc Crinde’s Ancient India)



Shri Rama was born in “Treta`s end ” and Mahabharata was written at the end of Dwapar. The Mahabharata war took place at the end of Dwapar. Now if it is proved that there are references to

Vedas and their Angas in Ramayanas their antiquity is antomatically


While writing about Rama Balmiki says in his Ramayana :

ramayan 1

(Rama was well-versed in the Vedas and Vedangas and also in the Dhanurveda (the science of archery).

Again in the Ayodhya Kand (1.20), it is written :-

ayodha khand

Shri Ram was steeped in the knowledge of the Vedas etc.

In Kiskíndha Kanda (3.28.29) of Balmiki Ramayana, Rama says about Hanuman: One who has not studied Rigveda, Yajurveda and Samveda, cannot speak such fluent and flawless language :-

kishkinda khand

These references clearly show that Vedas, Upvedas and Vedangas  existed much before the Ramayana period.

Bloomfield, in his introduction to the “Hymns of the Atharvaveda,” writes :-

“In the Ramayana, the Vedas in general, are mentioned very frequently; special Vedic names appear to be rare in the Sama Veda(सामगा:) being mentioned at IV. 27.10; The Taitteriya (आचार्य:तैतिरियानाम)

at 11-32-7; the Atharvaveda ( मन्त्राश्चाथवरणा:) at 11.32,26.21.

The authors of “The Vedic age” have described 2,350-1,950 B.C. as the period of Rama. This whole attempt has been made to put the whole Indian history within a compass of 5000 or 6000 years as the Christians generally do.


Describing Vaivatsava Manu as the first King, they say about his age :- “The year 3102 B.C. thus represents the age of Manu, the first traditional King in India.”


They have futher said :- “The flood in Mesopotamia is generally held to have occurred about 3100 B.C. The flood in India probably also occurred at the same time, and the date 3102 B.C. supposed to be the beginning of the Kali era, may therefore, commemorate this event.”


This is all pure fabrication of the mind of the authors. There is nothing to support the view that the deluge in Mesopotania coincided with a diluge in India.It is wrong to accept year 3,100 B.C _ which they regard to be the beginning of the Kalyug as the age of Satyug Era (of Vaivasvata Manu.)


Elaborating their point of view, the authors add :-

“Yayati who is fifth in descent from Manu and figures also in the Rigveda, thus flourished (18*5)=90 years after Manu or in  (3100-90 3010 B.C.) ……….. Rama flourished 65 generations after Manu, i.e. 3100-652×18-1930 B.C. These dates will, of course, have to be lowered by 400 years if the Bharata war is placed in 1000 B.C.”


It is apparent from the close look at their Writings that they have no definite knowledge about the date of the Mahabharata war.

At time they say it occurred in 1,400 B.C. and at other places, they say it was 1000 years ago.


They base their assumption about Yayati as the fifth in descent from Manu on the basis of following mantra of the Rigveda :-

rigveda 20

In this mantra Yayati has been taken to mean by the authors of the Vedic Age as a king who Was fifth in descent from Manu. But in reality it is not a proper noun but a common noun as discussed earlier in case of such characters.

The deravative meaning of the word Yayati (ययाति)is industrious. The word “ययाति” is derived from the root यति प्रयत्ने.

The mantra, as explained by Swami Dayanand, is as follows :-

dayanand 1

i.e. A leader should emulate the deeds of an industrious person,

About Rigveda period, Dr. Avinash Chandra Das writes in his book “Rigvedic India” :-

“The Rigveda must be held to be as old as the Miocine or the Pliocene Epoch whose age is to be computed by some hundreds of thousands, if not Millions of years. This at first sight would seem

to be extremely incredible. But it may be mentioned here in passing that the lndo-Aiyans believe the Rigveda to be as old as the creation of man, in other words, to have emanated fiom Brahman, the Creator Himself, and is regarded as Apauruseya i.e, not ascribable to any human agency, though the Risis or seers might have clothed the revealed truths and etemal ven`ties in language of their own from

time to time. This bereft of all exaggerations, would mean that the Rigveda has existed from time immemorial. To this belief of the Indo-Aryans, however, absured it might seem, the results of geological investigations, undoubtedly lend some strong colour.”


The three yugas-Sat, Dwapar and Treta, cover a period of four million three hundred twenty thousand years-(i.e. reckoned as one cycle.) Seventy one such cycles make up a period of time called mavantar( मन्वंतर” ) “Fourteen such manwantaras make up the life of a universe. Uptil now six manvantras have passed. And of the present Age, which is “Kaliyug“ only about 5,068 years have elapsed. That brings the age of this universe to about one hundred eighty six million two hundred thousand years.


According to the “Surya Siddhanta “, a famous work on astronomy and Manusmriti etc. in the seventh mantra it is said near 27 chaturyugis have passed and 28th  is in progress.


The years of each of the yuga are described thus:

SATYUGA      = 1726000

TRETAYUGA = 1296000

DWAPAR          = 864000

KALIYUGA     =  432000

This calculation is corroborated by the “Sankalpa” read out by the priests at the commencement of every Yagna :-

sankalp path

Works on modem science almost corroborate this oriental view about the age of the earth :-


“Some good evidence that the real age of the earth is two or three thousand million years has, been supplied by the study of the traces of Uranium and an isotope of lead (into which it slowly changes) in the layers of rocks.


The weight of scientific evidence is against an infinitely extended past, but the past which we formerly reckoned as six thousand years, cannot be shorter than 1800 million years and may be far longer”


In “The Outline of Modem knowledge” edited by William Rose, it is stated :-

“Our globe must be about two thousand million years old and can in no case be much older”.


H.G. Wells writes in the “Outline of History”:-

“Astronomers and Mathematicians give us 200 million years as the age of the earth (as a body separate from the sun.)”

We would like to conclude this chapter with a quotation from one of the Nobel Prize Winner Scientists in his book “Great Secret“:-


“As for the source of the primary source, it is almost impossible to re-discover them. Here we have only the assertions of the occultist tradition, which seem, here and there, to be confirmed by historical discoveries. This tradition attributes to the vast reservoir of the Wisdom that somewhere took shape simultaneously with the origin of man ….. .., entities, to beings less entangled in matter”


It is regrettable that ignoring all this latest scientific evidence of corroborating the age of the earth and the Vedas, the authors of the Vedic age have tried to compass the whole history of ancient India within a period of above 6000 years in accordance with the general Christian belief.

As we have shown earlier, the Vedas were revealed in the beginning of human Creation and, therefore, their age is the same as that of this earth.






FROM BOOK : Veda-The Myth and Reality ( A reply to Vedic Age )

Author : Pt Dharmdev Vidyamartand

We have tried in the earlier chapter to establish that Vedas, which are eternal, have been revealed by God Himself. We have also stressed their importance from different points of view. But Western scholars like Prof. Max Muller, Weber and Macdonell hold the view that Risis were the authors of Vedas. The mantras contained in the Vedas had been written by them from time to time, How can the Vedas then be etemal and Divinely revealed? Some of these scholars and authors even quote from Vedas and Sutras to support their contention. They say that Vasishtha, Jaamdagni, Angira, Kava, Bharadwaj, Gautam, Atri (whose names occur in the Vedas) were some of these authors. They also attempt to

reinforce their view by showing names of some countries and their kings extant in the Vedic “ballads”. Their detailed list is compiled by Prof. Macdonell and Dr. Keith. This list is entitled “ Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. ”

But the fact is that Risis are “seers’ and not the “authors” of the Vedas. The following is the definition of Risis given by Yaskacharya in Nirukta :


Also Acharya Upmanyu has stated that, those who have  realised the true meaning and import of the mantras, are regarded as Risis. They were called Risis because they came to such realisation during the course of meditation and through penance. The realisation of the true meaning of the mantras, with all their mysteries, constitutes their seerhood.

Something similar to Acharya Upumanyu”s assertion is also found in Taittiríya Aranyaka (2.9.l):-


The following from the Satpath Brahman also denotes the similar meaning: –

shatpat brahman

In Taittiriya Samhita, Aitareya Brahmana, Kanva Samhita,Satpatha Brahmana and Sarvanukramni etc, seers have been described as the Risis. lt is specified which mantras, suktas and the mandals were revealed to each :-

taitriya sanhinta

Though it is true that such names as Viswamitra, Jamadagni, Bharadwaja, Atri, Angiras, Priyamedha occur in the Vedas but it might be stressed here that they are epithets cannoting certain attributes and not proper nouns standing for particular individuals.

Again it is stated in Aitereya Brahmana that words like Grtsamada, Vísvamitra, Vamdeva, Atri, Bharadwaja, Vasistha, Pragatha, generally denote vital energy :


As these words denote common attributes in accordance with the derivations given in the above passages, they can be used for men and places having such attributes. For example, one who considers everyone as his friend and whom everyone considers his friend, will be called “Visvamitra” ; One who prevents others from committing sins, will be known as Atri.

A man endowed with strength and knowledge will be called “Bharadawaja”. One who is well-versed in the science of respiration (प्राणविद्या)and is a true devotee of God will be named “Vasistha”. A person, who keeps his senses and intellect under control, will also be known by the same name.

One who develops good qualities or lives in God and is shining through His glory, is “ Vamadeva”. The same is true of other words occurring elsewhere in the Vedas.

In Satpath Brahmana, which is an authentic exposition of Yajurveda, it is said, that Vasishta stands for vital energy Bharadwaja for intellect, Vishwamítra means ears, Angirasa for spiritual energy, and Visvarkamian for speech.

satpath brahman

In Brhadaranyaka also, the words like “Gautam”, “Bharadwaja” are meant to denote senses :-


Here the two ears, two eyes, two nostrils and one speech have been called respectively Gautama, Bharadwaja, Jamadagní, Vasistha etc.

Words including Vasístha, Viswamitra, Jamadagni are not proper nouns denoting certain attributes as evident from the following:


Words like Kathaka, Kalapaka, Paippalada are- (missionaries of style) ( ).

Those who try to prove history in the Vedas are mistaken. For instance, when “Bhoj” occurs in Rigveda :-

rigveda 10.107.1

Surely it is not a particular name of the King bom in 11th or 12th  century A D, but refers to any king or any person who is charitable or who protects others.

In mantras like :

rigveda 8.2.16

Kanva” is not the name of a Risi or his progeny, but according to Nighantu, refers to all those who are endowed with sublime wisdom.

In the following mantra from Atharvaveda (18-3-16)

atharvaveda 18.13.16

Viswamitra ” is not the son of Gadhi; Jamadagni‘ is not the father of Parasurama, “Vasistha” is not the priest of he Suryavansis, as erroneously understood by a few scholars.

As pointed out earlier, Viswamitra stands for a man who looks upon everyone as his friend, Jamadagni for one who sees through the reality by his intellect or whose sight is pure; Vasistha is one who is Well-versed in the science of breath or who is the noblest of all by virtue of his inherent qualities; Bharawaja is one who is endowed with knowledge or purity of mind. One who is agile is Gautama, one who is constantly occupied in the devotion of God is Vamdeva. Atri is one who is free from all sufferings-spiritual, or material.

Sayanacharya has asserted that not only in the Vedas but even in Brahmanas, there is no human history. We, however, do not  are the living expositions of the Vedas by Risis. So, there is human history even in the Brahmans as evident from the following from Taittiriya

Aranyaka (2.9):

aryanak 2.9

But what can be more regrettable than this that the same Sayanacharya, who asserts that there is no human history even in the Brahmanas, gives historical interpretation of the following mantras from Rigveda (1-126-6) :

rigveda 1.126.6

“When seduced for an intercourse by his child-wife Romasa, Rishi Bhavahavya said to her jokingly: “And you are most worthy of enjoyment! You embrace me with arms outwardly and join your reproductive organ inwardly. What a wonderful woman you are! You’re so much attached to me! You’re like Nakuli, who never deserted her husband. There is a lot of vital energy in you. You are capable of providing one with sexual delight in more than hundred and one ways”

In fact, there is not a single word in the mantra denoting request by Romasa for an intercourse; nor is there any indication of any ridicule by Risi Bhavahavya.

ln his commentary Swami Dayanand has given the following explanation of the above mantra :-


i.e. (A man should follow that policy which gives manifold pleasures).

Thoughtful readers can compare the two explanations (given by Sayanacharya and Swami Dayananda respectively) objectively and decide for themselves which of them is more in keeping with the spirit of the Vedas as a whole and which is only strained and forced and based on fantasy. The next mantra of the same hymn is as follows (Rig. 1-126-7) :-

rigveda 1.126.7

Commenting on it says Sayanacharya :


Replying to Risi Bhavayaya, Romasa, daughter of Brihaspati and herself, a Brahmavadini, says :-

“Don’t think that I”m not fully matured and, therefore, not ripe for your enjoyment.

“My hair have fully grown. If you have any doubt, touch my hidden reproductive organ and discover it for yourself if I can give you pleasures of a paradise or not.”

Thus we see self-contradiction in Sayanacharya ‘s commentary : on the one hand he denies existence of any human history in the Vedas, nay even in Brahmanas, and on the other, he does not hesitate in giving obscene meaning of the so-called narration in the vedas relating to Bhavavaya-Romasa, Agastya

Lopamudra, Pururavas-Urvasi, Indra-Indrani etc.

Those who regard Risis to be authors of the mantras will have to face very strong objections which they will find difficult to rebut.

There are many mantras which are supposed to have more than hundred Risis. as for example in the following mantra from the Rigveda :-

rigveda 9.66.19

Are we going to believe that this mantra in Gayatri  Chhanda (containin g only 24 letters), was written jointly by 100 Risis? Can any impartial scholar accept this absurd assumption?

In fact, instead of writing the mantra, the 100 Risis only realized the true spirit of the mantra and revealed its secret to others. There is nothing incongruous or absurd in this interpretation.

There are supposed to be 1,000 Risis of the three mantras of the 34th hymn of Rigveda’s 8th  Mandal :

rigveda 8.34

It would be highly absurd and ridiculous to believe that 1,000 Risis authored these three mantras.But there is nothing irrational in believing that they were the interpreters of the same. Another objection that can be raised against believing that Risis were the authors of the Vedas is: how is it that there are different Risis of not only the same mantras in different Vedas but of the

same mantras at different places in the same Vedas? For example :-

(1) In Rigvedas (4.4.83) the Risi of the mantra

rig 4.4.83

is Vamadeva, but in Yajurveda (17-91), it is Sadhyah.

The Risi of the following mantra is “Bharadwaja“ when it occurs in Atharveda (1.20.4)

atharva 1.20.4

but not so in Rigveda.

The Risi of the following mantra is Yakasma-Nasana Prajapati  in Rigveda (l0.l6l.l) and Brahman in Atharvaveda (3.11.1)

rig 10.161.1

In Rigveda, the Risi of the following mantra is Agastya but when it occurs again in the Sama Veda (40.l6), its Rishi is Dadhyan Atharvana.

samveda 40.16

We can produce hundreds of examples in which Risis of the same mantras differ from mandala to mandala in a particular Veda.

lt is very difficult to explain away the change in the names of the Risi if we attribute to them their authorship. while no such difficulty arises if we take these Risis as only their seers and not their authors. How can we, otherwise, save these Risis from the allegation of plagiarism. But such a charge becomes incongiuous with the concept of the Risi as defined in the Scriptures.


In Yajurveda’s 34-49 Rishis have been described as follows-

yajurveda 34.49

(Those who study together the religious yore, who read together the Vedas and enjoy happiness, who retum from the Gurukula after observing Brahmacharya and completing their studies, who are together advanced in knowledge, who are masters of seven Divine forces, are veritable Risis, the knowers of the Vedas. Such calm, wise persons, viewing the path of ancient sages, take up the reins of noble deeds, as on a highway, a chariot driver does.

Defining Risis, it is stated in Mundaka :-


(i.e. Risis are those who, realising the Omniscience of God, are filled with knowledge and lead a contented, satisfied and peaceful life.)

Yaskaracharya in Nirukta defines Risis as :

 साक्षात्कृतधर्माण ऋषयो बभूवु: |

(Risis are those who realise the true religion)

It is unfortunate that the late Kanhaya Lal Munshí attributed to them the authority of mantras (which he did not even understand) and wrote thus about them in the preface to “Lopamudra “ :-“Risis who had flat noses were black in colour and lived on the charity of presents of Das and Dasis. They were usually intoxicated throughout the day and night and often betrayed a fit of anger. They praised those who made the offering of cows. They were sometimes extremely jealous of each other and in anger, tried to invoke the gods for their wrath on their adversaries.

“The young among them tried to attraet the opposite sex by their gesticulations and exhibitionism. They wrote mantras with a motive to captivate the hearts of the young maidens.”

When our readers compare the description of the Risis given in Lopamudra with that which emerges from the Vedas, Upanishads and Nirukta, they will themselves know the reality. lt will be evident then that the Risis, as described in the Vedas and the Upanishads cannot be “greedy, full of anger, and lustful” as depicted in Lopamudra. The picture of the Risis delineated in this book is highly condemnable.

The allegation that “the Risis used to compose mantras to allure the beautiful women is highly insulting, particularly as it has not been substantiated by the text of the Scriptures. How can the allegation be accepted when it is not in harmony with the true concept of the Risis?

We have already given a number of quotations from ancient literature defining the true character of the Rishis. The Risis picked up such names from the Vedas as appealed to them because of their deravative meaning. lt was just like followers of a religious faith choosing from their Scriptures, names for their spiritual heads. Or their new borns as being witnessed at all times. Besides, there are hundreds of examples to show that these names are generally imaginative or are just nick names.

It is generally observed that if a person is devoted to some

cause or a mission he becomes so much indentified with it that he

is sometimes named after it. For example, Mahatma Munshi Ram ji, who sacrificed his life for the Gurukula Kangri (which he had founded), had come to be known as Gurukula himself. “Here comes

the Gurukula”, people used to say when he arrived at any place.

A man had come to be known as .JayantiPrasad for he was working for the golden jubilee celebrations of the Gurukula.

The same is true of how the Risis came to be known by the names occurring in the Vedas.

The names ofthe Risis also had similar origin in many cases. Hundreds of examples can be given to prove the above contention leaving no scope for any misunderstanding.

Rigveda’s 10.90 is called “Purush Sukta “ which begins with:-

rig 10.90

This sukta, which gives a description of God and his creation has appropriately “Narayana ” as its Risi.

The word Naryan is synonym for God. The root of this word has been given thus in Manusmriti :–

manusmriti 2

Rigveda’s 10.97 is devoted to praise of medical science and its Risi accordingly is “Bhishaq ” (i.e. a doctor)

Rigveda”s 10.101 has its theme as विश्वे देवा ऋत्विजो वा I lt is, therefore, quite appropriate, that its Risi is बुध: सौम्य: (an intellectual and sober person).

The risi of Rigveda`s 10.106 is दिव्यो दक्षिणा वा (giver of charity) which is quite in keeping with the spirit of its content which deals with the importance of donations.

Rigvedafs 10.117 is in praise of charity of money and food grains and its Risi is भिक्षु:I

It is quite logical that Rigveda’s 10-121 which has Hiranyagarbha as its Risi, should deal with God, the Giver of happiness.

Likewise अग्नि: (Fire) is both the theme and the Risi of RigVeda’s l0-124.

In Rigveda’s 10-125 also, the subject matter and Rishi are the same. ( वागामभ्रूणी )

The famous hymn of Rigveda`s 10.190 which begins with ऋतं च सत्यं चाभीध्दात तपसोSध्यजायत | gives an account of the creation and its order and teaches us to refrain from committing sins. Its Rishi is अघमर्षण’ because the way to save oneself from sins is meditation on God.

Another well-known hymn of Ri gveda’ s 10.191 contains such mantras as संगच्छध्वं, संवद्ध्वम सं वो मनांसि जानताम  etc, calling for unity and friendship among all. The Rishi of this hymn is संवनन: ‘(one who is friendly to all).

In his introduction to Rigveda’s commentary, Swami Dayanand raises the question : Why should we not believe that Rishis, whose names occur at the top of mantras, or hymns in the Vedas, were their authors and replies :

rig commentary

(lt is not correct to believe so. Even Brahma listened to the Vedas and studied them. Brahma possessed the Vedas even before the Rishis were born.

Swami Dayanand’s view, given above, has been endorsed by Svetasvatra upanishad(6-18) :

upnishad 6.18