Tag Archives: islam

FROM VEDIC TO CLASSICAL SANSKRIT (DEVELOPMENT OR DECAY)

May 25, 2014 rdhoot 1 Comment

FROM VEDIC TO CLASSICAL SANSKRIT (DEVELOPMENT OR DECAY)

Author : Pt Dharmdev Vidyamartand

Three is a word of difference between the Vedic language and the Classical Sanskrit of the epics, sastras, kavyas….. At times the meaning of a word may undergo a sea change !

IN TERMS OF WORDS

The word sachí for instance, is used in the classical Sanskrit for ‘lndra`s wife’, whereas in the Vedic Lexicon Nighantu, it is en-joined for ‘speech, wisdom, action’ (vide Nigh.)-

The words vrtra, asum are used in Sanskrit as the name of a Raksasa (and for ‘raksasa‘ in general), but in Vedic they are two epithets, usually, of ‘cloud’-

The word ‘ahí‘ is used in Sanskrit for serpent, while in Vedic, it stands for cloud again.

The word adri, parvata, giri are used in Sanskrit for mountain, but in Vedic they again denote cloud-

The word ghrta is used in Sanskrit for clariﬁed butter, in Vedic for water-

In Sanskrit, the word visa is used for poison but, according to the Vedic Nighantu, it is one of the many names ofwater-

ln Sanskrit, the Word varaha is used for ‘boar’, but in Vedic it is given for cloud-

In Sankrit asman and gravan are used for stone, but in Vedic they are shown as denoting cloud-

The word dhara is used in Sanskrit for ﬂow or current but in Vedic it is used for speech-

The word ghrtací is used in Sanskrit for dancing girl, but in Vedic it denotes night-

The word gaya is used in Sanskrit for a particular place where oblations are offered, but in the Vedic Nighantu, gaya means progency, wealth, home.

IN TERMS OF GRAMMAR

On the score of grammar, Vedic naturally differs from Classical Sanskrit in extension as well as in depth. Panini’s Astadhyayi refers to this vedic freedom of scope through aphorisms like.

Quite a few among Western linguists and philosophers hold that there has always been a growth, a development and an evolution in language :

T. Burrow, for instance, says in Sanskrit Language, “Many [of the changes of meaning] occured in the natural growth of the language.”

F. Bopp, in Comparative Grammar 0f Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Other Languages, vol. l, has used the word ‘development’, in this connection; “[Of] language in its Stages of being and march of development.”

A.B. Keith has also opted for the view ‘development’, saying: “From the language of the Rigveda one can trace a steady development to Classical Sanskrit.” (History of Sanskrit Literature.)

Some Indian philologists, too, who have followed Western Writers, have held the same view. For instance : “From the cry and onomatopoeia with their various combinations, by means of association and metaphor, we arrive at a Vocabulary, sufficient for the purpose of the primitive man”…”The small original stock is improved upon and added to by manipulation of various kinds, based upon the association of various kinds, and on metaphor”.

But, when we compare the most ancient Vedic language with the modem Classical Sanskrit, we ﬁnd that, instead of ‘growth’ or ‘development’, there has been ‘decay’.

For instance : (1) in the Vedic Lexicon Nighantu, at 1.2 we find 57 synonyms of vac (speech) like-

Very few of them have survived in classical Sanskrit : Amara Kosa, for instance, gives only the following-

lt is growth or decay ? Let the reader on his own decide.

To give yet another illustration, in Vedic 101 names are listed for ‘water’, including-

But in the Amara Kosa only 27 remain ;

There are 37 names of megha (cloud) in Nighantu, in the Amara Kosa only 15-

Among the 26 names of karma (action, work), including-

-only 2 (karma and karyam) are found in the Amara Kosa.

Many more examples could be given to show how, down the centuries, it has not been a case of growth or development, but rather one of decay in language.

lt is gratifying to note that some distinguished western linguists also are opposed to this theory of growth or evolution in language. We cite four of them :

V. VENDRYES in his book Language observes :

‘Certainly, modern languages, such as English and French, rejoice in an extreme suppleness, ease and flexibility; but [accordingly] can we maintain that the classical tongues, like Greek or Latin, are inferior to [any of these] ? It [Greek] is a language whose very essence is godlike.. If we have once acquired the taste for it, all other languages seem harsh after it… The outward form of the Greek language is itself a delight to the soul. Never was a more beautiful instrument fashioned to express human thought.

WILLIAM JONES : ‘The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure-more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than French or Spanish.’

MAX MULLER : says they have reduced the rich and powerful idiom of the poets of Veda to the meagre and impure jargon of the modem sepoy’.

He adds : “We are accustomed to call these changes ‘growth’ of language, but it would be more appropriate to call this a process of phonetic change or decay. ”

‘On the whole, the history of all the Aryan languages is nothing but a gradual process of decay.’

‘Lecures on the Science of Language, vol.l

And GRAY, lastly, has to say this (Foundations of Language) :

‘In lndo-European, we ﬁnd 8 distinct case-forms in Sanskrit; Greek and Lithuanian have 7, Hittite and Old Church Slavic 5, Old French and Modem English only 2, Albanian 4. And American and Old English 3. This reduction in the number of case-forms-with the result that some of them take over the functions of one or more others-gives rise to the linguistic phrase now known as syncretism. The reason for this seems to be phonetic decay of the characteristic case-endings.’

‘the mother of languages’

VEDIC-THE MOTHER OF ALL LANGUAGES

From the study of many of the historical languages of the world we have been driven to the inevitable conclusion that it is not Classical Sanskrit (which of course is the ﬁrst daughter of the mother), but Vedic, that is the mother of all languages of the world.

A FEW EXAMPLES

1. Vasra-in Vedic and, in its slightly different or corrupt forms, in different languages of the world :

The word [vasra] has been used in the Rigveda on the following occasions-vasra 1O.119.4; vasra’iva 1.33.2, 1.28.8; 2.34.15; 7.149.4; 1.37.11, 1.96.6; 6.7.7, 9.1.37, 10.75.4.

In the other Vedas also the word is used frequently. All commentators of Veda are unanimous in holding that the word is derived from V vasr ‘sabde‘ and stands for cow (lowing, ‘making sound’.

Now, it is to be noted that there is no mention of this word in the Amara Kosa, or in any other lexicon of Sanskrit; nor do we ﬁnd it generally used in the classical literature. Withal, the word is used for `cow’ in the French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian languages in slightly different (corrupt) forms.

ln French it is vache; in Spanish vaen : in Portugese vaca ; and in Italian la vaces. [Also, likewise, in the languages of Europe the words derived from go are used for English cow : Swedish ko ; Danish ko ; Dutch koe ; German kuh].

2. To take another example, we may examine Vedic ‘irman ‘ for ‘arm’.

lt is from this (irman) alone that the word ‘arm’ is derived. With its Swedish, Danish, Dutch and German variants in COD, for Apisali states in his Siksa (as also Bharate in his Natyasatra) that ‘sarva-mukha-sthaniyan a-varnam’ ! agni : ignis (Lat.).

3. Another very common word, which may be mentioned in this connection, is dama. According to Nighantu 3.4, it is a grhanama (home)-

But in Sanskrit literature and in classical lexicons, like the Amarakosa, dama occurs nowhere in the sense of ‘home’ or ‘wife.’

And so we should not be surprised to ﬁnd the word, with slight changes, used in several languages of Europe-English, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, German in the sense of ‘lady’ : dame, dane, dem.

4. mira (ocean) ‘submarine ﬁre’ and also vadavagni ! ; German meer ; French la mer ; Spanish and Portugese mar.

5. apa’ ítí-‘karma’-nama (Nighantu. 2.1) ; opus (Latin), operation (English).

These ﬁve exmples should sufﬁce to show that Vedic is the most ancient-and accordingly, the mother-of all languages.

MULTIPLICATION OF LANGUAGES

lf, Vedic is the universal mother (or foster-mother as some would like to call it), the question naturally arises : how these hundreds and thousands of languages and dialects have sprung up from that one source. How to explain their multifurcation ?

The answer may be brieﬂy given as follows (taking into consideration what native and foreign scholars have written on the subject) Some probable causes suggested are :

PROBABLE CAUSES

(l) Physiological causes– when some people cannot pronounce some difficult sounds on account of some defect in the anatomy;

(2) Geographical surroundings-sometimes making it difﬁcult to pronounce words correctly (due to severe cold.);

(3) Communication and Correspondence (difficulties)- people of distant lands also sometimes cause pidgin-like change(s) in the language and its pronunciation ;

(4) Change of model-e.g., a new king may ascend the throne and his subjects begin copying his style ;

(5) Association-also causes change,

Examples

(6) Analogy-is deﬁned (by Vendryes) as “the power of other words in a languages to exempt any special word from the operation of phonetic laws or to compensate it for changes which those laws may press or produce.”

0ne clear instance of this change by analogy is cows. ln Old English it was spelt (inﬂected) as kine ; but, as table, book, boy and other words are formed by just adding an “s” at the end, so the plural of cow also became cows-(though foot did not become foots such as.

(7) Economy of effort-with regular vagaries-

(a) varna-viparyaya or ‘metathesis’ :

(b) varna-lopa (dropping out of a letter, usually owing to inadvertence) :

cf. Edward Sturtivant (Introduction to linguistic Science : “Of great linguistic importance is the assimilation of contiguous consonants”

(d) viprakasa-(dissimilation) :

(e) svara-bhakti (hiatus) :

(f) agro’pajana-(prothesis)

(g) sthana-viparyaya-(interchange) :

The following verse, quoted by Durgacarya in his ‘gloss’ on the Nirukta(Ch. 1), gives in brief most of these ‘rules’ :

(1) pro/epen/post-thesis ; (2) interchange ; (3) distortion ;

(1)(4) elision; (5) ‘sense suggesting = engendering another sound!’.

(1)In various fonns of P/’akrta and in English, Greek, Latin,Russian and other languages ‘changes’ have taken place according to the above ‘rules’. It is thus that words actually become corrupt and new languages spring up. Defective and imperfect scripts also have helped in the distortion of a ‘pure` language no less :

(1)In Tamil (script) there are only k and n ; c and n ; t and n ; t and

(1)n ; p and m. [In Arabic script there is no p.]

(1)In English there is no provision for t, th, d dh, n ;

(1)In French there is no room for t, th, d, dh, n.

PASTO & SANSKRIT

Pashto is the language spoken by Pathans and allied tribals of the North-Western Frontier. The author learnt from a letter, received from the Vice-Chancellor of Peshawar University, some years back, that “here Sanskrit is compulsory for all students of languages, as it is thought here, said the letter that, abounding in Sanskrit Vocabulary as it is, Pashto cannot be mastered without a good

grounding in Sanskrit.”

Following is the list of some Sanskrit words, with their Pasto variants, to stress the point :

Also, for ‘grandfather’ the Pashto is Nikoh-derived from ‘niskrodha’-free from anger and, therefore., loving ; likewise, for grandmother anniya ‘anna-datri“,? But, we are just suggesting ; nothing more.

SANSKRIT & SOUTH INDIAN LANGUAGES

There are some words in the South Indian languages, which have their origin in Sanskrit.

On studying Kasakrtsna-Dhatupatha-Vrtti with the gloss of Channa-Vira Kavi, we have come to know of these ‘suspected origins’ ever more clearly-ever more surely. It should be borne in mind that Kasakrtsna had been a South-Indian grammarian centuries before Panini, recording some 800 more roots, i.e., in addition to the 2000 found in Panini !

(1) amma / avva, tayi-mother : These are the words used for ‘mother’ in different parts of the country.

Of these amma-(1) is considered by some a corruption of ‘amba’ ; but according to Kasakrtsna’s Dhatupathavrtti, it is derived from V amm ‘gatau’ (1.224) ; avva (2) from V avv-bandha-ne-palane (1-226) ;t’yt (3) from V tayr, ‘santana-palanayon’(1.493).

[In Tamil the word used for mother, tadar, too appears to have come from the same root] In Marathi, the word used for ‘mother’ is dyt V ay gat au (1.485)

(2) appa = pitar (in Kannada, Tulgu and some other South Indian languages) from V app palane !

(3) ammi-putrí from V amm gatau (Kannada).

(4) akka ‘elder sister’ (Kan.) from V akk bandane + palane.

(5) atta, mother-in-law ; attika, sister-in-law (Kan.) from V at gatau.

(6) appa-‘elder brother’ (Kan.) from V ap sabde (1.206).

(7) nathi, dog (Kan., Tam.) from V nin ‘prapane’.

(8) dana, animal (Kan.) from V dhan ‘calane’.

(9) hana = wealth, woman (Kan.) from V han sabde. (niskasya dasamo bhagah.)

(10) duddu, money (Kan.) from V duddu dharane.

(11) gíni, parrot (Kan.) from V gin sabde.

(12) gande, wall (Kan.) from V gadi bandhane.

(13) vayí, mouth (K. and Ta.) from V vay gatau.

(14) ane, hand (K., Ta.) from V an prapane.

(15) avu, cow (Tel.) from V av palane. cf. ava-ni=’gau’ (earth)!

(16) nalla, good (Tam.) from V nall palane.

(17) ganda-pati, husband (Kan.) from V gadí vadaníkadese (sahayyam karoti)-cheek-by-j owl.

(18) guli, bull (Kan.) from V gul bhaksane.

(19) gulle, bubble, foam (Kan.) from V gull bhavane(vivarte).

(20) hammu, pride (Kan.) from V hammu gatau (brain-wave)

(21) pandu, fruit (Tel.) from V padí gatau.

(22) jenu, honey (moon face ?), Kan. from V jin sambhaktau !

(23) channa, honey, fair lady (Kan. et al) from V cann sambhaktau!

(24) havu, serpent from V havva (ghost) Kan.

(25) hedi, coward (Kan) from V hedr calane ?

VEDIC AND THE REST

Comparative lists of words of different European languages clearly establish the afﬁnity of these languages to Sanskrit. The question remains to be answered is : what relationship Sanskrit bears to the different languages of the world ? Is it Sister/aunt/mother of them? It is here that scholars widely differ. Max Muller : “Sanskrit, no doubt, has an immense advantage over all the other ancient languages of the East. lt is so attractive and has been so widely admired that it almost seems at times to excite a certain amount of feminine jealousy.. We are ourselves lndo-Europeans. In a certain sense we are still speaking and thinking Sanskrit ; or, more correctly, Sanskrit is like a dear aunt to us and [vasudhaiva kutumbakam] she [responsibly] takes the place of a mother who is no more. [Chips from a German Workshop] vol. 5.

It (Sanskrit) is the most regular language known, and is especially remarkable-as containing the roots of the various languages of Europe-Greek, Latin, German, Slavonic, says Baron Cuvier in Lectures on the Natural Sciences.”

And here is what Adelung has to say in “Sanskrit Language”. “The great number of languages, which are said to owe their origin – or bear a close afﬁnity-to Sanskrit, is truly astonishing and-is yet another proof of the latter’s high antiquity. Rudiger avers it to be the parent of upwards of a hundred languages and dialects among which he enumerates l2 Indian, 7 Median Persic, 2 Austric Albanian, 7 Greek, 18 Latin, 14 Slavonic, and 6 Celtic Gallic. The various vocabularies, which we now possess as a result of laborious and learned investigations, render it pretty evident that Sanskrit has not only furnished words for all the languages of Europe, but forms a main feature in almost all those of the East. A host of writers have made it the immediate parent of the Greek and Latin and German families of languages [no less]

Bopp in Edinburgh Review, vol. 33, expresses his opinion that “At one time, Sanskrit was the one languages spoken all over the world.”

And lastly, to quote from W.C. Taylor’s “India in Greece” :

It was an astounding discovery that Hindustan possessed a language of unrivalled richness and variety, a language the parent of all those dialects that Europe has fondly called classical-the source alike of the Greek ﬂexibility and the Roman strength, a philosophy compared with which lessons of Pythagoras are but of yesterday [in point of age, in point of enduring speculation], Plato’s boldest efforts [sound] tame and commonplace…a poetry more purely intellectual than any of which we had before any conception, and a system of science whose antiquity bafﬂes all powers of astronomical calculations. This literature, with all its colossal proportions, which can scarcely be described with-out [a] semblance of bombast and exaggeration, claims of course, a place for itself-it stands alone, [has been] able to stand alone. Its literature seems exhaustless. The utmost [of] stretch-of-imagination can scarce comprehend its boundless mythology. Its philosophy, far from shunning, has touched upon every metaphysical difﬁculty [and has much to contribute on each and every issue].

lt is, thus, clear that many impartial linguists and philologists of the West also admit that Sanskrit is the mother (not sister or aunt) of all the important languages of the world. It is unfortunate that, even in India, not much attention is being paid to the study and spread of Sanskrit either by the people or by the Government. It is high time the study of Sanskrit is made compulsory at schools and in colleges, throughout the country.

English, Veda and Science

SOUL, MAGIC, GAMBLING & POLYGAMY ARE IN VEDAS ?

May 15, 2014 rdhoot Leave a comment

SOUL, MAGIC, GAMBLING & POLYGAMY

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.

TRANSMIGRATION OF SOUL

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:

(“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:-

(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.”

GOD AND SOUL

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

(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.”

THE SOUL THROUGH THE AGES

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

“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).

(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.)

(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:

(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:

(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:-

(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:-

(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.) `

THEORY OF ACTION

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 :

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

PRAYERS FOR PURITY

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 97^th 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:-

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

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

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

POLYGAMY AND VEDAS

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 :

(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 :-

“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 :-

(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 :

(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.)

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

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

(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 :

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 :-

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.

GAMBLING/ DRINKING IN THE VEDIC PERIOD

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 :

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 :

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).

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 :

Yaskacharya has described these seven vices as follows in Nírukta :

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

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

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 :

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:

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 :-

(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 :

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 :

(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 :-

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.

||इति||

Uncategorized

Secularism a Dangerous Nonsense – Dr. Vidhu

May 13, 2014 Rishwa Arya Leave a comment

The dilemma facing the people of Pakistan is that the culture of its people is most definitely Vedo-Sanskritic; it is signally not Arabic. One example of evidence for this is the fact that Urdu is grammatically much closer to Hindi than it is to Persian (and is definitely quite ‘remote’ from Arabic).

It is the ‘Arabisation’ of Pakistan’s Islam that has exacerbated the murderous bigotry of some of its people, which we see today in the form of the Taliban and Lashkar-e-taiba etc. The binary nature of this dilemma, on which Pakistan’s immediate future balances on a dangerous knife edge, is whether or not Vedic/Sanskritic Islam can re-surge, overcome and defeat the evil and bigoted version of Islam that currently is ‘in power’.

This problem is also relevant to India. That is why I welcome Modi’s election. India (if not the whole world) must always remain Vedic (not Hindu); the monotheistic Vedic Dharma as espoused by the founder of the Arya Samaj movement, Dayanand Sarasvati, is underpinned by ahimsa (non-hatred and non-violence that begins with strict vegetarianism) and shaanti (peace) consolidated through meditational yoga. Secularism is a dangerous nonsense enshrined in India’s Constitution as a result of the influence of the legacy bequeathed to India over two centuries of rule by imperial Britain who, further, created Pakistan by using Gandhi – Jinnah alone could not have done it – to father that Islamic state.

India will need very strong political leadership to ensure that the Islam that prevails in India is of its Vedo-sanskritic form, and not Arabic. The latter is starting to raise its ugly head in India and so must be crushed. Most of India’s Muslims will agree with this. If I not I ask the question of them – would they prefer to live in India or Pakistan? Most, I predict, would opt for the freedom of thought, peaceful tolerance and liberality to be enjoyed in India; features that are, quite simply, predicated on the foundations of India’s heart and soul being indelibly Vedic.

The dream for India is that that a renaissance of the Vedic Dharma will result in the purification of India so that Hinduism as we know it now eventually disappears, by being reformed and re-absorbedinto its original sanatan Vedic dharma. For this India will need to, as a first step, begin to regard Dayanand as its founding figure and not Gandhi, whose legacy as a religious philosopher was negligible. It is because of the need for a comprehensive and coherent blueprint for how humanity should approach life that the only solution to India’s serious problems is for all facets of its life to become Vedic to the core, beginning with the revamping of its governing Constitution.

Only thus, will all of the peoples of India -and then eventually the whole world – start uniting under one God.

English, Veda and Science

“ARYA” AND ‘ANARYA’

May 11, 2014 rdhoot 4 Comments

“ARYA” AND ‘ANARYA’

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 :

(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.

(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”:

(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 :

(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 :

(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.”

WHO IS DASYU ?

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

(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 :

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 :

(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 :-

(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 :-

(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:-

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 :-

(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.

ARYAN AND DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES

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.

KANNAD AND SANSKRIT

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

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 :

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.

MALAYALAIVI AND SANSKRIT :-

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 :-

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 4^th 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 13^th century), Ketana, has stated that Sanskrit is the Mother of all languages. The author of the Malayalam grammar belonging to the 14^th century writes :-

(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.

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.

(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 :-

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”

||इति||

English, Veda and Science

VEDAS : IS THERE CHARM AND MAGIC IN THEM?

May 9, 2014 rdhoot 2 Comments

VEDAS : IS THERE CHARM AND MAGIC IN THEM?

Author : Pt Dharmdev Vidyamartand

The authors of the Vedic Age following copiously their western masters have not only entertained wrong concepts about all the four Vedas, but their treatment of the Atharvaveda is Worse as they see in some of its hymns dealing with medicinal herbs charm and magic.

The Atharvaveda, in reality, deals with medicine as evident from Gopath’s येSथर्वाणस्तद भेषजं तदमृतम तद ब्रह्म or Tandya Mahabrahman’s भेषजं वै देवानामथर्वाण: ( अर्थात ऋषिणा दृष्टा मंत्रा: ) भैषज्यायैवारिष्टयै|

l References made in Atharvaveda to medicinal herbs, masmerism, hypnotism incantation are entirely scientiﬁc.

lt is really a matter of great ragret that such wrong concepts should be entertained by these scholars about Atharvaveda which is also known as ब्रह्मवेद :-

(The use of this word “ब्रह्मवेद:” for Atharvaveda is justiﬁed by a number of hymns which, besides dealing with medicines also deal with the science of God and soul. There is no indication in it of any “charm” and “magic”.)

Western scholars like Bloomfield and Whitney misconstrued different “manis” (which are actually medicinal herbs) for charms, amulets or sorceries. Even while translating mantras dealing with medicinal herbs, coronation and family harmony, they gave misinterpretation and misleading meanings to show that there is magic and charm in Atharvavedas.

Bloomﬁeld in particular, gave such misleading captions as “Charm against Jaundice” to his translation of Atharvaveda`s 5.22 in which the reference is made to the cure of Takman (fever) through medicinal herbs.

“Charm with the Apamarg, a plant against sorcery, demons and enemies ” is the caption given by him to another mantra from the Atharvaveda in which there is mention of treatment of barreneness among women through the use of “Apamarga”

In Atharvaveda’s hymn 4.8, there is a beautiful description of a coronation ceremony. But unfonunately, Bloomﬁeld’s caption for the hymn containing this mantra, is “Charm pertaining to Royalty”

The hymn 3.3O of the Atharvaveda refers to family harmony, unity and mutual obligations and duties of the members of a family. Quoted below are three mantras from this hymn with Bloomﬁeld”s own translation :

(Unity of heart and unity of mind, freedom of hatred do I procure for you. Do ye take delight in one another as a cow in her new born calf.)

(The son shall be devoted to his father, be of the same mind with his mother, the wife shall speak honied, sweet words to her husband.)

(The brother shall not hate the brother and the sister not the sister. Harmonious, devoted to the same purpose speak ye words in kindly spirit.)

It is very shocking to ﬁnd that Bloomﬁeld has given the heading of this hymn as “Charm To Secure Harmony” knowing fully well that these hymns only stresses the importance of friendliness, harmony, mutual love, co-operation and sweetness of temper. etc. among the family members.

Following Bloomﬁeld, the authors of the Vedic Age commenting on this hymn write: “Of the same type but much more elevated in tone is the of quoted and justly celebrated charm for securing concord.”

In the hymns 7- 12 of Atharvaveda, there is a clear reference to सभा and समिति (which are the equivalents of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha of the Modem Age.) Given below are the ﬁrst two mantras of this hymn with Bloomﬁeld’s translation :

(May assembly and meeting, the two daughters of Prajapati, concurrently aid me! May he with whom I meet, co-operate With me! May I obey Father, speak agreeably to those assembled. We know thy name, O assembly, Mirth verily is thy name; may all those that sit assembled in thee, utter speech in harmony with me.”

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS :-

Here the word “नरिष्टा” should mean benevolent to the people ( नृ + इष्टा ) or that which does not allow people to suffer) With this exception, it may be said the translation is not bad. What is disgusting is the title given to it by this western scholar : “Charm to procure inﬂuence in the assembly.”

The authors of the Vedic Age not only incorporated the blunders committed by such western scholar in this respect but went a step further and expressed ideas which are thoroughly absurd and misleading.

For instance, under the head “Medicinal Charms”, they write :

“Quite a number of medicinal charms are included in the Atharvaveda. The chief malady that was sought to be treated magically is the Takman. From the symptoms described it is almost certain that it was nothing but malarial fever. The plant kusha is maintained as potent in fighting Takman, but whether as medicine or as amulet is not quite clean”

This is indeed very misleading statement. Not only for fever alone but also for several other diseases like impotence, barrenness, leprosy, T.B. urinary troubles etc., the Vedas have suggested

treatment through administration of such medicinal herbs as Apamarga, Kushtaa Preshni, Parni, Soma, Darbh.

Even for fever, the cure suggested in the hymns 5-4 and 19-39 of the Atharva Veda, is through oral administration of “kustha “ and not its use in the form of amulets. One fails to understand how the authors of the Vedic Age misunderstood this point. A few mantras from these hymns, with their English translation by Bloomfield himself, will show how misleading is their interpretation :

(Thou that art born upon the mountains; as the most potent of plants, come hither, O kushtha, destroyer of the Takman to drive out from here, the Takman (fever).

It is clear here that Kushtha has been described as वीरूधामबलवतम: which is translated by Bloomﬁeld as “the most potent of plants”.

(Pain in the head, affliction in the eyes and ailment of the body, all that shall the Kushtha heal a divinely powerful medicine.)

The expression “powerful remedy” was enough to remove the doubt whether Kushtha was a medicinal herb or an amulet. But the authors of the “Vedic Age” deliberately entertained the doubt to confuse the readers.

In the hymn 19.39, the adjective विश्वभेषज has been used for this herb at least ﬁve times. This word has been rightly translated by Bloomﬁeld as “Universal remedy”. In mantra 4 of this hymn, this herb has been described as उतमो अस्योषधीनाम :-

“Thou art the most superior to the plants as a steer among the cattle, as the tiger among the beasts of prey. Verily no harm shall suffer this person here for whom I bespeak these mom and eve, aye the entire day.”

It is thus clear from the above that instead of any sorcery or amulet, the reference is only to treatment of fever by administration of medicinal herb called “Kushtha”.

In this connection we want to draw the attention of our readers to a very ridiculous comment by the authors of the Vedic Age:

“It is interesting to note that in one hymn (5.22) Takman has been asked to seize the Shudra and the Dasi or to go away to Mujavats or to the Valhikas further beyond and the last verse, the author says quite maliciously that he is sending Takman to the Gandharis, Angas and Magadhas like one sending a treasure to a person.”

The mantras which form the basis of the above comment are as follows :

lt is obvious that the whole confusion in these mantras has arisen from the misunderstanding of the words दासी, शुद्रा, गंधारी, मुजवान, मग्ध” in the above mantras.

The word “दासी”’ used in one of the above mantras, is in fact a herb called “काकजंघा“. दासी and काकजंघा are synonymous as evident from the following from राजनिघुनट्टू.

A lot of misunderstanding has been created by the authors of the “Vedic Age” by taking into account only the prevalent meaning of the words like dasa and shudra and ignoring their real meaning suitable in the context.

Just as the word dasi, so also the word shudra have been used in the above hymn for a medicinal herb-in this case for príyagulata प्रियंगुलता which is supposed to be good for curing fever.

About its power to cure fever, it is stated in Bhav Prakash Níghantu :

After knowing the real meaning of the words dasi and sudra in this context, the meaning of the above quoted mantras will be as follows :

(O, disease, pervading the body like poisonous serpent and making the body lethargic, go away by the use of blossoming Desi herb.)

The sum and substance of this mantra is that the herb dasí also known as kakjanga wards off fever.

(O fever, which growest in the grassy and shady regions, go away by the use of sudra also known as priyangoo)

A repeated reference to different mantras in the Atharvaveda such as आंजन मणि(4.9),शंख मणि(4.9),वरण मणि(10.3), जांगिड मणि(2.4 ),पर्ण मणि (3.5 ), शतवार मणि (19.36 ), etc. have led some scholars to think that there is charm or magic in the vedas. They misinterpret the Word मणि as a pearl only and feel that use of different pearls has been suggested in the AtharvaVeda for curing different diseases.

But the principal meaning of this word, as supported by Ayurvedic books, is a herb (destroyer of diseases). The word with three or four roots, has also other meanings.

According to the aphorism सर्वधातुभ्य इन् in the उपाधि कोष(4.118), the word मणि takes its existence from the root मणिशब्दे with इन् प्रत्यय. Thus the word मणि means a good orator or a leader :-

Other roots of मणि are मनु ज्ञाने, (दिवादि:) मन स्तम्बे, मनु अवबोधने ( तनादि ) which respectively mean a man of knowledge, one who deserts the enemies or the diseases, or one who imparts knowledge to others.

For instance, in the following mantra, it is said that through the help of Sraktya mani, an intelligent person, like a Risi, gains victory over all armies and destroys all enemies :

The use of the word sraktya mani for an intelligent person also occurs in another mantra in the Atharva Veda :

(You are full of action, you are able to ﬁght back your enemies, you can attack your rival)

When this meaning does not ﬁt in the context, it should be taken to mean some herb or the medicine.

We shall brieﬂy discuss the word मणि used in the context of medicines.

आंजनमणि, for instance, stands for a tablet made of antimony which removes many diseases.

It is clearly stated in the following mantra of the Atharvaveda (4.95) that आंजनमणि gives strength to a patient and is the medicine for हरितरोग (kind of a fever) The use of the word भेषजं {indicates

that this subject has connection with the science of medicine and not magic.

SHANKH MANI:

About शंखमणि it is stated in the Atharvaveda :

(This conch shell, with a pearl, helps one recover from many diseases. May it help overcome the misery resulting from a sin or a disease.)

The word अंह: is generally used for sin but it also means disease as evident from the following etymology or derivation of this word as given in the Unadikosa.

JANGIDMANI:

Jangidmani has been used in the Atharvaveda mainly for Soma. Commenting on Atharvaveda’s 1.9.34 Sayanacharya writes :

In Atharva Veda Brihat Sarvanukra Maní there is a reference to the herb in the following words :

It has also been described as a medicine or a herb elsewhere in the same book :

As the words चन्द्र and सोम are synonymous, all the names denoting chandra also stand for Soma.

This is conﬁrmed by such quotations as the following from शुश्रुत चिकित्सा स्थान :-

Thus we see that Jangadmani is the same medicinal herb as Soma about whose beneﬁts it is stated in the 19th chapter of the same book :

The use of words like औषधि भेषज and विश्व भेषज for this herb also gives indication of its great usefulness in curing many incurable diseases.

PARNAMANI —- — SOMA

There is a reference to पर्णमणि in Atharvaveda’s 3.5. According to Satpath (6.5.l .1), Parna is another name for ‘ सोम (सोमो वै पर्ण: ) The relation between ‘सोम and पर्ण has been made clear in the following mantra from the same hymn :

Jangdmani consists of tablets or globules of soma and Parnamani of only (soma) leave.

According to the ﬁrst mantra of the same hymn, there is also reference to W: (water) andw (juice). Thus the Pamamani taken in the form of leaves, lengthens the life of a person and removes all diseases.

In eighth mantra of this hymn, the Parnamani is also called तनुपान (protector of the body and increaser of semen) :

According to एष वै संवत्सरो य एष तपति(satpath),संवत्सर: means ‘sun° and, therefore, it has been suggested here by implication that “Parnamani’ should be taken to secure the splendor of the sun or its heat.

It is mentioned in the following mantra from the Atharva Veda (3.5.2) that regular use of Parnamani increases physical strength and makes a man very inﬂuential and wealthy :-

In Susrat Chikitsa Shastra, it is said that one who regularly takes Parnamaní, increases his life and poison, burns and wounds do not cut short his life :

SATAVARI MANI (RISHBHAK HERB)

In Atharva Veda (19.36.17), there is a reference to शतवार मणि which is described as useful for killing all germs and giving splendor to the life :

In the second mantra of the same hymn, it is said that it removes all small and big diseases :

In the ﬁfth mantra of this hymn, Rishabh ऋषभ as been given as a synonym for Satvar शतवार , a name which is mentioned in the books on Ayurveda also :-

In this very hymn, it is mentioned that rishabh or satvar mani cures such diseases as T.B. and also others connected with pregnancy. It is also good for giving strength to the reproductive organs.

In some hymns the words `रक्षांसि राक्षसो, गन्धर्व, अप्सरा do not stand for any ghost, “witch” etc. as generally misunderstood. They only denote different kinds of germs.

For instance, in the Kaushitak Brahmana, it is clearly written about रक्षांसि :-

(The genns which sip blood of a person are called `रक्षांसि)

According to satpatha (10.53.20) अप्सरा: are those which live in rose plants etc :

These almost invisible germs living in rose plants get into human body through the nose and cause many mental deseases. Says Satpath :

(The insects, which fall for beautiful objects, and consume them, are called गन्धर्वा :

In the following mantra from Atharvavads, the word पिशाचhas also been used for a deadly germ which eats away the ﬂesh of a patient and causes wounds in his body :

This usage of पिशाच’ for a deadly germ eating away the ﬂesh of a person has also been supported by the derivation of the word given in शब्द कल्पदुम :

Similar derivation of the word has also been given in vachaspatya brihadmídhana .

Thus it can be said that `राक्षस, गन्धर्व, अप्सरा etc are different varieties of gemis which can be killed through the persistent use of शतवार or ऋषभक मणि. They have no connection with the magic or charm.

VARAN MANI ( वरण मणि )

There is a description of वरणमणिin the Atharva veda’s hymn (10.3) In third mantra of this hymn the adjective used for varanmani वरणमणि is visvabhaj विश्वभेषज: which means a medicine which removes all diseases :-

In another mantra of the same hymn, it is described as वनस्पति a herb which is useful for many diseases:

The word वनस्पति has also been used for वरणमणि in the mantra of this hymn :

In the 11^th mantra of the same hymn, there is an instruction to wear this herb in the form of an armour in combination with mica. It is believed that its touch with the human body is good for all cardiac diseases :-

In the Ayurvedic books, this herb has been named as वरुण as evident from the Bhav Prakas Níghantu ( भावप्रकाश निघंटु) :

In Níghantu Ratna (निघंटु रत्न) the herb, is considered effective in many diseases related to impuriﬁcation of blood, urinary troubles.

It is believed that the use ofthis herb in the form of pills or its application on clothes is very useful.

KRITYA AND ABHICHAR

The misunderstanding about the role of sorceries and incantation, as propounded in the Vedas, is also responsible for the belief entertained by some scholars that there is magic and charm in the Vedas. The truth is that both these things have use in Warfare and armament and have nothing to do with magic. Their use is Suggested mainly for defensive rather than offensive purposes.

Kritya is of two kinds. First अंगिरस:- which consists of explosive substances used to shatter the buildings and the second is आसुरी which is made up of poisonous substances which are put in ﬁre to destroy enemies :

According to Atharvaveda, the priests are asked to help the people to Ward off the ill effects of Krítya :

(May the priests do something to ward off the ill effects of violence by the enemies.)

At another place in Atharva Veda (21 .l8.5), a priest asserts :

(I ward off the evil effects of Krítya against cows or men.)

It is evident that it is on the basis of the Vedas that Kautalya Shastra laid down that the priests should impart full knowledge of Krítya and Abhichar to kings and their kinsmen :

Use of many Manis and herbs has been suggested in this connection. For instance in Atharva Veda (19. l 4.4) जांगिडमणि, सोम are stated as effective against Kritya :

This herb destroys the ill effects of kritya कृत्या and is useful in prolonging the life span of a person.

At another place in Atharva Veda (8.7. 1 0), herbs used against poinsonous substances, are also stated to be effective against sorceries (कृत्या) :-

It is made abundantly clear in Atharva Veda that if used against innocent persons, it brings about disastrous consequences and therefore, should never be used against them :

उन्मोचन(vomiting or purging) or प्रमोचन(countering the effects of poison by the intense use of ghee, honey etc is stated in the following mantra :

In (Shusrut Kalpadum) (Chapter one Sloka 75-76) also the same remedy has been given to avert the ill effects of अभिचार :

There are many mantras in the Atharva Veda in which lie the seeds of modem therapy (including mesmerism) which is used to help patients in eliminating many mental and physical diseases. In the following mantra from Atharva Veda, a physician tells his patients about the healing power of his hand touch will cure him of the ailments :-

For curing mental diseases, the doctor ﬁrst of all, tries to capture the heart of the patient by repetition of the following mantras from Atharva Veda :

After gaining full control over the heart of the patient, the doctor suggests to him with full conﬁdence that he would fully cure him of mental diseases like insanity, perplexity or confusion of mind :

To free a person from fever, etc., the doctor also suggests to the patients:

There are also mantras in the Vedas which are repeated with will and determination to remove sin, achieve success, overcome diseases, and to increase power.

For removing thought of sin :-

For achieving success: –

For overcoming diseases :

For increasing power :

It would however, be stupid to ‘suggest’ that any of the mantras relating to Kritya and Abhíchar have anything to do with charm or magic.

There is no charm or magic in such mantras.

English, Vedic Religion

VEDAS : IS THERE MONISM OR POLYTHEISM IN THEM?

May 2, 2014 rdhoot 2 Comments

VEDAS : IS THERE MONISM OR POLYTHEISM IN THEM?

Author : Pt Dharmdev Vidyamartand

From the Book “Veda:The Myths and Reality” ( A reply to Vedic Age )

One of the subjects which has generated a lot of controversy among the scholars is whether the Vedas teach polytheism, henotheism, monism or monotheism.

Before discussing this question, however, let us discuss what these terms really mean. Polytheism means belief in the plurality of gods, each with a sphere of his own in the governance of the this universe. “In simple words, it means Worship of many gods or Gods.

By monism is meant “development of the universe from a monad or from a single element.

lt corresponds to what is generally called as the principle that nothing else except Brahma (God) or the Absolute exists.

The Henotheism denotes that each of several divinities is regarded as the Supreme-each in its sphere.

And monotheism is belief in the existence of only One God.

Westem scholars like Clayton have said that there is polytheism in the Vedas. Even Max Muller who saw in Rigveda”s hymn 10.121 an expression of One God, “expressed with such power and decision, that it will make us hesitate before we deny to the Aryans, an instinctive monotheism which, however, comes out with a rider : “This is one of the hymns which has always been suspected as modem by European interpreters”

Even while commenting on Rigveda’s “प्रजापते न त्व दे तानन्यो विश्वा जातानि परी ता बभूव” he says, “This is the last verse, into my mind, most suspicious of all.”

lt is obvious that this suspicion has been raised deliberately by Max Muller and other western scholars as their study of the Vedas was biased and they were not willing to accept monotheism in the Vedas.

This is the reason why they have also created confusion while translating “कस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम” as “to which God shall we offer worship”. ln fact they want to show that there are many gods and the devotee is wondering as to whom to Worship. (ln fact कस्मै देवाय is answered by “प्रजापति” as “क” stands for “प्रजापति” as clear from Satpath : “को हि प्रजापति अथवा प्रजापतिर्वक ”

Max Muller has, in fact, coined a new word “Hen0theism” to show the worship of many “single Gods” or a number of independent deities in the Vedas.

For instance in his book “Ancient Sanskrit Literature ” Max Muller writes :” Each Vedic poet seems to exalt the particular god to whom he happens to be singing, to a position of supremacy. It would be easy to ﬁnd, in the numerous hymns of the Veda, passages in which almost every single god is represented as Supreme and Absolute. ln the first hymn of the Second Book of the Rigveda, Agni is called the Ruler of the universe, the Lord of men, the Wise King, the Father, the Brother, the Son, the friend of men, nay all the powers, and names of others are distinctly ascribed to Agni. Indra is celebrated as the strongest in the hymns as well as in the Brahmnas, and the burden of one of the songs of the Tenth book is ” विश्वस्मादिन्द्र उत्तर “. (Indra is greater than all.) Of soma it is said that he was born great, and that he conquers everyone. He is called the king of the world, he has the power to prolong the life of men

and is the maker of heaven and earth; of Agni, of Surya, of lndra and Vishnu. ln the very next hymn, addressed to Varuna, it is the Varuna who is, to the mind of the poet, Supreme and Almighty.”

Clarifying this concept hynotheism A.C Clayton writes in the “Rigveda and Vedic Religion :-

“In his Writings Max Muller constantly referred to this and coined the word Hynotheism or Kathenotheism to express what he re-garded as a ‘peculiar character’ of the ancient Vedic religion.

It denotes that each of several divinities is regarded as highest. The one that was worshipped and that they, therefore, treated him as if he were absolutely being independent and Supreme, alone present to the mind of the worshipper.”

In effect, as pointed out by Dwij Das in his book “Rigveda Unveiled”, the Rishis have been reduced to the position of “sycophants or cowardly liars, who could call each single god, as the one Supreme Being, only to avert the wrath of that God. Knowing at the same time, that they are not telling the Truth.”

Clayton and a few other scholars, though denying monotheism in the Vedas, say that they regard this practice of glorifying one God exclusively as “a species of poetic licence by which a singer magnified the god whom he was invoking, rather than an evidence that the poet actually claimed that the god to whom he was at the moment referring was the superior of all others”

We, however, do not agree with Clayton and other scholars that such descriptions are due to poetic license either. We are not prepared to believe that there is any scope for such poetic licence in view of overwhelming evidence of monotheism in the Vedas. The Vedas teach monotheism or the Worship of one God in the purest form . They teach that God is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent Lord of the universe. He is absolutely formless and perfect.

The vedas declare :

Monotheism in the Vedas has not been stated more forcefully than in the following mantras from the Atharvaveda where God has been described as One and the only One. :

(He (God) is called neither the second, nor the third, nor yet the fourth. He is called neither the ﬁfth, nor the sixth, nor yet the seventh. He is neither the eighth, nor the ninth, nor yet the tenth.)

He takes care of all that breathes and of all that does not breathe. He has got all this conquering power, He is the one, one and the only one.

All these luminous forces of nature become one in Him. How emphatically the oneness of God has been asserted in such passages and how absurd and false is the view advocated by some prejudiced Western scholars that the Vedas teach polytheism.

We will give some more evidence of the Oneness of God in the Vedas.

In the हिरण्यगर्भ hymn, (in Regveda) consisting of 10 mantras, God has been described as प्रजापति and more than four times it is clearly stated that.

He is One and the only One.

Following mantras from this hymn may be quoted to clarify this point :-

(God who possesses all the luminous Worlds within Himself and exists from the very eternity, He is only One Manifest Lord of the created creatures. He is supporting this earth and this heaven. Unto that All-Blissful Divinity, we offer our humble worship.”)

(He who is the Giver of physical vigour and spiritual power, He whose order is carried out by all the luminous objects and by the enlightened beings, whose shelter is immortality and turning away from whom is death, unto that all blissful Divinity, we offer our humble Worship.)

(He who by the greatness of His power, is the Sole Ruler of living and lifeless objects existing in this world, He, who is the Lord of these bipeds and quadrupeds unto that All-Blissful Divinity, we offer our humble Worship.)

(When water in its subtler form, possessing mighty force within itself, became manifest, therein was held the Universal life force which of heat and energy, it was then the One Universal life force of all the luminous objects became manifest, unto that All blissful Divinity, we offer our humble Worship.)

Atharvaveda says. He, the only One is the Giver of joy, and should be worshipped: “एक एव नमस्य: सुशवा:”

Samveda also describes God as One एक इत्”:

The Oneness of God has been poetically described in the following mantra from the Rigveda :-

(He whose eyes go every where, who faces all sides, whose arms are here, there all around and whose feet in all directions–is the Only One Divine Being who has created all these heavens.)

God is proclaimed as ‘एक (one) and अन्तमानुष: (unparalled) in the following mantra from the Rigveda:-

Addressing God as “अग्नि” Rigveda in the following mantras in its ﬁrst hymn of the Second Mandela says:

Just as a person is called brother, father, uncle, husband etc because of different relationships he bears to other members of the same family, so also God is described differently because of his different attributes.

He is called (Agni) when we remember him as an embodiment of knowledge and इन्द्र: (Indra) when we want to denote His vast wealth.

To denote his Omnipresence, we call him विष्णु(Vishnu) and to give an idea of His greatness, we described His as ब्रह्मा (Brahma).

By virtue of his Supremacy in knowledge, He is known as ब्रह्मणस्पति (Brahmanaspati). His purifying power entitles Him to be called वरुण (Varuna).

As he loves everyone He मित्र(Mitra) and as He isjust, He is अर्यमा (Aryaman).

He is रूद्र (Rudra) because He comes harsh on the wicked, द्रविणोद (Dravinoda) because He is Giver of wealth and strength, सोम: (Soma) because He has created roots and herbs etc. God is also described as ‘सोम (Soma), पुष(Pushan) and भग (Bhaga) as evident from the following mantras from Rigveda;

(O, Soma,Thou, “who hast created these herbs, this water and these cows”, Thou who art present in the entire firmament and removeth all darkness by Thy illumination, Thou, who art Creator of good intellect, Thou who art also Creator of firmament, sky, earth, fire, sun and air etc. Thou art (“Pusan”) because of Thy powers to strengthen and revive because Thou art worthy of our Worship. Thou art the Master of the whole universe and art present in all the Worlds.)

Several other mantras, can be quoted to show that अग्नि (Agni) ,आदित्य (Aditya) , वायु (Vayu) ,चन्द्रमा(Chandrama), शुक्र(Shukra) , आप (Aap) , प्रजापति (Prajapati) are all different names of the same One God and only denote His verious attributes.

For instance, take the following mantra from Yajurveda (32.1)

(Here God has been described differently because of His different attributes : अग्नि(Agni) because He is embodiment of knowledge, आदित्य (Aditya) because. He is Eternal, वायु(Vayu) because He is the cause of all movement in the world (वा गति गन्धनयो: )-“चन्द्रमा” (Chandrama) because He is pleasing to everybody, ( चदी आल्हादे ) -“शुक्र (Shukra) because He is pure (शुनिरपूर्ति मावे) (ब्रह्मा) because He is the Greatest of all, CNN: (Apa) because He is Omnipresent and प्रजापति (Prajapati) because He looks after His subjects).

The mantras published by Max Muller from Rigveda’s 2.1 under the caption “Agni”, in fact, sing the glory of One God who has been described here as अग्नि (Agni)

Can anyone believe that these adjectives have been used for simple fire? Thus Max Muller and his followers only betrayed their bias and partiality when without probing deep into the meaning of

these words, they played havoc with them.

Now the question arises 1 how can we reconcile the idea of One God with several references to 33 devas (gods) in the Vedas ?

A lot of misunderstanding results from the Western scholars who have taken ‘ ‘देव’ ‘ as “God” everywhere.

देव, according to Yaskacharya, the celebrated author of Nirukta (Vedic Philology) means one who confers some advantage upon us, can illumine things i.e. explain or throw light upon them, and one who is the source of light :-

The word देव (Deva) with its root a comprehensive term covering brave men, devotees of God, learned persons, Brahmins, objects like sun, moon, ﬁre, electricity.

Following are some of the meanings of देव occuring in the Satpath Brahman :

THE 33 DEVAS

There is reference to 33 devas in the Vedas at several place. For instance, a clear reference has been made to them in Rigveda’s 1.45/27, 8/28/1,88/30/2 and Yajurveda’s 20/26 etc.

There is also reference to the 33 devas in Satpath and other Brahmins (which are commentaries on the Vedas).

Satpata says that : there are 33 Devas which manifest the glory of God. Of them are 8 Vasus, 11 Rudras, 12 Aditya, lndra and Prajapati. The eight Vasus are (1) Agni or ﬁre (2) earth (3) air (4) superterrestrial space (5) sun (6) moon (7) atmosphere (8) stars.

These are called Vasus (abodes) because in them resides all that lives, moves or exists.

The eleven Rudras are the ten pranas (vital forces) enlivening the human frame and the eleventh is the Atma or the soul. lndra is all pervading. Prajapati is Yajna.

The 12 Adityas are the twelve solar months making the course of time. They are called Adityas as, by their cyclic motion, they produce changes in all objects.

Thus it is clear that calling sun, moon, earth, ﬁre earth etc as ‘devas ‘, the Vedic religion cannot be described as Polytheistic.

It is, however, clearly stated in Rigveda that God is the Supreme Lord of all the devas :

(God is the One Life and Lord of all devas and, therefore, we worship Him, who is Giver of all happiness, peace and bliss.)

Dependence of devas on God has been brought out by the Vedas in several mantras.

For instance in Atharvaveda, after describing God as महद यक्षम(the Most Venerable Supreme Being), it is Stated that devas live around God as the creepers around a tree :

ARE DEVAS IMMORTAL ?

ARE THEY PROOF OF POLYTHEISM

Some of the western scholars, on the basis of the portrayal of 33 devas in satpath, assert that it is a clear cut evidence of polytheism in the Vedas.

To contradict this view, first of all, let us be clear that ‘devas’ as described in the Vedas, do not necessarily only stand for gods.

The word देव(deva) which has its root as दिनु (Dinu) is a comprehensive term covering the attributes of God; sometimes they stand for devotees of God and also learned persons; they also denote objects of Nature like Sun, Moon, Fire etc.

While Devas have been described as immortal in the Vedas; it has been clarified that they derive this immortality from God. This idea also occurs in Brahmanas and Upnishadas. ln Rigveda, for instance, it is stated that God alone bestows immortality on the devas :

In Yajurveda (32.l0) also, it is said that the devas live in the protection of God :

To God turn all devas after emancipation to enjoy the everlasting bliss.

lt has been clearly stated in the Rigveda that the learned and the wise describe the One existing God in many ways.

But despite this truth, Agni, Indra, Mitra, Varuna etc have come to be considered as separate gods. It will, therefore, be fruitful to know the signiﬁcance of these words to remove the mist surrounding them. We will also discuss what have come to be known as dual gods like मरुत: etc.

From the spiritual point of view, अग्नि stands for God who is also called as यमा, मातरिश्वा,इन्द्र, वरुण as stated in the following mantra from the Rigveda :

From the social point of view, the word अग्नि (‘Agni”) denotes

There are many mantras in the Vedas in which Agni has been used in the sense of an enlightened leader,

For instance, in the following mantra from the Rigveda, अग्नि: (for whom the adjectives used are ऋषि (seer), पवमान: (purifier) पांचजन्य: (dedicated to the welfare of the society) is requested to dispel all ignorance by his discourse :

The adjectives used as होता, पुरोहित(Knower of the rites of the Yajnas (priest), in the following mantra from the also leaves us in no doubt that the word अग्नि: has been used for an enlightened leader :

The same impression is conﬁnned by the use of such adjectives as शुचिव्रतत (who firmly observes the sacred vow) कवि: (sage or poet) for ‘Agni’ in the following mantra :

INDRA :-

The word इन्द्र primarily stands for God as it has been derived from the root “इदी परमैश्वर्य”.

It also stands for “soul° as it possesses great power being the master of the sages.

From the social point of view, the word ‘E’ stands for the king or president, or the commander in-chief-of the Anny (सेना इन्द्राणी-इन्द्र:-सेनापति: ).

There is no room for doubt that the word Ef: has been used for God in several mantras in the Vedas in which He has been described as the Creator of the Universe and Bestower of happiness.

ln the following mantra, for instance, which occurs in Samaveda, Rigveda and Atharvaveda, God, described as “Indra” has been requested to ﬁll us with knowledge in the same way as a father does to his son :

In the following mantra from Rigveda, God addressing Indra (soul) tells about the power inherent in it :

(March forward and use your power, None can stop Thy thunderbolt. Everyone is subdued by Thy strength.)

lndra (soul) is made to describe its own power in the following mantra from Rigveda:

(I can face one enemy (lust) and anger), I can also face three enemies (lust, anger and greed) etc.; I will crush all my enemies like husk in the granery.)

The use of word इन्द्र for king is undeniable in the following mantras from the Rigvedic Sukta in which इन्द्र has been described as स्वस्तिदा(engaged in welfare of others), वृषा(showerer of happiness on others) अभयं कर: (inspirer of fearless in others) :

Likewise रूद्र according to Swami Dayanand, stands for the just God who makes the wicked persons weep (रोदयति दुष्टान दंड प्रदानेनेति न्यायकारी परमेश्वर: ), a great hero who makes the enemies cry (रोदयति शत्रून इति रुद्रो महावीर:) the judge who inflicts heavy penalty on the wicked (रोदयति दुष्टान इति रुद्रो न्यायधीश:), the preceptor who imparts knowledge to others (रुत ज्ञानं राति-ददातिती रूद्र: उपदेशक: ), the germ which generates diseases (राति-ददातिती रुद्रो रोगुत्पादक: कृमि:) a doctor who removes the sufferings of others (रुत दुखं द्रावयतिती रुद्रो वैद्य: ).

Referring to Swami Dayanad”s view that all the gods mentioned in the Rigveda are simply variant names for one God, Dr. Griesward in his book “The Religion ofthe Rigveda” says : “This process of reduction from multiplicity to unity would have been easier if there had been no dual gods or group gods mentioned in the Rigveda”

But the correct study of What he has described as the dual gods or group gods like अग्नोजिमौ, अश्विनौ, मरुत: will reveal that these words, like other devas, have several meanings and do not stand for any particular god or gods as such.

Dr. Griesward’s remark that monotheistic interpretation of the Rigveda on the part of Swami Dayanand is “wild” and “unscientiﬁc” is also very surprising in view of the massive evidence we have given to support monotheism in the Vedas.

The quotations given earlier in this chapter are enough to support the existence of monotheism in the Vedas. Swami Dayananda, therefore, did nothing which was purely imaginative or unscientiﬁc.

Let us examine some words which have been mistaken by westem scholars as dual gods.

The similar meanings of अग्नीषोमौ are also found in Aitteriya, Satpath Brahamanas etc. For instance:

Following are some of the meanings of “इन्द्राग्नी” :-

Some of the meanings of अश्विनौ are given below-

Swami Dayanand has at several places interpreted अश्विनौ as . This deﬁnition of अध्यापकोउपदेशकौ is substantiated by the second and third mantra of Rigveda”s I-120 in which the adjective विद्वांसौ has been used for अश्विनौwho have been requested to impart knowledge.

As मरुत ﬁgures prominently among the so- called group gods, examination of this word is very necessary. HW: does not denote God.

In ताण्डय महाब्राह्मण, मरुत: has been described as मरुत रश्मय: (l.4.l25) and in Aitareya as ( आपो वा मरुत: )(6.2O)

In Nighantu मरुत: reads as पदनामसु which stands for monsoons.

Swami Dayanand has given the following meanings of the word मरुत: in course of his commentary on the Vedas:-

No scholar can dismiss Swami Dayanand”s interpretations of the word मरुत: to be a pure fabrication of his mind. As it is clear from the above, the word has not been used for God. Some of the synonyms used for this word in the Vedas, are =नर:, मर्या, मानुष: etc. .

In Rigveda for instance, at many places (particularly l.39.3,8.20.lO,l.64.l0,10.86.8,8.552, the word नर: has been used for मरुत:

ln the following mantra, for example, words नर: and मर्य: have been used for मरुतो देवता :-

The word गृहमेघास: (householder) has been used for TRE: in the following mantra from Rigveda (7.59.l0) :-

The synonym for मरुत: in this mantra from Atharvaveda given below (7.773) is मनुषास: (thoughtful men) :-

ln a number of mantras in the Rigveda (see for instance 5.53.3,5.59.6,5.6,4,7.56.l,l.77.l)the word मर्या: has been used for मरुत: which means the ‘mortal men’. Sayanacharya has also, at some places, in his Commentary written मनुषरूपा वा मरुत: (see Rig. 10.83) While commenting on the two mantras from the Rigveda (8.89) Sayanacharya has described ITR-T: as persons who speak less ( मित भाषिण:)and who Worship God( स्तोतार: ).

Much before Sayanacharya, Samveda commentator Madhava, who belongs to the Sixth century, has also while explaining (प्र व इन्द्राय बृहते) say हे ( मरुत:) मदोया ऋत्विज:).

Bharata Swami while explaining बृहदिन्द्रय गायत मरुतो वृत्रहन्तमम writes मरुत:- स्तोतर: महत रुवन्तिती मरुत: The mantras बृहदिन्द्राय गायत also occurs in Yajurveda (20.30) Both Bharat Swami and Mahidhara give the same meaning of the Word मरुत:

MAXMULLER AND MARUTA

While Maxmuller has given the meaning ofमरुत: as (Storm gods) in his translation of hymns relating to them, at places he deviates from his usual meaning and uses the word in the sense of नरा: (men).

For instance, while translating the following mantra from the Rigveda (1.393), he uses “O ye men” for Maruti :

(When Ye overthrow what is ﬁrm, O ye men)

In the following mantra from Rigveda (1 .85.8), also Maxmuller describes Maruta as “men terible to behold”

The word “men” has also been used for Maruta in his translation of the following mantra from Rigveda

(He, oh men, whose libations ye want to enjoy, that mighty one, O shakers, will obtain your favour with brilliant riches etc.)

Thus it is clear from the above that though there is description of many devas in the Vedas and they denote different meanings there is only One God who is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent.

The existence of many devas in other words, does not interfere with the concept of One God.

THE VEDAS AND THE MONISTIC PHILOSOPHY

We must, however, clarify that though there is monotheism in the Vedas, there is no enunciation of monistic philosophy in them.

The whole relationship between God and soul has been clearly defined in the following mantra from the Rigveda (where both of them have been described as two birds sitting on the same tree):

In the above mantra, it is stated that जीवात्मा (soul) and परमात्मा (God) are two birds who are friendly to each other. Both of them are enternal and are sitting, as though on the tree of matter. One of them (soul) is to reap the fruits ofpast action and the other just looks on. Elaborating this, says Mundakakopanishad :-

On the same tree sits जीवात्मा (soul) immersed and deluded account of his ignorance and helplessness. But, when he sees the other, the Lord, who is worshipped by all and His glory, he becomes freed from sorrow. This shows the difference between God and soul.

While God is all-pervading, the soul is not, while God is Onmiscient, the Soul is not, and therefore, the soul is a prey to grief and sorrow. While God is Omnnipotent, the soul ‘s power is limited. Their relationship is that of the father and the son, the master and the servant, the King and his subject, the adorable and the adored.

Says the Taitteriya Upanishada :

(God is the embodiment of Bliss. The soul enjoys Bliss only by attaining Him.)

The above quotations from the Upanishadas (which are at many places only the Explanation of the Vedic mantras or expression in different words of what is contained in the Vedas) show that in the mantra “हा सुपर्णा” the reference is to God and soul and not (intellect) and जीवात्मा (soul)

That God and soul are different is also evident from the following mantra which occurs in Rigveda and Yajurveda :

God, who is Creater of all Worlds, is different from them and yet within them. People do not know about it because their mind is clouded by ignorance.

The same idea finds expression in Satpath Brahmana :-

God is one who is present in the soul and yet who is different. It is God which controls the soul)

The same supremacy of God over soul has been established in the mantra given below in which God has been described as अद्भुत(wonderful) प्रियम( very loving) and काम्भम्(worthy of the soul’s adulation) :

In the following mantra, God has been described as भुज्य: सखा(a worthy friend) of soul thus clearly establishing their mutual relationship.

ln the following mantra, it is stated that the only way (soul) to seek salvation is to know God who is (Full of lustre) (Great) and (Beyond darkness) :-

We may also quote another mantra from the Rigveda (8. l 6.6) which totally contradicts the monistic philosophy whose basic tenet is:-

Brahma alone is सत्य (true) and the whole creation is मिथ्या(false) and that the जीवात्मा (soul) is not different from Brahma.

The true relationship between the (soul) and (God) and (matter) indicated in the following mantra falsiﬁes the dictum (God alone is real, the world is illusory)

In this mantra it is stated that :

(a) We should offer our prayers only to God

(b) All objects like sun, moon etc are inferior to God because they are all inanimate and lifeless.

lt would also be wrong to presume that though the attributes of the world are visible, they appear to be so out of ignorance. This would be quite contrary to the teachings of the Vedas. For instance, in the following mantra from the Rigveda (2.15.1) not only God has been described as महतासत्यस्य: (true) but even His करणानि(Creations) are stated as महानि सत्या: (true)

The same idea has been clariﬁed in Rigveda”s 4.17.6 :

lt is stated here that all objects created by विश्वे सोमा: (God) are सत्रा अभवन: (true)

Even in Rigveda’s 10.55.6., it is stated that all the objects are सत्यम इत् (true) न मोघम (not false or useless) :-

In Yajurveda’s 40.8 also, it is clearly stated that God created this universe for the beneﬁt of the mankind with truthfulness or reality :

“This universe is not only true but it is different from Him.”

This idea occurs at several places in the vedas. For instance, it is stated in the following mantra from the Rigveda (1.4.14) that God is only One (11:63: ) and He has created this world (विश्वम) separately from Him (अन्यत) But because He is Omnipresent (मानुषक्), all this Creation is permeated by Him. There is no place where He is not present :-

The existence of God, separate from His creation, has also been mentioned in the following mantra from Rigveda (1.151.1) (which is also repeated in Samveda) :-

(i.e. God created this Universe which is separate from Him.)

|| इति ||

English, Uncategorized, Vedic Religion

VEDAS & Interpolation

March 28, 2014 rdhoot 4 Comments

VEDAS & Interpolation

Author : Pt Dharmadev Vidyamartand

Authors of the Vedic Age have asserted that several parts of Vedas are no more than later additions or interpolations.

Asserting that the tenth Mandala is manifestly an earlier addition, they argue in favor of their contention that: (1) the language of this mandala is different from that of other mandalas. (2) the content of this mandala with such philosophic hymns as श्रद्धा,दान and नासदीय is also different from that of others.

Some western scholars also hold the view that the entire Kandas 15,17,18,19 and 20 have been interpolated in Atharva Veda. Even the whole of Atharva Veda was composed leter and added to the Vedas.

They say in Yajurveda also, only तैतिरीय सहिंता or कृष्ण यजुर्वेद is ancient, the वाजसनेय सहिंता which is also known as शुक्ल यजुर्वेद is comparatively modern.

In their opinion the whole of Samaveda has been stolen from the Rigveda; there is nothing original or new in it. Likewise there are many other parts of the Vedas which the authors of the “Vedic Age” have tried to show as later additions or interpolations.

IS 10th MANDALA AN INTERPOLATION?

Describing the 10th Mandala as “Atharvedic in character” the authors of the Vedic Age claim:

“That the Tenth mandala is later in origin than the ﬁrst nine, is, however, perfectly certain from the evidence of the language”

But illustrations given by these authors to prove their contention are highly illogical and irrational.

It is a common observation that at times one and the same author uses two different styles on two occasions in accordance with the subject he is dealing with. Sometime his language appears to be difﬁcult and at the other very simple. Vedas were revealed for the beneﬁt of the mankind including both the intellectuals and ordinary persons. This is the reason why in some mantras like the विश्वानि देव सवितर्दुरितानि परासुव, the language is so lucid and simple while in others, it is so abstruse and difﬁcult.

The modernity or antiquity of a passage cannot be determined by the presence or absence of particular words. But the authors of the Vedic Age have asserted that some of the words used in the 10^th mandala of Rigveda such as लोक, मोघ, विसर्ग, गुप् do not occur in the Vedas except in the interpolated portions or Balhilya Hymns. They have no evidence to show what is interpolated and what is not. The distinction made by them is imaginary.

THE WORD “लोक “

Besides in the previous Mandals, the word ‘लोक” occurs at several places in the Rigveda; for instance, it is there in 1.93.6, 2.30.6; 3.2.9; 4.17.17; 5.4.11; 6.23.3; 7; 6.47.8; 6.73.2; 7.20.2; 7.33.5; 7.60.9; 7.84.2; 7.99.4; 8.100.12; 9.92.6; ‘लोका:’ Rig. 9.113.9; ‘लोके’ Rig. 329.8; 5.1.6; 9113.72;

Even the authors of the “Vedic Age’ do not consider these portions to be interpolated and, therefore, it is surprising how they included this word among those which, according to them, occur only in the 10^th Mandala or the interpolated portions.

The word मोघम also occurs, (besides the l0th Mandala,) in the following mantras from the Seventh Mandala :-

The word `विसर्ग also occurs in the 103th hymn of the seventh Mandala of Rigveda तप्ता धर्मा अश्नुवते विसर्गम ln the 10th Mandala also, this word occurs though only once.

Proving modernity of l0th Mandala on the basis of the occurrence of the word विजय as done by the authors of the “Vedic Age`, is simply absurd as the word, in its various forms, occurs many a time in Rigveda.

For instance the word विजय has been used in Rigveda 2. 1 9.9 in यस्मान्न ऋते विजयन्ते जनास:

lt occurs in other forms in the following places :-

About the word सोम the authors of the Vedic Age say that while it occurs 50 times in the Ninth Mandala, it is used only once in the 1Oth Mandala.

ls it important for this word to occur many times there even if it be not needed in the context? We fail to understand how the existence of separate subjects in different Mandalas and use of different words accordingly go to prove modernity? The authors of the “Vedic Age” have said that the words सर्व, भगवान, प्राण, हृदय etc. mostly, though not exclusively, occur in the Tenth Mandala. If they also occur in the other Mandalas, how do they, even according to their theory, show the modernity of the Tenth Mandala ?

We consider Vedas to be the Voice of God and therefore, the words used there are inevitable and indispensable:

We have absolutely no business to ask why particular words did not occur in this or that Mandala. It will be only impertinence on our part to raise this question. Even the ordinary writers know that the use of words changes in harmony with the content of a write up.

We can give many illustrations to show how one writer has resorted to different styles in different books in keeping with the spirit, the temper and the mood of their content.

For instance, it is well-known that the language of Panini`s अष्टाध्यायी is different from his जाम्बवती विजय महाकाव्य. There is also a lot of difference between the language of Jaimini”s Mimansa and his “Brahmana”.

The language of Katyana’s श्रौतसूत्र and स्मृति also varies widely.

Among the modem writers also Sri Aurobindo’s ‘Life Divíne ‘ differs very much from his “Basis of Yaga ” in respect of language.

We do not think that it matters very much if words like पृत्सु, गिवर्ण:, विचर्षनि:, वीती do not occur in the Tenth Mandala even when they are frequent in the preceding Mandalas. As we have pointed out earlier, it is not at all important to use the same words everywhere. What great difference does it make after all if instead of ` विचर्षनि the word प्रचेता or विश्ववेदा: has been used in the Tenth Mandala ?

The word ‘ विचर्षनि is also not to be found in the Seventh Mandala. Does it prove the modernity of this Mandala also on this count?

In fact the whole bogey of interpolation in the Vedas was raised by Western scholars like Macdonald. They raised this issue because they could not imagine that ”barbarous” people could express their thoughts so clearly on the spiritual, philosophical and psychological subjects as found in such hymns as हिरण्यगर्भ सूक्त,नासदीय सूक्त,श्रद्धा सूक्त, मन्युसुक्तादी.

The Western scholars, in fact, stressed the distinction of language to prove that the l0th mandala is an appendix of the Rigveda. They have contended that the language and the content of the mantras contained in the mandala are different from those of preceding mandala. We, however, beg to differ with their view.

The seers of many hymns of the Tenth mandala and those of the ﬁrst and several others are the same. Only the scholars who are impartial and objective can decide on how is this in keeping with the belief of those who advocate the theory of appendix?

As pointed out earlier, the Western evolutionists and the Christian scholars, were greatly surprised to note enunciation of the theory of monotheism and other philosophical concepts in such hymns as हिरण्यगर्भ सूक्त.

In their perception the entire hymns containing such concept was “modem.”

But they fail to see that the idea of the oneness of God occurs in many other mandalas. For instance, this idea of monotheism is also expressed in the ﬁrst, second and the fourth manandalas.

Even the concept of monotheism found in the Tenth Mandala has been earlier expressed in the Second mandala. Dr. Macdonald, who is one of the advocates of the theory of interpolation of the l0th mandala in Rigveda, has contradicted himself in regard to this issue.

For instance, while, on the one hand, he has tried to show that the Tenth mandala was added later and, therefore, considered it to be modern comparatively, on the other, he maintains “Nevertheless, the supplements collected in it (Tenth mandala) appear for the most part to be older than the additions which occur in earlier books.”

Thus he demolishes his own argument regarding interpolation (in the Tenth mandala) on the basis of the distinctions in language. We may also mention here that some of the Rishis of the Tenth Mandala as for instance, Aditi…. Janshayane, Vaivastan, Yama Vaivaswat, Yami Vaivaswat Yama Yami etc. are very ancient-almost contemporaries of Manu Vaivasta.

ls it not ridiculous to call a hymn to be of recent origin or modem when its Rishis who revealed them are so ancient?

The word नत्युoccurs three times in the First mandala, two times in the Fourth, two times in the Fifth and Sixth, four times in the Seventh and one time in the Ninth mandala.

विश्वदेवा: is the ‘devata’ (subject matter) of three hymns of the First Mandala, two of the Sixth and Ninth mandalas, and of three hymns of the Tenth Mandala.

The word उषसalso occurs 32 times in the First mandala, nine times in the Second mandala, 16 times in the Third, 27 times in the Fourth, 9 times in the Fifth, 14 times in the Sixth, 29 times in 14, two times in the Eighth mandala, 8 times in the Ninth and 23 times in the Tenth mandala.

lt is, therefore, illogical to prove the modernity of 10^th mandala on the basis of such words.

In अनुवाकानुक्रमणी and चरण व्यूह it is stated :-

(There are 64 chapters and 18 Mandalas in Rigveda)

It is because of its comprising 10 mandalas that Rigveda has been described as दाशतयी by Yaskaracharya in his Nirukta.

We will now discuss the Balkhilya hymns.

ARE BALKHILYA HYMN S INTERPOLATED?

Eleven hymns in the Eighth mandale of Rigveda– from 49 to 59-are called बालखिल्य सूक्त named after their preacher Balkhilya.

Some Western scholars and their followers like the authors of the Vedic Age hold the opinion that these hymns were later added in the Eighth Mandala. Not only that, they have even made some contradictory statements in regard to theses hymns.

After showing its distinction from other mandalas, the authors of the “Vedic Age” write about the Eight mandala:-

“This peculiarity of the Eighth mandala does suggest-by no means proves, that the Eighth mandala was subjoined at a later date to the kernal constituted by the family mandalas. But there is positive reason to believe that there was a time when the Eighth mandala was actually considered to be the last in the Samhita, for why else, should the Balkhilya hymns be thrust into the Eigth mandala and not added after the Tenth.”

This whole chain of arguments seems to be incongruous. First of all, the authors themselves have given only suggestion or indication but no proof that this mandala was added later. Then why to state this uncertain thing as a fact? Moreover to say that the Rigveda ended definitely with the Eighth mandala demolishes the argument that it was added later on – and it also presupposes that the Balkhilya hymns were interpolated, the fact which itself has not been proved by any strong evidence.

One of the arguments advanced in support of the theory of interpolation of Balkhilya Sukta is the existence of the following in the Aiterya Brahmana :-

Explaining it, writes Sayanacharya:-

(i.e. there was a Rishi called Balakhilya whose 8 hymns were compiled in a book called “बालखिल्य”.

It appears that some of the hymns, which Rishi Balkilya popularized, were compiled and were available in the form of a booklet, possibly with explanation just as some such hymns of the Rigveda संगठन सूक्त ( Rig. 10.191) स्वराज्य सूक्त (1.80),शिवसंकल्पमंड ( Yaju. 34.10 ) were separately available. This does not show any evidence of any interpolation but only popularity of these particular hymns.

lt may be stressed here that the portion, from which the above sentence has been quoted from Taittireya Brahmana, is itself considered interpolated as stated in the chapter on “AncientSanskrít

literature ” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Therefore, a doubtful and interpolated statement cannot be given as evidence of interpolation of the Balkhilya Hymns.

These hymns which are not different from others in respect of their language or content were also included by Max Muller in his European edition of the Rigveda.

Referring to the antiquity of these hymns, Wintenitz writes in his book “A History of Indian Literature :-

“The word khilya means ‘supplement’ and this name in itself indicated that there are texts which were collected and added to the Samhita only after the latter had already been concluded; this does not exclude the possibility that some of these khilyas are of no less antiquity than the hymns of the Rigveda Samhita, but for some reason unknown to us, were not included in the collection.”

While we do not agree even with the sentiments expressed by Wintenitz (because we do not see any difference in these hymns from 49^th and others in Rigveda), his remark on their antiquity, however, deserves the attention of the readers.

Winternitz has also acknowledged that these hymns, available in the form of a hand written manuscript, are found at the end of the book.

lt was very improper on the part of Grifﬁth to take out these hymns from the middle of the Eighth mandala and to publish them at its end. He had no right to do so. lt will not be proper to call them

interpolations only because they are preceded with अथ and ended with इति. It seems that “अथ “, “इति” were added to them when they were compiled separately for the beneﬁt of the the common man.

The Aryas had made arrangements since the beginning to preserve the Vedas in their purest form leaving no scope for interpolations. One of such arrangements was devising eight forms of their recitation known as :-

जटा पाठ (Jata path), माला पाठ (Mala path), शिक्षा पाठ (Shiksha path), लेखा पाठ (Lekha path), ध्वजा पाठ (Dhwaja path),दंड पाठ (Dand path), रथ पाठ (Rath path), धन पाठ(Dhan path) I

In view of the prevalance of these different modes of recitation, it was difficult to make any addition without their immediate detection.

Another devise to preserve the accuracy of the text of the Vedic mantras was to prepare many indices of the number of metres, of words and the seers and devatas (subject matter) of different mantras.

KRISHANA YAJURVEDA VS SHUKLA YAJUREDA

The authors of the Vedic Age have advanced the view that कृष्ण यजुर्वेद{ (Black Yajurveda) is more ancient than than शुक्ल यजुर्वेद(White Yajuweda.)

The Black Yajurveda consists of the original mantras and the Brahmanas (which consist of explanatory notes and commentaries of the text of the mantras).

The Vedic Age authors are of the view that the mantras and the Brahmanas (which were separate in the White Yajurveda) were mixed up in the Black Yajurveda at a later date.

These authors say that listing the ﬁrst words of the White Yajurveda in the Black Yajurveda might give the impression that the White Yajurveda represents the original tradition of which the Black Yajurveda (with all its variation) is a later version.

But, they assert, “Truth should rather be just the opposite, it is hardly possible that the mantras and Brahmnas kept separate in the white Yajurveda tradition, should have got mixed up at a later date.”

They hold the view therefore, that the Black Yajurveda is older than the White Yajurveda.

Despite whatever these authors might say, we are clear that Brahmanas (which are explanatory data and commentaries on the text) cannot come before the text.

The very deﬁnition of the Brahmana (given below), presupposes the existence of the text before the commentaty.

Vedic commentator Patanjali’s assertion along with Swami Dayananda’s explanation go to prove beyond doubt that the Brahmanas were written and added afterwards:

(The explanatory notes by learned Brahamins and Risis, added to the Vedas for elucidation of the Vedic hymns, are called Brahrnanas. Because of the mixture of the mantras and the explanatory notes, the Taitteriya Samhita is considered of later origin. To consider a Brahmana to be more ancient than the original text, is illogical.

It is a matter of great regret that the authors of the Vedic Age failed to see this small matter and committed the blunder of imagining the White Yajurveda as of later date than the Black Yajurveda.

ATHARVAVEDA : WAS IT WRITTEN AFTERWARDS?

Western scholars like Bloomfield hold the view that Atharvaveda was composed much later than the other three Vedas. ln fact, they do not regard it as a Veda at all.

Perhaps such scholars formed this view on the basis of the use of the word त्रयीविद्या, which they thought denoted the existence of three Vedas.

But the fact is that this word actually denotes three subjects that the Vedas deal with – knowledge, action and devotion and the three styles ‘साम (musical) ऋक्(metrical) and यजु (prose).

Says Mimansa Shastra :

(i.e., where there is metrical composition, it is called ऋक्where there is music, it is साम and the rest is यजु. (prose)

In his introduction to `सर्वानुक्रमणी’, Sadguru Darshan, following Mimansa, has rightly observcd :-

(Though there are four Vedas, they have been divided into three categories on the basis of metre, music and prose.)

Bloomfield and many other Western scholars believe Rigveda to be the original Veda. Other Vedas are supposed by them to have been composed with mantras from the Rigveda with a few more additions. But this belief is also wrong. Many mantras from this Veda (which is considered to be the most ancient) give evidence of the existence of the four Vedas.

In the following mantra from Rigveda itself, it is clear that there are four and not three Vedas :-

ln this mantra a devotee offers prayers for his protection through एकया (Rigveda) द्वितियया (Yajurveda), तिस्रूभि: (Samveda) चतुस्रुभि: (Atharveda).

This mantra is repeated in Yajurveda (20,43) and also in Samaveda (mantra 36 and 1554). The word अथर्वा means a person with equilibrium of mind who is well-versed in the knowledge of the Atharvaveda .

The word अथर्वा or अंगिरा occurs in many mantras in the Rigveda.

For instance :

Thus there is no doubt that Atharvaveda is as ancient and authentic as Rigveda.

The same is also true of the Yajurveda and the Samveda because they have also been mentioned in the above mantras.

Besides Vedas, there is also clear reference to the Atharvaveda in other Scriptures.

For instance, the importance of the repetition of the mantras from the Atharvaveda has been stressed in Kanva Samhita :

Many such quotations can be given from scriptures to prove the authenticity and antiquity of the Atharvaveda. However those given above are, for the time being, sufﬁcient to show how absurd are the views of Bloomﬁeld and others on this subject.

INTERPOLATIONS IN ATI-IARVA VEDA

On the one hand Bloomﬁeld and his followers like the authors of the ‘Vedic Age”, regard Atharva Veda to be modem and on the other, they try to show that l5th , 17^th , l9th and 2Oth Kandas were later additions. They have advanced very strange arguments in support of their contention, Their main argument is that some of these Kandas are absent in the Paíppalada recension. But their argument becomes weak in view of the fact that some of these kandas (which they say were interpolated) are present in this recension. Only a few mantras have been omitted.

Absence of some mantras in these recensions does not go to prove that they were added later or are unauthentic.

But without taking this into account, the authors of the “Vedic Age” blindly follow Bloomﬁeld when they write :-

“Of the 20 Kandas of the Atharva Veda, the last one is manifestly a later addition manufactured almost wholly out of the borrowings from the Rigveda to serve as a manual for the priest called Brahmanacchamsin who had a definite though minor role to play at the Soma sacriﬁce. Moreover, the Kuntapa Suktas of this kanda are without any Pada Patha and nothing parallel to them can be found in the Paíppalada recension – showing that they had been given a place in this late kanda of the Samhita at a very late date.

“In fact, the 19’“ Kanda ends with signiﬁcant prayer which strongly suggests that the Samhita, at one time, was considered to end with it.”

But how can the fact that many mantras in the 20^th Kanda of the Atharva Veda had been taken from the Rigveda, prove the modernity of the former? On the other hand, it should only show antiquity of these mantras because the authors regard Rigveda to be oldest of all the Vedas!

lt is also wrong to presume that the 20” Kanda was added only to emphasise the role of a priest because the kanda contains many other important hymns such as इन्द्र सूक्त and स्वराज्य सूक्त. etc.

Even where there is repetition of some mantras from other Vedas in this Kanda, they serve some definite purpose.

On the repetition of mantras in different Vedas, Swami Dayananda writes in his “Introduction to Rígveda: ”

“By the Rig verses, we deﬁne objects, by the Yaju verses we apply them to use and by the same verses in Sama, we sing them.”

What Swami Dayanand observes becomes clear when we examine the following mantra which occurs in all the four Vedas :

When the mantra occurs in the Rigveda, it deals particularly with the properties of water; In Yajurveda, its application is for achmana (sipping of water). It is to be taken for God in Samaveda, which mainly deals with devotion and contemplation.

In Atharvaveda the utility of water for different technical purposes is stressed. lt also symbolises peace of which women are embodiment.

The last mantra of the 19″‘ kanda (which the authors of the Vedic Age consider to be indicative of the end of the Atharvaveda) is as follows :-

(We are putting the veda in the bag from which we had taken it out for preservation and safety etc.)

There is nothing to indicate the end of this Veda in the above mantra. This can as well denote the end of a particular chapter or a Kanda, in this case, of the conclusion of the 19” Kanda.

But most ridiculous is their remark which again seems to have been influenced by Bloomﬁeld.

“But there are reasons to believe that the 19^th kanda itself is a late compilation, for its hymns, though found in the Paippalada recension, are scattered throughout that text.”

This cuts at the root of their presumption that the Atharvaveda ends at the 19^th kanda. If it is a late compilation, how could it be taken to mark the end of Atharva Veda?

Then it also falsiﬁes their assumption that this hymn is not present in the Paippalada recension because they have themselves admitted that “these hymns, though found in the Paippalada recension, are scattered throught that text.”

As we have pointed out that in such recension, it is quite natural to ﬁnd change in the order of the mantras. The new order is guided by the special purpose of such compilations.

SAMA VEDA : ITS SEPARATE EXISTENCE

The authors of the Vedic Age hold the wrong notion that most of the mantras contained in Samaveda had been taken from Rigveda and that it has no separate existence. If it were so, there would have been no specific reference of Samaveds and its psalms at many places in Rigveda itself as for instances, in the following mantras-

(In these mantras, there is a clear mention of one who sings the songs of the Sama Veda.)

The following mantra, mentions the hymns of the Sama Veda side by side with Rigveda :-

ln the mantra given below the word सामगा has been used for one who sings the hymns of the Sama Veda and separately for the knower

of the Atharva Veda thus clearly pointing out to the separate existence of the two :

There is an injunction for singing the hymns of Sama Veda to glorify God in the following mantras :

इति

English, Islam, Uncategorized

CAN QURAN BE A WORD OF GOD?

March 27, 2014 GuestPost 5 Comments

Author – Aryavir

The Scholars of Islam claim Quran to be a word of GOD (Allah) and they bring forward some verses from Quran to support their claims. In this Short article, we will analyze one such claim and will prove that Quran is not a word of God in just three simple steps. The English translation of Quranic verses has been taken from reliable and authentic Islamic sources like www.quran.com and anybody who feels that the English translation of Quran is not correct should actually question these Islamic sources from where the translation has been taken.

STEP NO 1:

It is written in Quran Chapter 4 – Surat An-Nisā’ (The Women) verse 82 which says –

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

So here in this verse there is a very strong claim given by the Author of Quran that if it had been from anybody other than God (Allah) then we would have found many contradictory statements in Quran and no Muslim can refuse this statement in fact they very proudly mention this verse of Quran and challenge Non Muslims to prove one single contradiction in Quran. So if we find a single contradiction in Quran then it cannot be called as a word of God.

STEP NO 2:

Now let us have at look on some other verse of Quran-

Chapter 6(Surah Al-anam) verse 114 says-

[Say], “Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?” And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

Chapter 68 (Surah Al Qalam) verse 37 –

Or do you have a scripture (other than Quran) in which you learn

Chapter 77 ( Surah Al-Mursalat ) verse 50 –

Then in what statement after the Qur’an will they believe?

So as per these verse Quran is a book which has explained things in detail so neither you should doubt the authenticity of Quran and nor you should follow any other book other than Quran because according to these verses Quran is a complete book and the best discourse and no Muslim can disagree with this statement.

STEP NO 3 –

Now in the first two steps we have studied that Quran claims itself to be a book from God and states that there are no contradictions and it is book which is itself complete and has been explained in detail now we will analyze a four well known practices of Islam and we will see whether they are explained in detail or not and whether they contradict the verse 114 of chapter 6. Here are the four well known practices in the light of Quran-

a). FIVE TIME NAMAZ (PRAYER ) –

Salat (prayer) is one of the most important pillars of Islam and it is compulsory for a muslim to pray five times ( Namely Namaz fajr, Namaz zuhr, Namaz Asr, Namaz Maghrib, Namaz Isha ) in a day but surprisingly in Quran the holy book of Muslims which is book which has explained things in detail (As per Q 6:114 ) does not even mentions the number of times need to pray in a day there is not even a single verse in Quran which says that a muslim is suppose to pray 5 times a day and even more surprisingly even the names of five prayers are not mentioned in Quran, By name only Three Namaz are mentioned in Quran

1- Salat Al-Fajr (Dawn Prayer)24:58

2- Salat Al-Isha (Night Prayer)24:58

3- Al-Salat Al-Wusta (The Middle Prayer) 2:238.

Chapter 2 verse238 mentions the middle prayer and also says to perform the obligatory prayers but does not mentions how many times in a day you need to perform the obligatory prayers.

So The five times of Namaz is not mentioned in Quran a book which is claimed to be explained in detail and claims no contradictions in it and does not even clearly mentions the minimum number of times one needs to perform Prayer in a day which is indeed one amongst the basic pillars of Islam. It seems like the Author of Quran got so busy in expressing his hate and intolerance for Non Muslims that he forgot to mention the minimum number of times a muslim needs to pray in a day and then the Fake story of flying donkey (Al-Burq) was created to justify the concept of Five time Namaz in a day.

b). Celebrating Eid on the end of Ramadan –

Unknown to many Muslims, the term ‘Eid’ has never been used by the Quran to mark the end of Ramadan or to celebrate the conclusion of the fasting period. For example, the requirements to fast in the month of Ramadan, to pay ‘zakat’ and to establish ‘salah’ are not learnt by ‘prophetic sunna’ or tradition. These are clear directives instituted by the Quran as are many other prescriptive laws and edicts. There is absolutely no ‘religious’ prescription to celebrate ‘Eid’ in the Quran

The term ‘Eid’ has only been used once in the entire Quran and possibly in the context of the Eucharist which is the Christian ceremony which commemorates the Biblical Last Supper of Prophet Jesus. According to the New Testament, the festival is celebrated by Prophet Jesus’s followers as per his instructions to remember him.

According to the Quran, Prophet Jesus in response to an initial request made by his disciples (5:112), prayed to Almighty God that He send from heaven a table spread (with food) as a festival (Eid). This festival would constitute a sign from God from the ‘first to the last of them’

In Chapter 5 verse 114 “Said Jesus the son of Mary: “O God our Lord! Send us from heaven a table spread, that there may be for us a festival (Arabic: Eid(an)) for the first and the last of us and a sign from You; and provide for our sustenance, for You are the best Sustainer (of our needs).””

But no where in Quran (a book which is claimed to be explained in detail and claims no contradictions in it) ‘Eid’ has been used to mark the end of Ramadan or to celebrate the conclusion of the fasting period.

c). PROCEDURE FOR BURIAL OF DEAD BODIES –

Now Burial of dead bodies is a very important concept in Islam Muslims believe that a person whose body has not been buried cannot enter heaven and Burial of the Dead in Islam as it is practiced today, deploys a rigid ritualized process which is performed in the name of ‘religion’. Depending on which school of thought one follows, the rituals can vary.

What is interesting to note is the fact that preparing the body in a specified manner for burial is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran . For example, the Quran states when ‘ghusl’ (bathing) or ‘wudu’ (ablution) is required in chapter 5: verse 6 but this verse mentions no ghusl and wudu for the Dead.

There is complete silence on the matter regarding burial preparation and it is a matter left to society to prepare and bury the body in what is deems appropriate. There is no codified Quranic position with regards this. There is no right or wrong way to bury the dead, other than with respect and a matter to be performed with dignity.

d). Circumcision –

Many Muslims never question whether this ritual has any basis in scripture (i.e. the Quran). Instead, they blindly follow the traditions of their forefathers without rational thought, evidence or analysis subjecting their new born children to a part mutilation of their genitalia. The Quran on the other hand makes no mention of circumcision.

Instead, there are verses that indicate that God has already created the human shape in a perfected form (requiring no changes such as the removal of a male’s foreskin )

Chapter 95. verse 4

Transliteration

Laqad khalaqna al-insana fee ahsanitaqweem

“We have indeed created mankind in the best of stature (moulds ) (Arabic: taqweem)”

The above verses beg the following question. Why then is the male incomplete and requires his foreskin to be removed if our Lord has revealed no decree for it nor hinted at it from His words which He has revealed to us?

In fact, the only source that can be cited by Muslim is the ‘Sunna’, a practice carried forward from Abraham. But the question still remains. Where is the proof that this indeed was a practice instituted for humanity (men) when clearly God instructed Prophet Muhammad to follow the commandments and warn by way of the Quran only (6:19; 50:45)?

At no place in the Quran does it mention that Abraham practiced circumcision and if they bring proofs from any other book than it proves that Quran cannot be called a book which is explained in detail.

In connection with the above, the desperation to prove this practice as a religious requirement of Islam is all too evident in Muslim thought when the Bible (which is claimed by Muslims to be a corrupted book) is used to invoke proof. It is clear that many Christians themselves do not see circumcision as a fundamental requirement of their faith and worship towards God and they posit their arguments from scripture. Jewish followers do much the same to support their particular stance for the commandment of circumcision.

The Quran on the other hand makes no mention of circumcision.

CONCLUSION –

Quran which as per chapter 4 verse 82 claims to be a book from Allah because by claiming itself to be free from contradictions and in another verse Quran says that it is book explained in detail (as per verse 114 of chapter 6) and Muslims require no other book then Quran (as per verse 37 of chapter 68 and verse 50 of chapter 77) as Quran in itself is a complete book for Muslims.

Now in step three we have analyzed that the basic and most well known practices of Islam like

1 Five times Namaz daily

2Celebrating Eid on the end of Ramadan

3 Procedure for Burial of dead bodies

4 Circumcision of male gentiles

Is not even mentioned in Quran then how can we claim this book to be a book explained in detail ? Is this not a contradiction to verse 114 of chapter 6 ? Is this not a contradiction?

Muslims themselves knew that Quran is an incomplete book and to justify there practices they compiled the books of Hadees, We today see that Hadees themselves are books full of contradictions Sunni Muslim reject Shia Hadees and Shia Muslim reject Sunni Hadees and the Aihl-e-Quran (Quran Aloners) reject all the Hadees. In any of the above case whether we include Hadees or not Quran itself remains an incomplete book and no justification and mention for many of the current day practices of Islam are found in Quran.

So the above three step analysis clearly proves that Quran is not a word of God infact it is a man made book filled with errors and contradictions.

[Note – To keep the length of this article short, I have briefly discussed only four well known practices of Islam which are not mentioned in Quran there are some other things also which are not mentioned in Quran and some more contradictions in Quran which will be discussed in the next part of this series CAN QURAN BE A WORD OF GOD?]

The Purpose of writing this article is not o hurt anybodies religious beliefs but to accept what is truth and reject what is False.

ॐ असतो मा सद्गमय । Aum Asto Ma Sad Gamya

( O supreme Lord, Lead me from unreal to real )

तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय । Tamso Ma Jyotir Gamya

( Lead me From darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge )

मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय । Mrityur Ma Amritam Gamya

(Lead me from fear of death to the knowledge of Immortality)

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥ Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti

(O lord, Let there be Peace, peace and peace )

In case of any query, suggestion or feedback feel free to write me at my email id – defenderoftruth1@gmail.com

Islam

Terrorism has a Religion, and that is Islam

March 22, 2014 rahulraaj Leave a comment

Politically correct leaders, paid media, and pseudo-secular activists want us to believe that terrorism has no religion. They stress that no religion teaches terrorism, and it should not be linked with any faith. Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali-Gomaa once wrote in his article:

“Terrorism cannot be born of religion. Terrorism is the product of corrupt minds, hardened hearts, and arrogant egos, and corruption, destruction, and arrogance are unknown to the heart attached to the divine. Islam is a religion of tolerance and peaceful coexistence with all of humanity both as individuals and communities. Islam views people as honored creatures without regard for their religion, race, or color. “

If you ask any Islamic cleric or the politically correct leader about linking Islam with terrorism, their most probable answer would be, that terror has no religion or color. India’s External Affairs Minister, Mr. Salman Khurshid when asked the same question few months back, he answered:

“Terror does not have religion. We have said this very clearly. And religion should not be associated with color. This we have said very clearly. It is terror that we have to fight. Terror directed against India that we are fighting.”

Ask this question to any of the above mentioned people, the answer would be absolute same. But the question is, are they factually correct? Does Terrorism really has no connection with any particular religion? Has terrorism no color? In this article I will try to answer these questions using evidences, and teachings from canonical scripture of Islam and by the facts provided by the terrorists (Jihadis) themselves.

There are loads of evidences which proves Islam is the religion of Terrorism, but it cannot be compiled in a single article. So I’ll try to provide some evidences which proves my point. The Islamic clerics themselves admit that it is OK to kill the Non-Muslims (Kafirs) as per the teaching of Islam. In 2002 [WND], A London-based Muslim cleric has been caught on film urging his followers to kill non-Muslims – particularly Americans – and to commit other acts of terrorism.

Sheik Abu Hamza, affiliated with London’s Finsbury Park mosque, tells an audience that non-believers should be killed or sold into slavery in a tape converted to digital files and smuggled onto the Internet.

The tapes were reportedly given by Hamza to a researcher who posed as a supporter and infiltrated his inner circle. “If a kafir person (non-believer) goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow,” explains Hamza. “Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law.”

Another example is of Ajmal Kasab, the sole surviving gunman from 2008 Mumbai attacks admitted that hisAKAS (Islamic Leaders or Preachers) told him that killing ‘Hindu kafirs’ and getting killed while doing so is the most pious way to get to heaven, where a thousand million virgins will be waiting to serve them and take them even higher.

If these two example are not sufficient enough to prove that Islam is the religion of Terrorism, so let’s see what happened in West Gate Mall in Kenya.

According to an Eyewitness News who spoke to the Economist magazine’s Daniel Howden who is in Nairobi.

He said after the initial burst of firing was over, several witnesses said the attackers were calling on Muslims who were inside the mall to identify themselves so they could be allowed to leave.

The above report proves that the terrorists identified Muslims as their own, so they allowed them to leave the mall to kill all the other Non-Muslim inside the mall. As per another report:

“In one instance, it was described to me that an Indian man pretended he was a Muslim and was asked to provide the name of the mother of the Prophet Muhammad. When he couldn’t provide it, he was shot dead in front of everyone.”

It again proves that the terrorists wanted to know the religion of people who tried to escape, and they asked them questions, which are mostly known to Muslims. The Indian man was killed because, he didn’t knew the name of mother of Muhammad, whom terrorists adore as their Prophet, and his religion as their religion.

The evidence against Islam, becomes much stronger by the recent suicide bombing by Muslims in a Church in Pakistan, which was only attended by Christians. The sole intention of suicide bomber was to kill as many Non-Muslim he can.

These terrorist attacks are not alone evidence, there are dozens of verses too, which exhorts Muslims to become terrorists. Although I have discussed it many a times, still I’ll quote few verses which clearly commands Muslims to kill and fight those who accept not Allah as their Lord and Muhammad as his Prophet.

Quran 8:39 says, “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.”

The verse is self-explanatory, the author wants Muslims to fight the Non-Muslims until the religion is solely for Allah, i.e. Islam alone. Many Islamic scholars complain us of quoting the verses out of context, but unfortunately the verse itself says to fight the all the disbeliever until religion is only for Allah, which leaves no room for contextual interpretation.

Quran 9:14 says, “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.”

It is amazing to read that it is Allah himself who is using the hands of these terrorists to punish innocent non-believers, still people say that religion should not be linked with terrorism.

Now I believe after going through these evidences, any rational mind, without a shadow of doubt will agree with me, that Islam is the religion of terrorism. Terrorists are born out of preaching of Quran, and yes terrorist have a religion a color, which is Islam.

English, Vedic Religion, वेद

NO VIOLENCE IN YAJNAS

March 22, 2014 rdhoot 47 Comments

NO VIOLENCE IN YAJNAS

Writer : Pt Dharmadev Vidyamartand

Importance of Yajnas has been stressed in several places in the Vedas. Yajna is even considered a way to Worship and realise God :-

(When truthful and enlightened persons worship God through Yajnas, they attain salvation which is freedom from sorrow.)

The Word “यज्ञ” has its origin in the root (“Yaj”) ”यज” which means :

(1) Worship of God by enlightened persons (Devapuja)

(2) Unity (Sangatikarana)

(3) Charity (Dana)

Thus, “Yajna” epitomises all our duties towards God, to our superiors, equals and inferiors. This is the reason why Yajna is considered the noblest of all human acts. How a man, who does not perform Yajna, goes on degrading himself, is mentioned in Rigveda (l0.94.6)-and Atharvaveda (20.94.6) :

(Those who do not ride the boat of Yajna, become abominable and impure and their character keeps on deteriorating.)

It is matter of great shame that such yajnas, which are the means of worshipping God and attaining salvation, have been misinterpreted and misconceived by our own, medieval masters, no less by western scholars and, their modern followers who assert in their commentaries of the vedas that there are references here to sacriﬁce of sheep, goats, horses, buffaloes in the course of such yajnas.

For instance, one of the contributors to the Vedic Age, writes while discussing Apri Hymns,

“Scarcely less debased than the Dana Stutís are the Apri hymns, manufactured artiﬁcially for employment in animal sacrifices …. . . There is no reason to doubt that these hymns were actually used at the animal sacriﬁces as the tradition maintains”

Another contributor referring to the Kausika Sutra (XIII,I-6) says that it prescribes a magic rite in which portions of the bodies of some animals and human beings, such as of a lion and a tiger, a ksatriya and a Brahmacharin are to be eaten to acquire certain power ; not totemism but same sacramental communion, is hinted at.”

While detailed discussion on this issue will form a huge treatise, it will sufﬁce here to suggest a few points to remove such misconceived notions about the yajnas.

To begin with, we must stress that the word ‘अध्वर’ (Adhvara) occurs as a synonym or as an adjective for “यज्ञ ” (Yajna) at several places in all the four Vedas.

The author of the Nirukta, a book on philology, Yaskaracharya, gives the etymology of the word “Adhvara ” thus :- mantra

(“Adhvara” is the name of Yajna which means free from any violence).

Given below are some of the mantras from all the four Vedas in which the word “Adhvara” has been used in relation to Yajnas :-

RIGVEDA :-

(1)

-Rig. 1.1.4

(Thou, O Lord, art present only in the Yajnas, which are free from violence. Only such Yajnas are acceptable to the truthful learned persons).

(2)

-Rig. 1.1.8

(In this mantra also God’s presence only in violence-free actions is stressed)

(3)

-Rig. 1.14.21

(Using the word “Adhvara” for Yajna, the Wise have been requested to keep the Yajna “violence-free”.)

(4)

-Rig. 1.128.4

(It is stated in this mantra that God and the wise enjoin upon people to perform Yajnas free from violence.,)

(5)

-Rig. 1.19.1

(The blessings of God and the priests have been invoked in this mantra for the success of a Yajna free from violence, always.)

YAJURVEDA :-

Yajurveda is also full of mantras where not only the adjective “Adhvara” has been used for Yajnas, but also we are taught against violence of all kind including the violence against animals. For instance, this mantra indirectly rules out all violence in our dealings with the outside world:-

(Oh God, the Dispeller of darkness, may everyone look upon me with friendly eyes, may I look upon everyone (not human beings alone) with love and friendship, may we look upon each other with love and friendship.)

Describing Yajna as the noblest of acts in Yajurveda (101), people have been asked to protect the animals (पशुन्पाही) In Yajurveda (6-1 1) also there is a teaching for the married couple-pashun paai; pasun trayetham.

In Yajurveda 14.8 it is said ….. द्विपादव चतुष्पात पाहि l (O man thou protect bipeds and quadrupeds)

‘ Likewise in more than 43 mantras in this Veda, the word Adhvara has been used either as an adjective of yajna or its synonym.

SAMAVEDA:

There are also many references to Yajna as “Adhvara” in Samaveda.

Note for instances the followings :-

(In this mantra scholars have been invited to attend the Yajna which is ‘चारु'(beautiﬁ-because it is adhvara (non-violent).

(Using the word Agní(अग्नि) for God, it is said that He encourages non-violent Yajnas “adhvaranam”.

In this mantra also describing Yajna as “adhvara” people are enjoined to Worship God.

There is clear instruction against violence, particularly animal sacriﬁce, in the following mantra :-

It is prayed in this mantra: May we not indulge in any violent act, nor others tempt us to do so.

ATHARVAVEDA :-

Likewise in Atharvaveda, there are many mantras in which the word “adhvara” has been used for Yajnas. For instance :-

In fact the misconception about the injunction of animal sacrifice in the Vedas takes its root from the misinterpretation of the word medha ( मेधा ); a synonym of यज्ञ which is used as a sufﬁx to many words such as अजमेध(Ajmedha),गोमेध (Gomedha) , पुरूषमेध (Purushmedha), अश्वमेध (Aswamedha) etc,

These words, however, do not stand for sacriﬁces of horses, cows, human beings etc as will be shown in the following pages.

The Sanskrit root of the word मेधMedha is मेध्रुमMedhra which means :

(1) to sharpen the intellectual faculty

(2) to promote unity or love among people

(3) or to practice violence.

There is no reason why it should be taken only in the last sense, particularly in relation to Yajnas, in which there is strong emphasis on non-violence in all the Vedas.

It may be noted here that Purush Medha (पुरूषमेध ), Purush Yajna ( पुरूषमेध ) and nriyajna (नृयज्ञ ) are synonyms.

In Manusmriti, नृयज्ञ nriyajna has been explained as hospitality नृयज्ञोSतिथिपूजनम (Manu 3-70).

Taking the second meaning of the root Medhra. ( मेधृ )the word नृमेध (nrimedha) would mean uniting people for noble deeds and inspiring love and unity among them.

Nriyajna (नृयज्ञ ), Purush medha (पुरूषमेध ), are also Rishis of the following mantra from the Samveda :-

That the meaning of such words as अजमेध, and अश्वमेध are different from what they are understood by western scholars is also clear from their references in Brahmanas and Mahabharata etc.

For instance in Shatpath it is stated that the word Asva अश्व: also stands for the seminal energy :

“राष्ट्रं वा अश्वमेध:| वीर्यं वा अश्व||”

Increasing the energy or power of the citizens of the nation or proper administration of the state)

अज is also the name of a kind of paddy which at one time as a rule was poured into the Yajnas.

For instance, we read in Mahabharata (Santiparva):-

When in ancient literature people are asked to offer Aja ( अज ) in the Yajnas, it does not mean they should sactiﬁce a goat, but pour seeds of lentil of the same name.

The similar sentiment has been expressed by Vishnu Sharma in his Panchatantra (Kakoliyam):

Those who perform animal sacriﬁce for Yajnas are fools. They do not understand the proper meaning of the Vedas. ln “अजैर्यज्ञेशुयष्टव्यम” in the Vedas, the word Aja should be understood to mean “ Vrthi”, a particular variety of old paddy and not sacriﬁce of goats.

In “स्याद्वादमंजरी ”, a famous book in Jain literature, the word अज been taken to mean only paddy and never a goat.

(While the ignorant misinterpret the word अज as a goat, the learned understand by it only different varieties of paddy.)

lt has been clearly stated at several places in the Mahabharata that there is no mention in the Vedas of meat eating drinking, or animal sacriﬁces. The Yajnas marred by violence are contrary to the spirit of the Vedas and against the human laws of Manu. The yajnas with animal sacriﬁce were propagated by rogues, atheists, grabbers, usurpurs. Such Yajnas, in fact, are sinful and against religion.

Given below are two slokas from Mahabharata (Shantiparva) which will drive home this point :-

(It is stated in these verses that persons, who have spoken of animal sacriﬁce in Yajnas are stupid, atheists and are devoid of all knowledge about the injunctions of the shastras.)

Manu, the law giver, had stressed the importance of non- violence in all actions. Those who indulge in violence, do so on their own accord. Their actions have no sanction of Manu. Nor do their actions have the approval of the Vedas. All the religions preach non-violence and give it the highest priority in life. Only wicked persons started the tradition of meat eating, drinking and using other intoxicants. They were motivated by egoism, attachment and greed in starting this tradition. The Brahmans see the Omnipresent God in the Yajnas and offer oblations of milk or milk products in the sacriﬁcial ﬁre.

It is clear from the above that animal sacriﬁce in the Yajnas was started only by the wicked. And since it is not in harmony with the spirit of the vedas, any reference to it in Sravsutras, Grthyaasutras, Brahmanas, Smrítis or other religious books should be taken as an interpolation.

That the import of such material in the original ancient literature was not a new phenomenon has been stated by the famous dualist Acharya Madhvacharya in the following words in Mahabharata :

(Some wicked ones import foreign material into original books, some hide a few portions, others alter due to the laziness or do it deliberately. Thus even when these ancient books are not destroyed, they are distorted beyond measure)

The ancient Rishis were totally against animal sacriﬁce in the Yajnas. For instance, it is stated in Mahabharata (Aswamedha parva) that:

(When the Rishis saw the poor animals (brought for sacrifice in the Yajnas,) they were deeply touched, “There is no mention of animal sacriﬁce anywhere. This will only destroy your religion. You should perform Yajnas in accordance with the instruction, given in the Vedas for greater beneﬁt.)”, they told the priest.

No wonder Risis, who have been described in Nirukta as “those who realise the real spirit of Dharma”, considered animal sacriﬁce contrary to the spirit of the Vedas.

At another place in the Shantiparava in Mahabharata, it is said :-

Certainly animal sacriﬁce is not sanctioned by the Vedas. The Yajna is always non-violent and should be performed that way. If one goes to heaven by killing animals or shedding their blood, what is then the way to hell?

ASVAMEDHA YAJ NAS AND NON-VIOLENCE

lt is generally held by Western Scholars and their zealous followers that horses were sacriﬁced in Asvamedha Yajna.

But the description of such a Yajna performed by king Vasu as found in the Mahabharata, does not bear out testemony to this abominable practice.

तस्य यज्ञो महानासीदश्वमेधो महात्मन: |

(lt is stated in these verses that the Yajna was ofﬁciated by great sages and saints including three sons of the Prajapati and Kapila, Katha, Titeri and Kanva etc. This Yajna was very pious and sacred and no animal was sacriﬁced in it a all. The priests of this Yajna, who included authors of the Katha Samhita, Taittiriya Samhita, and Kanva Samhita, performed it in the non-violent way.

There seems to be some reference to animal sacrifice in “Taitteriya Samhita” which were added or interpolated to it only later.

EXHIBITION OF ANIMALS IN THE YAJ NAS

The root Medhra ( मेध्रू ) from which the Sanskrit word Medha (मेध )has been made also means Sangalnana(संगमन) This is borne out by the description of Asvamedh Yajna recorded in Mahabharata

(Aswamedha parva). For instance, in the following description, there is clear indication of an exhibition of different varieties of birds and animals being organised at the time of the Asvamedha :-

The misinterpretation of the words Alambha( आल्मभ ), Sanjapana (संज्ञपन) and Avadana ( अवदान ) was also responsible for creating confusion relating to the issue of animal sacrifiee in the Yajnas.

The following mantra from Yajurveda, is often quoted to suggest the evidence of the animal sacriﬁce :

The word alambha ( आलंभ ) in this mantra has been wrongly interpreted to mean sacriﬁce here of elephants for the Welfare of the Prajapati ( प्रजापति ) ; in fact, alambhana does not mean “to kill” but “to acquire”.

(The word Alambha आलंभ has its root in आंगपूर्वक लाभ which means to acquire, to embrace etc.)

For instance, see the use of this Word in the second sense in the following mantra :

(Here it is prohibited for the Brahmacharins to look or to embrace women (स्त्रीणां च प्रेक्षणालम्भम ).

In the second chapter ofपारस्कर गृह्सुत्र word occurs in this sense where the Acharya touching the heart of a Brahmacharin says :

(The bridegroom should lift his hand above the right shoulder of the bride and touch her heart.)

Here the commentators like Jai Rama and Hari Rama have interpreted the Word आलभते as सप्रूशति (touches)

ln the following injunction again from Paraskara Grihsutra the word alabhate has been used for “touching” :

ln Yajurveda there is a reference to acquire particular birds for specialized study and not for any wayward killing :

THE CORRECT MEANING OF SANGYAPANA( संज्ञापन )

The word संज्ञापन (Sanjyapanam) used at many places in Brahmanas and Shraut Sutras is generally taken to mean “killing instantaneously”. But this is grossly incorrect and only betrays the ignorance leading to its misinterpretation.

lt is clear from the use of this word in the following mantra that it means “to inculcate knowledge” or “to unite” :-

(The mantra means that your bodies should be united, you should take physical exercises unitedly, your minds and your souls should be united. May God, the Repository of Knowledge, always keep you united etc.)

In Satpath also there is a passage where the word has been used in the second sense of making one realise or making it known to others :-

(In this mantra, the power of the tongue, to make the other one know what is in the mind, is stressed.)

MISINTERPRETATION OF THE WORD ASWAMEDHA

It is assened in the Vedic Age that “Animal sacrifices” are indicated in the Apri Suktas and the horse sacriﬁce (Asva Medha) was undoubtedly performed”.

But the fact is that there is not the slightest reference to the animal sacriﬁces in these hymns. This is only the result of their ignorance and illusion.

The word अश्वमेध during the Vedic period was used in the sense of “administration of the state” or “increasing the strength of the state” as clear from ‘राष्ट्रं वे अश्वमेध: (Satpath 13- 1-6) or वीर्यं वा अश्व: But there is no evidence whatsoever of the sacriﬁce of horses in the Yajnas performed during that period.

In the following mantra which used to be recited at the time of the Asvamedha Yajna, there is no reference to animal sacriﬁce at all :

(It is mentioned in these mantras that the horses should be properly trained and full knowledge acquired about their behavior, food and drinking habits etc. People have also been asked in these mantras to look after the horses property.)

In all the mantras of this hymn, there are similar instructions. In the end also, prayers are offered for giving us cows, horses, strong progeny and wealth :-

No doubt some of the Indian scholars like Sayanancharya, Uvvate and Mahidhar and foreign scholars following them like Prof Max Muller, Grifﬁth and Wilson, have misinterpreted some of the Vedic mantras occurring in this hymn to suggest that there is a mention rather an injunction of animal sacriﬁce in the Vedas. While in reality, it is only the ﬁgment of their own mind with no truth in it at all. There is not only complete absence of any instruction for animal sacriﬁce in the Vedas, but there is clear provision for punishment of those who indulge in this practice even negligence, towards these dumb creatures.

Two of the mantras have been thoroughly misunderstood in this regard, the first one being as follows :

Sayanacharya, along with his Indian and foreign follower has given a very absurd meaning of this mantra. According to him the mantra means as follows :-

“Those who see the boiled ﬂesh of horses and praise the smell of their bodies, let the labour of such persons be ours”.

According to Swami Dayanand, however, the mantra means :

“Drive away from us those who beg the ﬂesh or horses or consider them worthy of sacrifice.”

The word Vajinam(वाजिनम) also means a “brave person”. Thus the mantra can also mean that the brave person, who is also well- versed in the art of cooking protects his country and brings wealth to it.

The second mantra, which is oﬁen misunderstood by scholars, is given below :

Saynacharya, and Mahidhar have played havoc while interpreting this mantra in the following way:

“Let not an iota of thy ﬂesh may fall to the ground, O horse, may the gods, desirous of it, receive it.”

Compare it with the rendering of this mantra with the one given by Dayanand in the following words :

“O Ye men, you should get the affected limbs cured by doctors because the medicine given by them is beneﬁcial for health.”

Killing of animals has been prohibited in many mantras in the Vedas. For instance, take the following :

(Don’t kill the horses.)

In Yajurveda’s 25.43 also, the words, ‘मा स्वाधितिस्तन्त्र आतिष्ठिपत् ‘ clearly instruct against killing of animals :

Some orthodox scholars went to the extent of imagining that those animals, which are sacriﬁced in fire, go to heaven. The misconceptions in this regard seemed to have sprung from the following mantra from the Rigveda (1 .162.21) (which also occurs in Yajurveda (25.44) :

Commenting on this Sayanachalya writes :

(Those shall not die O horse, because offered to gods, thou must achieve the divinity and thus share their immortality.)

The correct meaning of this mantra, however, is “Just as a man travels comfortably in a chariot moved by ﬁre, water and air, so the soul, which is fully enlightened through self-knowledge and free from the fear of death or violence, attains the divine bliss)”

Misinterpretation of such Vedic mantras was usually motivated by self-interest greed and ignorance.

Now we will critically examine some of the misconceptions about the sacriﬁce of cows and beef-eating’s.

Clayton, in his book, “The Rigveda and Vedic Religion” writes:

“At one sacriﬁce, probably a very unusual sacriﬁce, performed once in ﬁve years, called the “Pancha Sharadiya Sava, seventeen young cows were offered. Bullocks, buffaloes and deer were also sacrificed, sometime in large numbers. The White Yajurveda mentions 327 domestic animals, including oxen, milch cows, that are to be offered along with the horse at the greater Horse- Sacrifice”

The basis of Clyton’s conclusion seems to be “Rajendra Pal’s book entitled “lndo Aryans ate meat and drank wine”.

Most of the foreign writers have upheld this view and authors of the Vedic Age have almost copied it.

While describing the customs and traditions of the marriage ceremonies during the Vedic Age, they have written:

“The guests are entertained with the ﬂesh of cows killed on the occasion (of marriage).”

This statement made by them is highly erroneous because cows have been described in the Vedas at several places as ‘Aghnya’ (अघ्नया ) and Aditi( अदिति ) which means “not to be killed under any circumstances” Some of the mantras in which the word Aghnya (अघ्नया ) has been used for the cow are as follows :

(hi this mantra cows, addressed as Aghnya अघ्न्या have been enjoined to keep themselves healthy by use of pure water and green grass so that we, who drink their milk, may be endowed with Dharma, knowledge and wealth”

(In this mantra also, where again the word अघ्न्या has been used for cows, it is stated that this animal is responsible for our health and prosperity.)

(In this mantra, the milk of the cow has been compared with the ﬁght of God.)

(Describing the devotee, who is a man of action, it is stated that he gets up before the dawn, entertains noble thoughts and drinks the milk of the cow which should never be killed.)

(In this mantra also the adjective for Dhenunaam (धेनूनाम) is Aghnyanam अघ्न्यानाम [which is very signiﬁcant)

There is also clear instruction in Rigveda. 101.15 against the slaughter of cow which has been described as a mother :-

(Don”t kill the cow which is like the mother, the daughter, and the sister to the learned Brahmacharins.)

The word Aghnya अघ्न्या has also been used for the cow in the Atharvaveda :-

(I remove all your jealousies and prejudices and unite your hearts. May you love each other as a cow loves her new born calf.)

The following mantra from the Atharvaveda also extols the qualities for which the cow is universally loved and revered :

(In this mantra, the milk of the cow, for whom again the adjective Aghnya(अघ्न्या) has been used, is considered of special beneﬁt to the children.)

(In this mantra use of the milk of the cow, has been suggested for the learned persons endowed with great intellects.)

(In this mantra, the Veda has gone to the extent of suggesting the use of cow’s milk for removal of sins :

The penalty of death has been suggested for those who kill the cows :

Also the similar punishment is suggested for even stealing her milk :

In accordance with the spirit of these mantras, Manu, the law giver, has said :

The Vedic Age tries to reconcile the epithet “Aghnya” used for cows with the eating of bullock’s beef saying that (I) the ﬂesh of the ox, rather than that of the cow, was eaten. (ii) the ﬂesh of the cow (if at all) was eaten on special occasions like a sacriﬁce or at a reception of guests. (m) only barren cows ( वशा:) were sacriﬁced.

But this explanation given by them is unacceptable. We must make it clear that the epithet aghnya (अघ्न्या) repeatedly used for cows is also used for the oxen.

For instance Aghnya has been used for the oxen in the following mantras :

(While commenting on this Sayanacharya has written in his Kanvasamhita (chapter-13) :

(In this mantra an ox has been described as “not to be killed” (अघ्न्य:).

The suggestion that the ﬂesh of the cow was eaten on special occasions is also ridiculous.

We have earlier shown that in the entire Vedic literature the word “Adhvara” (non-violent) has been used for the Yajnas. To imagine that meat eating was pennitted on such occasions is beyond our apprehension.

The Brahmanas have clearly stated that meat eating is one of the things which renders the Y ajnas ineffective and, therefore, should be avoided at least during their performance :

(Eat not the meat nor thou indulge in sexual gratiﬁcation during the performance of the Yajna.)

Similar injunction has been given in Tandaya Maha Brahmana :

(A person performing Yajna should neither eat meat nor indulge in sexual intercouse. lf he does, Yajna becomes fruitless and yields no results.)

lt has also been stated in Vedic Age that the cows were killed and their ﬂesh served to please the guests. The following mantra is quoted to prove this practice :

It is also stated in the Vedic Age that the beef was served to guests on the occasion of marriages.

Late K.L. Munshi in his book “Lopamudra” says that guests अतिथिग्व (atithigva) was considered a respectable term which stood for a person who served beef to his guests. It is important to remove the misconception about such words as अतिथिग्व (atithigva) and अतिथिनिर्गा: (atithi-nirga) for गा: in Rigveda

(10.86.3) has been explained by commentators like Sayanacharya as सततं गच्छन्ती: (the root: अत-सातत्य) i.e., ever on the move.

Even the word गा: has been defined as water (साधुनयनादिगुणयुक्ता: अप:). Even if we take the word अतिथि instead of (अतिथिनी ) it means the cows which are brought near to the guests (अतिथिभ्यो नीयन्ते)and are ﬁnally offered to them. There is no reference to their killing which would be in direct violation of the

spirit of the Vedas in which the words Agnya अघ्न्या, and Aditi अदिति have been used. The word अतिथिग्न Atithi-gna does not mean a person who offers beef to the guests as wrongly misunderstood by K.L. Munshi. It stands for a person who goes close to the guests for their service as pointed by Saynacharya and Maharshi Dayanand. Even the famous Sanskrit English Dictionary by Monior Williams gives the meaning of this word अतिथिग्न (atithigna) as: “To whom guests should go.”

Bloomﬁeld has also deﬁned this word as “presenting cows to the guests”

It is pointed by some authors that the word “गोघ्न (Goghna) is used for guests in accordance with the aphorism of Astadhyayi “दाशगोघ्नौ सप्रदाने”. Actually, the word ` गोघ्न (goghna) is nowhere used in the Vedas for guests. When it is used as in the following mantra from Rigveda, it is used in the sense of “keep off ”:

( The killer of the cow is a mean fellow; keep away from him.)

Even in ancient literature, when this word occurs in regard to a guest, it means “A person to whom a cow is offered” and “for whom sweet words are spoken.”

The word गोघ्न’goghna’ is derived from the हन्(Han) which means ‘हिंसा (violence) and गति (movement). The word Stands for ज्ञान (knowledge) `गमन (movement) and (acceptance). Thus goghna गोघ्न is one who is requested to accept the cow. In Atharvaveda, husband is given the instruction :-

(Strengthing your body with the semen, O husband, go to your Wife.)

In this Saynacharya and other Vedic commentators have interpreted the word जा as गच्छ because no sane person can take it to mean to kill.

In Shatpath (1.4.1.2.1) it is stated :-

In this also, the performer of the Yajnas is stated to be desirous of meeting or accepting God and not killing Him.

Therefore Sayanacharya has rightly explained the word “जिघान्सति’ ‘ as ‘प्राप्तुमिच्छति ” _ Many such examples can be multiplied.

Therefore, the word गोघ्न means गौ: हन्यते प्राप्यते यस्मै’. (who is made to accept the cow.)

It is also wrong to say that there is a provision for the killing of the barren cows vasa( वशा: ) in the Vedas.

The word उक्षा and वशा in the following mantra, in particular, stand for oxen and barren cows :-

Actually उक्षा stands for the medicinal herb which is also known as सोम, or “सूर्य`ऋषममetc.

Famous Vedic commentator Sayanacharya has at several places used the word उक्षा to denote सोम. For instance while commenting on Rigveda’s he writes :

Monior Williams has given the similar meaning in his Sanskrit- English Dictionary :-

Uksa, name of Soma (as sprinkling or scattering small drops) name of the Maruts-of the sun and Agni-one of eight medicaments Risbhak.” Some scholars hold the view that the word ETSTT (vasa) in the Vedas stands for the barren cow who was sacriﬁsed in the Yajnas. lt is a very erroneous and misleading statement. Actually this word, used in wider context, means the controlling power of God, the controlling power of the soul which holds under its sway the mind, the intellect and the senses. There are many other meanings of this word, but surely it cannot be interpreted as “barren cows`. We thoroughly studies the hymn where this word occurs but nowhere did we ﬁnd anything to support the above contention, It is, therefore, quite ridiculous to hold the view that in Atharvaveda 10/10, there is

a reference to the sacriﬁce of the barren cows. Take for instance the following mantra from this hymn :

The word सहस्त्रधारांcannot be used in regard to a barren cow or any cow, for that matter.

The word apparently applies to the controlling power of God about whom, it is said in the Atharvaveda (10.190) :

वशा has been used here in the following mantra from the Atharvaveda as the “law of God” or “the controlling power” :

Besides the controlling power of God, the word also stands for earth or a piece of land as in :

In both the hymns (10.10.2 and 10.10.30) of Athaiyaverda, there is reference to giving or taking of “वशा” :

This word also means a good housewife who keeps her children well under control:-

Though the Word has been thus used in different contexts, its principal usage is in medicine. lt is also called “भेदा”.

The beneﬁts of taking this medicament have been described thus in ‘गुणनिघंटु” :

(It means that Meda is useful for cold, bite, heat, pain, cough etc.)

In Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Monior Williams also the words like एकड, वशा, अष्टपदिका, भेद been used for herbs or drugs :-

वशा-Premna Spinosa and Lorgibolia

अष्टपादिका-The plant Vallaiis Dichotoman Wall.

भेद:-A species of Medicinal plant.

Thus we have seen that it is incongrous and ridiculous to see in Atharvaveda hymns any reference to the barren cows and their sacriﬁce in the fire. About the word Go-megha गोमेघ it may be said that the word गौ has many meanings. When it is used in the context of speech गो मेघ will mean application of mind with speech, i.e. uttering words with great discretion or using words with accuracy in accordance with the rules of the grammar etc.)

In one of the passages Vedic Age wrongly assumes that there is an instruction to the couple to eat rice mixed with meat or the meat of oxen if they desired the birth of a child well-versed in the scriptures. As shown earlier, the word has been deﬁned in the Sanskrit English Dictionary by Apte and Monior Williams, both as सोम and ऋषभक as the Tishabha. Thus the couple here have been instructed to take medicaments like सोम and ऋषभक and not meat of the oxen etc. as misunderstood.

In सुश्रुत (Chapter two) meat has been totally prohibited for a pregnant woman. It is even believed that its consumption may lead to abortion :

When meat has been thus prohibited for a pregnant woman, it appears to be highly improbable that there could be any such instruction as supposedly given to the couple.

There is also a reference in the Vedas to consumption of क्षीरौदन,दध्योदन,उदौदन etc for the pregnant woman. Therefore the view expressed by some scholars that an instruction for the couple to take rice mixed with a particular variety of pulse known as UN, seems quite in harmony with the spirit of the Vedas.

There is also a suggestion for taking this particular variety of pulse for women in the following passage from शुश्रुत:

( Here husband has been advised to take ghee and rice with a glass of milk and the wife to take the above mentioned variety of ‘माष (pulse) (before going to bed.)

At another place it is written :-

For healthy child the husband should take ghee with milk and the wife oil and माष (a variety of pulse)

lt is clear from the above that the correct reading in the text is `मांषौदनम Some self-interested persons wrongly misspelt it as and it became popular that way gradually.

However, if one insists on its correct reading as ` मांषौदनम may be mentioned that, according to the derivation of the word given in Nirukat, it means anything which one likes to take with relish and taste :

Thus it will be seen that any milk preparation like “kheer”, “rabaree` etc. will also fall in the category of the word’मांस.

In Charak Samhita, a standard book of Aurvedic medicines, the pith of a mango has been described as HTH and its stone as अस्थि.

The soft eatable portion of date has been named at some places in this ancient book as खर्जूरमांस Therefore it is erroneous to interpret the word मांस as “meat” wherever it occurs because of its wider usage as shown above. ‘

In Shatpat Brahmana the word ‘मांस orपरमान्न for instance, has been used for milk and rice preparation called ‘खीर.

Taitteriya Samhita indicates wider usage of the word मांस to cover curd, honey and com etc. (see 232.8)

In Taitteriya Samhita मांस has been used even for गुग्गुलु(which has been prescribed in the Vedas for killing germs of such fatal diseases as tuberculois.

In the mantra given below, the word `मांस should be taken as “milk” and not meat :-

In this mantra, it is stated the couple should not take cow’s milk and delicious things like खीर until and the unless venerable guest has been served ﬁrst.

A reputed scholar of Sanskrit Sampurand has said in his Commentary on Rigveda’s Purush Sukta that Yajna is not complete without a sacriﬁce but this sacriﬁce is to be not of animals but animal passions like falsehood, greed, sex ego, attachment etc. We full agree with him.