Tag Archives: pt dharmdev vidyamartand

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, 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.

English, Vedic Religion

Vedas-the Divine Revelation

March 2, 2014 rdhoot 1 Comment

Vedas-the Divine Revelation

From the Book- The Veda-Myth and Reality( A reply to Vedic Age )

Author – Pt Dharmadev Vidyamartand

Are Vedas the manifestation of Divine revelation?

And is it necessary to believe in Divine revelation at all?

According to the evolution theory, man went on gaining knowledge gradually. Why then to believe in the Divine revelation?

One cannot attain knowledge unless there is someone to impart it. If it were not so, there would have been no need to open schools and colleges. People would have attained the knowledge themselves.

But it is evident that we cannot gain knowledge until and unless we are taught by our teachers, parents or by others.

Some experiments have been carried out from time to time in this connection. Worth mentioning among them are those carried out by King Asurvant of Syria, King James (lIVth) of Scotland, King

Semetical of Greece, King Fredrick IInd of Germany and by Emperor Akbar of India. During these experiments newly born children were kept in forests and brought up by nurses who were ,deaf and dumb. Consequently the children could not learn any language and their behaviour came to resemble that of animals.

There has been one instance of a child born in Gandhi Hospital Lucknow, who brought up by a Wolf, walked, talked and ate like animals.

It is quite logical to believe that as a father instructs his child in the beginning, so also does God. He is our ﬁrst Benefactor who gave instructions in the form of the Vedas to all human beings at the time of creation to help them achieve physical, mental and spiritual progress. They were told about the ultimate aim of existence and also what was right and wrong.

Even a materialist like Haickel has acknowledges the possibility of Divine revelation when he says :-

“They may or they may not receive such information, but there is no scientific ground for dogmatism on the subject, nor any reason for asserting the inconceivability of such a thing”

Stressing the need for Divine revelation, Dr. Fleming, famous scientist of Europe, said :

“If we are to obtain more solid assurances, it cannot come to the mind of man groping feebly in the dim light of un-assisted reason, but only by a communication made directly from this Supreme to the ﬁnite mind of man. (Religion and Science by Seven men of Science.)

Just as it is absolutely necessary to frame laws and regulations to run an institution or a govemment or a factory, it is quite rational that God should give us in the form of Vedas, the enteral laws for our benefit. lt will be considered unjust to punish people for theft, drinking or corruption in a country where there are no laws prohibiting such practices. This is why God gave us the set of laws, which in the words of Vedas, are “Rita and Satya” at the dawn of creation.

Eminent philosophers like Plato and Kant have also spoken of

Divine revelation for guidance in religious and moral matters. Plato, in his book “Phaedo” says,

“We will wait for one, be he a God or an inspired man, to instruct us in religious duties and to dispel dankness.

“We must seize upon best human views in navigating the dangerous sea of life, if there is no safer or less perilous way, no stouter vessel of Divine revelation for making this Voyage”

The following dialogue of Plato-translated into English by Jowett-also emphasise the need for the Divine revelation:-

“A man should persevere until he has achieved one of two things : either he should discover, or be taught the Truth about them or, if this is impossible, I would have him take the best and most

irrefragable of human theories, and let this be the raft upon which he sails through life-though not without risk, as I admit, if he cannot ﬁnd some word of God which will more surely and safely carry

him through.”

Socrates of Greece also expressed similar sentiments :

“You may resign yourself to sleep, and give yourself up to despair, unless God in His goodness, shall vouchsafe to send you instruction”

Says the German philosopher Kant : “We may well cancede that if the Gospel had not previously taught the universal moral laws in their full purity, reason would not yet have attained so perfect an insight of them.” These lines accept the limitation of a human mind and the need for Divine revelation for the knowledge of the moral laws.

Those who do not recognise the need for the Divine revelation hold the view that being endowed with intelligence, they can discriminate between the right and the wrong, the good and the bad, the religious or the irreligious. Though we do not underscore the role of Conscience in such matters, we must emphasise that it cannot be taken as a final authority in regard to morality which is, to a great extent, determined by environment, social conditions and education and vary from person to person and place to place.

A child who is bom in a family of Aryans, Vaisyas or Jains, by nature, generally begins to hate meat; but a child who is born in a Kshatriya or Kayastha families (where meat is genarally considered normal part of food) is not prompted by his Conscience to abstain from animal food.

Kant has rightly said in his book “Metaphysics of Morals“ :

“Feelings which naturally differ in degree cannot furnish uniform standards of good and evil, nor has anyone a right to form judgment for others by his own feelings.”

Some people reject the need for Divine Revelation at the time of creation on the ground that such revelations have dawned front time to time on the devotees of God. They should, however,

remember that belief in such revelations has led to a great deal of exploitation of human weakness by those who were believed to be the incarnations of God.

Even if some persons were able to rely on Conscience, intelligence or inspiration for what is right or wrong, it is difﬁcult to acquire the knowledge of the Ultimate end, of the true nature of “Jiva”, (soul), “Brahma” (God), Prakriti” (Matter) and the way to achieve emancipation etc.

Materialists hold the view that a man knows about his duties and obligations by merely observing Nature. If this were the case. no race would have been found in barbarious state. The book of Nature is open to everybody. But to read this book and to understand its mysteries, is not everybody’s business.

lf others (not knowing fully what Nature truly reveals to us) begin to follow such aspects of Nature as “Survival of the fittest”, morality and universal brotherhood will be simply wiped out from the world. Therefore it will be a great blunder to consider Nature as the only source of ethical education.

Before directly answering the question why we should regard Vedas as Divine revelation and not the Bible, the Quaran, Zind Avasta, we would like to present before the readers some of the tribute paid to the Vedas by impartial scholars belonging to different faiths.

Farzoon Dadachanji. a Farsi scholar, in his book Philosophy of Zorozstrianism and Comparative Study of Relígions writes:-

“Veda is Book of Knowledge and Wisdom comprising the Book of Nature, the Book of Religion, the Book of Prayers, the Book of Morals and so on. The word ‘Veda’ means” wit, wisdom. Knowledge; and truly, Veda is condensed Book of Wit, Wisdom and knowledge.”

Akhtab’s son and Turfa’s grandson Lavy, an Arabian poet, who ﬂourished 2, 500 years before Mohammed. wrote n beautiful poem in praise of the Vedas which throws light on the esteem in which

the people of Samatic race, held the Vedas till 1800 B.C.

(The poem is included in Asmai’s Anthology named Malaltus-shara (siral Ukul):

(“Oh, blessed land of Hind (India) Thou art worthy of rever- ence for in Thee has God revealed True knowledge of Himself.)

“What e pure light do these four revealed books afford to our mind’s eyes like the (charming and cool) lustre of the down? These four, God revealed to His prophets (Risis) in Hind.

“And he thus teaches ell races of mankind that inhabit His earth: “Observe (in your lives) the knowledge I have revealed in the vedas for surely God has revealed them.

“Those treasures and the “Sama” and “Yajur” which God has published. O my brothers! Revere these, for they tell us the good news of salvation.

“The two next, of these four, Rig and Atharva teach us lessons of (universal) brotherhood. These two (Vedas) are the beacons that show us the path of universal brotherhood.”)

Aurangzeb”s elder brother, Darashikoh, who was a great scholar, read scriptures of different faiths which were supposed to be Divine revelations. Among the books he studied besides Quran were old

Testament, New Testament and the Book of Psalms. But none of them satisﬁed him as did the Vedas about which he writes :

“After gradual research, I have come to the conclusion that long before all heavenly books, God had revealed to the Hindus, through the Risis of Yore (of whom Brahma was the Chief) His four books of knowledge, the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samveda, the Atharva Veda.” Darashikoh was conﬁdent that these Vedas which enunciated the oneness of God existed in the ancient time and that Upanishads

were based on them. He studied Sanskrit and had acquired so much knowledge that he could understand the true meaning of the Vedic mantras and Upanishads.

He also found reference to the Vedas (being revealed by God) in Quran. In his opinion, some verses in Quran were just the reproduction of the teachings of the Upanishads which have

ultimately been derived from the Vedas.

Though most of the Western Vedic scholars were not impartial as their main motive was to establish the superiority of Chrstianity over Hindu religion, yet there were a few in Europe who sang the glory of the Vedas.

Co-discoveror of the evolution theory in the material world, Dr. Alfred R. Wallace, writes in his famous book “Social Environment and Moral Progress: ” :

“In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to

those which prevail today, though in some respects they differed from ours. The wonderful collection of hymns known as the Vedas is a vast system of religious teachings as pure and lofty as those of the ﬁnest portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. lts authors were fully our equals in their conception of universe and the Deity expressed in finest poetic language”

“In it we find many of the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers.”

“We must admit that the mind which conceived and expressed in appropriate language such ideas, as are everywhere present in those Vedic hymns, could not have been inferior to those of the best of our religious teachers and poets, to our Milton, Shakespeare and Tennyson.”

What could be a better criticism of social evolution theory than this? Where is the scope for social evolution if the teachings of Vedas, which, in the famous words of Max Muller, are the “oldest books in the library of mankind and” are as lofty and pure as the finest portions of Bible ?

This belief expressed by one of the discoverers to the evolution theory himself will force others, who deny the existence of revealed knowledge on the basis of this theory, to change their mind.

Rev. Morris Philip in his book “The Teachings of the Vedas “ has in the following words, accepted the revealed nature of the Vedas-

“After the latest researches into the history and chronology of books of Old Testament, we may safely now call the Rigveda as the oldest book, not only of the Aryan humanity, but of the whole worlds.

“It is evident then (I) that the higher up towards the source of the Vedic religion we push our enquiries, the purer, simpler do we come to ﬁnd the conception of God, and that (II) in proportion as we come down the stream of time, the more corrupt and complex we ﬁnd it. We conclude, therefore, that the Vedic Aryans did not acquire their knowledge of the divine attributes and functions empirically, in that case, we should find at the end what we now find in the beginning. Hence we must seek for a theory which will account alike for the acquisition of that knowledge, the God-like conception of Varuna, and for that gradual depravation in which (it eventually) culminated.”

“We have pushed our enquiries as far back in time as the records would permit, and we have found that the religious and speculative thought of the people was far purer, simpler and more rational at the farthest point we reached, than at the nearest and the latest in the Vedic age.

“The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable viz, that the development of religious thought in India has been uniformly downwards, and not upward, deterioration and not evolution. We are justified, therefore, in concluding that higher and purer conceptions of the Vedic Aryans were the results of a primitive

Divine revelation.”

It can’t be said about Rev. Morris that he had fully understood the principles of the Vedic Dharma. There are many errors in his book which will be pointed out later. But his faith in monotheism in Vedas is very signiﬁcant.

A well-known scholar, poet and philosopher -James Cousins writes in “Path to Peace”: “To love, to think, to do-are in the Vedic conception, no transitory futurities touched with melancholy, but simulations of the cosmic dancing shadows cast by the Light of lights. But they are cast by the Light, not by Darkness and in that light, that vision of the Eternal, shining through the temporal, humanity can find an ideal which would replace a periodical sanctimoniousness by a perpetual sense of the sanctity of all life.

On that (Vedic) ideal alone, with its inclusiveness, which weans hatred away from itself, it is possible to rear a new earth in the image and likeness of the eternal Heavens.”

Cousins was so impressed by the Indian Scriptures that he changed his name to “Kulapati Jaya Ram” and passed his remaining life with his wife in the pursuit of the Vedic ideals.

Prof. J. Moscaro of the University of Barcelone, has described the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Gita, as the highest summit of the Wisdom :-

“If a Bible of India were compiled, if Sanskrit could find a group of translators with the same feeling for the sacred texts in the original as the Bible has found in England, eternal treasures of old Wisdom and poetry would enrich the times of today.

Among those compositions-some of them living words before writing was introduced -the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita would rise above the rest like the Himalayas of the

spirit of man.”

What Mr. W.D. Brown, an English scholar, has stated about Vedas in his book “Superiority of the Vedic Religion” is worth writing in golden letters :

“lt (Vedic Religion) recognises but One God. lt is a thoroughly scientific religion where religion and science meet hand in hand. Here theology is based upon science and philosophy.” This is how well-known German philosopher Schopenhauer, expressed in the following words, his sentiments about the

Ishopanishad (which is the 40″‘ chapter of Yajurveda):-

“In the whole world, there is no study so beneﬁcial and elevating as the Upanishad. lt has been the solace of my life. lt will be the solace at my death”

Ragozin in his book “Vedíc India ” also ackowleged the sublime nature of Vedas (though some of his ideas about Yajnas are erroneous). He writes :-

“Vedic hymns greatly confirm us in the impression that the Aryan moral code, as mirrored in the Rigveda, bore on the whole, a singularly pure and elevated character. So nothing can be more

beautiful in feeling and wording than on alms giving or rather on

the duty of giving or helping generally.”

French author Jacolliot, who made a comparative study of

different religions in his book “The Bible in India “, writes :- “Astonishing fact! The Hindu revelation (Veda) is of all revelations the only one whose ideas are in perfect harmony with Modern Science, as it proclaims the slow and gradual formation of the world.”

Jacolliot’s statement that among the revealed books, only the Veda teachings are in harmony with scientific thoughts is very significant. Take for example, what the Bible says about the creation of the world.

God said, let there be light and there was light. (Genesis-3) According to chapter 1^st of Genesis, it took God six days to create the world and according to the next chapter, He took rest on the seventh day :-

“And on the Seventh day, God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the Seventh day from all his work which he had made.”

Whatever God did afterwards was like an ordinary man with all human weakness which philosophy, testifies as the “Anthropomorphic conception of God.”

It is stated in the third chapter of Genesis :-

“Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden”

Then, God repented after creating this world, according to the sixth chapter of Genesis :-

“And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth and it grieved Him at his heart, And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth for it repented

me that I have made him.”

The eleventh chapter of Genesis betrays his jealousies:

“Lord came down to see the city and the tower, and the Lord said, “Behold, the people is one and they have all one language and this they have begun to do and now, nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

“Go to, let us go down and there confound their language that they may not understand one another’s speech”

“So the Lord scattered them abroad and they left off to build the city.”

And then there are descriptions of God Wrestling with Jacob- taking beef at Abraham” s house….

Scientiﬁc and rational scholars can never be satisﬁed with this anthropomorphic conception of God. C.S. Middleman writes :-

“Such anthropomorphism is childish.”

In reply to the question, “Do you think that science negates the idea of a Personal God? Prof. J .B. Kohn, a well-known scientist, said,” I think it does assume the Personal God to have human attributes”

Replying to the same question, Physicist C.C. Farr, another scientist, said :-

“The idea of a Personal God as taught by Jesus Christ would seem to be very different from the conception of scientific men. I see no realisation of studendous magniﬁcance which must be ascribed to the power behind the universe in Jesus’s teaching and the teaching of the church today.”

One of the main objections of scientists against the Biblical conception of creation is that the existence came out of nothing. But according to the Vedic religion, it took its birth from the matter.

God is only its efﬁcient cause like potter, a blacksmith or a goldsmith. There can be no objection to this conception of creation from the philosophical or scientiﬁc point of view.

Another objection against the Biblical conception of creation is regarding the division of day and night before the sun or moon were born.

On the ﬁrst day, the day and the night were made as evident from the ﬁrst chapter of Genesis :-

“God saw the light, that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness.

“And called the light day and darkness He called the night. And the evening and the morning were the ﬁrst day.”

But the sun and moon were created on the fourth day as stated in the 4^th chapter of the Genesis :-

“And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the- day and the lesser light to rule the night, he made the stars also.”

“And God set them in the ﬁrmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.

“And to rule over the day and over the night and to divide the light from the darkness, and God saw that it was good.

“And the evening and the morning were made on the fourth day.”

Moreover there are many things in the Bible which are against intellect, reason and science such as :-

(i) That Christ was born of Virgin Mary.

(ii) That earth is ﬂat and not round.

(m) That Christ turned water into wine.

(iv) That Christ satisfied hunger of 4,000 people from just 4 leaves.

(v) That Christ raised Lazarus from the grave after three days.

Galileo, a scientist from Spain, was brought before Inquistion Court and punished for his statement that the earth is round and that it revolves round the sun.

The following was the verdict of the court :-

“The first proposition that the sun is the center and does not revolve about the earth is foolish, absured, false in theology and heretical because expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures… And the second proposition that the earth is not the center but revolves about the sun is absurd, false in philosophy and from a theological point of view, at least, opposed to the true faith.”

Many atrocities had been committed on Galileo for stating the scientific truth that the earth is round. He was sentenced to 4 year rigorous imprisonment. He died in jail.

Bruno, another scientist, had been meted out the worst treatment for stating that the earth is round and proving that there are many worlds. On Feb. l6 1600, he was burnt to death. While dying he said smilingly :-

“It is with greater fear that you pass sentence upon me rather than I receive it.” Reader may refer to the well-known book “The History of the Conﬂict Between Religion and Science” by William Draper for

the injustice done to scientists and philosphers like Hypatia, Nester, Arius etc for expressing minor differences of opinion on the Christian principles. Dr. Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham, in his

broadcast (reproduced on “The Religion and Science”) maintained that where there is a conﬂict between religion and science, the latter is to prevail :

“Now before I speak of such possibility of conflict, I wish to make it quite clear that many beliefs associated With religious faith in the past must be abandoned. They have had to meet the direct

challenge of Science and I believe, it is true to say, that in every such direct battle since the Renaissance, science has been the victor.

Let me give definite instances :-

(i) First, the earth is not the fixed center of the universe; it is merely the moving satellite of a sun which resembles innumerable other suns.

(ii) Secondly, man was not especially created.

(iii) Thirdly, no priest, by ritual or formula, can attribute spiritual properties to inanimate matter.

(iv) Fourthly, if by miracles, we mean large-scale breaches in the uniformity of nature, such miracles do not occur in human experience. Here are four typical results of scientific investigations which at length all must accept”

Dr. Mazley in the course of his Bampton lectures had said, “If miracles are denied, all Christianity, so far as it has any title to that name, so far as it has any special relation to Christ, is overthrown.”

There is nothing against the laws of Nature of Science in the Vedas. God has been described in the Vedas at several places as ‘Satya Dharma ‘, one whose laws are etemal. These laws are called “ऋत” (Rit) which means true and eternal.

Not only that, Vedic religion and science are in absolute harmony with each other, Vedas are also the origin of all sciences and the religions. “Veda” means knowledge, both material and spiritual, for the benefit of the mankind. The fundamentals of aeronautics, astrology, art, medicine and electricity are present in the Vedas.

DIVINE REVELATION AND ITS MEDIUM

Even while some scholars consider the knowledge contained in the Vedas to be Divinely revealed, they hold the view that the language in which it is expressed is that of Risis. But if we go deep into this matter, we will ﬁnd it fallacious.

The basic issue is : What was the form in which this Divine knowledge was revealed to the Risis?

What is the proof that the Risis presented that knowledge in its pure form without allowing it to be tampered with their own imagination?

Is it believable at all that the Vedic Language which is so perfect and is the mother of all languages, should be the result of any human effort?

Moreover if we concur with the philologists that thought and language are interdependent, we cannot but reach the conclusion that even the language of the Vedas was Divine.

Herder, a philosogist, for instance, says,

“Without language, it is impossible to concieve philosophical nay, even any human consciousness.”

In the words of Herdcr: “We think in names.”

Says, Sir William Hamilton, “Words are the fortress of thoughts, unless thought be accompanied at each point of its evolution by a corresponding evolution of language, its further development is arrested.”

German scholar Von Humolt has rightly observed:

“If we separate intellect and language, such a seperation does not exist in reality.”

Says another scholar Shleel Maker : “Thinking and speaking are so entirely one that one can only distinguish them as internal and extemal, every thought is already a word.”

In his famous book “The Science 0fLanguage,” Max Muller has expressed the view that this relationship is the basis of all exact philosophy :- “We think in words; so words must become the character of all exact philosophy in future” “We never meet with articulate sounds except as wedded to determinate ideas nor do we ever, I believe, meet with determinate ideas; except as embodied in articulate sounds. I, therefore, declare my conviction as explicitly as possible that thought in the sense of reasoning is not possible.”

This theory is fully supported by our ancient literature. For instance, the following aphorism, in the “Mimansa” bears testimony to this thought-language relationship :

Poet Kalidas also writes in Raghuvansh :-

Maharshi Vyas, in his commentary of the Yogsutras (I. 27),

also fully supports this view in the following words :-

On comparison of languages it will appear that the Vedic language is not only the mother of Indian but also of all foreign languages.

Baron Cuvier, for instance, writes :-

“It (Sanskrit) is the most regular language known and is especially remarkable, as containing the roots of the various languages of Europe like Greek, Latin, German, Slavonic.” Yaska, the author of the Nirukta, has also given multi meanings of several mantras.

This magic, with which the mantras in the Vedas, have been endowed with the spiritual, cosmic and social meaning puzzles even the minds of the greatest scholars and commentators of the Vedas, he says. As per Visvamitra where the names of these Rishis do not fall into a category as in the Atharvaveda, they should be taken as characters or spokesmen in a great epic as in a Panchtantra story, specially coined to convey certain complicated ideas in a simple form. In the Panchtantra, great truths have been revealed through such characters as a lion, a Jackal, monkey etc. Everybody knows that these creatures cannot otherwise speak