Tag Archives: Vedas

अथर्ववेद, ऋग्वेद, पण्डित ब्रह्मदत्तजी जिज्ञासु, यजुर्वेद, वेद, वेद मंत्र, वेद विशेष, शंका समाधान, सामवेद, हिन्दी

आर्षी-संहिता और दैवत-संहिता । ✍🏻 पण्डित ब्रह्मदत्तजी जिज्ञासु

2 Comments

      कई लोग वेद की इन संहिताओं को आर्षी अर्थात् ऋषियों के क्रम से संग्रहीत की हुई मानते हैं। यथा ऋग्वेद के आरम्भ में शतर्ची, अन्त में क्षुद्रसूक्त वा महासूक्त और मध्य में मण्डल द्रष्टा गृत्समद, विश्वामित्र आदि ऋषियों वाले क्रमशः मन्त्र हैं। 

      हम वादी से पूछते हैं कि क्या जैसा क्रम ऋग्वेद में दर्शाया, वैसा अन्य संहितामों में दर्शाया जा सकता है ? कदापि नहीं। तथा ऋग्वेद में भी जो क्रम वादी बताता है वह भी असम्बद्ध है। यदि ऋग्वेद वस्तुतः ऋषि क्रमानुसार संगृहीत होता तो विश्वामित्र के देखे हुए मन्त्र उसके पुत्र ‘मधुच्छन्दाः’ और पौत्र ‘जेता’ से पहिले होने चाहिये थे, न कि पीछे। ऋग्वेद में विश्वामित्र के मन्त्र तृतीय मण्डल में और मधुच्छन्दाः व जेता के मन्त्र प्रथम मण्डल में क्यों रक्खे गये ? यदि वादी कहे कि प्रथम मण्डल में केवल शचियों का संग्रह है, विश्वामित्र शतर्ची नहीं अपितु माण्डलिक है, तो यह भी ठीक नहीं। प्रथम मण्डल के जितने ऋषि हैं, उनमें बहुत से शतर्ची नहीं हैं। सव्य आङ्गिरस ऋषि वाले (१।५१-५७) कुल ७२ मन्त्र हैं। जेता ऋषिवाले कुल (१।११) ८ ही मन्त्र हैं। ऐसे ही और भी अनेक ऋषि हैं। आश्चर्य की बात है कि शचियों में पढ़े हुए प्रस्कण्व काण्व के ८२ मन्त्र तो प्रथम मण्डल में हैं, १० मन्त्र आठवें और ५ मन्त्र नवम मण्डल में क्यों संगृहीत हुए? समस्त ९७ मन्त्र एक जगह क्यों नहीं संग्रहीत किये गये ? इसी प्रकार जिसके सूक्त में १० से कम मन्त्र हों वह क्षुद्रसूक्त और जिसके सूक्त में १० से अधिक हों वह महासूक्त कहाते हैं, तो क्या ऐसे ऋषि ऋग्वेद के दशम मण्डल से अतिरिक्त अन्य मण्डलों में नहीं हैं ? हम कह आये हैं कि जेता के केवल आठ ही मन्त्र हैं, क्षुद्रसूक्त होने से उसके मन्त्रों का संग्रह दशम मण्डल में न करके प्रथम मण्डल में किस नियम से किया? तथा जब विश्वामित्र माण्डलिक ऋषि है तो उसके समस्त मन्त्र तृतीय मण्डल में क्यों संगहीत नहीं किये ? कुछ मन्त्र नवम (६७।१३-१५) और दशम (१३७।५) मण्डल में किस आधार पर संगृहीत किये ? इत्यादि अनेक प्रश्न वादी से किये जा सकते हैं। 

      वस्तुतः वादियों के पास इन प्रश्नों का कोई भी उत्तर नहीं है। वे तो 🔥”अन्धेनैव नीयमाना यथान्धाः’- इस उक्ति के अनुसार स्वयं शास्त्र के तत्त्व को न समझकर अन्य साधारण व्यक्तियों को बहकाने की क्षुद्र चेष्टा[१] किया करते हैं। 

[📎पाद टिप्पणी १. हमारी दृष्टि में वेद को अपौरुषेय न माननेवाले ही ऐसा मान सकते हैं। ऐसे व्यक्ति जनता के समक्ष कहने का साहस नहीं करते कि हम वेद को पौरुषेय (ऋषियों का बनाया) मानते हैं।] 

      वेदों की इन संहिताओं को आर्षी[२] संहिता कहने का तात्पर्य यह है ऋषि अर्थात् सर्वद्रष्टा सर्वज्ञ जगदीश्वर से इन का प्रादुर्भाव हुआ है। वस्तुतः यह नाम ही इस बात का संकेत करता है कि वेद ईश्वर के रचे हुए है।

[📎पाद टिप्पणी २. अथर्ववेद पञ्चपटलिका ५।१६ में जो आचार्यसंहिता तथा आर्षीसंहिता का उल्लेख मिलता है, वह पुराने आचार्यों की एक संज्ञा मात्र है, ऐसा समझना चाहिये।]

      जो व्यक्ति आर्षी नाम होने से इन्हें ऋषियों द्वारा संग्रहीत मानते हैं, वे यह भी कहते हैं कि इन संहितानों में इन्द्रादि देवताओं के मन्त्र विभिन्न प्रकरणों में बिखरे हुए हैं। अतः क्रमशः एक-एक देवता के समस्त मन्त्रों को संगृहीत करके एक दैवत संहिता बनानी चाहिये, जिससे अध्ययन में सुगमता होगी। 

      देवता-क्रम से संहिता के मन्त्रों को संग्रहीत करो से जिन मन्त्रों की आनुपूर्वी और देवता समान हैं, उन मन्त्रों का एक स्थान में संग्रह होने से पौनरुक्त्य तथा आनर्थक्य दोष आवेंगे। उन्हीं मन्त्रों को, जैसा वर्तमान संहिताक्रम में पढ़ा गया है, वैसा पाठ मानने में कोई दोष नहीं आता, क्योंकि वर्णानुपूर्वी समान होने पर भी प्रकरणभेद होने से अर्थ भेद की प्रतीति झटिति हो सकती है। उदाहरणार्थ पाणिनि के 🔥”बहुलं छन्दसि” सूत्र को उपस्थित किया जा सकता है। पाणिनि ने इस सूत्र को १४ स्थानों में पढ़ा है। इस सूत्र की वर्णानुपूर्वी समान होने पर भी प्रकरणभेद से अर्थ की भिन्नता होने के कारण सबकी सार्थकता रहती है। आनर्थक्य या पौनरुक्त्य दोष नहीं आता। यदि कोई व्यक्ति सब 🔥”बहुलं छन्दसि” सूत्रों को उठाकर एक स्थान में पढ़ दे, तो क्या उससे कुछ भी लाभ या विशेष अर्थ की प्रतीति होगी? उलटी उस एक स्थान में पढ़नेवाले की ही मूर्खता सिद्ध होगी। भला इससे कोई पाणिनि की ही मूर्खता सिद्ध करना चाहे तो कभी हो सकती है ! कभी नहीं। ऐसे ही इस देवताक्रम से पढ़ी जानेवाली संहिता का होगा। इसमें और भी अनेक दोष हैं, जिनका विस्तरभिया यहाँ अधिक उल्लेख करना अनुपयुक्त होगा। 

      जिसका शास्त्रीयचक्षुः है वही इन बातों के रहस्यों को समझ सकता है। शास्त्र-ज्ञान विहीन क्या जाने शास्त्रों के रहस्य को –

      🔥पश्यदक्षण्वान्न वि चेतदन्धः॥ ऋ० १।१६४।१६

      इस प्रकार हमने अनेक प्रमाणों के आधार पर यह सिद्ध किया कि वेद की आनुपूर्वी सर्वकाल से नित्य मानी जाती रही है, और इस समय भी उपलब्ध सामग्री के आधार पर यही निश्चित है कि हमें वही आनुपूर्वी प्राप्त हो रही है, जिसे सर्ग के आरम्भ में परमपिता परमात्मा ने आदिऋषियों के हृदयों में प्रकाशित किया था। 

[अगला विषय – वेद और उसकी शाखायें]

✍🏻 लेखक – पदवाक्यप्रमाणज्ञ पण्डित ब्रह्मदत्तजी जिज्ञासु 

[ 📖 साभार ग्रन्थ – जिज्ञासु रचना मञ्जरी ]

प्रस्तुति – 🌺 ‘अवत्सार’

॥ओ३म्॥

पण्डित युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक, महर्षि दयानंद सरस्वती, वेद विशेष, हिन्दी

स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के वेदभाष्य का विद्वानों पर प्रभाव ✍🏻 पण्डित युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक

Leave a comment

      स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती द्वारा किये गये वेदभाष्य का प्रभाव अनेक देशी-विदेशी विद्वानों पर पड़ा है। किसी ने उसे स्पष्ट रूप से स्वीकार न करते हुए भी उनके विचारों में जो विशेष परिवर्तन हुआ, उससे आँका है। 

      इसके लिये हम एक भारतीय विद्वान् योगिराज अरविन्द घोष और विदेशी प्रतिप्रसिद्ध विद्वान् मैक्समूलर के विचार उद्धृत करते हैं। 

      श्री अरविन्द घोष ‘युजन’ ( =योगी) व्यक्ति थे। अतः उन्होंने स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के पारमार्थिक अर्थ के विषय में ही लिखा। योगिराज अरविन्द घोष ने स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के वेदभाष्य के विषय में वैदिक मैगजीन १९१६ में लिखा था[१] –

[📎पाद टिप्पणी १. आगे उद्धृत श्री अरविन्द का मूल अंग्रेजी लेख और उसका हिन्दी भावांश पं. भगवदत्तजी कृत-वैदिक वाङ्मय का इतिहास भाग २, ‘वेदों के भाष्यकार’ ग्रन्थ से लिया है। द्र॰-पृष्ठ ८८-९२, सन् १९७६ का संस्करण]

      It is objected to the sense Dayananda gave to the Veda that it is no true sense but an arbitrary fabrication of imaginative learning and ingenuity, to his method that it is fantastic and unacceptable to the critical reason, to his teaching of a revealed Scripture that the very idea is a rejected superstition impossible for any enlightened mind to admit or to announce sincerely. 

      I shall only sate the broad principles underlying his thought about the Veda as they present themselves to me. 

      To start with the negation of his work by his critics, in whose mouth does it lie to accure Dayananda’s dealing with the Veda of a fantastic or arbitrary ingenuity? Not in the mouth of those who accept Sayana’s traditional interpretation. For if ever there was a monument of arbitiarily erudite ingenuity, of great learning divorced as great learning too often is, from sound judgment and sure taste and a faithful critical and comparative observation, from direct seeing and often even from plainest common sense or of a constant fitting of the text into the Procrushean bed of preconceived theory, it is surely this commentary, other wise so imposing so useful as first crude material, so erudite and laborious, left to us by the Acharya Sayana. Nor does the reproach lie in the mouth of those who take us final the recent labours of European scholarship. For if ever there was a toil of interpretation in which the loosest vein has been given to an ingenious speculation, in which doubtful indications have been snatched at as certain proofs, in which the boldest conclusions have been insisted upon with the scantiest justification, the most enormous difficulties ignored and preconceived prejudic maintained in face of the clear and often admitted suggestions of the text, it is surely this labour, so eminently respectable otherwise for its industry, good will and power of research, per formed through a long century by European Vedic scholarship. 

      What is the main positive issue in this matter? An interpretation of Veda must stand or fall by its central conception of the Vedic religion and the amount of support given to it by the intrinsic evidence of the Veda itself. Here Dayanada’s view is quite clear its foundation inexpugnable. The Vedic hymns are chanted to the One deity under many names, names which are used and even designed to express His qualities and powers. Was this conception of Dayanada’s arbitrary conceit fetched out of his own too ingenious imagination ? Not at all; it is the explicit statement of the Veda it self; “One existent, sages” not the ignorant, mind you, but seers, the men of knowledge.–“speak of in many ways, as Indra, as Yama, as Matarisvan, as Agni.” The Vedic Rishis ought surely to have known something about their own religion, more, let us hope than Roth or Max Mueller, and this is what they knew. 

      We are aware how modern scholars twist away from the evidence. This hymn, they say, was a late production, this loftier idea which it expresses with so clear a force rose up somehow in the later Aryan mind or was borrowed by those ignorent fire-worshipers, sun worshipers, sky-worshipers from their cultured and philosophic Dravidian enemies. But throughout the Veda we have confirmatory hymns and expressions. Agni or Indra or another is expressly hymned as one with all the other gods. Agni contains all other divine powers within himself, the Maruts are described as all the gods, one deity is addressed by the names of other as well as his own, or, most commonly, he is given as Lord and King of the universe, attributes only appro priate to the Supreme Deity. An, but that cannot mean, ought not to mean, must not mean the worship of One; let us invent a new word, call it henotheism and suppose that the Rishis did not really believe Indra or Agni to be the Supreme Deity but treated any god or every god as such for the nonce, perhaps that he might feel the more flattered and lend a more gracious ear for so hyperbolic a compliment ! But why should not the foundation of Vedic thought be natural monotheism rather than this new fangled monstrosity of henotheism ? Well, because primitive barbarians could not possibly have risen to such high conception and if you allow them to have so risen you imperil our theory of evolutionary stages of the human development and you destory our whole idea about the sense of the Vedic hymns and their place in the history of mankind. Truth must hide herself. common sense disappear from the field so that a theory may flourish ! I ask, in this point, and it is the fundamental point, who deals most straightforwardly with the text, Dayananda or the Western scholars ? 

      But if this fundamental point of Dayanada is granted, if the character given by the Vedic Rishis them selves to their gods is admitted, we are bound. when ever the hymns speak of Agni or another, to see behind that name present always to the thought of Rishis, the one Supreme Deity or else one of His powers with its attendant qualities or workings. Immediately the whole character of the Veda is fixed in the sense Dayananda gave to it; the merely ritual, mythological!, polytheistic interpretation of Sayana collapses, the merely meteorological and naturalistic European interpretation collapses. We have instead a real scripture, one of the world’s sacred books and the divine word of a lofty and noble religion. 

      अर्थात्[२] दयानन्द के वेदभाष्य के सम्बन्ध में अनेक शंकाएँ की जाती हैं। ….. मैं दयानन्द के वेद-भाष्य के आधाररूप उन प्रसिद्ध नियमों का उल्लेख करूँगा, जो मुझे समझ पाए हैं। 

[📎पाद टिप्पणी २. हमने श्री अरविन्द के लेख का भावमात्र दिया है। वैदिक मैगजीन,१९१६]

      सायण-भाष्य को ठीक समझनेवाले व्यक्ति स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के भाष्य के विषय में कुछ नहीं कह सकते। महाविद्वान् सायण का भाष्य ऊपर से महत्त्व वाला दिखाई देता हुआ भी वेद का यथार्थ और सीधा अर्थ नहीं है। पाश्चात्य विद्वान् भी स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के भाष्य के विषय में कुछ नहीं कह सकते। उनका परिश्रम, शुभेच्छा, अनुसन्धान शक्ति से एक शताब्दी में किया गया अर्थ भी ठीक नहीं, क्योंकि इसमें पूर्वापर सम्बन्ध का अभाव है और सन्दिग्ध विषयों को प्रमाणभूत मान कर अर्थ किया गया है। 

      वेदार्थ तो वेद से होना चाहिए। इस विषय में स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती का विचार सुस्पष्ट है, उसकी आधारशिला अभेद्य है। वेद के सूक्त भिन्न-भिन्न नामों से एक ईश्वर को ही सम्बोधन करके गाए हैं । विप्र, अर्थात् ऋषि एक परमात्मा को ही अग्नि, इन्द्र, यम, मातरिश्वा और वायु आदि नामों से बहुत प्रकार से कहते हैं। वैदिक ऋषि अपने धर्म के विषय में मैक्समूलर या राथ की अपेक्षा अधिक जानते थे। अतः वेद स्पष्ट कहता है कि जितने भी नाम हैं वे सब एक ईश्वर के ही अनेक नाम हैं। 

      हम जानते हैं कि आधुनिक विद्वान् किस प्रकार इस बात को खींच तान करके उलटते हैं। वे कहते हैं, यह सूक्त नये काल का है। ऐसे ऊँचे विचार बहुत प्राचीन आर्य लोगों के मन में नहीं आ सकता था। इसके विपरीत हम देखते हैं कि वेद में अनेक सूक्त इसी भाव को बताते हैं। अग्नि में ही सब दूसरी दैवी शक्तियाँ हैं, इत्यादि। देवताओं के ऐसे विशेषण हैं, जो सिवाय ईश्वर के और किसी के हो नहीं सकते। पाश्चात्य इस बात से घबराते हैं। वेद का ऐसा अर्थ नहीं होना चाहिए, निस्सन्देह ऐसे अर्थ से उनका चिरकाल से पनप रहा विचार नष्ट होता है। अतः सत्य को छिपाना चाहिए। मैं पूछता हूं, इस बात में, इस मौलिक बात में स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती वेद का सीधा अर्थ करते हैं या पाश्चात्य विद्वान्। 

      इस एक के समझने से, दयानन्द के इस मौलिक सिद्धान्त के मानने से नहीं, वैदिक ऋषियों के इस विश्वास के जानने से कि सब देवता एक महान् आत्मा के नाम हैं, हम वेद का वास्तविक भाव जान लेते हैं। बस वेद का वही तात्पर्य निकलता है, जो स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती ने इससे निकाला। केवल याज्ञिक अर्थ या सायण का बहुदेवतावाद आदि का अर्थ भस्मीभूत हो जाता है। पाश्चात्यों का केवल अन्तरिक्ष आदि लोकों के देवताओं के सम्बन्ध में किया हुआ अर्थ मलियामेट हो जाता है। इसके स्थान में वेद एक वास्तविक धर्म ग्रन्थ, संसार का एक पवित्र पुस्तक और एक श्रेष्ठ और उच्च धर्म का देवी शब्द हो जाता।

      ◼️प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर[३] और स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती का वेदभाष्य – यद्यपि प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर ने स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के वेदभाष्य के सम्बन्ध में स्पष्ट रूप से ऐसा कुछ नहीं लिखा, जिससे यह स्पष्ट हो सके कि प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर की स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के वेदभाष्य के सम्बन्ध में क्या धारणा थी अथवा उनके वेदभाष्य का प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर पर क्या प्रभाव पड़ा। इसके लिये यदि हम मैक्समूलर के प्रारम्भिक विचारों की उत्तर कालीन विचारों से तुलना करें, तो यह स्पष्ट प्रतीत होता है कि उसके विचारों में जो परिवर्तन दिखाई देता है, उसके पीछे दयानन्द के वेदभाष्य का प्रभाव अवश्य है। एक स्थान पर तो वह स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती कृत ऋग्वेदादिभाष्यभूमिका की अपूर्वता को हल्के स्वर से स्वीकार भी करता है। उसने नागर प्रशासक के रूप में भारत आनेवाले व्यक्तियों के सम्मुख ७ व्याख्यान दिये थे। उनका विषय था- INDIA WHAT CAN IT TEACH US अर्थात् ‘हम भारत से क्या सीखें’ इसके तीसरे भाषण में कहा था –

      “We may divide the whole of Sanskrit literature, begining with the Rig Veda and ending with Dayanada’s Introduction to his edition of the Rig Veda, his by no means uninteresting Rig-Veda-Bhumika, into two great periods.” 

      अर्थात् ‘ऋग्वेदकाल से प्रारम्भ करके दयानन्द द्वारा स्वसम्पादित ऋग्वेद की भूमिका लिखे जाने के समय तक के साहित्य को हम दो भागों में बाँट सकते हैं। यहाँ यह बात भी बता देना समुचित ही होगा कि दयानन्द द्वारा लिखी गई ऋग्वेद की भूमिका भी कम रुचिपूर्ण नहीं है। (भाषण ३, पृष्ठ १०२)। 

[📎पाद टिप्पणी ३. प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर ने ऋग्वेद सायणभाष्य के आरम्भ में स्वनाम का ‘मोक्षमूलर’ रूप में संस्कृतीकरण किया था। अतः स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती उनका उल्लेख सर्वत्र ‘मोक्षमूलर’ शब्द से ही स्वग्रन्थों में करते थे।]

      प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर के प्रारम्भिक विचारों और उत्तरकालीन विचारों का निर्देश हम आगे करेंगे। पहले हम मैक्समूलर और स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के पारस्परिक सम्बन्ध के विषय में लिखते हैं। 

      ◼️स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के वेदभाष्य के नियमित ग्राहक – स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के वेदभाष्य के प्रतिमास छपनेवाले अङ्कों के टाइटल पृष्ठों पर वेदभाष्य के नियमित ग्राहकों के नाम पते छपते थे। उनमें हमने एक स्थान पर प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर और मोनियर विलियम्स के नाम छपे देखे थे। मुशी समर्थदान ने स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती की आज्ञानुसार ३० जून १८७९ ई॰ में श्यामजीकृष्ण वर्मा को जो पत्र इङ्गलैण्ड लिखा था, उसमें भी मैक्समूलर और मोनियर विलियम्स दोनों के वेदभाष्य का नियमित ग्राहक होना सिद्ध होता है । (यह पत्र हम आगे उद्धृत करेंगे।)

      स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती अपने वेदभाष्य में तथा अन्यत्र जब भी अवसर प्राप्त होता, प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर का प्रतिवाद करने में नहीं चूकते थे। इसी प्रकार एक अवसर पर मैक्समूलर ने कहा था- दयानन्द मेरे वेदभाष्य का कितना ही खण्डन क्यों न करें, मेरे द्वारा प्रकाशित ऋग्वेद सायणभाष्य सदा उनकी मेज पर खुला रहता है, (द्र॰-पूर्व पृष्ठ ८६, तथा टि॰ २)। इस प्रकार दोनों ही एक दूसरे के कार्य से न केवल भले प्रकार परिचित थे, अपितु एक-दूसरे के कार्यों की वास्तविकता को भी समझते थे। फिर भी स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती यह स्पष्ट रूप से जानना चाहते थे कि प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर और मोनियर विलियम्स के अपने वेद भाष्य के सम्बन्ध में क्या विचार हैं। मुशी समर्थदान प्रबन्धक वेदभाष्य कार्यालय ने ३० जून १८७९ को स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती की आज्ञा[४] से श्यामजी कृष्णवर्मा को आक्सफोर्ड (इङ्गलैण्ड) के पते से एक पत्र लिखा था। उस में लिखा है- प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर और मोनियर विलियम्स दोनों से भिजवा देना और लिखना कि उन लोगों का स्वामीजी और वेदभाष्य के विषय में क्या कहना है। स्वामीजी उनके भाष्य का खण्डन करते हैं, उसके बाबत क्या कहते हैं।[५]

[📎पाद टिप्पणी ४. ‘मैं यह पत्र स्वामीजी की आज्ञानुसार लिखता हूं।’ ऋषि दयानन्द के पत्र और विज्ञापन, पृष्ठ २७६, पं॰१०]

[📎पाद टिप्पणी ५. ऋषि दयानन्द के पत्र और विज्ञापन, भाग १, पृष्ठ २७७, पं॰ ८-११] 

      पुनः प्राषाढ़ सुदि ६, मंगलवार (२३ जुलाई १८८०) को श्यामजी कृष्णवर्मा को लिखे पत्र में स्वामी दयानन्द पूछते हैं-

      श्रीयुत प्रियवराध्यापक मूनियर विलियंस मोक्षमूलराख्यानामधुना वेदादिशास्त्राणां मध्ये कीदृङ् निश्चयः प्रेम तदर्थप्रचाराय चिकीर्षाऽस्ति।[६]

[📎पाद टिप्पणी ६. ऋषि दयानन्द के पत्र और विज्ञापन, भाग १, पृष्ठ ३४७, पं॰ २३-२४]

      ◼️मैक्समूलर द्वारा स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के महत्त्व को स्वीकारना – हम पहले लिख चुके हैं कि अपने समय के इन दोनों प्रतिवादिभयङ्करों का कभी परस्पर साक्षात् नहीं हुआ परन्तु दोनों एक दूसरे के कार्य से भले प्रकार परिचित थे। 

      ◼️मैक्समूलर द्वारा स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती को इङ्गलेण्ड आने का निमन्त्रण –  स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के पं॰ लेखराम-लिखित जीवनचरित से स्पष्ट होता है कि मैक्समूलर ने सन् १८७५ में स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती को इंग्लैंड आने का निमन्त्रण भेजा था। उक्त जीवनचरित के पृष्ठ २८७ (हिन्दी अनु॰ प्र॰ संस्क॰) पर मैक्समूलर के पत्र का निम्न सारांश दिया है –

      ‘यदि आप यहां आवें तो बहुत बड़ी कृपा होगी। और वहां के धन्य भाग हैं, जहाँ आपने जन्म लिया है।’ 

      इसके उत्तर में स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती ने जो पत्र लिखा था, उसका सारांश उसी जीवनचरित के पृष्ठ २८८ में इस प्रकार छपा 

      मेरी इच्छा आने की अवश्य थी, परन्तु यहाँ के लोग अभी मुझे नास्तिक कहते हैं। जब तक में इस देश को अच्छी तरह से न बतादूँ कि में कैसा नास्तिक हूं, तब तक नहीं आ सकता। 

      पं॰ लेखराम ने तो यह भी लिखा है…’वहाँ ( बम्बई) के भाटियों ने जहाज पर ले जाने का वचन भी दे दिया था’ (वही, पृष्ठ २८८)। पुनः पृष्ठ २९३ पर लिखा है- [लखनऊ में] ‘एक बंगाली बाबू को अंग्रेजी पढ़ाने को नौकर रखा था। और पढ़ना आरम्भ किया था।’ इण्डियन मिरर (कलकत्ता), बिहार बन्धु (पटना), हिन्दूबान्धव (लाहौर) के समाचारपत्रों में इस आशय की सूचनाएँ छपी थीं। 

      ‘ईश्वर जो कुछ करता है अच्छा ही करता है’ इस सुभाषित के अनुसार स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती का इङ्गलैण्ड जाना नहीं हुआ, यह अच्छा ही हुआ। अन्यथा पाश्चात्य भक्तों को यह कहने का अवसर मिल जाता कि स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती ने जो कार्य किया है, उसकी प्रेरणा उन्हें पाश्चात्य विचारधारा से मिली है। 

      ◼️स्वा॰ द॰ स॰ का जीवनचरित लिखने की आङ्काक्षा – स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के निधन के कुछ समय पश्चात् प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर ने स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती का जीवनचरित लिखने का संकल्प किया था, और उसके लिये परोपकारिणी सभा के तात्कालिक मन्त्री मोहनलाल विष्णूलाल पाण्डया को पत्र लिखा था। यह वृत्तान्त अजमेर के ‘देश हितैषी’ पत्र के खण्ड ४ अङ्क ४ सं॰ १९४२ (?) के पृष्ठ ८५ से ज्ञात होता है। पाण्ड्याजी ने स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती की जीवनचरित सम्बन्धी सामग्री स्वयं एकत्र न करके सब आर्यसमाजियों को प्रेरणा दी थी कि जिन्हें स्वामीजी की कोई विशेष घटना ज्ञात होवे, वह प्रा. मैक्समूलर साहब को लिखें। इसी प्रकार का वर्णन ‘फर्रुखाबाद का इतिहास’ के पृष्ठ २५५ पर भी मिलता है। 

      हन्त ! परोपकारिणी सभा के मन्त्री केवल आर्य समाजियों को प्रेरित मात्र करके अपने उत्तरदायित्व से मुक्त न होकर प्रा॰ मैक्समलर को स्वामीजी की जीवनघटनाओं को संग्रहीत करके भेजते तो प्रा॰ मैक्समलर द्वारा स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती का जीवनचरित लिखा जाना एक गौरव की बात होती। अस्तु 

      इस प्रकार हम देखते हैं कि प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर और स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के मन्तव्यों में वैपरीत्य होते हए भी दोनों में व्यक्तिगत सौहार्द उसी प्रकार का लक्षित होता है, जैसे मोनियर विलियम्स और स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती में परस्पर था।

      अब हम प्रा॰ मैक्समूलर के वेदविषयक प्रारम्भिक और उत्तरवर्ती विचारों का संक्षेप से वर्णन करते हैं। इससे स्पष्ट हो जायेगा कि प्रा. मैक्समूलर के विचारों में उत्तरकाल में कितना अधिक परिवर्तन हुआ

था। 

      ◼️प्रारम्भिक विचार- मैक्समूलर के आरम्भिक काल में वेदों के सम्बन्ध में क्या विचार थे, इसके निदर्शनार्थ उसके कुछ उद्धरण नीचे देते हैं –

      मैक्समूलर के कुछ पत्र अपनी पत्नी पुत्र आदि के नाम लिखे हुए उपलब्ध हुए हैं।[७] पत्रलेखक पत्रों में अपने हृदय के भाव बिना किसी लाग लपेट के लिखता है। अतः किसी भी व्यक्ति के लिखे हुए ग्रन्थों की अपेक्षा उसके पत्रों में लिखे विचार अधिक प्रामाणिक माने जाते हैं। 

[📎पाद टिप्पणी ७. Life and letters of Frederich Max Muller, Two Vols.]

      ▪️१. सन् १८६६ के एक पत्र में मैक्समूलर अपनी पत्नी को लिखता –

      वेद का अनुवाद और मेरा यह संस्करण[सायणभाष्य सहित ऋग्वेद का संस्करण] उत्तरकाल में भारत के भाग्य पर दूर तक प्रभाव डालेगा। यह उसके धर्म का मूल है। और मैं निश्चय से अनुभव करता हूं कि उन्हें यह दिखाना कि यह मूल कैसा है, गत तीन सहस्र वर्ष में उससे उपजने वाली सब बातों के उखाड़ने का एक मात्र उपाय है।[८]

[📎पाद टिप्पणी ८. ……This adition of mine and the translation of the Veda Will here after tell to a great extent on the fate of India, ……It is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years.] 

      ▪️२. एक पत्र में वह अपने पुत्र को लिखता है –

      ‘संसार की सब धर्मपुस्तकों में से नई प्रतिज्ञा[अर्थात् ईसा की बाईबल] उत्कृष्ट है। इसके पश्चात कुरान जो प्राचार की शिक्षा में नई प्रतिज्ञा का रूपान्तर है, रखा जा सकता है। इसके पश्चात् पुरातन प्रतिज्ञा[अर्थात् यहूदी बाइबल] दाक्षिणात्य बौद्ध पिटक, बेद, और अवेस्ता आदि हैं।'[९] 

[📎पाद टिप्पणी ९. Would you say that anyone sacred book is superior to all others in the world ?……I say the New Testament. After that, I should place the Koran, which in its moral teachings, is hardly more than a later edition of the New Testament. Then would follow,……the old Testament, the Southern Buddhist Tripitika….. The Veda and the Avesta.] 

      ▪️३. १६ दिसम्बर सन् १८६८ में भारत सचिव ड्यूक आफ आर्गाइल को एक पत्र में मैक्समूलर लिखता है –

      ‘भारत का प्राचीन धर्म नष्टप्राय है और यदि ईसाई धर्म उसका स्थान नहीं लेता तो यह किसका दोष होगा ?'[१०]

[📎पाद टिप्पणी १०. The ancient religion of India is doomed and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault it be ?] 

      ▪️४. मैक्समूलर लिखता है- 

      ‘वैदिक सूक्तों की एक बड़ी संख्या परम बालिश, जटिल अधर्म और साधारण है।'[११] 

[📎पाद टिप्पणी ११. “Large number of Vedic hymns are childish in the extreme : tedious, low, common place.” Chips from a German Workshop, second edition, 1866, p. 27.]

      ▪️५. मैक्समूलर के नाम उसके घनिष्ठ मित्र ई॰ बी॰ पुसे का पत्र – 

      ‘आपका कार्य भारतीयों को ईसाई बनाने के यत्न में नवगुण लाने वाला है।'[१२]

[📎पाद टिप्पणी १२. ‘Your work will form a new era in the efforts for the conversion of India……’]

      वाह क्या कहना? जैसा मैक्समूलर वैसा ही उसका मित्र ? ऐसों के लिये ही तो कहावत है- 🔥उष्ट्राणां विवाहेषु गीतं गायन्ति गर्दभाः। 

      वस्तुतः इस काल के जो भी ईसाई यहूदी वेद और संस्कृत भाषा पर काम कर रहे थे, उन सबके मस्तिष्क में ईसाई यहूदी मत का पक्षपात कार्य कर रहा था। मोनियर विलियम्स ने संस्कृत अंग्रेजी कोश की रचना की, इसके पीछे भी ईसाईयत की भावना काम कर रही थी। उसने उक्त कोष भारतीयों को ईसाई बनाने में अपने देशवासियों को सहायता पहुंचाने के लिये लिखा था। वह कोश की भूमिका में लिखता है- 

      “That the special object of his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of the scriptures into Sanskrit, so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian Religion.” 

(भूमिका, पृष्ठ९) 

      हमारा प्रयोजन मैक्समूलर के प्रारम्भिक विचारों को प्रस्तुत करना था, वह उपर्युक्त उद्धरणों से स्पष्ट हो गया। अब हम उसके उत्तरकालीन विचारों को प्रस्तुत करते हैं –

      ◼️उत्तरकालीन विचार – मैक्समूलर के उत्तरकालीन विचारों का संकलन हम उसके उन व्याख्यानों से उद्धत करते हैं, जिन्हें उसने भारत में प्रशासकीय सेवा में आनेवाले उम्मीदवारों के सम्मुख सन् १८८२ में “INDIA WHAT CAN IT TEACH US’ (हम भारत से क्या सीखें ? ) शीर्षक व्याख्यानमाला में प्रस्तुत किया था। 

      सबसे पहले तो हमारा ध्यान उक्त व्याख्यानमाला का शीर्षक ही आकृष्ट करता है। यह शीर्षक ही मैक्समूलर के विचारों में पाये परिवर्तन की घोषणा करता है। अन्यथा भारतीयों को असभ्य जाहिल मानने वाले व्यक्ति को तो भारत में प्रशासन चलाने आनेवाले व्यक्तियों को बताना चाहिये था कि तुम्हें वहाँ जाकर असभ्य भारतीयों को कैसे सभ्य बनाना है, न कि उन्हें यह बताया जाये कि ‘हम भारत से क्या सीखें ?’ अब हम इस पुस्तक के हिन्दी अनुवाद[१३] से कतिपय विचार उद्धत करते हैं –

[📎पाद टिप्पणी १३. अनुवादक- श्री कमलाकर तिवारी एवं रमेश तिवारी। प्रकाशक-इतिहास प्रकाशन संस्थान, इलाहाबाद। प्रथम संस्करण, जुलाई १९६४]

      ▪️वैदिक धर्म ने कोई भी बाह्य प्रभाव ग्रहण नहीं किया – 

      “वेदिक साहित्य को ऐतिहासिक महत्त्व देने में जब कोई आपत्ति नहीं मिल सकी तो भी अकारण आलोचकों ने एक महती और अन्तिम आपत्ति उठायी। ऐसे लोगों ने बल देकर कहना आरम्भ किया कि वैदिक काव्य यदि सम्पूर्णरूपेण विदेशी नहीं, तो उस पर विदेशी प्रभाव और विशेषकर सेमेटिक प्रभाव तो अवश्य ही है। संस्कृत विद्वानों ने वेद के अनेक आकर्षक तत्त्वों का वर्णन किया है। उन्हीं के अनुसार वेद का सर्वाधिक आकर्षक तत्त्व यह है कि यह केवल धार्मिक विचारों की प्रति प्राचीन स्थिति से ही हमें परिचित नहीं कराता, वरन् वैदिक धर्म ही एकमात्र ऐसा धर्म है, जिसने अपने सम्पूर्ण विकासकाल में कोई भी बाह्य प्रभाव नहीं ग्रहण किया तथा संसार के सभी धर्मों की तुलना में वह सर्वाधिक शताब्दियों तक निर्बाध रूप से चलता रहा है।” (पृष्ठ १३५)। 

      ▪️वैदिक भाषा, साहित्य धर्म वा यज्ञ पर कोई भी बाह्य प्रभाव नहीं है-  

      “प्राचीन भारतीय साहित्य पर विदेशी प्रभाव सिद्ध करने के लिये जितने तर्क दिये जा चुके हैं, उन सबको कसौटी पर कस लेने के पश्चात् अब हम इस स्थिति में आ गये हैं कि हम कह सकते हैं कि किसी भी प्रकार का बाह्य प्रभाव वैदिक भाषा, साहित्य, धर्म या यज्ञ पर नहीं है। वह जिस किसी भी रूप में हमारे सामने है, उसका उसी रूप और उसी देश में विकास हुआ है, जो उत्तर में अगम्य पर्वत श्रेणियों से, पश्चिम में सिन्ध तथा रेगिस्तान से, दक्षिण में अगाध सागर से एवं पूर्व में गंगा से पूर्ण रूपेण रक्षित था। हमारे सामने एक ऐसा काव्य (वैदिक धर्म) है, जो वहीं जन्मा और वहीं विकसित हुआ।” (पृष्ठ १४५)। 

      ▪️बहुदेवतावाद वा एकदेवतावाद- 

      “यदि आप हमसे यह पूछ बैठे कि वैदिक धर्म एकदेववादी है या बहुदेववादी, तो इसका उत्तर दे सकना मेरे लिए कम कठिन नहीं होगा। एकदेववाद का जो अर्थ लगाया जाता है, उस अर्थ में तो वैदिक धर्म एकदेववादी नहीं है। यद्यपि अनेक ऋचाएँ ऐसी हैं, जिनमें एकदेववाद की बात जितना बल देकर कही गयी है, उतना बल देकर तो ओल्ड टेस्टामेण्ट में भी नहीं कही गयी है। न्यू टेस्टामेण्ट एवं कुरान की भी यही स्थिति है। एक वैदिक ऋषि का कथन है कि “वह एक है, सन्त जन उसे विभिन्न नामों से पुकारते हैं, जैसे अग्नि, यम, मातरिश्वन्”[१४]। पृष्ठ( १४८)। 

[📎पाद टिप्पणी १४. 🔥इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान्। एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः। ऋ॰ १।१६४।४६] 

      “यदि एकदेववाद या बहुदेववाद में निर्णय करना हो तो प्रथम दृष्टि में तो यही प्रतीत होगा कि वैदिक धर्म बहुदेववादी है, परन्तु बहुदेववाद से हम जो अर्थ लगाते हैं, उस अर्थ में यह शब्द वैदिक धर्म का विशेषण नहीं बन सकता। वास्तव में बहुदेववाद की विचारधारा को हमने ग्रहण किया है रोम और यूनान से। हम समझते हैं कि बहुदेव में देवताओं का एक संगठित रूप होता है, जिनमें प्रत्येक की शक्तिमात्रा दूसरे से भिन्न होती है और वे सब-के-सब उस परमेश्वर के सहायक हैं, जिसे वे जीअस या जुपिटर कहते हैं। वेदों का बहुदेववाद इससे भिन्न है। वह न केवल यूनानियों या रोम वालों से भिन्न है, वरन् वह पालिनेशियन, अमेरिकन तथा अफ्रीकन भावनाओं से भी भिन्न है और यह भिन्नता उसी प्रकार की है जैसे स्वशासनाधिकारप्राप्त ग्रामों का संघ राजतंत्रीय शासन से भिन्न होता है।” (पृष्ठ १४६)। 

      ▪️केवल एक ही देव – “……. उन ऋषियों ने स्पष्ट रूप से समझ लिया था कि यद्यपि ये नाम केवल नाममात्र हैं और जिसके ये नाम हैं, वह एक है और केवल एक है।” (पृष्ठ १५१)। 

      “उसी विद्वान् लेखक (यास्क) का कथन है कि देव तो वास्तव में एक ही है….. ये ढेर सारे देवता उसी आत्मन् के विभिन्न सदस्य हैं।” (पृष्ठ २२३)। 

      ▪️वेद का चरम लक्ष्य – “मैं तो यहाँ तक कह सकता है कि भारत का दर्शनशास्त्र ही वहाँ का सर्वोच्च धर्म है। आपको यह जानकर आश्चर्य होगा कि भारत में प्राचीनतम दर्शनशास्त्र का प्राचीनतम नाम है- वेदान्त अर्थात् वेद का अन्त, वेद का लक्ष्य या वेद का सर्वोच्च उद्देश्य।” (पृष्ठ २२३)। 

      ”लोगों ने वेद की महत्ता को कम करने के कम प्रयत्न नहीं किए हैं, पर उसका महत्त्व आज भी वैसा ही है।” (पृष्ठ २२७) ।

      “वेदान्तदर्शन के अनेक प्रमुख अङ्ग गवई गाँव के निरक्षर व्यक्ति भी पूरी तरह समझते हैं।” (पृष्ठ २२७)। 

      मैक्समूलर ने अपने व्याख्यानों की समाप्ति ‘शापन हावर’ के उपनिषदविषयक उद्गारों को उद्धृत कर इस प्रकार किया। 

      यदि आप ये समझते हों कि मेरे द्वारा प्रस्तुत विवरण अतिरञ्जित हैं, तो मैं आपके समक्ष एक महान दार्शनिक-आलोचक के कुछ शब्द रखूँगा। उस विद्वान् की यही विशेषता थी कि दूसरों के विचारों की व्यर्थ प्रशंसा करना उसके स्वभाव के विपरीत था। इस प्रसिद्ध विद्वान् शापन हावर ने उपनिषदों पर अपना विचार प्रगट करते हुए लिखा है कि-

      “समूचे संसार में कोई भी अध्ययन इतना लाभजनक और ऊँचा उठाने वाला नहीं है, जैसा कि उपनिषदों का अध्ययन। यह मेरे जीवन का संतोष रहा है और यही मेरी मृत्यु का भी सन्तोष रहेगा।” (पृष्ठ २३०)।

      इन उद्धरणों से यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि इन व्याख्यानों के समय (सन् १८८२) तक भारत, भारतीय धर्म और वेद के विषय में मैक्समूलर के विचारों में बहुत अन्तर हो गया था। परन्तु यह अन्तर किन कारणों से हुआ, क्या स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती का वेदभाष्य इसमें कारण था वा नहीं, इसका स्पष्ट संकेत नहीं मिलता। स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती के वेदभाष्यसम्बन्धी कार्य से मैक्समूलर भली प्रकार परिचित था और स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती भी अपने वेदभाष्यसम्बन्धी कार्य के विषय में मैक्समूलर और मोनियर विलियम्स की प्रतिक्रिया जानने को सदा उद्यत रहते थे, यह हम पूर्व लिख चुके हैं। और इनके मध्य श्यामजीकृष्णवर्मा, जो संस्कृत अध्यापन के लिये लन्दन गए हुए थे, सम्पर्कमाध्यम के रूप में भूमिका निभा रहे थे। इन सब घटनाओं के परिप्रेक्ष्य में यह कहा जा सकता है कि मैक्समूलर के विचारों में परिवर्तन का प्रमुख कारण स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती का वेदभाष्य अवश्य रहा होगा। इसकी पुष्टि मैक्समूलर के निम्न कथन से भी होती – 

      ‘ऋग्वेदकाल से आरम्भ करके दयानन्द द्वारा सम्पादित ऋग्वेद भाष्य की भूमिका लिखे जाने के समय तक के साहित्य को दो भागों में बाँट सकते हैं। यहाँ यह भी बता देना समुचित ही होगा कि दयानन्द द्वारा लिखी गई ऋग्वेद की भूमिका भी कम रुचिपूर्ण नहीं है।’ हम भारत से क्या सीखें, पृष्ठ १०२। 

      सबसे अधिक खेद का विषय यह है कि भारत के विश्वविद्यालयों में मैक्समूलर के वे ही विचार पढ़ाये जाते हैं, जो उसने प्रारम्भिक काल में ईसाई मत के जोश में लिखे थे। मेरा सुझाव है कि प्रत्येक विश्वविद्यालय में, जिसमें भी संस्कृत भाषा से सम्बद्ध विषय पढ़ाये जाते हों, वहाँ कम से कम मैक्समूलर के INDIA WHAT CAN IT TEACH US ? (हम भारत से क्या सीखें ) शीर्षक व्याख्यानसंकलन पाठ्यपुस्तकों में अवश्य रखा जाय, तभी मैक्समूलर-भक्त अपनी अन्ध भक्ति को त्यागकर कुछ प्रकाश पा सकेंगे। 

✍🏻 लेखक – महामहोपाध्याय पण्डित युधिष्ठिर मीमांसक

[ 📖 साभार ग्रन्थ – मेरी दृष्टि में स्वामी दयानन्द सरस्वती और उनका कार्य ]

प्रस्तुति – 🌺 ‘अवत्सार’

॥ओ३म्॥

Vedic Religion

Vedas For Beginners 7 : What is meant by ghosts and spirits[ Bhuths and pretaas]?

2 Comments

K:  Do bodies like ghosts and spirits exist?  Number of stories is told on ghosts and spirits.  Talismans, threads are tied in an attempt to ward off evils. Mantras are muttered to drive away the spirits. There are exorcists claiming similar action. Is it correct?

V:  Really speaking, ghosts and spirits do not exist. What people say on the subject are just imaginary stories. Time has three dimensions, present, past, and future. Bhoot means past i.e., what is elapsed.   A deceased does not exist anymore. He is counted to as belonging to the past (Bhoota). Therefore, Bhoot refers to the person who is dead and gone. There is nothing called pretha (spirit). A dead person is called as pretha ( pra+ ita) which would also mean as one who has already gone away. In other words Bhoot and pretha refer to that person who was there earlier but not now because he is dead. People who say that they have seen these ethereal bodies, normally also claim that they could be seen in night only. How? All phony things occur only in night. Whether these men claiming to have seen such unearthly bodies possess catty eyes or whether these airy bodies are made of radium type substance that could be seen only in dark is for anybody to guess. All the big and minute things in the world could be seen either with our naked eyes or thru specially made lenses. If Bhoots and Pretas were to be some sort of human bodies definitely they would have been visible or not visible at all. Fact however is, it is generally said to be seen by a person who normally suffers from deliriums or convulsions or whose mind is heavily influenced by stories of Bhoots and Pretas. Otherwise men who are sound, in body and mind do not claim for having seen them. As per principles of psychology when the man’s mind is subjected to certain bad influences (psychological trauma) he would be visualizing pictures of some weird objects and scenes.  What is to be seriously pondered over here is that when a man is dead his body gets merged in the five elements of nature. And the soul takes a new body as per law of Karma. Then where is the question of Bhoot or pretha? Wherefrom it can originate?

ghost

If it is said that Bhoot or prêt refers to the subtle body then it should be clarified that the soul cannot discharge any bodily functions without the medium of gross physical body.  If, talisman, black threads, mumbo-jumbo, exorcism were capable of warding off diseases, then the ward of the men indulging in such spurious practices should never succumb to any disease? Is it so? Their children also die and so also they vanish one day. If mantras or mumbo-jumbo could cure men from diseases then where is the necessicity for Doctors and Hospitals? Funnily, the cat will be out of the bag when a person who is said to be possessed of spirit is confronted with a difficult problem. Person desirous of examining them should ask for a Veda Mantra from a person possessing such spirits in case he is a Hindu or he must be asked to recite versions of Koran in case he is a Muslim. If done, these tricksters stand thoroughly exposed. Further these fraudulent men employ some smart tricks here to fool the credulous. So when the common man is unable to understand these phenomenons they tend to think that they (men of spirits) are capable of controlling the spirits. Frankly speaking there are no spirits, but these thoughts keep nagging the weak and the doubting thamases. The truth however is, every person shall reap what he sows and there is no escape from this law.  . The just God is present everywhere and his law that person is rewarded or punished as per his previous karma or sanskars stands unchanged.

 

Do planets influence men and cause pleasures and pains?

 

sonia-astro

 

K. Good! There may not be objects like spirits. But pleasures and pains are definitely caused by planets. We have to undergo the punishments inflicted by these nine planets. Astrology can never go wrong. Astrology is so perfect that it can predict the cosmic phenomenon like lunar eclipse and solar eclipse well before hand.

 

V. pains and pleasures are not due to planetary influences. They occur because of the outcome of ones deeds. The planets that are present would give neither pain nor pleasures to anybody. Planets do influence the earth each in its own way. The changes like happiness or sorrow that occur are dependent on the strength of the objects.  For ex, Sun is a star. Its light is found everywhere. Utilizing the sunlight a plant is growing tall with roots firmly embedded in the soil.  At another place there is tree which lies after being cut. The sun falls equally on the growing tree as well as on the tree that is cut. But it is only the uncut tree that is growing big and the severed tree is withering away fast due to sunlight. Whereas the sun is falling equally on both why the uncut tree is flourishing well and other is getting dried up? The same sun falls equally on iceberg and stone.  The stone becomes harder because of sunlight but the iceberg melts. A healthy eyed man enjoys the beauty of Nature made more enchanting by the shades of light whereas the man with the diseased eye shuns the sight of sun and feels unhappy. Now tell me whether this difference was caused by Sun? Did he do any mischief here?  What was the fault of Sun?  The changes, the pleasures or pains occur because of the strength of the object. Now look!  There are two parts present in Astrology.  That part which is based on mathematical calculations is called Astronomy could be called as scientific. The other which is predictive in nature and dependent on speculations on planetary movements is a pure myth. The lunar and solar eclipses are related to Astronomy. Therefore they can be predicted well in advance i.e. before months and years. The Sun, the Moon have been at work as per physical laws and the Astronomy is accordingly written. Astronomers have the knowledge of the movement of planets and they could therefore accurately predict when the eclipses could take place. Where there is certainty in the movements of the objects its influence could be known at once by mathematical calculations. There is definiteness in the movements in a clock. Any boy who is conversant with the reading of the clock could say with certainty when 12 Noon occurs. When both the needles are getting together at 12.during the day he would instantly say that it is 12 Noon.  This is possible because there is an accurate movement in a clock. Truly speaking, Astronomy is mathematics based science.  Astrology is a predictive mumbo-jumbo and Astronomy has been associated with this by default.

          

 Note :  This is the translated version of the original Hindi  ”Do bahinonke bathe” written by late Pt. Siddagopal”Kavirathna” .

 

Vedic Religion

Vedas For Beginners : Why be devoted to God?

Leave a comment

K:  Sister! Please reply to yesterday’s question.

 

V:  Why to remain devoted to God? And why should we praise and pray Him was your yesterday’s question.

Well.  All things in the world aspire to get drawn towards its Primary source or centre of Power. This is applicable equally to both Conscious [chetan] and non-conscious or inert [Jada] bodies. Fire moves up and up for the reason that the Sun is the primary source of heat or Fire. Now consider another example. Throw a mud ball towards the Sky and however high it is thrown up ultimately it lands on the earth because Earth is the prime source of mud. Water gets evaporated from sea, because of Sun and the water so evaporated becomes a cloud. It starts raining and the water enters the rivers which ultimately join the sea, because sea is the prime source of water. So is the case of other materials also. Every material has its prime source.

Ocean is the Prime centre of water

Sun is the treasure house/ source of Fire

Sky is the Prime centre of Wind

Earth is the source of soil

 

Similarly Knowledge also has its prime source in the world. That is god. All the knowledge that man has acquired has been got from God. If a man could acquire the knowledge by himself without others assistance there was no necessity for schools, colleges, universities etc. Teachers were also found then not necessary. But this is not the case. Parents teach their children to talk and make them aware of so many things that surround them. They teach their children, how to eat, drink, dress etc. Behavior, etiquettes, inter-personal relationships etc are also taught. When these children enter schools they learn many other things. Here it should be also noted that what the teachers teach is also not theirs but what they would have learnt while at home, Schools and colleges before becoming teachers. Here a question arises. When the knowledge the men acquire is thru others who taught the human beings or the primary man at the time of Creation when there were no people before them? The answer is they got the knowledge from God only. Then how the Knowledge was given? How he taught them since He had no body? Here it may be clarified, that there exists a difference between revealing the knowledge and imparting them.  Teaching is done through sound and knowledge is revealed in heart. Since God is all pervading He is present in the human beings created at the time of Creation. Accordingly, God reveals the Knowledge in the souls of chosen Rishis Viz, Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angira. These Rishis in turn teach the knowledge for others through the medium of Sound. Then starts the mechanism of teaching, i.e. reading and hear them reading, reciting etc.

If God had not given the knowledge, the tradition of transmission of knowledge would not have come off. It is therefore clear that whatever knowledge that man has acquired is thru the process of transmission only and whatever enlightenment he has obtained has become possible thru god given intelligence and by observing the nature of world created by god. Man can enhance the boundaries of knowledge but so long he is not administered knowledge he cannot obtain himself. In the beginning of Creation God has revealed the knowledge in the hearts and minds of Rishis in seed form. Subsequent growth of knowledge in expanded form [Tree form] is rendered possible thru the efforts of Rishis   and intelligent men. This is the rule from time immemorial and the same will continue in future also. When all things in the world are aspiring to get drawn to its prime source and still at it, why the soul with finite knowledge would not wish to move towards God who is the repository and source of infinite knowledge? This is because his evolution is not at all possible sans God. Conscious bodies evolve with conscious bodies and unconscious [inert] bodies with inert bodies.

 

The welfare of conscious soul is not possible by any inert things in the world. It is true however, that by intelligently utilizing the inert matters the well being of body is definitely ensured. The soul however, bound as it is by limited knowledge [i.e. remaining Alpagna] seeks improvement in the worldly things but fails.  Hence he remains restless. Ignorance is the reason for unhappiness in the world. If soul were to understand the true nature of materials obtaining in the world, he will not experience unhappiness or sorrow. The soul becomes enmeshed in sorrow and shackles so long it keeps equating untruth to truth, ignorance to knowledge and conscious to inanimate. God who is the source of knowledge is the real source of happiness. Removed from God happiness does not lie in worldly things. If happiness could be found in worldly things then the entire world should have looked happy and cheerful. But the actual position is different. Every conscious being in the world seeks happiness, because it is not with him.  Why he should seek happiness if he already had?  He becomes  liberated with worldly sorrows and bondages and attains eternal happiness called Bliss[Ananda] in the end when while remaining devoted  keeps on doing praise[ Stuti] prayer[ Prarthana]and communion[ Upaasana]

 

K: It is wrong to say that there is no pleasure or happiness in the worldly things. If there were to be no happiness in them, then why they should be much sought after by men? If money were not to bring happiness why people would have struggled to accumulate it? If food were not cause happiness why they would have consumed it? Why wear clothes if they were not to cause happiness? Why construct Homes if they were not to bring in pleasure and happiness?  All this indicate that there is happiness in worldly things. Hence, people desire to have them and do not want to give them up. He finds happiness in their acquisition and feels unhappy at its loss. Then how to believe that happiness is not found in material things?

 

V:  Sister! What you find happiness in worldly objects is not real happiness but illusion of it. Happiness is in the minds of men. When a man makes use of things he feels comforted and comes to believe that happiness is obtained from them only. But frankly speaking, happiness is not obtained from a particular thing. He feels happy so because of

mind’s concentration. When a dog bites a dry bone, its gums starts bleeding and the dog [unaware of the fact that dry bone cannot have a blood] keeps on sucking the blood oozing from its own gums! Similarly where is the happiness in the worldly things outside? Happiness lies inside. This is known. If money were to spell happiness, then no rich man would have been unhappy. But the extent of worries that the rich man has is not there with the poor man. A rich man down with diseases could buy medicines but not health. That rich man   could employ teachers, workers, buy books but can he earn knowledge? No. He can earn knowledge and wisdom only thru hard intensified study. Likewise he may buy food but cannot buy hunger.

 

There are millionaires in the world who are unable to digest even one meal a day. Now tell me whether there is happiness inherent in money. If food were to bring happiness the quantum of happiness one derives by eating four chapattis should be four times by eating 16 chapattis. This is because happiness should be proportionate to the quantum of food eaten. But does this happen? By eating more than that satisfies his hunger he becomes sick requiring medication. Dry, tasteless food tastes like nectar when one is hungry, whereas, nectar tastes bitter when not hungry. Similar is the position about clothes. If clothes were to cause comfort, the same cloths that are comfortable  in winter should continue to be so in summer also and vice versa. If causing comfort were to be the nature of clothes then it should cause comfort in all seasons. Why warm clothes are not suited in summer and winter clothes are not suited for winter? The nature and character of a thing should remain constant under all circumstances. For ex, to burn a thing is the nature of Fire. This nature will not undergo change. Sweetness is the quality of sugar. Eat sugar at any time. You taste sweet only. Likewise, if causing happiness is the nature of worldly things, then people would not have sought happiness even after their possession. They should be feeling happy every second. Now be clear!  Will the problem of a person running high temperature could be overcome by putting him on a soft, silky bed? Never. Hence I tell you, that happiness does not lie in the worldly things. God is the source of Happiness and that is obtained by being nearer to Him.

 

K: If happiness were to be within, and real joy does not rest with the worldly things, then why a person derives happiness in eating sweets? Why he does not derive happiness by eating Mud? There is joy in eating Rotis but not sand. Sugar tastes but not grass. What is the reason for this?

 

V:  The feeling of happiness which we derive in eating sugar candy etc is because of the character of the latter and this does not constitute real happiness. The sweetness is felt when this is concentrated in mind. Then only he experiences joy in it. If sugar candy were to cause happiness then it should cause same happiness during fever also whereas sugar tastes bitter during fever. Similar is the case of chillies. Persons not habituated to taking chillies find it as poison. So is the case of other worldly things. Now about person not finding happiness in eating mud. If mind is concentrated in it then eating mud also becomes enjoyable. We might have seen some women eating mud balls. Some animals eat sand stones also. Leave this matter aside. We find people taking liquor which is awfully smelling, astringent and bitter. Opium is highly bitter but some people consume

it. People find happiness in these things. Does joy lie in these things? No. Man derives happiness in these things as long as his mind gets concentrated in them. A question may arise as to how the mind gets concentrated in an object. When a man becomes used to a thing he starts concentrating therein albeit temporarily is the answer. Because of habit, the inherent culture or the sanskars of that object leaves a strong impression on the mind. The sanskars of a particular thing instigates a person to use them often and often. Similar is the case of beautiful scenario. Man in order to see his mind gets relaxed goes to forests, Sea, Parks, mountains etc. But when he is entangled in a criminal case he does not derive joy in these places of interest. Strikingly good places appear to be drab, worthless places for him for the reason his mind is restless resulting in lack of concentration. A person goes to a music concert, Film show etc to enjoy. But if he finds his son being sick he does enjoy the show even though present. This is because the sickness of son has disturbed him. At times when our mind is busy roaming elsewhere, we are unaware of taste of food being eaten. Hence it is clear that happiness rests with when accompanied by concentrated mind and not in objects.

 

K: First you said that God is a prime source of all Happiness and now you are telling that happiness lie in concentrated mind. Why this dichotomy?

 

V: Only in the concentrated mind the blissful God is felt. The ignorant finds that happiness lie in the external things. This is not dichotomy. What is important to be known here is, because of habit man obtains   transient concentration in worldly things. Hence transient happiness is obtained. We may ultimately realize God if we start concentrating mind in comprehensive form in worship. This is the ultimate aim of life. Precisely for this reason, praise [Stuti] prayer [Prathana] and communion [Upaasana] is necessary, the object being let mind gets concentrated and thereby derive more and more happiness.

 

K: What is the proof that the more the mind is concentrated, the more happiness is derived?

 

V: I give a proof based on state of being while in wakeful {Jagrit] state and in deep slumber [Sushupthi] state. During wakeful position man’s transactions [vrithis] are spread over towards worldly things. Hence concentration is not attained. The mind rushes to one object or the other. But in sleep condition his mind’s activities are in concentrated, restful mode, and he feels happy after a good sleep. Getting up in the morning he says that he is happy because he got a good sleep overnight. The happiness he got in sleep was due to the mind’s concentration. The soul is relieved off the connection with worldly objects and rapprochement is done with God. The soul is attached either to worldly things or with God. The more he is attached to worldly things the more sorrow he experiences. The more he cultivates relationship with God he derives more happiness. This becomes clearer from the example. A person is in jail. He is ailing. He is pained at the loss of his wife and children. He is having lot of other worries.  He is disturbed but till when? These things drag him to restlessness as long he is in wakeful state.  Once he manages to get sleep all the troubles disappear and he enjoys the same amount of happiness that a king

enjoys. Even animals enjoy happiness in sleep. This is because that in Sleep his mind’s transactions are not scattered over, but remain concentrated. Control of mind’s transactions is called “YOGA” i.e. communion with God. When an intelligent communion is established with God thru Stuti, Prarthana, and Upaasana it is said that there is spiritual elevation. This spiritual upliftment reaches its zenith thru Samadhi where Soul becomes immersed with God. This is the ultimate aim of life.

 

K:  Which is called Stuthi, Prathana and Upaasana?

 

V:  Praising the God with full devotion and faith is called Stuthi. Seeking God’s help for the removal of his foibles or weaknesses from those Godly qualities is called Prarthana. Keeping away from the worldly things that involves his pride in self called Ahankar and strongly invoking a feeling that he is nearer to God is called Upaasana.

 

K: You believe that God has no Form. But large number of people in the world thinks otherwise and offer prayer to the Form. What is wrong in understanding that God has a Form or having a Body?

 

V: You will get answer to this question tomorrow.

 

Vedic Religion

Vedas For Beginners : IS GOD IS THERE OR NOT?

1 Comment

K; Sister! You have been telling me to pray daily. I am asking you to whom we should pray? And where is that God?

 

V: God is everywhere. There is no place which is free from God.

 

K: You have told the wonderful. If god were to be everywhere then where are other things? All space  are occupied by God and if there is no place free from God then there is no place for other things. Were the other things  remaining  without a space ?

 

V: It is not that way sister! When it is said that there is no place free from God, it means that God is everywhere. This is my opinion and that is how it is told in a common language. God being there  is not dependent on space. It is the   physical  elements that occupy the space.

Earth, water, air, fire and their atoms, are those things that occupy space. But God pervades them all. Hence it is said that God is everywhere.

 

K: O.K. If God were to everywhere  why He is not seen? When  not seen, where is the proof of  his presence?

 

V: Are there are no objects present which are not seen? There are so many things in the world which are not seen. cold, hot,  happiness, sorrow, time, direction, hunger, thirst, itching, pain, etc are there which are not seen. There may be many reasons for a thing not to be seen.  Like far off places say, like  Europe, America etc, many things are not seen. Are we able to see the kite or a bird flying at  a far off distance? Because of closeness of proximity also, eye is not able to see a thing. There are hundred of subtle things like atoms. Some like  bacteria or virus could be seen only thru microscope. Water being covered with  algae is not seen because of algae  and like wise there are so many unseen because separated by cover.  Because of dirt, a mirror is not seen and because of presence of a wall the man sitting across the wall is also not seen. Milk and water are both liquids and because of this water in milk is not seen. If there were to be trouble in the eye many things are not seen. A man affected with jaundice cannot see white objects. Hence it is not correct to say that  things are not present  just  because they are un seen.

 

K:  For me, I don’t believe in anything without seeing.

 

V: This shows your obduracy. I have already said that there are many things which are not seen and yet   we have to believe them.  Good! Now,  are you listening to  what I am telling?

 

K: Yes listening.

 

V: By which?

 

K: By ears of course

 

V: Are you sure that what I am telling?

 

K: Yes. Why not?

 

V:Are you seeing my words thru your eyes? Okay. Look here, I am having a flower in my hands. Which is that flower?

 

K: It is Rose.

 

V: Does  the flower has a fragrance  or not?

 

K: Yes. It has a fragrance.

 

V: How did you come to  know about  this?

 

K:  Through my nose.

 

V:  Tell me one thing. Did sugar was there in the milk that  you drank overnight?

 

K:  Yes. It was there.

 

V:  How did you come to know about  it?

 

K: Thru My tongue.

 

V:  Now I point out, that the sound was perceived thru ears,  fragrance thru nose, and sugar thru tongue. Why this way? Why not did eyes perceive sound,  ears the fragrance and nose the sugar?  Even though the smell and fragrance was present why not the same was seen by eyes?

 

K;  The senses perceive its subjects only and grasp knowledge. God is not perceivable by any sense organs. How could we believe that He  is present at all?

 

V: God is not seen and therefore he is not present  was your initial argument. Now you have turned over.  You have agreed that there could be things not seen. It is separate  issue that the knowledge of such unseen things  could be had by  other sense  organs. Now, you are asking how the presence of   God could be accepted when he is not perceivable by any sense organ. If you believe that God could not  exist as He is not understood by senses, then how you understand these senses? If you believe that sense organs are understood by sense  organs only then it constitutes what is known as Atmashrya Dosha. This is because thru what is seen is not seen by itself. When their subjects are different by themselves how sense organs could understand the  sense  organs? The subject matter of eye is sight; ears sound;  nose smell; tongue taste; skin touch. Nose cannot understand the eyes nor the  tongue can understand the ears.

 

 

 

K:  How it cannot be  understood? When I hold mirror before me,  the eyes, ears, nose , tongue etc are forthcoming. The eyes are more forthcoming about knowledge of other organs.

 

V:  Sister! This is your wrong understanding. What you see from your eyes is only a form or sight not the subjects. Will you see the subjects of other sense organs in the mirror? The eyeballs can see places of  sense organs which have a form. The strength of these senses are present in that places.  Can eyes disclose  the entire knowledge about other sense organs? Eyes cannot see by itself. You are of the opinion that  eyes are seen in a mirror. Now, I put a question. Tell me  what is in my hand?

 

K:  Mirror.

 

V:  How did you see that there is a mirror in my hand?

 

K; Thru eyes of course.

 

V: When you said  that you saw mirror thru eyes , it means before seeing a mirror eyes  had a knowledge. In other words it means to say that without eyes mirror would not have seen. Now tell me, whether thru  eyes mirror is understood or vice versa?  If eyes are understood thru mirror, even when eyes are dried up, the mirror should have caused  the knowledge of the dried up eyes. When eyes are dried up , let alone causing the knowledge of eyes, mirror  cannot cause the knowledge of itself. If you think deeply, even eyes see the others with the help of other aids and not independently. It is however  true that sight cannot be seen without eyes  but the knowledge of  sight  cannot be made  by eyes themselves.

 

K; What other  aids are required for eyes? Eyes sees the Forms independently. The subject matter of eyes are sight. How do you say that eyes don’t see independently?

 

V: Yes.  Now I am seeing all objects. But  if there  is a thick darkness surrounding can I see things?

 

K:  No, It cannot be seen.

 

V: Hence it is clear that eyes are not just enough to see. It requires light. If there were to be no light  eyes are helpless. And even if both light and eyes were to remain present  and the object is not stationary then also we cannot see. If you place the book too close to your eyes you cannot read. Similarly also we cannot read letters in a book held at a distance. Therefore to read letters  book is to be held at a definite distance and place. Further, even the object at a place and light were to be there and  if eyes were removed from the mind, in that event also we cannot see. There are many occasions where mind is involved in some work, the objects are not seen by the eyes even though they  may pass thru our front. In such circumstances, if you were to ask a person whether he observed certain things he would say “ no, I did not watch”. Now you would have understood what are the aids that are required to see a particular object.

 

K:  What do you mean by all this?

 

V: Have you not understood as yet?  If you cannot perceive God thru sense organs, you cannot understand sense organs thru sense organs. But even then we have to accept the sense organs. Then why doubt about  the  acceptance of existence of God.

 

K: How we can understand the senses?

 

V: Sense organs are understood by the Soul thru experience. When he perceives sound, smell, Form,etc he understands  “ That there are aids within me and I am getting the benefit thru them”

 

K: And how we could understand the God?

 

V: God could be understood by experience.

 

K: How the experience is got?

 

V: God is felt thru Soul.

 

K: When  this feeling is felt?

 

V: When mind is got rid of three faults.

 

K: What are these faults?

 

V:  Mala,  Vikshepa, and Avarana

 

K: What are its characteristics?

 

V: The thinking of doing bad to others and  the effects of  Sins fallen on Soul [sanskars] is called Mala.  Constantly thinking over  the worldly objects[materialism] and lack of firmness in mind is referred to as Vikshepa. The impact formed on mind about the pride of temporary worldly things is referred to as Avarana.

 

K: How can we overcome the above three faults?

 

V:  There are three ways thru which we can overcome these three hurdles.

 

K: What are they?

 

V: Knowledge, [Jnana]  Action[Karma] and Communion [ Upaasana]

 

K: What you mean by Knowledge, Action and worship?

 

V:  Understanding the matter as it is,  i.e. to treat inert matter  as inert[Jada] Conscious entities [ Chetan] as Conscious[Chetan] and transitory things  as transitory  things marks the  Knowledge.  To work for the welfare of  Soul, Body and  Society and to try for the acquisition of ennobling things  is referred to as Action. To approach  a material  and  overcoming his shortcomings based on the strength of that  material   is referred to as Communion.  Consider for a while, that  a person is down with cold. If he approaches water for the removal of cold it betrays  his ignorance, not knowledge. If he is aware of fire and  tries to obtain fire thru Action and approaches fire for the removal of cold then  only he gets rid of cold. From Knowledge, the Mala is overcome, from Action, Vikshepa, is got rid of and finally thru Communion  the effect of Avarana is kept away. Then only God is felt.

 

K: Make this point more clear. How the faults of Mala, Vikshepa, and Avarana are removed respectively by Knowledge, Action, andCommunion respectively?

 

V: With the help of  Knowledge, it should be understood that all worldly things, all living beings are not permanent. For this reason, not entertaining the  feeling of  snatching away  the rights of others is a step in the direction of removal of evil  of Mala. By  thinking that worldly things are the end all and be all  and appropriating them with that spirit  would cause infirmity of mind  or Vikshepa. It is true that materials in the world are means to an end. But they are not end by themselves nor they could be life ideals. According to this principle, the action of man should be dispassionate, like a lotus in a water pond. This is type of  Karma which drives away Vikshepa. Looking upon the God gifted things as something his own is the thing that makes a deep imprint on the mind of man and this prompts him to treat money, women, land as his own which   causes self-pride and this cast spell over his  mind. Further with the strength of these material possessions  he starts tormenting  the others. He thinks there are no superior to him. But instead, when  he does Action with full Knowledge then he withdraws all forces inside  and with concentration thinks that “ God is with me and I am with God” in his heart  then he gets away from the evil ofAvarana. Hence by constant efforts and resorting to Knowledge, Action and Communion he is able to drive away the three evils Mala, Vikshepa and Avarana. Then only he can the feel the presence of God.

 

K; Sister, you are very clever and good at logic. Now tell me why God is necessary to this world at all?

 

V: Why God is  necessary to the world? Very good question. If God were not to be there then how is the world is created?. Who can create Sun, Moon, mountains, rivers, Air, water, ether, stars, forests, Trees, fruits, Milk, honey animals, birds, water creatures, snakes, etc. Who else can create these things and species?

 

K: Why God is necessary for the creation of these things? They are self-formed and has been there always.

 

V: If  things in the world could form themselves without the help of creator, then food should  have there without a cook, pot without a potter, ornaments without a goldsmith, sweet without sweet maker, dress without a tailor etc.  Secondly any thing in the world does not remain permanently. Every thing in the world has a origin, growth, decay, and ultimately destruction. All big to very big things have been created and gets destroyed in the end..

 

K:  I don’t see that God creates things. It does not appear as such. All things are formed by themselves and this order is there from time immemorial. Earth, water, Air, Fire, and their atoms are in existence in the world. These elements keep on joining  themselves in the creation of new and newer things and getting destroyed separately. Where is the work of God involved  here?

 

V:  Your opinion does not stand  to facts. The Earth and the other elements  and their atoms are inert matters. They don’t join themselves without joining them and do not disintegrate without getting disintegrated. Joining and Unjoining  are mutually hostile qualities. These qualities do not stay together. There may any number of qualities in a matter but not mutually  hostile qualities. If the nature of a thing  is to associate they keep on associating. and on the other hand disintegrating is their quality they keep on disintegrating. They do not join with mutually hostile qualities. If you were to say that joining and disintegrating  are the nature of a matter,  those qualities which are  predominant will have a say over the other. For ex, if joining is the  predominant quality, it never allows the world to disintegrate. If disintegrating is the nature of a matter and remains predominant it never allows the world  to stay together. If both qualities are held to be  equal then no object can be formed in the world. But we are seeing where an object is formed, remains for a while and gets destroyed. You may imagine any number of qualities in physical matters, but without God, Creation, sustenance, and dissolution is not possible in the matter called Prakrithi. There is difference in Conscious[ Chetan] and Non-Conscious[ Jada}forces. The Non-Conscious cannot do anything on their own. It keeps working with the help of Conscious forces only. The Conscious being  is capable of doing, not doing or undoing anything. This is the natural qualities of  Conscious beings.

 

K: The person who creates a thing in the world is directly  visible. The goldsmith, potter, the sweet maker,  the bird which builds the nests are  all seen. If God were to be creator of this world he would have been visible.

 

V: Believe me. The maker in the world is not at all visible. It is totally false to say that the goldsmith, Sweet maker, potter are visible. You may ask how? Listen. People like Potter, Goldsmith etc are creators who are made of twin elements, Body and Soul, The body to a soul is an instrument to do a function. Only when soul uses the  instrument called body a material  is formed. Without the instrument called body a material cannot come off. The goldsmith, potter etc are  physical bodies which are visible and are made of five elements called earth, water, fire, air and sky. But the soul who makes use of this body is not at all visible. The body without the soul cannot create things. Likewise without body, a soul cannot do anything either. His strength is of limited character. Hence God grants him a body which is visible. But God is of  limitless potentialities, omnipresent and omniscient. He does things without a body. The soul is also a creator like God, albeit with a limited strength and abilities . God is a creator of all. Both God and Soul  are not visible.

 

K: If God  is without Body then how is that  He can create the world. No function is ever possible without an instrument called  body.

 

V: Now the time is over. Tomorrow morning answer to this question will be given.

 

K: Okay. Let it be on tomorrow.
————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Note : This is the the translated version of the original  ” Do bahinonke bathe” written by  late Siddagopal “kaviratna”.

Translated by Vasudev Rao.

English, Myth Busters

The origin of the Vedas: Dr. Vidhu Mayor

Leave a comment

Veda 1

The idea that ‘the Rig Veda is the oldest book of mankind’ was first stated by Max Muller in the late 19th century.  Sadly, such statements have since been accepted uncritically, even within some Arya Samaj circles. It is sad because this contradicts the age-old theist Indian conviction that all four of the Vedas were revealed to mankind when humans were first created by God.  Each one of the four ‘books’ were revealed to four different humans.

The founder of the Arya Samaj movement, Svami Dayanand Sarsavati, expounds on the origin of the Vedas in his book Rigvedadibhashyabhumika, at the beginning of which he explains that God did not, however, produce the Vedas in the form of books in the beginning, but that ‘He revealed them to the consciousness of Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angirasa’.  Amongst the first humans, these were four rishis of such great merit that they were the most worthy of this honour. The author further cites the Shatapatha Brahamana XI. 5-8-3: that from them, when they meditated, were produced the three Vedas, viz., from Agni was produced the Rigveda, from Vayu, the Yajurveda, and from Surya the Samaveda. God inspired their consciousness and produced the Vedas through them….God gave them knowledge in the shape of the Vedas. Dayanand stresses this point to emphasize that these four did not compose the Vedas; he further writes:

The Samhitas are called Veda because all men know all true sciences in or through them, or because all true sciences exist in them, or because all true sciences exist in them, or because men become learned by studying them. The Samhitas are called
‘Shruti’ because from the beginning of creation to the present day Brahma and others have heard all true sciences read out of them. The Vedas, having been revealed by God who has no bodily organs, were never composed by a being having a corporeal body. God used Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angirasa as His instruments only for revealing the Vedas….The Vedas are not the products of their minds. God, being possessed of perfect knowledge, the relations between the Vedic words and their meanings also were established by Him.

Dayanand then goes on to rationalise his assertion that this act of revelation took place over 1.96 billion years ago.  So, in this sense it would be partially true to say that ‘the Rig Veda is the oldest book of mankind’.  Two errors in this statement, however, are that (i) it suggests that the Rig preceded the other three Vedas which – as has been explained above – is not true, for all four Vedas were revealed simultaneously and (ii) the false notion that these four samhitas began life in the form of ‘books’ of paper with ink-pen writing.  Obviously, at some point in history later on, this knowledge was written down into the form of books instead of it remaining solely imprinted in the memories of humans with unimaginably powerful intellects (even today wecan find men in India who are able to recite all 20000 mantras of the Vedas orally).

A third error implicit in Max Muller’s contention is that these books were written a few thousand years ago during the so-called Vedic era of India’s history. The case for debunking this as a myth now follows.

Textbooks of history used in schools in India even today teach that the people of India originate, racially, from an invasion of ‘Aryans’ into India over 3500 years ago – this version of history being a legacy left behind by the British rule over India for over two centuries.  The evidence for this theory is based mainly on the work done by European archaeologists and linguists during the time of Britain’s domination of India as its colony. The theory of Indo-Aryan migration was proposed in mid-19th century by German linguist and Sanskrit scholar Max Muller who proposed that these invaders introduced the ‘Indo-European languages’ and the caste system into India.

It is admittedly biased to summarily and contemptuously dismiss, here, these theories (which are predicated on proffering fossils of chariot technology as evidence, amongst other, of such an invasion) as being totally false. However, an author as eminent as GK Chesterton penned the following indictment of archaeology not being an exact science: the case in the 1920’s in the USA when the finding of a fossilised tooth was heralded – with much media excitement – as more proof that man had descended from apes because the tooth had characteristics of both man and ape.  However, in 1927 other parts of the skeleton were found – to reveal that this tooth was not that of `Nebraska Man’ but that of a pig!

Max Muller’s work will be critiqued later.  Firstly, however, Svami Dayanand’s powerful objection in his 1883 book ‘Light of Truth’ must be reiterated: In no Sanskrit book – historical or otherwise – is it recorded that the Aryas emigrated here from Iran, fought with and conquered the aborigines, drove them out, and became the rulers of the country. How can then these statements of the foreigners be true?  Why, indeed, did the Aryan invaders go to such lengths as to conceal or destroy all evidence of their origin in Central Asia? An analogy would be of there being, in three thousand years time, no surviving documentary evidence whatsoever, of the people of America today having emigrated there from Europe, in both those continents! Further, such a scenario would also require no evidence to survive of the virtual genocide of the indigenous American Indians by the European invaders. Why has no evidence emanated from Central Asian countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan of such a migration?  Would one not expect them to present such evidence – of their exporting to India of its rich Vedic civilisation – with justifiable nationalistic pride?

Modern – Western – historians are notably silent in addressing or rebutting these objections; this silence is positively deafening in light of the allegations, by the likes of De Riencourt, of disingenuity on Dayanand’s part. Two discrepancies that become clear are (i) why is there such an enormous difference in the interpretation of the Rig Veda between today’s historians and Dayanand and (ii) why are there similar differences in the account of Indian history by Dayanand, an Indian, and the version – accepted as true today – proposed by ‘visiting’ western historians and archaeologists?

A brief digression is warranted here. The explanation offered by the Occident for the paucity of historical documents to be found in India is that, somehow, a peculiar characteristic of the Indian psyche is to have no need or interest in history!  Max Muller was not the first German to suggest this. One far more eminent, none other than the great German philosopher Hegel, remarked: ‘Its strikes everyone in beginning to form an acquaintance with the treasures of Indian literature, that a land so rich in intellectual products and those of the profoundest order of thought, has no History; and in this respect contrasts most strongly with China….’ [The fascinating fascination that Germany discovered for India 200 years ago is another story that Indians of today must reflect upon].  Amaury de Riencourt, in his 1960 book The Soul of India further develops this – quite preposterous – notion as elaborated on page 9 of that book – ‘With the arrival of the Aryan war bands, all historical evidence vanishes; script disappeared, and the wooden structures of the Aryans rotted away in time without leaving any traces. From the very first, the invaders manifested the most remarkable trait of Indian psychology: a complete, instinctive indifference to history and the preservation of historical records. The Aryans in India had no memory.  And instead of historical treatises such as the Chinese have left to posterity , the Aryans left us myths – the transmutation of time-bound historical events into timeless tales in which fact and fancy are almost inextricably mixed.’

So, there we have it: Indians not only have a peculiarity in their make-up that precludes them from having a penchant for their own – or anyone else’s – history but are also asked to accept that it is necessary for foreigners to teach it to them.

Why, then, did Svami Dayanand devote well over a hundred pages in Chapter XI of the Light of Truth, a book primarily devoted Vedic theology and philosophy, to an examination of the history of India?  Why were as many as six of the 50-odd lectures he delivered in Pune in 1875 devoted to history? One of these began: ‘Today’s topic is history.  I shall talk about history in an orderly sequence.  Itihaasa means itihaaso naama vrittam, that is, it is a narration of past events. It started since the creation and it continues today.’  What were the sources he used – or is it inferred that a man revered for his colossal integrity fabricated his version?

De Riencourt finds it necessary to disparage Dayanand’s book as a ‘bird’s-eye view of world history’ and describes his interpretation of the Vedas as ‘his narrow-minded superficial metaphysics’.  Not mentioned at all is Dayanand’s simple explanation as to why the historical records in India have been decimated, that is, that they were destroyed by successive hostile ‘colonisers’ of India over a period of two millenia – beginning with the Buddhists and ending with the Islamic Mughals (and as is well-known today the British also seized literary records, amongst other things).

In debating which translation (Dayanand’s or Max Muller’s) of the Vedas should be believed, the starting point is that the Western world – and thus Indian text-books of history – accepts Max Muller’s contention that the compilation of the Vedas was started during the invasion of India by the Aryans circa 1500 BC and that their hymns, in the words of De Riencourt, ‘undoubtedly reflect the feelings of victorious and warlike barbarians.’

Dayanand translated (i) Rig Veda’s mantra 5:82.5 (Aum vishvaani deva savitur….) and (ii) God’s injunction in Rigveda 8-49-2 as follows:

(i)                  O, Omnipresent and benevolent Creator, disabuse us of our vices.  Secure in us that which is for our betterment [God, O all-pervading kindest Creator, take away our evils (and) inculcate goodness in us].

(ii)                 Acquire duly the Dharma preached by me, which is quintessentially devoid of bias and partiality, and is truthful by definition.

Come together to give up all conflict, so that the best of your happiness may increase and all suffering may be destroyed.

Having met together, hold discussions; ask questions and answer them, lovingly.  Avoid perverse reasoning such as sophistry, prejudiced and untrue arguments, so that noble qualities and true knowledge may forever increase amongst you.

Acquire wisdom to enable your minds to become replete with knowledge and always be filled with joy. Always follow Dharma and never practice Adharma. You should follow the same Dharma as has always been followed by learned, wise and impartial men -whether of past times or of the present age, that is, whether dead or living – maintaining a love for the preaching of the Divine Dharma.

They worshipped me as the Almighty and adorable God and followed the Dharma laid down by me. You also must do the same, so that you may know the Dharma inculcated by the Vedas and have no doubts about it.

Can these examples, indeed, be the work of Aryan savages?  Is the quality of this wisdom not, at least, on a par with the highest echelons of European metaphysics? Alternatively, is it not far more plausible that  Dayanand was correct in, echoing the message of India’s great ancient sages such as Patanjli, that God revealed the Vedas to the first humans He created?

An affirmative answer to that question, that is that the Vedas are of Divine Authorship and not the work of Aryan ‘bards’ imagined by the European colonist-missionary axis of the 18th and 19th centuries ,requires the presentation of further evidence to expose the notion of an Aryan invasion of India as being a fiction.

 

Vidhu Mayor, August 2014, Birmingham, UK.

वेद विशेष, वैदिक दर्शन

वर्तमान युग में वेदों की प्रासंगिकता : शिवदेव आर्य, पौन्धा, देहरादून

3 Comments

veda

 

परमपिता परमेश्वर ने जब सृष्टि का निर्माण किया तब सृष्टि में अनेकविध जड़-चेतनों का निर्माण किया। इन नाना विध जड़-चेतनों में यदि कोई सर्वश्रेष्ठ है तो वह है मनुष्य। जैसे परमात्मा ने अपनी सर्वोत्तम कृति मनुष्य को बनाया है ठीक वैसे ही मनुष्यों ने भी अपनी सर्वश्रेष्ठ रचना के रुप में संसार का निर्माण किया है। इसीलिए मनुष्य को सामाजिक प्राणी कहा जाता है। मनुष्य ने जिस प्रकार के नियम और व्यवस्था की है उसे देखकर ऐसा प्रतीत होता  हैै कि उसने पूर्णरुप से परमात्मा की नकल की है क्योंकि परमेश्वर अपने द्वारा निर्मित सृष्टि के नियमों के सदैव अनुकुल रहता है वैसे ही मनुष्य अपने द्वारा निर्मित समाज के नियमों में बंधा हुआ होता है। इस प्रकार हम इसके मूल को खोजे  तो हमें ज्ञात होता है कि अनुशासन में इसकी बहुत महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका है। परमेश्वर अपने द्वारा निर्मित सृष्टि नियमों के सर्वदानुकुल रहता है। क्योंकि परमेश्वर अपने आपमें अनुशासित होता है। यदि परमेश्वर अनुशासित नहीं होता तो प्रतिदिन प्रलय और निर्माण करता रहता। वह १४ मनवन्तरों के इतने लम्बे समय की प्रतीक्षा नहीं करता। जिस समय जो चाहता वहीं करता। इसी अनुशासन को हम जड़-चेतन दोनों में ही देख सकते हैं। जड़रुपी सूर्य यदि अनुशासन के अन्दर नहीं होता तो वह अपनी इच्छा से निकलता और डूबता, परन्तु ऐसा नहीं है।

इसीलिए अनुशासन की नितान्त अनिवार्यता है। इसी कारण अनुशासन के अभाव में अव्यवस्था न फैल जाये । इस प्रकार सोचकर परमपिता परमेश्वर ने सृष्टि के आदि में चार सर्वश्रेष्ठ आत्माओं को वेद का ज्ञान दिया। इस वेद के ज्ञान से सम्पूर्ण प्राणी मात्र अनुशासन सहित अनेक विध ज्ञान-विज्ञान को प्राप्त करे व करावें और धर्म-अर्थ-काम और मोक्ष को प्राप्त होवे।

पशुओं को अपने जन्म के पश्चात् माँ के स्तनपान करना सीखना नहीं पड़ता। पशुओं में जन्म से ही तैरने का गुण विद्यमान होता है। पशुओं की संवेदन शक्ति बहुत तीव्र होती है। इस बात को वैज्ञानिक लोग भी स्वीकार करते हैं। इसीलिए तो जब कोई मन्त्री या नेता आदि लोग आते हैं  उनके सेवक गण गुप्त स्फोटक पदार्थों को ढूढ़ने के लिए मशीन के साथ-साथ कुत्तों को भी लेकर आते हैं। इसप्रकार हम कह सकते है कि पशु जन्म से ही पूर्ण है। वो भोगों को भोगने के लिए इस सृष्टि पर आये हैं न कि कर्म करने के लिए। इसीलिए पशुओं को भोगयोनि की श्रेणी में रखा जाता है। अतः परमेश्वर ने वेदों का ज्ञान प्राणीमात्र के लिए प्रदान किया है।

सृष्टि के आदि में परमेश्वर ने चार सर्वश्रेष्ठ आत्माओं को वेद का ज्ञान दिया। ऋग्वेद का ज्ञान अग्नि ऋषि को, यजुर्वेद का ज्ञान वायु ऋषि को, सामवेद का ज्ञान आदित्य ऋषि को, अथर्ववेद का ज्ञान अंगिरा को प्रदान किया। इन्हीं ऋषिओं की परम्परा से वेदों का शुध्द ज्ञान आज हम को प्राप्त हो रहा है। इन चारों वेदों में प्रत्येक विषय का ज्ञान है। पुनरपि मुख्य रुप से ज्ञान, कर्म और उपासना ये तीन वेदों के विषय हैं।

माता-पिता जिस प्रकार अपनी सन्तान को कार्य करने के लिए सुख, सुविधा के लिए उसकी आवश्यकताओं  की पूर्ति करते हैं वैसे ही संसार के लोगों के लिए उस  परमेश्वर ने आवश्यक वस्तु वेद को मानव समाज को दिया। इन वेदों में वो सम्पूर्ण सामग्री है जिसे पाकर मनुष्य सुख-शान्ति व समृध्दि को पा कर अत्यन्त परमधाम मोक्ष को प्राप्त कर सकता है।

जब हमारा जन्म होता है तब हमारी माता जी हमें बताती हैं कि अमुक व्यक्ति तुम्हारा भाई हैं, पिता हैं इत्यादि। जितना माता अपने  बच्चों से प्यार करती है, उतना और कोई कदापि नहीं कर सकता।

वेदों को भी इसीलिए वेदमाता प्रचोदयन्ताम्…..मन्त्र से माता के नाम से सम्बोधित किया जाता है। क्योंकि वेदमाता परमपिता परमेश्वर के विषय में जितना बता सकती है, उतना और दूसरा कोई नहीं बता सकता  इसलिए परमपिता परमेश्वर को अच्छी प्रकार से जानने के लिए वेद को जानना और मानना नितान्त अनिवार्य है। मानव समाज के लिए वेद की भूमिका में सबसे महत्वपूर्ण बात है आस्तिक बनना। जब व्यक्ति आस्तिक हो जायेगा तो समाज अत्यधिक उन्नति करेगा। आस्तिकता के आते ही मनुष्य अनुशासित हो जाता है। अनुशासन के अन्तर्गत ही मनुष्य नियम पूर्वक कार्य करने लगता है। आस्तिक होने का सीधा-साफ अर्थ है-परमेश्वर को सर्वव्यापक मानना। इसी से मनुष्य जब भी कोई कार्य करता है तब यही महसुस करता है कि उसे परमेश्वर देख रहा है। परन्तु वर्तमान समय में अनुशासन नहीं हैं, इसका कारण है कि हम आस्तिक नहीं है, वेद को नहीं मानते।   (नास्तिको वेद निन्दकः)

इसी अनुशासन के आभाव में दुराचार, व्यभिचार, भ्रष्टाचार व्याप्त हो रहा है। इन सब समस्याओं से छुटकारा पाने के लिए हमें वेद की शरण में जाना पडे़गा। वेदों की महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका मनुष्य की आवश्यकताओं को पूर्ण करने में है। प्रत्येक मनुष्य चाहता है कि – मेरा घर परिवार सुखी हो, समृध्दि से भरा हो, पुत्र आज्ञाकारी हो, पत्नी मधुरभाषी हो। इन्हीं बातों को वेद में इसप्रकार व्यक्त किया गया है –

अनुव्रतः पितुः पुत्रो मात्रा भवतु संमनाः।

जाया पत्ये मधुमतीं वाचं वदतु शान्तिवान् ।।

                                                    ( अथर्व.-३/३॰/२)

अर्थात् पुत्र पिता का अनुव्रती होवे अर्थात् पिता के व्रतों को पूर्ण करने वाला हो। पुत्र माता के साथ उत्तम मन वाला हो अर्थात् माता के मन को संतुष्ट करने वाला हो। पत्नी पति के साथ मधुर एवं शान्ति युक्त बोले। इसी बात को चाणक्य ने लिखा है कि –

यस्य पुत्रो वशीभूतो भार्या छन्दानुगामिनी।

विभवे यश्च संतुष्टस्तस्य स्वर्गम् इहैवहि ॥

                                                                 (चाणक्यनीति)

मनुष्य को सुखी रखने के लिए चाणक्य जी कहते हैं कि-

ते पुत्रा ये पितुर्भक्ता स पिता यस्तु पोषकः।

तन्मित्रं यस्य विश्वासः सा भार्या यत्र निवृत्तिः।।

पुत्र वही है जो पिता का भक्त हो और पिता  का भक्त हो और पिता वही जो पुत्र का पालन पोषण करता हो, मित्र वही जिस पर विश्वास किया जाये और पत्नी वही है जिससे सुख प्राप्त किया जाए।

इस प्रकार वेद तथा ऋषिग्रन्थ यही बताते हैं कि सुखी जीवन के लिए परिवार में परस्पर उत्तरदायित्व तथा सहयोग की भावना बनी रहे।

मानव समाज को व्यवस्थित रखने के लिए लोगों के कार्य भी व्यवस्थित होने चाहिए। इसीलिए वेद में कहा गया है-

ब्राह्मणोऽस्यमुखमासीद् बाहूः राजन्यः कृतः।

उरु तदस्य यद् वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत् ॥

इस मन्त्र से सिध्द होता है कि सम्पूर्ण संसार के मनुष्यों को कर्म के आधार पर चार भागों में बाँटा गया है।

ब्राह्मण: वेद आदि शास्त्रों का अध्ययन-अध्यापन करना-कराना, यज्ञ करना-कराना, दान लेना तथा देना करना कर्मों को करना ब्राह्मणों का परम कर्तव्य है;-

अध्यापनमध्यनं यजनं याजनं तथा।

दानं प्रतिगृह´चैव ब्रह्मणनामकल्पमत्।। (मनु.-१/८८)

क्षत्रिय: प्रजा का रक्षण, दान देना, यज्ञ करना, वेदाध्ययन करना एवं विषयों में आसक्त न होना आदि कर्मों को करना क्षत्रियों का परम कर्तव्य है।।

प्रजानां रक्षणं दानमिज्याऽध्ययनमेव च।

विषयेष्वप्रशक्ति क्षत्रियस्य समासतः।। (मनु.-१/८९)

वैश्य: पशुओं का रक्षण, दान देना, यज्ञ करना, वेदाध्ययन करना, वाणिज्य-व्यापार आदि कर्मों को करना वैश्यों का परम कर्तव्य है।

पशूनां रक्षणं दानमिज्याध्ययनमेव च।

वाणिक्पथं कुसीदं च वैश्यस्य कृषिमेव च।। (मनु.-१/९॰)

शुद्र: उपर्युक्त तीनों वर्णों की सेवा शुश्रूषा करना शूद्रों के कर्म हैं।

एकमेव तु शुद्रस्य प्रभुः कर्म समादिशत्।

एतेषामेव वर्णानां शुश्रूषामनसूयया।। (मनु.-१/९१)

इस प्रकार की वर्ण व्यवस्था समाज में होने से सुख-शान्ति का माहौल बना रहता है।

मनुष्य ही एक ऐसा प्राणी है जो कर्म योनी के अन्तर्गत आता है। मनुष्यों को कार्य करने की स्वतन्त्रता है परन्तु फल भोगने की स्वतन्त्रता नहीं है। जैसे योगेश्वर श्रीकृष्ण जी कहते हैं कि-

      कर्मण्यवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

      मा कर्मफल हेतुर्भूमा ते संगोस्त्वकर्मणि।।

मनुष्य कर्म करने में सर्वदा स्वतन्त्र है परन्तु फल भोगने में परतन्त्र है। इसीलिए उसे सत्य-असत्य, धर्म-अधर्म का ज्ञान होना चाहिए क्योंकि इन्हीं कर्मों के अनुसार मनुष्यों को फल मिलता है। अच्छे बुरे कर्मों की पहचान के लिए कहा गया है कि – ‘आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत्’ अर्थात् स्वयं को जो व्यवहार अच्छा न लगे, उसे अन्यों के साथ कदापि नहीं करना चाहिए। हमारी आत्मा सही गलत का सही निर्णायक है। इसीलिए जब अपनी आत्मा को कोई कार्य अच्छा न लगता हो भला वह कार्य दूसरों के लिए कैसे हितकर हो सकता है? ऐसी विचारधारा के होने से हम गलत कार्यों के करने से रुक जायेंगे।

मनुष्य का सदाचारी होना बहुत जरुरी है। सदाचारी मनुष्य ही समाज में सुखी रह सकता है और दूसरों को सुख दे सकता है। वर्तमान समाज में सदाचार की नितान्त अनिवार्यता है। इसके लिए वेद हमें उपदेश देते हुए कहता है कि-

सप्त मर्यादाः कवयस्ततक्षुस्तासामेकामिदभ्यं हुरो गात्।

आयोर्ह स्कम्भ उपमस्य नीतो पथां विसर्गे धरुणेषु तस्थौ।। (ऋग्वेद-१॰/५/६)

अर्थात् हिंसा, चोरी, व्यभिचार, मद्यपान, जुआ, असत्य भाषण और इन पापों के करने वालों दुष्टों का सहयोग करने का नाम सप्त मर्यादा है। इनमें से जो एक भी मर्यादा का उल्लंघन करता है अर्थात् एक भी पाप करता है, वह पापी होता है और जो धैर्य से इन हिंसादि पापों को छोड़  देता है, वह निस्संदेह जीवन का स्तम्भ ;आदर्शद्ध होता है और मोक्षभागी होता है।

उलूकयातुं शुशुलूकयातुं जाहि श्वयातुमुत कोकयातुम्।

सुपर्णयातुमुत गृध्रयातुं दृषदेव प्र मृण रक्ष इन्द्र।। (ऋग्वेद-७/१॰४/२२)

अर्थात् गरुड़ के समान मद (घमंड), गीध के समान लोभ, कोक के समान काम, कुत्ते के समान मत्सर, उलूक के समान मोह (मूर्खता) और भेडि़या के समान क्रोध को मार भगाना अर्थात् काम, लोभ, मोह, मद, मत्सर आदि छह विकारों को अपने अन्तःकरण से हटा दो।

आज संसार में सत्यता का अभाव है इसी लिए कहा जाता है कि – ‘सत्यं ब्रूयात् प्रियं ब्रूयात्………’ सत्य बोलने के साथ-साथ मधुर भाषण होना चाहिए। अतः कहा गहा है कि-

जिह्नाया अग्रे मधु मे जिह्नामूले मधूलकम्।

     ममेदह क्रतावसो मम चित्तमुपायसि।।   

     मधुमन्मे निक्रमणं मधुमन्मे परायणम्।

     वाचा वदामि मधुमद् भूयासं मधु संदृशः।।        (अथर्ववेद-१/३४/२-३)

अर्थात् मेरी जिह्ना के अग्रभाग में मधुरता हो और जिह्ना के मूल में मधुरता हो। हे मधुरता! मेरे कर्म में तेरा वास हो और मेरे मन के अन्दर भी तू पहुँच जा। मेरा आना-जाना मधुर हो, मैं स्वयं मधुर मूर्ति बन जाऊॅ।

हमारी किसी भी इन्द्रिय से अभद्र, असभ्य व्यवहार न होवे इसके लिए वेद बारम्बार आदेश देता है –

भद्रं कर्णेभिः शृणुयाम देवा भद्रं पश्येमाक्षभिर्यजत्राः।

स्थिरैरंगैस्तुष्टुवां सस्तनूभिव्र्यशेमहि देवहितं यदायुः।। (यजुर्वेद-२५/२१)

समाज में शराब पीना व जुआ खेलना एक शौक हो गया है। इन कृत्यों से समाज का निरन्तर पतन ही हो रहा है। एतदर्थ इनकी रोकथाम के लिए वेद कहता है कि –

हत्सु पीतासे युध्यन्त दुर्मदासो न सुशयाम्। ऊधर्न नग्ना जरन्ते।।

अर्थात् दिल खोलकर शराब पीने वाले दुष्ट लोग आपस में लड़ते हैं और नंगे होकर व्यर्थ बड़बड़ाते हैं, इसीलिए शराब कदापि नहीं पीनी चाहिए।

जिसप्रकार शराब पीना बुरा है, उसी प्रकार जुआ खेलना भी बुरा है। वेद उपदेश देता है:-

जाया तप्यते कितवस्य हीना माता पुत्रस्य चरतः क्वस्वित्। 

ऋणावा विभ्यध्दनमिच्छमानोऽन्येषामस्तमुप नक्तमेति।।

अर्थात् जुआरी की स्त्री कष्टमय अवस्था के कारण दुःखी रहती है, गली-गली मारे-मारे फिरने वाले जुआरी की माता रोती रहती है,  कर्जे से लदा हुआ जुआरी स्वयं सदा डरता रहता है और धन की इच्छा से वह रात के समय दूसरों के घरों में चोरी करने के लिए पहुँचना है, इसलिए जुआ खेलना अत्यन्त बुरा है।

इसी प्रकार चोरी को भी बुरा बतलाया गया है। अतः अथर्ववेद में कहा गया है कि-

येऽमावास्यां रात्रिमुदस्थुव्र्राजमत्रिणः।

अग्निस्तुरीयो यातुहा सो अस्मभ्यमधि ब्रवत्।।

अर्थात् जो मुफ्तखोरे, भूखे और भटकने वाले रात्री में बस्ती के भीतर चोरी करने और डाका डालने के लिए आते हैं, उनसे बचने के लिए राजपुरुष सबको सचेत करता है और उन्हें पकड़कर मार डालता है। इसीलिए कभी भी किसी की चोरी नहीं करनी चाहिए।

वास्तव में यह सत्य प्रतीत होता है कि हम यदि वेद के द्वारा निर्दिष्ट मार्गों का अनुसरण करने तो निश्चित ही आज समाज में फैली बुराईयाँ समाप्त हो जायेंगी। इसीलिए हम सबको वेदों की प्रासंगिता को समझते हुए ‘संगच्छध्वं संवदध्वम्’ की भावना से ओत-प्रोत होते हुए वेद के द्वारा दिखाये गये मार्ग का अनुसरण करना चाहिए।

वेदों की श्रेष्ठता के बारे में श्री अटलबिहारी वाजपेयी जी कहते हैं कि-

वेद-वेद के मन्त्र मन्त्र में,

                मन्त्र मन्त्र की पंक्ति-पक्ति में।

                पंक्ति-पंक्ति के अक्षर स्वर में,

                दिव्य ज्ञान आलोक प्रदीप्त।।

आर्यों! वेदनिधि को पहचान कर स्वयं को वेदानुकुल बनावें और दूसरों को भी वेद मार्ग का अनुसरण करने का उपदेश देवें।

 

– श्रीमद् दयानन्दार्ष-ज्योतिर्मठ-गुरुकुल,

दून-वाटिका-२, पौन्धा, देहरादून

English, Vedic Religion

Making of Bharat According to Vedas By Subodh Kumar

Leave a comment

AEL Maurya

Bharat varsh according to Vedas.

वेदों के अनुसार भारत देश.
राजा द्वारा भारत देश निर्माण
गौ ,शिक्षा और राजा के आचरण, इन तीन का राष्ट्र निर्माण मे महत्व
Making of Bharat Desh RV5.27

ऋषि:- त्रैवृष्ण्याष्ययरुण:,पौरुकुत्सस्त्रसदस्यु:, भारतोश्वमेधश्च राजान: ।
अग्नि:, 6 इन्द्राग्नी। त्रिष्टुप्, 4-6 अनुष्टुप्।
ऋषि: = 1. त्रैवृष्णा:= जिस के उपदेश तीनों मन शरीर व आत्मा के सुखों को शक्तिशाली बनाते हैं
2. त्र्यरुण:= वह तीन जो मन शरीर व आत्मा के सुखों को प्राप्त कराते हैं
3.पौरुकुत्स त्रसदस्य: = जो राजा सज्जनों का पालक व तीन (दुराचारी,भ्रष्ट , समाज द्रोही)
दस्युओं को दूर करने वाला
4. राजान भारतो अश्वमेध: ;
भारतो राजान: – राजा जो स्वयं की यज्ञमय आदर्श जीवनशैलि से प्रजा को भी यज्ञीय
मनोवृत्ति वाला बना कर राष्ट्र का उत्तम भरण करता है .
अश्वमेध: – अश्व- ऊर्जा और मेधा- यथा योग्य मनन युक्त आत्म ज्ञान को धारण करने वाली
परम बुद्धि

इन्द्राग्नी = इन्द्राग्नि: = उत्साह और ऊर्जा से पूर्ण सदैव अपने लक्ष्य को प्राप्त करने मे विजयी व्यक्ति Have fire in their belly to be ultimate Doers

COWS’ role in Vision for Bharat varsh Nation

1. अनस्वन्ता सत्पतिर्मामहे मे गावा चेतिष्ठो असुरो मघोन: ।
त्रैवृष्णो अग्ने दशभि: सहस्रैर्वैश्वानर ष्ययरुणश्चिकेत ।।RV5.27.1
(गावा चेतिष्ठ:) गौओं से प्राप्त उत्तम चेतना द्वारा (सत्पति: ) सज्जनों के पालन के लिए भूत काल की उपलब्धियों के अनुभव के आधार पर वर्तमान और भविष्य के लिए (तीनों काल )(त्रैवृष्ण:)में शरीर, मन, बुद्धि तीनों को शक्तिशाली बनाने वाली (असुरो मघोन:) ऐश्वर्यशाली प्राण ( जीवन शैलि ) को (त्र्यरुण:) शरीर , मन और बुद्धि के लिए ज्ञान ,कर्म और उपासना द्वारा (दशभि: सहस्रैर्वैश्वानर) समस्त प्रजा की प्रवृत्तियों की धर्म अर्थ और काम की उन्नति के लिए (अनस्वन्ता) उत्तम वाहनों से युक्त समाज, (मामहे) उपलब्ध कराओ.
Excellent cows should be ensured to build physically healthy, peaceful and high intellectual society. Current and Future planning should be based on experience of past working results, to obtain excellent Health, Mentality and Intellect in the nation to provide for a prosperous life style. Such a nation is self motivated in following the path of righteous behavior, charitable disposition and God loving conduct in their daily life.
Among other things excellent infrastructure of communication, transport should be provided.
.

Hundreds of well fed cows
2. 2.यो मे शता च विंशतिं च गोनां हरी च युक्ता सुधुरा ददाति ।
वैश्वानर सुष्टुतो वावृधानोऽग्ने यच्छ त्र्युरुणाय शर्म ।। RV 5.27.2
3. (वैश्वानर) धर्म अर्थ और काम को प्राप्त कराने वाली ऊर्जा और (वावृधान: अग्नि:) निरन्तर प्रगति देने वाले यज्ञ (त्र्यरुणाय) शरीर, मन और बुद्धि के लिए सेंकड़ों गौओं और बीसियों उत्तम शकटों से (हरी:) जितेंद्रिय पुरुषों से –भौतिक साधनों और श्रेष्ठ समाज से युक्त हो कर (शर्म यच्छ) विश्व का कल्याण प्राप्त करो
4. Urge for continuous strong positive motivation based activities in individuals creates a prosperous, peace loving, healthy, self disciplined sustainable society with hundreds of cows and dozens of carts loaded with green fodder for cows for aorganic food, and good infrastructure base. Nation provided with such infrastructure has a society that is rich in physical resources, and has well behaved people for welfare of the world.

Planning in Nation

3. एवा ते अग्ने सुमतिं चकानो नविष्ठाय नवमं त्रसदस्यु: ।
यो मे गिरस्तुविजातस्य पूर्वीर्युक्तेनाभि ष्ययरुणो गृणाति ।।RV 5.27.3
तेजस्वी विद्वान प्रकृति के विधान और अनुभव से प्राप्त ज्ञान के उपदेशों की कामना करता हुआ सब वासनाओं से मुक्त समाज के निर्माण द्वारा भविष्य के लिए उत्तम नवीन समाज की आवश्यकताओं की पूर्ती और तीनो प्रकार तम , मन और आत्मा से सुखी समाज का निर्माण करता है और सब से ऐसी विचार धारा का सम्मान करने को कहता है.
Bright enlightened intellectual leadership seeks guidance from Nature the environment friendly and traditional empirical wisdom to build a hedonism free culture for the growing needs and aspirations of future generations. By honoring and propagating such wisdom only an ideal and happy society is evolved.
Education in Nation

4. यो म इति प्रवोचत्यश्वमेधाय सूरये ।
दददृचा सनिं यते ददन्मेधामृतायते ।।RV 5.27.4
(राजा का दायित्व है कि ) जो विद्वद्जन (राष्ट्र की उन्नति के लिए) समाज में ऊर्जा (भौतिक और आत्मबल ) के विस्तार और सत्य असत्य के निर्णय करने मे समाज को सक्षम करने के वेद विद्यानुसार उपदेश करते हैं,उन को सम्माननीय पद दे और उन का सत्कार करे.
For growth of the nation it is responsibility of King recognize, honor and promote intelligent teachers that develop the society by educating it in growth conservation of physical energies and their mental energies, with ability to discern truth from untruth.
Bulls make excellent Nation
4. 5. यस्य मा परुषा: शतमुध्दर्षयन्त्युक्षण: ।
अश्वमेधस्य दाना: सोमा इव त्र्याशिर: ।। RV5.27.5
5. (यस्य मा शतम्‌ उक्षण: परुषा:) जो मेरे लिए , सेंकड़ो क्रोध से रहित सधे हुए वीर्य सेचन में समर्थ उत्तम वृषभ और कठिन परिश्रम साध्य बैल, (त्रयाशिर:) तीनों – बालक, युवा, वृद्ध तीनों प्रजाजनों के लिए – राष्ट्र में (अश्वमेध-ऊर्जा और मेधा) – तीनों वसु (भौतिक सुख के साधन) रुद्र रोगादि से मुक्त,आदित्य सौर ऊर्जा के द्वारा, तीनों दूध,दही और अन्न (सोमा: इव) श्रेष्ठ मानसिकता तीन प्रकार से शरीर को नीरोग,मन को निर्मल बुद्धि को तीव्र बनाते और (दाना:)इन दानों से (उद्धर्ष्यन्ति ) उत्कृष्ट उल्लास का कारण बनते हैं .
Bulls that have excellent breeding soundness for providing excellent cows and oxen that are strong and mild mannered to provide power to the nation
Provide excellent health nutrition and intellect to all the three ie. infants youth and old persons with three bounties of happiness ie. Healthy environments, cheerfulness and solar energy by the three items of cows milk, curds and organic food to provide the three bounties of healthy disease free life, positive attitudes in life and sharp intellect to spread happiness all round.

6. इन्द्राग्नी शतदाव्न्यश्वमेधे सुवीर्यम् ।
क्षत्रं धारयतं बृहद् दिवि सूर्यमिवाजरम् ।।RV 5.27.6
उत्साह और ऊर्जा से पूर्ण सदैव अपने लक्ष्य को प्राप्त करने मे विजयी, योग्य मनन युक्त आत्मज्ञान को धारण करने वाली परम बुद्धि से युक्त समाज, असङ्ख्य पदार्थों से सूर्य के सदृश उत्तम पराक्रम तथा बलयुक्त नाश से रहित महान राष्ट्र का निर्माण होता है.
Thus is created a Nation that is strong to protect itself from all destructive internal and external enemies, where the society consists of a prosperous, self motivated well behaved intelligent people.

Myth Busters, Social Reform, Vedic Religion

Homosexuality is not compatible with the teachings of the Vedas – Dr Vidhu Mayor

1 Comment

Homosexuality: the Vedic perspective

Dr Vidhu Mayor

 For homosexuality to be critically repudiated from the Vedic perspective it needs to be emphasised as a starting point that Vedic knowledge is of Divine authorship. In other words, the Vedas are revealed to rishis (sages) in the beginning of each cycle of creation for the guidance and benefit of mankind; as such this wisdom is eternal. Texts such us the Yajur Veda and Shatapatha Braahamana state that the Rig veda, Saama veda, Yajur veda and Atharva veda originated from God at the beginning of the creation. That great historical text, the Manu Smriti further names the four rishis (sages) to who each of the four Vedas were revealed respectively; since then this revelation has been preserved in its original pure form and passed on to us via successive human generations.

So, why has God given us the Vedic ‘dharma’? The first humans created would have needed to learn the essentials of everyday life without which their survival would have been impossible. Although, like all other creatures man has been equipped with ‘instinct’, this instinctive knowledge is limited to the basic impulse of preservation of our genes (with its three components of self-defence, self-procreation and self-perpetuation). Without additional enlightenment, man would not have been able to traverse the road to civilisation. Interestingly, it must be noted that the second and third elements of survival (firstly having children and then fiercely protecting them so that they also go on to procreate in order to perpetuate our genes) are predicated entirely on mating with someone of the opposite sex. This must be the key explanation as to why homosexual behaviour is completely absent – other than in humans – from the animal kingdom.

In this context, the concept of dharma needs further explanation. The greatest Indian rishi of recent millennia, Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-1883) defined dharma as truthfulness in thought, word and action leading humans to practise justice. [That he is worthy of such an immense accolade is, briefly, justified by the unprecedented quality – and humility – of his interpretation and translation of the Vedas; he also had the intellectual capacity to study the works of the great etymologist, Yaska and the renowned grammarians Paanini and Patanjli to do so]. According to Dayanand dharma, ‘in a word is the practice of equitable justice and truthfulness in word, deed and thought – virtues which are in conformity with the will of God as embodied in the Vedas’. If for nothing else, humanity needs these universal dharmic truths to be comprehensible to our children and thus we must be able to differentiate right from wrong in a form that is simple enough for all to see (irrespective of age or level of basic education). In this light, the numerous modern-day ethical dilemnas (such as euthanasia, genetic modification by science to produce new foods and therapies, assisted suicide, abortion and homosexuality etc.) all need to be judged in the court of dharma. That is, they are either right or wrong (but cannot be partly both) when adjudicated by the ‘law’ of God’s word as contained in the Vedas.

It is a fact that we teach our children that certain behaviours such as throwing litter, using bad language or telling lies are unacceptable because they are – quite simply – wrong. For aeons, humankind has evolved legal systems that are founded on differentiating right from wrong; otherwise anarchy would prevail. A variant of such ‘judgmentalism’ is the concept of deviancy to describe acts such as paedophilia, transvestitism, child marriage and polygamy. Why then the nervousness, if not hypocrisy, over judging sexually deviant behaviour as being wrong? The truth is that if we are selective in our application of dharma, humanity causes itself immense trouble. For example, is there any wonder why human societies all over the world are being ravaged by adversities such as divorce and the breakdown of the family when we in the west encourage promiscuity and the premature sexualisation of children (not to mention the most recent sexually transmitted disease ‘plague’ of AIDS)?

 

Let us now further consider dharma as elucidated by Patanjli, one of the great maharishis of pre-historic India. In writing one of the six classics of Indian philosophy, Yoga sutra (the science of meditational yoga) Patanjali described 5 yamas (our duties to society) and 5 niyamas (one’s duties to oneself). By doing so, he effectively simplified dharma into ten ‘Vedic commandments’. Relevant to homosexuality are the three yamas of brahmcharya, ahimsa and satya as well the niyamas of shaucha, santosha and tapah.

 

 

Brahmcharya comprises the two key injunctions of celibacy and education that the Vedic Dharma imposes on human beings from birth till marriage. In simple terms, from the viewpoint of sexuality before marriage, a male should view a female as if she is his mother, sister or daughter, and vice versa. After marriage, the constraint is that sexual intercourse must be for the function of procreation, not hedonistic. Dayanand cited Mantras III,55.16 and I,178.1 of Rig veda to elaborate on this in greater detail. By implication, therefore, the Vedic dharma permits neither homosexual nor heterosexual behaviour purely for the means of seeking the gratification of pleasure (because it is not procreative). Incidentally, the Vedic Sandhyaa contains the lines Om nabhi and later Om janah punaatu nabhyam (God….creator….purify….fertility). Therefore, our daily prayer reminds us (twice a day) that our reproductive organs (nabhiyam) are there to create healthy offspring.

Ahimsa (not to hurt others whether by thoughts, words or deeds) actually takes pride of place as the first yama listed by Patanjli. It helps us to critically evaluate homophobia, a word that merits closer scrutiny. If understood to denote the hatred of and the persecution of homosexuals, then the Vedic ethic of non-violence in word (angry incitement of hatred) and aversion to physical violence incontrovertibly condemns and rejects all types of persecution or discrimination against any minority. It is also worth returning to Sandhyaa – which comprises mantras that are Vedic jewels of such quality that they are intended for humans to contemplate twice a day – to note the line yo asmaan dveshti yam vayam dwishmastam vo jambhe dadhma. This plea to God, to administer justice to those who offend us or those who we offend us – so that we strive to refrain from the self-damaging emotion of hatred, is actually repeated six times in the daily prayer.

 However, the word phobia means fear (and not hatred). Thus, the word homophobia is – in the main – currently being mis-used to conflate reasoned criticism of homosexual behaviour with hatred. A critique of its immorality is signally not the ‘homophobic’ incitement to hating or villifying its exponents. However, misusers of the label ‘homophobia’ have, by their vehement opposition to such criticisms, more or less succeeded in thwarting the public airing of such misgivings.

 This neatly leads us to now discuss satya (truthfulness – in thought, words and deeds, and indeed a natural proclivity for seeking out true knowledge). We all know how complex it can be to ascertain what is true or not. In theory, it most certainly is not difficult to voice the truth. However, these days political correctness militates against the type of totally frank and honest candour that follows in this paragraph; be warned that it is not reading for the faint-hearted! The satya about the word homosexuality is that it is

actually – in the main – a euphemism for the act of anal sexual intercourse. In days gone by, words such as sodomy and buggery were used to describe this utterly perverted act, irrespective of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. In fact, the act of male orgasm taking place in the rectum (an organ nature has designed for the storage of faeces) has been ‘sanitised’ by the use of soft words such as ‘gay’, ‘queer’, ‘pink’ or ‘homosexual’ as a code to describe people who indulge in this particular activity. Such sophistry has been necessary to even allow it to be promoted to young schoolchildren that it is as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, and to silence criticism of it being carnal behaviour that from a moral viewpoint is the epitomy of depravity.

 That homosexuality breaches the Yogic niyama of shaucha (hygeine – that humans have a duty to keep clean the interior and exterior of their body, as well as cleanliness of the mind and the environment) is self-evident. Proof of its dangers from a health viewpoint is that it is a scientifically accepted fact that in North America, Western Europe and Australia the highest incidence of AIDS occurs in homosexual and bisexual men.

How should we deal with the defence that homosexuality is, allegedly, an inborn urge that cannot be ‘cured’? The response from a Vedic point of view, simply, is that gays must discipline themselves to acquire the yama of celibacy and the niyama of santosha (contentment: to serenely accept one’s financial, psychological and social condition and diligently working to ameliorate it). Is this type of self-control not exactly what we expect from heterosexuals pre-maritally, as well as after marriage in asking that they do not fall prey to the temptation of adultery, and for that matter all other sins? Also necessary to avoid succumbing to base temptation is the yama of tapa (having the strength of character, courage and perseverance for our actions to conform with the dictates of dharma).

 The final piece of Vedic thought offered, constructively, is that of the Law of Karma. This holds that the motive for a soul to be virtuous is that sinning is – always and without exception – accorded a proportionate punishment by God that manifests as suffering. The means of salvation of the soul from such pain are the unfailing performance of righteous deeds, the worship of god through the practice of meditational yoga and the acquisition of true knowledge; in short embracing the Vedic dharma as a way of life. Otherwise, souls will not receive the bliss and freedom of emancipation and are instead condemned to the bondage of earthly suffering.

It is appropriate to end, as we started, by quoting the words of Maharishi Dayanand from his classic book ‘Satyarth Prakash – Light of Truth’: ‘The four Vedas…. are the Word of God….They are absolutely free of error, and are an authority in themselves.’ He further likens them to the sun – God being the definitive source of all true knowledge, as the sun is the primary source of light. In conclusion, the greatest indictment of homosexuality must be the fact that this scripture, that contains the richness of over 20,000 mantras, not once mentions the act of homosexuality (or for that matter divorce), – not even proscriptively.