In ancient times, humanity had only one religion and one scripture — the Vedas. That alone gave the guidelines for life and living. Then the world was one family and Bharat (India) was considered the world teacher. This was the fountain head of all knowledge, science and its spread. Even numerals were taught to the world by Bharat. That is why numerals were known as Hindse (from Hind). Times changed. Misinterpretations of the Vedas started. Prejudiced eyes began to see what did not exist in the Vedas; and thus the teachings of the Vedas got shrouded. Different people brought forth their versions and so there was complete fragmentation of the humanity into various faiths and sects. Inevitably the result was mental tension, mutual hatred, conflicts, and bloodshed.
Once again there are better times. Enlightened people like Maharshi Dayanand (1824-1883) have resurrected the Vedas and ushered in a new era. He has put forth a re-assertion that the Vedas are the scripture of true knowledge, and so urged for a return to the Vedic knowledge and way of life. His work on the essence of the Vedas deserves to be ascribed in golden letters. Notwithstanding Maharshi Dayanand's contribution, the ambiguities about the Vedas — some deliberate and some because of ignorance still persist. Therefore, it is but appropriate to dilate on certain basic questions.
In fact, these views are only partially correct. Without a teacher, one cannot acquire knowledge. The following observations authenticate this view:
- Today man has acquired enough knowledge to go to the moon but at the same time there are people from the Nigrota community in Andaman who are incapable of even counting. Those who could count upto ten are considered knowledgeable about numbers. But excavations have yielded iron implements proving that those people were not always ignorant. They were civilized people at one time and their present condition is because of the absence of a teacher. Therefore, Maharshi Dayanand has rightly observed in Rigvedadibhashya-bhumika (Vedotpatti Vishya): “At the beginning of the creation if God had not preached the Vedas, then till date none would have had the real knowledge of religious matters.”
- When A.W. Kinglake was passing through the deserts of Egypt, he met a man named Sheikh who was not aware that time has been divided into hours, minutes and seconds. Nobody had ever told him this.
- The offspring of even multilingual parents cannot learn any language spontaneously without a teacher. They have to be taught. Therefore, schools are established to educate the children. It is thus evident, that in acquiring knowledge mere experience and wisdom are no substitute for a teacher.
- That knowledge cannot be acquired without a teacher is also born out by the fact that no illiterate person has ever made a scientific discovery.
- In the first decade of twentieth century, a boy named Sammu was born in Ambala district of the present day Haryana state. He was sent to school to learn Urdu. He had just learnt the alphabets when a person from the author’s ancestral village (Tangore, district Kurukshetra) took him in as a servant. He was kept there like an animal. He was deliberately deprived of all knowledge and was made to act like an animal. Later, Sammu remained a servant for years in a nearby village (Jharoli Khurd). Members of his employer’s family were high officers in police and army but Sammu was taught nothing and he used to go round practically naked. He would even urinate where ever he was sleeping. He did not know the name of his employer or his village. He was virtually an animal in human garb.
- In order to know the real language of man, king Asur Banipal of Syria, king Semetical of Alexandria, king Fredrick Second, James the Fourth of Scotland and Akbar put recently born children under the charge of dumb nurses in the forests. These children could not learn anything except the sign language. After these experiments, these kings came to the conclusion that there can be no knowledge without a teacher.
It is, therefore, clear that man has the capability of imbibing failing which Sammu would not have learnt Urdu alphabets but in the beginning a teacher is essential. Of course after some initial learning, knowledge can be expanded through wisdom and experience. As no germination is possible without a seed, so knowledge must precede experience. Thus Dr. Russell Wallace writes: “There is, therefore, no proof of continuously increasing intellectual power.”
At the beginning of the universe, in the absence of a structured knowledge in human beings, God himself gives enlightment for human welfare. As God has granted the sun to aid the eyes, similarly for wisdom, knowledge was provided. As every artisan gives instructions about the use of things made by him, similarly it is essential that in the beginning of the creation, knowledge should be imparted by God about the use of things created by him. God is just. Therefore, it is important that man must be made clear about sins and good deeds so that he has an explanation of reward or punishment according to karma. God gives knowledge of all this through the Vedas.
Certain philosophers have also felt the need of revelation. According to Plato: “We will wait for one, be he a God or an inspired man to instruct in religious duties and to take away the darkness from our eyes.” Kant says: “We may well concede that if the Gospel had not previously taught the universal moral laws in their full purity, reason would not yet have attained so perfect an insight of them.” In fact the knowledge required for attaining moksha cannot be acquired only through soul and nature. God’s guidance is required for the same. Patanjali in his Yogasutra (1.26) declares God as the first
teacher of all the teachers:
स एष: पूर्वेषामपि गुरुः कालेनानवच्छेदात्।
All faiths consider their religious books as the revealed scriptures. But by simply saying so, nothing is proved.
लक्षणप्रमाणाभ्यां वस्तुसिद्धिः न तु प्रतिज्ञा मात्रेण।
In order to arrive at a conclusion, the scholars depend on the following criteria:
- Revelation should be at the inception of the universe because no system can run without knowledge. Furthermore, if God gives his knowledge after the elapse of some time, it is injustice to the ignorant. Therefore, the German poet Goethe has aptly said that God revealed His knowledge during the dawn of the universe.
Koran and Bible are relatively recent. The Vedas are the most ancient. Those belonging to other religions also accept this reality. MaxMuller says: “The Vedas may be called primitive, because there is no other literary document more primitive than it…no one would venture to measure in years.””In the Aryan world, Veda is certainly the oldest book.”The Hindu scripture, Rigveda, is the oldest book in the world. Professor Heeren asserts: “The Vedas are without doubt the oldest works composed in
Sanskrit. …Even the most ancient Sanskrit writings allude to the Vedas as already existing.”Endorsing this view, Rev. Morris Philip records: “After the latest researches into the history and chronology of books of Old Testament, we may safely now call the Rigveda as the oldest book, not only of the Aryan race but of the whole world.” - Revelation can only be at the beginning of the universe. Therefore, there can be no history in it. But in the Bible, there is the history of the Jews of Palestine and the Koran is full of the scenes of Arabia and stories of Adam, Jesus, Moses and David etc. The Vedas are the only one which have no history of any country or race or times. No doubt Vishvamitra, Vasishtha, Urvashi and such words do find mention in the Vedas, that is why western writers have made an attempt to impose history on the Vedas. This is an obsession with certain Indian writers also. The fact, however, is that in due course of time, many things have been named after the words occuring in the Vedas. But to build history on seeing these names in the Vedas is not valid. It would be as absurd as some body called Ram Chander today claiming that Dasharatha named his son after him millions of years ago, and Ramayana is only about him! As a matter of fact, these words that occur in the Vedas are neither proper nouns nor descriptive of individuals but connote certain attributes because (comparative degree) and 4 (superlative degree) can be suffixed only with adjectives and such words occur very often in the Vedas such as कणवतम (Rig. 1.48.4, X.115.5) and इन्द्रतम (Rig. I.182.2). Had Kanva and Indra been proper nouns, तम (superlative degree) could not have been suffixed. Some words have been used in different mantras with different meanings. As an illustration, take the word Vasishtha. It occurs a number of times in the Vedas. For example:
शतं या भेषजानि ते सहस्रं संगतानि च।
श्रेष्ठमास्रावभेषजं वसिष्ठं रोगनाशनम्।।
अथर्व 6.44.2
“Out of the hundreds and thousands of medicines available, the best and curative is chulana”. Here the word Vasishtha does not denote an individual but it is the name of a herb. In the 54th mantra of the 13th chapter of Yajurveda, Vasishtha means prana (breath). In Shatpatha Brahmana (VIII.1.1.6) also, this word has been used in this sense:प्राणो वै वसिष्ठ ऋषिः meaning breath is Vasishtha rishi. In one of the mantras of Rigveda (VII.33.11), Vasishtha indicates water.
Many words denote different things in different contexts. A word having different meanings is the embellishment of language. These words are yaugika and not laukika or rurhi. These have contextual meaning. Their real sense is understood by considering their root meaning. This cannot be treated as
an evidence of history in the Vedas. Even MaxMuller who holds the opposite view about the Vedas had to admit that “Names are to be found in the Vedas as it were in a still fluid state. They never appear as appellatives, nor yet as proper nouns.”
- Revelation is for the intellect (wisdom). Therefore, it should conform to the principles of wisdom. The light of revelation is for unveiling the mysteries of creation. Therefore, it should not clash with the principles of the universe. Admittedly, only that book of geography is the best which is according to the geography.
In the Bible, many things are contrary to wisdom and the principles of creation. That is the basis of conflict between science and Christianity. One shudders to think of the atrocities perpetrated on the scientists whose researches were not in conformity with the Bible. There is no mention of America in the Bible. Therefore, the king of Portugal did not give any aid to Columbus for the discovery of America. According to the Bible, the earth is flat and stationary, and the sun revolves. Contrary to this, science has proved that the earth is round and revolves round the sun. Italian mathematician and physicist Galileo (1564-1642) was persecuted by the Inquisition for his opinion that the sun and not the earth, was the centre of the planetary world. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. He died in jail. Poor Bruno was sprinkled with oil and burnt to death on 16th February, 1600. After hearing the Inquisition verdict, Bruno, however, smiled and said: “It is with greater fear that you pass sentence upon me rather than I receive it.”
Similarly Koran (Manzil 3, Sipara 13, Surat 13, Ayat 2, 3, 17, 26) makes an interesting reading. Here “God is the one who hath raised the sky without pillars, you can see it.
Then stayed in heaven, He made sun and moon do his bidding. It is He who hath laid the earth. He causeth water to descend from heaven and the rivulets flow according to their respective measures.” Several such instances may be quoted. There is nothing against logic and laws of nature in the Vedas.
Rishi Kanada rightly says in Vaisheshika Darshana (6.1.1):
बुद्धिपूर्वा वाक्यकृतिर्वेदे
Take an example. The Vedas assert that the earth revolves round the sun. Yajurveda (III.6) says:
आयं गौः पृश्निरक्रमीदसन्मातरं पुरः। पितरं च प्रयन्त्स्वः॥
In the eighth chapter of Satyarth Prakash, Maharshi Dayanand quoting this evidence from the Vedas, has mentioned: ” This hemisphere alongwith water goes on revolving round the sun in the sky.
Therefore the earth revolves.” Dayanand has translated gau (गौ) into earth (भूमि) according to Nirukta and Nighantu.
गौरिति पृथिव्या नामधेयम् यद्दूरं गता भवति, यच्चास्यां भूतानि गच्छन्ति।
Nirukta,2.5
गौरिति पृथिवी नामसु पठितम्
Nighantu,1.1
Mahatma Devi Chand has translated this mantra as under: “The earth revolves in the space. It revolves with its mother, water in its orbit. It moves round its father, the sun.” Thus both rotation and revolution of the earth are explained in this mantra.
The same fact is stated in a few more mantras. Atharvaveda (12.1.52) says:-
वर्षेण भूमिः पृथिवी वृतावृता
“In one year, the earth completes its revolution.” Consequently, W.D. Brown has rightly said: “It is a thoroughly scientific religion, where religion and science meet hand in hand. Here Theology is based upon science and Philosophy.”
- Revelation should be in conformity with the nature and attributes (qualities) of God. Maharshi Dayanand states in seventh chapter of Satyarth Prakash: “As God is holy, omniscient, just merciful and of hallowed attributes, character and nature, so any book of which the subject matter is in perfect accord with the attributes, character and nature of God is the creation of God; and none else.”
- Pandit Lekhram mentions in Kuliyat Arya Musaffir: “Revelation should be in such a language which is superlative because God in his qualities excels all human beings.” Linguists concede that the languages other than Sanskrit are imperfect. In these languages, you write something and decipher something else. Only Sanskrit is perfect and scientific. According to Bopp: “Sanskrit is more perfect and copious than Greek and Latin. At one time, Sanskrit was the one language spoken all over the world.” As a matter of fact, Sanskrit is the mother of languages. The American scholar Will Durant opines: “India was the motherland of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe’s languages.”
Therefore, the language of the Vedas is the best and complete. - The Vedas themselves proclaim revelation.
तस्माद्यज्ञात्सर्वहुत ऋचः सामानि जज्ञिरे।
छन्दांसि जज्ञिरे तस्माद्यजुस्तस्मादजायत।। यजु. 31.7
“Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda are the creation of the universally worshipped Almighty God.“
देवस्य श्लोकं सवितुर्मनामहे ऋ.7.82.10
“We respectfully venerate the Vedas of the creator of the universe.“
The word Veda is derived from the root fa and so it means knowledge. But the literal meaning of Bible is a collection of books. Koran (1.1.1) itself declares:
आरम्भ साथ नाम अल्लाह के क्षमा करने वाला दयालु
“To begin with the name of God forgiving and kind.”
commenting on this, Maharshi Dayanand states in Satyarth Prakash: “The Muslims say that the Koran is the word of God but this verse conveys that somebody else is to be credited with it; for had it been the word of God, then instead of ‘Begin in the name of Allah,’ it would have said: Begin with a sermon for human beings.”
The authenticity of the Vedas is accepted by various authorities (acharyas). Maharshi Kanada considers the Vedas as self-sufficiently authoritative:
तद्वचनादाम्नायस्य प्रामाण्यम्। वै. 1.1.3
Kapila says in Sankhya Darshana (V.51): (5.51)
निजशक्त्यभिव्यक्तेः स्वतः प्रामाण्यम्।
“The Vedas are self-sufficiently authoritative being the creation of God.”
Nietzche has given fulsome praise for Manusmriti. He describes it as” a work which is spiritual and superior beyond comparison, even to name in one breath with the Bible would be a sin.” The Manusmriti also acknowledges the authority of the Vedas.
नास्तिको वेदनिन्दकः
“One who blasphemes the Veda is an atheist.”
वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलम्
“The Veda is the root of all dharma.”
श्रुति स्मृति विरोधे तु श्रुतिरेव गरीयसी।
“If there is difference between the Smriti and the Veda, only the Veda is the final.”
According to AtriSmriti, there is no treatise greater than the Veda.
नास्ति वेदात्परं शास्त्रम्।
In Shatpatha Brahmana (XIV.5.4.10), Maharshi Yajnavalakya tells his wife Maitreyi:
एवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यद्दग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः
सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरसः
“O Maitreyi! Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and the Atharvaveda are born of God effortlessly like the breath.”
The Sikh scripture — Guru Grantha Sahib, also sings the glory of the Vedas. It recognises that the Vedas are revealed by God. These are four in number and the revelation took place in the conscience of the four rishis. Further, it asserts that the study of the Vedas is better than that of innumerous books. The Vedas are not false, but false is one who does not ponder over it.
ओंकार वेद निरमए ।
– राग रामकली महला 1, ओंकार शब्द 1
चारे दीवे चहु हथ दीए एका एकी वारी ।
– बसन्त हिंडोल, महला 1, शब्द 1
चारे वेद होए सच्चिआर ।
-आसा दी वार महला 1, वार 13
अंसख्य ग्रन्थ मुखि वेद पाठ ।
– जपुजी 17
वेद वखिआन करत साधुजन भागहीन समझत नहीं खलु ।
-टोडी महला 5, शब्द 26
वेद कतेब कहहु मत झूठे, झूठा जो न विचारे ।
– राग प्रभाति कबीरजी शब्द 3
Maharshi Dayanand — the only Vedic scholar of his times, has gone to the extent of stating in Satyarth Prakash (third chapter) “Of these (books other than the Vedas) also, those which appear to be contradictory to the Vedas, should be rejected; for the Vedas being made by God, are infallible and self-sufficiently authoritative, that is to say, the Vedas are their own authority.”
So, on the basis of these reasons and evidences, it becomes clear that the Vedas are the books of knowledge revealed by God.
The Veda is the eternal knowledge of God. In the beginning of the creation, God revealed Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda in the conscience of the four sages, Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angira respectively. “As God is all-powerful and all-pervading, he stands in no need of mouth and other vocal organs to impart the Vedic knowledge to souls; for letters are pronounced with the mouth and tongue to inform persons different from one-self, but not to inform one’s ownself. There is a great deal of business of thinking and pronunciation of words going on in the mind without the
mouth and the tongue.”
The Vedas address many subjects but the four principal ones are science, karma, devotion and knowledge. Usually Rig, Yaju, Sama and Atharva are enumerated in this order. Maharshi Dayanand has explained and justified this order in Rigvedadibhashya-bhumika (Veda-utpatti Vishya)
accordingly.
From the beginning of the creation till today and from Brahma upto us, all the true knowledge that is heard has been termed as Shruti. 13 Samhita alone is known as the Veda. Brahmanagrantha or anyother book is not treated as the Veda. 14 Rigveda has ten mandals, one thousand and twenty eight suktas and ten thousand five hundred and fifty two mantras. There are one thousand nine hundred and seventy five mantras in forty chapters of the Yajurveda. Samaveda contains one thousand eight hundred and seventy three mantras in its three archikas. In the twenty kandas, seven hundred and thirty one suktas of Atharvaveda, there are five thousand nine hundred and seventy seven mantras. Thus, the number totals to twenty thousand three hundred and seventy seven mantras in all the four Vedas.
Some people opine that the rishis (seers) composed (created) the mantras. They are highly mistaken. The seers did not compose the mantras. They only realized and expounded the meanings of the Vedic verses. In Nirukta, Yaskacharya defines rishi as under:
ऋषयो मन्त्र द्रष्टारः
Thus “rishi is one who understands the meaning of the mantra.” According to no Vedic dictionary, a rishi cannot be described as one who composed the Veda mantras.
Traditionally for the sake of memory, the name of a rishi came to be identified with the mantra which he realized. But that does not make him the composer.
Many mantras are attributed to more than one seer. Almost one hundred rishis are identified with just one sukta of Rigveda (I.6.66). Does that mean that for this one sukta, a hundred rishis sat together to compose it? Even otherwise, for the same mantra different rishis were at different times. Therefore, it does not stand to reason that they simultaneously composed a mantra. Because it were the rishis who interpreted the mantras, therefore, it is understandable that for the same mantra there were various rishis at different times.
One school of thought holds that the Lord revealed knowledge at the time of creation and then as need arose there was revelation at different times in the shape of Bible and Koran. This misconception has done a great harm. It has the following defects:
- The knowledge of the Almighty should be complete. But revelation from time to time means that there were some flaws and gaps which had to be removed or filled later on. If this is granted, it raises doubts about God being all-knowing (सर्वज्ञ). There is room for improvement in the acts of jeeva who
knows less (अल्पज्ञ). Take the example of a lamp. When man made an earthen lamp, he had niether any clue about the future needs of man nor the ability to make a perfect lamp. But gradually knowledge grew and there were improvements as dictated by needs. It is quite possible that the electric lamp may also have to be improved in the future. But the sun, which the all-knowing God had made at the time of creation, is fully adequate to meet the needs of mankind even today. Similarly, God has no need to bring changes in his revealed knowledge because in the very beginning of the universe, he gives perceptions according to all-times needs of humanity. It is only the lesser knowing beings who improve their books. Therefore, revelation is not changeable. Atharvaveda (X.8.32) says:
देवस्य पश्य काव्यं न ममार न जीर्यति
“Observe the poetry of God (the Vedas) because this knowledge neither gets destroyed nor exhausted.“
- If it is granted that at the beginning of the universe revelation was partial and God reveals from time to time, then some people in the name of God will cheat the gullible and will do all kinds of undesirable things. In this context, one example may be enough:
Famous leader of Brahmo Samaj Keshav Chander Sen married his daughter less than 14 years to the almost 16 years old son of Maharaja of Cooch Behar. This was just like a hedge destroying the field. Consequently, Brahmo Samajis opposed it. To silence them, “Keshub claimed to be guided in the
matter by adesh or commandment from God…He declared the marriage as an effect of Divine commandment.”
Here the obvious question is: Is there no truth in other scriptures? And if there is even an iota of truth in them, then what is the harm in accepting the truth from those books? In reply to this, Maharshi Dayanand declares in Satyarth Prakash (chapter 3): “Whatever is true in them is from the Vedas and the Vedic literature and the untruth is theirs…. Whoever seeks the truth in these books will get bogged down with untruth. Therefore scriptures with falsehood should be abandoned like poisoned grain. असत्यमिश्रं सत्यं दूरतस्त्याज्यमिति।” The argument of Maharshi Dayanand is so convincing that writing more may be meaningless.
The fundamentals of all true knowledge viz., the science of language, social sciences, philosophy, mathematics, zoology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, agriculture, sculpture etc. are enshrined in the Vedas. In other words, the seeds of all branches of learning are available in the Vedas. The Vedas, however, do not have anything that is mutually contradictory or anything against the laws of nature. There is neither anything unscientific in the Vedas nor are any mantras dealing with magic or superstitions.
Bloomfield and the like in the course of interpreting the Vedas have unnecessarily repeatedly used the word “charm” to prove that the Vedas are a treatise of magic and superstition. As a matter of fact, the Vedas contain ayurvedic, scientific and psychological treatments for physical, mental and
spiritual ailments. It is erroneous to take them as magic and superstition. Many mantras mention various medicines and herbs which destroy the germs. It is patently wrong to call them magic.
The Vedas preach monotheism. Several mantras (“g. 1.64.46; 6.22.1; 6.51.16; 8.1.1.; 10.82.3; Yajur 17.27; Atharv 13.4; 16-21; 2.1.3 etc.) have emphasized that God is one for example, Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshaare not considered as three different devtasbut three names of one and the same God. Consequently, agni, vayu, surya, savita, varun, indra and many others are indicative not of any material entities but stand for the various attributes of God. There are no stories of any devta or human beings in the Vedas. The names of Pauranic deities have, no doubt, been taken from the Vedas. But it does not endorse their worship. In fact “Vedas, the sacred books of the primitive Aryans, are the purest record of the highest form of monotheism possible to conscience.” 16 Pandit Dharmadev Vidyamartand has written extensively on this subject in his book “Vedon ka Yathartha Swaroopa” and has referred to certain foreign scholars who also accept monotheism in the Vedas.
Idol-worship has been prevalent in India for almost three thousand years. It does not, however, find sanction in the Vedic Shastras. As God is formless and omnipresent, there cannot be His idol. Yajurveda (32.3) clearly says:
न तस्य प्रतिमा अस्ति यस्य नाम महद्यशः।
God is अज एकपात ajaekapat (Rg. 7.35.13) and अकायम akayam (Yajur, 40.8) i.e. God neither takes birth nor does assume any form. It, therefore, follows that there cannot be his incarnation.
The bhaktikal saints like Kabir as well as many other writers vehemently opposed idol-worship, but they could not give it an intellectual basis from the scriptures. After a lapse of a very long period, it was left only to Virjananda Dandi 17 and Maharshi Dayanand to reject idol-worship on the basis of Vedas and other classics.
As for cow-slaughter, cow has been mentioned as अघन्या (aghanya) i.e. not worthy of being killed in a number of Vedic mantras (Rg. 1.37.5; 1.164.27; 1.164.40; 4.1.6; 7.68.8; 9.1.9; 10.46.3 etc.).
Yajurveda (13.43) ordains –
गां मा हिंसीः Don’t kill cow
According to Rgveda (8.101.15): मा गामनागामदितिं वधिष्ट Cow is innocent, do not kill it.
For cow slaughterers, the Vedas enjoin the strictest punishment. Yajurveda (30.18) goes to the extent of recommending ‘capital punishment to the killer of the cow. अन्तकाय गोघातम्।
Atharvaveda (1.16.4) enjoins that anyone who kills a cow should be shot dead.
यदि नो गां हंसि यद्यश्वं यदि पूरुषम् । तं त्वा सीसेन विध्यामः
Rgveda (10.87.16), recommends that one who kills a cow should be beheaded with an axe.
योऽध्याया भरत क्षीरमग्ने तेषां शीर्षाणि हरसापि वृश्च।
In contemporary times, Maharshi Dayanand started a major movement for the protection of the helpless cow. He encouraged organizing cow protection societies and establishing Gaushalas. The first ever Gaushala in the country was established by him in Rewari (Haryana) in 1878 and he wrote the book “Gokarunanidhi”. In this classic, he feelingly puts a question to meat-eaters, “O flesh eaters! When you have killed and eaten the flesh of all animals and they become scarce, will you even consume human flesh when after sometime no animal will be available. Oh merciful God! will not Thou take pity on the poor dumb animals that are being killed for no offence of their’s! Hast Thou no love for them? Are the doors of Thy Court of Justice close to them? Will not Thou listen to their cries for mercy and save them from man’s tyranny? Why dost Thou not shed the luster of Thy mercy in flesh-eaters and expel thence, the cruelty, hardness, selfishness and foolishness that they may turn away from the sin of killing animals? Do you have no compassion for these animals who are killed without fault of theirs? Are they not worthy of your love? Why are you indifferent to their pleas and pleadings? Why are you not kindling the light of compassion in the hearts of these non-vegetarians to remove cruelty, selfishness, foolishness and other faults?”
There is no mention of animal sacrifice in the yajña in the Vedas. Some medieval scholars as well as such Indian and western scholars who subscribe to their thesis have interpreted the 24th suktas of the ninth canto of Atharvaveda as well a few other Veda-mantras to justify animal sacrifice in the yajña. While interpreting it, Sayanacharya writes, “Brahmin kills a bull and gives an offering of his flesh to various devtas. In this he has praised rishabh and has in detail described which organ is the favourite of which devta. Further, he has dilated on the importance of sacrificing a bull for Havan and has praised the consequent credit that accrues from it”. Some writers on the basis of a mantra 10.85.13 from Rgveda endorse killing of cows and bulls on the occasion of marriages. McDonald went a step further and concluded from the Rgveda mantras chanted at the time of funeral rites that “It was imperative to kill a cow at the time of cremation of the dead, because its flesh was used to wrap the corpse”. Due to their erroneous understanding, these writers made irrelevant pronouncements such as “Animal sacrifice in Yajñâ” and “Aryans used to eat cow flesh’. Responsible for such erroneous interpretations are linguistics like Sayana and Mahidhara.
The question of animal sacrifice does not arise in Vedic Yajñas. 18 In numerous places in the Vedas (e.g.Rg. 1.1.4, 1.1.8, 1, 14, 21, 1, 128.4, 1.19.1; Yajñâs 15.38, 6.23 Atharv 4.24.3 etc.), yajñâ has been referred to as “adhvar”. According to Nirukta (1.8 or 2.7), Yajñás is synonymous with adhvar.
अध्वर इति यज्ञ नाम ध्वरतिहिंसाकर्म तत्प्रतिवेधः।
Dhvar is killing, the opposite of killing is adhvar. Yajnâs means worship of God, unity and donation. None of these words mean animal killing.
If we interpret that Narmedh Yajñâ means human sacrifice, then in Pitra Yajñâs and Athithi (guest) Yajñâs, offering will have to be of parents or guest respectively. Maharshi Dayanand has clarified in the eleventh sammulas of Satyarth Prakash that “animal and human sacrifice is not indicated anywhere. Such blasphemy is found only in the books of foreigners. Wherever there are any indications, the foreigners have interfered. Sanctifying grain, body parts, rays and the earth is Gaumedh. When a human being dies his ritualistic last rites are known as narmedh.”
Ancient Aryans used to perform yajñâ with grain, herbs, honey and ghee and not with flesh. When a person dies his proper cremation is called narmedh. Mahabharat (Shanti Parv, 26.59) says,
सुरा मत्स्या मधु मांसमासवं कृसरौदनम्। धूतैः प्रवर्तितं यज्ञे नैतद् वेदेषु कल्पितम् ।।
“It is only the villains who have brought in corruption of liquor and non-vegetarian stuff in yajñâ. The Vedas have no where indicated it”.
द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते।
तयोरन्य: पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभि चाकशीति।।
Of jeeva and Brahma, the jeeva fully enjoyed the fruits of sin and punya and on the other end is God who partakes of nothing but spreads his light everywhere. God and souls are different from material cause of the universe but all three are limitless.
A time came when the Sudras and women were forbidden either to study or to hear Vedas. स्त्रीशूद्रौ नाधीयातामितिश्रुतेः This was widely propogated. In Brahmsutra Shankar Bhshyam (3.3.38), it is stated that if a Sudra listens to the words of Vedas, his ears should be filled with glass (lead) and iron (shellac). After a long time, Maharshi Dayanand ordained that every human being has the right to study the Vedas. Yajurveda (26.2) clearly enjoins thus
यथेमां वाचं कल्याणीमावदानि जनेभ्यः।
ब्रह्मराजन्याभ्यां शूद्राय चार्याय च स्वाय चारणाय च ….
‘The Word of the Veda is for the people, all without exception, Brahmana, Kshatriya, Shudra, Vaishya, master and servant, one’s own and others….!
In the third principle of Arya Samaj, study and dissemination of the Vedas is the prime duty of all Aryas. The knowledge of the Vedas is for the whole humanity. It is not the monopoly of any caste, creed or gender. Therefore, Maharshi Dayanand published the translation of the Vedas in Hindi also. He was the first one to do so. Consequently, the credit for disseminating the Vedas to common people goes to Maharshi Dayanand.
“I remind you again that the Veda contains a great deal of what is childish and foolish, though very little of what is bad and objectionable… Many hymns are utterly unmeaning and insipid.”
F. MaxMuller 20
“The Vedas are the imagination and creation of human beings. It provides useful material for the lovers of history and those who are interested in the primitive human civilization.”
Rahul Sankrityayan 21
In fact, prior to Maharshi Dayanand, the Vedas were described as the gibberish of children and songs of shepherds. But why? There must be some reason. There seem to be the following reasons for this fallacious thinking:
- The Indifference of Indians
The past has been for some time a time of decline for Bharat, the world teacher. The dependent nations lose love for their country, language, religion and culture. Therefore, our indifference to our religion and culture was natural. The Vedas became objects of worship only. They were not studied at all. Thus it was impossible to motivate others towards the Vedas. “Raja Ram Mohan Roy was in London and saw Friedrich Rosen at the British Museum busily engaged in copying manuscripts of Rigveda. The Raja was surprised and told Rosen that he ought not to waste his time on the hymns, but that he should study the Upanishads.” 22 Maharshi Manu says:योsनधीत्य द्विजो वेदमन्यत्र कुरुते श्रमम्
स जीवन्नेव शूद्रत्वमाशु गच्छति सान्वयः ॥
“That one who neglects the Vedas and labours elsewhere, he along with his family degenerates.” But Raja Ram Mohan Roy describes study of the Vedas as the wastage of time. What a fall!
- The Objective of the Foreigners
Among the western scholars who studied the Vedas, the names of F. MaxMuller, R.Griffith, H.H. Wilson, Winternitz, A.A. Macdonell and Weber are notable. All these gentlemen were confirmed Christians and were, therefore, unable to evaluate the Vedas impartially. Their principal aim was not to research into the Vedas but the propagation of Christianity. In order to achieve their objective, they interpreted the Vedas to re-affirm their pre-conceived convictions. This was all pre-meditated.Among those who were behind this conspiracy was Thomas Macaulay. He was again a committed Christian. He was decorated with the title of Lord in recognition of his services to the church and the British empire. His main objective in making English the medium of instruction in India was that nobody from the elite should remain committed to Hinduism. For the success of his mission, Macaulay wanted to attack the Vedic dharma from all angles. Therefore, he needed someone who could translate the Vedas according to his (Macaulay’s) convictions. His search yielded F. MaxMüller. They met on 28th December, 1855. This was an unfortunate day for the Vedic dharma. This single meeting did more harm to the Vedas than the combined efforts of many people. MaxMüller was not prepared to sell his talent for money but the 55 years old politician Macaulay was too clever for the inexperienced 32 years old youth MaxMüller. Macaulay tempted him with money and fame and also intimidated him. Resourceless MaxMüller was drifting here and there in obscurity. Possibly he was not greedy but he needed resources. And fame is the weakness of youth. After all MaxMüller was an ordinary person. He could not resist temptation and so he decided to pawn his talent, scholarship and pen before Macaulay. 23 For this, he got money from the East India Company. This trick was played in the garb of friendship with India.
Another person, Colnol Boden, established Boden Chair in Oxford University with his funds. He recorded in his will on 15th August, 1811:”That the special object of his (Boden’s) 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.” 24
The basic objective of the foreigners was the propagation of their religion. Therefore, criticism of the Vedas was natural. They translated the Vedas with a view to establish the supermacy of the Bible. MaxMüller wrote to his wife in 1867: “This edition of mine (of the Rigveda) and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of the millions of souls in that country. 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 3000 years.” 25a In a similar letter to Duke of Argyle, the Secretary of State for India, he wrote on 16 December, 1868: “The ancient religion of India is doomed and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be ?” 25b
This is the type of thinking under the influence of which the Vedas were translated, then how can one expect justice with the Vedas? The translations by Sayana and others were used as a tool to achieve their objective. Sri Aurobindo has rightly observed: “The historical element admitted by Sayana was readily seized on and enlarged by new renderings and new explanations of the allusions in the hymns developed in an eager hunt for clues to the primitive history, manners and institutions of those barbarous races.” 26 Therefore, the views of Western writers are unacceptable because of their narrow-mindedness and bias. - Foreigners’ Knowledge of Sanskrit
As we have to break stones to obtain gold, likewise, in order to arrive at the essence of books we have to research into these works. In order to arrive at correct meanings, it is necessary to know that language well. It is very difficult to know the gist of a book without a grip on the language. Huxley has rightly observed: “Those who do not know the ABC of Greek or Latin, how can they comment on the dramas written in that language.” This is one of the reasons that the translations of the Vedas by western scholars are not authentic because they did not have the requisite knowledge of Sanskrit. It would be pertinent to mention a few events:In 1937 Pandit Dharamdev Vidyamartand asked Professor Thomas, Head of Sanskrit Department Oxford University who was chairing the Oriental Conference in Trivandrum: “Can you speak in Sanskrit?” He replied in English: “How I wish I could speak in Sanskrit fluently like you, but unfortunately I have no practice.” Similarly, Mahatma Narain Swami records that an Indian scholar went to England and met Professor Macdonell but the latter could not talk to him in Sanskrit. 27
Is it possible for the people with such sketchy knowledge of Sanskrit to translate correctly the Vedic mantras which have such deep meaning? Never. They could neither understand the language and syntax of the Vedas, nor did they follow the ancient Vedic etymologists. They took the oridinary (laukika) meanings, and adopted stories from latter literature and built up Vedic mythology and history. 28 “All the rishis and munis, ancient authors and commentators without exception, regard all Vedic terms to be yaugika….This principle, the European scholars have entirely ignored, and hence have flooded their interpretations of the Vedas with forged or borrowed tales of mythology, the stories and anecdotes of historic and pre-historic personages.” 29
They considered the Vedas as the history of the early Aryans. In their view, the primitive Aryans were uncouth, devoid of morality and worshippers of the nature instead of God. They just could not accept the fact that the idol-worshippers of today were highly cultured people of progressive views at that time. Therefore, according to them, the Vedas believe in polytheism. Yajnas advocate animal sacrifices. They also publicized that ancient Aryans were non-vegetarians. They consumed liquor in the name of Soma and also gambled. Western scholars studied the Vedas with this prejudice. Therefore, they were unable to understand the underlying sense of the Vedas. After labouring for over twenty years with the Vedas, MaxMuller himself admitted: “No one who knows anything of the Veda would think of attempting a translation of it at present. A translation of the Rigveda is a task for the next century…. If by translation we mean a complete and satisfactory and final translation of the whole Rigveda…not only shall we have to wait till the next century for such a work, but I doubt whether we shall ever obtain it.” 30 But it is distressing that inspite of this, Professor MaxMüller continued to work on this translation. Prof. Boulanger, the editor of Russian edition of Max Müller’s The Sacred Books of the East, held: “What struck me in MaxMüller’s translation was a lot of absurdities, obscene passages, and a lot of what is not lucid… As for as I can grasp the teaching of the Vedas, it is so sublime that I would look upon it as a crime on my part, if the Russian public becomes acquainted with it through the medium of a confused and distorted translation, thus not deriving for its soul that benefit which this teaching should give to the people” 31
Therefore, western scholars were not fully competent to translate the Vedas accurately. To corroborate this, we shall take the following mantra (Rig. 1.2.1):वायवायाहि दर्शतेमे सोमा अरंकृताः ।
तेषां पाहि श्रुधी हवम् ॥
Muir translated it as under: “Come, O Vayu, these Somas are prepared. Drink of them; hear our invocation.” 32 The English rendering of this mantra by Wilson is also similar: “Vayu pleasant, to behold, approach. These libations are prepared for thee, drink of them; hear our invocations.” 33 But a great vedic scholar Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi 34a has given its real meaning as under:
“The air is a light, mobile, tremor-communicating, effluvia-carrying medium…The atmosphere furnishes the plants with air and food, and preserves the equilibrium between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms… It makes our sounds and all others, as well, heard.”
How different are these two in meaning!! The renderings by Muir and others are completely insipid.
Sekond Swami, Venkat Madhva, Mahidhara, Uvvat, Sayanacharya and other Indians were not rishis. Though they recognised the Vedas as revealed scriptures but their translations are full of vulgarity, animal sacrifices in yajnas, idol worship, unfounded history and other such faults. They are full of narrations against logic and laws of nature and thus lead one to the conclusion that the Vedas are worthless. Sayana’s writings are the best known in this context. For him, the Vedas are just a text for rituals. He lost the true essence of the Vedas by simply translating what is relevant for yajna and has thereby narrowed the true meaning. Just reducing it to the conduct of yajna is a very unfortunate contribution of Sayana. In fact, Sayana and Mahidhara were unable to translate the Vedas adequately and lost their true meaning. The translation of the Vedas into English, French and German languages by the western scholars are based on Sayana and Mahidhara. These translations can thus be held responsible for bringing distortions into Vedic meanings. Maharshi Dayanand rightly states in
Rigvedadibhashyabhumika: “When the translations of these people (Sayana and Mahidhara) are not authentic then what can be said about European renderings for which these formed the basis?” In fact, the root cause of evil are these inaccurate, unscientific and faulty translations.
Sri Aurobindo observed: “It is the final and authoritative binding of the Veda to this lowest of all its possible senses that has been the most unfortunate result of Sayana’s commentary. … Sayana’s commentary put a seal of finality on the old misunderstanding which could not be broken for many centuries. And its suggestions, when another civilisation discovered and, set itself to study the Veda, became in the European mind the parent of fresh errors… The outcome is a representation of the Rishis, their thoughts, their culture, their aspirations, so narrow and poverty-stricken, that, if accepted, it renders the ancient reverence for the Veda, its sacred authority, its divine reputation quite incomprehensible to the reason.” 35 Bloomfield exclaimed: “Vedas are the yajna mantras of a
primitive race.” Sayana’s commentaries are so worthless that the reputed Vedic scholar Pandit Brahm Dutt Jigyasu maintains: “If Sayana’s writings translated in Hindi, English, Urdu or any other language are placed in educational institutions, then barring a few committed individuals there will be a unanimous cry that the Vedas are the babbling of uncouth people.”
In such dark days, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati at the instance of his Guru Swami VirjanandaDandi started his crusade against anarshagranthas written by ordinary men and reasserted that the teachings of the Vedas should prevail. He agreed neither with Sayana nor the foreign scholars. For him, the Vedas are the word of God, the treasure house of all knowledge and for the benefit of mankind. They are not the monopoly of any caste, creed or gender. It was Maharshi Dayanand who first published the Hindi translation of the Vedas. To Maharshi Dayanand alone goes the credit of making the Vedas available to the whole mankind.
The entire life of this sage of India was for the Vedas. He was a seer, a mantra drashta and a great devotee and thus he was competent to interpret the Vedic hymns. He had concentrated in trance and imbibed the great mysteries of the Vedas. He had great intuition. He had complete command over the Sanskrit language. His study of the Vedic literature was superb. During the early days of his undertaking the translation of the Vedas, he records in Bhrantinivarana on 7th November, 1877:”As per my conviction and research, I consider about three thousand treatises from the Vedas to Purvamimansa as authentic.” How vast and deep was the study of that seer!! While most of the commentators had made the mistake of interpreting the Vedic words as commonly understood, this seer gave the contextual and root meanings of these words. It is a great contribution of the Rishi in this field. His commentary follows the Vedas, the Vedangs, Shatapatha Brahmana etc.
Almost all neutral scholars unanimously concede the logic and Vedic knowledge of Maharshi Dayanand. Recognising as “the remarkable attempt by Maharshi Dayanand, the founder of the Arya Samaj, to establish the Veda as a living religious scripture,” yogi Aurobindo writes: “Dayananda’s interpretation of the hymns is governed by the idea that the Vedas are a plenary revelation of religious, ethical and scientific truth. Its religious teaching is monotheistic and the Vedic Gods are different descriptive names of the one Diety….. Dayananda took as his basis a free use of the old Indian philology which he found in the Nirukta. Himself a great Sanskrit scholar, he handled his. materials with remarkable power and independence.” 36 Aurobindo further declares: “In the matter of Vedic interpretation, I am convinced that whatever may be the final complete interpretation, Dayananda will be honoured as the first discoverer of the right clues…. He has found the keys of the doors that time had closed and rent asunder the seals of imprisoned Fountains.” 36
T. L. Vasvani opines: “Swami Dayanand Saraswati was in the first place, India’s eye opener to the wisdom of the Vedas. I know none in modern India who was so great a scholar as the Swami.”
Maharshi Dayanand himself writes in Rigvedadi-bhashyabhumika: “Nothing unauthentic is written in this Vedic commentary. As a matter of fact, this commentary will follow the same lines as have been customary with the rishis and munis from Brahma to Vyasa. This Bhashya will amend all those comments and commentaries which are contrary to the spirit of the Vedas and because of which discrepancies have crept in. My endeavour is to present the world with the true meaning of the Vedas so that the world becomes aware of what they stand for.”
Maharshi Dayanand got barely ten years for Vedabhashya. In the last decade of his life (Samvat 1931-1940 Vikrami), he toured more than half of India, did religious preaching, spent his time in devotion to God, held seminars, established Sanskrit schools and wrote almost twenty five big and small books which included the Vedabhashya. The manuscript of this labour runs into not less than twenty thousand pages.
Maharshi Dayanand planned to write commentary on all the four Vedas. In 1933 Vikrami, he thus wrote Chaturvedavishya Suchi in Sanskrit. In the same year, he wrote Rigvedadibhashya-bhumika. This treatise was first published in sixteen fascicules. Its publication started in Chaitra Samvat 1934 and was completed in Vaisakh 1935 (May 1878). This is his the only introduction to the commentary of all the four Vedas. This treatise is very essential to understand the style of commentary of Maharshi Dayanand. Therefore, he had announced in an advertisement: “If anyone wants only the Vedas, they would not be provided but the commentary can be had separately on payment of Rs.5 only.” 37
Maharshi Dayanand published an exposition of the first sukta of the Rigveda (alongwith Gujarati and Marathi translations) as a sample of his Vedic commentary in Samvat 1931 Vikrami. It is not available any more. Again on the lines of this Vedabhashya, a second fascicule was published in 1933 Vikrami
at Lajres Press, Benares. This has the translation of the first nine mantras of the first sukta and one mantra of the second sukta of the Rigveda. 38 The Rishi also gave a befitting rejoinder to the criticism of his bhashya by Mahesh Chandra Nyayaratna and others. Then, on Magh Shukla 6, Samvat 1934.Vikrami corresponding to December 11, 1877 (Tuesday), Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati started work on Rigvedabhashya. Thirty seven days after on Paush Shukla 13, Samvat 1934 (17th January, 1878) Thursday, he undertook Yajurvedabhashya which was completed in about five years on Magh Krishna 1, Samvat 1939 Vikrami. 39 Work on Rigveda commentary also progressed simultaneously. Maharshi Dayanand had expressed the hope in Bhrantinivarana: “If by God’s grace I continue to enjoy good health and I live to see the commentary on the Vedas completed then, no doubt, it will be like sunlight in the Aryavarta.” But he had just managed to complete the translation upto the second mantra of the sixty first sukta of the seventh mandal of Rigveda that he succumbed to poisoning due to a bitter conspiracy. During Maharshi Dayanand’s life-time, only fifty one fascicules each of both the commentaries could be published. The rest was published after his death.
Maharshi Dayanand’s books Rigvedadibhashya-bhumika and Vedabhashya are available both in Sanskrit and Hindi. When many known scholars could not pick up courage to assist him in this great task, the Rishi had to assign the work of editing the Hindi version to Bhimsen, Jwala Dutt and the like. However, about Bhimsen he opined: “He is honest.” “His knowledge is limited to grammar etc. which he has studied. About the rest he is innocent like a child.” “His language is very inadequate.” “The books edited by Bhimsen are full of errors. He is careless.” “Bhimsen’s services have been dispensed with because of his incompetence.” “He is a bad worker and ill natured also.” 40 Maharshi Dayanand held similar opinion about Jwala Dutt also. He wrote in his letters: “I did not know that you had so much immaturity where correction work is concerned.” “There remain a lot of errors in editing and proof reading.” “Both of them (Bhimsen and Jwala Dutt) are alike. As is Bhootnath, so is Pretnath (i.e. both are equally bad). They are shirkers.” “Not well versed in grammar.” “Jwala Dutt is also naughty, arrogant and full of anger (like Bhimsen).” “He does not write proper language these days. He is careless. His language does not match the subject matter.” 41
Sayana had the patronage of a king and MaxMuller was backed by the state. In contrast, there was just Dayanand and his God. No resources, not even a library. With a few ordinary collaborators and in spite of numerous preoccupations, he could still achieve so much, is a matter of great surprise.
In his assertions, Maharshi Dayanand has rejected the interpretations of both Indian and foreign commentators like Sayana, Mahidhara, MaxMüller, Monier Williams, Wilson etc. He used to send his commentary to contemporary foreign scholars. It was not easy to challenge MaxMüller and company. At that time, those with western education (like Raja Radhakant Dev, Devendranath Thakur, Swami Vivekananda etc.) and the organizations like Brahmo Samaj were all full of praise for MaxMüller and the like. 42 With the commendable endeavour of Maharshi Dayanand, the thinking changed. Those foreigners who were blowing the Vedas with all their might failed in their nefarious efforts. They started getting cautious in publications.
MaxMüller who considered the Vedas fit only for the uncivilized, after reading Rigvedadibhashya-bhumika wrote a book entitled. ‘India: What can it teach us?’ almost as a remorse. In that MaxMüller admits: “I maintain then that for a study of man, or, if you like, for a study of Aryan humanity, there is nothing in the world equal in importance with the Veda. I maintain that to everybody who cares for himself, for his ancestors, for his history, or for his intellectual developement, a study of Vedic literature is indispensible.” 43
Max Müller and Monier Williams regularly followed Maharshi Dayanand’s enunciations of the Vedas. Monier Williams was himself present in Bombay on 5th March, 1873 for the Swami’s lecture and they had a dialogue. Max Müller could not personally meet Maharshi Dayanand in his life time but he was so deeply influenced by his scholarship and activities that he wanted to write his biography. He also invited the Rishi to England. The same Max Müller who spent the greater part of his life and almost a lakh of rupees to prepare the version of Sayana’s Rigveda Bhashya now declares Dayananda’s Rigvedadi-bhashyabhumika as the ultimate volume and writes: “We may divide the whole of Sanskrit literature beginning with the Rigveda and ending with Dayananda’s Introduction to his edition of the Rigveda, his by no means uninteresting Rigveda-bhumika, into two great periods.” 44 Max Müller also wrote to the President Arya Samaj, London on 7th July, 1888: “I fully sympathise with the Arya Samaj movement. Arya Samajis should not remain content with what Swamiji did but should continue with the work which he left unfinished.”
Not only Max Müller but several other scholars had also begun to subscribe to Rishi’s views on the Vedas. N.B. Pavgee opines: “The Veda is the fountain-head of knowledge, the prime source of inspiration, nay the grand repository of Divine wisdom and even eternal truth.” 45 In another work of his, he concedes to this extent that “The Vedas contain many things not yet known to anybody, as they form a mine of inexhaustible literary wealth, that has still remained unexplored.” 46 Similarly the Belgium Nobel Laureate Maeterlinck writes: “Only the gaze of the clairvoyant directed upon the mysteries of the past, may reveal un-uttered wisdom which lies hidden behind these writings (the Vedas).” 47 Morris Philip admits that “We are justified, therefore, in concluding that higher and purer conceptions of the Vedic Aryans were the results of a primitive Divine Revelation.” 48
1. There is a mantra in Rigveda (1.50.9).
सूरो रथस्थ नपत्य
Here the sun is called सूर because it gives universal light. The word ratha (रथ) is derived from the root रंह and it means “to cause movement.” The planets revolve and therefore they have been termed as ratha (रथ). The exact translation of planet is ratha (रथ), because planet is derived from the latin world “Planeta” which means “wanderer.” Here नपत्य: means “not allowed to fall.”Even Sayana
concedes:
नत्यः न पातयित्र्यः याभिर्युक्ताभि रथो याति न पतति ताद्दशी।
Meaning: “those that do not allow it to fall are called नपत्य:’
Therefore सूरो रथस्य नपत्य: means that the sun does not allow the planets of this solar system to fall.
At another place, it occurs in Rigveda
उक्षादाधार पृथिवीमुतद्याम्।
“The sun is holding earth and other planets in the sky.” Atharvaveda also endorses it in the following words:
सूर्य्येणोत्तभिता द्यौ:
How is the sun holding these planets? This has been answered thus in the Yajurveda (33.43):
आकृष्णेन रजसा वर्त्तमानो निवेशयन्नमृतं मर्त्यं च ।
हिरण्ययेन सविता रथेना देवो याति भुवनानि पश्यन् ।
It is clear from this mantra that the sun by its power of attraction keeps hold on the earth and other planets of the solar system.
Elsewhere in Yajurveda it has been said
वृषभो दाधार पृथिवीम्
meaning that the varisbha bears the earth. ‘Bull’ is one of the meanings of the word varisbha. Taking an irrelevant meaning and commonly held belief, thePauraniks gave credence to the view that the earth rests on the horns of the bull. However, Yask giving the meaning of varisbhahas written
वृषभः कस्मात् वर्षयिता अपाम् ।
“Varisbha is the one who causes rain”. The sun evaporates water and converts it into vapours and thereby into clouds. These clouds cause rain. Thus varisbha here means “the sun”. And so this hymn reveals that the sun holds the earth.
2. Newton was the first one to prove that the white light of the sun was composed of a combination of the rays of seven colours. But this principle had already been enunciated by the creator of the universe in the Rigveda (1.50.8, 9). The eighth mantra here reads:
सप्त त्वा हरितो रथे वहन्ति देव सूर्य। शोचिष्केशं विचक्षण।
‘O Lord Surya! seven types of rays take your light to the planets.’ The next mantra is
अयुक्त सप्त शुन्ध्युवः सूरो रथस्य नप्त्यः ताभिर्याति स्वयुक्तिभिः।
“The surya which keeps the planets from falling integrates seven types of rays”.
In the eighth mantra, the word harit (हरित:) occurs. This comes from the root हृ which means ‘to take away.’ Sun rays take away water and liquids. That is why, these are known as हरित: According to Nighantu, हरित: have been described as the horses of the sun.
हरित इत्यादित्याश्वानां संज्ञा हरित आदित्य स्येति।
Ashva (अश्व) is from the root ashu, it therefore means ‘one who moves with great speed.’ Therfore, horse is also known as ashva (अश्व). But in the Vedas, ashva is metaphorically used for light, energy, heat etc. After all, what is the speed of the poor horse? On the other hand, speed of light is 186000 miles per second. That is why Nighantu has described harit (हरित:) as the rays i.e. those which take the sun light with great speed.
In the nineth hymn, शुन्घ्युव: means one that purifies. From this, it is evident that the ancient Aryans were familiar with the scientific fact that the sun rays have the property of destroying pollution and purifying the atmosphere. We are inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. The sun rays convert carbon dioxide and water in the presence of chlorophyll into carbohydrates. Thus through this process, called photosynthesis, the plants get their food and air gets purified. This activity is not possible in darkness. That explains the increase of 12 per cent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at night as compared to day. One ten thousandth part of solar energy on the earth is getting consumed in this process alone. 53 Thus in these two mantras, it has been explained that the sun with a combination of seven types of rays creates white light. Another hymn of the Rigveda states
अमी ये सप्त ऋश्मयस्तत्रा मे नाभिरातता
‘Seven types of rays combine in me like nerves in the navel.’ Atharvaveda (7.107.1) says:
अव दिवस्तारयन्ति सप्त सूर्यस्य रश्मयः
meaning ‘the seven rays of sun make the day.’ This basic fact is so prevalent in the Vedic literature that seven rays (सप्त रश्मि)have become symbolic of the sun. Yaskacharya also concedes that
सप्त ऋषयः रश्मयः आदित्ये
‘सप्त रश्मयः are sun rays. Sun is also known as सहस्त्र रश्मि (of thousand rays). Therefore,: indicates not seven rays but rays of seven colours. These have been thus described in Chhandogyopanishad (8.6.1):
असौ वा आदित्यः पिंगल एष शुक्ल एष नील एष पीत एष लौहितः।
Here all the seven colours are not mentioned because blue, yellow and red are the primary colours. All the other colours are made only by their combination. However, as the true meaning of the above mentioned two mantras pertaining to suryasukta (सूर्य सूक्त) has not been understood properly, therefore a Pauranik tale is rampant that the sun is in his chariot which is being pulled by seven horses.
3. Now take an example from the chemical sciences. Cavendish had proved that two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen combine with the help of electricity to make water. According to Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi, 34b the same fact has been stated in the following mantra of Rigveda (1.2.7):
मित्रं हुवे पूतदक्षं वरुणं च रिषादसम् । धियं घृताचीं साधन्ता।
4. There is a mention of medical sciences also in the Vedic literature. 53b Various germs have been considered the cause of several diseases. The classes of germs such as yatudhan, kimidin and rakshasas are described in the Atharvaveda (1.28.1). Certain other classes of germs are mentioned in the second mantra of the second kanda of the thirty first sukta of Atharvaveda. There is mention of the germs producing cholera, eczema etc. in the fourth mantra of the same sukta. In the fifth mantra, it is mentioned that these germs live in mountains, forests, medicines, animals and water, and enter our body with food and liquids. Even Yajurveda (16.62) mentions the fact that the germs enter the body with food and water. Atharvaveda (2.32.1) records that the rays of the rising and setting sun kill the germs which thrive in darkness. Bacillus Colli, for example, breaks into two species in about twenty minutes. Thus if conditions are favourable then in just eight hours, 16 million germs will be borne, and the total weight of the germs so produced in twenty four hours will be 14, 000 maunds. But due to the heat of the sun and unfavourable conditions, these germs cannot multiply that fast.
5. There is mention of mathematics also in Vedic literature. Take Atharvaveda (13.4.16-21):
न द्वितीयो न तृतीयश्चतुर्थो नाप्युच्यते। न पञ्चमो न षष्टः सप्तमो नाप्युच्यते ।
नाष्टमो न नवमो दशमो नाप्युच्यते। स एष एक एकवृदेक एव ।
These mantras say that God is one and not two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or ten. Thus, numerals from one to ten are mentioned in these mantras. Apart from counting, there is evidence of multiplication and addition also in the Vedas. Yajurveda (17.2) describe multiples of 10 upto 1018 (das sankh). It is marval to count upto that limit. Usually in other languages, big numbers are described only as multiples of thousand or hundred thousand. Yajurveda (18.26, 27) mentions the numbers formed by addition or subtraction of two and four. Rigveda (10.130.3) and Atharvaveda (8.9.2) make a mention of the circumferences of a circle and triangle respectively.
Therefore the seeds of all basic sciences are lodged in the Vedas. The Vedas are neither verses inspired by the fear of the objects of nature nor affirmation of blind faith. The Vedas preach the eternal truths, and unravelling the truths and mysteries is possible through the path shown by ancient sages. Only then, we get an idea of how rich is the heritage to which we belong. This confidence saves us from superstition and blind faith. It also saves us from controversies of different religious faiths and gives us a place of pride in the world community which we amply deserve. May God give us the strength to follow the path of the Vedas.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. A. R. Wallace, Social Environment and Moral Progress, New York Cassel& Co. (1913).
2. Plato’s Alcibiades
3. F. Max Müller, India: What can it teach us?, Rupa & Co., New Delhi (2002), p.85
4. F. Max Müller, The Veda: What is the Veda?, Sushil Gupta Ltd., Calcutta (1956), p.14
5. A.H.L. Heeren, Historical Researches, Vol.II, p. 127
6. Maurice Philip, The Teachings of the Vedas: What Light Does it Throw on the Origin and Development of Religion?, Longmans Green and Co. London (1895), p.231
7. “A yaugika term is one that has a derivative meaning, that is, one that only signifies the meaning of its root together with the modifications effected by the affixes….. A rurhi term is the name of a definite concrete object, where the connotation of the word (as structurally determined) gives no clue to the object denoted by the word. Hence, ordinarily it means a word of arbitrary significance.” (Ram Prakash, Dr., ed., Works of Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi, Kusam Lata Arya Pratisthan, Shahibabad, Gaziabad (2013), pp.19-20).
8. F. Max Müller, A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, The Chokhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi (1968), pp.506-507
9. W. D. Brown, The Superiority of the Vedic Religion
10. Bopp, Edinburgh Review, Vol.33, 43
11. Will Durant, Vision of Vibrant India
12. Dayanand Swami, Satyarth Prakash, chapter VII
13. Dayanand Swami, Rigvedadibhashyabhumika, PrashnotraVishya
14. Dayanand Swami records in Bhramochhedana: “I donot accept the Brahmanagranthas as Vedas because only the word of God is the Veda. The utterances of human beings are not the Vedas.” (cf. Rigvedadibhashyabhumika, Veda SanjnaVicharah).
15. The Brahmo Samaj and Eclectic Systems, p.36
16. Ram Prakash, Dr. (ed.), Works of Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi, p.43
17. Ram Prakash, Dr., Guru Virjanand Dandi, Satyarth Prakashan, Kurukshetra (2013), p.103
18. द्रष्टव्य:
(क) सत्यानन्द शास्त्री, क्या प्राचीन आर्य लोग मांसाहारी थे ?सत्यार्थ प्रकाशन, कुरुक्षेत्र
(ख) विश्वनाथविद्यामार्तण्ड, वैदिक पशुयज्ञमीमांसा, गुरुकुल कांगड़ी; नरदेव वेदतीर्थं यज्ञे पशुवधोवेदविरुद्धः, गुरुकुल ज्वालापुर
19. Quoted here from H.H. Wilson’s Essays, Vol.III
20. F. Max Müller, The Vedas: What is the Veda?, p.34
21. Rahul Sankrityayan, Vijnanik Bhautikavad, p.104
22. F. Max Müller, Biographical Essays, cf. Clayton, The Rigveda and Vedic Religion, p.21
23. Sir George O.Bart, Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay
24. Monier Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Introduction
25. The Life and Letters of F. Max Müller, edited by his wife, Longmans, London (1902), (a) p.346, (b) p. 378
26. Sri Aurobindo, Secret of the Veda, Aurobindo Ashram, Pondichery (December 1971), p.23
27. Dharmdev Vidyamartand, Vedon ka Yatharth Swaroop, p.32
28. see A. A. Macdonell, Vedic Mythology
29. Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi, Terminology of the Vedas and European p.9 Scholars (see Works of Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi edited by Dr. Ram Prakash), p.20
30. F. Max Müller, The Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XXXII, Introduction, of Max Müller, pp. 1-22 Century Co., New York (1922), Clarendon Press, Oxford (1891).
31. Quoted here from T.L Vaswani’s Torch Bearer 32. Muir, J. Original Sanskrit Texts, Vol.II, p.205
33. Rigveda Translation and Notes, Vol.I
34. For details, see Ram Prakash Dr. (ed.), Works of Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi, (a) pp.54-57, (b) Vedic Text No.II, pp.58-60
35. Sri Aurobindo, The Secret of the Veda, pp.20-21, 18
36. Ibid., p.29
37. Bhagwat Dutt, ed., Rishi Dayanand Saraswati ke Patra aur Vijnapan, Part I, p.256
38. ‘Rigveda ke Pratham nau Mantron ka Bhashya’ was first published by Vedic Yantralaya, Ajmer. Later The Vedaprakash magazine carried it in its special issue (Dayanand Grantha Samgraha) in August 1953.
39. Yudhishther Mimanshak, Meri Drasti mein Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati aur unka Kam; Rishi Dayanand ke Granthon ka Itihas
40. Bhagwat Dutt, ed., Rishi Dayanand Saraswati ke Patra aur Vijnapan, Part I, p.426; Part II, pp. 517, 546, 572, 650, 673
41. Ibid., Part 1, pp. 458, 465; Part 2, pp. 601, 612, 669,766
42. N. Mookerjee, I point to India: Selected Writings
43. F. Max Müller, India: What can it teach us?, p.80
44. Ibid., p.63
45. N.B. Pavgee, Vedic India Not England the Mother of Parliaments of Tertiary Antiquity (1928).
46. N.B. Pavgee, The Vedic Fathers of Geology, General Books LLC (2010).
47. Maurice Maeterlinck, The Great Secret, (Translator Bernard Miall), The
48. Morris Philip, The Teachings of the Vedas, p.231
49. F. Max Müller, Biographical Essays 50. P.N. Gaur, Introduction to the Message of the 20th Century
51. Dr. Rele, The Vedic Gods
52. M.L. Jacolliat, The Bible in India – Hindoo Origin of Hebrew and Christian Revelation, Panini office Bahadurganj, Allahabad (1916).
53. Ram Prakash Dr., Yajna Vimarsh (Hindi), Satyarth Prakashan, Kurukshetra (1997), (a) pp.65-66, (b) pp. 72-76.