Thrashing Hinduism is no more a tool for appeasement in India. It has now ascended to the level of being prerequisite to become ‘intellectual’ and the part of ‘civil society’. Being ‘intellectual’ means to swim upstream, to go against the popular narrative, to take position that is against the faith of common masses, to attack sentiments of people in the name of freedom of expression and openness. And this freedom is used very selectively by some media stalwarts. While questioning Hindu faith, existence of Ram, mockery of Hanuman- ‘the monkey god’, criticism of Ram for Sita’s Agnipariksha, questions on Krishna for having affairs with gopis and thousands of wives etc (all false allegations, rebutted on agniveer.com way back) make you an ‘intellectual’ and a champion of freedom of expression, questioning miracles, prophets and their personal lives of Abrahamic religions (minorities in India) is highly communal and makes you fascist.
We recently came across a piece of work titled as- Ancient sex cultures in Mahabharat, Rig Vedas and religious scriptures published in Daily Bhaskar, kindly find it here http://daily.bhaskar.com/news/JM-MYTH-shocking-ancient-sex-culture-in-mahabharat-rig-vedas-and-religious-scriptures-4931484-PHO.html. Author seems too intellectual to give his name anywhere in the article. Post is full of innovations on sexual relations and can put even pornographic content to shame. For example, the author ‘proves’ from scriptures that, in ancient times, even mother and son used to do sex. People used to enjoy animal sex. Anyone could do sex with anyone anywhere, even in open when thousands others were watching.
Perverts were, are and will be there in society in all eras. We don’t bother if one of them stands up one day and publishes stories of his experiences and fantasies in newspapers. But what bothers us is the attempt by a pervert to justify his own shameful acts by dragging in religion and holy texts of Hinduism.
This article seems to be a way to promote pornography and use denigration of noble Hindu culture as a ploy to increase hits, confuse devout Hindus, create hatred for Hindus in minds of non-Hindus and in process, further their own selfish goals. After all what is more welcoming to a media house than something that brings controversial popularity. Sex being considered the strongest drive among materially inclined humans, and religion being strongest influence on typical majority of Indians, there can be no better formula for publicity than linking the two. Anyway, here is the point wise response
Author: There was a stage in our history, when there were no social rules formed for sex between men and women. That was the time when no one would care about the relationship they share with other human beings before having sex with them. This is because there were no such relationships back then.
Having sex with any woman, having open sex anywhere anytime like animals, having sex with young girls and even sex with animals was a common thing with humans. Sex was wayward that time.
With the development of civilization, relationships, social practices and ethical standards developed. We can understand it in historical sociological context.
To know how sex was an integral part of our society, click on this slide show…
No one knows how the author jumped to these conclusions. These are just claims made by author. The author does not even state which era of history is he talking about. As we will see in next slides (with vulgar images put for obvious reasons), he is inclined to give sexual colors to anything Hindu irrespective of how far or near to present it is. As we will also see, these claims are based on most silly and unverified ‘facts’ known best to the authors.
There have always been criminals and perverts and even sex-maniacs like the current author in all eras of civilization. If someone reads author’s post in Daily Bhaskar and looks at right hand side, there are links to pictures/news (screenshot attached) of semi nude prostitutes. So according to author, Daily Bhaskar is all about prostitutes and their whereabouts!
If someone reads about the recent ghastly Delhi Gangrape case and concludes that “Once upon a time, raping women and killing them was a common thing with humans. Rape was wayward that time. Rape was an integral part of our society.”, what would you call that person. Either too dumb or too perverted! If there is a third option, let us know.
Author: In chapter 63 of Adiparva in Mahabharat, open sex between Rishi Parashar and Satyavati Matsyangandha has been described. Also, in the 104th chapter of Adiparva, it is mentioned that son of Utthat, Dirghtama started having sex with a woman in front of all the people.
1. Firstly, the context of Rishi Parashar issue has been misquoted. Author has lied blatantly because the verses clearly state that there was complete isolation, there was none around. On top of it, whether one endorses it or not is left to individual’s analysis. Further, the conditions and situations of the story are unknown. Even more, whether the verses are fully authentic is also a question mark. Because the same Mahabharat says in Aadi Parva, Chapter 1, verses 81, 101 and 102 that the original Mahabharat consisted of only 8800 verses which was expanded to the one with 24000 verses first and later it became the book with more than 1,00,000 verses. It is common with all history books.
2. We don’t know what made author bring stories of an almost unknown person and then prove that Mahabharat sanctions adultery, that too, in open. He could not give any Shloka in his support. Now see this! Here is the same Dirghtama, son of Utthat in the same chapter 104 in Adi Parva saying- it is not lawful for a woman to have connection with a man other than her husband. And she who may have such connection shall certainly be regarded as fallen…
Here, Dirghtama unequivocally states adultery as sin. Now even if he practiced it in the verses best known to author, it is his moral weakness and not a principle of Mahabharat! But these verses being contrary to what the author was searching (pornography) in highly titillated state were ignored completely by the author.
3. Author is hell bent in proving that in Mahabharat and ancient times, there were no rules for sex. Anyone could be with anyone anywhere for this purpose. Sex was wayward… Author could not give a single proof of what he claimed. But here are some examples that prove otherwise-
a. Man who is respected most in Mahabharat after Shri Krishna is Bhishma. Do you know why, Mr/Ms/… Author? Because he was a Brahmchari, a celibate, who was respected by Rishis and masses for his self control. His vow- Bhishma Pratigya- of being Brahmchari is considered as the greatest resolve in Mahabharat and even till today. This indicates that whatever the behaviour and conduct of common masses be, self control was always considered as the greatest virtue in ancient Hindu history.
b. Mr/Ms/… Author! Bhagwad Geeta is the most popular literature known to mankind on spirituality and self/mind control. “Be master of senses, not slave” remains the core essence of Geeta. And coincidently, Geeta is the part of Mahabharat- Bhishma Parva, same Mahabharat that, according to author, taught author’s ancestors to do sex with anyone anywhere!
c. Mr/Ms/… Author says that there were no relations in the time of Mahabharat and anyone could …. anytime anywhere with anyone, even in front of everyone. But we all know the reality. Author does not know that Arjun went to a self imposed exile for few years during Vanvaas of Pandavas. Why? Because of the sin he committed. What sin? Sin of entering the room of Yudhishthir and Draupadi when they were discussing some matters alone! And since Arjun thought that he has violated privacy of the two, he went to exile of few years! Leave alone sex, standards of morality were so high in those times that Arjun considered it sin to even listen to the discussion of a couple. But the shameless Author found pornography in Mahabharat!
d. In Mahabharat, no relations would matter in those times, sex culture was all pervading, says the author. But reality was diametrically opposite. When the king of Matsya Desh gave marriage proposal of his daughter Uttara to Arjun, Arjun denied forcefully and said that how can he marry Uttara, his disciple whom he has always considered as his own daughter? Arjun, then, had Uttara married to his son Abhimanyu!
e. People used to…. anywhere with anyone, says the author. But he forgets why whole Mahabharat took place in first place! Foundations of Mahabharat war were laid down the day Duhshasan dragged Draupadi in the court and tried to do what author foolishly believes was a custom in those days. Had it been a custom in those days to…. with anyone, anywhere, there would be no Mahabharat in first place!
Author: In modern history, it is described that Maharaja Ranjit Singh used to have sex in a place where his elephant used to be tied for everyone to see him. In the times of Bajirav, a game ‘Ghatkancuki’ used to play in Pune.
Also, some chosen elite men and women were made to have sex for others entertainment. The men used to first pull the women’s dresses and then have sex with them in public. The sexual game would continue until every man would have slept with every woman.
Agniveer: Hatred of author for Hindus-Sikhs is now exposed. He/she started with ancient history and Mahabharat and suddenly jumped to Maharaja Ranjit Singh whom most of Hindus and Sikhs love so much. And there is no authentic reference to this claim is given by author. And this time example is from Modern History. But author himself stated that “With the development of civilization, relationships, social practices and ethical standards developed. ” Does it mean that these developments happened only in last 100 years?
It is clear that fake references from equally dubious sources are being used to impose sexual perversion of the author on the Hindu culture. Even if the author is able to prove that in history, some X, Y or Z persons used to do A,B or C, that no way proves that A, B or C was commonplace and endorsed by religious norms. In matters of Hinduism, the norm is Vedas. Unless something is proven there, it has no significance.
Author: In Karnataka, until independence, people used to organize group sex. Here, age was not a concern at all. It is believed that in ancient times, Tamilians too used to have sex in front of everyone. One can find in Vedas that people used to have open group sex in yagya bhoomi.
a. Who in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu? In USA, many people are in asylums. In Pakistan, many are throwing bombs. In Delhi, many rapes are happening. What does that imply? That mental diseases are common in USA? That all Pakistanis are terrorists as a rule? That most Delhites are rapists?
b. In last line, reference to Vedas are given. Kindly provide which verse in Vedas state so and what is the evidence that your translation is correct? On contrary we can provide innumerable examples from Vedas that extol that women should be respected as mother, self-control be followed, monogamy be way of family, and sex etc be private matters not to be done in public. Here are few Mantras from Vedas that expose author’s lies
– In Atharva Veda 7.38.4, wife says that “You should only be mine. You should not even discuss about other women.”
– Atharva Ved 3.30.2 and 14.2.64 appeal husband and wife to be devoted and faithful to each other.
– Rig Veda 10.105.8 compares existence of multiple partners with multiple worldly miseries.
– Rig Veda 10.101.11 states that a person with two partners is pressed from both sides and weeps like a horse that neighs when pressed from both sides by spokes while driving a chariot.
– Rig Veda 10.101.11 state that two partners make life aimless.
– Atharva Veda 3.18.2 prays that may a woman never face threat of another co-wife.
Author is suggested to stop searching for porn in religious texts. He may do it better elsewhere. And yes, if he/she/… wants to know real meanings and importance of Vedas, Agniveer is ready to offer authentic translations which can be ordered from our Vedic store- Agnikart!
Author: Kautbik sex (incest) is mentioned in ancient texts. It is mentioned ‘Harivansh’ that the daughter of sage Vasishta, Shatrupa believed him to be her husband and therefore used to have sex with him. In the same grantha it is mentioned that Daksha gave her daughter to his father, Brahmadev and Narada was born.
As mentioned in Haribhavishya, Indra dev had sex with his great grandson’s (Janmejay) wife Vapushtma.
What is Harivansh? Which chapter and page of which book? What is Haribhavishya? The author does not even know names of books he is quoting. No such books exist in Hindu library.
Author: In Mahabharat’s Adiparva, it is said that if an unmarried woman expresses her desire to have sex, it should be fulfilled. If her wish is not fulfilled, it means death of religion. Ulupi clearly says to Arjuna that to satisfy a woman, it not against religion to sleep with her for one night.
Who is saying to whom in Mahabharat? Is it Lord Krishna saying in Geeta? Or Rishi Ved Vyas talking to author? Mahabharat even has characters like Duryodhan who said that women were his slaves. Does it mean that Mahabharat considers women as slaves? Just think of it. Author is referring to Ulupi. Was Ulupi a sage to be able to state what is right and wrong? On contrary, author is referring to a woman who is mad in love and hence has her senses blurred to decide what is right or wrong.
If Dharma-Adharma were so clearly understood in Mahabharat era, how would one explain role of Lord Krishna. Millions regard him as an incarnation to protect and establish Dharma. If everyone was so Dharmic, why would Krishna have been an incarnation.
Further, if free sex was so commonplace even in that era, why Arjun refused her wish? Why would Ulupi had to justify her stand? She would have done what she wanted to do without even mentioning a word and forgetting it later. Further, it should also be known that Ulupi belonged to current Mexico region and not Bharatvarsha. Different societies have different cultural norms over different periods of time. History books would only tell you about people. For principles, one needs knowledge books like Vedas.
Author: When Urvashi told Arjuna that if the Paurva Vansh’a any son or grandson wants to have sex with any woman of her family including her, it is not insulting religion. However, Arjuna did not accept it and Urvashi called him impotent.
It is also mentioned in religious scriptures that sage Agastya had kept his daughter with the King of Vidarbha and when she reached age of marriage, he married his own daughter.
Agniveer: Again is Urvashi a sage? She was supposed to be a dancing girl. And this story proves exactly opposite to what author’s pervert mind wants to infer. Arjun refused Urvashi’s wish! This example is quoted in Mahabharat to showcase what ideal religion is – to consider women as mother irrespective of her status and profession – the way Arjun did. Even when Urvashi insulted Arjuna, he did not deter from his stand.
Arjuna stood to his stand of respect for women. He had to face curse of Urvashi for this. But even then, he turned this curse into an opportunity. Thus, message is that under whatsoever pressure, one must respect women. And even if one has to face problems due to that, it will turn into opportunity.
Which religious scripture is second story from, is unknown. For Hindus, the only reliable texts are Vedas. Everything else is to be understood, interpreted and accepted in lines of Vedas. There is a mix of facts and allegories in Hindu texts. They are not to be taken literally. The language, era and society keep changing from time to time. But what is important is that they all point to noble tenets of Vedas as elucidated in texts like Gita and Ishopanishad.
Author: In the tenth mandal of Rig Veda, the sexual conversation between Yam and Yami is mentioned. Here, Yami expresses her desire to have sex with her own brother. When Yam refuses to do so, she insists and says that a sister remaining unsatisfied despite her brother being around, so what is her brother’s use?
This clearly signifies the sexual relationship between brothers and sisters in ancient times.
a. Firstly, Yam Yami is a deep concept referring to certain fundamental principles of nature applicable in all situations. Basically they say that complementary entities emerging from same source must not complement each other and instead seek to spread in world. For example, if I have a shop selling orange juice at Rs 10 and my brother has a shop selling mango juice at Rs 10, we should not buy and sell from each other. In that case, each day we can keep drinking glasses of juice from each other and transfer only Rs 10!
This moral has been put in allegorical language in this sukta. The essence is that regardless of whatsoever pressure, one must respect and protect dignity of entities coming from same source without using them for personal gains. What this sukta signifies is that relationships between such entities (that also includes brother and sister) is strictly prohibited as per Vedas – oldest text and foundation of Hinduism. The beauty of Hinduism is that it does not impose blanket rules. Instead it provides logical intuitive reasons – the why – so that instead of being blind followers, each of us becomes an enlightened master. This is what this sukta aims. But perverts only see vulgarity is purest of things.
b. Even if this Sukta be considered as discussion of brother and sister, a BIG NO from brother concludes it all and establishes the rule that such relationships are not acceptable!
Author: About sexual relations, ancient historian Cipeve Lerhuno wrote that people used to occasionally have sex with their mothers, sisters and daughters.
a. Did this historian mention Hinduism ever? It is quite possible that he might have written about his own family or society and the author has superimposed his confessions on Hinduism for ulterior motives.
b. Who is this historian? We request everyone to google this name and see what comes!
c. Anyway, why should we care about him? How is his word a gospel for us? Maybe the author is trying to defend some sins he may have committed in a freudian manner. Nothing else explains such baseless reference less, vulgar allegations on Hinduism.
d. And now author writes- ‘occasionally’ which denies it to be a custom which is contrary to what he/she/… wrote in previous slides that anyone could do anything to anyone like animals, there were no relationships at all!
Author: Mahabharta mentiones in Adiparva that having sex with any women is not bad and is a normal behavior. Relationships are names given to know people.
Who said to whom and in what context? Just blanket claim. I may say that Author mentioned in 2010 that he was a psychopath and should be thrashed whenever he denigrates Hinduism. Should we take my statement as seriously as author wants us to take his vulgar allegations? Anyway, enough has been discussed on Mahabharat above.
Author: Duryodhan had made Karna the king of Angdesh. In this desh, woman and children were sold.
a. Any reference? And neither Duryodhan nor Karna was supposed to be a sage. In fact Duryodhan was considered the main villain of Mahabharat. If Ajmal Kasab wanted to kill Indians, that does not make all people in indian-subcontinent terrorists.
b. If this is true, then this would be another reason why Mahabharat happened. So say thanks to noble characters in Mahabharat for fighting against slavery instead of proving them and society guilty of same!
Author: Clearly, regulation of sexual relations came into our society sequentially with the development of civilization and culture. However, the primitive desire to have sex from time to time in humans is strengthened. That is why even today we hear about such sexual relations, which are illegal and immoral. Such relations are wrong to a civilized man, but it is also true that sex is a primitive instinct.
No denying the fact that sex is a primitive instinct. That is why Hindu Dharma aims to reform primitive savages into sensible humans who realize purpose of their actions and act responsibly to maximize bliss for entire world.
Questions for author
– Why were only Hinduism and Sikhism targeted in the name of history? What about other religions that have a far wider spread and a more thoroughly documented history in modern and middle era?
– Author hurled abuses on Hindu scriptures like Vedas and Mahabharat and role models like Arjun and Maharaja Ranjit Singh without a single reference. Why single out Hinduism and Sikhism for this affection? Why no analysis on other religions? Does it not amount to religious fundamentalism to target one single religion – the religion of majority – in a secular country and allow no space for other religions?
Do you think attacking Hinduism in India is nice job to do since Hinduism neither has apostates nor infidels nor blasphemy laws? Does all this not smell of bias and hatred against Hinduism?
Please note that we do not intend to target any religion. We respect all individuals and their freedom to choose and respect whatever faith they prefer for themselves.
After all, Hinduism, by its very nature, is a forgiving and tolerant faith open to harshest criticism.
But be brave not coward. Respect the culture that gives you freedom. Love it like Mother.
May the truth prevail!
PS: Hindu Janajagruti Samiti has decided to take up this issue. In fact they had apprised us of this article and had requested us to write our views. We thank them for this and request all to support them in this cause.
We also request all to take whatever legal or social action as required to be taken against Daily Bhaskar as per law of the land so that they apologize and publish our response.