UPI - agniveerupi@sbi, agniveer.eazypay@icici
PayPal - [email protected]

Agniveer® is serving Dharma since 2008. This initiative is NO WAY associated with the defence forces scheme launched by Indian Govt in 2022

UPI
agniveerupi@sbi,
agniveer.eazypay@icici

Agniveer® is serving Dharma since 2008. This initiative is NO WAY associated with the defence forces scheme launched by Indian Govt in 2022

Home Blog Page 46

Buddhism and Vedas

Buddhism is often considered to be an anti-Vedic atheist philosophy. Today there are a huge number of schools and sects within Buddhism (exceeded perhaps only by Islam in terms of a number of divisions, sects, sub-sects within). But if we review the original teachings of Gautam Buddha, we find that he was only trying to teach the concepts of Vedas to best of his understanding.

Vocabulary of Buddhism

The vocabulary of Buddhism is adopted from prevailing literature.

• The word Buddha comes in Mahabharat Shantiparva 193/6 to mean ‘intelligent.’

• Bodhisatva has been used for Sri Krishna in Shishupal Vadh 15/58 and its commentary by Vallabhdeva.

• Bhikshu again is a word denoting certain sage in Mahabharat Shantiparva 325/24 and Gautam Dharmasutra 3/2.

• Shraman comes in Brihadaranyak Upanishad and Gautam Dharmasutra.

• Nirvana comes from Deval Dharmasutra and so on.

The famous Buddhist chant of Om Mani Padme Hum speaks for itself on the glory of Om – that originates from Vedas and is an integral part of Hinduism.

Vedas in the teachings of Mahatma Buddha

In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:

Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati Bhooripanjo.

People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands Dharma and does not waver.

Sutta Nipat 503:

Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema …….

One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative, intelligent, helpful if one desires to inculcate similar traits.

Sutta Nipat 1059:

Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam……

One gets free from worldly pains if he/she can understand a Vedic scholar, who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly things.

Sutta Nipat 1060:

Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja…..

I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards the world and becomes free from sins.

Sutta Nipat 846:
Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso….

One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by hearsay and delusions.

Sutta Nipat 458:

Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi

I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets success.

These are just a few examples from works of Mahatma Buddha.

Why Mahatma Buddha rejected Vedas

Many say that Mahatma Buddha rejected Vedas. However, this is far from the truth.

Mahatma Buddha did not reject Vedas per se, but he dismissed the malpractices happening in the name of Vedas.

For example, if we call someone – He is a Neta of India – today, he may get offended and feel as if we have called him corrupt and manipulative. This is not because Neta word in itself means ‘corrupt’, but because this is what we see of the so-called Netas today.

Similarly, when Mahatma Buddha questioned birth-based casteism, animal sacrifice, and other nonsense practices, he got answer that Vedas sanction so. Like any sane morally upright person would do, Mahatma Buddha stated that: “If Vedas sanction these evil practices, then I reject Vedas.”

Had Gautam Buddha obtained an opportunity to study the actual Vedas and not go by the false notions prevailing, he could no way have issued such a statement.

If that had happened, then the country and the entire world would have been strong enough to counter barbaric attacks of West/ Central Asian tribals that have resulted in the greatest problem of last 1000 years – terrorism. But that was the destiny we had to face. Because there was none to propagate the philosophical foundation of Vedas instead of mechanical and often illogical ritualism in name of Vedas.

Basic precepts of Buddhism

If we review the basic precepts of Buddhism, they are simply Vedic teachings reworded. For example,

• The four cardinal truths on life, suffering, desire, cessation are straight from Yoga and Nyaya Darshan. In fact, Nyaya Darshan 1.2 echoes almost the same essence in as many words.

• The eight fold path is adequately covered in a variety of ways in all ancient texts – Vedas, Manusmriti, Mahabharat and Yoga Darshan for example.

• The emphasis on Ahimsa is adapted from Yoga Darshan that puts Ahimsa as the first essential discipline for progress in Yoga- the process of realizing self and God.

• Theory of rebirth and Law of Karma that Buddhism is built upon finds its foundation in mantras of Vedas.

• Rejection of birth-based caste system is also in lines with Vedas.

• Emphasis on meditation is straight adopted from the Yoga Darshan that itself is based on Vedas.

• The five commandments for Buddhists and especially monks are from Yoga Darshan 1.2.3

In summary, one can state that Buddhism, as preached by Gautam Buddha, was a system of morality based on Vedas.

Why was Mahatma Buddha atheist?

Mahatma Buddha was not an atheist. Atheism developed later. At best, Gautam Buddha can be said to be agnostic. He believed that first and foremost duty is to raise one’s intellect level through the practice of a moral code of conduct and mind control.

Mahatma Buddha did not believe in arguments or debates. He had a very practical approach. Mahatma Buddha refused to either deny or acknowledge the presence of God or a supreme entity. He was content with teaching self-control and self-constraint and did not take the trouble of attempting a solution of the great problems of Universe: How it began? Is it everlasting? Have I existed in past? Will I exist forever? etc.

Later philosophers of Buddhism did attempt to solve these mysteries through their own analysis, and that is how Buddhism developed so many branches and sects.

In Kula Mayukyaovad Majjhama Nikaya there is a reference where someone asked Gautam Buddha whether the world is everlasting. He replied, “Did I ever promise that I shall teach you whether the world is everlasting or not? If not, then do not press the inquiry.” In Sabbasava Sutta, he suggests that such inquiries into self and universe are meaningless.

Mahatma Buddha focused on practical aspects and neglected the theoretical or metaphysical aspects. This was perhaps because he wanted to ensure that ritualistic malpractices do not overshadow the core essence of his teachings.

However, these are natural questions in any human being, and thus, later Buddhists had to make up for this deficiency in a variety of ways.
However, if we review the original philosophy of Mahatma Buddha, there is no evidence of him being atheist or anti-Vedic.

His attitude towards Vedas and Theism was that of indifference rather than rejection. In this indifference lied his Vedic Foundation. Because he eventually adopted only from the Vedas to form his ideology and strived to be an honest practitioner of – “Accept the truth, reject the rest” to best of his capability and intent.

Impact of Buddhism

Buddhism had a great impact during its times. It paved the way for rejection of distortions and external symbols towards nurture of morality. Since Buddhism did not challenge any of the key philosophical foundations of existing way of life – rebirth, the law of karma, emphasis on morality – it became popular not only in India and across Asia. However, soon it declined especially in India.

Decline of Buddhism

As Mahatma Buddha, himself said,

“The body contains within itself the power to renew its strength but also the causes that lead to its destruction.”

In the case of Buddhism, the cause lied in its incompleteness. While it adopted the moral precepts of Vedas, it ignored the metaphysical foundations. While a whole generation of Buddhist philosophers did spring up later, they could not address the key metaphysical questions convincingly and cohesively on Self, Universe, and Unchangeable Laws. This may work for pragmatics but not for the truly philosophical minds.

A mind tired with illogical ways of life may find great reprieve in focusing purely on moral precepts and meditation. However, for someone who hails for a culture having a vast legacy of philosophical richness in every mundane and not-so-mundane aspect of life, there are more questions needed to be explored to quench the intellectual thirst.

Acharya Shankar debated with Buddhists of his era and proved that whatever Buddhism (of that era) argues by denying the existence of God can also be explained by Adwait (One singular entity everywhere). For centuries, the debate between atheists and Vedic continued giving rise to a vast number of philosophical texts in India.

Later Buddhism tried to deny more clearly the existence of God and even that of the soul but could not give a satisfactory substitute. They believed in eternal, immutable law and never ending the chain of cause and effect.

However, in the absence of an entity ensuring that the laws work smartly and for our benefit, it was a blind alley: A religion without a deity!

A worshipper without an object of worship!

This forced Buddhists to evolve their own elaborate set of ceremonies, rituals, idols, chants and practices, but this only brought them in a rift with the original concepts. Some historians state that idol-worship began with Buddhism. All this kept splitting it into so many branches that are startlingly different at times. The religion supposed to be based on logic, intellect and mind-control has developed loads of superstitions, blind beliefs, tantra practices, witchcraft and myths of miracles. Today, the Divine Dalai Lama superstition has become the foundation of popular Buddhism.

The rift widened so much that the religion, which is said to have been based on a foundation of Non-Violence or Ahimsa, and which is said to have rejected Vedas because Vedas were perceived to sanction animal sacrifice, is one of the largest consumers of meat products today!
In many Buddhist places, they hang a board outside meat-shop that says: “Believe Us, This meat is not for you.” The monks are guilt-free in eating meat in these shops!!

When someone asked Dalai Lama while he was helping himself with a serving of meat, he said, “I am Buddhist. I am not vegetarian!”
Ironically, what is taught today across the world is that Mahatma Buddha got perturbed when he saw people carrying animals for sacrifice and hence rebelled! Very few people perhaps know that the cult that had its very origin in Animal Rights is the largest killer of animals today! All for taste!

Moreover, followers of Vedas – which were alleged to endorse animal killing in name of Vedic Yajnas – are today the greatest proponents of Animal Rights!

In fact, many sects of Buddhism believe that Mahatma Buddha died due to indigestion from consumption of pork offered as charity. (As per these sects whatever provided in charity must be consumed.)

Similarly, Buddhism, which started with rejecting man-made caste system, is itself now divided into so many sects/ sub-sects each having its own sect-specific practices. It is followers of Vedas who reject all man-made divisions and appeal for the oneness of entire humankind regardless of man-made rituals and beliefs. The roles are completely reversed today.

Coming back to the roots, Vedas seems to be the best way to emulate Gautam Buddha today!!

Buddhism could create appeal among other regions and can impress Christians today (Christianity derives its philosophical foundation in Buddhism and hence, it is the next logical bridge for Christians to an evolved and more matured view of life). But for India, which has been home to a whole chain of eminent thinkers, the vagueness of Buddhism could not hold its appeal for long.

Today, whatever Buddhism prevails in India is primarily a reaction to the birth-based caste system and related rituals that are wrongly attributed to Vedas. Ask these neo-Buddhists what they know about Buddhism and they will respond that all they know is that Ambedkar adopted Buddhism to protest against caste system! Time to spread that real Hinduism of Vedas is anti-casteist.

Final blow to Buddhism

The final blow to Buddhism came from Islamic invasion in the medieval era. The Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan are mute spectators of that gory period of history. Buddhism, by its very rejection of other aspects of life except moral precepts, became most vulnerable to Muslim attacks. This has been the greatest damaging gift of Buddhist ideology to present era. The escapist Buddhist view that preferred to be neutral to all that happens with us in the world, coupled with a damaging caste system among Hindus, made sure that barbaric, uncivilized tribals could decimate us and establish their dominance. Hinduism could still survive due to its inherent emphasis on realism, but Buddhism perished. And this untimely perish had further adverse outcomes on future of India in the form of philosophical downtime.

Though, Buddhism of Myanmar has learnt its lessons and is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to terrorism.

Ask any weight-trainer and he would tell that if one needs to build big biceps, one needs to focus on leg squats as well. Lop-sided development does not work. It only causes injuries.

Similarly, mere focus on moral precepts does not work for society. One has to dwell into other aspects – society, politics, science, philosophy, metaphysics – for things to work out.

That is why Vedas emphasize and train on a vast variety of subjects.
While Buddhism adopted the moral precepts from Vedas, it made a blunder by ignoring the full picture, and that changed the path of history forever.

In fact, Buddhism was not supposed to be a distinct sect in the first place. It was merely supposed to be a philosophy focusing on moral aspects of life. Mahatma Buddha did not give any preaching on other aspects at all. The blunder was that his followers took his specific but narrow focus as a complete recipe of life.

Often we get so enamored by personalities that we lose the big picture. We consider fullness in whatever attracts our attention for long. For example, we witnessed the cricket drama for a month, and now there seems nothing more patriotic than winning a World Cup and recommending Bharat Ratna for a cricketer!

Similarly, most cults sprang up because the followers failed to consider the deeds and views of their role models as a critical PART of a bigger picture and instead considered completeness in that SMALL PART.

Mahatma Buddha considered eradication of misery as the Mission. While this is true, he took it to a narrow extreme and hence created a philosophy that was too pessimistic for the common man to be motivated enough for worthwhile actions. Or maybe he did not have this intention, but this is what we observe from literature of that era.

This coupled with the absence of any discussions on the key questions that initiate spiritual thinking – Who am I? Will I die forever? Will this world end?, etc. – left no incentive for a layman to extend his efforts beyond sitting in an isolated place trying to control the mind. Why would then one make a sacrifice for the nation, fight the enemies and work for smiles on the face of his fellow-beings when he does not know clearly why he is doing so?

Today, psychologists would tell us that running away from miseries cannot bring the same level of motivation for worthwhile actions than a desire for greater happiness.

Avoidance of miseries because the world is full of miseries implies that one would naturally escape from worldly duties because even these performance of these duties would cause indulgence and hence miseries.

After all, Buddhist philosophy asserted that our misery began the moment we were born. To deny even the Self (Anatma) to become indifferent to pain becomes the goal of life. How can then indifference generate actions when there is even no vaguely clear end-goal to be reached, and denial is the best recipe?

Mahatma Buddha talked of four right beliefs:

• Knowledge of misery,
• Knowledge of origin of misery,
c• Knowledge of cessation of misery and
• Knowledge of path leading to the cessation of misery.

However, when even ‘I’ does not exist, who will work for getting these right beliefs? Moreover, what would be obtained? This incompleteness led to rank pessimism. The philosophies that emerged to counter this blinded belief system of Mahatma Buddha also suffered from the same pessimism and inherent inertia against vigorous actions.

Buddhism was doing bicep curls but not squatting sufficiently. It took only one part of the Vedic message but ignored the rest.

Nationalism and reformist zeal could not co-exist prominently with Buddhism. (Even though Mahatma Buddha himself was an extremely dynamic man.) It left Buddhism defenseless against savage attacks and created ‘Parable of Boiled Frog‘. If we put a frog in hot water, it would jump out immediately. However, if we put it in a beaker and gradually increase the temperature of water from cold to warm, from hot to boiling, the frog does not jump out. It dies instead. This is because the nervous system of frog is unable to detect gradual changes in temperature.

• Lack of focus on proactive action plus

• View of life being a misery in either case – action or no action plus

• Belief in everything being futile because everything is temporary and

• Refusal to look into the bigger picture and focusing only on a narrow set of precepts turned Buddhism into a frog.

It offered little resistance to invaders and virtually opened the doors for savages to India. Whatever Buddhism survived is far from original thoughts of the founder – a countless number of sects/ sub sects with an extremely diverse view and having the only image of Gautam Buddha in common.

Gita cautioned that wise people (Buddhas) must refrain from teaching too much wisdom to less intelligent people. This aggravates situation because they stop doing their duties in delusion of being intellectual. And fail to get wise due to their limitations. Buddhism suffered due to bypassing of this caution.

Pleasures many times exceed the pain

It is true that there is suffering in the world. But to say that it is pure unalloyed suffering, with no iota of pleasure is a dangerous generalization. Absolute unalloyed pessimism cannot goad a man to action. The world is not an abode of misery. The Benevolent God could not have made such a nasty world where suffering reigns. Even the most miserable in the world has some sort of joy that keeps him up. Even stoics had to summon up an exceptional resolve when they prepared themselves for suicide. No sane being wishes to die because behind all miseries there is hope that the all-blissful God will not leave us in the lurch. Whether one believes in God or not, in this hope for a better future lies the bliss and acceptance of Supreme power. To deny this is to deny reality. Moreover, a philosophy that denies realism cannot face the challenges of the real world.

Kapila states in Sankhya 5.113 that at least during Sushupti (deep slumber), Samadhi (deep meditation) and Moksha (Salvation) soul gets an experience of Supreme bliss.

Swami Dayanand succinctly explained the flaw in lines of Vedas: “If you compare the pleasure and pain of the world, pleasures many times exceed the pain. And many pure souls earn the bliss of salvation by constant practice of virtuous actions.”

(If Agniveer were to pick the most inspiring quote from entire Vedic teachings it has ever come across, it would undoubtedly be this one.)

This makes the Vedic philosophy distinctly optimistic and invigorating. It assuages the rigor of present life and makes the future hopeful. It illumines our present as well as future.

We wish if someone could have made this statement during times of Mahatma Buddha! History would have been different.

In the absence of this, Buddhism turned to escapism. (even though Mahatma Buddha himself was a man of action.)

When the savages attacked

• We were occupied with our meditation to ignore the self and cause of misery through indifference.

• We neglected built up of strong armies, regular training, and R&D on defense.

• We were indifferent to the need for reformist zeal to break the very roots of the caste system and gender discrimination.

• We refused to look into the Vedas to discover what the original teachings were.

• We were simply practicing indifference to real challenges around.

And today, while Buddhism does not prominently exist in India (except in Dharmashala where Dalai Lama is forced to have asylum after Chinese aggression), the philosophy and the myriad of other philosophies that emerged to amend or counter it, turns us into a fatalistic society. We have developed high inertia, resist the urge to face challenges, attempt to use philosophy as a tool to justify our escapism and have gradually moved towards becoming indifferent to whatever does not pinch us too strongly.

Ahimsa has become just an alibi for laziness and cowardice.

Conclusion

We do not mean that Buddhism is to be blamed for all this. Not at all. Buddhism was a natural reaction to the prevailing ironies in the society of those times. An essential one. We believe that people have different needs and level of evolution and hence, for many including Mahatma Buddha, this was the most optimal view of life. For a society that was focusing too much on blind rituals and irrational social practices, Buddhism gave the right shock to spur up more rational and logical thinking. The roots of the problem lay much earlier, and Buddhism was merely a logical and necessary outcome.

• Teachings of Mahatma Buddha are based purely on moral aspects of Vedas.

• His teachings also showcase his respect for Vedas.

• His vocabulary and usages were derived from Vedic texts.

• He was, in summary, a Vedic preacher to the best of his abilities.

There is NO WAY that Buddhism of Gautam Buddha can be termed as separate from Vedic Dharma. It is as much an offshoot attempting to reach the source – Vedic wisdom – as other sects.

However, the defection of the narrow, incomplete focus of Buddhism into a complete philosophy in its own right (which it never meant to be in first place) was detrimental to national interests.

Had Buddhism been a more informed and complete philosophy based on a more thorough and rigorous study of Vedas, instead of its apparent paradoxical rejection based on extremely superficial grounds, history would have been different.

Had Buddhists spent efforts to reform the society the way Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Swami Dayanand attempted, instead of attempting to split into a separate sect (which it never was), history would have been different.

Similarly, if all other sects and cults would not have been based on the bounded rationality of few well-intentioned men and had instead attempted to grab the complete picture of the concepts in their original source, the Vedas, the world would have been a much more sensible place today. Much more tolerant, broader in outlook and rational.

Whatever good that we see in any cult or sect is already existing in Vedas though elaborated through works and teachings of great legends from time to time. However, because most of these founders were addressing their imminent short-term needs and the followers believed in the exclusivity of their sect, the holistic view got missing.

The key lesson is that any incomplete or temporary solution for today would eventually become a problem tomorrow.

The only way is to adopt the complete solution

Swami Dayanand suggested a way to approach this issue of so many sects and cults and religions touching one part of the elephant each. Let all the common points in all these sects be brought together that are acceptable to all. For example, non-violence, morality, nationalism, truthfulness, non-stealing. Then eliminate all assumptions, beliefs and practices unique to each sect that is not otherwise explainable. This becomes the Universal Dharma for all human beings, and this is exactly what Vedas teach.

Agniveer respects all the great men of history who attempted to bring society closer to Vedic living and aspires that we evolve to reach the original source that all these great legends were attempting to reach – The wisdom of Vedas. Instead of viewing completeness in our own silo, let us attempt to integrate all the silos together into One. Let’s get back to the roots instead of holding on to each tiny branch as the source. No, we do not mean that all branches to be cut-off and only root of the tree should remain. We only desire that each branch knows that we form a tree only when all the branches are together and supported by the root. A branch detached from rest of the branches and root would only be a dry piece of wood. Let’s all be One Tree and strengthen the roots of the Tree that would then strengthen us all. This is the only way to pay our homage to their legacy. Our failure to do so brought us the miseries we faced till today.

Our success would ensure Shantih (peace, bliss, happiness) everywhere.

ॐ द्यौ: शान्तिरन्तरिक्षँ शान्ति:
पृथिवी शान्तिराप: शान्तिरोषधय: शान्ति: ।
वनस्पतय: शान्तिर्विश्वे देवा: शान्तिर्ब्रह्म शान्ति:
सर्वँ शान्ति: शान्तिरेव शान्ति: सा मा शान्तिरेधि ॥
ॐ शान्ति: शान्ति: शान्ति: ॥

Note: The views expressed are supposed to be a perspective to stir up thoughts, discussions, and introspection. They may be viewed in the context of the Agniveer’s stand and not otherwise.

[mybooktable book=”vedas-source-every-philosophy-makes-sense” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
[mybooktable book=”complete-works-agniveer” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]

Do not Hate, Live and Let Live


“O Agniveer, Why don’t you focus only on good points of your own faith. Why do you spread hatred against other faiths?”

“Agniveer, Don’t spew venom against other religions. Live and let live.”
“Agniveer is *******. They have a hate agenda.”
“Agniveer is anti-Islamic. They hate Muslims.”
“Agniveer has some decent intellectual stuff, but I’m a bit wary of them because of how much proselytism AGAINST other religions they do. I try and be a live and let live person, so I just ignore such things.”
and so on.
These represent a small sampler of a large number of feedback we have been receiving these days through mails, comments, tweets, facebook etc. This seems to be a perception issue that we would prefer to address promptly.
So we thought it would be appropriate to review these allegations rationally once more. Hopefully we would be more effective in explaining our thought process this time.
Q: Agniveer, why do you hate other religions?
A:
1. We believe in only one religion for entire humanity – religion of humanity as guided by Vedas. This is also called Hinduism. Regardless of whether one consciously follows or not, this is the real religion driving all rational/ tolerant/ compassionate human beings. So there actually exists no ‘other religion’ for us. And there exists no specific ‘my religion’ to preach! What is commonly called religion is simply a set of specific assumptions believed as given by a group of people regardless of its actual veracity. Assumptions are necessary for humans to survive and focus on more relevant things. But equally important is the skill to question assumptions in order to have more rational assumptions. We do try to do so at times, but only in the same manner as Galileo questioned the assumption of Gravity being proportional to weight and Kepler questioning the assumption of sun revolving round the earth.
Thus if Agniveer is guilty of this treason, so were the likes of Galileo, Einstein, Kepler and Newton. We know that Galileo was punished for his ‘blasphemous’ views because society had not evolved enough to place rationality ahead of everything else. If Agniveer is also condemned for same reason, then perhaps society needs to evolve further.
2. In the Vedic Dharma of Agniveer, there is no place for hatred. In fact, rising above feelings of hate, frustration, lust and lying is mandatory immediate goal of life so as to be eligible for higher goals. Thus whatever we say or write is devoid of any feeling of hatred. We simply try to be truthful and polite to our family members. (Entire humanity is one single family as per Vedas.)
However if we have inadvertently hurt any sentiments, we humbly apologize to our brothers and sisters. And request them to specify the exact reference so that we can rectify the mistake.
Q: Don’t give an elated speech full of moral hyperboles. Your site is focused on condemning other religions.
A:
1. The bulk of articles on the site are related to better understanding of Vedic concepts and addressing some of the popular myths surrounding them. Then there are articles on History, Freedom Fighters, Health, Sanskrit, Women Issues, Motivation, Inspiration and other secular subjects. These form the overwhelmingly major portion of the site.
2. We know that morality is becoming a hyperbole these days owing to abject materialism or headless superstitions. So while we don’t take such usages adversely, we do focus to put our bit to make morality appear more relevant for today’s world. That brings an additional focus on Vedas which we believe to be one of the best treatise on practical morality.
3. We do not condemn any religion and believe in respect for all view-points even though we may differ at times. We do not consider it wrong in any manner to rationally discuss similarities and differences in a friendly manner as we do in a family. This may at best be called “constructive analysis”.
Why religion, in all fields of knowledge there are multiple viewpoints. Experts of all these fields critically analyze each others’ viewpoint rationally and dispassionately. There are huge number of theories regarding origin of life, origin of consciousness, origin of universe, fundamental properties of matter/ energy etc. Its only through a process of critical analysis and mutual discussions that we arrive at better understanding. This is the core essence of scientific spirit. Only fanatics would associate irrelevant emotions with this process.
Q: Why don’t you respect all faiths, live and let live?
1. Suppose you start a school and teach the students that earth is flat and thunder happens when a person on sky sneezes. Would the government approve or allow your curriculum? Would you not consider it to be in spirit of science and rationality that one logically explains the fallacies of these theories?
Now if I state that these theories of flat earth and sneezing thunder come from a book that I consider to be religious, will that change the reality? Tomorrow I can assert that Harry Potters is my religious book and I be allowed to teach witchcraft in my school. Further all people should be banned from questioning witchcraft. No rational person would sanction such views.
All that Agniveer may have stated is that if any book has content that is blatantly against established science and logic, then it cannot be considered perfect. Does it not sound rational? And should this rationality change only because 80% of people of tribal Africa believe in this book or its ideas? Or because Harry Potters is a bestseller?
2. Further to this, because we consider creation of assumptions to be a natural trait of humans, we don’t condemn anyone or any group merely because of these assumptions. We may at times politely mention the logical fallacies, but would ensure that we do so with respect and sensitivity. We ensure we do not make it personal or associate any adverse emotions with this.
3. However we do and we would continue to very strongly condemn those people or groups of people who believe in any one or more of the following:
– all the people who do not believe in what they believe would be doomed in Hell forever, regardless of howsomuch noble or good they are.
– its their divine goal to coerce people to embrace their beliefs by force, fear or fraud.
– any person who was earlier in their group but has now left the group deserves to be killed under charge of apostasy.
– people who do not believe in what they believe deserve inferior rights in life even though they are peaceful and tolerant.
– women are less intelligent than men and hence deserve unequal social and political rights.
– certain people are born superior and deserve better rights from birth and others are inferior owing to birth in an inferior family.
Regardless of whether such people claim to be Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Communist or whatever, we shall always strive to destroy this blind fanaticism.We believe all rational minds of the world would also do the same in spirit of human rights, tolerance and equality. That is all Agniveer is trying to do.
Q: Don’t lie. You have so many articles against Islam. Agniveer is an anti-Islam site.
A: We do not condemn the original Quran because we have not read it. We believe original Quran is lost but do respect sentiments of those who do not consider so. However we condemn those available Quran and its translations that smell of one of the 6 points raised in previous answer and those people who believe so. We also condemn those non-Quranic texts like Hadiths and Tafseers that denigrate spirit of tolerance. And why we, many Muslim scholars have condemned the same. For example, refer to Dual Islam by Dr Ghulam Jilani Barq, the eminent Islamic scholar of Pakistan.
– Thus all our articles on Islam are targeted ONLY towards that version of Islam which has one of these 6 defects. This being a very prominent group these days, we had to put extra effort to thwart their ideology.
– There is nothing new that we have presented here. All our works are based on works of erstwhile and contemporary Islamic scholars.
– However if we have a Muslim or Quran lover who refuses to believe in the above 6 points, we have highest respect for them and our articles are not applicable to them.
For example, Ashfaqullah Khan, the great freedom fighter and a devout Muslim is a role model for us. We have a detailed article dedicated to him.
We may still have intellectual differences with them, but that is true between every two human beings even in same family and even among twins. It is not called hatred. It is called diversity.
Q: If you indeed respect tolerant Muslims, why do you ask them to embrace Vedic Dharma? Why this effort on proselytism?
A: This sounds of hypocrisy. A Mother Teresa gets a Nobel Prize for her missionary work aimed specifically at promoting Christianity and Agniveer is condemned for promoting Vedas!
1. We refuse to use force, coercion or fraud to convince anyone to believe in Vedas or embrace Vedic Dharma. We simply state the facts and share our views, which is a fundamental right. Every company sells its product. Pepsi asks you to drink its health-hazard and Coke will sell its own because some model smiles after drinking it. This is called unethical marketing in our view because they sell a harmful product on hype devoid of logic. Still that is considered ethical by everyone. We even idolize the cricketers and actors who act in these ads even though we know they are indulging in blatant falsehood.
But when an Agniveer refutes all allegations on Vedas, establishes the noble message of Vedas, proves that Vedas are unchangeable and oldest texts of humankind, and urges people to imbibe Vedic values if they appeal to them, this is called proselytism!
We call it honesty.
2. We do not consider Vedic Dharma to be a separate cult or religion. We consider it to be a natural property of all rational beings. We have stated multiple times that anyone who is rational and honest is Vedic in that perspective. The only prerequisite to be Vedic is to “Accept Truth and Reject Falsehood to best of their abilities and inner voice.”
If this is proselytism, we are only doing what all schools in world do, albeit more emphatically.
Q: Why then do you ask Muslims to convert to Hinduism?
A:
1. We did mention this in a few articles on Women Issues more from a practical and legal standpoint. Due to misdeeds of many Islamic representatives and their false preachings, women rights have been legally curtailed as per Islamic laws of most countries. Women don’t have divorce rights and many countries have completely stopped applications for even request for divorce from Muslim women. Further, believers in Hadiths and false translations of Qurans actually consider women to be inferior and insult women. We have cited purely from available translated texts of Islam as published by major publication houses of Islam and endorsed/ promoted by their prominent leaders.
We thus recommend that a woman should not marry any person who himself believes or supports a group that considers women as inferior and has a history of gender discrimination and torture. Thus a practical option for such couples to allay any future concerns would be to marry as per Hindu Family law that ensures these problems do not arise.
However this is only a recommendation and not a binding, purely from perspective of gender rights.
2. Further, many Muslims are unnecessarily targeted and doubted for their patriotism and tolerance because of bad deeds of terrorists and their mentors aka fanatic preachers of Islam. This problem has reached an alarming situation today. For such people also, it is better to either embrace Hinduism/ Vedic Dharma or announce vocally that they strongly condemn all those books/ translations/ people/ groups that believe in following:
– all the people who do not believe in what they believe would be doomed in Hell forever, regardless of howsomuch noble or good they are.
– its their divine goal to coerce people to embrace their believes by force, fear or fraud.
– any person who was earlier in their group but has now left the group deserves to be killed under charge of apostasy.
– people who do not believe in what they believe deserve inferior rights in life even though they are peaceful and tolerant.
– women are less intelligent than men and hence deserve unequal social and political rights.
– certain people are born superior and deserve better rights from birth and others are inferior owing to birth in an inferior family.
They should demand their religious leaders to clearly state their stand on above and condemn each of these vocally and clearly. Else they should quit that religious group in interest of humanity.
Note that because Vedic Dharma aka Hinduism is oldest religion of all human beings, and all humans are Vedic in some way or other, one should embrace Vedic Dharma proactively. A Muslim, Christian, Jew etc has to be Vedic in some aspect or other, but a Vedic follower need not follow any of these and may simply be a good man. The only prerequisite to be Vedic is to “Accept Truth and Reject Falsehood to best of their abilities and inner voice.”
So all rational ones should accept this universal natural religion.
This alone is the conversion that we seek.
We don’t ask anyone to deliberately quit their religion and adopt our ideology blindly. We instead appeal to all to respect Vedic Dharma. This was the religion of our ancestors, is most rational and tolerant and relevant for all human beings. So regardless of what else we believe in, at least be proud of our glorious heritage.
Nonetheless, even if one still disagrees, we respect his or her right to have his or her own set of assumptions in life. There is no fraud, force or coercion here. Only a very humble appeal to our loved family members.
Q: Why do you write against Zakir Naik so much then?
A:
1. It is the Zakir version of Islam that we vociferously condemn. Instead of cutting the branches, we believe in targeting the root. Zakir Naik being a mentor of terrorist mindset (and a very popular one) ,we are targeting that to offer our bit to destroy terrorism.
2. Zakir Naik as an individual is not our target. He is just one of the faces of a more fanatic mindset and mafia behind, that we intend to destroy through rationality and compassion.
3. Zakir Naik is a terrorist for us because he openly claims that all who quit Islam and propagate any other faith should be killed. He also believes that regardless of their good deeds, all non-Muslims shall burn in Hell forever. He considers that a man can marry again without taking previous wife’s permission unless specifically mentioned in a contract! He believes women should not be allowed bulk of professions except a few ones. Even women doctors (except gynecologists) are haram for him! Thus his fanatic stand coupled with anti-women ideology makes him a threat for society as per our views.
Thus we have a series of articles exposing his fanaticism. But this is only Zakir Islam. Interestingly, the most popular article on the site is “Why Muslims hate Zakir Naik so much” for which we have received accolades from lot many rational Muslims.
Q: Why do you condemn Prophet Muhammad then?
A:
While we personally do not believe in any Prophets or miracles, kindly cite one single article where we have condemned Muhammad.
We have indeed condemned those texts in Hadiths, Tafsirs and dubious translations of Quran that claim many bad things about Muhammad. Why only we, many eminent Muslim scholars have condemned it.
Q: Why are you against Christians then?
A:
1. Its a well-known fact that there is no original Bible. We have questioned only that sect of Christians that consider in fraudulent conversions and believes in only their brand of Christianity to be the way to some curious Heaven. In other words, we condemn only that brand of Christianity which believes in one or more of following:
– all the people who do not believe in what they believe would be doomed in Hell forever, regardless of howsomuch noble or good they are.
– its their divine goal to coerce people to embrace their believes by force, fear or fraud.
– any person who was earlier in their group but has now left the group deserves to be killed under charge of apostasy.
– people who do not believe in what they believe deserve inferior rights in life even though they are peaceful and tolerant.
– women are less intelligent than men and hence deserve unequal social and political rights.
– certain people are born superior and deserve better rights from birth and others are inferior owing to birth in an inferior family.
For others, we have no issues, except intellectual debates. These other tolerant groups may ignore our articles if the above points are not applicable to them.
2. Since most Christian societies take criticism in spirit and have liberalized significantly in this regard, they do not represent a threat like fanatic people in Zakir Islam. So we have only a small number of articles on them. And most of them have been written from works of respected scholars in Christian societies!
3. We are no way against Christians. In fact, on Love Jihad issue, we are working with Christians together in many areas like Kerala.
But yes, if the above criteria of tolerance are flouted, we, as responsible citizens, have right to question that specific group and thwart their malicious designs – be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Communist or whosoever.
Q: Why do you condemn Sufis then? They stood for peace and brotherhood.
A:
1. We have no objection to any school of thought based on peace, tolerance and brotherhood. If Sufis categorically state that all non-Muslims are also welcomed in Paradise if they do good deeds otherwise and that apostates have their rights to condemn Islam if they do so rationally, then we have highest respect for their love for human rights.
2. However, we have presented historical facts that role of several so-called Sufi saints like Chisti and Gazi Miyan was detrimental to national interest. We being rational beings, discard all stories of miracles as either cheap publicity stunts concocted by certain followers or cases of petty illusions. Almost all scientists and rationally guided educated people of world would agree with us on this. Cutting out this superstitious and miracle chaff, if we review the stories of Chisti and Gazi Miyan, we find that they supported the invaders. Gazi Miyan was himself an invader! So there is no way we can admire these and patriots like Ashfaqullah at the same time.
3. There have been many other Sufi poets and saints. We have high regard for their efforts towards universal brotherhood and devotion, whenever they acted in national interest. So we do not condemn Sufism in general. But we do question specific persons supposed to be Sufis who acted like agents of invaders or invaders themselves. This is not condemnation but constructive nationalist humanist analysis.
If someone can provide historical facts that they were not so and that they pass our 6 point test of tolerance and equality, we would be keen to change our stand on these individuals also.
4. By the way, Sufis are not under threat from Agniveer. Agniveer would rather enjoy their music and poems! The real threat comes from Jihadi or Wahabi Muslims who have been blowing Sufi shrines for years and more aggressively recently and Zakir Naik who considers Sufis as performing major sins. Agniveer would rather attempt to thwart such fanatic designs to blow up places, kill and hate.
Q: Why do you hate all Muslim rulers of history? What do you justify destruction of Babri Masjid? Is this not spread of hatred and venom?
A:
1. We have mentioned very clearly that none of these Muslim rulers had anything to do with Islam except for political benefit. Almost each and every Muslim ruler was a disgrace to humanity – Hindus and Muslims alike. This is view of even most eminent Muslim historians. Hassan Nisar states that we should not confuse Islam with Islamic history and Muslim masses with Muslim rulers.
2. We have provided evidences from the established books of history that the likes of Babur, Akbar, Shahjahan, Aurangzeb, Khilji, Ghazni, Qasim etc were literally butchers. Thus any monument constructed by them (if at all they constructed! Most such monuments were old monuments captured by them or built by demolishing places of worships of Hindus.) is a disgrace to humanity in general and more of a disgrace to Muslims.
3. We justify destruction of Babri Masjid because Babur was a homosexual and that is haram as per Islam. Further he was a mass murderer, drug addict and most inhuman person of his time. If Osama bin Laden deserves being hated, Babur deserves it even more.
Hence we justify destruction of this symbol of shame which is not a mosque in first place. Its only out of political conspiracy that so much of hue and cry is being raised over this fraud monument. We have many Muslim friends who have volunteered to build Ram temple there as their mark of respect from a national hero like Ram and to dissociate themselves from butchers like Babur and Aurangzebs who had nothing to do with Islam except demeaning it. We respect their sentiments.
Q: Why do you not condemn Gujarat riots of 2002?
A:
Who said so? We condemn every act of violence where innocents are killed. Be it Godhra, or post-Godhra riots, or Kashmir carnages, or bomb blasts in Pakistan, or fights in Somalia or Akbar’s loot of Chittor or Babur killing Afghans. Anyone indulging in or instigating violence over innocents is a psychopath as per our views. We fail to understand that from where did this notion creep up that we do not condemn Gujarat riots!
All we said once perhaps was that we consider media to be one of the biggest culprits in instigating Gujarat riots and sensationalizing it to cause hatred among communities.
Q: Why do you focus so much on religion?
A: Religion is not at all our focus. Our focus is rational tolerant humanity. Since religion forms a basic driving force for most of us and cause of major problems facing the earth, we humbly attempt to address this. Most of us would exhibit relatively high levels of rationality and criticality in other aspects of life like finances, economics, education, job, etc. But when it comes to religion, they would shut their minds and accept even the most bizarre serving on their plate without any questioning. This exceptional treatment of religious issues by masses has led to nurture of a whole big cartel of religious businessmen who would present anything that serves their selfish purpose in a religious packaging.
This, perhaps emanates from the wish of each of us to live beyond the death and our inability to comprehend the fundamental questions – Who we are? Where we came from? Where would we go?
Thus we see that almost all major problems facing the world are primarily caused because they are packaged as ‘religious’ and most people hence do not even question these. Here are a few examples of nuisances due to religious packaging and perhaps hardly any nuisance is left out which is more serious:
– Terrorism to achieve blessings of divine, destroy non-believers and avenge earlier damages
– Population growth as divine order
– Refusal to spread scientific education because that contradicts our religious teachings
– Hatred towards ‘others’ because they do not believe in what ‘we’ believe in
– Birth-based caste discrimination because our religion says ‘we’ were born superior
– Gender discrimination because our religion says that women are inferior and have lesser rights and scope of growth
– Wasteful spendings on pleasing the divine and trying to showcase ‘our religion’ is better
– Damage to environment
Then there are nuisances because many people turn completely atheists and refuse to believe in Law of Consequences of Actions (Law of Karma) out of frustration with existing religious packages. This abject materialism breeds another set of nuisances:
– Lack of accountability and urge to maximize selfish gains because ‘I live for myself and shall die one day’
– Prostitution and Adultery – because I must enjoy whatever way I can
– Erosion of ethical and moral values
– Commoditization of Women
– Tendency to fool people for short term gains – like the corporate-media-political- entertainment-sports mafia
– Feelings of depression, loneliness and emptiness causing huge number of other problems
– Alcoholism, drug abuse
– Damage to environment
In brief, because of either misuse of religion or rejection of spiritualism, 99% of the problems of the world exist. Only 1% issues like Tsunami and Earthquakes would remain to be tackled if we are able to address these problems which have a source in religion.
Thus we attempt to instill a sense of healthy inquisitiveness towards religion – the most dominating force of humankind today – and evolve to a stage where religion no more remains a source of problems but a source of spiritual strength. Hence our focus on religion.
Having said this, religion is still a minor focus for us. Secular topics like Health, Inspiration, Self-help, History, Nationalism, Global Vision and Education leading to Rational Spiritualism is our primary focus to which religion should evolve as end destination.
Q: Why are there so many hate-comments on your site?
A:
1. Kindly cite example of even one hate-comment from admins.
2. We believe in freedom of speech and hence allow everyone to express themselves.
3. We neither believe in comment policing nor have redundant resources to allocate on it. Only rarely do we moderate comments and most of the moderation is automatic based on certain in-built rules. Thus even adverse comments can creep in into the system. But as mature netizens, instead of worrying about them, we should take them in spirit. Truth cannot be scuttled by vague comments. And freedom of expression is the cornerstone of Internet discussions.
4. As a matter of fact, the number of hateful comments AGAINST Agniveer or its ideology overwhelm number of comments spewing hatred on other groups. Our rules are such that bulk of comments that denigrate other groups are automatically banned but comments AGAINST Agniveer are rarely blocked unless having a vulgar word.
5. If you think we should add a few more blacklisted words or rules to block certain obnoxious comments, please write to us. If its technically possible, we shall be keen to improve our existing rule base.
6. If there is a specific comment that is currently on site but deserves being moderated, please send us the hyperlink. We shall review it. (Only if we get only a few such requests. Otherwise it becomes a logistical nightmare)
We are not at all responsible for comments made by visitors.  Often comment sections turn into debate grounds, and in a way we support that. Because that leads to appreciation of truth.
We can only request all to desist from irrelevant comments and maintain respect and dignity while commenting. After all we all are one family!
Q: What if I am able to show excerpts from your articles that spew hatred or demean others?
A: Kindly inform us. If we have erred somewhere, we shall immediately make any corrections proactively. We carried out this appeal several times before also when such allegations were raised. But we have received not one single example of where we have written something that is not factual and is full of hatred instead. Hopefully we shall get these examples this time.
Q: What if I can refute your stand?
A: Please feel free to publish any rebuttals to our stand. There are already several sites that specifically counter the articles on Agniveer. We encourage this because this leads to more critical evaluation and judgment of truth.
Many challenge us to counter their rebuttals to our articles. Please note that it is humanly impossible for us to counter every other challenge. Everyone is requested to discuss them with a very active and extremely intellectual group of visitors on Agniveer and enlighten us all.
However, unfortunately, most of the rebuttals so far were merely emotional outbursts devoid of reasonable logic. We expect to have more rational rebuttals that can impress well-educated and intellectual minds and scientific brains. This would help us improve upon and amend the content to provide a more rational standpoint.
In summary, entire world is one single family for all of us. We love all in same manner as we love our brothers and sisters. Our aim is to promote rational humanity and this sense of ‘one family’ across all.
When someone is not part of your family, you may choose to ignore what they do even if that is harmful for them. But for your family members, you would always seek their benefits even if that causes you some inconvenience personally. This also does not mean that you would meddle with individual personal lives and force your own views on your family members. This simply means that you shall humbly state your views, respect your family members’ right to accept or reject your views but you shall always seek their well-being in heart, regardless of how they take your views. And when need arises, you shall be willing to do worthwhile actions for their well-being.
This is the spirit with which we have taken Agniveer mission. We hope that with everyone’s cooperation and support, this would be a success. And each of us would be an Agniveer in the truest sense of the word.
If you have any other doubts or concerns, please let us know so that we can address that as well.
Om Shantih Shantih Shantih
May Peace, Tolerance and Compassion prevail across all living beings for each other!

Namaste to entire family
Namaste

Sikhism and Vedas

Sikhism represents a tradition that every Indian is proud of. The Sikh Gurus have inspired us in an era that was perhaps the most challenging phase of our history. One cannot forget the contributions of Sikh Gurus and their selfless sacrifices to consolidate the society, to provide them direction and overthrow the rule of invaders. That is why the Sikh Gurus are revered not only by Sikhs but all nationalists in general as role models.

The medieval era represents the darkest phase of our society. Internally, we were being eroded by termites of casteism, gender discrimination and overt ritualism dissociated from Vedas, and externally, we were being butchered by a tribe of the most uncivilized society of West Asia – read the Ghaznis, Khiljis, Mughals, Slaves, Tughlaqs, etc.

The Sikh gurus, in these turbulent times, lit the lamp of Vedic wisdom and steered the society towards the fundamental tenets of our culture – rationalism, actions, and compassion.

Often there is a dispute over whether Sikhism is part of Hinduism or a separate religion. In our view, this is a meaningless debate because the word Hinduism has different connotations. From a western mindset, Hinduism represents a mix of very specific rituals associated with casteism, gender discrimination, and idol worship. If this is Hinduism, then Sikhs are definitely not Hindus.

However, if Hinduism is considered to mean the culture that is inspired by the philosophy of Vedas, then perhaps not many sects are more Hindu than Sikhs. Sikhism represents the message of Vedas in simple language of a layman.

Sikhism – Representation of Vedic wisdom

Let us see what makes Sikhism an extremely pure representation of Vedic wisdom (We shall ignore later day aberrations and focus on the key message of the great Gurus):

• Sikhism rejects birth-based casteism and believes in equality of all.

• Sikhism believes in gender equality.

• Sikhism believes in the protection of cows because it is one of the most useful gifts of God to humans.

• Sikhism believes in actions as means to achieve God. They reject a withdrawal from life.

• Sikhism believes in one single timeless shapeless omnipresent God whose best name is Onkaar (Om + Kaar). This is almost verbatim translation of Yajurveda 40.8.

• Sikhism believes in the theory of Karma and rebirth.

• Sikhism refuses the concept of Heaven/ Hell and believes in salvation as the ultimate goal.

• Sikhism believes in Nama Smaran or understanding the names and properties of God as a way to achieve Him.

• Sikhism considers Maya or ignorance as an obstacle to salvation and urges to eradicate it through devotion, noble actions, and knowledge.

• Sikhism takes it as our utmost duty to fight against the injustice of any kind. The lives of Sikh gurus exemplify this.

• Sikhism considers entire humanity as one family and refuses to have different treatments for people of different beliefs and religions.

The list can continue further. Note that if we replace Sikhism in above lines with ‘Vedic Dharma,’ we would realize that the points still hold valid.

Vedas in Sikh texts

Let’s know what Sikh texts say about Vedas.

• God created Vedas. (Onkaar ved nirmaye- Rag Ramkali Mahla 1 Onkar Shabd 1) Further, the Guru Granth Sahib very clearly elucidates on the glory of Vedas.

• With an order of God, Vedas were created so that humans can decide what is a virtue and what is a sin. (Hari aagya hoye Ved paap punya vichaariya- Maru Dakhne Mahla 5 Shabd 17)

• No one can value the importance of Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda and Atharvaveda. (Sam Ved, Rig, Yajur, Atharvan brahme mukh maaiya hai traigun, taakee keemat kah na sakai ko….- Marusolahe Mahla 1 Shabd 17)

• God created a day, night, forests, greenery, water and four Vedas that are like four treasures. (Chaar Ved chaare khaani- Rag Maru Mahla 5 Shabd 17)

• How can glory of Vedas be stated whose knowledge is without end? (Ved vakhaan kahahi ik kahiye, oh ve ant ant kin lahiye- Vasant Ashtapadiyan Mahla 1.3)

• Of the infinite texts, Vedas are the best. (Asankh granth mukhi Ved paath- Japuji 17)

• All the Shastras, Vedas, and ancient texts describe the Supreme Lord. (Smriti sastra Ved puraan paar brahm ka karahi vakhiyaan- Gaund Mahla 5 Shabd 17)

• Noble persons elucidate the glory of Vedas, but unfortunate people do not understand. (Ved bakhiyaan karat saadhujan bhaagheen samjhat nahi khalu- Todi Mahla 5 Shabd 26)

• Study of Vedas enhances knowledge by blessings of God. (Kahant Veda gunant guniya…- Sahaskriti Mahla 5.14)

• Analysis of Vedas, Shastras, and ancient texts enriches the entire family and makes them lucky. (Ved puran saasatr vichaaram…. badbhaagi Naanak ko taaram- Gatha Mahla 5.20)

• Vedas describe the glory of one God. (Kal mein ek naam kripaanidhi … ih vidhi Ved bataavai- Rag Sortha Mahla 9 Shabd 5)

• Do not say that Vedas are false. False are those people who do not analyze. (Ved katev kahahu mat jhoothe jhootha jo na vichaare- Rag Prabhati Kabirji Shabd 3)

• Those who studied Vedas were called Vedis. They initiated noble virtuous acts. Listening to Rigveda, Samveda, Yajurveda and Atharveda destroyed all sins. (Jinai Ved padhyo suvedi kahaaye… Padhe Sam Vedam Yajur Ved Kattham Rigam Ved paathayam kare bhaav hattham… Atharav Ved pathayam suniyo paap nathiyam…- Dasham Guru Granth Sahib Vichitra Natak Adhyaya 4)

Glory of Vedas in Guru Granth Sahib

To check more examples of glory of Vedas in Guru Granth Sahib readers can refer following:

• Chauth upaaye chaare Veda- Rag Bilawal Mahla 1 Thiti

• Chache chaar Ved jin saaje chaare khani chaar juga- Rag Asa Mahla 1 Pati Likhi Shabd 9

• Oordh mool jis saakh talaaha chaar Ved jit laage- Gujri Ashtapadiyan Mahla 1.1

• Chare Ved hoye sachiyaar- Asadi Var Mahla 1 Var 13

• Chaturved mukh vachni uchre- Rag Gaudi Mahla 5 Shabd 164

• Chaturved pooran hari naai Ramkali Mahla 5 Shabd 17

• Chaar pukaarahi na tu maane Ramkali Mahla 5 Shabd 12

• Chaar Ved jihwa bhane- Rag Sarang Mahla 5 Shabd 131

• Brahme ditte Ved Rag Malar Var Mahla 2 Var 3

• Chaare Ved Brahme kau diye padh padh kare vichari- Rag Asa Mahla 3 Shabd 22

• Chaare Ved Brahme np furmaayia- Maaru Solahe 3.22

• Chaare deeve chahu hath diye eka eki vaari- Vasant Hindol 1.1

• Vedu pukaare vaachiye vaani brahm biaas- Shreeraag Ashtpadiyan 1.7

• Vedan ganh bole sach koi- Maajh Vaar Mahla 1 Vaar 12

• Deeva jale andhera jaai Ved paath mati paapan khaai- Raag Suhi

• Ved pukaarai punn paap surag narak ka veeu- Raag Saarang Vaar 1.16

• Gurumukhi parche Ved vichari- Raag Ramkali Sidh Gosht Shabd 28

• Puchhahu Ved pandatiyaan muthi vin maane- Rag Maaru Ashtpadiyan 1.6

• Man hath kine na paaiyo puchhahu Vedaam jaai- Shri Raag Vaar 3.10

• Smriti saasat Ved vakhaanai bharmai bhoola tat na jaanai- Rag Maajh Ashtpadiyan 3.18

• Veda mahi naam uttam so- Rag Ramkali Mahla 3 Aanand 19

• Hari jeeu ahankaar n bhaavai Ved kook sunaavahi- Rag Maaru 3.9

• Jugi jugi aapo aapna dharm hai sodh dekhahu Ved puraan- Rag Vilaaval 3.4

• Saasat Ved puraan pukaarahi dharam karahu shat karam dradaiya- Vilaaval Mahla 4.2

• Naanak vichaarahi sant jan chaar Ved kahande- Rag Gaudi Vaar 4.12

• Vaani brahm Ved dharam dradahu paap tajaaiya bal raam jeeu- Suhi Chhant 4.2

• Das ath chaar Ved sabh poochhahu jan naanak naam chhudaai jeeu- Maaru 4.8

• Smrat saasat Ved vakhaane jog gyaansidh sukh jaane- Rag Gaudi 5.111

• Ved puraan smrat bhane- Gaudi 5.144

• Saasat smrat Ved vichaare mahaapurushan iu kahiya- Rag Gaudi 5.162

• Ved saasat jan pukaarahi sunai nahi dora- Rag Aasa 5.152

• Saasat Ved smriti sabhi….- Gujri 5.2

• Chaar pukaarahi na tu maanahi- Ramkali 5.12

• Kahant Veda gunant guniya- Salok sahaskriti Mahla 5.14

• Ved puraan saasatr vichaaram- Gatha Mahla 5.20

• Ved puraan saadh sang- Rag Gaudi 9.6

• Ved puraan padhai ko ih gun simre hari ko naama- Rag Gaudi 9.7

• Ved puraan jaas gun gaavat taako naam hiye mein dhar re- Gaudi 9.9

• Ved puraan smriti ke mat sun nimash na hiye vasaavai- Rag Sorath 9.7

Condemnation of Vedas in Guru Granth Sahib

Guru Granth Sahib also consists of several verses that appear to be a condemnation of Vedas. These are often cited to prove that Sikhism is a separate cult.

However, this is a very childish argument. How can Guru Granth Sahib condemn Vedas when it also praises it to an extent that it calls Vedas divine and that those who do not appreciate Vedas as foolish?

In reality, the condemnation of Vedas relates to those people who only mug up Vedas but do not live their lives accordingly. Alternatively, those people who distort the message of Vedas by claiming to have expertise. The likes of Western Indologists and communist historians who see beef and wine in Vedas perfectly exemplify the target of this condemnation.

Moreover, why Guru Granth Sahib, Vedas themselves condemn such hypocrites.

Rigveda 1.164.39 very clearly announces –

“What can the Richas of Vedas do for a person who does not possess intellect.”

Upanishads and Geeta also condemn a person who claims expertise in Vedas but does not preach.

If one reviews the Guru Granth Sahib dictionary by renowned Sikh scholar Tara Singhji, he will find a striking similarity between what he wrote on Vedas and what was written by Swami Dayanand. Not many know that Tara Singhji, considered to be father figure of modern Sikh movement, was a founder of Vishwa Hindu Parishad!

Conclusion

We see that Sikhism represents the essence of Vedic wisdom in simple language of common man and rejects all those external features that are wrongly associated with Hinduism.

Our humble reverence to the great Sikh Gurus, who saved the society by lighting the lamp of Vedic wisdom when there was utter darkness.

Let’s now work to carry forward their noble legacy by living by this wisdom and bringing transformation in self, society and world through service, devotion, and actions.

(For a thorough treatment of this subject, we strongly recommend the book “Arya Siddhant aur Sikh Guru” by Swami Swatantranand, a legendary freedom fighter, leader of Hyderabad Satyagrah movement and established Vedic scholar.)

[mybooktable book=”vedas-source-every-philosophy-makes-sense” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
[mybooktable book=”complete-works-agniveer” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]

Learn Sanskrit Month 5

Fifth installment of the course.
Routine reiteration:
a. Do not get too bogged down by grammar and usage while you learn Sanskrit. Often Sanskrit is considered to be all about mugging up lots of declensions and conjugations and this fears off most students. Instead take is as a natural language. Feel free to make the most blatant grammatical errors so far you are able to convey your message. Develop a feel for the language instead of thinking about grammar.
How did we learn Hindi or English or our mother tongue? Did we learn grammar first or language first? And do we speak these languages in a grammatically correct fashion even today? Why burden Sanskrit with overdose of grammar in very beginning then?
Simply start talking on every other thing in Sanskrit and enjoy the funny pronunciations you make or blatant errors you make in grammar. Have a laugh on that and simply continue. Soon you will develop a natural grip over the language and grammar will be automatically taken care of.
b. Try using Sanskrit words even in your mother language. After all Sanskrit is the mother of all languages. Let the children associate with their Mom and have their foundations strengthened! And in process, your road to mastery of Sanskrit will also be traversed faster.
c. Download a copy of Introduction to Vedas (Hindi) from http://agniveer.com/2045/introduction-to-vedas/ if you know Hindi. This is an amazing text not only to understand Vedic concepts but learn Sanskrit naturally. Because most sections of the book are presented in very simple Sanskrit as well as Hindi. In some sections there are deviations in Sanskrit and Hindi message and it would be a good idea to explore those areas and form the right opinion!
Download: Sanskrut Lesson 24 to 27 – Month 5
For supplements, download from http://www.chitrapurmath.net/sanskrit/supplements_rev.asp
Source of Lessons – Sri Chitrapur Math http://chitrapurmath.net

Soma, Alcohol and Vedas

This entry is part 3 of 8 in the series Vedas - Myths and Reality

This is an analysis of the claim that Vedas talk about alcoholism or intoxication by use of some narcotic called Soma. As mentioned in a previous article, the growing popularity of Vedas in recent months seems to be the catalyst for a sudden surge in this allegation.
We received a challenge few days ago to explain our stand on this issue. We would get straight to work, explore the truth and address some of the allegations.
Allegation:
All leading scholars have asserted that Vedas speak of merits of consuming Soma or intoxicants. All Vedic Rishis were addicts of Soma.

Agniveer:

The above statement is not at all an allegation. On contrary its a fact. And its a fact that makes us admire Vedas so much. Its a fact that has compelled renowned intellectuals of the world to admire Vedas in awe. Its a fact that drives us to put our best efforts to spread the culture of Soma consumption across the world.
What needs to be understood is that this intoxication of Soma is no ordinary intoxication. It is that intoxication which inspires noble souls to relentlessly pursue the vision of universal well-being and even face harshest of miseries with a peaceful smile.
Multiple meanings of Soma
Soma has multiple meanings. However the core essence is that Soma refers to something that produces happiness, peace, relaxation and enthusiasm. Probably that is why in later era, its usage as synonym of alcohol or intoxicant got popular. After all, a hungry dog sees only meat in every body! Same goes for perverted beings.
Let us now review some alternate meanings of Soma:
– Soma refers to Moon because moonlight provides peace. That is why Mo(o)nday is Somvaar. Now is Moon a wine-shop that it is so called (assuming that Soma means alcohol or narcotic)?
– A peaceful and amicable person is called Saumya. Now if Soma means an intoxicant, then why people across different parts of India name their children Saumya? One is invited to read any dictionary to know what Saumya (सौम्य) means. Refer dictionaries of Marathi, Gujarati, Kannada, Bengali, Malayalam etc and you would find scores of words derived from Soma that mean friendliness.
– The famous temple of Gujarat (that was plundered by a butcher called Mahmud Ghazni) is called Somnath. If Soma means intoxicant, then perhaps the temple should have allowed it! But as referred earlier, it means a gentle lord or lord of the moon.
– Soma also refers to certain medicines that promote longevity and act as relaxant. For example, Giloya which is very useful in heart diseases and provides a cooling effect on body.
Primary meaning of Soma in Vedas
In Vedas however, in most places, Soma refers to God or Ishwar focusing on those qualities of Ishwar that provides us with peace, bliss, satisfaction and global vision. In few places esp in Atharvaveda, it has come to mean certain medicines. But nowhere can it be termed to mean a mundane intoxicant.
Thus, Rigveda 1.91.22 states that:
“O Soma, You alone create the medicines that heal us. You alone create the water that quenches our thirst. You alone create all moving objects, sense organs and living beings and also give us this life. You have provided expanse to this universe and you alone enlighten the world to eradicate darkness.”
Now only a fool would claim that Soma refers to any intoxicant or alcohol when Soma is said to be creator of universe, stars, life, objects etc. Very clearly Soma refers to the Supreme Lord – the Ishwar or God.
And hence, Soma intoxication implies entrenching oneself completely in devotion to that Supreme Lord. To see Him everywhere and guide oneself solely by His inspiration is Soma intoxication. To follow only the inner voice that communicates with us every moment and rejecting all worldly and sensory pressures is Soma intoxication. To rise completely above the old habits, past tendencies and false ego is  Soma intoxication. To surrender totally to Him is Soma intoxication.
A rough analogy would be with Superconductivity. Once a material is taken below a certain threshold temperature, suddenly resistance becomes zero. Similarly when we have practiced following our inner voice sufficiently, suddenly the world seems to different – so enlightening, so refreshing, so blissful and so blessed by Him everywhere. This stage of heightened association with Ishwar is the stage of Soma intoixcation that Vedas describe in detail.
And yes, it is only when Rishis have reached this stage that they get Vedic inspirations and are able to comprehend meaning of Vedic mantras. It is then that the Rishis ‘see’ the Vedic mantras through the eyes of intellect. In fact, one is called Rishi only after she or he has reached this enlightening stage of Soma intoxication.
Ayurveda very clearly defines what an intoxicant is:
Sharngadhar 4.21: A substance that destroys intellect is called an intoxicant.
To understand Soma better and see why it cannot refer to any material/mundane chemical even closely related to alcohol, intoxication or narcotics, let us review a few more mantras on Soma.
Rigveda 9.24.7:
Soma is not only pure in itself but also purifies everything else. Some is extremely sweet and promotes noble qualities. It destroys sinful tendencies.
Even a dumb person that understand that Soma refers to something intellectual and spiritual and not something as disgusting as alcohol or narcotics
Rigveda 9.37.36:
O Soma, purify us from everywhere. Enter us with excitement and strengthen our speech. Inculcate a sharp intellect within us.
Thus while alcohol or narcotics is taking to dumb the mind, Rishis yearn for Soma because it sharpens the mind and gears them into noble actions.
Rigveda 9.108.3:
O Soma, You purify everything. You are the best source of enlightenment. You lead us towards immortality.
Should we say more!
Atharvaveda 14.1.3:
Ordinary people consider that as Soma which is used as medicine. But the enlightened ones seek the Soma of intellect which materialistic minds cannot even comprehend!
If we review the Pavamana Parva of Samaveda Purvarchika, we can get a wider glimpse of the Vedic Soma.
It is described as something that brings enthusiasm, tolerance and valor.
1.2: O Soma, purify me.
1.3: O Soma, you are source of vitality and bliss.
1.4: O Soma, your intoxication is worth imbibing.
6.5: O Soma, you give birth to our intellect.
6.8: Use Soma to produce intellect.
9.2: Soma provides us with intelligence.
7.12: Intelligence seeks Soma.
9.6: Soma enhances intellect.
Thus while Soma produces intoxication, this intoxication actually strengthens our intellect and reduces dumbness.
2.5 of Pavamana Parva describes
Soma as Chetan or living. Thus Soma is not something inert. It is a living force that enhances intellect. It is the Supreme Lord!
How can thus a sensible person relate it with a mundane narcotic?
This Parva of Samaveda provides some more adjectives of Soma:
3.2: One who sees everything actively (Vicharshani)
5.9: Extremely intelligent (Vipra)
5.9: Best of the scholars (Angirastamah)
9.1: Expert (Vichakshanah)
8.4: Knows self (Swarvidah)
2.10: Sees everything clearly (Kavi)
3.6: Knows his duties perfectly (Kratuvit)
11.1: An intoxication that inspires us to perform duties perfectly (Kratuvittamo Madah)
8.4: One who knows the path clearly (Gatuvittamah)
1.7: Adept (Daksha)
1.8: Source of adeptness (Dakshasadhana)
4.2: Adeptness that provides happiness (Daksham Mayobhuvam)
5.11: Provides strength (Vajasatam)
6.7: Protector of world (Bhuvanasya Gopaa)

If this be not enough, the Parva also states Soma to be:
5.1: One seated on the home of immortality
6.3: One who inspires noble minds towards fundamental truth (Rita)
6.2: Speaks to us (Inner voice)

2.3: Destroys hatred
4.12: Inspires towards friendship and solidarity
4.14: Destroys meanness and violence
10.11: Destroys corrupt mindset
8.4: Devoid of sins
6.6: Provides whatever is worth obtaining
6.1: Greatest donor
7.4: Carrier of life force
4.3: Desired by non-violent minds
This is merely a small sampler from the copious references from Vedas that very clearly establish Soma as the pure blissful Ishwar and its intoxication as complete surrender to the Supreme Lord.
Vedas and intoxication
Almost every other mantra of Vedas yearn for enhancement of intellect/ health and repulsion towards all those tendencies and articles that destroy these. Be it the Gayatri Mantra or the Mrityunjaya, all exemplify this.
To conclude the discussions, let us provide a few references from Vedas that condemn intoxication.
Rigveda 10.5.6:
One becomes sinful if he or she crosses even one of the 7 restraints. Yaskacharya defines these 7 sins in his Nirukta as: Theft, Adultery, Murder of a noble person, Abortion, Dishonesty, Repeating misdeeds and consumption of alcohol.
Rigveda 8.2.12:
Those who consume intoxicants lose their intellect, talk rubbish, get naked and fight with each other.
Rigveda 7.86.6:
An action performed as per the inner voice does not lead to sins. Dumb arrogance against inner voice, however, is source of frustration and miseries in same manner as intoxication and gambling destroy us. Ishwar inspires those with noble elevated thoughts towards progress and propels down those who decide to think lowly. Lowly acts performed even in dreams cause decline.
Atharvaveda 6.70.1:
Weak minds are attracted towards meat, alcohol, sensuality and womanizing. But O non-violent mind, you focus your mind towards the world in same manner as a mother cares for her child.
In summary, intoxication is considered as recipe for weakness, failure and destruction!
Allegation:
Even Vivekananda has asserted that Vedas justified alcoholism. How do explain: “The old gods were found to be incongruous — these boisterous, fighting, drinking, beef-eating gods of the ancients — whose delight was in the smell of burning flesh and libations of strong liquor. Sometimes Indra drank so much that he fell upon the ground and talked unintelligibly. These gods could no longer be tolerated.” This is taken from http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_2/jnana-yoga/maya_and_the_evolution_of_the_conception_of_god.htm
Agniveer:
First, a lot of writings of Swami Vivekananda as published by RK Mission appear questionable as it contradicts his own writings. Many are said to be translation of his speeches. They were published after his death. We have reasons to believe that they are not authentic. In fact, almost all such allegations form part of some speech he delivered and not what he wrote by his own hands.
But even for a moment, we assume that all this is indeed written by Swami Vivekananda, it only shows that he had not studied Vedas properly and his thoughts on Vedas were influenced by western indologists.
While we respect Swami Vivekananda as a charismatic Yogic personality, powerful orator and impressive writer on neo-Vedanta, he is not an authority for us in matters of Vedas, if this is what he wrote.
We have provided with specific references from Vedas that beef and alcohol have no place in Vedic dharma. Instead of quoting personal views of Swami Vivekananda or any person for that matter, one should quote from Vedas to refute the stand that has been taken by us as well as all sages from inception of Vedas till date. Why hide behind a saint instead of arguing coherently?
By the way, another interesting point to think about is that if indeed Vedas recommend beef and alcohol, why have been the traditional Vedic Brahmins farthest from these vices for ages? Just food (not beef or alcohol!) for thought.
Allegation:
Vedic scholars like Radhakrishnan and K M Munshi – founder of Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan – have also stated that Vedic rishis used to drink alcohol and eat beef.
Agniveer:
We are not sure about Dr Radhakrishnan, but we agree that K M Munshi held such views that he expressed in his novel Lopamudra. We would only say that many works of K M Munshi have been derogatory to our ancient heritage and role models as well as are completely baseless. Several of his novels are full of vulgarity. His series on Krishna was extremely offensive. Same goes for Lopamudra. He was a political person and it is unfortunate that he treaded into an area that he shouldn’t have unless he had the right competence. The works of Bharati Vidya Bhawan in this area have been most damaging and misleading. Please refer “Vedon ka Yatarth Swaroop” by Pt Dharmadeva which comprehensively addresses false allegations of Vedic Age, Lopamudra and other derogatory texts.
But regardless of views of personalities howsomuch famous or influential – Dr Radhakrishnan, KM Munshi, Swami Vivekananda or whosoever – we would seek specific and logical references from Vedas instead of empty quotes.
Allegation:
If Soma means a medicinal plant that no one knows, then all the verses of Vedas that talk of Soma become useless today.
Agniveer:
We have already shown earlier that Soma means bliss-providing Ishwar. But even if Soma means a medicine that no one knows today, that does not make Vedas irrelevant. That only imply that humanity should strive to explore such useful medicines. A book like modern Quran that demands blind acceptance without having even the time to understand it (there is only one life as per modern scholars of Quran!) has huge number of verses that are supposed to be Gaib or incomprehensible for humans. Then what is the problem with having a vast number of verses in Vedas that are not understood by dumb minds today? After all Vedas provide you with a long cycle of rebirths to finish your homework! It also does not demand that one should complete the course of Vedas or even believe in Vedas to achieve some Heaven and escape some permanent Hell.
Allegation:
If Vedas do not talk of alcohol or intoxication, why do we have words like Soma, Mada, Madhu in Vedas that relate to intoxication.
Agniveer:
This is most stupid argument.
1. Vedas offered the first words that depicted root essence. Based on that later vocabularies were built. For example, Soma means bliss giving. Intelligent people used it to depict friendly people etc. But for people on path of decline, even alcohol is apparently bliss giving. Same for other words.
2. Don’t we have similar examples in other languages? Gay means a happy person. But what it means today is known to all of us. Interestingly older dictionaries would not even have homosexual as a meaning for gay. Meat not only means flesh but also substance of a point. In fact almost all words have multiple meanings. Only dumb people would try to distort meaning of a sentence through wrong usage.
In conclusion, the only reasons why one would see alcohol in Vedas are either they have not studied Vedas or have an antipathy towards Vedas.
For rest of us, Vedas only encourage for enhancement of intellect and knowledge. And thus condemn anything that diminishes these.
The Soma Ras of Vedas is the divine devotion of the Supreme that elevates us from all miseries, all frustrations, all doubts, all sins and galvanizes us towards virtuous actions with unimaginable enthusiasm and ultimate bliss.
May we all work together to spread pursuit of this Soma in entire universe and pray for immortality of all.
The call of Soma is for the brave. The call of Soma is for the Yajna (noble selfless actions). The call of Soma is for those warriors who have glorified themselves through constant struggle and relentless efforts. O Soma seekers, destroy the dogs of lust and greed and listen to the most beautiful melody of Soma. (Rigveda 9.101.13)
References:
Works of Pt Chamupati, Prof Rajendra Jijnasu and Prof Dharmadeva Vidyamartanda.
This post is also available in Hindi at http://agniveer.com/soma-alcohol-and-vedas-hi/.
[mybooktable book=”divine-vedas” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
[mybooktable book=”complete-works-agniveer” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]

How many mantras are there in Rigveda?

This entry is part 3 of 5 in the series Preservation of Vedas

The last few months have seen a significant upsurge in interest towards Vedas in the cyberspace. The concept of universal brotherhood devoid of sectarian beliefs, rejection of blind faith in miracles as necessary to be spiritual, as well as view that religion and science are one and same – seem to be what the modern world exactly demands. Thus, Vedas seem to offer what the world needs today.
A greater awe is derived from the fact that the very first texts of the mankind which elaborate on the very lessons whose surface is barely been scratched by so-called modern subjects like human-rights, gender-rights and democracy has been so immaculately preserved and protected that not only each alphabet but even its pitch remains unchanged since its inception. Please refer http://agniveer.com/2697/why-vedas-cannot-be-changed/ for a glimpse of this.
The rise of Vedic movement has also brought to fore a series of misleading allegations being propagated by those who refuse to accept that all humans – regardless of their beliefs – can be blessed by the Supreme, or those whose blood boils at very mention of life being anything beyond a chemical reaction. This does not come as a surprise especially when we have even a ‘Flat Earth Society’ today or die-hard believers in ‘Moon being split into two by a human finger some 1400 years ago’.
One old time allegation that has emerged again after a long gap is that different versions of Rigveda have different number of mantras. Earlier, the allegation was propounded by atheists or evangelists. But this time the allegation is driven by those
– who cannot digest the fact that a book that is considered divine can actually recommend that God/ Ishwar/ Allah does not punish anyone merely because he or she does not believe in Him or even His book.
– who find it rebelling to support a book that says that men and women have equal rights and opportunities and in fact women education is even more critical for the society.
– who cannot accept that a divine book can assert that blind belief is cause of miseries and hence even that book should not be believed blindly.
– who cannot accept that a divine book recommends simply adherence to truth to best of one’s intent and enhancing knowledge through noble actions as only criteria for being spiritual EVEN IF that goes against the dictates of that book itself in short run.
– who cannot accept that a divine book can be a book of best practices rather than a book that threatens those who do not adopt it blindly.
In this article, we shall analyze this allegation of different versions of Rigveda having different number of mantras and show that it does not hold any water. However we would also like to add that even if one is able to prove that there are minor aberrations in so-called different versions of Vedas, that does not make Vedic Dharma less relevant. Because the essence of Vedic Dharma would still remain valid – to accept truth, seek truth proactively and reject falsehood/ blind belief. When Vedas don’t demand one to blindly believe in the book and stop applying one’s brains, and in fact caution against such an approach in first place, this allegation loses its steam completely. A rough analogy would be that someone claims that CBSE is not a useful Board for education right from Class 1 to Class 12 because two pages of its maths book for class 11 have printing errors!
Having said that we would like to state that our Rishis were genius enough to devise ways to protect the wisdom of Vedas in most perfect manner. And thus, in reality there is only one version of Rigveda that exists. There may be printing or proof-reading errors in some of the published versions. But there is complete unanimity on more than 10,000 mantras of Rigveda being the same ones since ages.
This is true that different scholars have enumerated different number of mantras in Rigveda. For example,
Shaunakiya Anuvakanukramani – 10580 and 1 Paada
Chhandasankya Parishishta – 10402
Riksarvanukramani Commentrator Jagannath – 10552
Charanvyuh Commentraror Mahidas – 10552
Venkatmadhav – 10402
Swami Dayanand Saraswati – 10589
Prof MacDonald – 10442
etc.
All of these calculations are largely correct (except perhaps minor errors and omissions). The difference in number appears merely because in difference in calculation approach. Let us understand how.
Note: The words Mantra or Richa are used interchangeably here and imply a verse of Vedas – Rigveda in current context. Also note that even the verses from various branches or shakhas or Vedas are called Mantras for ease of convenience. But since Shakha represents a variation from original Veda Samhita or collection of Vedic Mantras, the verses of a shakha that differ from original Vedas are not technically Mantras. So from a conventional sense, a verse in Vedas or its branches is called a Mantra or Richa.
In Rigveda there are several mantras which are considered to be comprising 2 Paadas (Dwipada or couplet) or sometimes comprising 4 Paadas (Chatushpadas or quadruplet). Paada means one portion of the verse. For a shloka, each line of shloka represents one Paada.Dwipada and Chatushpada Mantras
Now in Rigveda, there are 157 Dwipada Richas or mantras. Of these, 17 Dwipadas are Nitya Dwipada or permanent Dwipada. Other 140 Dwipadas are temporary (Naimittika). These 140 Dwipadas are actually 140/2= 70 Chatushpada Richas.
In Brahman texts, these mantras are used as Dwipadas during Yajnas by reciting Dwipadah Shansati. Yaska also mentions these mantras as Dwipadas in Nirukta 10.21 (oldest text on Vedic definitions).
The Paribhasha (Definitions) Chapter of Riksarvanukramani mentions : Dwirdwipadastvrichah Samaamananti. Shadgurushishya explains it as “Richoadhyayane”.
In simple language, during learning phase, the student should practice by making one Richa out of 2 Dwipadas or couplets. In other words, combine 2 Dwipadas to make 1 Chatushpada. By “Samaamananti” it is implied that during post-Yajna prayers, 2 Dwipadas DO NOT mean 1 Richa.
To give an example, the “Pashva na Taayum” sukta of Rigveda 1.65 is considered to have 10 Richas during post-Yajna prayers. But during education phase, one considers the sukta to have 5 Richas.
Sayanacharya writes in his commentary of Rigveda 1.65 that the 1.65-70 suktas are Dwipada but are studied as Chatushpada during education. If a sukta has odd number of Dwipadas, then the final Dwipada is studied as Dwipada itself. Even the meanings of Dwipadas are very close. However during Yajna or application, each Dwipada is considered separately during prayers.
Thus Ashwalayan Shraut 8.12 (a text on Yajna rituals) considers Rigveda 1.65 as Dwipada.
Mahidas, commentator of Charanvyuh also writes that during Havan, each Dwipada is recited separately but during study period, two Dwipadas are recited together.
Charanvyuh lists the 140 temporary Naimittika Dwipadas. The 17 permanent or Nitya Dwipada are also listed in Upalekha Sutra 6.1-2.
Riksarvanukramani
Riksarvanukramani enumerates 10552 Richas in Rigveda considering these 140 Dwipadas as Dwipadas themselves which is same as that enumerated by other scholars ignoring errors and omisions.
Ignoring the 80 mantras of 11 Balakhilya Sukta which are not considered by Shaishiri branch of Rigveda, we have 10472 Richas. Riksarvanukramani author Katyayana lists both these numbers in his text.
(Note: Today, only the original Rigveda is available and all the branches or shakhas have gone extinct due to centuries of misrule. We shall discuss the concept of branches in slightly more detail in a future para. However all should know that Rigveda 8.49 to 59 are called Balakhilya Suktas. They are part of the original Vedas but not considered in some of the branches aka variations in original Rigveda Samhita propagated by Rishis for better understanding. As we shall later see, when Anuvakanukramani was written, Shaishiri branch of Rigveda was very popular. It was a minor variation of original Rigveda and omitted Balakhilya Suktas. Thus based on that, Riksarvanukramani lists calculations including and excluding Balakhilya Suktas.)
The same is stated as true by Jagannath, the commentator of Riksarvanukramani as well as Mahidas, commentator of Charanvyuh.
Chhandasankhya Parishishta
This text is not available in complete form. But from whatever is available, the 11th Shloka states that:
“Evam Dashasahasrani Shatanam Tu Chatushtayam Richam Dwayadhikamakhyatamrishibhistatvadarshibhih” meaning:
The Seer Rishis have stated the number of Richas in Rigveda as 10402.
(The previous 10 shlokas of this text break these Richas in different Chhandas – Gayatri 2451, Ushnik 341, Anushtubh 855, Brihatee 181, Pankti 312, Trishtup 4253, Jagatee 1348, Atijagatee 17, Shakvaree 19, Atishakvaree 9, Ashti 6, Atyashti 84, Dhriti 2, Atidhriti 1, Ekapada 6, Dwipada 17, Baarhatapragaath 194, Kakubha Pragaath 55, Mahabarhat Pragath 1)
Note: If you add these up, it does not match with 10402. This is because Pragraath Chhandas are considered Dwricha. This is clearly mentioned in the 9th shloka of this text as well. Thus these 194+55+1=250 Pragaath = 500 Richas. This is also explained in Paribhasha Chapter or Definitions Chapter of Riksarvanukramani as well as Ashtadhyayi 4.2.55 (So Asyaadiritichhandansah Pragaatham). Making this adjustment, the numbers match.

Now, if we count 70 Chatushpadas to be actually 140 temporary Dwipadas, we will have to add 70 to this number which gives 10472. Adding 80 mantras from 11 Balakhilya Suktas that is not considered in Shaishiri Shakha (branch), we get 10552 mantras which is same as that provided by Riksarvanukramani.
Note: Each Veda has different Shakhas or branches which are variations of the original Mantra Samhita. These variations were devised by sages for a variety of reasons – to bring minor changes (addition, deletion and modification) in language and content to make them easily approachable by people with certain way of thinking, to focus on specific themes, to add with specific experiences and stories etc. Thus each of these traditions of variations including the original Samhita is called a Shakha or the branch. Of all these, the original Samhita is most widespread and preserved most meticulously. Thus, while most of the Shakhas have been lost or their manuscripts burnt by invaders in the long period of of misrule, the original Samhitas are still well-protected. Even UNESCO has acknowledged this wonder. Refer UNESCO PORTAL where it lists Rigveda as the first literary documents in the history of humankind.
Venkatmadhav
Venkatmadhav has written two commentaries on Rigveda. In commentary of the abridged commentary of Ashtak 5 Adhyaya 5, he writes that: “I counted 10402 Richas in Vedas including Dwipadas. When I counted Dwipadas separately I found 10480 Richas.
Now 10402 Richas is in lines with other authorities (10402 + 70 (Dwipadas) + 80 (Balakhilya Mantras)) = 10552.
But 10480 does not match with calculations. The cause of this error by Venkatmadhav was that instead of adding 70 for 140 temporary Dwipadas, he added 78 for 157 temporary + permanent Dwipadas. Thus he got 10480 Richas excluding Balakhilya Suktas.
If we adjust for this error, we find that all scholars reach up to same number of Richas because they all were looking at the same Vedas.
Anuvakanukramani
Shaunak in his Anuvakanukramani mentions about number of Richas in Rigveda in two different places.
In shlokas 40,41,42 he details number of Richas in each of the 9 Varga categories. Here he reaches the number of 2006 vargas and 10417 Richas. He mentions that this is for Shaishareeya branch/ shakha of Shakal Samhita (the original Rigveda). (Taan Parane Shakale Shaishareeye Vadanti)
The additional 15 Richas is due to difference in shakha as mentioned by Shaunak himself.
He further writes that Rigveda has 10580 Richas and 1 Pada. But he uses words “Paaranam Samprakeertitam” in the shloka implying that this is the total number of Richa if we consider all different ways of recitation or in other words this is the union of total Richas in all Shakhas (branches) together and not of the original Samhita.
Almost similar shloka appears in Laugakshi Smriti that uses exactly the same words for entire shloka except ending it with “Paarayanavidhau Khalu” meaning ways of recitation. To further clarify, the next shloka clearly states that “Purvoktasankhyashchetu Sarvashakhoktasootragaah” or the number in previous shloka is for all the Shakhas together.
Yet another similar version of the shloka appears in Charanvyuha Parishishta.
Maxmuller edition of Rigveda and Dwipada Richas error

Maxmuller published the first printed version of Rigveda in 1873. This was a commendable task considering the efforts required to collate the mantras together from different Paatha Vidhis and proof-reading them. However certain serious errors, especially with regards to temporary Dwipada Richas remained in this edition. Most of the future scholars took Maxmuller version as a starting point and hence the errors continued to creep in their calculations.
In Maxmuller edition,
– the 60 temporary Dwipada Richas of 1.65-70 have been published as 30 Chatushpadas. Each Chatushpada has been counted as 1 mantra.
– In 5th Mandal, 24th Sukta, the 4 Dwipada Richas have been published as 2 Chatushpadas. However each Mantra has counted as 2. Thus after after Chatushpada, 1-2 is published as mantra numbers. After second Chatushpada, 3-4 is published as mantra numbers.
– The rest of the 76 temporary Dwipadas have been published as Dwipadas.
Maxmuller edited the original Rigveda and hence obviously included the Balakhilya Suktas. Thus the total number of Richas in his edition adds up to 10552 if we adjust for above three factors.
Today, almost all scholars refer to Maxmuller edition for their analysis. Apart from the above obvious discrepancies and a few minor typographical errors, this edition of Vedas is unanimously accepted as undisputed published form of the original Rigveda.
Swami Dayanand
Swami Dayanand never got into exact calculation of number of Rigvedic verses because he had more important priorities. His introduction to translation of Rigveda lists 10589 as number of Richas in Rigveda.
However when we add up the number of mantras in each Mandal provided in the same text, we get 10521 (1976+429+617+589+727+765+841+1726+1097+1754).
However there are several typographical errors in this calculation:
(The texts of Swami Dayanand have several errors and omissions arising because of two primary reasons – one, he had to rely on several other less competent people for writing of his works. Second, the publication technology was still primitive and Swami Dayanand had to publish his works under financially extreme situations. He was involved in a huge number of tasks in his life and hence such omissions do creep in his works. However, well aware of these possibilities, he on several occasions categorically summarized his overall stand and mentioned that even if what he has written is found to be against evidences, that should also be rejected.)
1. The number of mantras in 8.20 has been typed as 36 instead of 26. Thus the total number of mantras in this Mandala should be 1716 instead of 1726.
2. The number of Richas in 9th mandal is 11 less than the total of the suktas in that Mandal. Thus the right number of Richas in 9th Mandal is 1108 as per his own tables.
Adjusting for these two typographical errors, we get 10522 Richas. Now Swami Dayanand based his calculations on the Maxmuller edition that lists 60 Dwipada Richas as 30 Chatushpada Mantras.
So when we add 30 to this, we get 10552 Richas which exactly matches the calculations by other scholars.
The number 10589 mentioned in the text is a simple typographical error happening due to unclear handwriting in manuscript confusing 1 for 9 and 2 for 8 in Devanagari.
Thus, Swami Dayanand’s Rigveda also has 10522 Richas.
Prof Macdonald
Prof Macdonald has made some severe blunders in his analysis of Vedas. We shall not discuss those here. However with regards to number of Richas in Rigveda, he gives the number as 10442.
If we add 30 to this due to Maxmuller error mentioned above, we get 10472 Richas. Adding 80 Balakhilya Suktas we get 10552 Richas which match the actual calculations.
Pandit Satyavrat Samashrami
Pandit Satyavrat Samashrami states in his text ‘Aitareyalochan’ that Rigveda has 10522 Richas including Balakhilya Suktas. If we add 30 from Maxmuller error, we get 10552 which again matches the original calculations.
Conclusion
Many scholars – Maxmuller, Macdonald, Satyavrat Samashrami, Venkatmadhav have erred in listing the total number of verses in Rigveda due to the differential treatment accorded to Dwipada and Chatushpada Richas. However, if we adjust for these differences in our calculations, we find that Rigveda has one and only version that contains 10552 mantras or Richas. If we consider Dwipadas as Chatushpadas, then Rigveda has 10482 mantras.
In its longest history for any text available today, there has been alteration of not even a single syllable, alphabet or even pitch of pronunciation. Thus all the apparent differences in number of Richas is merely due to typographical errors, difference in Shakha or Dwipada/Chatushpada issue.
In reality, there is no difference right from A of Agnimeeley Purohitam of Rigveda 1.1.1 upto Susahasati (last word of Rigveda) and there is one and only one version of Rigveda.
This is a matter of great pride not only for Hindus or Indians, but every human being. Because Vedas belong to entire humanity and teach a religion of universal humanism that engulfs all thinking creatures (Manushya) regardless of their birth, caste, sect, rituals, color, gender in a fragrance of compassion, justice, rationality and honesty.
We conclude with the final mantra of Rigveda that summarizes the essence of all the 10552 mantras:
May our motivation and inspiration be same – welfare of all. May our hearts be same – with affection for all. May our mind be same – full of pure thoughts of selflessness and may we all continue to increase each others’ happiness together!
Om Shantih Shantih Shantih!
Peace for everyone and everything!
Reference: Research works of Pandit Yudhishthir Meemansak
[mybooktable book=”divine-vedas” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
[mybooktable book=”complete-works-agniveer” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]

No Beef in Vedas – 2

This entry is part 2 of 8 in the series Vedas - Myths and Reality

We had published an analysis of the allegation that Vedas have references of beef-eating and animal sacrifice in http://agniveer.com/68/no-beef-in-vedas/ . We provided ample evidences in this work that:
a. Vedas are completely against animal killing and violence on innocent creatures
b. Vedic Yajna is by definition non-violent and animal sacrifice is against Vedic precepts
c. Contrary to claims of beef consumption in Vedas, there are references that call for protection of cows and destruction of those who kill this most productive and harmless animal.
Thankfully after the publication of this work, the slanderous campaign against Vedas has lost its teeth significantly and no reasonable rebuttal to the content of the work ever surfaced. However, a few minor voices have continued to mislead people on this issue using splinter quotes from translations of Vedic literature by incompetent western indologists and juxtaposing them with their own agenda. In this work, we would attempt to address some of those allegations and make the two part work a reasonable single point reference to counter any such misled campaign in future. For those desiring a more detailed exposition, we have already provided a list of references at the end of Part 1 of the work.
So lets begin:
Allegation:
It is well-known that animal sacrifice was necessary in Yajna. Vedas are full of praise of Yajnas.
Agniveer:
Yajna word is derived from root ‘Yaj’ by adding Nan pratyaya. Yaj root has three meanings : Devapuja (behaving appropriately with the entities around- worshipping Eeshvar, respecting parents, keeping the environment clean etc are few examples), Sangatikaran (Unity) and Daan (Charity). As per Vedas, these form the primary duty of human beings and hence Yajna is so emphasized not only in Vedas but in almost entire Indian literature of ancient era.
What is important however is the fact that Yajna has no reference to animal killing whatsoever. In fact, Nirukta (Vedic vocabulary) clearly states in 2.7 that Yajna is called Adhwara. Dhwara means violence and hence it is totally banned in Yajna.
In other words, forget about animal killing, any kind of violence – through mind, body or voice – is completely banned in Yajna.
Adhwara is used to imply Yajna in a large number of mantras in the Vedas. For example, Rigveda 1.1.4, 1.1.8, 1.14.21, 1.128.4, 1.19.1, Atharvaveda 4.24.3, 18.2.2, 1.4.2, 5.12.2, 19.42.4.  Around 43 mantras in Yajurveda refer to Adhwara.
In fact Yajurveda 36.18 clearly states that “May I look upon everyone – Sarvaani Bhootani (and not only human beings) with friendly eyes.”
Thus, Vedas, nowhere justify animal sacrifice and on contrary condemn any form of violence on innocent beings.
Historically, there may have been prevalence of animal sacrifice, but that has nothing to do with content of Vedas. Many Muslim girls and boys have been working as vulgar models and actresses in film industry. In fact in Bollywood, most top actors and actresses have been Muslims. This does not necessarily mean Quran justifies vulgarity. Similarly, adultery and pre-marital sex is widespread in Christian countries. This does not mean Bible demands them to indulge in these vices.
In same vein, while animal sacrifice may have been an historical phenomenon due to decadence of Vedic values, we openly challenge anyone to cite even one single reference from Vedas that talk of animal sacrifice in Yajna.
Allegation:
If that be so, what about Ashwamedha, Naramedha, Ajamedha, Gomedha yajnas? Medha means killing and Vedas even justify Naramedha (human sacrifice).
We have already discussed in Part 1 that the word medha does not necessarily mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to the intellect. Alternatively it could mean consolidation or nurturing, as evident from the root meaning of medha i.e. medhru san-ga-me (refer Dhatupath)
When we already know that Yajnas are supposed to be Adhwara or non-violent, why should we take Medha to mean violence? Don’t we call an intelligent person – Medhaavi or name our daughters Medhaa. Do we imply they are violent people or intelligent persons?
Shatpath 13.1.6.3 and 13.2.2.3 clearly states that:
A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra the nation or empire is known as the Ashwamedh yajna. Thus likes of Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaq, Netaji, Shivaji, Tilak etc performed Ashwamedha Yajna.
To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make a good use of the rays of Sun or keep the earth free from impurities[clean] is called Gomedha Yajna. The word Gau also means the Earth and the yajna dedicated to keep the Earth the environment clean is called Gomedha Yajna. (refer Nighantu 1.1, and Shatpath 13.15.3).
The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna. Dedicated efforts for training and productivity of people is also Naramedha Yajna or Purushmedha Yajna or Nriyajna.
Aja means grains. So Ajamedha Yajna refers to increasing agricultural productivity or in a very narrow sense : using grains in Agnihotra. Refer Shantiparva 337.4-5.
Vishnu Sharma in Panchatantra (Kakoliyam) clearly states that those who perform animal sacrifice in Yajna are fools because they do not understand Vedas properly. If one goes to Heaven by animal sacrifice, what could be the path to go to Hell!
Mahabharat Shantiparva has two shlokas in Shantiparva that those who state that Yajna contain alcohol, fish or meat are frauds, atheists and devoid of knowledge of Shastras. (263.6, 265.9)
Allegation:
What about Yajurveda 24.29 which uses words ‘Hastina Aalambhate’ that means sacrifice of elephants?
Agniveer:
Who told you that Alambha derived from Labha root means sacrifice or killing? Labha means to acquire or gain. While Hastina has a deeper meaning beyond elephant, even if we take it to mean elephant in this mantra, it only says that the king should acquire elephants for nurture of his kingdom. What is so violent about it?
Alambha is used in several places to mean ‘acquire’ or ‘gain’. For example, Manusmriti prohibits indulging in women for Brahmacharis by saying ” Varjayet Streenam Alambham”.
Thus this conjecture is completely out of place. May be those who concocted Aalambhate to mean killing in Vedic mantras were themselves addicted  to killing animals for food and hence their first instinct of deriving benefits from animals was to imply killing them.
Allegation:
But what about ‘Sanjyapan’ used in Brahmana and Shraut texts to mean sacrifice?
Agniveer:
Refer Atharvaveda 6.10.94.95 which says that we should do Sanjyapan of mind, body and heart. Does it mean we should commit suicide! Sanjyapan simply means unity and nurture. The mantra says that we should strengthen our mind, body and heart and ensure they work in unity. Sanjyapan also means ‘to inform’.
Allegation:
You are escaping every time from being trapped. But no more. What do you have to say about Yajurveda 25.34-35 / Rigveda 1.162.11-12 which states that:
“What from thy body which with fire is roasted, when thou art set upon the spit, distilleth,— Let not that lie on earth or grass neglected, but to the longing Gods let all be offered.”
“They who, observing that the Horse is ready, call out and say, The smell is good; remove it; And, craving meat, await the distribution,—may their approving help promote our labour.”
Very clearly there is explicit description of horse sacrifice.
Agniveer:
We believe you have quoted from the trash works of Griffith.
The first has no reference to horse. It simply means that when people are suffering due to high temperatures/ fever, the doctors should care for them and provide them treatment.
In second mantra, all he did was to assume that Vaajinam word means ‘horse’. However, ‘Vajinam’ means a brave/strong/ dynamic/ fast entity. Thus horse is also known as Vaajinam. There can be many interpretations of the mantras, however none lead to horse sacrifice.
In fact, even if we mean that Vaajinam means horse, still the very verse in fact means that those who attempt to kill horses (Vajinam) should be prevented from doing so. We strongly recommend reviewing the translation by Swami Dayanand Saraswati for these mantras.
Also, refer to huge number of mantras provided in Part 1 of the article (http://agniveer.com/68/no-beef-in-vedas/ ) that explicitly prohibit animal killing and severe punishment for animal killers – especially killers of horses and cows.
Allegation:
What about reference to Goghna or killing of cows in Vedas? What about Atithigva/ Atithigna or a person who served beef to guests?
Agniveer:
In Part 1, we gave ample references of cow being Aghnya or Aditi – not worthy of being killed. We also gave references of strict punishment in Vedas for those who destroy cows.
Gam root means ‘to go’. That is why planets are also called ‘Go’ because they move. Atithigna/ Atithigva means one who goes towards the guest or serves his guests sincerely.
Goghna has several meanings. Even if we take ‘Go’ to mean cow, Goghna means Go+Han : Approaching cow. (Han root means Movement and Knowledge apart from Violence).
There are many references in Vedas where Han is used for approaching and not killing, For example, Atharvaveda states “Husband should Han-approach the wife.”
Thus these allegations are equally baseless.
Allegation:
Vedas talk of not killing young cows. But old barren cows (Vashaa) are supposed to be killed. Similarly, Uksha or bulls should be killed as per Vedas.
Agniveer:
This hypothesis was popularized in recent times by yet another pseudo-scholar D N Jha to defend his assertion of beef-eating in Vedas despite obvious contradictions that come up because of verses in Vedas that state the exact opposite. With home-grown defective pieces, who needs enemies from outside!
The fact is that Uksha refers to a medicinal herb, also known as Soma. Even someone like Monier Williams in his Sanskrit-English Dictionary states the same.
Vashaa refers to controlling powers of God and not a barren cow. If Vasha is used to mean a barren cow, then many Vedic verses will make no sense.
For example, Atharvaveda 10.10.4 uses Sahasradhara or Thousand flows in relation with Vasha. How can a barren cow be compared with Sahasradhara used to denote ample food, milk and water.
Atharvaveda 10.190 states that Vashi means controlling power of God and is recited twice daily in Vedic Sandhya.
In other verses, Vashaa is used also as productive land or a good wife with children (Atharvaveda 20.103.15) or a medicinal herb. Monier Williams also uses the word to mean a herb in his dictionary.
We fail to understand which divine inspiration prompted these pseudo-scholars to concoct that Vashaa means a barren cow.
Allegation:
Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6.4.18 clearly states that if a couple desires a noble son, they should eat Meat with rice (Mansodanam) or Bull (Arshabh) or Calf (Uksha).
Agniveer:
1. Now that there is nothing to show in Vedas, focus of allegation has shifted to Upanishads. But even if one is able to prove beef eating in Upanishads, that still does not prove that there is beef in Vedas. And the foundation of Hinduism is that Vedas are supreme. Refer Purva Meemansa 1.3.3, Manusmriti 2.13, Manusmriti 12.95, Jabalasmriti, Bhavishya Puran etc which clearly state that if there is discrepancy between Vedas and other Shastras, then Vedas are considered supreme and the rest is rejected.
2. Having said this, we will show that the particular references from Brihadaranyak has been misinterpreted.
3. Let us take Mansodanam first. There are 4 more verses just before this verse that recommend eating particular edibles with rice for having a child with Vedic wisdom of different types. The other edibles are: Ksheerodanam (Milk with rice), Dadhyodanam (Yogurt with rice), Water with rice and Tila (a pulse) with rice for experts in other Vedas. Thus it is ONLY for mastery of Atharvaveda that Mansodanam or meat with rice is recommended. This itself shows that the particular reference is an anomaly.
4. In reality, the right word is Mashodanam and NOT Mansodanam. Masha means a kind of pulse. Hence there is nothing fleshy about it. In fact, for pregnant women, meat is completely prohibited as per Ayurveda. Refer Sushruta Samhita. There is also a verse in Sushrut Samhita that recommends Masha for husband and wife for a good son. Thus it is obvious that Brihadaranyaka has also explained the same concept as elucidated in Sushruta Samhita. There is no reason why the two texts would differ in Masha and Mansa.
5. Even if someone asserts that it is not Masha but Mansa, still Mansa means pulp and not necessarily meat. There are ample usages of Mansa as pulp in ancient texts. Thus Amramansam means pulp of mango. Khajuramansam means pulp of date. Refer Charak Samhita for such examples. Taittriya Samhita 2.32.8 uses Mansa for curd, honey and corn.
6. We have already seen that Uksha means a herb or Soma, even as per Monier Williams Dictionary. The same dictionary also lists Rishabh (from which Arshabh is derived) to mean a kind of medicinal plant (Carpopogan pruriens). Charak Samhita 1.4-13 lists Rishabh as a medicinal plant. Same is mentioned in Sushrut Samhita 38 and Bhavaprakash Purna Khanda.
7. Further both Arshabh (Rishabh) and Uksha mean bull and none means ‘calf’. So why were synonyms used to mention the same thing in the shloka from Brihadaranyak. This is like saying, one should eat either curd or yogurt! Thus, obviously the two words mean two different things. And considering that all the other verses mention herbs and pulses, these words also mean the same.
Allegation:
What about Mahabharat Vana Parva 207 that explicitly states that King Rantideva used to have Yajnas where huge number of cows used to be killed?
Agniveer:
Again, as mentioned previously, if there is dispute between Vedas and any other text, then Vedas are considered supreme. Further, Mahabharat is a grossly interpolated and adulterated text and hence not considered authority in itself.
The allegation of cow-killing at Rantideva’s palace is a fraud allegation refuted decades ago by several scholars.
1. Anushasan Parva 115 lists Rantideva as one of the kings who never consumed meat. How can that be possible if beef was amply available at his palace?
2. We have already proven that Mansa does not necessarily mean meat.
3. The particular shloka alleges that each day 2000 cows were killed. This means more than 720,000 cows were killed each year. Is it logical to take such a shloka seriously?
4. Mahabharat Shantiparva 262.47 asserts that one who kills cows or bulls is a great sinner. The same Mahabharat calls King Rantideva a great saint and pious person. How can there be such a blatant contradiction in same text?
5. In reality, the shlokas have been distorted by misled scholars like Rahul Sankrityayana who are known for their Vedas bashing. Rahul Sankrityayana deliberately quoted only 3 lines of the verse and left 1 line from Dronaparva Chapter 67 first two shlokas. He misinterpreted Dwishatsahasra to mean 2000 when it actually means 200 thousand. This itself shows his competence in Sanskrit.
None of these lines have any reference to beef. And when combined with 4th line that he deliberately missed, it means that Rantideva had 200,000 cooks in his kingdom who used to serve good food (rice, pulses, cooked food, sweets etc) day and night to guests and scholars.
Then the word ‘Masha’ from the next shloka was changed to ‘Mansa’ to imply that it talked of beef.
6. On contrary there are ample verses in Mahabharat which talk of non-violence and condemn beef eating. Further they praise charity of cows and their nurture.
7. Fools have interpreted Badhyate to mean killing. However this is not so as per any Sanskrit text on grammar or usage. Badhyate means to control.
Thus, there is no way that one can prove that King Rantideva used to have cows killed.
To conclude, all allegations of beef or meat in Vedas or Vedic texts are merely desperate attempts by perverted minds to project their own vices on the most noble texts of the world.
May the light of wisdom enlighten their minds and may we all together make the world a sensible place.
[mybooktable book=”a-hindus-fight-for-mother-cow” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
[mybooktable book=”mans-nahi-maa-gaumans-per-hindu-pratikar” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]

Who wrote the Vedas?

This entry is part 2 of 5 in the series Preservation of Vedas

All prominent scholars and researchers agree on Vedas being the oldest texts known to humankind. Nonetheless Vedas remain the most meticulously preserved texts available today. The unique methods devised from very inception of Vedas have ensured that Vedas are available even today in same original form. One can refer to “Why Vedas cannot be changed” to have a glimpse of these methods. Many scholars have called this the greatest wonder of human civilization.
Someone like Abdullah Tariq, the mentor of Zakir Naik and celebrated Islamic scholar, also vociferously asserts that Vedas are the first divine texts. Even Zakir Naik does not refute it, even though he does not state it so clearly owing to his Wahabi foundation. However he does try to manipulate Vedic mantras to try to show Muhammad’s prediction in them. This very act of his proves that he regards Vedas as authoritative first divine texts.
This attempt of Zakir is not his original but directly copy-pasted – word to word – from works of the famous Qadiyani scholar Maulana Abdul Haque Vidyarthi. The whole Qadiyani movement is based on the assertion of Vedas being the first divine texts and Mirza Ghulam being the last Prophet. While we have refuted the wrong interpretations of Vedic mantras by likes of Zakir Naik and Maulana Vidyarthi, (refer http://agniveer.com/528/prophet-vedas/ ) one indeed must applaud their efforts to promote acceptability of Vedas as first divine texts among Muslims, with whatever little knowledge and huge constraints they had.
It has primarily been the atheist and communist circles that has refuted the idea of Vedas being divine, despite agreeing on Vedas being oldest. This is primarily driven from their founding assumption – that we all are chemical reactions and nothing more than that. The logical flaws and unexplained questions that arise from this assumption of these ‘atheist/communist chemical reactions’ is not the focus of this article.
What is interesting is that the baton of the atheists has now been taken by several Muslim apologetics who have come up with a series of articles refuting Vedas of divine status. They however forget in their enthusiasm that by doing this, they are digging their own graves. Because this would imply that claims of their own Islamic scholars are wrong and destroy the very foundation of Islam. We would request them to first issue fatwa against those Muslim scholars who use Vedas to prove Muhammad in them or admit them to be first holy texts. And next, they should demonstrate the same objectivity towards their own modern Quran.
What we would attempt in this article is to explain why Vedas cannot be considered as creation of Rishis as alleged first by atheists/ communists and now by neo-Muslim apologetics.
Now the question that would come next is – Who created or wrote the Vedas if not these Rishis? We believe this question to be on same pedestal as “Who created life? Who created the universe? Who is managing everything so immaculately? Who provided intelligence? Why humans are the only intelligent species? etc etc.”
These are serious questions for introspection and analysis. We have an opinion on these and quite a firm one. However, in spirit of Vedas, each of us has the liberty to explore and believe in whatever appears most reasonable to him or her after his or her most sincere understanding.
So even if someone refuses to agree to our viewpoints and arguments, that does not mean Vedas throw that person into some hellfire and would give us sweet grapes to eat in some Heaven. On contrary, as one proceeds ahead in pursuit of truth to best of his understanding, further path would be clearer and Ishwar would give him the best results he deserves.
This is the fundamental difference between Vedic ideology and other dogmatic ideologies. There is no blinded foundation, no compulsion – only commitment to a scientific and rational temper.
With this heavy introduction, let us start our analysis. We shall be providing various arguments and facts presented by those who claim that Vedas have been created by Rishis and then offer our explanations as well as counter-arguments.


Non-Vedic Claim:

So here we begin:
Vedas are not divine. Instead they are human creations like Ramayan, Mahabharat, Quran etc. The only difference is that Ramayan and Mahabharat were written by one author and Vedas, like Guru Granth Sahib, were written by several people over a period of time. So they are merely collection of works of a large number of people who were later called as Rishis. These Rishis were later claimed to be ‘seers’ (Drashta) to prove that Vedas are not human creation (Apaurusheya).  This is clear from various references in literature where Rishis have been called “Mantra Karta” or creator of the mantras.
For example:
Aitareya Brahman 6.1
Tandya Brahman 13.3.24
Tattiriya Aranyak 4.1.1
Katyayana Shraut Sutra 3.2.9
Grihya Sutra 2.1.13
Nirukta 3.11
Sarvanukramani Paribhasha Prakaran 2.4
Raghuvansh 5.4
Today, all mantras have a Rishi who is basically the person who wrote that mantra.
Thus believing Vedas to be not created by Rishis is merely a superstition.

Agniveer response:

The basic foundation of this claim of Rishis being authors of mantras is presence of word ‘Mantrakarta’ or its root in various forms. We shall analyze this later. However we shall begin with some logical as well as historical evidences that clearly imply that Rishis cannot be considered authors or creators of the Vedic mantras.
Let us start with scrutiny of the claim that “All mantras have a Rishi who is basically the person who wrote that mantra”.
(To understand this concept, please note that the original Veda Samhitas do not contain name of any Rishi etc. They simply comprise the mantras. However, traditionally each Vedic sukta (hymn) is associated with one or more Rishis who are supposed to be among the first persons to have introspected on those hymns. The book ‘Sarvaanukramanika’ or ‘Sarvanukramani’ by Katyayana is considered to be the prime basis of names of these Rishis (apart from a few other Anukramanis). Non-Vedics consider these Rishis to be authors instead of researchers of Vedic mantras.)
Counter-Argument 1: Several Rishis of same Sukta
a. There is no evidence in history of several people creating any piece of literature which is exactly same. Either the subject or language is bound to differ. However Vedas contain several Suktas (hymns) which are attributed to two or even hundred and thousand Rishis. No sane person can, thus, consider these Rishis to be authors of these mantras. For example refer the following from Sarvanukramanika (list of Vedic Rishis) which name more than one Rishis for Rigvedic mantras: 5.2, 7.101, 7.102, 8.29, 8.92, 8.94, 9.5, 5.27, 1.100, 8.67, 9.66, 9.16 (Aarshanukramani).
In fact Gayatri Mantra containing only 24 alphabets is supposed to have 100 Rishis! And Rigveda 8.34 has 1000 Rishis.
How 1000 people can together ‘create’ 3 small sentences is a mystery that only non-vedic pseudo-intellectuals can explain!
b. Some argue that Katyayana – the author of Sarvanukramanika – was unconfirmed about Rishis of some mantras because the historical tradition had broken by his times. Hence he attributed these mantras to more than one Rishi and used ‘Vaa’ or ‘Or’ to assert that one of these Rishis authored that particular mantra.
However this argument only shows escapism. If indeed Sarvanukramanika is unreliable, why to give references from this book in first place to justify that Vedas were authored by Rishis whose names are listed in book?
Let us give an additional example to counter this logic. The book Nirukta by Yaska described meanings and deeper insights of several mantras and is considered to be older than Sarvanukramanika. Acharya Shaunak who wrote Brihaddevata draws heavily from Nirukta. Now Brihaddevata was amply used by Katyayana to write his Sarvanukramanika.
Nirukta 4.6 states that Trit Rishi discovered meaning of Rigveda 1.175 Sukta. Brihaddevata 3.132 − 3.136 also states the same. However Katyayana lists several Rishis of the mantra and joins their names with ‘Vaa’ or ‘Or’. This means that use of multiple names of Rishis is not because of breakdown of historical tradition but deliberate to emphasize that several Rishis introspected on the mantra/ sukta.
Nirukta 1.4 clearly states that ‘Vaa’ can be used not only to list ‘exclusive alternatives’ but also ‘collection’. Same is also explained in Vaijayanti Kosh.
What more, ‘Vaa’ has been used in a different context by Katyayana himself in Sarvanukramanika. In Paribhasha Prakaran 12.2 he clearly writes that ‘Vaa’ implies that in addition of Rishi of previous verse, there is an additional Rishi for this new verse. To know more, refer Anukramani of Rigveda 3.23, 5.27, 8.2, 9.98.
Interestingly, if we look into Aarshanukramani of Shaunak for Rigveda 9.98, he uses ‘Cha’ meaning ‘And’ for name of Rishi where Katyayana has used ‘Vaa’ in his Sarvanukramani.
Similarly if we see Sarvanukramanika 8.92 and Aarshanukramani 8.40, we see that wherever Katyayana has used ‘Vaa’, Shaunak has used ‘Cha’. Also check 1.105 of Sarvanukramanika.
Hence, THE SAME HYMN/ SUKTA OF VEDAS HAS MORE THAN ONE RISHIS in several cases implying that RISHIS CANNOT BE AUTHORS OF VEDAS.
c. Some argue even further that it may have happened that different verses(mantras) of same Sukta (Hymn) have been written by different Rishis and hence several Rishis have been mentioned for many Suktas. However this is only flimsy reasoning. There is no evidence to believe that a sage like Katyayana made such a blunder.
– Sarvanukramanika 9.66 states that ‘Pavasva’ sukta has 100 Vaikhanas Rishis. However the sukta has only 30 mantras. We have already given example of 1000 Rishis of 3 mantras.
What more, wherever different Rishis have introspected on different mantras of same sukta, Katyayana has mentioned it clearly. For example, Sarvanukramanika 9.106 states that of ‘Indramachha’ sukta comprising 14 mantras, Chakshusha introspected on 3 mantras, Manava Chakshu on 3, Apsava Chakshu on 3 and Agni on 5 mantras.
– In Sarvanukramanika 5.24, it is mentioned that 4 Rishis saw one mantra each of a Sukta that comprises 4 mantras.
– Similarly check Sarvanukramanika 10.179 and 10.181.
Hence, there is no way one can conclude that multiple Rishis manufactured different mantras of Suktas of Vedas.
The only plausible explanation is that Rishis were geniuses who introspected on different mantras of Vedas that already existed.
Counter-Argument 2: Several Rishis of a single Mantra
There are several mantras in Vedas that appear several times in several places in different contexts. If Rishis were authors or creators of mantras of Vedas, then the name of same Rishi should have come in all places. However we see that different Rishis are linked with the same mantra in different places.
For example:
Rigveda 1.23.16-18 and Atharvaveda 1.4.1-3
Rigveda 10.9.1-7 and Atharvaveda 1.5.1-4/ 1.6.1-3
Rigveda 10.152.1 and Atharvaveda 1.20.4
Rigveda 10.152.2-5 and Atharvaveda 1.21.1-4
Rigveda 10.163.1,2,4 and Atharvaveda 2.33.1,2,5
Atharvaveda 4.15.13 and Atharvaveda 7.103.1
Rigveda 1.115.1 and Yajurveda 13.46
Rigveda 1.22.19 and Yajurveda 13.33
Rigveda 1.13.19 and Rigveda 5.5.8
Rigveda 1.23.21-23 and Yajurveda 10.9.7-9
Rigveda 4.483 and Yajurveda 17.91
All these pairs have different Rishis.
This is just a very small sampler. One can find hundreds of such examples in Vedas. Apart from accepting that Rishis no way relate to authorship of Mantras, there is no other means to explain these.
Hence, RISHIS ARE NOT AUTHORS OF MANTRAS but EXPERTS OF MANTRAS.
Counter-Argument 3: Existence of mantra before birth of Rishi
If we assume that Rishis created the mantras, then there is no way that the mantra could have existed before the Rishi was born. But such examples exist amply.
For illustration:
a. The ‘Kasya Noonam’ verse of Rigveda 1.24 is attributed to Rishi Shunahshep as per Sarvanukramanika. It states that the Rishi of this Sukta of 15 mantras is Shunahshep who was son of Ajeergat. If we review Aitareya Brahman 33.3,4, it is mentioned that Shunahshep offered his devotion to Ishwar through ‘Kasya Noonam’ mantra. If we review Nirukta Samuchchaya of Vararuchi, it is mentioned that Ajeergat worshipped through this mantra. Thus both father and son worshipped through this mantra. Then how come only son is called Rishi of the mantra? If son was the author of the mantra, then father could not have been known this mantra!
Also, the events of the stories of Aitareya Brahman and Nirukta Samuchchaya preclude any possibility of father learning this mantra from son.
Hence the mantra existed in father’s times but son is called the Rishi of the mantra. This implies that Rishi is not author of the mantra but expert of mantra.
b. Rigveda 3.22 is attributed to Vishwamitra as per Taittriya Samhita (5.2.3) and Kathaksamhita. However Sarvanukramani 3.22 and Aarshanukramani 3.4 state that the mantra existed even during times of Gaathi – the father of Vishwamitra.
So even in this case, both son and father are Rishis of the mantra implying that they were not authors but experts of the mantra.
c. Nabhanedishtha is the Rishi of Rigveda 10.61 and 10.62 as per Sarvanukramani.
The western school of thought states that ‘Yadu’ and Turvashu’ whose names come in Rigveda 10.62.10 were historical kings. These two names mostly come together in Rigveda. (We believe that these do not refer to any historical persons but certain concepts)
Now Mahabharat Adiparva 95 states that Yadu and Turvashu were born in 7th generation from Manu (Manu – Ila – Pururava – Ayu – Nahush – Yayaati – Yadu, Turvasu). Also Mahabharat Adiparva 75. 15-16 states that Nabhanedishtha was son of Manu and brother of Ila.
Thus if Vedas gave history and Nabhanedishtha wrote Rigveda 10.62.10, how could he use the names of people born in 6th generation from him? So either Vedas contain no history or Nabhanedishtha is not author of the mantras!
Many argue that Nabhanedishtha lived for long and wrote the mantra during his last days. However even this cannot be true because Aitareya Brahman 5.14 states that he received these mantras’ knowledge from his father when he returned from gurukul after education.
By the way, Nirukta 2.3 provides meanings of Yadu and Tuvanshu, which do not mean any historical person(s) but humans.
d. Vishwamitra is considered Rishi of Rigveda 3.33 which contains phrase “Vipaat Shutudri”. Now if we refer to Nirukta 2.24 and Brihaddevata 4.105-106, it states the story of Vishwamitra who was priest of king Sudaas and came near the union of two rivers Vipaat and Shutudri. However Mahabharat Aadiparva 177.4-6 and Nirukta 9.26 explain that these rivers were named Vipaat and Shutudri by Vasishtha after killing of his sons by king Saudaas, the son of king Sudaas.  Thus how could Vishwamitra use Vipaat and Shutudri in the mantra when these names were created by Vasishtha much later.
The fact is that the mantra existed even before Vishwamitra. And Vipaat and Shutudri in the mantra are not names of any rivers. However, later, two rivers were named so borrowing these words from the Vedic mantra. Since vedas are oldest texts, it is not surprising to find names of places and people derived from Vedas. This is akin to people naming their children and places as Ram, Sita, Krishna, Shivaji Park etc inspired by already existing words.
e. Aitareya Brahman 5.14, Tattriya Samhita 3.1.3 and Bhagvat 9.4.1-14 narrate a story that Nabhanedistha was instructed by his father Manu to propagate Rigveda 10.61-62. Thus even though Nabhanedishtha is Rishi of the mantra, he was certainly not its author and the mantra was known even to his father.
f. Vamadeva is the Rishi of Rigveda 4.19,22,23 as per Sarvanukramani. However Gopath Brahman Uttarardha 6.1 and Aitareya Brahman 6.18 state that Vishwamitra was the seer of the mantra and Vamadeva popularized the mantra. Thus both were experts of the mantras and not authors.
g. Kavash Elush is the Rishi of Rigveda 10.30-32 as per Sarvanukramani. However Kaushitaki Brahman states that Kavash ‘ALSO’ understood the mantra. Thus it implies that other Rishis have also understood the mantras and hence Rishi is not the author.
Counter-Argument 4: ‘Mantra Karta’ does not imply author of Mantra
Karta is obtained from Krit. Krit is derived from root Krinj in past tense as per Kvip Pratyaya (refer Ashtadhyayi 3.2.89)
So let us understand what Krinj means.
1. Rishi means ‘seer’ as per Nirukta 2.11. Again Nirukta 3.11 implies Rishi is Mantra Karta. Hence Karta implies ‘seer’ of mantra as per Nirukta of Yaska. In other words, Krinj root is used to mean ‘see’ also apart from ‘doer’.
The same meaning of Krinj root is vetted by Sayana in his commentary on Aitareya Brahman 6.1, Bhattabhaskar in his commentary of Taittriya Aranyak 4.1.1 and Karka in Katyayana Shrautsutra 3.2.9 explanation.
2. The story of Tandya Brahman 13.3.24 is explained by Manusmriti. Here Manu explains Mantra Karta to mean ‘teacher of mantra’. Thus ‘krinj’ root also implies ‘teaching’. Even Sayana considers Mantra Karta to mean Mantra-Seer in explanation of this verse from Tandya Brahman.
3. Patanjali Bhashya of Ashtadhyayi elaborates that Krinj also means ‘to establish’ or ‘to implement’. (refer 1.3.1)
4. Jaimini 4.2.6 implies Krinj to mean ‘acceptor’.
5. There is NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE EVIDENCE of ‘Mantra Karta’  or ‘Mantra Kaar’ or a related phrase being used to mean ‘Author of Mantra’ in any Vedic or post-Vedic literature.
6. Thus Sarvanukramani is clear that whosoever ‘saw’ or ‘realized’ meaning of the mantra is its Rishi. (Paribhasha 2.4)
Thus, ALL the references provided by non-Vedics to imply Rishi as Mantra-Karta actually mean Mantra-Seer.
Now some double counters.
We provide a list of references from ancient literature that refer Rishis as Mantra Drashta or Seer of Mantras:
Taittriya Samhita 1.5.4, 2.6.8, 5.2.1, Aitareya Brahman 3.19, Shatpath Brahman 9.2.2.38, 9.2.2.1, Kaushitaki Brahman 12.1, Tandya Brahman 4.7.3, Nirukta 2.11, 3.11
Sarvanukramani 2.1, 3.1, 3.36, 4.1, 6.1, 7.1, 7.102, 8.1, 8.10, 8.42, Brihaddevata 1.1, Arshanukramani 1.1, Anuvakanukramani 2, 39, 1.1
What is most startling is that the very texts from whom excerpts are provided by non-vedics to allege that Rishis were authors of the mantras are the very texts which clearly state that Rishis were the ‘seers’ or ‘experts’ of the mantras.
Doubt:
What about the names of historical people like Vishwamitra, Jamadagni, Bharadwaja etc that appear in Vedas as well as Rishis of Vedic mantras?
Resolution:
These words denote some special attributes and not any historical person. For example,
Shatpath Brahman states that Prana mean Vasishtha, Mind means Bharadwaja, Auditory sense implies Vishwamitra etc. Same is asserted in Aitareya Brahman 2.2.1. Kanva in Rigveda 8.2.16 refers to any person with sublime wisdom as per Nighantu (Vedic vocabulary).
Doubt:
Why do many mantras have Rishis of same name that appear in the mantras?
Resolution:
Let us understand how one gets a name. One gets a name either by birth or choice or popularity or by deeds. In fact legendary persons are known more by deeds or choice than birth name. Thus Subhash Chandra Bose got the name ‘Netaji’. Moolshankar is known as Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Mohandas is more popular has Mahatma Gandhi. Hardly anyone would know what are the real names of people known as Agniveer. Thus Vedic Rishis came to be known by the names exemplifying their researches. Hence we see that Narayana is Rishi of Purusha Sukta, Bhishaq (meaning doctor) is Rishi of Rigveda 10.97 focusing on medicines, Rigveda 10.101 has Rishi Budha Saumya (intellectual and sober person) because the sukta deals with related themes. There are countless such examples.
The point is the Vedic Rishis were not working with agenda of marketing their birth names. They were Yogis who were devoted to discovering the nectar of Vedas and rise beyond the cycles of death and birth. Thus name is just a matter of social convenience for them. So, no wonder, names of most Vedic rishis are related to subject of their specializations regardless of their birth name and even gender.
I conclude with the words of legendary Swami Dayanand Saraswati: “Whosoever Rishi first introspected on a mantra and propagated its meaning is remembered along with that mantra. Whosoever claims that Rishis created the mantras is a fraud. Rishis were the propagator of the meaning of the mantras.”
The creator of the mantras is the very same Purusha who created this universe, this life, this intelligence, this curiosity and the ability to seek answers to the curiosity of “Who wrote the Vedas?” Even if someone disagrees with this, there exists no other plausible explanation to attribute authorship of Vedas till date.
References: Works of Pt Yudhishthir Meemansak, Pt Dharmadeva Vidyamartanda, Pt Bhagvadutta, Acharya Vaidyanath Shastri, Pt Shivshankar Sharma and many other Vedic luminaries.
This article is also available in Hindi at http://agniveer.com/who-wrote-vedas-hi/
This article is also available in Gujarati at http://agniveer.com/who-wrote-vedas-gu/ [mybooktable book=”divine-vedas” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]
[mybooktable book=”complete-works-agniveer” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”false”]

Science and IRF

This entry is part 6 of 19 in the series Zakir Naik Exposed

In this booklet, we explore the claims of the existing version of Quran translations in English available today as a book compatible with discoveries of modern science. Dr Zakir Naik (MBBS), a non-practicing medical undergraduate representing an organisation called IRF has attempted to explore mysteries of astrophysics through verses of Quran to claim that Quran is a book of so-called ‘signs’ that foretold revelations of modern science 1400 years ago.  In this booklet, Indian Agnostic has scrutinized the medical undergraduate’s celebrated research in astrophysics presented in “THE QUR’AAN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?” which is a big hit among young students of Islamic science. You can download the original book from irf.net or a simple google search.
We welcome readers to freely download and distribute this review of Zakir Naik’s magnum opus. We also welcome readers to share their comments and have any further queries addressed through the comments section.
But more importantly, we request truth-seekers to reject falsehood. We understand that it would be difficult for Zakir Naik to do so because he seems to be trapped in an unholy nexus which believes in killing apostates and assigning hell for all non Muslims irrespective of their noble deeds. But for the lesser celebrities, may the light of truth eradicate all forms of superstitions and lies.
—————————–
Dr. Zakir Naik, in his book The Quran and Modern Science: Compatible or Incompatible? places certain Quranic verses as evidence before us, in support of his claim that Quran and modern science are indeed compatible (The booklet can be downloaded from IRF Site)
In this article, we will examine his arguments and evidences to ascertain if there is any truth to the claim or it is yet another propagandist stunt of Dr. Naik.
This article is heavily inspired from the RATIONAL arguments/facts published on Islam-critiquing sites like FaithFreedom.org , Islam-Watch.org, AnsweringMuslims.org etc. So many a thanks to all of them for making the job a cinch 🙂
[ *Extracts from Dr. Naik’s book appear under the title “Zakir Naik says”, in Italic, followed by our response. Emphasis, underline ours]
Zakir Naik says:
“In this booklet, I intend to give an objective analysis of the Muslim belief regarding the Divine origin of the Qur’aan, in the light of established scientific discoveries.”
Our response:
Tall claim Dr. Naik! Let’s see how objective, factual and rational you have been in this work of yours.
Zakir Naik says:
There was a time, in the history of world civilization, when ‘miracles’, or what was perceived to be a miracle, took precedence over human reason and logic. But how do we define the term ‘miracle’? A miracle is anything that takes place out of the normal course of life and for which humankind has no Explanation”
“However, we must be careful before we accept something as a miracle. An article in ‘The Times of India’ Mumbai, in 1993 reported that ‘a saint’ by the name ‘Baba Pilot’ claimed to have stayed continuously submerged under water in a tank for three consecutive days and nights. However, when reporters wanted to examine the base of the tank of water where he claimed to have performed this ‘miraculous’ feat, he refused to let them do so. He argued by asking as to how one could examine the womb of a mother that gives birth to a child. The ‘Baba’ was hiding something. It was a gimmick simply to gain publicity. Surely, no modern man with even the slightest inkling towards rational thinking would accept such a ‘miracle’ “
Our response:
Point well taken Dr. Naik! So, how about subjecting a Quranic miracle to a similar scrutiny?

  1. Let’s pick up a miracle claim of the Quran (Surah 57 Verse 1). This verse talks about the miracle of Prophet Muhammad splitting the moon in two!!!
    (Source: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/054.qmt.html#054.001 )
    YUSUFALI: The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.
    PICKTHAL: The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.
    SHAKIR: The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder
  2. Now ask yourself: If staying submerged in water for 3 days was ‘baba pilots’ gimmick to gain publicity, then what should we call Muhammad’s claim of him splitting the moon in two? If a man can split moon into two parts from earth, what is the big deal if some other person remains submerged in water without oxygen? Which one is more preposterous of the two claims?

Borrowing Dr. Naik’s words: No modern man with even the slightest inkling towards rational thinking would accept any of these ‘miracles‘!
The way Dr. Naik discards baba pilot staying under water for 3 days as irrational, we expect him to apply the same rationale in discarding Muhammad’s miracle of splitting the moon in two. So Dr. Naik, when you get to read this, we expect you to treat the Quran the same way you treat baba pilot.
Needless to say, a rational modern thinking man (and woman) would discard BOTH of these so-called ‘miracles’. Appears as if we have already rendered Dr. Naik’s booklet void. But anyways, for the sake of a more detailed postmortem, lets delve a bit deeper into Dr. Naik’s arguments.
Zakir Naik says:
THE CHALLENGE OF THE QUR’AAN
“Literature and poetry have been instruments of human expression and creativity, in all cultures. The world also witnessed an age when literature and poetry occupied pride of position, similar to that now enjoyed by science and technology.” Muslims as well as non-Muslims agree that Al-Qur’aan is Arabic literature par excellence – that it is the best Arabic literature on the face of the earth.
The Qur’aan, challenges mankind in the following verses: “And if ye are in doubt As to what We have revealed From time to time to Our Servant, then produce a Soorah Like there unto; And call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, If your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot -And of a surety you cannot. Then fear the Fire Whose fuel is Men and Stones – Which is prepared for those Who reject Faith.” [Al-Qur’aan 2:23-24] The challenge of the Qur’aan, is to produce a single Soorah (chapter) like the Soorahs it contains. The same challenge is repeated in the Qur’aan several times. The challenge to produce a Soorah, which, in beauty, eloquence, depth and meaning is at least somewhat similar to a Qur’aanic Soorah remains unmet to this day.

Our response:
Dr. Naik understands that literature and poetry are instruments of HUMAN expression and creativity. This implies that the brilliance or mediocrity of a literary work can only be attributed to a HUMAN and not to some DIVINE entity. Despite that understanding, he naively reproduces the Challenge of the Quran to prove its Divinity.
How can an instrument of human expression prove or disprove the DIVINITY of a text? It’s impossible!
Let’s list down the facts that make the challenge of the Quran self-defeating and naive:

  1. Literary excellence is no guarantee of divinity of a text. So It’s futile to throw or accept this challenge, as it would not prove or disprove the divinity of the book even when the challenge is met!
  2. The challenge builds on a flawed assumption that if no comparable work exists for a given work, then it must be Divine. By that logic, even Mona Lisa is from God and Meghadootam of Kalidas is the word of God because these masterpieces have no parallels. Right?
  3. Another flaw in this challenge is that it sets the challenger as the arbitrator/judge. So any Tom, Dick and Harry with a bunch of his friends can defeat the author of the Quran. All they have to do, is to attest that their friend has written a surah better than the author of the Quran and we’re done!
  4. The biggest blunder of this challenge is that the author of the Quran was unaware of the almost zero structural impact of replacing nouns and pronouns with each other within certain statements/verses . For example, if we change “Muslims” with “kafirs” and “kafirs” with “Muslims” in any verse of the Quran, we would have created an ANTI-QURAN which matches exactly and undoubtedly with the Quran in literary excellence!!!
    [[And interestingly this new book, being divine (as it fulfills Allah’s criterion of divinity which was to be something similar or better than Quran in literary excellence), will make Muslim friends along with Zakir Bhai shed tears as they will be now going to the hellfire for eternity and the Kafirs will be enjoying the houris (who were originally meant for Muslims) in everlasting heaven! In addition to it, Muhammad, being a non Muslim (as per new DIVINE book), ceases to be a messenger and thus Quran claimed to be revealed to him loses its divine status  ]]
  5. Finally, it’s utterly dumb of a Creator to challenge his Creation to outdo Him. Why would a sensible creator do that? Imagine a car manufacturer (we like the car example because that’s a favorite of Zakir Bhai) throwing challenge at the car to run above its maximum design speed! Such a manufacturer would need a brain check up as he seems to forget that it is HE ALONE who has put the limits to the speed of his car. If he is not sure about the speed limits of his car, it implies that he lacks complete knowledge of his own product! On the other hand, if he does know the speed limits of the car and still challenges it, he needs mental treatment. Thus either Allah is not omniscient or He needs medical attention.
    [[Here we would remind you of another eccentricity of the author of Quran in which He first made Adam knowledgeable keeping the angels deliberately dumb and then organized a GK competition between Adam and the illiterate angels! How fair!..Are you still looking for science in Quran? 😉 ]]

In one paragraph we found the irrationality of a Quranic miracle and in the next Dr. Naik offered us an irrational, preposterous challenge of Quran.
I am afraid, as we investigate further…Would we end up concluding that Quran is not meant for rational persons at all? Allah forbid!
[PS: Dear reader, these are additional facts. Not necessary, but good to know in this context:

  • Many people have produced surahs like the Quran and few could tell the difference .Please Google about the furqan and suralikeit controversy to know more
  • Many Muslim as well as non-Muslim scholars DO NOT agree with the claim that Al-Quran is literature par excellence. Ali Dashti, a famous scholar punctures this claim quite effectively in his works

Zakir Naik says:
A modern rational man, however, would never accept a religious scripture, which says, in the best possible poetic language, that the world is flat. This is because we live in an age, where human reason, logic and science are given primacy. Not many would accept the Qur’aan’s extraordinarily beautiful language, as proof of its Divine origin.
Our response:
As has been explained above, literary excellence cannot by itself be the proof of divinity. So No rational person would ever accept Quran as divine because of that alone. But Dr. Naik brings up another point in this piece. Here he rightly suggests that if any religious scripture goes against scientifically established fact, it should not be accepted.
Now the question to ask is whether Quran goes against a scientific fact or not? What does the Quran say about the shape of the Earth?
We’ll know very soon 🙂 But please remember, if the Quran goes against a scientifically established truth, Dr. Naik requests you to not accept the Quran as a religious scripture.
Zakir Naik says:
The Qur’aan is not a book of science but a book of ‘signs’, i.e. ayats. There are more than six thousand ‘signs’ in the Qur’aan of which more than a thousand deal with science
Our response:
Dr. Naik’s generalization that 1/6th of Quran is dedicated to science is without evidence. He does not provide any reference of the 1000+ verses dedicated to science. Appeal to false authority?
As far as signs of Allah are concerned, the less said about them the better. An example of such a sign is the natural phenomenon of eclipse, that is well explained and understood by science. But in Islam, this very natural phenomenon is treated as a ‘sign’ of Allah!
Zakir Naik says:
We all know that many a times Science takes a ‘U-turn’. In this book I have considered only established scientific facts and not mere hypotheses and theories that are based on assumptions and are not backed by proof.
Our response:
Dr. Naik should have elaborated on the criteria he applied to distinguish between established scientific facts and mere theories that are prone to the U-Turn syndrome. It’s a very tricky game even for the scientists 😉 Anyways, let’s give him the benefit of doubt on this one and channel our energies in investigating the evidence (the Quranic Verses) he offers in support of science in the Quran instead.
Zakir Naik says:
I. ASTRONOMY
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE: ‘THE BIG BANG’

The creation of the universe is explained by astrophysicists in a widely accepted phenomenon, popularly known as the ‘Big Bang’. It is supported by observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and astrophysicists for decades. According to the ‘Big Bang’, the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a ‘Big Bang’ (Secondary Separation) which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it occurring by ‘chance’ is zero. The Qur’aan contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the universe: Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?” [Al-Qur’aan 21:30]
Our response:
Very poor evidence indeed! And that too factually incorrect!
Dr. Naik has let his imagination loose in correlating big bang with this verse (21:30) of the Quran. Let’s analyze this verse closely.

  • It starts with “do not the unbelievers SEE” – This can mean two things- a) that the phenomenon being talked about can be actually seen AND/OR b) that the phenomenon being talked about here is already KNOWN to the people who it is being addressed to (unbelievers in this case). Look at it any which way, it only proves that the phenomenon was already known (and possibly verifiable) to the addressees in advance. So there’s no new knowledge that is being revealed here. I don’t know why Dr. Naik chose such a self-defeating verse in the first place.
  • Then the verse says “that the heavens and earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder?” – This rustic imagination has nothing to do with the big bang. The earth was formed billions of years after the big bang!! And most importantly, earth was not parted from the universe, it is, was and will remain a part of the Universe!

A very bad choice indeed. This verse is scientifically unsound and rustic. It fails in parts and as a whole too 🙁
Another important thing to note is how conveniently (read unscientifically) Dr. Naik assumes the word ‘heaven’ in the verse to mean ‘universe’. Unfortunately, despite this innovation, the verse turned out to be a scientific disaster and a non-revelation.
By the way, the Quranic heaven is a 7 storied building/canopy over the earth. Interestingly, not only the Quranic heaven but the Quranic earth has seven layers too (Quran 65:12 [Yusuf Ali] “Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number.”
(We would not be surprised if Dr. Naik comes up with some multiverse argument to explain the 7 universes, but what will he do about the 7 earths therein?)
So, after having analyzed the evidence (verse 21:30) we find that Quranic model of universe is very much against established scientific facts but it’s in perfect sync with Judaic, Greek view of its time. The author of Quran insists that the heavens can be seen by the unbelievers (or are already known to them).
To be doubly sure that the ‘heaven’ of Quran is NOT the ‘universe’, we look at another verse which unambiguously states that the earth was created first and thereafter the heavens (Universe as per Dr. Naik) were created.
Quran 2:29  “He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He Istawâ (rose over) towards the heaven and made them seven heavens and He is the All-Knower of everything.”
Now going by Dr. Naik’s terminology ,you get from this verse:

  • a universe that was created after the earth was created !! (Allah had to rise over earth to reach the Universe…Enjoy the science!)
  • a universe that was smoke while the earth was solid!!!
  • a universe that was fragmented into 7 layers!!!

What a disaster!
Zakir Naik says:
The striking congruence between the Qur’aanic verse and the ‘Big Bang’ is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth?
Our response:
Rather, these verses only corroborate that the author of the Quran was only reiterating what the Arabs of 7th century believed in: 7 layers of flat disc earth and 7 layers of solid canopies of heaven on top. All borrowed from Greek, Talmud myths and reproduced by the author of the Quran.
As if all this was not bad enough, Dr. Naik dishonestly translates the word ‘heaven’ as ‘universe’…and despite that, his evidence not only falls short but goes anti the big-bang theory. We hope, being a modern rational man, he would do a ‘baba pilot’ with the Quran as well after reading this article.
Zakir Naik says:
CREATION OF GALAXIES
Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To describe initial celestial matter, the word ‘smoke’ is more appropriate than gas. The following Qur’aanic verse refers to this state of the universe by the word dhukhan which means smoke.
Moreover, He Comprehended In His design the sky, And it had been (as) smoke: He said to it And to the earth: ‘Come ye together, Willingly or unwillingly.’ They said: ‘We do come (Together), in willing obedience.'” [Al-Qur’aan 41:11]
Our response:
How unscientific of a book which has just one word for sky, heaven, galaxy, universe! That which is heaven for Pickthall, is sky for Yusuf Ali, is Galaxy(!!!!!) for Dr. Naik. And mind you, in one of these Dr. Naiks ‘universes’ (or galaxies?) the author of Quran promises rivers of honey and milk and wine and what not. I hope NASA find’s one such heaven..oops galaxy ..oops Universe!
Just for fun, let’s assume that Dr. Naik is a bigger scholar of Arabic than any of the most reputed ones (like Yusuf Ali, Pickthaal, Hilali, Shakir etc.) and we use ‘Galaxy’ instead of ‘sky’ in the above verse. Even then, the author of the Quran fails miserably.. here’s how:

  1. The verse starts with “Moreover” ..Implying that before the creation of the galaxies, Allah did something else.
  2. We can find what precedes the creation of ‘galaxies’ by reading the preceding verse, of which, 41:11 is an obvious successor – “Quran Verse 41:10
    He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).

    So what do we have from this verse: The Earth is formed before the formation of galaxies! As if earth is not part of a galaxy!!
  3. Now look the verse 41:11 by itself.. It says the ‘Galaxy’ was a smoke, as if the earth was not! Very Very unscientific!
  4. Read further into the verse “he said to it and the earth: ‘come ye together“.. IS THIS HOW THE GALAXY WAS FORMED? BY coming together of Earth and the rest of the Galaxy? What kind of a joke is this!!! Earth is, was a part of this galaxy… earth was formed with the same “SMOKE” of which the galaxy was formed.

We find that despite the innovative translation of the Quran by Dr. Naik, it still goes against established scientific facts. We are surprised and disheartened that such absurd unscientific arguments find many buyers in the Islamic world. Science has a lot of catching up to do 🙁
Zakir Naik says:
Again, this fact is a corollary to the ‘Big Bang’ and was not known to the Arabs during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). What then, could have been the source of this knowledge?
Our response:
Dr. Naik .. The source of Quran’s ‘knowledge’ (?) is Greek, Babylonian, Jewish and Christian mythology of its time which it faithfully reproduces. Add to that your unscientific translation of the same word in any which way that suits you. And despite all this hanky panky, your argument still bites the dust.
Zakir Naik says:
THE SPHERICAL SHAPE OF THE EARTH
In early times, people believed that the earth is flat. For centuries, men were afraid to venture out too far, lest they should fall off the edge. Sir Francis Drake was the first person who proved that the earth is spherical when he sailed around it in 1597. Consider the following Qur’aanic verse regarding the alternation of day and night: “Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day And He merges Day into Night?” [Al-Qur’aan 31:29]. Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day and from day to night.
The following verse also alludes to the spherical shape of the earth: “He created the heavens And the earth In true (proportions): He makes the Night Overlap the Day, and the Day Overlap the Night.” [Al-Qur’aan 39:5] The Arabic word used here is Kawwara meaning ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’- the way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day and night can only take place if the earth is spherical.
Our response:

  1. The underlined claim is false. A flat-disc earth with sun moving in a canopy above it will also result in gradual change of night and day. Thus, using this as an argument in support of a spherical earth is void.
  2. By the way , Let’s look at the complete verse (31:29) “Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day and he merges Day into Night; that He has subjected the sun, and the moon (to his Law), each running its course for a term appointed; and that Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do?” [verse 39:5 repeats the same claim]This verse when looked at in its entirety exposes the naïve understanding of the author of the Quran. The author believes that night merges into day and day merges into night because sun and moon follow their courses around the earth at appointed intervals. It’s a scientific blunder that assumes a geocentric world (as the Greeks used to believe)
  3. Also, the verse in its entirety is talking about how Allah makes night and day using sun and moon. It nowhere talks about the shape of the earth…or for that matter it does not talk about the earth at all! It talks about the courses of the sun and moon (not of earth).
  4. Gradual change of day into night and vice versa is a PLAIN OBSERVATION for anybody. It does not require any rocket science to be appreciated. Coupling this observation with the fact that Quran talks of spherical earth is as foolish as claiming that Quran talks about nuclear fusion because it mentions somewhere that the sun shines! Rather than fulfilling his promise of an objective analysis, we find that Dr. Naik has surrendered to his wild imagination to hunt for science in the Quran.

Dear reader, we know that you would have called the bluff of Dr. Naik by now. But let’s bear with a few more ‘evidences’ of Dr. Naik. Let this be dealt with once and for all.
Zakir Naik says:
The earth is not exactly round like a ball, but geo-spherical i.e. it is flattened at the poles. The following verse contains a description of the earth’s shape “And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped.”  [Al-Qur’aan 79:30]
The Arabic word for egg here is dahaha, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’aan correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur’aan was revealed was that the earth is flat
Our response:
As expected, the translation of the above verse is NOT from YUSUF ALI, it’s a later day addition by apologists like Dr. Naik. Here are the three reputed translations:
YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);
PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth,
SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.
Al-Taqiyya is at play and Dr. Naik deviates from his assurance that he would quote from Yusuf Ali. He created his own translation!!! Not a single scholar worth his salt translated dahaha as egg-shaped.
Well, that’s enough to refute this concoction But let’s refute it thoroughly:

  1. The word ‘dahaha’ DOES NOT mean Ostrich-egg…it means to flatten, roll out, spread etc as per the most trusted Arabic dictionaries. No Arabic dictionary of repute can make such a phenomenal blunder, but Dr. Naik is unfazed nonetheless, he is happy with his innovation. He must be reminded that Innovation is a GREAT SIN in Islam
  2. Again, even if hypothetically dahaha meant egg shaped, then again, scientifically speaking, the earth is an oblate spheroid and not an ovoid like the ostrich egg
  3. Now let’s look at other places where the Quran talks about the shape of the earth
  • Quran 50:7 “And the earth have We spread out, and have flung firm hills therein, and have caused of every lovely kind to grow thereon”. [Waal-ardamadadnahawaalqaynafeeharawasiyawaanbatnafeeha min kullizawjinbaheejin]
    The word used here is madadnaha – which means spread out, make plain, flatten – nothing spherical about it. [Quran 50:7]
  • Quran 91:6 “And the earth and Him Who spread it [Waal-ardiwamatahaha]
  • Quran 71:19 “‘And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out), [ WaAllahujaAAalalakumu al-ardabisatan ]

From the evidence above, we can safely ask Dr. Zakir Naik to take his ostrich egg back to his ostrich farm and not confuse Muslims as well as non-Muslims on the straight forward translations of the Quranic words/verses by the most reputed scholars of Quran.
And if there is still residual doubt in your minds, let’s read this verse of the author of Quran 79:19 “‘And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),
[Have you seen a spherical carpet? 😉 ]
Now let’s puncture Dr. Naik’s other claim that the prevalent notion at the time of Quran was that the earth is flat. We share with you the scientific understanding about earth’s shape and SIZE during the same time period (actually a century prior to) when the Quran was revealed. Aryabhatta was an Indian mathematician and wrote his treatise Aryabhatiya in 499 CE:

  • Aryabhatta tells us that the Moon and planets shine by reflected sunlight and that the orbits of the planets are ellipses.
    [The author of the Quran was unaware of the fact that all planets reflect sunlight 🙁 ]
  • He also correctly explained the causes of eclipses of the Sun and the Moon.
    [Muslims including the prophet [and many Hindus even today] used to pray during eclipses because they did not understand this natural phenomenon. They thought it to be one of Allah’s or God’s signs – Quran is after all a book of signs 😉 ]
  • His value for the length of the sidereal year at 365 days 6 hours 12 minutes 30 seconds is only 3 minutes 20 seconds longer than the true value of 365 days 6 hours 9 minutes 10 seconds.
    [Now that’s what we call a substantial claim. Not something rustic like “we have divided the year into four seasons” kind of banal stuff]
  • He estimated the value of ‘Pi’ as: “Add four to one hundred, multiply by eight and then add sixty-two thousand. The result is approximately the circumference of a circle of diameter twenty thousand. By this rule the relation of the circumference to diameter is given.” In other words, Pi=62832/20000 = 3.1416, correct to four rounded-off decimal places.
    [PI is needed for anybody who understands circles (forget about spheres). The author of the Quran didn’t have anything to opine in this regard in his ‘1000+ scientific verses”?]
  • Aryabhatta accurately calculated the Earth’s circumference as 24,835 miles, which was only 0.2% smaller than the actual value of 24,902 miles. This approximation remained the most accurate for over a thousand years [i.e. 100 years before Islam and 900 years after the advent of Islam !]
    source: http://www.archive.org/details/The_Aryabhatiya_of_Aryabhata_Clark_1930

Dear Readers, please compare Aryabhatta’s knowledge on the shape and circumference of the earth versus Allah’s vague revelation that the earth is an expanse or even Dr. Naik’s innovative translation that earth is ostrich egg shaped (which is anyways wrong). Which one of the two sounds like science?
And don’t forget, Aryabhatta revealed all this a century before the author of the Quran came up with his so called scientific verses!
Guess what? Aryabhatta was 23 years old when he gave us his marvelous treatise on Astronomy, Algebra, Spherical geometry, trigonometry etc.
THUS IF MUHAMMAD BE REGARDED AS PROPHET BECAUSE OF THE SIGNS OR SCIENCE HE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN IN A BOOK CALLED QURAN, ARYABHATTA DESERVES TO BE REGARDED AS AN EVEN BIGGER PROPHET FOR GIVING MUCH MORE ACUURATE SCIENCE IN HIS BOOK. If Quran be basis for regarding Muhammad as Rasul, then Aryabhatta is the true Rasul.
The derivatives of Aryabhatta’s work reached an Arab (Al-Khwarizmi), who translated it into Arabic and consequently took this knowledge to the West. He is now known as the father of algebra!
[Thank God! He was smart enough to know where to look for scientific knowledge from – and it was NOT the Quran]
Wondering why this particular rebuttal is so long and comprehensive? Well! Don’t you remember what Dr. Naik said? He said that if any scripture says that the earth is flat, you must discard that scripture. Now you know what you have to do..don’t you?
Zakir Naik says:
THE LIGHT OF THE MOON IS REFLECTED LIGHT
It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur’aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse:. Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light.” [Al-Qur’aan 25:61]
The Arabic word for the sun in the Qur’aan, is shams. It is referred to as siraaj, which means a ‘torch’ or as wahhaaj which means ‘a blazing lamp’ or as diya which means ‘shining glory’. All three descriptions are appropriate to the sun, since it generates intense heat and light by its internal combustion. The Arabic word for the moon is qamar and it is described in the Qur’aan as muneer, which is a body that gives nur i.e. light. Again, the Qur’aanic description matches perfectly with the true nature of the moon, which does not give off light itself and is an inert body that reflects the light of the sun. Not once in the Qur’aan, is the moon mentioned as siraaj, wahhaaj or diya or the sun as nur or muneer. This implies that the Qur’aan recognizes the difference between the nature of sunlight and moonlight.
The Arabic word dahaha has been translated by A. Yusuf Ali as “vast expanse”, which also is correct. The word dahaha also means an ostrich-egg
Consider the following verses related to the nature of light from the sun and the moon: “It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty).” [Al-Qur’aan 10:5] “See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, “And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?” [Al-Qur’aan 71:15-16]’

Our response:

  1. As has been already shared, Aryabhatta not only explained that moon and other planets reflect the sun’s light but also explained eclipses. Dr. Naik needs to read about some great non-Arabic civilizations of the time (I wonder how he missed this one being born in a civilization as great as Indian – anyways).
  2. Now if Dr. Naik is to be believed, Nur means reflected light. No previous Islamic scholar has made this scandalous claim before – and do you know why? Because one of the 99 Names of the God of Quran (Allah) is AN-Nur. If we translate this word according to Dr. Naik’s definition Allah’s name would become: THE REFLECTED LIGHT! Now the question to ask Dr. Naik is that if Allah is “reflected light” who is the Original Light Source? [We await Dr. Naik’s answer to this question eagerly]
  3. Dr. Naik, probably embarrassed, has not shared the entire verses 71:15-16. Here they are
    15-16 “See ye not
    how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another. And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?” So what do we have here:
    –Again the Greek/Judaic philosophical thought of 7 heavens in which various stars and planets and sun and moon can be SEEN by the naked eye. Hence Allah’s insistence in this verse too. He is asking everybody to look at the planets which are visible at dawn and dusk, the stars, the planets, the moon all believed to be stationed in their respective layers of the 7 layered heaven
    –Another blunder is that Moon is placed IN BETWEEN (in the midst of) these Layers. Another verse tells us that stars are in the lower heavens.. implying that moon is farther than the stars from us
  4. Another big hole in this argument is that it ties Nur with Moon. Aryabhatta told us 100 years before Quran that ALL PLANETS reflect sun light. Earth is also a Nur (borrowing Dr. Naik innovative translation) when looked from the Moon. [Ask Rakesh Sharma or Neil Armstrong. Better use Google].

Yes, Yes we do understand that all this is more than enough to debunk Dr. Naik’s entire booklet. Kindly let us know any other ‘scientific miracle‘ [oxymoron!] you are finding difficult to refute. We’ll respond in the comments section. Thanks for going through the looong article.
So Long!
Download as PDF: Science in Quran
Science in Quran
[mybooktable book=”science-blissful-living” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

धर्मनिरपेक्षता (सेक्युलरिज्म) की परख (जाकिर नाइक जैसों के लिए)

हम  सब  एक सेक्युलर ( पंथनिरपेक्ष  ) देश  में  रहते  हैं | सेक्युलरिज्म   एक  सबसे  उम्दा  मानवीय  विचार  है |जिसमें  कोई  भी  नीतिगत  व्यवस्था  ,प्रक्रिया (नीतिगत )या  मानसिकता  किसी  भी  फिरके  (पंथ ) या  साम्प्रदायिक अवधारणाओं  –   से  प्रभावित  नहीं  होती | सेक्युलरिज्म  की  पूरी  अवधारणा  -साम्प्रदायिक  सौहार्द  की  अवधारणाओं   पर  खड़ी  है |मोहनदास  करमचंद   गाँधी  साम्प्रदायिक  सौहार्द   के  बड़े   पक्षधर  थे |उन्होंने ‘ ईश्वर  अल्लाह  तेरो  नाम ‘ भजन  को  प्रचलित  किया | मतलब  ईश्वर  और  अल्लाह  एक  ही  हैं | उनके  ज़माने  के  साम्प्रदायिक  सदभाव वाले   और  सेक्युलर  लोग  यह  सुरीला  गीत  सभी  मंदिरों  में  गाते  थे | और  यह   आज  भी   गाया  जाता  है | हम  यह  गाना  स्कूलों एवं सामूहिक  जमावडों  में  गाते  गाते  बड़े  हुए   हैं |
विश्व  हिन्दू  परिषद् , राष्ट्रीय  स्वयं  सेवक  संघ   और  आर्यसमाज  को  प्रायः  फिरकापरस्त  और   दक्षिणपंथी  कहा  जाता  है | उन  पर  आरोप  लगाया  जाता  है  कि  वे  साम्प्रदायिक  सदभाव  नष्ट  करने  पर  तुले  हुए  हैं | हाल   में  ही  जिस  प्रकार  यह  फिरकापरस्त  ताकतें  पनप  रही  हैं  और  उपमहाद्वीप  की  शांति  और  सौहार्द  को  आहात  कर  रही  हैं , उससे  देश  और  दुनिया  का  बौद्धिक  वर्ग  चिंतित  है | जब  कभी  भी  कहीं  आतंकी  हमला  होता  है  तब  ये  फिरकापरस्त  ताकतें  उसे  मुस्लिम  आतंकवाद  करार  देती  हैं| और पंथनिरपेक्ष मीडिया  को  अपनी   पूरी  ताकत  और  प्रयत्न  यह  जताने  में  खर्च  करने  पड़ते  हैं  कि  आतंक  का  कोई   धर्म  नहीं  होता | उन्हें  अच्छे  मुसलमानों   और  बुरे  हिन्दुओं की  वीडियो  और  फिल्मों  के साथ  पेश  होना पड़ता  है  ताकि  मुस्लिमों  के  प्रति  गलत  अवधारणाओं के  सामने  संतुलन  किया  जा   सके  | मालेगांव   जैसी   जगहों  पर  जहाँ  गौवध  प्रचुरता  से  चलन  में  है ,वहां  के  छोटे -मोटे  बम  धमाकों  को  बढ़ा -चढ़ा  कर  प्रसारित  करना  पड़ता  है | फिर  राज्य  की  सारी  व्यवस्थाएँ  इन तथाकथित  दक्षिणपंथी  ताकतों  को  पकड़ने  के  लिए  हरकत  में  आती  हैं |
यह  अलग  बात  है  की  कुछ  बड़े  आतंकी  हमले शायद  इतने  बड़े  नहीं  होते  ताकि  उनके धमाके से  राजकीय  व्यवस्था जागृत  हो सकें | इसीलिए  हम  वर्षों  से  अफ़ज़ल   की  सजा  का  इंतजार  कर  रहे  हैं | क्योंकि  एक  साधारण  अवधारणा  बनी  रही  है  कि  इस  देश  का  बौद्धिक  वर्ग  यह  मान  चुका  है  कि  हिन्दू  बहुत  ही  फिरकापरस्त  बन  चुके  हैं | हिन्दू  अंतर्राष्ट्रीय  स्तर  पर  होने  वाले  तमाम  आतंकवाद  के  लिए  मुसलमानों  और  खास  तौर  पर   मुल्ला -मौलवियों  को  दोषी  ठहराने  पर तुला  हुआ  हैं | यह  तो  सिर्फ  संयोग  और  पाश्चात्य  मीडिया  का  षडयंत्र  ही  है  कि  अधिकतर  आतंकी  और  सोमालियाई  समुद्री  डाकुओं  का  जो  गिरोह  प्रकाश  में  आया  है -वे  भी मुस्लिम  ही  निकले  हैं | पर  वास्तविकता  फिर भी यही  है  कि  हिन्दू  आतंकवाद  कहीं  ज्यादा  खतरनाक  है  और  इसलिए   उसको  रोकना  प्राथमिकता  होनी  चाहिए !
अगले  लेखों  में  हम  हिन्दू  और  इस्लामिक  आतंकवाद  और  उनके  कारणों  का  मूल्यांकन जरूर  करेंगे| पर  अभी  हम  एक  व्यवहारिक  समाधान  सूचित  कर  रहे   हैं | जिससे  सभी हिन्दू  और  मुस्लिम  साम्प्रदायिक  सौहार्द  को  बढ़ावा  दें और  सेक्युलरिज्म  को  प्रोत्साहित  करें |इस समाधान  के  लिए  मैं   मोहनदास  करमचंद  गाँधी  से  प्रेरित  हूँ | जो  इस  समाधान  को  स्वीकार  कर  लेते  हैं , वह  सच्चे  सेक्युलर   हैं  और  इससे  इंकार  करने  वाले  असली  फिरकापरस्त  हैं |क्योंकि   जो  मैं  दे रहा हूँ, वह  केवल   गांधीजी  के ‘ ईश्वर  अल्लाह  तेरो  नाम’  का  ही  विस्तार  है|
सेक्युलरिज्म  को  परखने  का  समाधान  यह  है –
1.नित्यप्रति  सभी  मंदिरों  में  प्रार्थना  के  बाद  लाउडस्पीकर   से  कुरान  की  आयतों  का  पाठ  किया  जाए|  और  सभी  मस्जिदों  में  गीता  के  श्लोक  व  वेद  मन्त्रों  का  पठन  हो|
2.सभी  मस्जिदों  व  मंदिरों  से  लाउडस्पीकर  पर  घोषणा  की  जाए  और  उनकी  दीवारों  पर  लिखा  जाए कि  ईश्वर  और  अल्लाह  एक  हैं ,राम   और  रहीम  एक  हैं ,गीता  और  कुरान  एक  हैं ,काशी  और  काबा  एक  हैं|
3.मस्जिदों  में  हवन  हो  और  मंदिरों  में  नमाज | और  इस  प्रक्रिया  को  प्रमुख  मंदिरों  और  मस्जिदों  से  करने  की  पहल  की  जाए | अग्निवीर  ने  भारत  के  कई प्रमुख  मंदिरों  से  ऐसा  करने  की  चर्चा  की  है एवं उनका दृष्टिकोण सकारात्मक है| आर्य समाज की सर्वप्रमुख बौद्धिक संस्था – परोपकारिणी सभा – ने तो अरबी और कुरान गुरुकुल में सिखाने के लिए मौलवी भी नियुक्त कर दिए हैं| अब  मुस्लिमों  की  बारी  है कि  वे  जामा  मस्जिद  जैसे  प्रमुख  मस्जिदों  की  सूचि  लेकर  सामने आएं  | जो  यह  सब  करने  को तैयार  हैं |
अग्निवीर  अपनी  वेबसाइट  के  प्रथम   पृष्ट  पर  प्रमुखता  से  यह  देने  को  तैयार  है  कि  ईश्वर  और  अल्लाह  एक  हैं ,राम  और  रहीम  एक  हैं ,गीता  और  कुरान  एक  हैं ,काशी  और  काबा  एक  हैं | हम  मंच  पर  इसकी  घोषणा  हिन्दू  अग्रणी  नेता  से  करवाने   को  तैयार  हैं |इस्लामिक  रिसर्च फाऊंडेशन  भी  ऐसा  करके  दिखलाए|
अग्निवीर  स्वयं  और  अन्य  हिन्दू  विद्वानों  से  घोषणा  करवाने  को  तैयार  है  कि  –“हिन्दू तथा    गैर  – हिन्दू  ,सभी  भले  लोग  स्वर्ग  प्राप्त  कर  सकते  हैं |” अब  जाकिर  नाइक ,इमाम  बुखारी ,देवबंदी  और  अन्य  इस्लामिक  विद्वान   भी  यह  ऐलान   करें  कि  –“मुस्लिम  और गैर -मुस्लिम  सभी  अच्छे  इन्सान  जन्नत  हासिल  करेंगे |” देखने  वाली  बात  है  कि  असल  में  साम्प्रदायिक  सौहार्द  कौन चाहता    है ?
जो  कोई  भी  संगठन  इन  बातों  को  मानने  से  इंकार  कर  दे ,  उस  पर  सामाजिक  समरसता  के  हितार्थ  प्रतिबन्ध  लगा  देना  चाहिए | सेक्युलरिज्म   की  यह  असली  परख  है |
यदि  जाकिर  नाइक  ऊपर  लिखी हुई  बातों  का  ऐलान  मंच  से  वास्तव  में  करे  और  अपने  वेबसाइट  पर   भी  दे  तो  अग्निवीर  की  वेबसाइट  पर  भी  इसे  दिया  जाएगा और  उसके  खिलाफ  लिखे  गए   सारे  लेखों  को  तुरंत  हटा  लिया  जायेगा |
पर  हाँ , यदि  जाकिर  नाइक ,बुखारी  और  इस्लाम  के  अन्य  प्रतिनिधि  इन  बातों  को मानने  से  इंकार  करते  हैं  और  हिन्दू  फिर   भी  ‘ईश्वर  अल्लाह  तेरो  नाम  ‘गाना  जारी  रखते  हैं   तो  हिन्दुओं  से  ज्यादा  नासमझ  (मूर्ख ) समुदाय  और  कोई  भी  नहीं  होगा | क्योंकि  जो  ‘शेष   नाग ’के  भ्रम  में  साँप  (कोबरा )को  दूध  अर्पित  करते  हों  और  जानबूझ  कर  उसे  अपने  सिर  पर  बैठाते  हों , वह  तो  डसे जाने  के  ही पात्र हैं |  जाकिर  नाइक  और  बुखारी    अपने  क्रिया कलापों  द्वारा  प्रमाणित  करके  दिखाएँ की  वे  वास्तव  में  शेष  नाग  हैं – आस्तीन   के   साँप  नहीं |
और  जब  तक  ये  मुस्लिम  प्रतिनिधि   सेक्युलरिज्म   की  इस  कसौटी  को  पार  करने  से  इंकार  करते  हैं  तब तक  इन  तथा कथित  बुद्धिजीवियों  को  कोई  अधिकार  नहीं  है  कि  वे  हिन्दू  संगठनो  को  कट्टरपंथी  और  फिरकापरस्त  कहें |मोहनदास   सिर्फ   हिन्दुओं  से  ही  ‘ईश्वर  अल्लाह  तेरो  नाम ’ गवा सके  जिसे   आज  भी  मंदिरों  में  गाया   जा  रहा  है | देश  और  विश्व  में  सच्चे  साम्प्रदायिक  सौहार्द  को  लाने  के  लिए  यह  ख्याति प्राप्त गीत  मस्जिदों  और  आइ  आर एफ   के  जलसों  में  भी  गूंजना  चाहिए |
पर दुःख की बात है की आज तक कोई मुसलमान मौलवी या प्रचारक या संस्था यह कहने की हिम्मत नहीं कर पायी कि
“मुस्लिम  और गैर -मुस्लिम  सभी  अच्छे  इन्सान  जन्नत  हासिल  करेंगे |”
“ईश्वर  अल्लाह  तेरो  नाम”
“ईश्वर  और  अल्लाह  एक  हैं ,राम  और  रहीम  एक  हैं ,गीता  और  कुरान  एक  हैं ,काशी  और  काबा  एक  हैं”
This article is also available in English at http://agniveer.com/1678/test-of-secularism/