Written by Sulaiman Razvi
Some Hindu apologists tried refuting my articles Scientific errors in Vedas and Scientific errors in Hinduism, I request my readers to first read these articles because just by reading these articles one can easily respond to the rebuttal of apologists. I must applaud their effort of at least trying because most of the time they just try to run away citing lame excuses. The rebuttal is so pathetic and weak that I didn’t find it worth responding but since my silence makes Hindu fanatics think that they have given me a strong response so unfortunately I had to waste my time writing this. The frustration of Hindu fanatic can be gauged from the language used against me. The apologist in the introduction writes that he knew that Vedic verses are going to be “misinterpreted” just by seeing that the article is written by a Muslim. That’s the problem of all Hindus, they directly come to the conclusion that since the writer is a Muslims so whatever he wrote must be fake to malign Hinduism, and this statement itself proves that he read my article without a neutral mind. Though the apologist wasted my time with this article but he proved that my articles Scientific errors in Hinduism and Scientific errors in Vedas are irrefutable. Without wasting any time let’s read the rebuttal of the apologist.
This article is divided into two parts, Part 1 deals with my first response and part 2 deals with my second response.
Part 1
Claim:
The apologist posted Atharved 6.77.1 from my blog and tried to refute it by posting another Hindi translation by Shri Ram Sharma Acharya, trying their usual “Fake translation” trick. And then he wrote that,
“As you can clearly see, the specific verse says Earth is stable (अस्थात् is the Sanskrit word for stable). The word used by ShriRam Sharma to denote ‘stable’ is ‘स्थिर. Even the translation by Griffith used the word ‘Firm’ for Earth which also means ‘Stabilise’. But now here is a trouble, the author of that website has given us the translation by ‘Arya Samaj’ which translated the Sanskrit word ‘अस्थात्’ as ‘ठहर. The word ‘ठहर means ‘stop’. So now the problem is that which translation is to be believed. To solve that problem, let’s look at that Sanskrit word ‘अस्थात् (अस्थात् word don’t exist in modern Sanskrit dictionary, so let’s look at the word with common root) and find out its meaning in dictionary. And here it is”
And then he gave meaning from a dictionary.
My Response:
It’s ironic that they are not convinced even after I quoted a Hindi translation by Hindu scholar. I would not respond to this verse as it will confuse the readers, apologist deliberately skipped the next verse I posted which is Atharva Veda 6.44.1 and this is what clears doubt about previous verse too, so let’s read the verse,
Atharva Veda 6.44.1 “The heavens have stood still, the earth has stood still, all creatures have stood still. The trees that sleep erect have stood still: may this disease of thine stand still!” Tr. Maurice Bloomfield
Above is Shripad Damodar Satvalekar’s Hindi translation and below is Kshemkarandas Trivedi’s translation,
This is a prayer made to stop malady, now going by apologist’s concocted definition, is it praying for malady to be “Firm”? Both the translators above has translated the word Asthaat has Tehra Hai which means Stop. Shri Ram Sharma Acharya whose translation he quoted cleverly translates this verse as,
He translated earth and heaven as firm but then translates standing still [Tehre Hai] when it comes to trees. If it’s just about firmness then why does it talk about trees? doesn’t trees shake with a gust of wind? Trees stands in its place and doesn’t move and it being compared to earth proves that earth is motionless according to Vedas. So what this verse says is that just as the earth is Tehra hai (standing still/stopped) so this malady should also Teher Jaye (should stop/stand still). And that’s the reason apologist skipped this verse so that he may not be caught with foot in the mouth.
CLAIM:
Then the apologist quotes Rigved 10.149.1, posts Hindi translations of Shri Ram Sharma and Ram Govind Trivedi and writes that,
“As you can see, the verse again says that Earth is constant/stable. But this time, author of that website has used the translation done by Griffith (which is worst in the world). You may concern to any Vedic school, they always reject the translation by Griffith as it so poor and willingly done wrong. The Sanskrit word used is ‘दृड’ which means ‘stable’ but Griffith has willingly mistranslated it. But we can go with translation done by great Vedic scholars like ShriRam Sharma & Ram Govind Tiwari.”
MY RESPONSE:
Ralph T.H. Griffith’s translation is based on commentaries of Mahidhara and Uvvata which confirms the errors in Vedas hence Hindus now in an attempt to reinterpret Vedas reject these commentaries and translation. If the apologist was honest he would have mentioned all meanings of the word Dhrdh [दृड]. This word has several meanings like fixed, immovable, steady, firm but Hindu apologists likes to choose firm and steady among those definitions. I also quoted Nirukta which the apologist didn’t mention,
Nirukta 10.32 “Savitar caused the earth to be fastened with supports. In the supportless atmosphere Savitar has made the heaven firm…” Tr. Lakshman Sarup
This is not translated by Griffith but by a Hindu scholar named Lakshman Sarup and it confirms my claim that the Earth is immovable according to Rig Veda 10.149.1. Also I quoted English translation by H.H. Wilson,
Rig Veda 10.149.1 “Savitar has fixed the earth with supports; Savitar has fastened heaven in unsupported space…” Tr. H.H. Wilson
Here is Griffith’s translation,
Rig Veda 10.149.1 “SAVITAR fixed the earth with bands to bind it, and made heaven stedfast where no prop supported.” Tr. Ralph T.H. Griffith
CLAIM and RESPONSE:
Then the apologist quotes Atharva Ved 13.1.6 and claims that I did a big blunder by mentioning Arya Samaj translation as it nowhere says that the earth is fixed rather it says that the earth Drdh i.e. firm or steady. He again claims that the word Drdh means stable or constant. Vaman Shivram Apte translates the word Drdh as,
The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, p.575, by Vaman Shivram Apte, Published by Shiralkar & Co, 1890
The first meaning he gave is “Fixed”, one can check the meaning of Drdh in other Sanskrit dictionaries which clearly translates it as immovable and fixed. But the author to fool gullible has given few definitions to suit his vested interests. Then he tries to refute Yajur Veda 5.16, I quoted Shri Ram Sharma’s Hindi translation which roughly translates as “fixed the earth” and Swami Karpatri Maharaj’s translation is same as Ram Sharma’s, but the apologist argues that the Hindi word Stambhit स्तंभित doesn’t mean stop, I request readers to go to following links to know the definition,
https://www.shabdkosh.com/translate/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4-meaning-in-Hindi-English
And then he quoted Yajur Veda 32.6 and again argued that the word Drdh does not mean fixed/immovable but stable and gives a snapshot of unknown dictionary while I have given snapshot of popular Sanskrit-English dictionary by V.S Apte. Readers can check the meaning of Drdh online for yourself.
CLAIM:
The apologist quoted Rigveda 3.30.4 and wrote that, “Again, all can see that the verse nowhere says that Earth is fixed, but author of that website in his foolishness considered that meaning of Hindi word ‘अविचल’ as ‘Stop’ whereas the word also means Stable’.”
RESPONSE:
I quoted Shri Ram Sharma’s Hindi translation in my article. Okay, let’s not argue on this translation by Shri Ram Sharma Acharya. The apologist had said that “But we can go with translation done by great Vedic scholars like ShriRam Sharma & Ram Govind Tiwari.” I mentioned Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi’s translation as well, either the apologist missed it or he deliberately skipped it here, Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi translated Rig Veda 3.30.4 as,
Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi translates this verse as Tumari agya se dhava pruthvi aur parvat achal hai i.e. by your order heaven, earth and mountains stands immovable. Now what does these words “Avichal” and “Achal” means? The Hindi word Achal अचल clearly means immovable. Many verses clearly uses the word Drdh दृढ which means fixed but Hindus argue that it means firm, whether Drdh means fixed or firm can be better understood after reading Rig Veda 8.78.5; 10.173.4; Atharva Veda 6.88.1, 20.34.2, 19.32.9, 13.1.6-7 and Yajur Veda 1.17 which says the Earth is Fixed. The Atharva Veda 6.77.1 and 6.44.1 explicitly states that Earth is standing still (not moving). But still Hindus will argue that it doesn’t mean what it says. Then what was the logic behind Ishwar revealing so many verses on Earth’s ‘Stability’? It’s plain and clear, the earth is fixed according to the Vedas as proved from verses which says that Earth is standing still. Even if we accept their claim, then why does Vedas talk about Earth along with Heaven that the earth and heaven are firmly fixed? As per the Vedas both heaven and earth are immovable.
And then he quotes Rig Veda 2.12.2 translated by H.H. Wilson and writes, “One more thing should be noted down: Those translators who used the adjective of ‘Fixed’ before Earth are not wrong. They maybe referring to ‘Position’ not ‘Motion’. We all know that Earth is fixed in it’s orbit. That is why Professor Wilson translated Rigveda2.12.2 most clearly:
Professor Wilson used both words ‘Fixed’ & ‘Moving’ in a sentence to make it clear that the word ‘Fixed’ determines the position of Earth (orbit of Earth which is fixed) and the word ‘Moving’ determines the ‘Motion’ of Earth (as we all know that Earth is moving).”
Whereas his most authentic translations of Ram Sharma nor Ram Govind doesn’t translates it to anything like that, here is the translation of Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi of Rigved 2.12.2,
Following is the Hindi translation by Shri Ram Sharma Acharya,
Another thing is that, he quoted H.H. Wilson’s translation but ignored what he wrote about wings of mountain which he tried to refute in another article. H.H. Wilson wrote in the footnotes of Rig Veda 2.12.2,
“Yah parvatan prakupitan aramnat; the Scholiast says he quieted the mountains, going hither and thither, as long as they had wings: Indra cut them off.”
I would like to know if he would believe in this statement also. And then the apologist quotes Atharved 2.12.4; 19.9.7 translated by Shri Ram Sharma and claims that all planets are moving. I didn’t even check them because I am not denying motion of the planets in Hinduism. But do they say Earth is moving? Not! Then it’s of no use. Then the apologist writes,
“Rigveda 3.5.5 also denotes ‘Earth’ as ‘moving’. And the translation given below is by Professor Wilson & Arya Samaj.
In fact, one of the Sanskrit words used for ‘Earth’ in Vedas is ‘गौ’ which stands for ‘जिसकी
गति
हो’ means ‘Which is in motion’.”
I checked the Sanskrit version and the word ‘Rip’ (रिप्) is mentioned for Earth not Gau. Apologist can do us a favour by mentioning the Sanskrit word which he translated here as “moving”. There is no word which can be translated as moving hence Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi and Shri Ram Sharma Acharya has not translated it anything like that, following is the Hindi translation of Rig Veda 3.5.5 by Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi,
Following is the Hindi translation by Shri Ram Sharma Acharya,
Following is the Hindi translation by Shripad Damodar Satvalekar (Arya Samaj),
CLAIM:
The website has quoted Rig Veda 8.41.10 & Rig Veda 1.160.4 claimed that Earth is supported by Pillars.
Now this is another stupidity of that website. You can read the translation by Shri Ram Sharma & Ram Govind Tiwari below, it nowhere says that Earth is supported by Pillars. It says, Universe carries the Earth which is scientifically truth. The Sanskrit word used is ‘धारयन्न’ which means ‘to carry’.
REFUTATION:
This claim of mine is based on English translations,
I posted English translation of Rig Veda 8.41.10 by Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati,
Rig Veda 8.41.10 In his successive functions, he emits his bright rays (during day) or turns them dark (during the night). He measures out the eternal abode, and supports with the pillar of the firmament, both heaven and the earth. May all our adversities vanish” Tr. Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati
H.H. Wilson translated it as,
Rig Veda 8.41.10 “He who in his successive functions emits his bright rays or turns them dark, first made his residence (in the firmament), and, as the unborn sun the sky, supports with the pillar (of the firmament) both heaven and earth: may all out enemies perish.” Tr. H.H. Wilson
Griffith translated it as,
Rig Veda 8.41.10 “10 Who, after his decree, o’erspread the Dark Ones with a robe of light;
Who measured out the ancient seat, who pillared both the worlds apart as the Unborn supported heaven. Let all the others die away.” Tr. Ralph T.H. Griffith
Rig Veda 1.160.4 reads as,
Rig Veda 1.160.4 “Among the skilful Gods most skilled is he, who made the two world-halves which bring prosperity to all; Who with great wisdom measured both the regions out, and stablished them with pillars that shall ne’er decay.” Tr. Ralph T.H. Griffith
And following is another English translation by H.H. Wilson
Rig Veda 1.160.4 “He it is, amongst gods (the most divine), amongst (pious) works the most pious, who gave birth to the all delighting heaven and earth: who measured them both, and, for the sake of the holy rites, propped them up with undecaying pillars.” Tr. H.H. Wilson
CLAIM:
Sun and Moon dipping in water
Apologist quotes Rigveda 7.55.7 and writes that,
There are many things to be noted down here:
1. The verse talks about Bull, but it is authors (Shri Ram Sharma) opinion that the Vedas maybe referring to Sun, so he kept it in bracket.
2. Next, we all must note that Rigveda 7.55.7 is a morning prayer to Sun, so sages who might be living near sea were praying to Sun in a poetic form.
RESPONSE:
Easiest way of escaping is to give it an allegorical meaning, that’s it. Did I mentioned only Rigved and Atharved for this claim? Of course not! I mentioned from Puranas and Brahmanas especially Kausitaki Brahmana to support this claim but the apologist seems to have missed it,
Kausitaki Brahmana 18.9 Him who yonder gives heat they seek by these pressings to obtain; the rising by the morning pressing, (the sun) in the middle (of his course) by the midday pressing, (the sun) as he sets by the third pressing. He, having entered the waters, becomes Varuna.
Apologist claims that those Vedic verses are poetic device. It’s Hindu fanatics usual trick of giving a scientific error an allegorical meaning to cover the truth. I quoted Kaushitaki Brahmana where does it explain sun going in water as a poetic device? I quoted Vamana Purana 16.53, Kausitaki Brahmana 18.9 and Aitareya Brahma 4.20.13 and none of them hints that this is a simile. If they think it’s poetic then they should prove it either by citing any verse or commentary by classical or medieval scholar. Apologist also wrote,
“Then the website quoted Śrī Viṣṇu Purāṇa 2.12 and claimed that Moon dips into water.
Before I say anything else, let me tell you this reference itself is incomplete. The website just quoted Volume number & chapter number which is 2 & 12, but they didn’t quoted verse number. Anyway, because I have read entire chapter, I know they are talking about Vishnu Puran 2.12.8-10. Now let me tell you this entire passage is symbolic representation of full moon day. Because if you read the whole verse, it even says that during full moon day…”
Now again the apologist tries the same trick. H.H. Wilson the translator of Vishnu Purana writes in the introduction of the chapter, “Description of the moon: his chariot, horses, and course: fed by the sun: drained periodically of ambrosia by the progenitors and gods. The chariots and horses of the planets: kept in their orbits by aerial chains attached to Dhruva. Typical members of the planetary porpoise. Vásudeva alone real.”
So it’s not just the description of full moon as the apologist says but a complete description of the moon, the chariot and horses of moon etc. Hinduism also says that elephants are holding up the earth so the apologist may argue that elephants are too small to hold up the earth and that’s how he is explaining about moon dipping in water. And then he quotes Vishnu Purana 2.8.15 to show that according to Hinduism the sun neither rises nor sets. Let’s read entire chapter first,
Vishnu Purana 2.8 “…The glorious sun, Maitreya, darts like an arrow on his southern course, attended by the constellations of the Zodiac…When the sun (at midday) passes over either of the cities of the gods, on the Mánasottara mountain (at the cardinal points), his light extends to three cities and two intermediate points…From the period of his rise the sun moves with increasing rays until noon, when he proceeds towards his setting with rays diminishing…When the sun has travelled in the centre of Pushkara a thirtieth part of the circumference of the globe, his course is equal in time to one Muhúrtta; and whirling round like the circumference of the wheel of a potter, he distributes day and night upon the earth…After he has passed through these, the sun attains his equinoctial movement (the vernal equinox), when he makes the day and night of equal duration…As the circumference of a potter’s wheel revolves most rapidly, so the sun travels rapidly on his southern journey: he flies along his path with the velocity of wind, and traverses a great distance in a short time. In twelve Muhúrttas he passes through thirteen lunar asterisms and a half during the day; and during the night he passes through the same distance, only in eighteen Muhúrttas. As the centre of the potter’s wheel revolves more slowly than the circumference, so the sun in his northern path again revolves with less rapidity, and moves over a less space of the earth in a longer time, until, at the end of his northern route, the day is again eighteen Muhúrttas, and the night twelve; the sun passing through half the lunar mansions by day and by night in those periods respectively…”
These verses are clear about the Sun revolving around the Earth. Aren’t they? This is either a contradiction or the verse quoted by apologist is trying to clarify that the sun always exists and doesn’t disappear. I can say for sure that according to Hinduism the sun moves around the earth, apart from posting the same verse repeated in different scriptures the apologist cannot quote other verses about sun neither setting nor rising, while I can quote dozens of verses about sun revolving around the earth and the sun going here and there. The same chapter itself describes the movements of sun especially the sun revolving around the earth. Then he quotes Aitareya Brahmana which says the same, even Aitareya Brahmana says that Sun dips in water,
Aitareya Brahma Book 4, Chapter 20, verse 13 “…This (Aditya, the sun) is ‘the swan sitting in light’…he is ‘born from the waters’ (abja), for in the morning he comes out of the waters, and in the evening he enters the waters.”
CLAIM:
The website quoted Athara-veda 6.8.3 and claimed that Sun moves around Sun. So here is the translation of Atharva Veda 6.8.3 done by Griffith & Shri Ram Sharma. None of them says that Sun moves around Earth. It is the foolishness of that website which translated the verse on its own.
RESPONSE:
I quoted two English translations with Sanskrit version and translated it word by word,
Atharva Veda 6.8.3 “As the sun day by day goes about this heaven and earth…” Tr. Maurice Bloomfield
Atharva Veda 6.8.3 “As in his rapid course the Sun encompasses the heaven and the earth…” Tr. Ralph T.H. Griffith
यथा [Yatha] = As the, Like the.
सूर्य [Surya] = Sun
एति [Yeti] = goes
परि [Pari] = around
घावा [Dhava] = Heaven
पृथ्वी [Puthvi] = Earth
The Hindi translation which apologist quoted says that sun encompasses heaven and the earth with ITS LIGHT whereas it actually says that sun encompasses heaven and the earth. I challenge him to quote which Sanskrit word is translated as “light” or “rays” here. That’s the reason I translated it word by word because Hindus are deliberately distorting their own texts to cover such errors. It clearly says that the sun encompasses i.e. moves around the heaven and the earth. Griffith clearly used the word encompasses which means to surround, but semi-literate apologist can’t understand such simple word.
CLAIM:
Then the website quoted Rigveda 1.35.9 translated by Satya Prakash. So here is the translation:
As you all can see, even this nowhere says that Sun moves around Earth. It is only talking about the region’s of universe and Earth which Sun covers while rotating.
And this is how Muslims spread falsehood!
RESPONSE:
Apologists needs some English lessons, semi-literate apologist can’t understand such simple English. It clearly says that luminary travels between the two regions of heaven and earth and this verily is known as the sun i.e. it’s the sun which travels between heaven and the earth.
CLAIM:
The website quoted several verses from Vedas which says Sun’s Chariot consist of 7 horses. Now let me tell you, Vedas are the scriptures which have enormous scientific knowledge in it if properly searched. Those Seven horses are nothing but seven colours of light. Not only that but Rigveda 1.164.11 even describes about 12 months & 720 spokes (360 days + 360 nights, which is approximately a year) in a very interesting way. So the words of Vedas instead of taken down literally, must be understood in great depth.
With this, I have responded to each and every claim made by that website. I hope this will help you to counter those who make false claims without any proper study.
RESPONSE:
Some apologists tries to defend this by saying that seven horses mentioned here are not actually horses but seven rays, in many scriptures the Sun is described as having a thousand rays not 7 rays and none of the Puranas or the Mahabharat explains seven horses as seven rays so this proves that its apologists concocted explanation which has no basis. If seven horses are described as seven rays then does that mean the Moon too emits ten rays as Hindu scriptures describes moon moving in a chariot pulled by 10 horses. Sun is described in Hindu scriptures including the Vedas as of having 1000 rays not 7 rays, these 7 horses’ names are different than the names of rays of sun given in Hindu scriptures. Hindu scriptures clearly mentions that the seven horses are seven Vedic metres who have assumed the shape of horses. Some also explain it by saying that one wheel of the chariot signifies day or year, five spokes in it signifies five seasons etc. which is true to an extent but the one wheel represents year and five spokes of the chariot represents five seasons, the chariot doesn’t have allegorical meaning. Just as in the Tricolor (Indian flag) the saffron, white and green represents courage and sacrifice, peace and truth, and faith and chivalry respectively, the Ashoka Chakra in the middle represents the eternal wheel of law so just because these represents something we can’t say that our Tricolor doesn’t exist so the wheel of the chariot and its spokes too represent year and seasons in the same manner. Hindu scriptures even gives the size of Sun’s chariot, how will apologists explain that? If it is symbolic then why Hindu scriptures mentioned the size of chariot? And why do they say that Sun moves around in his chariot? Hindu scriptures also mentions chariot of moon what does it signifies? Also check above topic especially Brahmanda Purana I.2.23.44-45 and Vayu Purana I.52.43-44 which clearly states about Sun revolving around the earth in a chariot pulled by horses and even has a charioteer in front. Logically speaking does the Sun rotates or revolves through rays if horses means rays? I posted some verses in support of this claim which proves my point and the apologist is unable to answer them,
Mahabharata book 13.123 (Anusasnika Parva) …the sun possessed of a thousand rays… He it is that constitutes the wheel of the year, having three naves and seven horses to drag it…He is the sun, the dispeller of all darkness.
Bhagwad Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam) 5.21.12-19 Thus the chariot of the sun-god, which is trayimaya, or worshiped by the words om bhur bhuvah svah, travels through the four residences…My dear King, the carriage of the sun-god’s chariot is estimated to be 3,600,000 yojanas [28,800,000 miles] long and one-fourth as wide [900,000 yojanas, or 7,200,000 miles]. The chariot’s horses, which are named after Gayatri and other Vedic meters, are harnessed by Arunadeva to a yoke that is also 900,000 yojanas wide. This chariot continuously carries the sun-god. Although Arunadeva sits in front of the sun-god and is engaged in driving the chariot and controlling the horses, he looks backward toward the sun-god…My dear King, in his orbit through Bhu-mandala [Earth], the sun-god traverses a distance of 95,100,000 yojanas[760,800,000 miles] at the speed of 2,000 yojanas and two krosas [16,004 miles] in a moment.
Devi Bhagwatam 8.15.40-45 …The seat of the Sun on his chariot measures 36 Lakh Yoyanas wide. The Yuga measures in length one fourth of the above dimensions, that of his seat. The Chariot is moved by seven horses, consisting of the seven Chhandas, Gâyatrî, etc., driven by Aruna. The horses carry the Sun for the happiness of all. Though the charioteer sits in front of the Sun, his face is turned towards the west. He does his work as a charioteer in that state…
Brahmanda Purana 1.2.23.50-51 “He is served by Gandharvas and groups of celestial damsels by means of sons and dances. The lord of the day (i.e. the sun) thus revolves and wanders by means of horses that gallop and that are as swift as birds. The chariot of Soma (the Moon) has three wheels. His horses have the lustre of Kunda (white jasmine) flowers. They are ten in number and they are yoked to the left as well as to the right. The moon traverses by means of this.” Tr. Board of Scholars, Edited by J.L. Shastri
CLAIM:
There is a website managed by a Muslim guy which has recently published a blog named “Scientific Errors of Hinduism”. Just to remind you all, this is the same website which has earlier published a blog named “Scientific Errors of Vedas”, when I responded to their blog, they had no way to escape. So now they came up with a new blog.
Interestingly, this time they are counting scientific errors majorly from Purana’s. Despite knowing the fact that Purana’s are not authority for Hindus, many of them were written down recently. To see this was a subject of laughter for me… We know that Purana’s are words of sages not God. They maybe right, as well as wrong.
For that reason, Manusmriti 12.95 says
“All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness.”
I’m not denouncing the significance of Purana’s. But we must keep in mind that we are free to reject them if they contradict the Vedas or Science. But wait…Let’s examine the claims of that website before we conclude anything.
First of all, we all knew that Purana’s carry extremely high symbolism. Some of them are decoded and many of them are yet untouched. Just like the concept of God’s travelling on animals or birds was brought by Purana’s. Hindus know that the Devas, in reality, wouldn’t be traveling on animals and birds. But this is how the concept of symbolism works.
RESPONSE:
I contacted this guy through Twitter about his points been answered by me but still he makes such claim. Though he tried hard to refute my article Scientific errors in Vedas but couldn’t successfully refute it.
True, any verse from Puranas or other text that contradicts the Vedas is ought to be rejected. But he makes an error, he claims that the Puranas is word of sages not god which sounds logical if you read Puranas but Vedas claim that Puranas came from God,
Atharva Veda 11.7.24 “The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens.”
And then he goes on to give example of how Puranas is symbolic so that he may escape easily just by giving literal verses an allegorical meaning to cover the errors. In another article he was quite happy to give so called scientific facts from Puranas but now doesn’t believe in the authority of Puranas, that’s called Hypocrisy.
CLAIM:
Yes! The website quoted 7 references from our scriptures (all from Puran’s & one from Ramayan) and claimed that according to Hinduism, mountains had wings.
I was just laughing after witnessing the horrible commonsense of Muslims Let me tell you, all these 7 references quoted by that website describes one story where King Indra cut the wings of Mountains. But some Muslims are so damn idiot that they take this Puranic stories literally. We know that these stories carries high symbolism. Just as, we know that Goddess Parvati is said to be daughter of Mountain. So will Muslims say that according to Hinduism, Mountain had sexual intercourse! Purana’s always projected natural elements (like mountain, air, water) in a human body (when air is projected in human body, we call it Vayu-Dev, when fire is projected in human body, we call it Agni-Dev etc.) The same way, Puranas describe a story where Lord Indra (king of all natural elements) cut the wings of Mountains (lord of Mountain). This story was just to tell that Mountains are immovable.
RESPONSE:
Apart from laughing, calling me an idiot this guy has nothing to present. Parvati is called the daughter of mountain because her father Himavant was the personification of mountains and was ruler of Himalaya kingdom. He himself gives example after this but makes this illogical point, wasn’t Sita born from earth? How logical is that? How can a human be born from earth going by apologist’s logic?
Most importantly, the apologist failed to explain what is being symbolised here? What does cutting off wings of Mountains means here if they are metaphor? The verses I quoted are plain and simple that mountains were flying in the sky here and there so Indra cut off the wings of mountains as he feared that it may fall on people,
Valmiki Ramayana 5.1.123- “O son! Earlier in the Krita yuga, mountains had wings. With speed equal to that of Garuda and Vayu, they went in all directions. After that when those mountains were thus flying freely, Devas and living creatures together with sages obtained fear in the doubt that those mountains might fall down. Then the angry Devendra who performed a hundred Asvamedha rituals, cut off the wings of thousands of mountains by his weapon vajra then and there.” Tr. K.M.K Murthy
Srimad Bhagavatam 8.11.34 “Indra thought: Formerly, when many mountains flying in the sky with wings would fall to the ground and kill people, I cut their wings with this same thunderbolt.” Tr. Swami Prabhupada
Just because apologist cannot explain it he calls these verses as symbolic, Apologist may claim that Shiva cutting off Ganesh’s head and fixing elephant is also symbolic just because he can’t explain it according to modern science. In an article he quoted Rig Veda 2.12.2 by H.H. Wilson but ignored what H.H. Wilson wrote in the footnotes he wrote,
“Yah parvatan prakupitan aramnat; the Scholiast says he quieted the mountains, going hither and thither, as long as they had wings: Indra cut them off.”
Swami Prabhupada also wrote,
“In many descriptions in Vedic literature it is found that mountains also fly in the sky with wings. When such mountains are dead, they fall to the ground, where they stay as very large dead bodies.”
Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 8.11.12
http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/8/11/12
H.H. Wilson nor Swami Prabhupada says that mountains having wings is symbolic like the apologist claims.
CLAIM:
The website quoted Matsya Puran 39.10 and claimed that according to it, women conceives child after semen mix with menstrual blood.
This is absolutely erroneous. You can go to that website and read the provided translation for this specific verse. It nowhere talks about Conceiving child, it only talks about menstrual flow.
RESPONSE:
Matsya Purana 39.10 “The menstrual flow of a woman suddenly develops conception as soon as it mingles itself with the semen virile of man, through the sap of the flowers of herbs.” Tr. Taluqdar of Oudh, Edited by B.D. Basu
Do I need to explain anything? Seems the apologist has problem understanding English language, I recommend him to read his scriptures in language he is fluent in.
CLAIM:
Then the website quoted Varah Puran 125.14 and claimed that according to this verse, baby is formed when semen mix with menstrual blood.
But even this is absolutely wrong. The Varah Puran 125.14 nowhere used the word “Menstrual blood”. It used the term ‘Generated Fluid’. Now even according to modern science, the fluid like “Cervical Fluid” which is generated by Cervix mix with semen and helps it in many ways. You can read about it more here: https://kindara.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/224930588-Cervical-Fluid-and-Getting-Pregnant
RESPONSE:
Almost every Purana which talks about Embryology says that conception happens after blood mixes with semen, following is the Hindi translation which clearly mentions Rakt (Blood) and Shukr (Semen) though it is obscure and says that blood and semen remains in body and doesn’t mention about conception clearly like the English translation.
CLAIM:
The website quoted Brahmanda Puran 2.3.72.42-47, Vayu Puran 1.4.17-22 and Matsya Puran 39.14-16 without tellings us that with what the hell they have objection with. They quoted these verses as-it-is without telling us their objection against it.
RESPONSE:
The verse of Brahmanda Purana says, “flesh originates from blood. The source of fat is from the flesh. It is defined that the bone originates from the fat. From the bone the pith and marrow take their origin and the origin of Semen is from the marrow. (?) Foetus originated from semen virile through its assimilative rasa bodily fluid.”
Now you tell me does flesh originate from blood, bone originate from fat, origin of semen is marrow? Do I need to point out such simple scientific errors?
And the Vayu Purana says “From the wind water is generated. From the water the vital breath is formed and through the vital breath the semen gets developed. Thirty three parts of blood (female contribution) and fourteen parts of the semen mixing together form only half a Pala (two karsas) and is deposited in the womb. The child in the womb is covered by the five vital breaths. From the father’s body he inherits his forms and features.” Is this scientifically correct?
CLAIM:
Then they quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Prakriti Kanda, 35.121-141 & Skandh Puran 5.3.159.33-53 and claimed that according to these 2 verses, a baby forms when semen mixes with menstrual blood.
But even this is far away from truth. Both Brahma Vaivarta Purana & Skandh Puran used the word Blood not Menstrual blood. One more thing proves that the blood described in both of these Purana’s is not Menstrual blood, and that is, the very first line of Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Prakriti Kanda, 35.121-141. It says, “when semen is cast into womb”. We know that Menstrual blood comes from ‘Uterus’. It is not present inside womb. Whereas Purana’s clearly stated that it is talking about the blood in womb.
RESPONSE:
Apologist needs to re-read Matsya Purana 39.10; Brahmanda Purana 2.3.72.42-47 which says that the blood is of menstrual flow. I made this claim on the basis of these verses. Apologist quotes first line of Brahma Vaivarta Purana about semen cast in womb but ignores the next line which says “it is mixed up with blood. If there is excess of blood, the issue takes the form of his mother, and if there is excess of semen, the issue takes his father’s form. The combination of the semen with the blood on even days, i.e. Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, results in a male issue, otherwise, in a female issue…Semen and blood get united in one night.”
You tell me, is this scientifically correct? Do conception occur after blood mixes with semen or that if there is excess of blood then the issue takes the form of mother and mixing of semen with blood on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday etc. produces a male child? The lines also talks about fetal development which are scientifically incorrect and hence the apologist chose not to talk about it confirming that it is indeed a scientific error.
CLAIM:
Then the website quoted Srimad Bhagvatam 3.31.2-5 and pointed out a nonexisting scientific error. The website claimed that according to Bhagvatam 3.31.2-5, the head of a baby is grown & visible within 1 month. And website considered it to be scientific error. They quoted one link & said that according to science, head of a baby is grown at 7th week.
But this is nonsense again. Read this link: http://www.stopabortionsavelives.com/growth_of_baby_fetus_during_pregnancy.html
It clearly says that in 5th week, a baby gets distinct top, bottom & low. Bhagvatam said it one month (which is 30 days), modern science says it 5th week (which is 35 days). So both are approximately same.
RESPONSE:
The apologist should again read the first line of Srimad Bhagavatam,
Srimad Bhagavatam 3.31.2 “On the first night, the sperm and ovum mix…
So conception occurs within the very first night. I request readers to go through the link posted by the apologist, it nowhere says that head is formed in the fifth week. I quoted a reliable link of Mayo Clinic, readers can check about Mayo Clinic on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic
One can go through the following link which proves that baby develops head in the 7th week,
CLAIM:
Then the website claimed that according to Srimad Bhagvatam 3.31.2-5, the fingers are formed in 3 months which is scientifically wrong. Now, I challenge them to show me which word in Sanskrit they have translated it as ‘finger’. Srimad Bhagvatam 3.31.2-5 nowhere talks about fingers. Actually they copied the translation of Swami Prabhupada which is not literal. To be sure, you can refer to “Synonym” part of his translation where even he not found any word which could be translated as ‘finger’. To be absolute sure, you can refer to Gita Press translation or the translation by Anand Aadhar.
RESPONSE:
In the whole article the apologist was venting his frustration by calling me an idiot but he proved that he himself is a one. He is requesting us to read Gita Press translation, I have the Gita Press translation and let me quote it for you,
Srimad Bhagavatam 3.31.3 “…By the end of the three months the nails (of fingers and toes), the hair on the body, bones and skin appear…” Tr. Gita Press Publications
How do nails of fingers appears if there are no fingers? Swami Prabhupada’s translation is wrong, only the apologist is the Mahaan Gyani. Nails of fingers and toes doesn’t appear at the same time while the verse says that nails of fingers and toes appears in third month implying that they appear at the same time which is a scientific error. The apologist skipped Padma Purana and also some points I raised about Srimad Bhagavatam which means the apologist has no answer to the points raised by me.
CLAIM:
Further the website quoted Brahma Puran 70.49 & Brahmanda Puran 2.3.72.44 which says “Semen is produced from marrow”.
I don’t think the author of that website did a research regarding this issue because even modern scientist are able to do that. According to BBC report, scientists successfully made sperms from marrow. Read more about it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6547675.stm
So the Hindus sages were able to do something thousands of years ago which modern scientists did recently.
RESPONSE:
Spanish scientists even created sperm from human skin cells,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/spanish-scientists-use-skin-cells-to-create-human-sperm/
Does that prove anything? The verse is not talking about scientists creating semen from bone marrow but from where semen is produced in the human body. Even the link of BBC he posted says that it is immature sperm, and doesn’t the apologist know the meaning of Semen and Sperm?
Now going by apologist’s logic, Puranas are wrong since in modern world Chinese scientists made sperm from mouse stem cells also,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3464371/Chinese-scientists-make-sperm-mouse-stem-cells.html
Scientists even made human heart tissue from spinach leaf,
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/human-heart-spinach-leaf-medicine-science/
There is a difference between semen produced in our body and Scientists producing sperm from marrow, skin cells, or mouse stem cells. And it is ridiculous that the apologist is taking pride in this scientific error. Verses I quoted from Brahma Purana also says that ‘bone is produced from fat’ which is not answered by the apologist. Maybe doctors should recommend people to stop taking calcium and starting going fat because that’s the best way to produce bone, isn’t it? I also quoted Harivamsa Purana but there is no response to it. The apologist failed to present any proof that semen is produced from marrow in the human body.
CLAIM:
Next the website claimed that according to Hinduism, pregnancy could be conceived without intercource in ancient times. And he quoted Mahabharat 12.207, Vayu Puran 11.245 & Matsya Puran 175.43-44.
First of all, I would like to clarify that any of these references not used the word ‘Ancient Times’. All of them are talking about beginning of Earth. Moreover, this is not a scientific error. We know that at beginning of Earth (civilization), humans had a completely different look from today. So it is very much possible that at that time, there existed a different way of reproduction, because human species was at it’s earliest stage. Even today, different living organisms have different ways of reproduction. Plants don’t reproduce the way humans do. So before calling anything scientific error, Muslims must study the things in detail.
RESPONSE:
Instead of making assumptions, the apologist should furnish references on how reproduction of humans was different from today. Verses I quoted says that people used to procreate just at thought, sight and touch. It is ridiculous to claim that our ancestors reproduced on thought and sight. It is clearly a scientific error. The apologist wrote “We know that at beginning of Earth (civilization), humans had a completely different look from today”, Is he aware that according to Hinduism, humans are same since beginning of creation, there is no evolution in Hinduism, there is no such thing in Hinduism like humans had different looks before and evolved to present form. He should’ve also furnished references about humans being different at first.
CLAIM:
The website quoted Agni Puran 350.40-45 and argued that according to it, there are seven layers of skin whereas according to science, there are only three layers of skin.
I was amazed at this high illiteracy of that website. Let me tell you, even according to modern science, we can divide the skin – layer into seven parts. And those Seven parts are:
• Stratum Corneum
• Epidermis
• Dermal-Epidermal Junction
• Dermis
• Hypodermis
• Muscle
• Bone
You can read about it in depth here: https://www.healthydirections.com/seven-layers-skin
RESPONSE:
I just hope that this guy doesn’t become a science teacher, he will ruin the future of students. And which website is he quoting, is that a reliable website? Human skin has mainly three layers, Epidermis, Dermis and Hypodermis,
https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/picture-of-the-skin
And Epidermis is sub-divided into five layers,
1) Stratum basale, 2) Stratum spinosum, 3) Stratum granulosum, 4) Stratum lucidum, 5) Stratum corneum.
Dermis is also sub-divided into two layers,
1) Papillary Layer, 2) Reticular Layer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermis#Layers
https://oerpub.github.io/epubjs-demo-book/content/m46060.xhtml
And the last is Hypodermis which don’t have any sub-layers. The apologist has presented Stratum Corneum as a different layer but it is actually part of Epidermis. So mainly we have 3 layers which are divided into several layers and in total we have 8 layers. This guy is a wannabe scholar and actually a Google scholar, if his scriptures says there are seven layers of Skin then he must have Googled “Seven layers of skin” and whatever appears on top he just posted that in his article without verifying it from reliable sources.
CLAIM:
The website says that according to Bhagvatam 5.1.31, seven oceans are created by impression of king PRIYAVARTA’s chariots wheel.
Dear Readers, can you just spot the low IQ of Muslims? Even a 8th grade Hindu kid will tell you that these stories were created in a manner which was understandable by people then. Moreover, they carry high symbolism which needs to be decoded. But instead of wondering that how Hindus acutely know that there exists Seven Oceans, Muslims are busy applying their poor mind in fetching out non literal stories.
RESPONSE:
Even a 8th grade may understand but this guy won’t, what is the symbolism it talks about? Oh the apologist has already answered this that it needs to be decoded. If he doesn’t know the meaning behind this then how can he claim it to be symbolic? There is entire story about King Priyavart driving his chariot behind the sun, Even Swami Prabhupada writes,
“Sometimes the planets in outer space are called islands. We have experience of various types of islands in the ocean, and similarly the various planets, divided into fourteen lokas, are islands in the ocean of space. As Priyavrata drove his chariot behind the sun, he created seven different types of oceans and planetary systems, which altogether are known as Bhū-maṇḍala, or Bhūloka. In the Gāyatrī mantra, we chant, om bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ tat savitur vareṇyam. Above the Bhūloka planetary system is Bhuvarloka, and above that is Svargaloka, the heavenly planetary system. All these planetary systems are controlled by Savitā, the sun-god. By chanting the Gāyatrī mantra just after rising early in the morning, one worships the sun-god.” Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 5.1.31
https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/5/1/31
So does he say that this is symbolic? At least he should furnish references from his scriptures about it he can’t just escape by calling it allegorical.
CLAIM:
Before I comment anything else, I would like to inform the readers that it was Hindu scriptures who first rightly predicted the shape of Earth.
Markandey Puran 78.9 clearly states the shape of Earth as Egg (which is spherical).
Not only that, but Markandey Puran also tells us that Earth is not perfectly spherical. Markandey Puran 54.12 says that Earth is low (little flattened) on North and South Pole, and is quite elevated in middle which is scientifically right.
RESPONSE:
Do he accept that the sun is revolving around the earth as the Markandeya verse he quoted says that the Sun revolves above the world? Coming to the point, the egg described here is the source of creation and here referring to the universe and not describing the shape of the earth as egg, read the Hindi translation below,
You will understand it better if you read the following verse from Markandeya Purana,
Markandeya Purana 46.1-2 “Adorable Sir! thou hast related to me correctly the genesis of the egg, and thou hast told me of the birth of the mighty Soul Brahma within the egg of Brahma…”
Where does Markandeya Purana says that earth is not perfectly spherical? He himself quoted the verse which only says that it is highly elevated in the middle. Does that prove that earth is oblate shaped? The irony is that if Purana says the earth is shaped like lotus, leaf of lotus then it doesn’t really describe the shape of earth but this verse which talks about creation egg is describing the shape of earth, Oxford Press should invent a new word for this high level of hypocrisy.
CLAIM:
By quoting Rigved 10.58.3, the website claimed that according to Hinduism, Earth is four cornered. Now this is the hypocrisy of such websites. You can refer to translation by Wilson, Dayanand Saraswati, Shri Ram Sharma, M.N. Dutt, Ram Govind etc. None of them used the word “Four cornered”. It is only Griffith who used it to defame Vedas. The Sanskrit term used is “चतुर्भृष्टिं” which refers to “Four Directions”.
RESPONSE:
Dayanand Saraswati didn’t translate the Rig Veda up to 10th Mandal so whose translation is he referring to? M.N. Dutt’s translation is a reproduction of H.H. Wilson’s translation. He says that the word Chaturbhrishti means four directions but the Hindi translations of Ram Sharma Acharya doesn’t translate it as four directions, Ram Sharma has skipped this word. H.H. Wilson translates it as “Four-quartered earth” which is same as four-cornered earth. Monier-William’s Sanskrit dictionary also gives the same meaning
http://sanskritdictionary.com/caturbh%E1%B9%9B%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADi/78694/1
Earth as four cornered will be explained below also.
CLAIM:
Then the website quoted Satapatha Brahmana 6.1.2.29 to back their argument of Four cornered Earth. But this time, they did a huge mistake. I don’t know if author of that website understands English. Satapatha Brahmana 6.1.2.29 clearly says that four quarters (4 directions) are refereed to Four-corners. So it clarifies that it is not literally referring to any corners but to directions. But we know, Muslims have no habit of reading full.
RESPONSE:
That verse also described bricks as four cornered and you all know the shape of bricks and it goes on to say “for all the bricks are after the manner of this earth”
but the apologist may claim that brick doesn’t exist because his scriptures “Symbolically” described brick as four cornered. If they really referred to four directions then they would’ve clearly used the word directions not corners.
CLAIM:
Then the website quoted Ramayan 5.9. Now let me tell you, this reference itself is incomplete. Ramayan is divided into seven Kanda’s. So the author of that website must have basic knowledge before pretending to be scholar.
RESPONSE:
I thought that this Mahaan Gyani knows everything, there are approx. 300 Ramayanas so when mentioning Ramayana he should mention it like Valmiki Ramayana, Tulsi Ramayana, Ananda Ramayana etc. I quoted Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Khanda book 5, Sarga 9 but since it confirms the errors of Vedas and Satapatha Brahmana I guess he deliberately skipped it. M.N Dutt also writes in the footnotes of Valmiki Ramayana 5.9,
“*i.e. four-cornered, The Earth, in Hindu cosmogony, is a flat surface having four corners.” The Ramayanna, Edited and Published by Manmatha Nath Dutt, Rector, Keshub Academu. Printed by Girish Chanda Chackravarti, Deva Press, 65/2, Beadon Street, Calcutta. 1892.
So Manmath Nath Dutt also admits that according to Hindu mythology the earth is a flat surface with four corners. But I know it will be hard for the apologist to digest this.
CLAIM:
Now let me tell you something funny. The website next quoted many references and claimed that according to Hinduism, Earth is lotus shaped. Trust me, I can’t stop laughing at the foolishness of Muslims! Our scriptures even described the feet of Lord Rama as ‘चरण
कमल’ which means ‘Lotus Feet’ and the eyes of Lord Rama is described as ‘कमल
नयन’ which means ‘Lotus Eye’. Now will Muslims quote it as scientific error I pity on the foolishness of these people. Now, coming to a more serious point, if you observe the middle part of a closed-Lotus then it do appears as middle part of our outer Earth, which is spherical.
RESPONSE:
This guy needs some English lessons, there is a difference between words like “Lotus Feet/Eye” and Lotus Shaped. And the hypocrisy of the apologist is that if his scriptures talks about egg of Brahma (universe) then he takes it as a shape of the earth but if his scriptures clearly says that the earth is shaped like lotus then he calls it symbolic. By saying that the feet, eye, face, lips etc. are like lotus, rose it means that they are beautiful or soft like lotus or rose. But suppose I say that such thing is shaped like a lotus so obviously I am describing the shape of the thing I am referring to. Read the verse to understand it clearly,
Vishnu Purana 2.12 From the waters, which are the body of Vishnu, was produced the lotus shaped earth, with its seas and mountains.
Does it describe the earth as beautiful as lotus or does it say that the earth is shaped like lotus? Then he posted a picture of closed lotus flower. Do he know that his scriptures describes the world as lotus shaped and the continents as pericarp of flower? So here is how it looks,
CLAIM:
Then the website quoted two verses from Rigved which are 3.6.5 & 10.62.3 and claimed that Earth is broad as per Vedas.
First of all, this is not scientifically wrong. We know Earth has got its dimensions, so it is broad. So there is no scientific error here. By the way, the Sanskrit & Hindi word ‘पृथ्वी’ itself means ‘broad’.
RESPONSE:
I mentioned about Vishnu flattening the earth which the apologist chose to ignore. He has directly jumped to next topic. Spread out may not necessarily means flat but considering all these verses about four cornered earth etc. it implies that the earth is spread out flat.
CLAIM:
After that website quoted Vayu Puran 1.34.37, Matsya Puran 123.27-28, Linga Puran 1.46.1 & Vayu Puran 1.34.46 and claimed that according to these verses, Mount Meru is in the middle of Earth. Now, I’m shocked if the author of that website even knows how to read! Readers can go to that website and read all these 4 verses, none of them says that Mount Meru is in centre of Earth. In fact, these verses reveal high geographical knowledge which states that there are seven continents and all of them are surrounded by ocean.
RESPONSE:
The apologist might not be knowing what Jambudvipa is all about. The world is divided into four or seven continents (varying according to different Puranas) and each world is like an island surrounded by seven oceans and we live in Jambudvipa and in the centre of Jambudvipa is mount Meru. I mentioned Vishnu Purana which the apologist has either skipped or he doesn’t understand English language, let’s read what it says,
Vishnu Purana 2.2 “PARÁŚARA.–You shall hear, Maitreya, a brief account of the earth from me: a full detail I could not give you in a century. The seven great insular continents are Jambu, Plaksha, Sálmali, Kuśa, Krauncha, Śáka, and Pushkara: and they are surrounded severally by seven great seas; the sea of salt water (Lavańa), of sugar-cane juice (Ikshu), of wine (Surá), of clarified butter (Sarpi), of curds (Dadhi), of milk (Dugdha), and of fresh water (Jala). Jambu-dwípa is in the centre of all these: and in the centre of this continent is the golden mountain Meru…
Brahmanda Purana makes it crystal clear that,
Brahmanda Purana I.2.21.13-16 “…The extent of the earth towards all the sides (quarters) from the middle of the Meru is remembered as one crore and eightynine lakhs (of Yojanas)…” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Describing the earth, Parasara says that it has seven continents and Jambudvipa is the centre of all the continents and in the centre of this continent i.e. Jambudvipa is Mount Meru. And this also refutes other points of the apologist. Instead of blaming others for not reading the apologist himself should invest some time in learning English.
CLAIM:
Then that website quoted Mahabharat 6.6, now this reference itself is wrong or incomplete. Mahabharat is divided into 18 Parvas, so before quoting chapter & verse number, it is necessary to mention the name of Parva.
RESPONSE:
I mentioned Mahabharata translated by Kisari Mohan Ganguli who has not given verse number but only book and chapter so obviously I too will be mentioning book number and chapter number. I quoted Mahabharata, Bhishma Parva 6 and Section 6.
CLAIM:
Before I say anything else, let me tell it to you that it was Hindu scriptures which stated that Earth & all planets are moving.
Yajurveda 3.6 clearly says that Earth is moving around Sun.
RESPONSE:
The Hindi translation of Arya Samaj he mentioned translated Gau as spherical earth. The earth is sometimes referred as Gau in Vedas but from where did they derive the definition “Spherical earth” from Gau? Hindi translation by Shri Ram Sharma Acharya doesn’t state anything like moving earth or spherical earth,
Hindi translation by Swami Karpatri Maharaj also doesn’t say anything like that,
And then he mentions Rig Veda 3.5.5 which has no Sanskrit word to translate as “moving’ which I have refuted above already. And then he says that I gave incomplete reference number of Mahabharata, as I said earlier, I mentioned Parva number and Section number.
The apologist then writes,
“Then the website quoted Vayu Puran 1.35.11 and claimed that according to this verse, Earth doesn’t move. This verse says that Earth is held by force so it doesn’t move here & there (from orbit).”
And then he gave the Hindi translation which also says that “pruthvi ko pakda hua hai, jisse ki pruthvi idhar udhar nahi hilne pati hai” same as the English translation,
Vayu Purana I.35.11; Linga Purana I.49.25b-27 “Meru has four great ranges (legs) in all the four quarters. Held by them, the earth with her seven continents does not move.” Tr. G.V. tagare
The apologist himself added his own words in brackets that “in orbit” and there is no such word in the English or Hindi translation. And then he claims that Atharva Veda 6.44.1 has been refuted in another article which I have already explained above in this article. And also quotes Yajur Veda 3.6 which is already refuted above.
CLAIM:
Trust me, you will be surprised at the paramount stupidity of Muslims, once I answer this.
The website quoted Brahmanda Puran 1.2.21.81-88, Brahmanda Puran 1.2.23.44-45, Matsya Puran 126.41-46, Vayu Puran 1.52.43-44, Vayu Puran 1.50.142, Brahmanda Puran 1.2.23.44-45, Linga Puran 1.54.9-12, Vayu Puran 1.50.119-121, Bhagvatam 5.22.5 & Satapatha Brahmana 8.1.2.5, Vayu Puran. 50.92-93, Vayu Puran 1.50.51-4
The website quoted these many verses because they carry one line which is “Sun Traverses or moves a major portion of Earth.” By this line, that website is assuming that Earth is fixed & Sun is moving around it. But this is nonsense.
I am studying at 12th standard & preparing for IIT exams, at this age, those who have read little bit of Physics knows the concept of “Relative Motion”. We know that when there are two moving objects (just as Sun and Earth) facing each other, speed, acceleration, position of objects could be determined by considering one of them as reference. And this is exactly what is done by sages in scriptures. They considered Earth as reference, and described Sun’s position with respect to Earth. Hence, the technical sentences like “Sun Traverses major portion of Earth” are included. So they are not scientific error, but scientifically perfect.
Today we have satellites through which scientists can easily determine position of Sun or Earth (or any other planet). But if one needs to determine position of Sun through Telescope then he/she must use the concept of “Relative Motion”. And this is exactly what Hindu sages did and recorded in scriptures.
RESPONSE:
Even if his Bhagwan comes down and says that the sun is revolving around the earth then the apologist may argue with his Bhagwan that what you said has allegorical meaning. The fact that he has just mentioned the reference number but not the passages for his readers shows that he is trying his level best to hide facts, if one reads the verses then no doubt will arise in their minds,
Matsya Purana 126.41-46 “The Sun in course of one single day and night goes swiftly over the world consisting of the seven oceans and the seven islands, seating in His one-wheeled chariot and drawn by seven horses. The seven horses yoked to the Sun’s chariot are no other than the seven chhandas metres); they can assume forms at their will; they go as they like…Ascending on such a chariot the Sun travels the earth in course of one day (24 hours.) The horses were yoked at the beginning of Kalpa and carry on the Sun toll the end of the Great Dissolution (Maha Pralaya). Thus He goes on round and round, day and night, surrounded by the Valakhillya Munis…” Tr. Taluqdar of Oudh, Edited by B.D. Basu
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.7 “The sun-god has three speeds — slow, fast and moderate. The time he takes to travel entirely around the spheres of heaven, earth
and space at these three speeds is referred to, by learned scholars, by the five names Saṁvatsara, Parivatsara, Iḍāvatsara, Anuvatsara and Vatsara.” Tr. Swami Prabhupada
Satapatha Brahmana 8:7:2:5 …having once revolved round these worlds, that sun would not pass by them. Let him lay down the two last alongside the two first by reaching over them: he thus causes that sun to pass by these worlds; and hence that sun revolves incessantly round these worlds again and again (from left) to right.
Mahabharata 6.6 “…This (the land where we are) is in the Varsha that is called after Bharata…Besides Meru are situated, O lord, these four islands, viz., Bhadraswa, and Ketumala, and Jamvudwipa otherwise called Bharata, and Uttar-Kuru…The foremost of luminaries, the sun, always circumambulates Meru, as also the moon with (his) attendant constellation, and the Wind-god too…” Tr. K.M. Ganguli
Brahmanda Purana 1.2.21.87-88 “Everyday the sun traverses those (zones) in due order. Just as the outer rim of the potter’s wheel comes back quickly (i.e. revolves), so also the sun functions quickly during his Souther transit. Hence, he traverses a major portion of the Earth in the course of a shorter period.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
I have mentioned more verses in my article Scientific errors in Hinduism but quoted only these here. The Matsya Purana says that the sun moves around the earth in course of a day and night. The Matsya Purana verse I quoted first itself is enough to refute the explanation of the apologist. If according to you these verses doesn’t state that the sun is revolving around the earth then you are either immature to understand or ignorant to admit errors in your religion. The fact that apologist has even defended these verses shows that he would defend any error of his religion. This guy should stop pursuing IIT and become a lawyer because if he can try to defend these verses then he can defend even a notorious criminal. His explanation is like the person arguing with another and suddenly in the middle of the argument he realizes he is wrong but due to his ego continues to argue with some illogical things. Why did sages consider sun as a reference? When they could’ve used moon for reference. If these verses doesn’t describe the revolution of sun around the earth then I want to know what words are exactly used to describe the movement of sun around the earth.
CLAIM:
Then the website tried to figure out speed of Sun, speed of planets, size of Earth, Moon & Sun on the basic of references given in Linga & Vayu Puran. But I have serious objection to it.
1) Because the ‘units’ given in Purana’s are ‘Yojan’, ‘Muhurat’ etc. Today we actually don’t know that what could have been exact value of these units at those days. 2) Today we have modern metric system like “The International System of Units” which is acceptable by all countries of world. But this was not at Ancient times. So maybe the value of Yojan had no distinct measure & might have differ from place to place and time to time. 3) When we read commentary of Sayana on Rigveda, or when we read Hanuman Chalisa, we get exact speed of light & distance from Earth to Sun. This is possible because both Sayana & Tulsidas were modern people (in comparison to ancient sages) and we have exact value of Yojan used by these people. 4) Hence, unless we know the exact measure of Yojan used by specific sages in Purana’s, we can’t conclude them as scientific error.
Let me tell you that website has three different section for each subject which are “Speed of Sun”, “Speed of planets” & “Size of Earth, Moon & Sun”. But I have answered all these 3 different sections in one section because they carry the similar mistakes.
RESPONSE:
It’s not correct to use “We” the apologist should use the word “I” so let me frame correct sentence for him, “Because I don’t have any answer so let me just pretend that I don’t know the exact value of these units” and to be precise he can’t defend this even with his tactics. All the Hindu translators have given the same unit that 1 Yojana is equal to 8 miles and 1 Muhurta is equal to 48 minutes. But the apologist is free to make such excuses so as to run away. The apologist himself used 1 Yojana = 8 miles unit from Hanuman Chalisa in another article and now denying that 1 Yojana is equal to 8 miles.
CLAIM:
The website next claimed that according to Bhagvatam 5.22.8, moon travels faster than Sun. Now, this is utterly nonsense.
The website quoted the translation by Swami Prabhupada. Bhagvatam 5.22.8 only says that Moon travels fast. It is Swami Prabhupada who added “than Sun”. Bhagvatam 5.22.8 nowhere says that Moon travels faster than Sun. It is Swami Prabhupada who added that in his translation. You can look at Gita Press translation below:
Just read SYNONYM part. There is no word which could be translated as “than Sun”. But it is only Swami Prabhupada who added it in his Translation which could be taken as a human error.
But the author of that website is so damn idiot that without understanding bit of things, he picks it as scientific error. Disgusting!
Next the website quoted few references and tried to find out speed of planets on the basis of that. As I have already explained the problem of units earlier in this blog, you can just go read that, instead I repeat it again.
RESPONSE:
Here is the Gita Press’ English translation,
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.8 “Similarly, the moon, which is observed at a height of a lakh Yojanas (eight lakkh miles) beyond the orb of the sun, and which moves faster than the sun and (therefore) leads all the other constellations…” Tr. Gita Press Publications
Here is another English translation,
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.8 “Similarly the Moon is observed to be a hundred thousand Yojanas above the rays (orb) of the Sun. As it is faster in velocity (than the Sun), it goes ahead (of the Sun)…” Tr. G.V. Tagare
But the apologist argues that there is no Sanskrit word that can be translated as “than sun”. This will be cleared if you read the previous verse which says,
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.7 “The sun-god has three speeds — slow, fast and moderate. The time he takes to travel entirely around the spheres of heaven, earth and space at these three speeds is referred to, by learned scholars, by the five names Saṁvatsara, Parivatsara, Iḍāvatsara, Anuvatsara and Vatsara.”
The verse 8 is continued from verse 7 and since it was talking about the sun and then talks about moon so obviously it will compare the speed of moon with the sun. You don’t need IQ level of Einstein to understand this simple thing as it just needs common sense which Hindu apologists lacks. He was calling me an idiot and foolish but he proved who is an idiot and foolish guy. The apologist should first practice before preaching others to “Understand”.
CLAIM:
Then the website quoted Vayu Puran 1.53.57, Vayu Puran 1.53.84-86, Linga Puran 1.52.3 & Brahmanda Puran 1.2.23.78-79 and claimed that according to these verses, Moon has water.
I was much amazed that Muslims consider this as a scientific error. In fact, this one of the most advanced scientific research. Today, even modern science found water on Moon (with the help of an Indian craft called Chandrayaan.) Not only that, but science channels like ‘National Geographic’ suggests that there is much more water on Moon than what we found now. You can read about it here: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/water-moon-formed-volcanoes-glass-space-science/
Not only that, but if we go back thousands of years, there might have been more water on Moon than its today.
This is the image sent by Chandrayaan-1 (an Indian craft) of waters presence on Moon’s surface. [Source: Wikipedia]
RESPONSE:
There is a difference between “Full of water” and traces of water. I request the readers to first read verses so that they get a better picture of this issue,
Brahmanda Purana I.2.23.78-79 “The divine spheres of the sun and the moon are sparkling and white. They are of the form (or full of) of fire and water. They move about in the firmament. They resemble auspicious round pots. The sphere of the moon is remembered to be consisting of dense water. The white and brilliantly sparkling sphere of the sun is composed of dense fiery splendour.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Vayu Purana I.53.84-86 “Thus the abodes and their resident deities are mentioned. The abode of the thousand rayed Sun is full of fire and sparkling. The abode of the thousand rayed Moon is full of water and sparkling white. The abode of the five rayed charming planet Budha is dark in color.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Vayu Purana I.53.57 “The orb of the Moon is of solid water and the orb of the Sun is of solid refulgence.” Tr. G.V. Tagare, Edited by G.P Bhatt
Linga Purana I.52.3 “The storehouse of water in the sky which is called Soma (moon) is the support of all living beings. To Devas, it is the receptacle of nectar.” Tr. Board of Scholars, Edited by J.L. Shastri
Hinduism also says that Moon is born from waters,
Matsya Purana 126.48 “The Moon has been born from waters along with His chariot, horses and the charioteer. That chariot is decorated with fine garlands and yoked with excellent white horses, rests on three wheels.” Tr. Taluqdar of Oudh, Edited by B.D. Basu
The apologist missed the above Matsya Purana verse which says that moon was born from water. The writers of Puranas may have thought that the moon is born from water and is full of water. The moon is made up of dead volcanoes, impact craters, and lava flows and you will find only dust on its surface if you look at pictures of the moon. Did you see water on moon with the pictures obtained by NASA or other researchers? It is true that scientists has found water on moon but its not abundant nor in liquid state because water cannot remain in liquid state on the moon, water in the form of vapour is sucked out in space so water can remain only in the form of ice in the poles where the temperature should be so low that it freezes the water. If your guest requests a glass of water will you give him few drops or a glass full of water?
Verses themselves refutes the claim of apologist read the Brahmanda Purana verse I quoted above it says that, “The divine spheres of the sun and the moon are sparkling and white. They are of the form (or full of) of fire and water”
Now you see it talks about the orb of the moon along with the sun, and its not just that verse but every verse does that. We know that the sun is a giant fireball, fire engulfs entire sun and not just on its poles, isn’t it? Similarly Puranas says that the orb of the moon is fully covered with water, that’s why it says that the orb of the moon is full of water and the moon is the storehouse of water in the sky and the sun is full of fire. So when Purana says that the orb of the moon is full of water then it should have been completely covered with water but that’s not the case or at least it should’ve had 75% water like the earth, if you look at pictures of earth from space you can easily see water on the surface of earth as water covers 75% of earth. What if someone tells you that there is a place full of water but you go there and finds only dust? But guys like this who tries to put science in his scriptures like 7 layers of skin, scientists producing sperm from marrow etc. will definitely show such discoveries to support errors in his scriptures. And his foolishness is not limited to this alone, you will burst into laughter reading his next points as well.
CLAIM:
Further, the website quoted Vayu Puran 1.50.60-66, Matsya Puran 126.53-60, Matsya Puran 126.61-70 & Vishnu Puran 2.12. By quoting them, they website argues that according to these many verses, the full moon occurs when the nectar of moon is completely drank by 33330 Devtas.
In short, these stories describes a continuous process where moon keeps revolving, devas keep drinking nectar & at the end of month (when full moon occurs), the nectar is filled again.
Now, even a 10th grade failed student will tell you that this story of 33330 Devas drinking nectar is just meant to describe a scientific continous process where moon keeps revolving and comes to the same position (where Earth falls in between of Sun and Moon) where it left before. So this Puranic story gives a magnificent knowledge of Science that Moon keeps revolving and keeps coming at the same position at the end of every month.
RESPONSE:
Except for a drunkard and drug addict no one can say that it is describing a scientific continuous process. I will just mention the verse and leave it to the readers to judge whether it’s a scientific blunder or scientific continuous process as the apologist claimed,
Vayu Purana I.52.60-66 “Beginning with the second day in the dark half and ending with the fourteenth day Devas drink the watery wine, the nectar of the Moon that is essentially made up of water and that by nature consists of tasty essence. By the brilliance of the Sun the nectar is collected and prepared in the course of a fortnight. On the full moon night Devas, Pitrs and the sages attend the Moon facing the Sun. The digits being drunk decline gradually in the dark half and become refilled in the bright half. When days pass on gradually Devas drink the moon for half a month until the new moon day and go away. On the new moon day Pitrs resort to the Moon. When the fifteenth part of the digits is left over in the later part of the day, that part is used up by the groups of Pitrs. The remaining digit is drunk by Pitrs during the period of two Kalas. From the lunar rays the nectar of Svadha comes out on the new moon night. They drink the nectar and remain content for a month. They attain immortality.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
CLAIM:
Moreover, the website quoted Brahmanda Puran 1.2.24.46 & Linga Puran 1.59.41-45, and pointed out that as per these two verses, all the planets are originated from Sun.
Now as far as the field of Planet origination is regarded, modern science is in its early days of research. But one thing which is considered to be truth for now is that a huge cloud of dust might have collapsed & from it, which results in formation of Sun and other planets.
I have gone through enormous articles by NASA and many other science websites, and none of them have any specific article on Sun’s effect on early formation of planets. Probably, we should wait for a next decade till the Science get it’s answer.
But more importantly, as I have mentioned earlier , Puranas are words of Sages (the scientists of then) not God. So this particular theory maybe a part of their research which needs our investigation.
RESPONSE:
Ultimate answer by the apologist, just wait for new researches as science today is in its early days of research, as he can’t refute this scientific error. Every planet is born from the sun means that the sun existed before all planets came into existence. It makes it look more illogical when it says that “All planets and stars” since our universe is so huge, it is impossible that every planet and star originated from the sun and also there are many starts bigger than the sun in our universe. Science tells us that,
“The sun is relatively young, part of a generation of stars known as Population I, which are relatively rich in elements heavier than helium. An older generation of stars is called Population II…The sun was born about 4.6 billion years ago. Many scientists think the sun and the rest of the solar system formed from a giant, rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula. As the nebula collapsed because of its gravity, it spun faster and flattened into a disk. Most of the material was pulled toward the center to form the sun.”
https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html
So the sun is relatively young compared to other generation of stars called Population II and the sun was formed along with other planets.
CLAIM:
The website foolishly quoted Brahmanda Puran 1.2.21.8, Vayu Puran 1.53.61-62, Vayu Puran 1.50.63 and argued that according to these verses, Moon is bigger than the size of Sun.
This is the biggest foolishness of that website. All these three verses clearly says that the circular zone (मंडल) of Moon (चंद्रमंडल) is bigger than the size of circular zone of Sun (सूर्यमंडल). It nowhere says that Moon is bigger than the size of Sun. Look at the translation below, the word ‘मंडल’ is specifically mentioned.
The website quoted the translation of Tagore, which directly used the word ‘Sun’ & ‘Moon’. But even the translation of Tagore on its footnote on the same page clearly mentioned that this chapter is talking about ‘Circular Zone’ (मंडल) of Sun & Moon. Here is the footnote by Tagore:
Because, today we don’t have direct link, it is hardly possible for us to tell the range considered by those sages of circular zone of Sun & Moon. Only the interpretations can be given. There were specific names given to every range, like ‘Dyulok’ to determine specific ranges like ‘Distance of Sun to Earth’ or ‘Distance of Earth to Moon’ etc. But we don’t have specific range mentioned for ‘सूर्यमंडल’ & ‘चंद्रमंडल’.
But one thing is for sure, these 3 verses are talking about circular zone of Sun & Moon, not directly ‘Sun’ & ‘Moon’.
RESPONSE:
The biggest problem in the world is people with low IQ and high confidence, same is the case with this apologist. He must have written this article while being high on weed. What is he saying? He himself is confused.
Here are two other translations from different scriptures,
Matsya Purana 123.57-58 “The diameter of the Sun is nine thousand yojanas and its circumference is three times that (2700 yojanas). The diameter of the Moon is twice the diameter of the Sun; its circumference is thrice its diameter.” Tr. Taluqdar of Oudh, edited by B.D. Basu
Linga Purana I.61.28-29 “The diameter of the sun is nine thousand yojanas. The extent of its circular surface is three times that. The extent of the moon is twice that of the sun…” Tr. Board of Scholars, edited by B.D. Basu
Brahmanda Purana I.2.21.8 “In diameter as well as girth (Circumference), the moon is twice as much as the sun.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
He posted snapshot of G.V. Tagare’s footnote which says that “It is considered as the radius of the circular zone”. Radius is half part of the diameter, if diameter is bigger then obviously radius too will be bigger, Moon’s radius is lot smaller than Sun’s radius. And he writes,
“But one thing is for sure, these 3 verses are talking about circular zone of Sun & Moon, not directly ‘Sun’ & ‘Moon’.”
I mean do he even know the meanings of circular zone and radius?
CLAIM:
The website quoted Vayu Puran 1.51.20, Vayu Puran 1.52.49, Brahmanda Puran 1.2.23.52 & Linga Puran 1.56.3 and claimed that according to these verses, Moon emits rays.
Now, dear readers, you can go to his website and look at the translation he provided, it nowhere says that Moon emits rays. These 4 verses in general talks about rays of Moon. But it nowhere says that Moon emits rays on its own. The word ‘Moonlight’ is still used by us. Will Muslims start calling it scientific error! In fact, those are Hindu scriptures which told the world that Moon reflects the light.
RESPONSE:
I applaud his courage to request his readers to read these verses, let me post it here for you,
Vayu Purana I.51.20 “The hot rays emanate from the sun; the cool rays from the moon. These two powerful hot and cool rays sustain the universe.” Tr. G.V. Tagare, Edited by G.P Bhatt
I know that the apologist has difficulty understanding English language but I am asking this question to my readers. What does the word “Emanate” means? Doesn’t it mean that rays are originating/producing from the moon? Instead of writing such useless articles the apologist should spend some time learning English.
CLAIM:
The website quoted Vayu Puran 1.51.45-47, Vishnu Puran 2.9 & Brahmanda Puran 1.2.22.47-52
Till this moment, I’m quite fed up reading the stupidity of Islamist. Anyway, after quoting these 3 verses, website claimed that according to these verses, Hoarfrost drops are sprinkled by elephants.
Now, just think for a while! Do Muslims really think that sages meant it literally? If yes, then nobody is more stupid than you in the world.
Now just look at the stupidity of Muslims. First, they pick scriptures like Purana’s, which are full of symbolism from top to bottom, then rather understanding those symbolism, they count it as scientific error. Hahah! Isn’t it laughable?
RESPONSE:
Before saying anything I request the readers to read this verse,
Brahmanda Purana I.2.22.47-52a “Smoke is conducive to development of all of them without any distinction. The most excellent among them is Parjanya. The Elephants of the quarters are four in number (Although) these are separate, the source of origin of elephants, mountains, clouds and serpents is the same and water is remembered as that origin. On being directed to make the plants and trees flourish, Parjanya and the Diggajas (Elephants of the quarters) showers snowdrops during Hemanta (early winter), born of cool virility. …With their huge trunks, the elephants of the quarters receive the waters oozing from the Ganga and scatter them in the form of water spray. That is remembered as dew drops.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Vayu Purana I.51.45-47 “During Hemanta (early winter) Parjanya and the elephants of the quarters born of chilliness shower snow (drops) for making the corn flourish…The elephants of the quarters spray all round drops of water from the Ganga by means of their huge trunks. That (spray of water) is called the hoarfrost.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
For the apologist every scientific error carries deep symbolism. When Hinduism can say that Hanuman can swallow entire sun, Varaha in the form of a boar can lift the earth, four elephants can lift the earth then how come elephants showering drew drops are symbolic? These verses doesn’t give any hint of symbolism. If they are symbolic then the apologist should care to explain the symbolism behind it instead of running away just by calling them symbolic.
CLAIM:
Further the website argued that according to Brahmanda Puran 1.2.24.32-33, Linga Puran 1.59.41-45, Vayu Puran 1.52.36, Vayu Puran 1.53.25-27 & Matsya Puran 128.24-25, the sun emits different type of rays which are responsible for change in season.
This is completely blather! Dear Readers, you can go to that website and read the translation he provided. It nowhere says that sun emits different type of rays which are responsible for change in season. All of these verses talk about the magnitude of rays Earth receive during summer & winter. And that’s scientifically true. Earth receives more amount of rays during summer than winter.
So in short, all of these verses talks about DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE of rays, not DIFFERENT TYPES of rays, as fictitiously claimed by that website.
RESPONSE:
Why don’t he just post the verses in his so called refutation instead of asking his readers to go to my blog? Because he knows that his readers won’t do that and he can just continue fooling his readers. Just read the verses and you will understand whether it’s talking about number of rays or magnitude.
Brahmanda Purana 1.2.24.32-33 “During Vasanta (spring) and Grisma (summer), the sun blazes by means of three hundred rays. During the rainy season and autumn he showers (rain) by means of four hundred rays. During Hemanta (early winter) and Sisira (later winter), he scatters snow by means of three hundred rays.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Linga Purana I.59.41-45 “…The thousand rays of the sun serve the purpose of the world. Reaching the earth they assume different forms by emitting snow, rain and heat…” Tr. Board of Scholars, Edited by J.L. Shastri
Does it talk about magnitude or sun emitting different types and specific number of rays which causes change in seasons? Is it a scientific fact that sun emits three hundred or four hundred rays in different seasons? The apologist claims that “Earth receives more amount of rays during summer than winter” While the Brahmanda Purana verse I quoted above says that during Summer the sun blazes by means of three hundred (300) rays, in rainy season he emits four hundred (400) rays, and in winter it emits three hundred (300) rays, which is contradictory to what the apologist says.
CLAIM:
By referring to BrahmandaPuran 1.2.22.13-21, Linga Puran 1.54.29-33, Vayu Puran 1.51.14-15, Aitareya Brahmana 8.28 & Vishnu Puran, the website claimed that according to these many verses, Moon causes rain.
First of all, you can go to that website and read the translation provided, it nowhere says that Moon causes rain. It (Brahmanda Puran 1.2.22.13-21) says “The moon transmits (control) the entire water drunk (evaporated) by Sun.”
So it says that Moon controls the rain water. Now you will be extremely surprised to know that this is scientifically true.
According to “New Washington University” research paper published on GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH LETTERS shows that Lunar forces affect the amount of rain. You can read more about it here http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/01/29/phases-of-the-moon-affect-amount-of-rainfall/
Now this research is very new (in 2016), but Hindu sages thousands of years ago described about it. At the same time, I acknowledge the fact that most of the scientific concepts described in Purana’s are described so symbolically that they start appearing fiction to us.
RESPONSE:
How can this guy even take pride in this scientific error, the link he posted has the headline “Moon’s tidal forces affect amount of rainfall on Earth” where does it say that the water is taken up by the moon from the sun and then transfers to the cloud? These are two complete different things, read the verses for yourself,
Brahmanda Purana I.2.22.13-21 “…the sun takes away the water of the entire world, O excellent Brahmanas. The moon transmits the entire water drunk by the sun. The torrential currents of water (Downpour of rain) functions through Nadis (vein like vessels) accompanied by the wind. The water that oozes out of the moon remains in the food (i.e. plants and food crops). The water that has fallen down from the moon, from the sky, is conducive to the welfare of all the worlds. The entire universe has the moon as its support. This has been truthfully recounted. The Usna (hot virility) oozes out of the sun, and the Sita (chill virility) functions from the moon.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Linga Purana Section I.54.29-33 “The waters drunk by the sun penetrates the moon gradually and from the moon they drip down to the clouds. On being tossed about by the wind, the cluster of clouds causes shower on the earth…” Tr. Board of Scholars, edited by J.L. Shastri
Vayu Purana I.51.14-15 “The water drunk in by the sun gets transferred to the moon from the solar fire. Through the Nadis (tubular veins) full of wind the activity of sustaining the worlds begins. What exudes from the moon, the sun receives at its tips. When the wind blows the clouds let it shower on the earth.” Tr. G.V. Tagare, Edited by G.P Bhatt
Where does it say that the moon “Controls” rain? The apologist added his own words in the brackets. Does any scientific finding prove that water oozes out from the moon to the earth? Does any research or the research he quoted says that water gets transferred to the moon and from the moon they drip down to the clouds? Or that the verses speaks about Moon’s tidal forces controlling rain? How can the apologist even compare such scientific error with modern research about moon’s tidal force impacting water table on earth? No person with a sane mind would even defend these verses let alone trying to present it as a scientific finding “discovered thousands of years ago by Hindu sages”. If it was really a scientific fact then the apologist should have quoted from the website he posted on water dripping from moon to clouds. Apologist also skipped Linga Purana I.54.65-68 about strange water cycle which says that the wind presided over by Dhruva (pole star) withdraws the rain and then falls on the sun.
CLAIM:
Yajurveda 2.16 & 3.49, Manusmriti 3.76, Maitrayana Brahmana 6.37 describes that Hindu sages were able to cause rain through the process of Yajna.
Most importantly, the biggest misconceptions regarding Yajna is that it is a simple spritual process where Hindu put obligations into the fire. No. Yajna was an extremely scientific process. There is already immense science explored by scientist like Subhash Kak regarding Vedic altar and astronomy & you can read that on Google. So in short , Yajna was not just a simple spritual process but a highly advanced method which served several purposes.
Now I find it absolutely strange & disgusting to mock the fact that Hindu Sages had developed such process through which they could cause rain. Just imagine, was that possible to think about flying before 150 years? But today, Aeroplane is a very popular medium of transport. The things changes quickly. So the fact which seems impossible today becomes the practical truth of tomorrow. So instead of mocking & terrorising the world, Muslims must focus on science and think about upcoming challenges & opportunities.
RESPONSE:
I am happy that the apologist didn’t post a scientific discovery completely unrelated to the topic and then claimed that Yajna causing rainfall is actually a scientific fact.
How does smoke from Yajna going up causes rain? The apologist failed to explain that and instead takes pride in the fake glory of his Rishis. Vedas are claimed to be eternal by its followers which means that it is applicable for all ages and not just confined to the lifetime of Rishis so if Yajnas really causes rain then Hindus should conduct Yajnas and let’s see if rainfall happens in drought after that.
CLAIM:
Hinduism since a long time has been targeted for the idea of Earth on ‘sheshnag’ (the snake on which Lord Viṣṇu lies).
But before I comment on why Ramayan and then few Purana’s described it so, I would like to clarify the fact that it was none other than Hindu scriptures which revealed that Earth has no external (physical) support (like snake or anything else) and all the planets & heavenly bodies are revolving in universe.
Yajurveda 17.19 clearly says that Earth is created without any external support.
So now the question rises is that if Hindus sages knew about Moving Earth then why Ramayan & then few Purana’s described Earth on Sheshnag?
Those who have read Vedas & Valmiki Ramayan, they know that there is so much similarities between message of Vedas & Valmiki Ramayan.
Valmiki Ramayan conveys the same message of Vedas in a poetic way. In fact, Valmiki Ramayan is called as ‘Mahakavya’ which means “The greatest of poems”.
Having described the context, now I would like to come straight to the point.
‘Sheshnag’ is nothing but a symbolism of Vedic concept of ‘Truth’. The word ‘Sheshnag’ is derived by sum of two words, and they are ‘Shesh’ which means ‘Remain’ and ‘Nag’ which represents ‘Energy’. Those who have read Hindu astrology (the concept of Kundali) must be knowing that Snake represents different forms of energy.
So these two word ‘Shesh’ and ‘Nag’ together means, “The Energy which will remain till the last.” As Hindus belive that Truth is eternal.
Rigved 10.85.1 says “सत्येनोत्तभिता
भूमिः” which means “Earth is upheld by truth”.
Truth is not a physical body which is holding up the Earth, so we know that Rigveda is talking in a moral sense.
So this moral idea of Rigveda that the Earth is upheld by truth, got completely different shape in Valmiki Ramayan in the form of Sheshnag & then was as-it-is borrowed by later Purana’s.
So whenever Ramayan or Purana’s talk about ‘Sheshnag’, we must assume that it is talking in a moral sense, not literal. Moreover, I have provided references from Vedas, Puranas & Yoga Vasishta which itself clarifies the fact that Hindus sages knew about rotation of Earth.
Now coming to the point of Earthquake. The website quoted few references and claimed that whenever Sheshnag shakes or moves, the Earthquake occurs.
As I have already explained, Sheshnag represents the Truth. So when Purana’s says “when Sheshnag shakes or moves, the earthquake occurs” it means nothing but “When Truth (Sheshnag) shakes (trembles or decline) the earthquake (destruction) occurs”.
RESPONSE:
Rig Veda says that the earth is supported by pillars,
Rig Veda 8.41.10 In his successive functions, he emits his bright rays (during day) or turns them dark (during the night). He measures out the eternal abode, and supports with the pillar of the firmament, both heaven and the earth. May all our adversities vanish” Tr. Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati
H.H. Wilson translated it as,
Rig Veda 8.41.10 “He who in his successive functions emits his bright rays or turns them dark, first made his residence (in the firmament), and, as the unborn sun the sky, supports with the pillar (of the firmament) both heaven and earth: may all out enemies perish.” Tr. H.H. Wilson
So does that prove anything? And then he posts a verse from Atharva Veda about planets moving which is irrelevant to the topic. And then again he posts Rig Veda 3.5.5 which has already been refuted and has no Sanskrit word for “Moving earth”. And then he cites some verses from Puranas about all planets moving, I already said in my article that there are entire chapters about movements of planets but makes no mention of earth there, it talks about Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn but there is no mention of earth there which proves that earth according to Hinduism is static.
Is there any reference for the definition he provided for Sheshnag and is that applicable to the Puranik verses I quoted in my article? If not then his lengthy explanation is of no use. Let me post the verses for your ease,
Vishnu Purana 2.5 “…Śesha bears the entire world, like a diadem, upon his head, and he is the foundation on which the seven Pátálas rest. His power, his glory, his form, his nature, cannot be described, cannot he comprehended by the gods themselves. Who shall recount his might, who wears this whole earth, like a garland of flowers, tinged of a purple dye by the radiance of the jewels of his crests. When Ananta, his eyes rolling with intoxication, yawns, then earth, with all her woods, and mountains, and seas, and rivers, trembles…”
Mahabharata Vana Parva 3.202 “…then lay in Yoga sleep on the wide hood of the Snake Sesha of immeasurable energy, and the Creator of the Universe, that highly-blessed and holy Hari, knowing no deterioration, lay on the hood of that Snake encircling the whole Earth…” Tr. K.M. Ganguli
If Sheshnag is “Truth” then what does it mean by the “truth” holding up the earth on its head? Vishnu Purana 2.5 states that Vishnu has assumed the form of Shesha, if god is truth then why did Vishnu assume the form of “truth”? I also posted some verses about elephants holding up the earth which the apologist failed to explain even with his tactics. He wrote that,
So when Purana’s says “when Sheshnag shakes or moves, the earthquake occurs” it means nothing but “When Truth (Sheshnag) shakes (trembles or decline) the earthquake (destruction) occurs”.
Excuse me, where does the Vishnu Purana verse says that when Sheshnag shakes or moves? It says when Shesha Yawns. So how will he explain that? Will he now say that when Truth becomes sleepy or tired then the earth trembles (destruction occurs)? Mahabharata describes Sesha as a snake not as “Truth” as the apologist claimed and says that it was Adisheshan who became Shesha,
Mahabharata, Adi Parva 1, Section 36 “Then Sesha replied, ‘O divine Grandsire, this is the boon desired by me; viz., may my heart always delight in virtue and in blessed ascetic penances, O Lord of all!’ Brahman said, ‘O Sesha, I am exceedingly gratified with this thy self-denial and love of peace. But, at my command, let this act be done by thee for the good of my creatures. Bear thou, O Sesha, properly and well this Earth so unsteady with her mountains and forests, her seas and towns and retreats, so that she may be steady.’ Sesha said, ‘O divine Lord of all creatures, O bestower of boons, O lord of the Earth, lord of every created thing, lord of the universe, I will, even as thou sayest hold the Earth steady. Therefore, O lord of all creatures, place her on my head.’ Brahman said, ‘O best of snakes, go underneath the Earth. She will herself give thee a crevice to pass through. And, O Sesha, by holding the Earth, thou shalt certainly do what is prized by me very greatly…Then the elder brother of the king of the snakes, entering a hole, passed to the other side of the Earth, and holding her, supported with his head that goddess with her belt of seas passing all round.’ Brahman said, ‘O Sesha, O best of snakes, thou art the god Dharma, because alone, with thy huge body, thou supportest the Earth with everything on her, even as I myself, or Valavit (Indra), can…The snake, Sesha, the lord Ananta, of great prowess, lives underneath the Earth, alone supporting the world at the command of Brahman. And the illustrious Grandsire, the best of the immortals, then gave unto Ananta the bird of fair feathers, viz., the son of Vinata, for Ananta’s help.” Tr. K.M. Ganguli
Snake holding up the earth is also mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam,
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.25.2 “Śukadeva Gosvāmī continued: This great universe, situated on one of Lord Anantadeva’s thousands of hoods, appears just like a white mustard seed. It is infinitesimal compared to the hood of Lord Ananta.” Tr. Swami Prabhupada
Even a Hindu astronomer named Varaha Mira wrote on this issue,
Brihatsamhita 32.1 “Some hold that an earth-quake is caused by huge animals living in the midst of the ocean , while others opine that it is the result of the rest that is availed of by the elephants of the quarters tired by the weight of the earth.” Tr. Panditbhushan V. Subrahmanya Shastri & Vidwan M. Ramkrishna Bhat
I quoted several scriptures in support of my claim and none of them says anything which may strengthen the argument of apologist.
CLAIM:
The website quoted few references from Puran’s which describes the story of Varah Avtar of Lord Vishnu who lifted Earth to save it. But here it seems a lack of understanding of author of that website. The author of website thinks that the Earth was floating on water and suddenly it started sinking and then Lord Viṣṇu saved it. But that’s not the case. In fact, one of his own quoted references which is Vayu Puran 1.6.10-27 clarified that Earth was sinking, but it was overflowed with water.
Now there could be given several scientific interpretation of such an instance. We know that tide in the ocean occurs because of Gravity of Moon applied on Earth (We know that everything in the universe attracts each other). Maybe, at that point of instance, a huge asteroid came near to Earth and started it’s own revolutions which applied high magnitude of Gravity on Earth which lifted up the water of oceans and caused massive destruction. Then lifting the Earth not only might have saved Earth from heavy gravity of such asteroid but also from the possibility of its hitting the Earth. As a science student, I know that possibility of happening anything such is low but at the end, it is possible. Now my knowledge of Science is very limited but scientist can give many interpretations of such as instance. So Muslims should search for possibilities instead of applying their poor mind on mocking others.
RESPONSE:
The apologist made some assumptions which has no basis and he can’t furnish any evidence to back his claim. The verses I quoted clearly says that Vishnu thought of a creature which can sport in waters thus he assumed the shape of a boar. If you search “Varaha” on Google you will find pictures of Varaha lifting up the earth from the waters and no one has interpreted it like the apologist, it has no allegorical meaning but just to cover the scientific error the apologist is making up this story. Verses clearly says that when Varaha rose up his body was dripping water which only means that it was really water not some sort of rubbish said by the apologist.
Swami Prabhupada wrote,
“The Lord is described herein as mahīdhraḥ, which means either a “big mountain” or the “sustainer of the earth.” In other words, the Lord’s body was as big and hard as the Himālayan Mountains; otherwise how was it possible that He kept the entire earth on the support of His white tusks?”
Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 3.13.27
https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/3/13/27
The apologist wrote, “The author of website thinks that the Earth was floating on water and suddenly it started sinking and then Lord Viṣṇu saved it. But that’s not the case.”
It’s not my personal view, its mentioned in Hindu scriptures that earth is established on water and sank in water and then Vishnu in the form of board lifted and re-established it on water,
Vishnu Purana 1.4 …The supreme being thus eulogized, upholding the earth, raised it quickly, and placed it on the summit of the ocean, where it floats like a mighty vessel, and from its expansive surface does not sink beneath the waters. Then, having levelled the earth, the great eternal deity divided it into portions, by mountains…
Brahmanda Purana I.I.5.10 On seeing that the earth had sunk into the water he thought- ”What form shall I assume and uplift the earth?”[15] Assuming this inimitable form of a boar, Hari entered the nether worlds for uplifting the earth.
He talks about Vayu Purana but ignores the other verse from it which says,
Vayu Purana I.50.7 “Waters lie within the earth and the earth is established over waters. The sky is above, the earth is below (it) and again waters are underneath.” Tr. G.V. Tagare, Edited by G.P Bhatt
Following verse from Bhagavat Purana clearly states that Varaha lifted up the earth from waters,
Srimad Bhagavatam 3.13.31 “Lord Boar very easily took the earth on His tusks and got it out of the water. Thus He appeared very splendid. Then, His anger glowing like the Sudarśana wheel, He immediately killed the demon [Hiraṇyākṣa], although he tried to fight with the Lord.” Tr. Swami Prabhupada
These type of explanations by the apologists reminds me of a joke.
There was a boy and a girl, the boy called the girl bitch, the girl then said that “You called me a bitch, a bitch is a female dog, dogs bark, bark is off a tree, a tree is mother nature, mother nature is beautiful. So thank you.”
CLAIM:
Dear Readers, I request you to read this section very carefully as this will expose the stupidity of that website.
The website quoted Bhagvatam 5.22.12-13 (which means 5.22.12 & 5.22.13) and claimed that according to these two verses, Sun, Venus & Mercury has same orbit.
The website provides us translation by Swami Prabhupada. Though I never recommend people to read Swami Prabhupada translation, as it is not literal and creates confusion, but in this case, as the website has quoted it, let’s look at his translation of Bhagvatam 5.22.12-13
I’m sure you readers after reading are laughing at the foolishness of that website! Even if we go by the translation of Swami Prabhupada, Bhagvatam 5.22.12-13 says that Mercury is similar to Venus as it too moves front & along with the Sun. But it nowhere says that Mercury, Venus & Sun moves in the same orbit.
Suppose, if I say that all the planets are revolving along with Sun (A. Does that mean I’m saying all the planets are revolving around Sun in the same orbit? Completely no. But such is the stupidity of Islamist who pretends to be scholar.
RESPONSE:
Hope that the apologist has heard about a word called “Contradiction” and knows its meaning, stupidity is made by the apologist and his writers of Puranas. This guy lacks common sense how to expect him to understand his scriptures. First let’s read the verses,
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.12 “Some 1,600,000 miles above this group of stars is the planet Venus, which moves at almost exactly the same pace as the sun according to swift, slow and moderate movements. Sometimes Venus moves behind the sun, sometimes in front of the sun and sometimes along with it. Venus nullifies the influence of planets that are obstacles to rainfall. Consequently its presence causes rainfall, and it is therefore considered very favorable for all living beings within this universe. This has been accepted by learned scholars.” Tr. Swami Prabhupada
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.13 “Mercury is described to be similar to Venus, in that it moves sometimes behind the sun, sometimes in front of the sun and sometimes along with it. It is 1,600,000 miles above Venus, or 7,200,000 miles above earth. Mercury, which is the son of the moon, is almost always very auspicious for the inhabitants of the universe, but when it does not move along with the sun, it forbodes cyclones, dust, irregular rainfall, and waterless clouds. In this way it creates fearful conditions due to inadequate or excessive rainfall.” Tr. Swami Prabhupada
What does it mean by Venus and Mercury moving behind and in front of the Sun? If they have different orbits then how can they move behind and in front of the sun? Obviously its because they have same orbit according to these verses. These verses are contradictory to other verses which says that orbits of planets are above each other. He cribs about Swami Prabhupada’s translation who was the founder of Arya Samaj but doesn’t post other translations to back his claim because other translations are same as Swami Prabhuapada’s translation.
CLAIM:
Readers, I need your special attention at this section as this section will not expose the stupidity of that website but will also prove high astronomical knowledge of our sages.
Let’s try to understand both of these verses in great detail. Readers, when you read both of these verses, you understand a high astronomical concept. And the concept is “Orbit Inclination”.
The measure of tilt of an object’s orbit is called Orbit Inclination. When our sages talks about orbit being above each other, it means nothing but the magnitude of Inclination of orbits. Yes, Brahmanda Puran 1.2.24.121 further said that orbit of Venus is above Mercury (which means orbit Inclination of Venus is more above than Mercury) & orbit of Mars is above Venus (which means orbit Inclination of Mars is more above than Venus).
And you will be extremely surprised to know that this is scientifically proven. [Source: Wikipedia]
Brahmanda Puran 1.2.24.121 clearly mentioned Sun, by that it becomes so clear that it is talking about orbit Inclination with respect to Sun’s equator. As you can see in above chart, the orbit Inclination of Mars is more than Venus, and orbit Inclination of Venus is more than Mercury. And this is exactly what is mentioned in Brahmanda Puran 1.2.24.121.
So this is one of the biggest scientific revelation by Hindu scriptures! My request to Muslims is that before you call anything as scientific error, at least, go into the details of respective subject.
RESPONSE:
First let’ read the verses,
Matsya Purana 128.71-73 “The Sun moves lowest down of all the planets. Above Him the Moon travels. The stars travel above the Moon; above Moon, travels Mercury; above Mercury, travels Venus; above Venus, travels Mars; above Mars, travels Jupiter; above Jupiter, travels Saturn.” Tr. Taluqdar of Oudh, Edited by B.D. Basu
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.14-17 “Situated 1,600,000 miles above Mercury, or 8,800,000 miles above earth, is the planet Mars. If this planet does not travel in a crooked way, it crosses through each sign of the zodiac in three fortnights and in this way travels through all twelve, one after another. It almost always creates unfavorable conditions in respect to rainfall and other influences. Situated 1,600,000 miles above Mars, or 10,400,000 miles above earth, is the planet Jupiter, which travels through one sign of the zodiac within the period of a Parivatsara. If its movement is not curved, the planet Jupiter is very favorable to the brāhmaṇas of the universe. Situated 1,600,000 miles above Jupiter, or 12,000,000 miles above earth, is the planet Saturn, which passes through one sign of the zodiac in thirty months and covers the entire zodiac circle in thirty Anuvatsaras. This planet is always very inauspicious for the universal situation. Situated 8,800,000 miles above Saturn, or 20,800,000 miles above earth, are the seven saintly sages, who are always thinking of the well-being of the inhabitants of the universe. They circumambulate the supreme abode of Lord Viṣṇu, known as Dhruvaloka, the polestar.” Tr. Swami Prabhupada
Does it talk about movements of planets i.e. in their orbit or their inclination to Sun’s equator? Going by apologist’s logic his Rishis were wrong about Saturn’s inclination, isn’t it? As Brahmanda Purana says that above Jupiter travels Saturn whereas Saturn’s inclination is less than that of Mars. This guy has unique talent of proving one thing by comparing it with completely unrelated thing. If a planet above the other means inclination according to apologist then he should explain it in terms of Yojanas given in Srimad Bhagavatam like “Situated 1,600,000 miles above Mercury, or 8,800,000 miles above earth, is the planet Mars… Situated 1,600,000 miles above Mars, or 10,400,000 miles above earth, is the planet Jupiter”. And not just explain it but he should prove it backed by science. He is quoting Orbital inclination, Orbital inclination measures the tilt of an object’s orbit around a celestial body not orbits above each other as mentioned in Puranas.
CLAIM:
The website then quoted Matsya Puran 128.14 & Linga Puran 1.57.7 and claimed that according to these verses, all the planets are moving by rope of wind.
But just wait… Even if I admit this scientific error (which I’m not admitting & will be answering it just now) that all planets move by rope of wind, even then, it at least establishes the fact that Hindu sages knew that all planets are moving. This itself is one of the greatest scientific revelation
with respect to ancient times 
Now coming to the point of “Rope of wind”. You readers might be quite bewildered that what is this rope of wind sages were talking about! So now let me throw some light over this matter and makes it clear for you.
Purana’s came so later, this concept of “Rope of wind” was first introduced by “Satapatha Brahmana”. It was Satapatha Brahmana which introduced this concept and the same book clarified it.
Now it becomes extremely important on my part to tell you little about this book (Satapatha Brahmana) otherwise you will be completely unable to understand about this matter.
Satapatha Brahmana, in short, is considered to be a ‘guide’ of Rigveda. There are so many words & terms used in Rigveda which carries several meanings. So Satapatha Brahmana tells us about the specific words and it’s meaning with respect to Vedas (or scriptures).
Coming straight to the point, it is Satapatha Brahmana 8.7.3.10 which firstly introduced the concept of rope of wind.
Satapatha Brahmana 8.7.3.10 clearly says that Sun strings these planets (which is a scientific fact). Then it talks about thread of wind. Then it says that the thread of wind is nothing but ‘Vikarni’.
Now to understand what Satapatha Brahmana refereed as Vikarni we must read the next verse, which is Satapatha Brahmana 8.7.3.11
Satapatha Brahmana 8.7.3.11 absolutely clarified that ‘Vikarni’ is nothing but a “Vital Power”.
So now everything is crystal clear. The rope or thread of wind is nothingbut Vikarni and Vikarni is nothing but a vital power. So at the end, by Rope of wind, Satapatha Brahmana means nothing but a VITAL POWER.
Scientifically, the vital power which sages were talking about maybe referring to Gravity.
But one thing is absolutely clear for now that this concept of rope of wind described by Purana’s was borrowed from Satapatha Brahmana. And Satapatha Brahmana itself clarified that rope of wind is not literally a rope or thread but a vital power (which I think sages were referring to Gravity).
RESPONSE:
Now every verse became literal, isn’t it? After giving a lengthy explanation the apologist says that “the vital power which sages were talking about maybe referring to Gravity”, again the writer is making assumptions. Does the verse I quoted mentions that the Sun controls movements of planets by rope of wind? No! here is what the verse says,
Matsya Purana 128.14 “All these stars are tied to Dhruva: and they move on propelled by the wind. The Moon and the Sun move on in the celestial firmament, prompted by currents of strong wind. They glide on tied to the Dhruva. Their motions round the pole are brought about by these ropes made of wind.” Tr. Taluqdar of Oudh, Edited by B.D. Basu
The apologist is mixing two complete different things, the Linga Purana verse makes it more clear about that,
Linga Purana I.57.7 “The stars and the luminaries, urged by the circular gusts of wind, move
like fire brands. Since the wind bears the luminaries, it is called Pravaha.” Tr. Board of Scholars, Edited by J.L. Shastri
Satapatha Brahmana is talking about strings of Sun whereas verses I quoted talks about rope of winds of Dhruva (Pole star). Also verses from Satapatha Brahmana are completely unrelated to the verses I quoted.
CLAIM:
The website quoted Vayu Puran 1.51.53 and claimed that Wind starts from Sun.
This may not make such sense in initial thinking process but when you analyse the verse scientifically, it sounds well. Let me explain it to you:
According to modern science, “The sun’s radiation warms different parts of the earth, oceans, and other bodies of water, at different rates. The night and day cycles make an obvious difference, but also, water and land absorb or reflect sunlight differently. The result of this uneven heating is atmospheric change. Hot air rises, leaving decreased atmospheric pressure near the earth’s surface, and cool air is drawn in to replace it. The result of this air exchange is wind.”
So even according to modern science, the basic cause of wind flow is, the Sun. By keeping this perspective in mind, maybe sages said “Wind starts from Sun” to determine the fact that sun starts this process of wind flowing.
RESPONSE:
Where is the link for his claim and how is that relevant to the topic we are talking about? A verse says something and this guy is bringing something else to explain it which is totally irrelevant. First let’s read the verse,
Vayu Purana I.51.53 “The wind starts from the planet sun and traverses the entire stellar zone. At the end of the day it enters the sun encompassed by Dhruva.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
The verse says that wind starts from the sun and travels entire stellar zone and then enters the sun. And what is he posting? Sun radiating warm parts of earth, hot air decreasing in the atmosphere? Even the passage he quoted only shows that it’s the earth’s atmosphere which produces wind not sun. Is the apologist out of his senses? Does the passage he posted proves that wind “starts FROM the sun” or that at the end of the day enter the sun? The way he is explaining is completely ridiculous and embarrassing I really don’t know how could he gather that much courage to explain errors in Hinduism in this way. I really hope that this guy is mentally fit. After writing such irrelevant passage he writes, “By keeping this perspective in mind, maybe sages said “Wind starts from Sun” again making assumptions.
CLAIM:
Hindus for too long has been asked this concept of ‘Rahu’ swallowing Earth on eclipse. But let me tell you that this concept is O lying used in Purana’s. But now let me tell you scientific significance behind it.
“Rahu and Ketu are nodes in Vedic astrology. Nodes are the points at which the orbit of the Moon cuts the plane of ecliptic (path of the Sun). During the course of the motion, the Moon crosses the ecliptic plane in the zodiac**. Rahu and Ketu are the nodes of the Moon. When Moon crosses the ecliptic while going from south to north of the ecliptic, it is called ascending node or Rahu. Latitude of the Moon at Rahu is zero and will increase above the ecliptic. When Moon crosses the ecliptic while going from north to south of the ecliptic, it is called descending node or Ketu. Again, latitude at Ketu will be zero and it will decrease. So Rahu and Ketu are actually not any physical bodies but are the imaginary points on the plane of ecliptic. As the Sun and Moon move in one direction, these points will move in opposite direction. In other words, we can say that these points move in a retrograde motion. So Rahu and Ketu are always opposite to each other i.e, 180 degrees apart.”
You can also look at the diagram below to understand it:
Now you might be understanding that how vedic concepts of ‘Zodiac’ & ‘Nodes’ were taken down in Purana’s in a very ‘storytelling’ sense. So now this must be clear to all that ‘Rahu’ is not a physical demon but a point on plane of orbit.
RESPONSE:
The apologist conveniently claims that Rahu and Ketu are nodes in Vedic astrology. According to Vedas, Solar Eclipse occurs when a demon covers the sun which causes Solar eclipse. The apologist is busy turning scientific errors into facts without reading verses properly, the Puranas clearly says that Rahu is a planet,
Devi Bhagavatam 8.18.1-9 “…The Asura Râhu thus covers his rays. So the sphere of the Moon extends upto the twelve thousand Yoyanas. Râhu covers the field of the thirteen thousand Yoyanas. So he covers both the Sun and the Moon. Desire to take the vengeance of the previous enmity, he covers them during the time of Parva (the festivals). This planet wants to cover them from a distance. Hearing this, the Bhagavân Visnu hurls His Sudars’an Chakra against Râhu. This Chakra (disc) is encircled with the fiery flames and is very terrible. When all the quarters were filled with its violent flames, Râhu became instantly alarmed and fled away from the distance. O Devarsi! This is known as the eclipse known amongst the mortals…” Tr. Swami Vijananda
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.24.1-3 “Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: My dear King, some historians, the speakers of the Purāṇas, say that 10,000 yojanas [80,000 miles] below the sun is the planet known as Rāhu, which moves like one of the stars. The presiding deity of that planet, who is the son of Siṁhikā, is the most abominable of all asuras, but although he is completely unfit to assume the position of a demigod or planetary deity, he has achieved that position by the grace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Later I shall speak further about him. Rāhu tried to create dissension between the sun and moon by interposing himself between them. Rāhu is inimical toward both the sun and the moon, and therefore he always tries to cover the sunshine and moonshine on the dark-moon day and full-moon night…After hearing from the sun and moon demigods about Rāhu’s attack, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, engages His disc, known as the Sudarśana cakra, to protect them. The Sudarśana cakra is the Lord’s most beloved devotee and is favored by the Lord. The intense heat of its effulgence, meant for killing non-Vaiṣṇavas, is unbearable to Rāhu, and he therefore flees in fear of it. During the time Rāhu disturbs the sun or moon, there occurs what people commonly know as an eclipse.” Tr. Swami Prabhupada
Swami Prabhupada writes on Srimad Bhagavatam 5.24.2-3 “As stated herein, the sun extends for 10,000 yojanas, and the moon extends for twice that, or 20,000 yojanas. The word dvādaśa should be understood to mean twice as much as ten, or twenty. In the opinion of Vijayadhvaja, the extent of Rāhu should be twice that of the moon, or 40,000 yojanas. However to reconcile this apparent contradiction to the text of the Bhāgavatam, Vijayadhvaja cites the following quotation concerning Rāhu; rāhu-soma-ravīṇāṁ tu maṇḍalā dvi-guṇoktitām. This means that Rāhu is twice as large as the moon, which is twice as large as the sun. This is the conclusion of the commentator Vijayadhvaja. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, is always the protector of His devotees, who are also known as demigods. The controlling demigods are most obedient to Lord Viṣṇu, although they also want material sense enjoyment, and that is why they are called demigods, or almost godly. Although Rāhu attempts to attack both the sun and the moon, they are protected by Lord Viṣṇu. Being very afraid of Lord Viṣṇu’s cakra, Rāhu cannot stay in front of the sun or moon for more than a muhūrta (forty-eight minutes). The phenomenon that occurs when Rāhu blocks the light of the sun or moon is called an eclipse. The attempt of the scientists of this earth to go to the moon is as demoniac as Rāhu’s attack. Of course. their attempts will be failures because no one can enter the moon or sun so easily. Like the attack of Rāhu, such attempts will certainly be failures.”
Swami Prabhupada on Srimad Bhagavatam 5.24.2-3
http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/5/24/2
http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/5/24/3
These verses and commentaries refutes the explanation of the apologist and I don’t have to write anything further.
CLAIM:
The website quoted Linga Puran 1.54.39-40 which says:
“The cloud originating from sacrificial smoke is conducive to the welfare of the twice born. The cloud originating from the smoke of the forest fires, is conducive to the welfare of the forests”
Now, I’m unable to understand what is the objection of that website towards this verse. Are they thinking that clouds cannot be formed by smoke of forest fire? And if they are thinking so then they are wrong because Flammangenitus clouds are kind of clouds which are formed by forest fire.
RESPONSE:
How are they conducive to the welfare of forests? The apologist should explain it.
CLAIM:
The website quoted Bhagvatam 8.12.32-33 and claimed that Gold originated from semen of Lord Shiva.
Dear Readers, you can refer to that website and read given translation, Bhagvatam 8.12.32-33 says that where ever the semen of Lord Shiva fallen, it turned into Gold.
But it nowhere says that it is semen of Lord Shiva from which Gold is originated. There is a huge difference between ‘Formation’ & ‘Origin’. Suppose, I say that Samsung company forms or builds mobile phones. Does that mean I’m saying that Mobile Phone was originated in Samsung company? Absolutely no. But Muslims are so clod that they don’t understand difference in basic terms.
RESPONSE:
This statement of apologist reminds me of a Hindi proverb “Ultha Chor Kotwal Ko Daate” which perfectly applies to the current scenario, a person who couldn’t differentiate between semen producing in body and scientists producing semen, wind coming from sun and wind on earth, full of water and traces of water is lecturing me about differences. I didn’t use the word “Originate” one can recheck my article, I gave a link proving that Earth’s Gold Came from Colliding Dead Stars which was contrary to what is mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam.
CLAIM:
The website quoted Rigved 6.72.2 and claimed that Earth is supported by Pillars. Dear Readers, below is the translation of specific verse by Shri Ram Sharma. As you can see, it nowhere says that Sky is supported by Pillars. It only says that Universe is stable.
But because many translators like Griffith willingly mistranslated the verse. I would like to go into the details of the verse. The specific word which Griffith & few others mistranslated is ‘स्कम्भ’. If you go to any dictionary, you will find that the specific word has many meanings like ‘Support’, ‘Stabe’ or ‘Pillar’. Now, even if you chose Pillar as the appropriate meaning, you will be wrong. Because if you use the word ‘स्कम्भ’ as ‘Pillar’ then you can’t add the word ‘Support’. Remember, the mistranslated line is “The heaven is supported by pillars”. Now either the word ‘स्कम्भ’ could mean ‘Support’ or ‘Pillar’ but it couldn’t mean both at the same time. That is why, the best translation of word स्कम्भ is ‘Stable’ which is picked by ShriRam Sharma.
The similar word ‘स्कम्भ’ occurs again in Rigveda 4.13.5 & Rigveda 4.14.5 where even translator like Griffith has translated the word as Support not as Pillar which proves that they willingly mistranslated the word in Rigveda 6.72.2
The website next quoted Rigveda 6.47.5 & Rigveda 8.41.10 and claimed that sky is supported by Pillars.
Friends, both of these verses carries the same word ‘स्कम्भ’ which is being mistranslated in the same way I explained just now. You can read the translation of Great Pandit ShriRam Sharma or Dayanand Saraswati who correctly translated it.
RESPONSE:
He says that the translation is wrong though I mentioned Arya Samaji scholar named Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati’s translation. And I will be providing other translations as well to support my claim,
Rig Veda 6.72.2 O lords of resplendence and bliss, you bestow light to the dawns; you upraise the sun with his splendour; you prop up the sky with the supporting pillar of the firmament; you spread out the earth, the mother of all. Tr. Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati
H.H. Wilson translated it as,
Rig Veda 6.72.2 “Indra and Soma, you have led on the dawns; you have upraised the sun with his splendour; you have propped up the sky with the supporting pillar (of the firmament): you have spread out the earth, the mother (of all).” Tr. H.H. Wilson
Following is the Hindi translation by Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi,
The apologist himself says that,
“Now either the word ‘स्कम्भ’ could mean ‘Support’ or ‘Pillar’ but it couldn’t mean both at the same time.”
Wondering if he read Sanskrit version of Rig Veda 6.72.2, Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati explain the Sanskrit words in the footnotes as,
Upa dyam skambhathuh skambhanena, you have propped up the sky with the supporting pillar.
[Rig Veda Samhita, By Satya Prakash Saraswati and Satyakam Vidyalankar, Vol 7, page 2331, 1980 edition, Published by Veda Ptatishthana, New Delhi]
I shall now go by the words of apologist who said that the same word Skambh cannot be used both as a support and pillar so going by his words here Skambathum Skambhanena will definitely means that you have propped up the sky with a supporting pillar, isn’t it?
Rig Veda 6.47.5 “This very same exilir of devotional love finds the wavy sea of brilliant colours in fore-front of the dawns, whose dwelling is in firmament. This might exilir sustains the heavens up with a mighty pillar, the sender of rains, the leader of the winds.” Tr. Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati
Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi translated it as,
Rig Veda 8.41.10 “In his successive functions, he emits his bright rays (during day) or turns them dark (during the night). He measures out the eternal abode, and supports with the pillar of the firmament, both heaven and the earth. May all our adversities vanish” Tr. Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati
H.H. Wilson translates it as,
Rig Veda 8.41.10 “He who in his successive functions emits his bright rays or turns them dark, first made his residence (in the firmament), and, as the unborn sun the sky, supports with the pillar (of the firmament) both heaven and earth: may all out enemies perish.” Tr. H.H. Wilson
Now I have given three translations to support my claim and I didn’t even added Griffith’s translation in this.
CLAIM:
Dear Readers, the website quoted Rigveda 2.17.5 and claimed that according to this verse, sky can fall on us.
Readers, here is translation of Rigveda 2.17.5 by Professor Wilson.
It clearly says that the Indra Dev has crafted the heaven/sky in such manner that it not falls.
This is scientifically true. We know that Sky is not a physical body which can fall. There is no possibility that sky can ever fall because it is designed (crafted) so. The translation provided to us by that website is from Swami Satya Prakash who used the word Skilled instead of Crafted. But anyway, both the words serve the purpose & don’t change the meaning of sentence.
RESPONSE:
Just wondering why didn’t he mention the Hindi translation of “Great” Pandit Shri Ram Sharma? Let me post his Hindi translation here,
It is roughly translated as Indra is HOLDING [Thame rakha] up the Heaven/Sky so that it may not fall down. Following is the Hindi translation by Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi
Part 2
This is the response to a Hindu apologist’s counter rebuttal. I have used language which the apologist seems to understand better. Usually I don’t use such words in my articles but you know there is a saying that don’t argue with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and that’s what happened to me here. I gave befitting reply to apologist’s weak response but the apologist shamelessly repeats the same thing in his article, if it were a person other than the apologist then he would’ve had trauma due to embarrassment after realizing how much mistakes he made. But the shameless apologist came up again with the same arguments. He didn’t answer several of my questions, I don’t know why he wrote this response if he didn’t wanted to answer my questions. The answer is simple, he couldn’t answer my questions. His simple funda of explaining scientific errors is to turn them into allegorical. He rarely explained verses using his scriptures and when he did he used unrelated verses. He has changed some of his explanations now which means that he was unsure about his own explanations and just tried to explain them using his peanut sized brain. One doesn’t even need to read this refutation to counter the apologist, one can counter his rebuttal with ease just by reading my article Scientific Errors in Hinduism. I have no clue where he gets this much courage to make a display of his stupidity, it was better if he had shown his pathetic articles to someone before publishing it. According to him sun moving around the earth, sun traversing earth is not a scientific error but fact which talks about relative motion, according to him, humans have 7 layers of skin not 3 and he stands by his claim even after I quoted from Webmd.com. Hindu scriptures says a boar, snake etc. are holding up the earth, mountains having wings and the great apologist explains it by turning them allegorical when Hindu scriptures and scholars clearly states that Vishnu assumed the form of boar and a snake named Shesha is holding up the earth. One can ascertain the stupidity of the apologist from these statements only.
- The apologist was baffled after I quoted 3 translations of Atharva Veda 6.44.1 so the dumb apologist has started a new trick. The apologist argued that Arya Samaji scholar Shripad Damodar Satvalekar clarified ON ANOTHER VERSE that earth is fixed with respect to position not motion. Now the trickster is crying that earth been fixed doesn’t mean it is motionless but it means earth is fixed in its orbit, And then he gave a snapshot of the commentary. How can one apply meaning of another verse to this verse? He posted the commentary without giving reference of it, Even the commentary he posted doesn’t state that the earth is fixed with respect to position not motion. The dullard didn’t answer my questions, I wrote that ‘This is a prayer made to stop malady, now going by apologist’s concocted definition, is it praying for malady to be “Firm”? He translated earth and heaven as firm but then translates standing still [Tehre Hai] when it comes to trees. If it’s just about firmness then why does it talk about trees? doesn’t trees shake with a gust of wind? Trees stands in its place and doesn’t move and it being compared to earth proves that earth is motionless according to Vedas. So what this verse says is that just as the earth is Tehra hai (standing still/stopped) so this malady should also Teher Jaye (should stop/stand still)’.Whether the same passage says that the Savitar is sun or moon doesn’t matter. The passage from Nirukta clearly states that the earth is fastened with support i.e. it is fixed. Earlier the idiot refused to accept the translation and since I quoted Nirukta now he invented a new explanation that the earth is fixed in its orbit. Nirukta doesn’t say that the Sun has fixed earth or all planets in their respective orbits like the dumb apologists says but he will surely claim that it is not an error since he is busy defending scientific errors of his scriptures.
- Then the stupid apologist again argued that the word Drdh means steady and shamelessly went on to post the snapshot from V.S Apte’s dictionary on the definition of the word Drdh. Semi literate apologist completely ignored my points, I clearly stated that the first meaning V.S. Apte gave for Drdh is “Fixed”. I clearly stated that the word Drdh has several meanings but the apologist chose to mention only few.
- Earlier the jackass apologist said “Again, all can see that the verse nowhere says that Earth is fixed, but author of that website in his foolishness considered that meaning of Hindi word ‘अविचल’ as ‘Stop’ whereas the word also means Stable’.” Since now he has no way out so now he is claiming that the earth is fixed in its orbit. The jackass apologist was arguing about Shri Ram Sharma’s translation but he must have been startled to read Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi’s translation which clearly states that the earth is fixed. Please note there’s no verse which states that the earth is fixed in its orbit. The dullard argues that “when translators used the word like ‘Stop’ they meant it with respect to position not motion” Whereas Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi translated it as “Achal” which means immovable, had the earth been fixed in its orbit and revolved around the sun as per Vedas then Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi or Shri Ram Sharma would have never translated it as Achal or Avichal. Just see how the deceiver is twisting words for his vested interest.
- The apologist must be suffering from Denialism that’s the reason he is unwilling to accept the truth. Since I challanged him to show which word is translated as moving in Rig Veda 3.5.5 with respect to earth, he pointed out a word Charan which is actually used for sun and says that may Agni protect the pathway of the sun.
Then he posted Wilson’s translation of Rig Veda 3.30.9 which talks about Indra fixing the wandering earth in its position which rather implies that the earth was made immovable as it doesn’t say that the earth was fixed in its orbit. I am quoting two translations of the verse which no where states that the earth is moving or wandering,
Rig Veda 3.30.9 “O resplendent Lord, you have established in its position the silent earth, the vast, unbounded and fertile. You are the showerer of benefits and sustain the heaven and earth; let the rain waters engendered by you flow hither.” Tr. Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati
Rig Veda 3.30.9 “O Indra (the king shining like the sun) as the sun upholds the heaven, in the Same manner, humming obtained the vast, which produce various articles and where the mantras of the Siam Veda are chanted, you be seated in the throne firmly. Let the waters engendered you (through the performance of the Yana’s) go up to the firmament.” Tr. Acharya Dharma Deva Vidya Martanda
Following is the Hindi translation by Shri Ram Sharma
- And right after quoting H.H. Wilson’s translation, the hypocrite apologist now denies H.H. Wilson’s translation of Rig Veda 8.41.10 which I quoted along with Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati’s translation on Earth being supported by pillars. That’s called hypocrisy.
- Buffoon apologist starts blabbering with a lengthy explanation of Rig Veda 7.55.7 by just beating around the bush but not answering my question as to what the poetic device is all about, what is it trying to convey? What does it really mean by the Vrishabh (Sun) coming out from the sea? Sun coming out of the sea/ocean or going in the sea/ocean is mentioned in Brahmanas and Puranas but none of them hinted that it is allegorical and that’s why he didn’t comment on any of the Brahmana or Puranik verse about sun and moon dipping in water. And when he couldn’t explain what the poetic device is so he started pointing out some verses from Quran. How can that stupid even compare word of god like Quran with Vedas? If Rig Veda 7.55.7 was allegorical then Puranas or Brahmanas would’ve explained it instead of repeating the same words. Sun rising is common but sun rising from the sea isn’t. Hope semi literate apologist understands it. Apologist failed to answer what is the poetic device in this verse and most importantly he failed to furnish any reference for this.
- When I refuted his claim of Vishnu Purana that the sun never rises or sets from the same chapter the foolish apologist reiterates the same that it’s talking about relative motion. No wonder why Hindu community is the least educated in the world. I also posed a challenge which the apologist didn’t answer, “apart from posting the same verse repeated in different scriptures the apologist cannot quote other verses about sun neither setting nor rising, while I can quote dozens of verses about sun revolving around the earth.” If Vishnu Purana 2.8 saying sun traverses part of the earth, sun revolving doesn’t really mean that the sun revolves around the earth then I want to know from the apologist what words are exactly used to describe the revolution of sun around the earth? Suppose if you were to describe that the sun is moving around the earth, how would you describe it? But the cunning apologist who is reluctant to admit truth won’t answer these questions.
- Then the idiot tried explaining Atharva Veda 6.8.3 in his usual idiotic way. I posed a challenge which again the idiot apologist failed to answer, “The Hindi translation which apologist quoted says that sun encompasses heaven and the earth with ITS LIGHT whereas it actually says that sun encompasses heaven and the earth. I challenge him to quote which Sanskrit word is translated as “light” or “rays” here.” So this proves that I rightly questioned the Hindu translators on this verse. The idiot says that it also talks about relative motion and he agrees with all the Sanskrit words I translated except for the Sanskrit word “Pari”. He argues that the word Pari means “About”. But what the semi-literate Shishu Mandir educated doesn’t know is that ‘About’ and ‘Around’ serves the same purpose. He should have checked the synonyms of ‘about’ before writing this. One can Google synonyms of About. However, the idiot apologist cunningly quoted only one definition of the word Pari which he took from Spokensanskrit.de. So let me quote from Spokensanskrit.de to support my claim,
http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mode=3&script=hk&tran_input=around&direct=au
This word is similar to another Sanskrit word Parikrama which means circumambulating. V.S. Apte also translates the word Pari as round, round about,
The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, p.670, by Vaman Shriman Apte, Published by Shiralkar & Co, 1890
So now the deviousness of the cunning apologist is exposed. One can Google synonyms of the word ‘About’ which the semi literate apologist thinks is different from the word ‘Around’. Though I translated the word Pari as around which is more accurate. I must admit apologist’s dedication in defending such errors even after knowing that it will prove him an idiot.
- I explained Rig Veda 1.35.9 that the sun really moves around the earth, as the foolish apologist realized his mistake he didn’t speak about it much in his article.
- As I successfully proved that the sun really moves around the earth in a chariot pulled by seven horses with references from Hindu scriptures, the moron has posted a new explanation that the sun really has thousand rays but there is a difference between number of rays and kinds of rays. But do sun really moves pulled by 7 ‘Different Kind Of Rays’? The dumb apologist should answer this, he has not even answered some of the questions I posed I don’t think he would answer this question. Hindu scriptures even gives names of the seven horses as well as rays, if seven horses are rays then why their names are different? Even older scriptures like Mahabharata proves my claim of sun moving in a chariot dragged by seven horses. Hindu scripture also says that a charioteer sits in front of the sun’s chariot, I posed some questions like what does the charioteer means? If seven horses of the sun means seven rays then does that mean moon possess 10 rays as Hindu scriptures says that the moon moves in a chariot pulled by 10 horses. Wondering why he wrote this article if he don’t want to answer my questions. Hindu scriptures clearly mentions that the seven horses are seven Vedic metres who have assumed the shape of horses. Had it really meant rays then Hindu scriptures would’ve explained it as “Seven horses are actually seven rays of the sun.”
Brahmanda Purana I.2.23.45-46 “In the course of a day and night, the sun traverses the earth consisting of the seven continents and oceans by means of his chariot with a single wheel. The chariot is yoked with only seven horses. They are the Vedic Metres that have assumed the form of horses. They are stationed towards the place where the wheel is fitted. They assume the forms of they wish.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
Apart from that I also posed few more questions like if its just allegorical then why Hindu scriptures mentions the size of the chariot of the sun? Which the dullard failed to answer. Now the dullard admitted that the sun really has 1000 rays but why do the sun travels only with its 7 rays? If horses means rays then why does it say that sun moves with 7 rays? What does it mean by that, could the apologist care to explain?
- I proved that mountains had wings as per Puranas and also quoted Swami Prabhupada’s and H.H. Wilson’s commentary and footnote to which the cretin has no answer hence he pointed out a verse from Quran and ironically he says that he never picked any verse from Quran which is symbolic but in reality he twisted every verse from the Quran whether it was symbolic or literal and posted it to show the Quran contains scientific errors. This is the perfect definition of Hypocrisy. I can explain about Prophet Solomon talking to ant but this is not the topic of the discussion, even I can point out such things from Vedas. But the moron is deliberately dragging Quran into this as he has no answer. If mountain having wings is symbolic then will he care to explain the symbolism behind it? What does it really mean by mountain having wings? Which poetic device is used in these verses? If it is really symbolic then why Swami Prabhupada or H.H. Wilson didn’t explain it? Why they explained it literally?
- Then the brainless apologist reiterated that the Matsya Purana 39.10 says nothing about conceiving child when the verse clearly states that, “The menstrual flow of a woman suddenly develops conception as soon as it mingles itself with the semen virile of man.” I feel embarrassed to explain such simple things, don’t know how the shameless idiot can question it.
- Then the Shishu Mandir educated made some assumptions that “Semen travels in women body it might get in touch with other fluids like blood.” And he provided no scientific evidence to support this claim, Whereas Puranik verses states that a woman conceives pregnancy when semen mixes with blood (and menstrual blood as per some) not as the cretin claims, wasting my time on responding to such silly so called refutations. Earlier he was arguing that it is some cervical fluid but now he accepts that it is indeed blood after I refuted him.
- Since Brahmanda Puran 2.3.72.42-47 & Vayu Puran 1.4.17-22 verses are crystal clear scientific errors so now the nincompoop is giving them an allegorical meaning. He explains it as “Flesh sustains because blood nourish it, our flesh remains protected because of layer of fat.” But do those verses really say that blood nourishes flesh and flesh is protected by a layer of fat? Those verses says that Flesh originates from blood not nourishes it, it says that bone originates from fat. I really don’t know how the idiot can even defend such errors. There is a difference between originate and nourishment/protecting but semi-literate Shishu Mandir educated cannot understand these terms. One can refute this cretin just by reading my article, have a look at Brahmanda Purana verse,
Brahmanda Purana 2.3.72.42-47 “…Blood takes its origin from Rasa (a vital fluid constituent of the body) and it is said that the flesh originates from blood. The source of fat is from the flesh. It is defined that the bone originates from the fat. From the bone the pith and marrow take their origin and the origin of Semen is from the marrow. (?) Foetus originated from semen virile through its assimilative rasa bodily fluid. It is there that water is mixed initially (?). This is called the Saumya Rasi. The foetus that is solidified [lit. born of Asman, stone solid] is called the second Rasi. One should know that semen is of the nature of Soma and Menstrual blood is of the nature of fire. These two Evolutes follow Rasa…” Tr. G.V. TagareSince he has no answer to this, he is beating around the bush by explaining a different verse completely unrelated to this issue. The apologist is an ignorant fool to defend such verses.
- Then he comes to the fetal development in Srimad Bhagavatam. One can clearly see how he blabbers on this subject when he claims that he never said that the head is formed in the 5th week but then writes, “So this distinct top may have been interpreted as Head in Bhagvatam.” He clearly has no explanation on this subject.
- Earlier the cretin was arguing that semen is indeed produced from marrow by posting a link about scientists developing semen from marrow in a lab whereas his scriptures talks about semen produced from marrow in the body, I also posted some links of scientists developing semen/sperm from skin cells, mouse stem cells. He failed to provide any scientific evidence about semen produced from marrow in the body, since he couldn’t furnish any evidence he is beating around the bush. And now he is asking which word is translated as marrow. The Sanskrit word मज्जा Majja is used here for marrow.
- The cretin claims that he refuted my “Phony” argument about humans procreating just at thought and touch without sexual intercourse in the beginning as per Hinduism and he says I had only reply that ‘the apologist should stop assuming things’. He also makes the claim that he explained it with “several” valid interpretations. The apologist is not just semi-literate but also blind, I asked few questions and made few points like, “Is he aware that according to Hinduism, humans are same since beginning of creation, there is no evolution in Hinduism, there is no such thing in Hinduism like humans had different looks before and evolved to present form. He should’ve also furnished references about humans being different at first.” The nincompoop apologist failed to provide any reference from his scriptures about humans been different from today than in the beginning of creation and that they could reproduce just at thought or touch and also failed to provide any scientific research that ancestors of humans procreated without sexual intercourse jut at sight, thought and touch. He failed to provide any scientific evidence proving that ancestors of humans could reproduce just at thought and touch and only made assumptions and then made claim that he gave “several” valid interpretations. I can prove that humans are same since the creation according to Hinduism.
- Then the apologist implies that he can make assumptions without actually providing references or evidence of his claims. I posted commentary of Swami Prabhupada on 7 oceans being created by the impression of King Priyvarta’s chariot to which the cretin replies that Swami Prabhupada was just a saint and a translator and his job was to explain the verse not decode. Just wondering what’s the use of explanation if secrets are not decoded? The apologist is an idiot no doubt but I am not an idiot to believe him. If he claims that this is symbolic then he should explain the symbolism behind it, he can’t just term any scientific error as symbolic and run away, if this trick is used then no one can point out any scientific error as they would just claim that all those verses are symbolic and then run away. Semi-literate admin doesn’t know the difference between theories and facts, if scientists proves an idea by giving sufficient evidence then it becomes a scientific fact but if they just present their idea with no proper evidence then it remains a theory. How can he even compare himself with astrophysicists? It’s an insult to astrophysicist on being compared with a dumb person like apologist.
- He didn’t counter my explanation on Markandeya Purana verses especially Markandeya Purana 78.9 which means that he now realized his mistakes. The dumb apologist claims that he provided “enormous” verses regarding the shape of the earth, I never knew that quoting two verses amounts to “enormous”. Two of his verses about shape of the earth from Markandeya Purana are refuted in Counter Response to Scientific Errors in Hinduism/Vedas and Response to Science in Vedas articles. He writes that I ignored verses like Surya Siddhanta 12.53, Brahmanda Puran 1.2.19.197 & Bhagvatam 5.21.8-9, Yoga Vasishta 1.26.34. He did mention Surya Siddhanta but since I don’t have the book and neither I studied it so I chose to ignore it. I saved the pdf version of his article and checked whether he mentioned other verses and found that they are not present there, seems he later added them. Since I don’t have Yoga Vasistha so I won’t comment on that also. I would respond only to Brahmanda Purana and Srimad Bhagavatam, one can check Srimad Bhagavatam, http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/5/21/8-9 it now where talks about shape of the earth rather says that the sun moves around the earth. Brahmanda Purana translated by Ganesh Vasudeo Tagare says that the shape of the earth is in the form of circle or globe,
Brahmanda Purana 1.2.19.197 “The situation of the earth is thereafter in the form of a circle or globe.” Tr. G.V. Tagare
And that’s because the word can be translated both as a circle or globe but since Puranas emphasises the earth as a flat circular disc so here the word should be translated as circle.
- I gave the meaning of Chaturbhrshti from Monier Willaim’s dictionary and here is the definition from online dictionary,
http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mode=3&script=hk&tran_input=chaturbhristhi&direct=au
To support my claim of earth described as four cornered in Rig Veda 10.58.3, I also mentioned Satapatha Brahmana and Valmiki Ramayana. Apologist called Satapatha Brahmana verse as symbolic and considered Valmiki Ramayana’s reference as incomplete, but I mentioned in my Counter Response that I quoted Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Khanda book 5, Sarga 9 which the stupid apologist ignored as he couldn’t answer it, and I also quoted footnotes of Manmath Nath Dutt, and I will mention another scholar’s views on it, M.N. Dutt wrote,
“*i.e. four-cornered, The Earth, in Hindu cosmogony, is a flat surface having four corners.” The Ramayanna, Edited and Published by Manmatha Nath Dutt, Rector, Keshub Academu. Printed by Girish Chanda Chackravarti, Deva Press, 65/2, Beadon Street, Calcutta. 1892.
Hari Prasad Shastri also writes,
“Four-Cornered The ancient Hindu belief was that the earth was four-cornered.” The Ramayana of Valmiki, Translated by Hari Prasad Shastri, Shanti Sadan 29 Chepstow Villas, London, W.II. 1952. Printed in Great Britain at the Burgleigh Press, Lewins Mead, Bristol.
So this strengthens my argument that earth according to Vedas and some texts is four cornered. And it really refers to the corners not directions as Hindu apologists claim.
- The apologist is such an idiot that he don’t even have his opinion, He now says that why can’t earth be denoted as beautiful when scriptures says earth is lotus shaped, he said this on the basis of my explanation that Hindu scriptures describing Hindu gods eyes, lips etc. as lotus eye/lips denotes that they are beautiful so now the cretin claims that the Hindu scriptures by describing the earth as lotus shaped means the earth is beautiful. Then he asks his readers to have a look at the picture of closed lotus flower which he posted in his article. I have also given a picture but my picture is in accordance with the earth described in Hindu scriptures. The idiot doesn’t even know the difference between Lotus like and lotus shaped. Hindu scriptures even compares the islands or Dvipas with the pericarp of the flower. And he tries to make fun of me by saying that I am confused about what shape to give to the earth. It’s not me who is confused it’s the writers of Hindu scriptures who were confused about the shape of the earth who described it as four cornered, circular disk, lotus shaped. In his article the nincompoop argued that Markandeya Purana describes the earth as an egg when actually the Markandeya Purana was only talking about the egg of Brahma (i.e. the universe), and he took it to show that the earth is shaped like an egg but he doesn’t accept Puranik verses when they say that the earth is shaped like a lotus. Except for laughing, beating around the bush, displaying his stupidity, the apologist has nothing to present on this issue. If Hindu scriptures were describing the earth as beautiful as lotus then they would’ve used phrase like “lotus like earth” but instead they say that earth is shaped like a lotus.
- I can’t believe that this guy will go to any extent to defend his scriptures. How can a man be that stupid? I gave reference from Webmd.com and another website to back my claim and he has presented some unknown website like skin-remedies.com but I am glad that he didn’t bring some roadside Ved Rishi Tambu Baba’s statement to prove his claim. I quoted from a reliable website like Webmd.com and here is another link for my claim, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bed-sores/multimedia/anatomy-of-your-skin/img-20005718
The cretin presented Stratum Corneum as a different layer when it is actually part of Epidermis. The idiot is just repeating the same instead of refuting my claim. Here is another link from Columbia University about my claim that human skin has three layers. Hope the idiot apologist doesn’t turn a blind eye to this link as he did with webmd.com,
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/publications/pdfs/Igarashi_CUTR05.pdf
- Semi-literate apologist who couldn’t read English properly now accuses me of not understanding verses properly, If he is having so much difficulty understanding verses then he should get some help from others. According to him the verse states that mount Meru is in centre of continents not earth. Let me present more verses on this issue,
Agni Purana 212.33-35 “…Obeisance to the mount Meru, the representative of Vishnu on earth. Salutation unto the mountain which forms the main stay of the earth. I make obeisance to the mountain situate at the centre of the earth…” Tr. M.N. Dutt
Harivamsha Purana 3.34.4 “Containing the earth within four boundaries, the Lord created the great ocean. At the centre of the earth, the golden mountain, meru was installed.” Tr. Desiraju Hanumanta Rao
Padma Purana VII.2.10-17 “…At the centre of the earth he produced the great mountain (viz. Meru) with jewelled peaks…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande
Hindu scholar Jagdish Lal Shastri writes in the footnotes of Linga Purana,
Jagdish Lal Shastri on Linga Purana I.24.124b-133, Vol 5, p.98, Published by Motilal Banaridass, 1982
Let me help the dullard make a refutation to this. Refutation no 1) The translation of verses are wrong, 2) It is a poetic device carrying deep symbolism, 3) It is in fact a scientific fact and we should wait for modern science to develop so that it could decode the meaning, 4) Post a verse from Vedas about dog scratching his head and relate that verse to this and twist it as much as one can. That’s it.
- Then the nincompoop says Yajurved talks about moving earth and that he explained each word of Yajur Veda 3.6 and claims I cannot understand Sanskrit language. Okay fine, I can’t understand Sanskrit, But do Hindu scholars also don’t understand Sanskrit that they translated Yajur Veda 3.6 contrary to what the cretin claims? I gave two Hindi translations of Yajur Veda 3.6 by Shri Ram Sharma Acharya and Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi. And he says that he didn’t claim the earth as spherical via this verse, But the reason I refuted it is because it exposes the inaccuracy of the translation. The translation quoted by the dullard translated the word Gau as spherical earth which is total nonsense. And also the verse actually says nothing about movement of earth.
- Even after providing enormous references about sun moving around the earth as per Hinduism, the dullard still argues on this subject. I am sure that he consumes Panchagavya (dung, urine, ghee, curd, milk) too much. Even a donkey will understand but not this dullard. I don’t want to get a headache explaining such simple things hence I want to leave it to the readers to judge who is wrong on Matsya Purana 126.41-46. Then the dullard has issues with Swami Prabhupada’s translation on Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.7. So let me provide two other translations for this verse,
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.7 “Then again, the time which the Divine Aditya takes to make a complete revolution around the Swargas and the Earth together with the etherial region, is known as a Samvatsara; and by the quick, slow and normal motion of the sun, the Samvatsara is divided into Parivatsara, Idavatsara, Anuvatsara and Vatsara.” Tr. J.M. Sanyal
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.7 “The time by which he completes his circuit in his orbit encompassing the circle of heaven and earth in its entirety is called Samvatsara, Parivatsara, Idavatsara, Anuvatsara, or Vatsara according as the velocity of the Sun’s march is slow or rapid or moderate.” Tr. S. Subba Rau
Then the dullard has problem with my claim on Satapatha Brahmana 8.7.2.5 and states that the worlds here doesn’t refer to planets but layers made of Vedic alter and he cites Satapatha Brahmana 8.7.2.1 for this claim. But the dullard missed the footnote of the translator where he says that,
“Rather, the first, second, and third layers are the three worlds.”
http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe43/sbe4327.htm#fn_234
Then the dullard again claims that Mahabharata 6.6 reference is incomplete. Earlier I made it clear that I am using English translation of Mahabharata by Kisari Mohan Ganguli who only mentioned Book and Section number not the verse number, so by mentioning Mahabharata 6.6 I meant to say Mahabharata, Bhishma Parva book 6, Section 6.
According to the dullard, Brahmanda Purana 1.2.21.87-88 saying sun revolves, traversing earth is a scientific fact. I don’t want to argue on this. I leave it to the readers to decide. Because such simple things ought not to be explained to donkeys like the apologist. And then he says that in foolishness I said that 1 Yojana is equal to 12 miles. I agree that I made this error, That was a typo mistake.
- The dumb apologist accuses me of lying by using the name of Gita Press for the translation of Srimad Bhagavatam 5.22.8. Dear readers, I already explained that previous verse of Srimad Bhagavatam was talking about the sun and the verse 8 is continuation of verse 7 so obviously it will compare the speed of moon with the sun but peanut sized brain of apologist cannot understand this simple thing. Here is the snapshot of the English translation of Gita Press which says that moon travels faster than the sun,
- Apologist now says that “Purana’s stated Moon has water with respect to the time 1000’s of years back, and not of today” And then made assumptions that at some point of time there must have been water present on moon and then asks readers to wait for new researches on this issue. If that is so, then he should provide details about water been present some 3000 years ago as he earlier argued that some Puranas mentions Buddha which means they are written after the birth of Buddha. And we all know when Buddha was born.
- As for the issue of all stars and planets originating from the sun, the cretin argues that it doesn’t refer to sun of our solar system but it may refer to an early or giant star. Don’t know how a person that stupid is writing articles, just read previous verses which shows that the sun referred here is of our solar system and not referring to some early or giant star of other solar systems as the Shishu Mandir/Ved Pathshala educated claims,
Linga Purana I.59.41-45 “…The thousand rays of the sun serve the purpose of the world. Reaching the earth they assume different forms by emitting snow, rain and heat. Thus the sphere of the sun is white and is named after him. He is the support and source of origin of the stars, planets and the moon. It should be known that the moon, stars and planets are all born of the sun…” Tr. Board of Scholars, Edited by J.L. Shastri
And this Shishu Mandir educated was making fun of Madrasas. Madrasas are far better than Shishu Mandirs/Ved Patshalas which produces such donkeys like apologist who can’t even understand simple things.
- The apologists repeats the same thing but doesn’t answer what circular zone or radius means according to him. Tagare said that “It is considered as the radius of the circular zone” and I gave links about the size of radius of the sun and moon. The idiot should first define circular zone and radius before commenting on this issue.
- The semi-literate apologist now says that “Purana’s used words like throw, emanate to describe light coming from Moon. And that’s scientifically true. We know that Moon is emits light, but that light is not of its own but light of Sun”. This idiot doesn’t even know the difference between emit/emanate and reflect. Even the word emit means produce though the word emanate is mentioned there. One simply needs to check the meanings of emanate and emit before reading this. A verse in Rig Veda also suggests that moon emits rays,
Rig Veda 10.12.7; Atharva Veda 18.1.35 “In him the gods find pleasure at the sacrifice; they seat themselves on the altar of the sacrifices, They placed light in the sun; beams in the moon; and these untiring shed their light around.” Tr. H.H. Wilson
- According to the jackass admin, sun rays assuming different forms and emitting snow, heat… is a scientific fact. Authority should take back all certificates and degree of this guy if he has any. Earlier this dumb guy argued that “It nowhere says that sun emits different type of rays which are responsible for change in season.” And “Earth receives more amount of rays during summer than winter.” And when I proved that sun rays does assume different form as per Hinduism which is scientifically incorrect, now he is admitting it in a different way and also saying that the sun emits three hundred rays which is contradictory to his previous explanation that sun emits more rays during summer than winter. I posed two questions which the apologist failed to answer, Does it talk about magnitude or sun emitting different types and specific number of rays which causes change in seasons? Is it a scientific fact that sun emits three hundred or four hundred rays in different seasons? And why didn’t he provide any scientific research to back his claim? Only a mentally unstable person will claim that the sun emits different types and specific number of rays which are responsible for changes in season. Apologist should furnish scientific research for this only then he is eligible to comment on this subject.
- As he has nothing to say he again repeated that the lunar forces affects rainfall. What a dumb rascal he is. Verses clearly states that the water comes from the moon and gets transferred to clouds and this idiot is busy discussing Moon’s tidal forces affecting water table on earth. Seems he consumes too much of Panchagavya (Cow Dung, Urine, Ghee, Curd and Milk) that’s the reason his brain is no different than dung. I challenge him to prove that the verse really talks about tidal forces not water oozing out from the moon. And before giving me a headache with his stupid explanation, he must first show it to some intellectual from his community who can verify his explanation. I don’t have time to counter such idiotic explanations.
- Then the dullard says that he gave many verses from Vedas to support his claim of Shesha being symbolic. How can he even relate those verses with Puranik verses about Shesha? Those are completely unrelated. I posed some questions which are still unanswered by the dullard. If Sheshnag is “Truth” then what does it mean by the “truth” holding up the earth on its head? Vishnu Purana 2.5 states that Vishnu has assumed the form of Shesha, if god is truth then why did Vishnu assume the form of “truth”? I also posted some new verses like Mahabharata, Adi Parva 1, Section 36, Srimad Bhagavatam 5.25.2 to support my claim that a snake named Shesha holding up the earth is literal and not symbolic, which is not refuted by the dullard. The Mahabharata Adi Parva 1, Section 36 is more important since it explains Shesha holding up the earth in detail. I also pointed out a mistake he made in his explanation which is also unanswered, He wrote that, “So when Purana’s says ‘when Sheshnag shakes or moves, the earthquake occurs” it means nothing but “When Truth (Sheshnag) shakes (trembles or decline) the earthquake (destruction) occurs”.
To this I questioned him,
‘Excuse me, where does the Vishnu Purana verse says that when Sheshnag shakes or moves? It says when Shesha Yawns. So how will he explain that? Will he now say that when Truth becomes sleepy or tired then the earth trembles (destruction occurs)?” Apart from laughing (as he writes) rolling etc., the dullard has nothing to present. I also quoted verses on elephants lifting up the earth which is still unanswered and before the dullard claims that they are also allegorical let me make it clear that there is no symbolism behind it, 6th century Indian astronomer Varaha Mihira wrote,
Brihatsamhita 32.1 “Some hold that an earth-quake is caused by huge animals living in the midst of the ocean , while others opine that it is the result of the rest that is availed of by the elephants of the quarters tired by the weight of the earth.” Tr. Panditbhushan V. Subrahmanya Shastri & Vidwan M. Ramkrishna Bhat
Swami Prabhupada also explains this, but no where he says that Shesha holding up the earth is symbolic,
“The incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead known as Śeṣa or Ananta has unlimited strength, fame, wealth, knowledge, beauty and renunciation. As described in this verse, Ananta’s strength is so great that the innumerable universes rest on His hoods. He has the bodily features of a snake with thousands of hoods, and since His strength is unlimited, all the universes resting on His hoods feel no heavier than mustard seeds. We can just imagine how insignificant a mustard seed is on the hood of a serpent. In this connection, the reader is referred to Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā, Chapter Five, verses 117-125. There it is stated that Lord Viṣṇu’s incarnation as the serpentine Ananta Śeṣa Nāga supports all the universes on His hoods. By our calculation, a universe may be very, very heavy, but because the Lord is ananta (unlimited), He feels the weight to be no heavier than a mustard seed.” Swami Prabhupada 5.17.21
https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/5/17/21
The Sanskrit word Bhumandal is used which is referred to earth but Swami Prabhupada translated it as universe here. Hope now the dullard wouldn’t twist verses on Sheshnag holding up the earth. People like the apologist are the reason it is said that problem with the world is people with low I.Q and high confidence. Hindu website Speakingtree also mentions about it though I don’t usually quote from such websites here is the passage,
“Seshnag is a large thousand headed serpent often referred to as the king of all serpents in the Hindu mythology. Though the creature is not evil but its description is a bit weird. According to the myth, it is said that all the planets of the universe are located on its heads and each time he shifts Earth from one head to another an earthquake takes place…”
https://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/sheshnag-a-myth-or-reality/122694
- The dullard claims that Varaha actually didn’t lift the earth but lifted the land and implies that the land was overflown with water, he also makes the claim that whenever it says earth is floating it is said in the sense that the universe is described as ocean. I quoted Swami Prabhupada’s commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam 3.13.27 which proved that Varaha (boar) lifting up the earth from waters is literal so now he is sticking to land/earth issue. The question is, how did Varaha get rid of the excess water on the land of earth all of a sudden if it was actually the land which was overflown with water and not the earth which was sunk in the waters? And where did the water go all of a sudden? Why do Hindu scriptures says that after Varaha lifted up the earth he established it on water and then it didn’t sink due to its vast expanse?
Harivamsha Purana 3.35.1 “(O janamejaya!) The earth which was installed on the top surface of the water body, did not sink, like a huge ship, due to its vast body.” Tr. Desiraju Hanumant RaoWhy did Vishnu think of a creature that could sport in waters if the ocean mentioned in Hindu scriptures means universe and doesn’t actually refer to waters? Harivamsa Purana 1.40.6 clearly says that the earth had sunk in waters. If earth sunk in water means the land was flooded with water then what does it mean by Varaha re-establishing the earth on waters? Does that means earth had skid away from its orbit? If it so then why didn’t it collide with other planets or with the sun? Why do pictures of Varaha lifting up the earth is depicted literally and not as the apologist claims?
- He makes stupid and lengthy explanation on Venus, Mercury and the Sun having same orbits. According to modern science, the sun is in centre of the solar system so how could Venus, Mercury move behind, in front or along with the sun? Does that mean sun is also orbiting like Venus and Mercury? That’s the main question. He gives example of Ram and Shyam travelling on different roads of the same size. In this situation we usually uses words like ‘ahead’ not ‘front’ if one surpasses the other, isn’t it? His explanation implies that the sun also orbits like Mercury and Venus.
- After I challenged him to prove orbital inclination as per the Yojanas given in Hindu scriptures, now he has given a new explanation that maybe it’s talking about astrology not astronomy. Explanations doesn’t work on assumptions, one should either present scriptural or scientific evidence to back them.
- He then repeats the same that rope of wind is nothing but vital power as per Satapatha Brahmana. In his previous lengthy explanation he said that maybe the vital power is referring to gravity. Even he wasn’t sure about it. And the most important thing is that Matsya Purana 128.14 which is the basis of this argument talks about Dhruva (Pole Star) whereas the verse Satapatha Brahmana quoted by dullard is talking about Sun and is completely irrelevant to the subject. The dullard has great talent of juxtaposing two irrelevant topics.
- Now the dullard agrees that Rahu is planet but also claims that it is a node at the same time. I quoted Srimad Bhagavatam and also commentary of Swami Prabhupada on this issue who says nothing like the dullard claims. Only a person high on weed would claim that Rahu is both a planet and a node at the same time. A person having basic knowledge of astronomy would laugh at this clown’s explanation. Is there any scientific discovery which proves that there exists a planet in our solar system which is also a node at the same time that’s responsible for Solar and Lunar eclipse? I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry at his idiotic explanation. If Rahu is a planet then where is it? Why isn’t it part of our solar system?
- Then the dullard claims that I took a U-turn from my claim about gold ore coming from Shiva’s semen. I clearly stated that “I didn’t use the word “Originate” one can recheck my article, I gave a link proving that Earth’s Gold Came from Colliding Dead Stars which was contrary to what is mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam.” That’s it.
- The dullard claims that the word Skambh occurs twice in Rig Veda 6.72.2, once with respect to sky and once with respect to the earth. And it’s Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati who distorted the verse to justify his translation. Now let’s see if it really used the word Skambh each for sky and earth. If you read my previous response you will see that I used H.H. Wilson’s translation as well which is exactly similar to Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati’s translation and it reads as,
Rig Veda 6.72.2 “Indra and Soma, you have led on the dawns; you have upraised the sun with his splendour; you have propped up the sky with the supporting pillar (of the firmament): you have spread out the earth, the mother (of all).” Tr. H.H. Wilson
Following is the Hindi translation by Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi,
Earlier the moron used Shri Ram Sharma’s Hindi translation to justify his claim. The word Skambh occurs twice but Shri Ram Sharma’s translated it once and as regard to the earth he translates the sentence as “you have spread out the earth” which is similar to Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and H.H. Wilson’s translation which means that the word Skambh is not used here with respect to earth, had the word Skambh been used with regard to earth then the translation would be like ‘You have given support to heaven, you supports earth”, but rather it says that you spread out the earth. And that’s the reason he didn’t post any translation for this claim. Because he is openly lying and wouldn’t like to be caught red handed like this. The deception of the dullard is exposed from this very verse. He made a huge mistake in explaining Rig Veda 6.72.2, he could’ve skipped it like he skipped other verses and questions posed by me. The dullard was acting like a Sanskrit master but he doesn’t know the basic of Sandhi. The word Skambh occurs twice in Rig Veda 6.72.2 but Shri Ram Sharma translates it as “you made the heaven firm by giving it support and spread out the earth” as you see the word Skambh is used only once here and contrary to what the dullard claims, “the word स्कम्भ occurred twice but once with respect to sky and once with respect to Earth” so by his logic even Shri Ram Sharma’s translation is inaccurate on this verse as he didn’t use the word Skambh with regard to the earth. The dullard posts references of two verses and claims that the word Skambh is used there as support. How can he apply definition of one verse to other? Some verses uses Gau for earth and some uses it for cow, what if we use the word Gau as earth for every verse that has the word Gau? He himself admitted that the word Skambh means support and pillar then how can he make such childish claims? He claimed that Svami Satyaprakash Sarasvati used the word Skambh twice with regard to sky to justify his own translation, okay let’s assume that he really did then what about Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi, H.H. Wilson, Ralph Griffith who translated it exactly same as Svami Satyaprakash Sarasvati? The dullard himself seems to be confused about his own explanation. And then he claims that I skipped Rig Veda 5.32.10 because it will “expose” me. According to him the verse says that the heaven/sky is self-sustaining, for the sake of the argument even if I accept this as the sky is suspended without any support then it will only be a contradiction, because in one place it says sky is supported by pillars and in one verse it says sky is self sustaining. I would like to know which Sanskrit words are here translated as self sustaining sky. However the verse doesn’t say anything like that, Swami Dayanand Saraswati translated it as,
Shripad Damodar Satvalekar translates it as,
- Moron was rattled when I used several translations for this claim of mine. The moron by quoting H.H. Wilson’s translation thinks that he refuted my claim, but that stupid doesn’t know that he made my point more strong, this is what happens when a dullard writes articles. He used H.H. Wilson’s translation which reads as,
Rig Veda 2.17.5 “By his strength he fixed the wandering mountains; he directed the downward course of the waters; he upheld the earth, the nurse (of all creatures); and by his craft he stayed the heaven from falling.” Tr. H.H. Wilson
And using this translation the moron argues that, “This is scientifically true. We know that Sky is not a physical body which can fall. There is no possibility that sky can ever fall because it is designed (crafted) so.” But does the verse say that Indra crafted the sky in a way that it doesn’t fall? The moron quoted H.H. Wilson’s translation on this and even that translation doesn’t say anything like that. It doesn’t mean that Indra fashioned the sky in such a way that it doesn’t fall rather it says that he is upholding the sky so that it may not fall down. Which means that the sky according to Vedas is indeed a physical body that can fall and that’s the reason it says Indra stays the heaven/sky from falling,
Rig Veda 2.17.5 “…He controls the earth that nourishes us all, and with his skill, stays the heaven from falling” Tr. Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati
It is roughly translated as Indra is HOLDING [Thame rakha] up the Heaven/Sky so that it may not fall down. Following is the Hindi translation by Pandit Ram Govind Trivedi
Necessity to hold something arise only when it is prone to fall down. Had sky been something like an intangible object as per Vedas then such words wouldn’t have been used. The verse states that Indra holds/stays the heaven/sky from falling which means it will fall down if he doesn’t hold it up. How can apologist be that stupid to use H.H. Wilson’s translation proudly on this issue.
