By Ibn Muhammad
The ‘once upon a time’ stories do not appeal to me anymore. Pick up any such story and it is a pure fiction. No wonder kids love such stories. Agniveer’s latest response (should it be even called a response) is purely fictional, a castle of lies to deceive the ordinary people and a desperate attempt to repair his lost credibility. The so-called response deals more with teaching ways of mockery than a serious response to our research article. By addressing about half of the article to senseless insults, he hoped to distract his blind followers from the seriousness of our article. He invents some ‘Panchatantra’ stories which have no space in a scholarly discussion. I do not have this time and energy to write similar stuff. I only concern myself to what is being said, instead of who is saying it.
The lies of Agniveer start outright when he says,
A recent attempt has been by writing articles based on extremely outdated claims to prove that Vedas are also textually corrupted. We initially chose to ignore this long-rejected stupid research. We thought that someone else would counter it along with flat-earth theory while we focus on other prominent tasks. But considering the widespread promotion that is being provided to this viewpoint by petro-dollar power holders, we thought to have at least a short analysis debunking the myth. Because in an era of misinformation, truth is often nothing but a lie shouted thousand times!
Did Agniveer really ignore my article? I published my article on March 16, 2011. There was a consternation in the Vedic camp. See the comments section of Agniveer. Then, I made a video on the main points of my article. The video can be seen here. Since Agniveer is no scholar of the Vedas, he must have tried first to somehow refute me. When he couldn’t he appealed more knowledgeable Arya Samajis for help. Agniveer started a new separate thread in the Arya Samaj community on orkut. Here is the link to the thread.
As you can see Agniveer desperately appealing for help from his associates. The associates, being more wise than Agniveer, felt the gravity of my arguments. One associate advised Agniveer not to be hasty and come to Bilaspur and learn the Vedas properly. But Alas, Agniveer, who is an IIT pass-out considered it below his dignity to go and learn the Vedas properly. The hasty rebuttal he has published on his website clearly exposes his shallow knowledge of the Vedas.
You can also notice in the link given above, that there is a lot of infighting among Hindus on the exact nature of shaakhaas (branches). They started to cut each others viewpoints and poke fun at each other. If the very brains to whom Agniveer went begging for help could not solve the problem, you can imagine of what quality the borrowed rebuttal of Agniveer would be.
Agniveer is so scared of our website that he dared not mention the source article which he was refuting. He never mentioned my name. This speaks volumes of the spirit inculcated in him by the Vedas. At least he should have let his audience know what he is refuting. Instead he chose to paraphrase my arguments so that they look ordinary. Agniveer hopes to keep his blind followers in the dark. But for how long. The wind of truth will soon blow apart the structure of lies.
Ignoring the unnecessary rants of Agniveer, I would directly go into the subject and expose the asinine arguments of Agniveer.
What is the total number of Vedas?
Agniveer has resorted to mighty deception to somehow do away with this vital question which will shake the very foundations of the Arya Dharma/Hinduism call it what you like. It seems that this IIT pass-out has to be taught the fundamentals of counting. Let me give you an example, to rip apart his tapestry of deception.
If you consider only knowledge, Vedas is only 1. If you consider Para and Apara knowledge (liberating and mundane knowledge), then Vedas are 2. If you focus on Knowledge, Action and Contemplation, Vedas are 3. If you consider Rik, Yajuh, Sama, Atharva, Vedas are 4. If you consider each mandala of Rigveda as separate, then there are 10 Rigvedas. Similarly we have 40 Yajurvedas. If you take each mantra as a different Veda, you have more than 20,000 Vedas.
So number does not matter. They all point to same set of mantras.
Consider the letters of the English alphabet. How many letters are there in the English alphabet? Every good student will answer 26. But one IIT pass-out says, “it depends”. If you consider only alphabet there is only 1. If you consider vowels and consonants there are 2. If you consider ‘the English alphabet’ there are 17. If you consider a, e, i, o, u there are 5. If you consider b, c, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, p, q, r, s, t, v, w, x, y, z there are 21.
So number does not matter. They all point to the same set of letters.
Does not this IIT pass-out need to be sacked from his job immediately if he is employed? Should not his degree be declared fraudulent? Is this man not a danger to society who can sell his integrity to defend some primitive texts? He cannot even differentiate between the words ‘number’ and ‘type’. This simpleton IIT pass-out has been so shocked by our research that he has lost all sense. I had heard a joke on engineers, but did not know that engineer was the great Agniveer himself.
Ques: Prove that 2/10=2.
Art student : Out of syllabus
Commerce student : Question hi galat hai
Medical student : It’s strange yaar, ye kaise ho sakta hai?
Agniveer : It is very easy
Therefore, 2/10 = two/ten
cancelling (t) we get
W=23rd letter of the alphabet
O=15th letter of the alphabet
E=5th letter of the alphabet
N=14th letter of the alphabet
Substituting these values in (1)
wo/en = 38/19 = 2
And the blind followers of Agniveer shout, “Hail Agniveer Ji”.
Let me remind Agniveer that when I asked the question, ‘What is the total number of Vedas?’, I meant ‘What is the total number of Veda Samhitas?’ By the title ‘Textual corruption of the Vedas’ is implied ‘Textual corruption of the Veda Samhitas’.
Having said that let us post mortem the dead refutation of Agniveer.
Agniveer has conveniently evaded the testimony of Mahabharata that Vedas were stolen from Brahma, demonstrating their insecurity. It also proved that Vedas were NOT memorized. Agniveer has ignored this. After all Mahabharata has also been written by his own ancestors. Is it not an insult to his ancestors, to accept their one work and reject the other?
The Number of Veda Samhitas
Traditionally the number of Veda Samhitas has been fixed as 4 viz. Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda. But this reply does not tell the whole story. Why? Things will become more clear when you will read all of this article.
- The Rigveda, containing hymns to be recited by the hotr;
- The Yajurveda, containing formulas to be recited by the adhvaryu or officiating priest;
- The Samaveda, containing formulas to be sung by the udgātr.
- The Atharvaveda, a collection of spells and incantations, apotropaic charms and speculative hymns.
One information must be remembered. The words Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda are NEVER mentioned in the Veda Samhitas. All these names have been given by Brahmins to identify the books. The earlier terms referred to the different styles of composition, They were:
- ricah, stanzas of praise
- yajunsh, liturgical stanzas and formulas
- saman, melodies
- atharvangirasah, blessings and curses.
But the collection which now goes by the name of Rig-veda contains in its later parts ‘blessings and curses’, as well as ‘stanzas of praise’, together with most of the stanzas which form the text to the saman melodies of the Sama-veda. Similarly the Atharva-veda contains ricah, ‘stanzas of praise, and yajunshi, ‘liturgical stanzas’ mostly worked over for its own purposes, as well as its characteristic ‘blessings and curses’. The Yajur-veda also contains matter of the other Vedic types in addition to liturgical formulae. The Sama-veda is merely a collection of certain ricah or ‘stanzas of praise’, taken with variations and additions from the Rig-veda, and set to tunes indicated by musical notations.
So each Veda Samhita is a mixture of all types of mantras. Thus, Rigveda can be called Samaveda , Atharvaveda and vice-versa. Atharvaveda can be called Rigveda or Yajurveda. Same is the case with other Veda Samhitas.
Now to our burning question, what is the total number of Veda Samhitas?
Let me use the statement of Patanjali Rishi as the base to solve this question. In the Mahabhashya, he says,
The four Vedas, along-with their parts diffuse into many forms. There are 101 Shakhas of Yajurveda, 1000 of Samaveda, 21 of Rigveda and 9 of Atharvaveda.
Adding these numbers we get a figure of 1131 Shaakhaas. Agniveer has not responded to this basic question in a clear and coherent manner. His dilemma can be understood. This is an issue which shakes the foundations of Vedic Dharma.. The Guru of Agniveer, when asked about this issue said,
Q. How many Shaakhaas (branches) are there of the Veda?
A. Eleven hundred and twenty-seven.
Q. What are Shaakhaas (branches)?
A. The expositions are called shaakhaas.
Q. We hear of learned people speaking of the different parts of the Veda as shaakhaas. Are they wrong?
A. If you think over it a little, you will understand that they are in the wrong, because all the Shaakhaas are attributed to Rishis such as Ashwalaayani and others, whilst the authorship of the Veda is ascribed to God. It other words, as the author of the four Vedas is believed to be God, so are Rishis held to be the authors of the shaakhaas, such as Ashwalaayani. And besides, all the shaakhaas take Veda texts and expound them, while in the Veda texts only are given. Therefore, the four Vedas – the books of Divine revelation – are like the trunk of a tree, whose branches (shaakhaas) are the books, such as Ashwalaayani, written by Rishis and not revealed by God… [Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 7]
There is not a shred of evidence to prove that there are 1127 Shaakhaas of the Veda. Patanjali Rishi CLEARLY says 1131 Shaakhaas.No classical text mentions 1127 Shaakhaas. The Swami is clearly lying here.
Oh No. Not again. Branch refers to a particular recension style of Vedas to emphasize certain aspects and making it relevant to existing time and society. Branches or Shakhas are not eternal. But original Vedas have been preserved as they were even till today.
The quotation of Maharishi Patanjali is very clear. The four Vedas are made of 1131 parts and these parts are the Shaakhaas and these Shaakhaas include those which are held as originals by Agniveer. Shaakal Shaakha (present Rigveda) is already included in the 21 Shaakhas of Rigveda. So, according to the confession of Agniveer even that is not eternal.
However, the answer to the question, ‘What is the total number of Veda samhitas?’ is very simple. There are 1131 Veda Samhitas which on the basis of the mantra types are divided into 4. The 1131 Shaakhaas can be understood as 1131 versions of Vedas. To make it simple for you, Rigveda has 21 VERSIONS, Yajurveda has 101 VERSIONS, Samaveda has 1000 VERSIONS and Atharvaveda has 9 VERSIONS. The bogus claims of Agniveer are buried by this simple FACT that each Shaakhaa had its own Samhita, Brahman, Aranyak and Upanishad. So dear readers, what does this tell you? Either Agniveer does not know his own religion or he is lying. If it is the later it is devilish and if it is the former it is inexcusable.
Out of these 1131 VEDA SAMHITAS 1120 Samhitas are lost. In other words, 99% of the Vedas are LOST.
Notice that Swami Dayanand Saraswati says that Shaakhaas are expositions of the ORIGINAL Vedas. But Agniveer is then lying when he says,
“Now some fools argue that why are original Vedas are also called by name of Shakhas. The answer is that the name of Shakha is derived from the Rishi who ensured its preservation from generation to generation. Some Rishis chose to promote the variations so as to propagate their meaning among masses and specialized students. Some volunteered to continue preserving the original Vedas so that more Shakhas could be created in future. Why should we not acknowledge these Rishis? Hence Shaakal chose to preserve the Rigveda, Madhyandin chose to preserve Yajurveda, Shaunak chose to preserve Atharveveda and Kauthum chose to protect Samaveda. These refer not only to individuals but entire traditions.”
Can Agniveer bring any valid proof to justify his claim? There is not a shred of evidence to prove what Agniveer said. Where do classical scholars of Hinduism claim that only Shaakal Samhita is the original? That is a challenge to Agniveer. If Shaakal Rishi preserved the ‘original’ Rigveda (Shaakal Shaakha), why are the Samhitas, Brahmans, Aranyaks and Upanishads different for each Shaakha? Agniveer is compelled to promote unorthodox ideas to defend his sect.
Take the following examples of Rigveda Shaakhas.
|edited as a part of the Aranyaka
Shukla Yajurveda Shaakhaas
Krishna Yajurveda Shaakhaas
As you can see, each Shaakha has its own Samhita. There is no one Samhita. Agniveer, therefore, is clearly lying on this important issue and why should he not lie when his guru, Moolshanker, condones lying to defend their Dharma. Swami Danayanad commenting on Shakanacharya says,
“Now it must be understood that if it was the belief of Shankar that God and the human soul were identical and that the world was an illusion, it was not good; but if he had avowed this doctrine simply in order to refute Jainism more successfully, it was a little good.” [Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 11]
So. Agniveer has already got his license to deceive.
Let me elaborate on the nature of the disputes between various Shaakhaas to bury Agniveer’s deceptive arguments once and for all.
Nature of Disputes between various Shaakhaas with special reference to Yajurveda
Comparing all the available manuscripts of the Yajurveda, we come to know that they are NOT mere expositions of the so-called originals. Rather, they contain many different mantras than those found in others. Broadly classified, Yajurveda has two branches, Krishna and Shukla. The former is predominant in South India and the latter in North India. At the time of Patanjali Rishi, the Kathaka Samhita was predominant as stated in Mahabhashya 4:3:101.
The different Samhitas differ in the number of mantras, arrangement of mantras, etc. Following is the brief list of the variations:
1. The very first mantras of all Samhitas are variant. For example see the image below.
2. The last mantra of these Samhitas is also different.
3. There is huge difference in the total number of mantras of all these Samhitas. Vajasneyi Samhita (Madhyandin) has 1974 mantras, Taittiriya has 1018, Maitrayani has 458, and Katha has 640 mantras.
4. More than 50% of Vajasneyi Samhita is imported from Rigveda. Swami Dayanand, has accepted this fact in the 33rd and 34th chapters of his Yajurveda translation. On this basis, the Vedic scholars are of the opinion that intermixing of the mantras of Yajurveda and Rigveda has actually broken the Yajurveda chain. The mutual coherence of the themes of Yajurveda has been lost and by extension the meanings have also been lost.
All these differences between various Samhitas of Yajurveda reveal the fact that these Samhitas are not the expositions of a so-called original Veda. Rather, these are different versions of one Yajurveda floating around. The true version cannot be found and the mutual rivalry between these versions is not hidden. The followers of one Samhita used to condemn the followers of another Samhita. For example, Shatapath Brahmana 1:7:1:3 condemns the recitation of Taittiriya Samhita.
“They then let the calves join their mothers. He thereupon touches (each) calf (in order to drive it away from the cow), with the formula , ‘The winds are ye!’–for, indeed, it is this wind that here blows, it is this (wind) that makes swell all the rain that falls here; it is it that makes those (cows) swell; and for this reason he says ‘the winds are ye!’ Some people add here the formula, ‘Going near are ye!’ but let him not say this, because thereby another (an enemy) approaches (the sacrificer).”
Shatapath Brahman here is referring to Taittiriya Samhita 1:1:1:1, which contains the addional words ‘Going near are ye’ or ‘Ye are approachers’. In other words, Shatapath Brahman is condemning the recitation of Taittiriya Samhita as FALSE. Similarly, at many other places in the Shatapath Brahman, Taittiriya Samhita is criticized. How can the likes of Agniveer explain this censure of Taittiriya Samhita by Shatapath Brahman?
This Shaakha issue is now settled. All Shaakhaas are EQUAL contenders of being the originals. Thus there are 1131 Veda Samhitas and now we have 11 Samhitas left. Agniveer has no authority to claim exclusive originality.
After the collection and codification of Vedas, many different manuscripts gained currency amongst the Brahmin groups. The number of mantras in every manuscript continued to be changed. The current version of Rigveda was collected by Shaakal Rishi and was thus called Shaakal Samhita. It is divided into 10 Mandals (Books).
Nirukt 7:8 mentions the following,
“There is a joint oblation offered to Agni and Vishnu in the ten books of the Rigveda.”
However, in the entire Rigveda, there is not a single mantra jointly praising Agni and Vishnu. What is meant by joint oblation here? An oblation is an offering (Late Latin oblatio, from offerre, oblatum, to offer), a term, particularly in ecclesiastical usage, for a solemn offering or presentation to God. Where is an offering jointly made to Agni and Vishnu, we would like to see? This is a clear evidence that the Rigveda at the time of Yaska Muni had the joint oblation offered to Agni and Vishnu, but it is not found in today’s Rigveda, demonstrating corruption of the text.
1. Nirukta wasn’t preserved in the way Rigveda was. So Rigveda is much more authoritative, especially after scrutiny by even the skeptics as mentioned above.
What a scholarly reply? Is Agniveer prepared to delete all references of Nirukt form his website and throw Nirukt in the dustbin? Why are they still publishing and spreading a polluted book, if it really is polluted? The desperation of Agniveer can be understood. When Rigveda is being blown apart by Nirukt here, Agniveer is choosing the lesser of the two evils and casting doubt on Nirukt to save Rigveda, the source of Hinduism. However, this answer is just not satisfactory. Agniveer first needs to prove that this particular reference of Nirukt is wrong and give evidences of the same. If he is unable to do so, then Rigveda has been obviously changed. He also has to publicly announce that Nirukt is a false book and should not be used to establish anything. Hindu scholars should announce the same in public.
But wait a minute, let Agniveer’s deception be exposed by his own deception guru, aka Swami Dayananda. In his Magnum Opus, Satyarth Prakash, the Swami lists several books which should be read and others which should be avoided. And guess what? He just rips Agniveer apart. The Swami says,
“We can liken this to digging up a whole mountain and finding a penny-worth of gold; whilst the study of the books of the great sages can be well likened to the diving of a man into the sea and finding most valuable pearls in one plunge.
3. Then let them read Nighantoo and Nirukta (books on Vedic Vocabulary and Philology) by Yaska in six to eight months, but not waste years of their valuable time over Amarkosha and other such books written by atheists.” [Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 3]
and further down he gives a long list of books to be avoided,
“The books to be avoided are:-
1. Grammar:-a.Katantra, b. Saaraswata, c. Chandrika, d. Mugdhabodha. e. Kaumudi, f. Shekhar, g. Monorma, etc.
2. Dictionary – Amarkosha, etc.
3. Prosody – Urittaratnakar, etc.
4. Shiksha is the Science which teaches the proper pronunciation of words and laws of euphony. Atka Shiksham Pravakshyami Pranamyan matam yatha.
5. Jotisha (astronomy) – Shighrabodha, Mahurta, Chintaamani, ettc. books on astrology.
6. Poetry – Naya ka bheda, Kuvabja nand, Raghuvansha, Maagha, Kiratarjunira, etc.
7. Mimansa – Dharmasindhu, Vratarka, etc.
8. Visheshika – Tarkasangraha, etc.
9. Nyaya -Yogdishaa, etc.
10. Yoga – Hathapradipka
11. Saankhya – Yagavashishtha, Pancha dashi
12. Medical Service – Sharangdhar.
13. Smriti – all Smritis except the Manu Smirit arring the interpolated verses.
14. all Tantras, Puranaas, Upapuraanaas, Ramaayaana by Tulsi Das, Rukmani Mangala, etc., and all books 9of this kind) written in Bhaashaa.
They ought to be looked upon as snares; once caught in them a student can never know the truth.
Is there no truth to be found in these books?
A.~ There is a sprinkling of truth mixed with a large amount of rubbish, myths and fabrications; but as even the best food mixed with poison is to be avoided, so should these books.”
Ah! These golden words must be pinned on the walls of Agniveer’s house. Agniveer has already poisoned many articles on his poisonous website with Nirukta, which according to him is false but not according to his guru. I know Agniveer is merely using deception to refute me, but deep in his heart he must be really ashamed that he condemned the great Nirukt in public.
Then, Agniveer is taking recourse to Indologists to save the Vedas. However, Hindu scholars themselves opine that Vedas have suffered heavy changes. Pandit Ram Gvind Trivedi writes in the preface to his translation of Rigveda,
“According to one Mantra of Rigveda (10:114:8), we come to know that it has 15,000 Mantras. However, when we count the total Mantras, we get 10,469 Mantras. It is possible that like a large portion of the books of Vedic literature and Vedas were destroyed by the anti-religious, similarly, Mantras too suffered destruction for many reasons.”
Agniveer only partially quotes Indologists to deceive the people. Let him taste the same Indologists now.
Prof. Maurice Bloomfield writes in the Introduction to his Hymns of the Atharvaveda,
“The nineteenth book is a late addendum, in general very corrupt; its omission (with the exception of hymns 26, 34, 35, 38, 39, 53, and 54) does not detract much from the general impression left by the body of the collection. The seventeenth book consists of a single hymn of inferior interest. Again, books XV and XVI, the former entirely Brahmanical prose, the latter almost entirely so, are of doubtful quality and chronology. Finally, books XIV and XVIII contain respectively the wedding and funeral stanzas of the Atharvan, and are largely coincident with corresponding Mantras of the tenth book of the Rig-veda: they are, granted their intrinsic interest, not specifically Atharvanic.”
Dr. A.A. Macdonell echoes the same views about Atharvaveda in his book A History of Sanskrit Literature,
“The last two books are manifestly late additions. Book XIX. consists of a mixture of supplementary pieces, part of the text of which is rather corrupt. Book XX., with a slight exception, contains only complete hymns addressed to Indra, which are borrowed directly and without any variation from the Rigveda. The fact that its readings are identical with those of the Rigveda would alone suffice to show that it is of later date than the original books, the readings of which show considerable divergences from those of the older Veda. There is, however, more convincing proof of the lateness of this book. Its matter relates to the Soma ritual, and is entirely foreign to the spirit of the Atharva-veda. It was undoubtedly added to establish the claim of the Atharva to the position of a fourth Veda, by bringing it into connection with the recognised sacrificial ceremonial of the three old Vedas. This book, again, as well . as the nineteenth, is not noticed in the Praticakhya of the Atharva-veda. Both of them must, therefore, have been added after that work was composed. Excepting two prose pieces (48 and 49) the only original part of Book XX. is the so-called kuntapa hymns (127-136). ”[A History of Sanskrit Literature, A. A. Macdonell, Printed in 1900, Page 188]
Dr. Macdonell even exposes the Rigveda in the following words,
“The importance of the latter as a criterion of the authenticity of verses in the Rigveda is indicated by the following fact. There are six verses in the Rigveda not analysed in the Pada text, but only given there over again in the Samhita form. This shows that Sakalya did not acknowledge them as truly Rigvedic, a view justified by internal evidence. This group of six, which is doubtless exhaustive, stands midway between old additions which (Sakalya recognised as canonical, and the new appendages called Khilas, which never gained admission into the Pada text in any form.”
The six verses he is referring to are, Rigveda 7:59:12, 10:20:1, 10:121:10 and 10:190:1,2,3.
Now, Agniveer should also get rid of Atharvaveda and well as these six verses, when the Indologists are confirming it.
Agniveer, the misled fanatic wrote,
2. The Vishnu of Vedas is same as the Agni. Both refer to same Singular Supreme Entity. Only the misled see polytheism in Vedas. So joint oblation to Vishnu and Agni is applicable to any mantra that can be interpreted to imply those characteristics of Supreme that are common in meaning of Agni and Vishnu. This is a research subject for those who have skills to contemplate deeply on mantras. There is nothing conflicting in it. At best one can say that – Since I don’t know anything about Vedas because knowing that would put me in Hell, hence I cannot understand it.
The topic of Vedic deities is a separate one, which is beyond the scope of this article. However, to briefly respond to the bogus claims of Agniveer, he is trivializing the text of the Vedas because he thinks it is his personal property and he can twist it as he likes. Extending his bogus argument, Agnim ile purohitam can be changed to Vaishnam ile purohitam and there will be no difference. May be Maharishi Agniveer has an intention of producing his own Samhita of Rigveda and is therefore propounding unorthodox views to deceive the people. He is going to the extent of calling Yaska Acharya ‘misled’ because Yaska speaks of plural deities in the Vedas. Notice the original words of Yaska, “There is a joint oblation offered to Agni and Vishnu in the ten books of the Rigveda.” No person in his right mind can say that Yaska is speaking of the same deity. If Agni and Vishnu were same, then the words ‘joint oblation’ become absurd. Agniveer is considering himself smarter than classical Hindu scholars. He is free to do all the research he needs, but he will evidently fail.
“3. Interestingly the very people who are currently raising this childish allegation are the ones who also attempt to prove that Vedas talk of only one Single God. But they use this argument when they want to prove that Vedas and their modern scripture both talk of the same Singular God, but because their scripture is latest, hence that latest version should be followed. Hence everyone should start believing in their religion to escape Hell.”
This is another proof that Agniveer is not in his right mind. Who is he talking about? Where have I ever claimed that Vedas talk of only one Single God? Agniveer needs to spend time and study my articles thoroughly before writing nonsense. I have time and time again emphasized that Vedas teach only NATURE WORSHIP, DARK POLYTHEISM AND PANTHEISM. I suggest that readers read my article What is Hinduism? to know my position on the conception of ‘gods’ in Vedas. May be Agniveer is dreaming that I am affiliated with IRF. I do not endorse the research of IRF on Hinduism, specially the concept of God in Hinduism. Dr. Zakir Naik is wrongly propagating that Vedas speak about one God, but then again, he bases his arguments on the works of Arya Samaj. I intend to write a separate article refuting the notion that Vedas speak of one Supreme God.
Corruption in recitation
The oral tradition of the Vedas (Śrauta) consists of several pathas, “recitations” or ways of chanting the Vedic mantras.The padapatha consists of dividing the sentence into individual pada or words. The kramapatha consists of pairing two words at a time. There has been a lot of corruption in the former recitation. I will give some examples to demonstrate this.
Yask Muni, the author of Nirukt and Nighantu, writes that Vaayah is one word [See Nirukt 6:28]. But in the Shaakal Shakha’s (Rigveda’s) padapatha, it has been divided and hence became meaningless. Rigveda 10:29:1 is the place which has made the mistake.
“As sits the young bird on the tree rejoicing, ye, swift Pair, have been roused by clear laudation,…”
Yaska himself criticizes Shakalya and says,
“Sakalya has analyzed Vaayah into Vaa and yah, then the finite verb would have had the accute accent and the sense have been incomplete.”
Agniveer wrote ,
Whether we take the word as ‘Va + Yah’ or Vayo, they both are pronounced in exactly the same manner. Same is true for ‘Ma + Iha + Naasti’. However in Vedic mantras, these words come us Vayo and Mehanaasti. Scholars can have disputes over how the word should be interpreted. This is a research topic. Depending on their views, they can have different Pada Paatha or break-up of the words. Perhaps during Yaska’s time, someone broke the word in wrong manner and hence he had to counter it. Similar to the way even we have to counter the most outdated concepts even today despite the availability of thoroughly verified and edited Vedas!
Pada Paatha is NOT original Vedas. It is one way of preserving Vedas. There are 9 more. Refer http://agniveer.com/2697/no-textual-corruption-in-vedas/. If an error comes in Pada Patha, it is corrected by comparing with other methods. And hence today, there is no doubt over what the original Vedic mantras are. (Thanks to efforts of sages like Yaska from time to time.) I recommend looking at editions of Pt Damodar Satvalekar which is accepted widely as the most corrected published version.
Agniveer is again shooting himself in the foot. This IITian can’t even read properly. Yaska has not countered a ‘someone’, but Sakalya himself. “Sakalya has analyzed Vaayah into Vaa and yah, then the finite verb would have had the accute accent and the sense have been incomplete.” The question here is not whether pada patha is the original or not. The important thing to notice here is that Agniveer’s ‘original’ Rigveda is under fire from Yaska. Yaska is exposing the mistake of Shaakal Samhita. So, agniveer is caught deceiving again. The false reading of Rigveda has continued to our time also and agniveer is reading the same.
Regarding Mehanaasti, Yaska is again showing how Sakalya is wrong and Gargya the author of Samaveda pada patha is right. So, Agniveer is lying here too.
Different versions of Rigveda
Shaakal Rishi is called as the collector of Rigveda. He had a number of students, who later expressed many differences and compiled their own versions of Rigveda. numbering upto 21. There are major differences between the Shaakal and Baskal samhitas of Rigveda. The Śākala recension has 1,017 regular hymns, while the Bāṣkala samhita has a total of 1025 hymns. Thus, around some 50 mantras are missing in Śākala samhita. There are differences even over the total number of mantras.
The detailed analysis of the mantra differences in Rigveda will be dealth in a separate article.
Different versions of Yajurveda
1. Black or Krishna Yajurveda is a branch (Shakha) and not original Yajurveda. It contains original mantras modified along with historical and explanatory descriptions to suit research interests of specific kind. Shukla or White Yajurveda refers to those branches of Yajurveda that modify the original mantras if required but do not add additional texts. The Madhyandini Yajurveda of Shukla Branch is the original Yajurveda and rest are its variations.
Another bogus claim devoid of any solid proof. I have already shown the nature of disputes between various Samhitas of Yajurveda. Refer to that discussion. There is no proof that only the Madhyandin Samhita is the original and not the others. Agniveer is conditioned to believe that Madhyandin is the original. What Agniveer is considering as original is considered an exposition in South India and vice versa. Agniveer deceptively ignored the meat of my argument. Anyway i will repeat it to sink it into his mind.
Difference between Krishna (Black) and Shukla (White) Yajurveda
The Vishnu Purana gives the following explanation of their names : Vaisampayana, a pupil of the great Vyasa, was the original teacher of the Black Yajur-Veda. Yajnavalkya, one of his disciples, having displeased him, was called upon by his master to part with the knowledge which he had acquired from him. He forthwith vomited the Yajur-Yeda. The other disciples of Vaisampayana, assuming the form of partridges (tittiri), picked up from the ground its several dirtied texts. From this circumstance it received the name of Taittiriya Krishna Yajur-Veda.
Yajnavalkya afterwards, by the performance of severe penances, induced the Sun God to impart to him those Yajur texts which his master had not possessed. The Sun God then assumed the form of a horse (Vajin), and communicated to him the desired texts. Hence the Sanhita was called Vajasaneyi, and also White (or bright) because it was revealed by the Sun God.
There was a lot of hostility between the two groups.
So in case you do not have access to original Yajurveda, start with a branch. That would be much more easy to approach due to explanations and simplifications. And when you have mastered them, you can have the taste of the original. The keen minds who are less paranoid and more zealous can approach the original directly as well!
Thus, as per Maharishi Agniveer, making the Madhyandin Samhita available online for common public is a mistake. They need to first read the man made books and then the original. But wait, did we not already see that Shatapath Brahman condemns Taittiriya Samhita as false. So why is Agniveer promoting false texts? May be he has some hidden agenda.
2. Ishopanishad is nothing but the 40th Chapter of Yajurveda as it appears in a particular branch of Black Yajurveda with some modifications. Because this is the greatest text on spiritualism and philosophy and mother of all other texts like Geeta, other Upanishads and even Darshans, it has a special place in Vedic literature. Being mother of all Upanishads, it is called Isha Upanishad. Only a paranoid can explain why he or she thinks that Isha Upanishad cannot be part of Yajurveda.
The deceptive game of Agniveer continues. Agniveer just claimed in point number 1 that Black or Krishna Yajurveda is a branch (Shakha) and not original Yajurveda. But here he is taking recourse to this very shaakha in order to establish the validity of the Ishopanishad. I told you he is a deceiver.
Further, according to Agniveer’s Arya Samaj, Upanishads are NOT Shruti (revealed). Then, how come has this Upanishad been added to the Veda Samhita? Maharishi Agniveer gives this reason; “Because this is the greatest text on spiritualism and philosophy and mother of all other texts like Geeta, other Upanishads and even Darshans, it has a special place in Vedic literature.”
The same argument is given by orthodox Hindus as well in favour of the other Upanishads being revealed texts. Why then does Agniveer not consider other upanishads as revealed also? By interpolatng an Upanishad into the Vedic samhita, Agniveer is proving that Vedas are devoid of spirituality and that man-made texts like Ishopanishad is superior to Vedas. We have always been saying that Vedic Samhitas are simply useless. Upanishads are far better than Veda Samhitas.
Now you can judge who is a paranoid.
Agniveer evades vital questions
In dealing with my arguments about the problems with the Yajurveda texts, Agniveer evaded answering many points with the hope that his blind followers will never check the article properly. Agniveer was so scared of the truth that he did not even give the link of our article and neither mentioned the source article he was refuting. All this exposes his grand claims that he is for truth and truth alone.
Questions which Agniveer did not answer:
1. Agniveer did not answer about the schism between the people of Black and White Yajurveda.
2. He did not respond to the differences between the two rival samhitas, in the number and arrangement of mantras.
2. Agniveer also ignored the argument that a lot of Brahamanas have been inserted into the text of the Yajurveda. For example, Adhyay 24 is entirely a Brahman; Adhyay 30: verses 7 through 15 are all Brahmanas and not Mantras. Agniveer did not respond to this. What are Brahmanas doing in Shukla Yajurveda, which he holds as original? Shatapath Brahmana 4:2:3:7-8 testifies to this interpolation of Brahmans in the Samhita as follows:
7. He draws it without (reciting) a puroruk; for the puroruk is a song of praise, since the puroruk is a Rik, and the song of praise is Rik; and the libation is Sâman; and what other (formula) he mutters, that is Yagus. Formerly these same (puroruk verses) were apart from the Riks, apart from the Yagus, and apart from the Sâmans.
8. The devatas said, ‘Come, let us place them among the Yagus: thus this science will be still more manifold.’ Accordingly they placed them among the Yagus, and thenceforward this science was still more manifold.
This rips aparts the deception of Agniveer that Madhyandin Samhita is the original.
How Arya Samaj corrupts the Vedas?
1. In the Yajurveda Bhasya of Dayanand Ji, Adhyay 9, Mantra 20 has been distorted by adding the word Gamyaat, which is not to be found in the text. Where did this word come from?
1. Did Swami Dayanand add the word in the mantra? No. The word is found only in Hindi translation in some editions. Now Swami Dayanand used to dictate meaning in Sanskrit to his pundits who would then translate it in Hindi as well as transcribe what he said.
But even if he or his pundit added the word in explanation, then you should be thankful to him for attempting to simplify things instead of taking exceptions.
2. Even if Swami Dayanand added the word in the mantra, that does not make Yajurveda corrupted. It only means that Swami Dayanand made an error. When did Vedas or Agniveer or Swami Dayanand claim that humans are fully perfect?
There is a marked contradiction between point 1 and 2. If point 1 is correct then point 2 is incorrect and vice versa. The Swami has added the word in bracket which means he is hoping to deceive people that this is part of the text. All the words in brackets mean they are part of the text. Agniveer would do well to remove this error (read deception) from the market.
2. Comparing the Yajurveda of Gayatri Parivar and Arya Samaj, there are many mantras missing in one or another of the versions. For example, the 25th Chapter of Gayatri Parivar Yajurveda has 47 mantras. Even the Yajurveda of Ralph Griffith has 47 mantras. But, the Arya Samaj version has an additional Mantra 48.
Agniveer, the new Maharishi, wrote,
1. So your anger is towards additional bonus that Arya Samaj translation gives you, if I understand properly. This means that you admit original Vedas to be a subset of existing Vedas with one less mantra. Hence there is no loss of information at least.
This type of bonus is present in other samhitas of Yajurveda as well, according to you. Then, all your above arguments simply stand nullified by this one. Dear readers, do you remember what Agniveer wrote earlier? If you have forgotten, I will republish the golden words,
“Black or Krishna Yajurveda is a branch (Shakha) and not original Yajurveda. It contains original mantras modified along with historical and explanatory descriptions to suit research interests of specific kind. Shukla or White Yajurveda refers to those branches of Yajurveda that modify the original mantras if required but do not add additional texts. The Madhyandini Yajurveda of Shukla Branch is the original Yajurveda and rest are its variations.”
So, according to Maharishi Agniveer, Black or Krishna Yajurveda is not original because it contains many bonuses. Therefore, I thank Agniveer for adding a bonus mantra in his so-called original and proving that his Yajurveda IS NOT ORIGINAL ANYMORE. The corollary would be like this. If one bonus mantra of Arya Samaj makes no difference to the text, then the many bonus mantras of other Samhitas proves that they are more desrving to be called originals.
2. Now if we review this mantra, is it against rest of the Vedas in its message? If not, then what is the cause of concern. If you get one additional sentence in Einstein’s text on relativity that was written later by an editor but only emphasizes what Einstein says in rest of the paper, how is that a problem?
Are the bonuses of the other samhitas against their own mantras? Then what are you telling us they are not originals? What is the cause of concern? By giving Einsteins example, you are digging your own grave. No sane person would ever edit the TEXT of Einsteins work. They will only add their explanation and they would mention that this is an explanation and not written by Einstein, so that people do not confuse it with Einsteins words. But you have added the ‘new bonus mantra’ in the TEXT and without even mentioning in the footnote that it is not in the original. This is called fraud and we should not trust fraud people. What say you Maharishi Agniveer? Also if other Shaakhaas added explanations, which obiously do not contradict the text, are you not riding in the same boat?
3. This is an objection only for those who think that if they mug up the book of divine and say a big sorry for all their misdeeds and laziness to Supreme Lord, they would easily get Heaven full of virgins. But for Vedic followers, there are no shortcuts to success. You have to practice what you learn in actions and keep exploring the truth within. And when you have liberated yourself from ignorance significantly, you would well have re-ignited the Vedas within. So one harmless mantra in one edition makes absolutely no difference. The only cause of concern could have been if the verse misled you, which it does not.
Let Maharishi Agniveer produce some evidence for the false charges he has made. Where have we ever said that just by muggin up the Quran and doing misdeeds will give us heaven? Where does the Noble Quran say so? How do we know that ONLY ONE HARMLESS MANTRA has been added to the text? If you can add a mantra to the text, it shows that Vedas can be made by man. Agniveer Ji, I already knew Vedas were nothing special and are man made. If the verse does not mislead me, so is the case with other Samhitas.
Regarding virgins of Vedic Swarga, Maharishi Agniveer can read my artcles,
Did Agniveer say that for Vedic followers there are no shortcuts to success? Maharishi! haven’t you read the Vedas? If you haven’t, let me tell you the Vedic shortcuts of entering Paradise.
“Strongest is this, performed, of sacrifices: he has reached heaven who has prepared Vishtāri. [Atharva Ved 4:34:5]
“High up in heaven abide the Guerdon-givers: they who give steeds dwell with the Sun forever. They who give gold are blest with life eternal. They who give robes prolong their lives, O Soma.” [Rig Veda – 10:107:2]
“Panchodana, when cooked, transports, repelling Nirriti, to the world of Svarga. By him may we win worlds which Sūrya brightens.” [Atharva Ved 9:5:18]
“…This wealth I place among the Brāhmans, making a path that leads to heaven among the Fathers.” [Atharva Ved 11:1:28]
To sum up, according to most mantras in Atharva Ved, feeding the Brahmins with milk and rice (Kheer), offering goats, gold, and other Dakshina earns one Paradise. Displeasing a Brahmin gives you a one way ticket to Hell.
4. By the way, the 25th Chapter has only 47 mantras and that is accepted by one and all. Some publishers publish an additional mantra due to relevance of context. Perhaps someone inserted it years ago and then no printer bothered to or rather was not competent enough to scrutinize it. Please send us the name of the publisher and we shall write to him to correct the mistake. Or even you can write so referring to this article.
So, now you are saying it is not a ‘bonus mantra’? What happened dear? Let it remain there. Why bother to correct this ‘mistake’? If you needed a Muslim to tell you that mischief has been done to the Vedic text, then you all need to hang yourselves in shame. For 150 years you let the verse remain in the text and want to remove it now? Someone rightly said, Arya Samajis are the biggest frauds. The ‘bonus mantra’ is given by all Arya publishers. I can only imagine, how many such mantras would have been made up ‘due to relevance of the context’. Poor Yajurveda. I think Agniveer should now follow Taittiriya Samhita. His Madhyandin has disappointed me. Notice that Agniveer is contradicting himself in the same mantra. On one hand he says that the ‘PUBLISHERS’ added it due to relevance of context and on the other hand he is mocking them by saying they are not competent. If they WILLINGLY added it why will they scrutinize it?
3. In Yajurveda Bhashya of Dayanand Ji Adhyay 26, mantra 26, the word Ayohatay was changed to Apohatay.
1. This is a printing mistake. Real word is Ayohate (अयोहते). Now in Devanagri script, Ya (य) and Pa (प) appear almost similar. Such errors are found in several places in Vedas because the first time they were being printed, they were being typeset from hand-written manuscripts. However Pt Damodar Satvalekar did a great job of scrutinizing all published mantras with manuscripts and manuscripts with various Paatha methods to give to us extremely authentic editions of Rigveda.
2. But thankfully, the meaning does not change because that was based on actual word.
Come on Maharishi Agniveer. You blame every mischief of your guru on the poor printers. If it was a printing error, why did the Swami translate Apohatay and not Ayohate? He translated it as ‘gold’ instead of the actual meaning ‘iron’. Who are you deceiving? The Swami Brahmachari was looking for gold instead of worthless iron. Changing 1 into 11 is the old habit of Grocers. When caught out they said, “Oh man! This is only a writing error.”
4. In Yajurveda Bhashya of Dayanand Ji Adhyay 39, mantra 5, the word Vishyandmaane was changed to Vishpandmaane.
Refer previous allegation.
How can you refer it to previous point, when this is a separate fraud? The swami has translated Vispand and not Visyand. Vispand (विष्पन्द ) means throbbing and Vishyand (विष्यन्द) means trickling. Only a fool will call it a printing error. Swami has taken Visyand deliberately to mistraslate it.
5. The longer ending in Yajurveda 13:58 has been deleted from Arya Samaj version, but exists in the Gayatri Parivar version .
It does not matter whether this text is there or not. The meaning of the phrase is implied in overall meaning of the mantras continued from Chapter 12 itself up to this last mantra of Chapter 13. So for sake of completion of meaning you can put the phrase, and for sake of brevity you can skip it. A conservative approach would be to keep it. but if focus is to understand meaning alone, it can be skipped. We suggest having the phrase for sake of completeness.
If Veda is revealed text according to you, do you mean the Words of God do not matter? Is your God a lunatic who reveals texts in vain? I told this to a Sanatan Dharmi friend. He became upset and said, “Who the hell is Agniveer to suggest what should be Vedas and what not?”
Corruption of Samaveda
Samaveda is heavily borrowed from the Rigveda. It consists of a collection of hymns, portions of hymns, and detached verses, all but 75 taken from the Sakala Sakha of the Rigveda, the other 75 belong to the Bashkala Sakha, to be sung, using specifically indicated melodies, called Samagana. There are differences regarding the exact number of mantras in the Samaveda. As I said earlier, according to Patanjali’s statement, “sahasravartma samvedah” सहस्रवर्त्म समवेदः, “There are thousand branches of Samaveda”. However, only three survive:
- the Kauthuma Shakha is current in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and since a few decades in Darbhanga, Bihar,
- the Jaiminiya in the Karnatak, Tamilnadu and Kerala,
- and the Rāṇāyanīya in the Maharastra.
The total mantras in the Jaimniya Shakha is 1687. Kauthama Shakha has 1869 mantras . Thus, 182 mantras are missing from Kauthama Shakha. An analysis of both these versions reveals lots of Paath-Bhed (variant readings). Besides this, there is a difference in number of songs attributed to different branches. Shri Satvalekar in his preface to Samaveda Samhita has given the following table of songs (Samagana).
|Songs of Jaiminiya Branch
|Songs of Kauthamiya Branch
We can easily see that the Samaganas of Jaiminiya Version are 1000 more than those of Kauthamiya Version.
We have already mentioned that Kauthum Rishi preserved the original Samaveda. Refer the previous discussion on branches.
Further, Samaveda songs make no sense for the disturbed mind. They represent the melodies that generate from within when one reaches a high level of enlightenment and exalted state. Jaimini branch offers more variety and you can experiment with them to find what melody touches you the most. However keep caution – avoid spicy food, meat, alcohol, anger, frustration, hatred etc, study other Vedas as well and practice meditation. Without foundation of this, you may be simply wasting your time.
When will Agniveer stop lying? What is the proof that only Kauthama Samhita is original? Whether Samaveda songs make sense or not is no response to the argument of textual corruption. Samaveda is a mere waste of ink and paper. All except 75 mantras are copied from Rigveda’s Shaakal samhita. The remaining are from Baashkal. Now, if Baashkal is not the original Samhita, then the 75 mantras of Samaveda are also fake.
Corruption in Atharvaveda
Atharvaveda, also known as Brahmaveda is considered the youngest amongst all other Vedas.
Following is an exmaple of textual corruption in the Atharvaveda.
Atharvaveda Khand 20 and Sookt 127 is part of the Kuntap Sooktas. In the third mantra of this Sookt there has been an alteration. The Atharvaveda of Arya Samaj and Gayatri Parivar both have it as follows:
The word preceeding Maamahe is Eeshaai. However, in the Atharvaveda of Pandit Raja Ram Shashtri of Arya Samaj as well as the Atharvaveda printed in Germany, the text differs as follows:
Here the word preceeding Maamahe is Rishye and not Eeshaai. This makes a difference in the meaning of the mantra.
Again a case of printing mistake due to bad handwriting in Devanagri manuscript or error by typist. The correct word is ‘Ishaya’. Printing mistakes are not attributable to original texts.
This is not a printing error. Prof. Whitney mentions the variation in the footnote of this word. This is a manuscript variation. That is why all European scholars such as Griffith, Whitney, Bloomfield translate it as Seer or Rishi. Agniveer would do well to learn the Vedas properly instead of blaming all manuscript mistakes on the poor printers.
Points left unanswered by Agniveer
Patanjali Rishi, in his Mahabhasya, has given the first words of all the four Vedas. Patanjali quotes SHANNODEVEE RABHISHTAYE as the first verse of the Atharvaveda. However, Atharvaveda now begins with the verse YE NNISHATPAAH PARIYANTA. SHANNODEVEE RABHISHTAYE now appears as the first verse of the 6th Sukta of the first Kanda or in aggregate the 26th verse. This shows that 25 mantras have been interpolated in the beginning of Atharvaveda.
It is mentioned in Shatapath Brahman 13:4:3:4-8 in the context of the Ashvamedha sacrifice; after the Yagya (ritual) is completed, the householders should be instructed in Rigveda of the first day. old men should be instructed in Yajurveda on the second day, handsome youths should be instructed in Atharvaveda on the third day and handsome maiden should be instructed in Angirasveda on the fourth day. Angirasveda is attributed to Rishi Angiras who is in the fourth generation after Rishi Atharva. There is no mention of Samaveda in this reference of Shatapath Brahman.
I shall not comment on what exactly this reference from Shatpath means. But even if we take it at face value:
1. Samaveda is not mentioned because Samaveda cannot be simply listened like other Vedas. Samaveda is all about emotions and meditation. Further, bulk of mantras in Samaveda are already in Rigveda. So there is no purpose of listening them again. However if the same mantras are meditated upon with emotions and sung, new revelations would come. But this is not in context of the ritual described. You need to separately practice this art.
Yes, how can you comment because your knowledge of Vedas has taken a big beating by now.
Agniveer is right that bulk of the mantras in Samaveda are already in Rigveda. Agniveer himself confessed that Samaveda is useless and mere waste of paper, ink and time, because it is mere repetition of Rigveda.
2. Even if Rishi Angiras was born 4th generation from Rishi Atharva (I shall not comment on authenticity of this history), how does it matter? Names of Rishis depict their deeds and specializations and not the names in their Class X pass certificate. So a specialist in Atharvaveda can name himself Rishi Atharva. Similarly another Rishi can use synonym of Atharva ie Angiras and use as his name. This is similar to we using Agniveer as our name. Now just because we call ourselves Agniveer, it does not mean that we are the author of all the mantras in Vedas that have word ‘Agni’.
Agniveer cannot comment on the authenticity of this history because he doesn’t know any history. There are no preserved records of the imaginary authors of the Vedas. The point to be noted is that it is technically absurd to call the same Veda by different names in the same sentence, just because the gender is different. Rest of the claims of Agniveer are without any evidence.
4. Atharvaveda and Angirasveda refer to same text. They are also called Chhanda in some places. Atharvaveda has the privilege of multiple names because it is an all-rounder. It adopts from Rik, Yajuh and Sama Vedas are brings forth their applied aspects. To there are multiple dimensions to it deserving multiple names.
The correct view is that Atharvaveda is divided into two parts, Atharvaved and Angirasved. Atharvaved as a whole is a later addition to the canon of Vedas, interpolated by Brahmins. Even within Atharvaved, Angirasved portion is a late addition. Agniveer has produced no evidence for the multiple names of Atharvaved.
But if this be the argument for Vedas being corrupted then Quran is perhaps the most corrupted text in the world. Because Quran is referred by a huge number of names in Quran itself. The word Quran was later adopted for the text by fighting followers long after death of the peace-loving founder. The founder never knew that this book would be called Quran. Quran is also referred by names reserved for Jewish and Christian texts in Quran itself! That is why some scholars conclude that original Quran refers to Bible or Old Testament or some unchangeable text which was existing ever prior to Testaments and was much bigger in size. This a matter of scholarly debate and we shall leave it to scholars.
Exactly, the Quran has many names WITHIN the text itself. There was no fighting between the companions over the names. Agniveer is just throwing red herrings to distract the attention of the readers from the main topic. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) always referred to it as Al-Quran (The Quran). Agniveer neither has knowledge of Vedic Dharma nor of Islam. His credibility is already destroyed. Commenting on the comments of the ignorant does not fetch anything. The topic is about Vedas so bringing the Quran into the picture is evidence that Agniveer has really no factual response to the clear textual corruption of Vedas. Our research has been substantial, reasonable and rational.
Agniveer has problems with my usage of the word ‘accusation’. I already know, after thorough study, that Vedas are false and corrupt. Hence I am justified in using the word ‘accusation’. ‘To accuse’ according to dictionary means ‘to charge with a shortcoming or error.’ Check this link to know more.
All Maharishi Agniveer can do is go into hairsplitting a simple word and build more castles of lies and deception. You can think why Agniveer is so upset here. Obviously because the foundations of Vedic Dharma are being shaken here.
Agniveer writes more lies,
4. To take this argument to an extreme, let us state something. Even if all the allegations…sorry ‘accusations‘ stand, still that would NO WAY AFFECT the Vedic religion. This is because the very essence of Vedic religion is to not blindly and literally translate any text as recipe for life.
To know about the truth of Vedic Religion, go through our disection of Vedas on our website. You will know the reality with references and exact quotes.
Vedic texts are like Science textbooks for us and not a roadside Mantra-Tantra book that promises to help us getting job, marriage, money, destruction of enemy, mesmerism over lover, invisibility, control of Jinna and ghosts etc by blankly reciting certain mantras on microphone and moving some bones.
Sorry, if you think Vedas are akin to Jhaad Phoonk of Pagla Baba Banarasi, or Ajmer Sharif ka Jaadu, or Shahdara Wale Miyanji ke Totke or something similar, you are at a wrong place. Get these addresses from any Railway Station rather than daring to open the minds to think honestly. Or perhaps your own scripture might be a good replacement for these Babas and Miyans.
All you have to do is read the Vedas yourself and see the kind of primitive, superstitous book it is. Let me give you a sample of Mantra-Tantra and Jhaad Phoonk.
6. The mother shall sleep, the father shall sleep, the dog shall sleep, the lord of the house shall sleep! All her relations shall sleep, and these people round about shall sleep!
7. O sleep, put thou to sleep all people with the magic that induces sleep! Put the others to sleep until the sun rises; may I be awake until the dawn appears, like Indra, unharmed, uninjured!
These mantras in Atharvaveda are taught to the Robber. It is claimed that by chanting these mantras, all the family members of the house, which the robber intends to rob, will sleep so that the robber can easily rob the house. Now, it is for you to decide what kind of knowledge is this? Obviuosly knowledge of fraud or in short fraud-veda.
P.S. Since this is a response article, we had to restrict it to the arguments presented. However, to prove the textual corruption of Vedas, one more article will be added soon with many more proofs and evidences. Stay tuned and thanks for reading! Beware of Fraud Maharishis.