Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part I


Written by Sulaiman Razvi

Other religious books are seen as terror manual by some hate mongers. These hate mongers deliberately misinterpret other scriptures. They claim that only Vedas preach non Violence, religious tolerance and that it doesn’t command to kill those who reject Hinduism. This article is a response to those Hindus who have come up with weak rebuttal.  Now let’s start reading the pathetic rebuttal of the apologist on Rig Veda 3.53.14


“Among the Kikatas what do thy cattle? They pour no milky draught, they heat no caldron. Bring thou to us the wealth of Pramaganda; give up to us, O Maghavan, the low-born.” Rig Veda 3.53.14


When it has been clearly established that Anarya means terrorist and the ‘allegators’ have themselves given reference from Nirukta and Swami Dayanand (I am not sure of later source), where is the confusion?

The mantras prays that Cows that give milk and sources of prosperity have no utility in places where terrorists thrive. They be better put to use for prosperity of noble people.

In other words, if Al-Qaeda or Maoists have lots of weapons and wealth, these better come to peaceful people than stay with them. This means that the country should adopt policies that ensure that wealth goes to deserving people and not criminals and terrorists. It is on basis of such mantra that all civilized nations put strict control and security on distribution of currency and critical resources.

Vedas also have prayers that call for reformation of terrorists into civilized beings. Refer Rigveda 6.22.10 that states that ‘Daas should be made ‘Arya’. How could it be possible if these were to denote races or specific geographies?


Even a thief can justify his theft with this logic saying that “Since he wasn’t utilizing his stuff properly so I stole it to make optimum utilization”.

On what basis has the writer come to the conclusion that Anarya means terrorist? although as per their definition any person who does not follow the Veda is wicked, Demon, Barbarous, Violent terrorist. But he is suppose to quote the reference. Let’s have a look at the meaning of Anarya given by Dayanand Saraswati first,

“The Dwijaas( the twice-born) – Braahmanaas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyaas are called Aryas, while the Shudras are called Anaryas, or Non-Aryas.”ATHARVA VEDA 19:62…” Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, page 266, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.

Dayanand also writes that all people living outside Aryavarta are Demons and Barbarians. During the Vedic period the inhabitants of Aryavrata (present day India) were mostly Vedic followers, this is why Dayanand wrote that all people living outside Aryavrata are demons (Rakshasha, Dasyu). V.S Apte gives the following meaning for Dasyu

“Dasyu – name of a class of evil beings or demons; an outcast; a thief; a villain; a desperado” Sanskrit English Dictionary page 366

In short, anyone who doesn’t follow the Vedas including poor Shudras are Barbaric (Malechha), Demons (Dasyus, Rakshasha) and Anarya (Non-Aryans). Now let’s move on to some more authoritative texts. The writer quotes no reference that Anarya means terrorist, However let’s look at what Yaska Acharya writes on Rig Veda 3.53.14,

Nirukta 6.32 What are the cows doing in Kikata? Kikata is the name of a country where the non-Aryans dwell. Non-Aryan tribes are (so called because it is said),’What have they done? Or their assumption is that religious rites are useless. They neither get the milk to mix with the soma, nor kindle fire.

So those poor people of Kikata tribe were looted not because they were “terrorist” as the writer (who is a extremist himself) says but as the Vedas commands to kill the person who doesn’t bring offerings to Ishwar, It is mentioned in Vedas,

Rig Veda 1.176.4 Slay everyone who pours no gift, who, hard to reach, delights thee not. Bestow on us what wealth he hath: this even the worshipper awaits.

For more details on religious intolerance, read my article Killing Infidels in Vedas


Atharva Veda 20.93.1 May our hymns give you great delight. Display your bounty, Thudered. Drive off [kill] the enemies of the Vedas.


The controversial phrase is ब्रह्मद्विष्: अवजहि

So it calls for destruction of hatred against Brahma and NOT any Vedic text hater. Brahma is a more subtle concept and refers to the source behind entire creation and hence the feeling that all human beings are equal. It also refers to pure intelligence. So the mantra calls for destruction of those forces that attempt to harm the scholars or sources of intelligence. In other words, those who want to bomb our schools, centers of excellence, intelligence departments or attempt to harm our intelligent masses should be destroyed just as we destroyed Osama Bin Laden and Talibanis. Also the mantra does not say that people should be destroyed specifically. It says that the very forces including systems and processes – that attempt to thwart free intellectual pursuits should be destroyed. Because only through freedom of introspection and enhancement of knowledge can one seek happiness for self and society.


Nice try, but in vain. Let’s see the definition of the word ब्रह्मद्विष् [Brahmadvish] . Endorsing his guru’s definition one of the prominent scholar of Arya Samaj named Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati gives the following meaning,

[Rig Veda Samhita, by Satya Prakash Saraswati and Vidyalankar, Vol 4, page no 1294, Published by Veda Pratishthana, New Delhi, 1977]

Dayanand Saraswati founder of Arya Samaj gives the following meaning,

“Brahmadivsh = Those who oppose Veda and Ishwar”

[Rig Veda Hindi translation, Mandala 2, page 323]

Many other Arya Samaji scholars have also translated it as “Those who reject Veda”, Swami Prabhupada translates it as ‘those envious of Vedas’ so now it is established that whoever rejects or opposes the Vedas should be killed. The writer is giving his own meanings to the words. The writer is trying his level best to twist and distort the verses. Suppose if the Vedas says to protect a stone then the writer may explain it in this way

“Veda says to protect the stone, Since stone is part of Prakriti and all of us are created out of Prakriti so this actually says to protect the Humans, so the correct translation would be ‘O resplendent Lord, the giver of technology , bestower of Infosys, Wipro, Apple, Microsoft, IBM you are the source of knowledge of Bill Gates, Ratan Tata, revealer of Higgs and Boson’s theory, protect the noble humans from violent terrorists and drive them off”.

The writer should stop giving his own interpretations. For more information on Brahmadvish read my article Killing Infidels in Vedas.


“हम लोग जिस से द्वेष करें और जो हम से द्वेष करे, उस को हम शेर आदि पशुओं के मुख में डाल दें।” [यजुर्वेद १५:१५ दयानंद भाष्य]


As detailed in previous references, hatred is reserved ONLY for those who blatantly flout this guideline and cause damage to innocents. In other words, ONLY terrorists deserve our hatred. There is not one mantra in entire Vedas that call for hatred on basis of personal or theological beliefs. So terrorists should be dealt with iron hand and be firmly destroyed just as Osama Bin Laden was killed recently. Those who deal with terrorists softly bring havoc to society. Once again, definition of terrorist is clear – He is someone who kills innocents and harms public property. Very rightly, these are the most severe crimes in all civilized countries of the world – perfectly in lines of Vedas. That is why USA has to send a mission in Abbotabad to destroy terrorists like Osama. But in this, to ensure that no illogical meaning is derived, the original translation clearly specifies that this phrase refers ONLY to violent people. Refer Yajurveda Bhashyam Part 2 page 510 published by Ramlal Kapoor Trust which is based on original manuscripts. I reproduce the relevant portion:

वे रक्षक हम लोग जिस हिंसक से विरोध करें और जो हिंसक हमसे विरोध करें उसको इन व्याघ्र आदि पशुओं के मुख में स्थापन करें.

So this mantra refers only to violent people and ONLY official security personnel are allowed to carry such operations, not ordinary masses, as per Swami Dayanand. In other words, mantra says that Police and Military should protect people by destroying terrorists.


It is already established that as per the Vedic injunction, whoever rejects Vedas is a terrorist, Barbarian, Demon. The writer is mixing all the sentences here. Further there is no Sanskrit word for Hinsak (Violent person) in that verse. It says to ‘kill the person who hates us (Ishwar) and WHOM WE HATE’.

Yajur Veda 15.15 This one in front, golden-tressed, with sunbeams; the leader of his host and his chieftain are Rathagritsa and Rathaujas, and Puñjikasthalâ: and Kratusthalâ his Apsarases. Biting animals are his weapon, homicide his missile weapon; to them be homage: may they protect us, may they have mercy upon us. In their jaws we place the man whom we hate and who hates us.

(Shri Ram Sharma Acharya’s Hindi translation)

The writer may still argue that this verse refers only to violent people, but what about other verses which explicitly commands to kill whom Ishwar hates? The entire hymn of Atharva 2.19 is dedicated in burning those who hate Ishwar and to whom Ishwar hates,

Atharva Veda 2.19.1 Burn thou, O Agni, with that heat of thine against the man who hates us, whom we hate.

Atharva Veda 10.5.25 …from earth we bar him who hates us and whom we hate.

The Arya Samaj commentary states that a, Man should satisfy himself by killing his enemies with the miraculous powers given by God

Atharva Veda 10.3.3 This charm shall conquer and cast down thy foemen. Be thou the first to slay the men who hate thee.

Can the writer still say that it commands to kill only violent people since the above verse clearly states to be the first one to kill who just ‘Hates’ him. These violent verses commands to kill the haters of god and the haters of the Aryas (So called noble people).

The writer states “ There is not one mantra in entire Vedas that call for hatred on basis of personal or theological beliefs”

What does the writer has to say about this verse,

Nirukta 5.17 “When, with his foot, will he trample the infidel man like a mushroom? When indeed will Indra hear our prayers?[ Rig Veda 1.84.8] When, with his foot, will he trample the unworshipping man like a mushroom”

Ishwar is merciless, violent savage who doesn’t forgive persons who hates him, who rejects Vedas, who utters blasphemous words against him. For more details on this read my article Killing Infidels in Vedas



[वेद निंदक] को, काट डाल, चीर डाल, फाड़ डाल, जला दे, फूँक दे, भस्म कर दे।” [अथर्ववेद १२:५:६२]

Atharva Veda 12.5.62 Rend, rend to bits, rend through and through, scorch and consume and burn to dust, the one who rejects the Vedas


The current context of the mantra starts at least from 12.5.47 and continues till 73. In reality, the mantra is dedicated to Brahmagavi (ब्रह्मगवी). This refers to fundamental unchangeable laws of nature. The entire chapter details how those who refuse to act as per unchangeable laws of nature due to false ego get destroyed. There is no mention whatsoever of any person or group of person trying to kill anyone. The mantras assert that those who try to silence the voice of intellect or truth get destroyed themselves. These mantras have been the foundation of all revolutionary movements that have ever happened to oppose the voice of tyranny. The chapter is an inspiration for all truth seekers. It elaborates how ultimately laws of nature destroy the greatest of power achieved through tyranny. It elaborates how wealth obtained through tyranny is actually a curse. It elaborates why the mightiest of rulers should be scared of harming a truth-seeking scholar. Mantra 12.5.58 clearly calls this Brahmagavi ‘Aghnye’. So it is in feminine gender and means ‘non-violent’. So it is clear that the mantras talk of wider laws of nature and not inciting into killing innocents because of difference in viewpoints. On contrary, the mantras clearly assert that those who think of killing innocents get destroyed as per Laws of nature. So yes, the mantra does say that Brahmagavi – or Fundamental Truths of Nature destroy the perpetrators of terror and hatred in most merciless manner.


The deceptive explanations of this writer are really commendable. Where and how does he get such deceptive ideas? Veda calls Indra as Mayavi (Vedic fraud) but in reality this guy deserves the title. The word Aghnya is explained here Beef Eating in Vedas and Other Hindu Texts by Mushafiq Sultan

The translation is taken from the Arya Samaj website,

Atharva Veda 12.5.62 Rend, rend to bits, rend through and through, scorch and consume and burn to dust, the one who rejects the Vedas

Arya Samaj commentary on this verse states:

“Godly persons shall always be ready to kill irreligious people”

[Kshemkarandas Trivedi (Arya Samaj) on Atharva Veda 12.5.62, p.576]

He writes on Atharva Veda 12.5.54

”Vedic followers should destroy infidels”- page 574 [Source: ]

It is mentioned in Vishnu Purana,

“When the glorious Vishnu heard their prayers he emitted from his person an illusory form wliich he gave to the celestials and said. “This illusory form shall so deceive the Daityas, that being led astray from the path of the Vedas, they shall be slain ; for all gods, demons and others, who shall transgress the authority of the Veda, shall perish by my prowess which I exercise for the preservation of the universe. Go then ; be not affraid ; this illusory form shall go before you. celestials, it shall be of great service to you, this day.”- Vishnu Purana 3.17, Tr. Manmath Nath Dutt


स्वामी दयानंद सरस्वती सत्यार्थ प्रकाश में ब्रह्मोसमाज और प्रर्थ्नासमाज की आलोचना करते हुए लिखते हैं,


“जिन्होंने अँगरेज़, मुसलमान, चंडाल आदि से भी खाने पीने का अंतर नहीं रखा। उन्होंने यही समझा कि खाने और जात पात का भेद भाव तोड़ने से हम और हमारा देश सुधर जाएगा लेकिन ऐसी बातों से सुधार कहाँ उल्टा बिगाड़ होता हे।” [सत्यार्थ प्रकाश, समुलास ११]


मुसलमान और ईसाई कितने ही सदाचारी हों, स्वामी जी के अनुसार उनके साथ खाना उचित नहीं। यह पक्षपात नहीं तो और क्या हे? क्या आप अब भी ऐसे ‘आर्य समाज’ में रहना पसंद करेंगे?



Ideally we should not be analyzing this because it does not refer to Vedas. Swami Dayanand was also a human and there may be typographical errors in his writings. So instead of following him as Prophet, wise people should look at the overall theme of his message and act accordingly. However, still we could not help analyze this because whatever has been presented is a blatant shameless lie. This alone exposes the intent and designs of those who wrote or promoted such hatred against Vedas. As per Quran, they are worst of the creatures. Hindus are very particular about food habits. This is not to do with religion but standards of hygiene. So while the western world adopted practices like washing hands with soap after loo or cleaning hands several times before eating only after advent of soap and wash basin technology, Hindus have been following hospital-standard hygiene practices since inception of civilization. So just as a doctor would not eat with a sweeper because of hygiene issues, same is true with Hindus. Even today, in west people do not even clean their parts after loo with water properly. They simply rub with dry paper. In very few places, people actually wash hands with soap after loo. 125 years ago, when Dettol was not there, people would simply rub off hands in dust or sprinkle some water. No conservative Hindu will take a bite without a bath. And before and after each meal, he would clean hands, face and feet properly. Even within a family, people would not touch each other or eat with them unless they are clean. The utensils used for loo, bathing and cooking are different. Anything that touches one’s saliva or even lips is never eaten by others even after washing. It is simply thrown away. So all that Dayanand implied was eating with foreigners (from same plate) who have not complied with hygiene practices like bath and cleaning hands properly after loo. Or blindly imitating their food when we have more relevant and tastier options available. As a matter of fact, the variety and quality of good food available in India is comparable to no other place in the world. Regardless of all, the reference provided is fake. Satyarth Prakash does not even have any reference to Chandals here.

Notice the most shameless fraud.To malign Swami Dayanand, Yavan has been replaced by Musalmaan, Antyaj by Chandal and Jaati-Bhed by ‘Jaat Paat ka Bhed Bhaav’.- Yavan does not mean Muslim but someone who hates Hindus. Or else, the same Swami would not have started his Lahore Arya Samaj from home of a Muslim while Swamiji was staying there (in a Muslim’s home)


The writer is cherry picking from a rebuttal and also distorting the passage like he does with his Veda. Here is what was written in the rebuttal by Mushafiq Sultan,

‘’स्वामी दयानंद सरस्वती सत्यार्थ प्रकाश में ब्रह्मोसमाज और प्रर्थ्नासमाज की आलोचना करते हुए लिखते हैं,
“जिन्होंने अँगरेज़, यवन, अन्त्याजादी से भी खाने पीने का अंतर नहीं रखा। उन्होंने यही समझा कि खाने और जात पात का भेद भाव तोड़ने से हम और हमारा देश सुधर जाएगा लेकिन ऐसी बातों से सुधार कहाँ उल्टा बिगाड़ होता हे।” [सत्यार्थ प्रकाश, समुलास 11, पृष्ट 375 प्रकाशक: श्रीमद दयानन्द सत्यार्थ प्रकाश न्यास, उदयपुर, जुलाई 2010] यवन का अर्थ मुसलमान और अन्त्यज का अर्थ चंडाल होता है।
पंडित जी, मुसलमान और ईसाई कितने ही सदाचारी हों, स्वामी जी के अनुसार उनके साथ खाना उचित नहीं। यह पक्षपात नहीं तो और क्या है? क्या आप अब भी ऐसे ‘आर्य समाज’ में रहना पसंद करेंगे?’’

Mushafiq Sultan has clearly given the reference [सत्यार्थप्रकाश, समुलास 11, पृष्ट 375 प्रकाशक: श्रीमददयानन्दसत्यार्थप्रकाशन्यास, उदयपुर, जुलाई 2010] so how can there be any confusion.

Dayanand Saraswati wrote,

“They eat and drink most indiscriminately, ie., they even eat and drink with Europeans, Mohammedans and out cast people, etc. They must have thought that promiscuous eating and drinking and the breaking of caste alone will lead to their reformation as well as to that of their country but such thingscan bring about no reformation, on the contrary may cause great mischief.”- Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, p.468, Ch 11 Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.

This is the English version of the passage which is translated by a Arya Samaji named Dr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja. Dr. Bhardwaj writes in the amendment of the word Yavana,

“* The term Yavanas is equally applied to the Greeks and the Mohammedans, etc.”-By Dr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja, in the book Satyarth Prakash, page 361

Further a author named Rajmohan writes,

“Yavan = a pejorative term for foreigner or Muslim.”- Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire, By Rajmohan Gandhi, page 275

So this “Shameless fraud” is not done by any Muslim but by Arya Samaj whose monopoly is being Mayavi (Vedic fraud).

Dayanand Saraswati mentioned only the restrictions of food and cooking. In page 326 of Satyarth Prakash Dayanand wrote that there is no harm (for Aryas) in eating with other Aryas but did not mention whether a Arya Samaji can interdine with a Shudra, Muslim or Christian. He even made discrimination on eating with low caste people or the food offered by them,

“Question) Should the Dwijaas (twice-born) cook their food with their own hands or is it permissible to eat food cooked by the Shoodraas (low-casted)?

Answer.~ They can eat what has been cooked by the Shoodraas; because it is the duty of Dwijas – Brahmans, Khatriyas and Vaishyasboth men and women) to devote themselves to the dissemination of knowledge, the service of the state, the breeding of cattle, and to agriculture, trade and arts ( and not to waste their time in cooking, etc.) But they should not eat or drink out of a Shudra utensils or what has been cooked in his own house except in case of emergency. Here is an authority for this statement:- ” In the houses of the twice-born, Shudras – i.e., ignorant men and women
incapable of following any higher pursuit – should do the cooking and other domestic service. “APASTAMBH II.ii, 2,4. But they should keep their bodies and clothes, etc., clean. While engaged in cooking in the houses of the Aryas- the twiceborn – they should have their mouths covered ( witha piece of cloth) so that their beath may not contaminate the food, and their saliva may not fall into it; they should wash before cooking. They should take their food after the Aryashave been served.”- Satyarth Prakash, By Dayanand Saraswati, page 319, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja

Dayanand also wrote,

“would you eat food out of the hands of a scavenger or a Mohammedan who cooked it with his own hands in some place out of your sight.”- Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, page 320, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.

So what he meant to say is that all the Shudras and Muslims are filthy. I have seen some Brahmins who are very unhygienic, Can a Shudra (ignorant as per Mulshankar) eat with such Brahmins? Since Dayanand quotes from Apastambha, let me add a verse from Apastambha concerning this issue

Apastamba Sutra,  Prasna I, Patala 6, Kanda 18 According to some (food offered by people) of any caste, who follow the laws prescribed for them, except that of Sudras, may be eaten.

Dayanand said that a Shudra can cook food for a Brahmin since it the duty of Shudra to carry out labor work, but did he actually practice it? Dayanand is said to have refused to partake food in the house of a Brahmin when he learnt that the food was cooked by a Shudra, Pandit Lekh Ram who was a close disciple of Dayanand writes about the incident,

“In 1879, while on a trip to Dehra Dun, a Brahmo Samajist named Babu Kali Mohan Ghosh invited Dayanand to his house for a meal. Dayanand replied that he had no qualms in eating in his house but added that he had heard that Brahmo Samajists sometimes employed ‘low’ caste cooks. This, he said, he did not approve of. The Babu admitted that Brahmo Samajists did not consider it wrong to eat food cooked by anyone, irrespective of caste, but said that he himself did not have a ‘low’ caste cook. Thereupon, Dayanand agreed to eat at his house.
The next day, Pandit Lekh Ram writes, his own brother, Har Gulal, informed him that Dayanand had accepted the Babu’s invitation. Hearing this, Pandit Lekh Ram took some food and went straight to Dayanand’s room. He gave the food to him to eat, and told him that he had committed a major blunder by accepting the Babu’s invitation because at one time a Bhangi woman used to cook food in his house. Dayanand replied that he had no knowledge of this and that the Babu had cheated him. He returned to the Babu the food he had sent for him and, instead, ate the food that Pandit Lekh Ram had brought.”- Pandit Lekh Ram, Quoted in Ghazi Mahmud Dharam Pal, Arya Samaj aur Swami Dayanand, Islamia Press, Lahore, p.430. [Source]

So in reality Dayanand never practiced it, in fact he perceived Muslims, Shudras and Christians to be worst and uglier than cow dung. He writes,

“Question:- As you plaster the kitchen floor with cow-dung (and mud), why do you not then also use human excrement for the same purpose? Why is not the kitchen polluted when the dung is used in it?

Answer:- The dung is not so foul-smelling as the human excrement. The cow-dung being greasy does not so easily come off the floor, nor does it soil the dress, nor does it look dirty. Dirt does not come off the dry dung so easily as off the mud. The place that has been plastered with a thin coating of mud and dung properly mixed together looks nice. If the kitchen, wherein food is cooked and sometimes also eaten, the naturally therefore particles of food, such as breadcrumbs, sugar and butter, drop sown on the floor which being thus made dirty attracts flies, insects and other such creatures be not swept, plastered and properly cleaned every day, it would be as dirt as a privy. The kitchen, therefore, should be properly plastered with mud and dung, swept and kept thoroughly clean.”- Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, Cp 10, page 325, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.

If not partaking food with Christians, Muslims and Shudras was all about “Being hygienic” then why did he tell his followers to plaster the kitchen with Cow Dung? We all know that Dung and Urine are wastes of the body which carries thousands of harmful bacteria. This shows that he considered non Aryans to be uglier than his Holy cow dung. Cow dung and urine are one of the Panchgavyas (5 Products of cow) which are to be consumed. So where is the hygiene here? Vedas even say that Urine (particularly Human’s urine) is a potent remedy.


Yajurveda 30.5 says that just as God created Brahmin for Vedas, He created lecherous for sex. So just as Brahmin’s dharma is Vedas, Kshatriya’s dharma is protection, Vaishya’s dharma is business, Shudra’s dharma is service, similarly dharma of a lecher is to promote vulgarity and adultery. So Vedas legitimize spread of vulgarity.

यजुर्वेद अध्याय ३०, मंत्र ५ में लिखा हे कि लोगों को विभिन्न धर्मों और व्यवसायों में ईश्वर ने पैदा किया. जहां ईश्वर ने अच्छे व्यवसाय पैदा किये वहीं बुरे व्यवसाय भी पैदा किये. उसने जहां ब्रह्म॑णे ब्राह्म॒णं (वेद के लिए ब्रह्मण को पैदा किया), वहीं कामा॑य पुँश्च॒लूम (समागम के लिए व्यभिचारी को पैदा किया). जिस प्रकार ब्रह्मण का धर्म वेद हे, क्षत्र्य का धर्म नीति की रक्षा, वैश्य का धर्म व्यापार, शूद्र का धर्म सेवा है, इसी प्रकार एक व्यभिचारी का धर्म व्यभिचार है. दुनिया में जिस प्रकार हर कोई व्यक्ति अपना अपना धर्म फेला रहा है, इसी प्रकार, वो भी अपना धर्म फेला रही है, और अन्य लोगों के गुमराह होने का कारण बन रही है.


The standard of allegation itself speaks volumes of the intellect of the creator of this argument.

I am not sure what is the source of this translation, but given that the modern fanatics have an obsession to condemn Swami Dayanand, let us review his translation.

To understand the context, let us review the previous mantra 30.5 as well. It says that may the just king give everyone due reward and punishment as per his or her deeds in same manner as Supreme Lord provides fruits of actions justly to all living beings.

So the mantra is a reemphasis on Law of Karma that motivates us all to conduct noble actions and desist us from foolish deeds.The next mantra states that:

May the Lord (of world as well as country) give due reward or punishment to various people – Brahmin for promotion of wisdom, Kshatriya for right leadership, Vaishya for conduct of business, Shudras for their selfless service, thief for thriving in darkness, murderers for killing noble people, impotents for sinful acts (one who conducts sinful acts is impotent as per Vedas as he or she is incapable of producing anything worthwhile), terrorists for attacking innocent people, lechers for adultery, criminals for lowly acts.


Let’s analyse Yajur Veda 30.5

Yajur Veda 30.5 “For Brahman (Priesthood) he binds a Brahman to the stake… for Kama [Sex] a harlot…”

Can the writer quote the Sanskrit words which he translated as ” May the Lord (of world as well as country) give due reward or punishment to various people”, Now he may argue that the verse 3 of this chapter mentions this and that it is in continuity. Let’s read Yajur Veda 30.3

Yajur Veda 30. 3 Savitar, God, send far away all troubles and calamities [from us], And send us only what is good.

So this is the writer’s distortion of his Vedas, there are no Sanskrit words which he translated as “May the Lord (or the country) give due rewards or punishment”. For more details on this verse, read my article Obscenity in Vedas.

continue reading Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part II


How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 4 / 5. Vote count: 8

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

Related Articles

Back to top button