Buddhism and Vedas

Source: http://agniveer.com/4020/buddhism-and-vedas Buddhism is often considered to be an anti-Vedic atheist philosophy. While today there are huge number of schools and sects within Buddhism (exceeded perhaps only by Islam in terms of number of divisions, sects, sub-sects within), if we review the original teachings of Gautam Buddha, we find that he was only trying to teach the concepts of Vedas to best of his understanding. Vocabulary of Buddhism 1. The vocabulary of Buddhism is adopted from prevailing literature. The word Buddha comes in Mahabharat Shantiparva 193/6 to mean 'intelligent'. Bodhisatva has been used for Sri Krishna in Shishupal Vadh 15/58 and its commentary by Vallabhdeva. Bhikshu again is a word denoting certain sage in Mahabharat Shantiparva 325/24 and Gautam Dharmasutra 3/2. Shraman comes in Brihadaranyak Upanishad and Gautam Dharmasutra Nirvana comes from Deval Dharmasutra And so on. 2. The famous Buddhist chant of Om Mani Padme Hum speaks for itself on glory of Om – that originates from Vedas and is integral part of Hinduism. Vedas in teachings of Mahatma Buddha 3. In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that: Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati Bhooripanjo. People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands Dharma and does not waver. 4. Sutta Nipat 503: Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema ……. One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative, intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits. 5. Sutta Nipat 1059: Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam…… One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly things. 6. Sutta Nipat 1060: Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja….. I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards the world and becomes free from sins. 7. Sutta Nipat 846: Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya As Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso…. One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by hearsay and delusions. 8. Sutta Nipat 458: Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets success. These are just a few examples from works of Mahatma Buddha. Why Mahatma Buddha rejected Vedas 9. Mahatma Buddha did not reject Vedas per se, but the malpractices happening in name of Vedas. For example, if you call someone – He is a Neta of India – today, he may get offended and feel as if you have called him corrupt and manipulative. This is not because Neta word in itself means 'corrupt', but because this is what we see of the so-called Netas today. Similarly, when Mahatma Buddha questioned birth-based casteism, animal sacrifice and other nonsense practices, he was answered that Vedas sanction so. Thus, like any sane morally upright person would do, Mahatma Buddha stated that: "If Vedas sanction these evil practices, then I reject Vedas." Had Gautam Buddha obtained an opportunity to study the actual Vedas and not go by the false notions prevailing, he could no way have issued such a statement. And the country + entire world would have been strong enough to counter barbaric attacks of West/ Central Asian tribals that has resulted in the greatest problem of last 1000 years – terrorism. 10. If you review the basic precepts of Buddhism, they are simply Vedic teachings reworded. - For example, the 4 cardinal truths on life, suffering, desire, cessation is straight from Yoga and Nyaya Darshan. In fact Nyaya Darshan 1.2 echoes almost the same essence in as many words. - The 8 fold path is adequately covered in a variety of ways in all ancient texts – Vedas, Manusmriti, Mahabharat and Yoga Darshan for example. - The emphasis on Ahimsa is adapted from Yoga Darshan that puts Ahimsa as the first essential discipline for progress in Yoga- the process of realizing self and God. - Theory of rebirth and Law of Karma that Buddhism is built upon finds its foundation in mantras of Vedas. Refer examples in http://agniveer.com/3203/islam-vedas/ - Rejection of birth-based caste-system is also in lines with Vedas. Refer http://agniveer.com/series/caste-system-3/ - Emphasis on meditation is straight adopted from the Yoga Darshan that itself is based on Vedas. - The 5 commandments for Buddhists and especially monks are from Yoga Darshan 1.2.3 In summary, one can state that Buddhism, as preached by Gautam Buddha, was a system of morality based on Vedas. Why was Mahatma Buddha atheist? 11. Mahatma Buddha was not atheist. Atheism developed later. At best, Gautam Buddha can be said to be agnostic. He believed that first and foremost duty is to raise one's intellect level through practice of moral code of conduct and mind control. 12. Mahatma Buddha did not believe in arguments or debates. He had a very practical approach. He thus refused to either deny or acknowledge presence of God or a supreme entity. He was content with teaching self-control and self-constraint and did not take trouble of attempting a solution of the great problems of Universe: How it began? Is it everlasting? Have I existed in past? Will I exist forever? etc. Later philosophers of Buddhism did attempt to solve these mysteries through their own analysis and that is how Buddhism developed so many branches and sects. In Kula Mayukyaovad Majjhama Nikaya there is a reference where someone asked Gautam Buddha whether the world is everlasting. He replied, "Did I ever promise that I shall teach you whether the world is everlasting or not? If not, then do not press the inquiry." In Sabbasava Sutta, he suggests that such inquiries into self and universe are meaningless. Thus Mahatma Buddha focused on practical aspects and neglected the theoretical or metaphysical aspects. This was perhaps because he wanted to ensure that ritualistic malpractices do not overshadow the core essence of his teachings. However these are natural questions in any human being and thus later Buddhists had to make up for this deficiency in a variety of ways. But if we review the original philosophy of Mahatma Buddha, there is no evidence of he being atheist or anti-Vedic. His attitude towards Vedas and Theism was that of indifference rather than rejection. In this indifference lied his Vedic foundation. Because he eventually adopted only from the Vedas to form his ideology and strived to be an honest practitioner of "Accept truth, reject the rest." to best of his capability and intent. Impact of Buddhism 13. Buddhism had a great impact during its times. It paved way for rejection of distortions and external symbols towards nurture of morality. Since Buddhism did not challenge any of the key philosophical foundations of existing way of life – rebirth, law of karma, emphasis on morality – it became popular not only in India and across Asia. But soon it declined especially in India. 14. As Mahatma Buddha himself said, "The body contains within itself the power to renew its strength but also the causes that lead to its destruction." In case of Buddhism, the cause lied in its incompleteness. While it adopted the moral precepts of Vedas, it ignored the metaphysical foundations. Thus while a whole generation of Buddhist philosophers did spring up later, they could not address the key metaphysical questions convincingly and cohesively – On Self, Universe and Unchangeable Laws. This may work for pragmatics but not for the truly philosophical minds. A mind tired with illogical ways of life may find great reprieve in focusing purely on moral precepts and meditation. But for someone who hails for a culture having a vast legacy of philosophical richness in every mundane and not-so-mundane aspect of life, there are more questions needed to be explored to quench the intellectual thirst. Acharya Shankar debated with Buddhists of his era and proved that whatever Buddhism (of that era) argues by denying existence of God can also be explained by Adwait (One singular entity everywhere). Thus for centuries the debate between atheists and Vedics continued giving rise to a vast number of philosophical texts in India. 15. Later Buddhism tried to deny more clearly the existence of God and even that of soul but could not give a satisfactory substitute. They believed in eternal immutable law and never ending chain of cause and effect. But in absence of an entity ensuring that the laws work smartly and for our benefit, it was a blind alley: A religion without a deity! A worshipper without an object of worship! This forced Buddhists to evolve their own set of ceremonies, rituals, idols, chants and practices, but this only brought them in rift with the original concepts. And split it into so many branches that are startlingly different at times. The religion supposed to be based on logic, intellect and mind-control, developed loads of superstitions, blind beliefs, tantra practices, witchcraft and myths of miracles. Today the divine Dalai Lama superstition has become foundation of popular Buddhism. 16. The rift widened so much that the religion, which is said to have been based on foundation of Non-Violence or Ahimsa, and which is said to have rejected Vedas because Vedas were perceived to sanction animal-sacrifice, is the largest consumer of meat-products today! In many Buddhist places, they hang a board outside meat-shop that says: "Believe Us, This meat is not for you." Now the monks are guilt-free in eating meat in these shops!! When someone asked Dalai Lama while he was helping himself with a serving of meat, he said, " I am Buddhist. I am not vegetarian!" Ironically, what is taught today across world is that Mahatma Buddha got perturbed when he saw people carrying animals for sacrifice and hence rebelled! Very few people perhaps know that the cult that had its very origin in Animal Rights is the largest killer of animals today! All for taste! And followers of Vedas – which were alleged to endorse animal killing – are today the greatest proponents of Animal Rights! In fact, many sects of Buddhism believe that Mahatma Buddha died due to indigestion from consumption of pork offered as charity. (as per these sects whatever provided in charity must be consumed.) Similarly, while Buddhism (which started with rejecting man-made caste system) is now divided into so many sects/ sub-sects with its own sectoral practices that are necessary to adopt to be one of them, it is followers of Vedas who reject all man-made divisions and appeal for oneness of entire humankind regardless of man-made rituals and beliefs. The roles are completely reversed today. Coming back to the roots – Vedas – seems to be the best way to emulate Gautam Buddha today!! 17. While Buddhism could create appeal among other regions and can impress Christians today (Christianity derives its philosophical foundation in Buddhism and hence it is the next logical bridge for Christians to an evolved and more matured view of life), but for India – that has been home to a whole chain of eminent thinkers, the vagueness of Buddhism could not hold its appeal for long. Today, whatever Buddhism prevails in India is primarily a reaction to the birth-based caste system and related rituals which are wrongly attributed to Vedas. 18. The final blow to Buddhism came from Islamic invasion in medieval era. The Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan are mute spectators of that gory period of history. Buddhism, by its very rejection of other aspects of life except moral precepts, became most vulnerable to Muslim attacks. This has been the greatest damaging gift of Buddhist ideology to present era. The escapist Buddhist view that preferred to be neutral to all that happens with us in world, coupled with a damaging caste-system among Hindus, made sure that barbaric uncivilized tribals could decimate us and establish their dominance. Hinduism could still survive due to its inherent emphasis on realism, but Buddhism perished. And this untimely perish had further adverse outcomes on future of India in the form of philosophical downtime. 19. Ask any weight-trainer and he would tell you that if you need to build big biceps, you need to focus on leg-squats as well. Lop-sided development does not work. Similarly mere focus on moral precepts do not work for society. One has to dwell into other aspects – society, politics, science, philosophy, metaphysics, etc – for things to work out. That is why Vedas emphasize and train on a vast variety of subjects. While Buddhism adopted the moral precepts from Vedas, it made a blunder by ignoring the fuller picture. And that changed the path of history forever. In fact Buddhism was not supposed to be a distinct sect in first place. It was merely supposed to be a philosophy focusing on moral aspects of life. Mahatma Buddha did not gave any preachings on other aspects at all. The blunder was that his followers took his narrow focus as complete recipe of life. Often we get so enamored by personalities that we lose the big picture. We consider fullness in whatever attracts our attention for long. For example, we witnessed the cricket drama for a month and now there seems nothing more patriotic than winning a World Cup and recommending Bharat Ratna for a cricketer! Similarly, most cults sprang up because the followers failed to consider the deeds and views of their role models as a critical PART of a bigger picture and instead considered completeness in that small PART. Mahatma Buddha considered eradication of misery as the Mission. While this is true, he took it to a narrow extreme and hence created a philosophy that was too pessimistic for common man to be motivated enough for worthwhile actions. This coupled with absence of any discussions on the key questions that initiate spiritual thinking – who am I, will I die forever, will this world end etc – left no incentive for a layman to extend his efforts beyond sitting in an isolated place trying to control the mind. Why would then one make sacrifice for nation, fight the enemies and work for smiles on face of his fellow-beings when he does not know clearly why he is doing so? Today, psychologists would tell you that running away from miseries cannot bring the same level of motivation for worthwhile actions than desire for greater happiness. Avoidance of miseries because world is full of miseries implies that one would naturally escape from worldly duties because even these performance of these duties would cause indulgence and hence miseries. After all, Buddhist philosophy asserted that our misery began the moment we were born. To deny even the Self (Anatma) to become indifferent to pain becomes goal of life. How can then indifference generate actions when there is even no vaguely clear end-goal to be reached? Mahatma Buddha talked of 4 right beliefs: Knowledge of misery, Knowledge of origin of misery, Knowledge of cessation of misery and knowledge of path leading to cessation of misery. But when even 'I' does not exist, who will work for getting these right beliefs? And what would be obtained? This incompleteness led to rank pessimism. The philosophies that emerged to counter this blinded belief system of Mahatma Buddha also suffered from the same pessimism and inertia against vigorous actions. Buddhism was doing bicep curls but not squatting sufficiently. It took only one part of Vedic message but ignored the rest. Thus nationalism and reformist zeal could not co-exist prominently with Buddhism (even though Mahatma Buddha himself was an extremely dynamic man). It left Buddhism defenseless against savage attacks and created 'Parable of Boiled Frog'. If you put a frog in hot water, it would jump out immediately. But if you put it in a beaker and gradually increase the temperature of water from cold to warm to hot to boiling, the frog does not jump out. It dies instead. This is because the nervous system of frog is unable to detect gradual changes in temperature. Lack of focus on proactive action plus view of life being a misery in either case – action or no action plus belief in everything being futile because everything is temporary plus refusal to look into bigger picture and focussing only on a narrow set of precepts, turned Buddhism into a frog. It offered little resistance to invaders and virtually opened the doors for savages to India. And whatever Buddhism survived is far from original thoughts of the founder – a countless number of sects/ subsects with extremely diverse view and having only image of Gautam Buddha in common. It is true that there is suffering in world. But to say that it is unalloyed pure suffering, with no iota of pleasure is a dangerous generalization. Absolute unalloyed pessimism cannot goad man to action. The world is not an abode of misery. The Benevolent God could not have made such a nasty world where suffering reigns. Even the most miserable in the world has some sort of joy which keeps him up. Even stoics had to summon up exceptional resolve when they prepared themselves for suicide. No sane being wishes to die because behind all miseries there is a hope that the all-blissful God will not leave us in lurch. Whether one believes in God or not, in this hope for a better future lies the bliss and acceptance of Supreme power. To deny this is to deny reality. And a philosophy that denies realism cannot face the challenges of real world. Kapila states in Sankhya 5.113 that at least during Sushupti (deep slumber), Samadhi (deep meditation) and Moksha (Salvation) soul gets an experience of Supreme bliss. Swami Dayanand succinctly explained the flaw in lines of Vedas: "If you compare the pleasure and pain of the world, pleasures many times exceed the pain. And many pure souls earn the bliss of salvation by constant practice of virtuous actions." (If Agniveer were to pick the most inspiring quote from entire Vedic teachings it has ever come across, it would undoubtedly be this one.) This makes the Vedic philosophy distinctly optimistic and invigorating. It assuages the rigor of present life and makes the future hopeful. It illumines our present as well as future. We wish if someone could have made this statement during times of Mahatma Buddha! History would have been different. But alas! In absence of this, Buddhism turned to escapism (even though Mahatma Buddha himself was a man of action). When the savages attacked, we were occupied with our meditations to ignore the self and cause of misery through indifference. We neglected built up of strong armies, regular training, and R&D on defense. We were indifferent to need for reformist zeal to break the very roots of caste-system and gender discrimination, we refused to look into the Vedas to discover what the original teachings were. We were simply practicing indifference to real challenges around. And today, while Buddhism does not prominently exist in India (except in Dharmashala where Dalai Lama is forced to have asylum after Chinese aggression), the philosophy and the myriad of other philosophies that emerged to amend or counter it, turns us into a fatalistic society. We have developed high inertia, resist the urge to face challenges, attempt to use philosophy as a tool to justify our escapism and have gradually moved towards becoming indifferent to whatever does not pinch us too much. Ahimsa has become just an alibi for laziness and cowardice. Conclusion No, we don't mean that Buddhism is to be blamed for all this. Not at all. Buddhism was a natural reaction to the prevailing ironies in the society of those times. And an essential one. We believe that people have different needs and level of evolution and hence for many include Mahatma Buddha this was the most optimal view of life. For a society that was focusing too much on blind rituals and irrational social practices, Buddhism gave the right shock to spur up more rational and logical thinking. The roots of the problem lay much earlier and Buddhism was merely a logical and necessary outcome. Teachings of Mahatma Buddha are based purely on moral aspects of Vedas. His teachings also showcase his respect for Vedas. His vocabulary and usages were derived from Vedic texts. Thus he was in summary a Vedic preacher to best of his abilities. Thus there is NO WAY that Buddhism of Gautam Buddha can be termed as separate from Vedic Dharma. It is as much an offshoot attempting to reach the source – Vedic wisdom – as other sects. However the adaptation of the narrow focus of Buddhism into a complete philosophy in its own right (which it never meant to be in first place) was detrimental to national interests. Had Buddhism been a more informed and complete philosophy based on a more thorough and rigorous study of Vedas instead of its paradoxical apparent rejection based on extremely superficial grounds, history would have been different. Had Buddhists spent efforts to reform the society the way Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Swami Dayanand attempted, instead of attempting to split into a separate sect (which it never was), history would have been different. Similarly, if all other sects and cults would have not been based on bounded rationality of a few well-intentioned men and had instead attempted to grab the complete picture of the concepts in their original source, the Vedas, world would have been a much more sensible place today. Much more tolerant, broader in outlook and rational. Whatever good that we see in any cult or sect is already existing in Vedas. However because most of these founders were addressing their imminent short-term needs and the followers believed in exclusivity of their sect, the holistic view got missing. The key lesson is that any incomplete or temporary solution for today would eventually become a problem tomorrow. The only way is to adopt the complete solution. Swami Dayanand suggested a way to approach this issue of so many sects and cults and religions touching one part of the elephant each. Let all the common points in all these sects be brought together that are acceptable to all. For example, non-violence, morality, nationalism, truthfulness, non-stealing etc. Then eliminate all assumptions, beliefs and practices unique to each sect that is not otherwise explainable. This becomes the Universal Dharma for all human beings and this is exactly what Vedas teach. Agniveer respects all the great men of history who attempted to bring society closer to Vedic living. And aspires that we evolve to get to the original source that all these great legends were attempting to reach – The Vedas. Instead of viewing completeness in our own silo, let us attempt to integrate all the silos together into One. Lets get back to the roots instead of holding on too each branch as the source. No we don't mean that all branches be cut-off and only root of the tree should remain. We only desire that each branch knows that we form a tree only when all the branches are together and supported by the root. A branch detached from rest of the branches and root would only be a dry piece of wood. So lets all be One Tree and strengthen the roots of the Tree that would then strengthen us all. This is the only way to pay our homage to their legacy. Our failure to do so brought us the miseries we faced till today. Our success would ensure Shantih (peace, bliss, happiness) everywhere. ॐ द्यौ: शान्तिरन्तरिक्षँ शान्ति: पृथिवी शान्तिराप: शान्तिरोषधय: शान्ति: । वनस्पतय: शान्तिर्विश्वे देवा: शान्तिर्ब्रह्म शान्ति: सर्वँ शान्ति: शान्तिरेव शान्ति: सा मा शान्तिरेधि ॥ ॐ शान्ति: शान्ति: शान्ति: ॥ References: Works of Pt Gangaprasad Updhyaya, Justice Gangaprasad, Pt Dharmadeva Vidyamartanda and several other scholars Note: The views expressed are supposed to be a  perspective to stir up thoughts, discussions and introspection. They may be viewed in context of the Agniveer's stand and not otherwise.

Sikh Gurus and Vedas

Source: http://agniveer.com/3985/sikh-gurus-and-vedas/ Sikhism represents a tradition that every Indian is proud of. The Sikh Gurus have inspired us in an era that was perhaps the most challenging phase of our history. One cannot forget the contributions of Sikh Gurus and their selfless sacrifices to consolidate the society, provide them direction and overthrow the rule of invaders. That is why the Sikh Gurus are revered not only by Sikhs but all nationalists in general as role models. The medieval era represents the darkest phase of our society. Internally we were being eroded by termites of casteism, gender discrimination and overt ritualism dissociated from Vedas. And externally, we were being butchered by a tribe of most uncivilized society of west Asia – read the Ghaznis, Khiljis, Mughals, Slaves, Tughlaqs etc. The Sikh gurus, in these turbulent times, lit the lamp of Vedic wisdom and steered the society towards the fundamental tenets of our culture – rationalism, actions and compassion. Often their is dispute over whether Sikhism is part of Hinduism or a separate religion. In our view, this is a meaningless debate. Because the word Hinduism has different connotations. From a western Mindset, Hinduism represents a mix of very specific rituals associated with casteism, gender discrimination and idol worship. If this be Hinduism, then Sikhs are definitely not Hindus. However, if Hinduism is considered to mean the culture that is inspired from the philosophy of Vedas, then perhaps not many sects are more Hindu than Sikhs. Sikhism represents the message of Vedas in simple language of layman. Let us see what makes Sikhism an extremely pure representation of Vedic wisdom (We shall ignore later day aberrations and focus on the key message of the noble Gurus): - Sikhism rejects birth-based casteism and believes in equality of all - Sikhism believes in gender equality - Sikhism believes in protection of cows because it is one of the most useful gifts of God to humans - Sikhism believes in actions as means to achieve God. Thus they reject withdrawal from life. - Sikhism believes in one single timeless shapeless omnipresent God whose best name is Onkaar (Om + Kaar). This is almost verbatim translation of Yajurveda 40.8. - Sikhism believes in theory of Karma and rebirth - Sikhism refuses the concept of Heaven/ Hell and believe in salvation as ultimate goal - Sikhism believes in Nama Smaran or understanding the names and properties of God as way to achieve Him - Sikhism considers Maya or ignorance as obstacle to salvation and urges to eradicate it through devotion, noble actions and knowledge - Sikhism takes it as our utmost duty to fight against injustice of any kind. The lives of Sikh gurus exemplify this. - Sikhism considers entire humanity as one family and refuses to have different treatments for people of different beliefs and religions. The list can continue further. Note that if you replace Sikhism in above lines with 'Vedic Dharma' you would realize that the points still hold valid. Further, the Guru Granth Sahib very clearly elucidates on the glory of Vedas: 1. God created Vedas (Onkaar ved nirmaye- Rag Ramkali Mahla 1 Onkar Shabd 1) 2. With order of God Vedas were created so that humans can decide what is virtue and sin (Hari aagya hoye Ved paap punya vichaariya- Maru Dakhne Mahla 5 Shabd 17) 3. No one can value the importance of Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda and Atharvaveda (Sam Ved, Rig, Yajur, Atharvan brahme mukh maaiya hai traigun, taakee keemat kah na sakai ko….- Marusolahe Mahla 1 Shabd 17) 4. God created day, night, forests, greenery, water and 4 Vedas that are like 4 treasures (Chaar Ved chaare khaani- Rag Maru Mahla 5 Shabd 17) 5. How can glory of Vedas be stated whose knowledge is without end (Ved vakhaan kahahi i kahiye, oh ve ant ant kin lahiye- Vasant Ashtapadiyan Mahla 1.3) 6. Of the infinite texts, Vedas are the best (Asankh granth mukhi Ved paath- Japuji 17) 7. All the Shastras, Vedas and ancient texts describe the Supreme Lord (Smriti sastra Ved puraan paar brahm ka karahi vakhiyaan- Gaund Mahla 5 Shabd 17) 8. Noble persons elucidate the glory of Vedas but unfortunate people do not understand (Ved bakhiyaan karat saadhujan bhaagheen samjhat nahi khalu- Todi Mahla 5 Shabd 26) 9. Study of Vedas enhances knowledge by blessings of God (Kahant Veda gunant guniya…- Sahaskriti Mahla 5.14) 10. Analysis of Vedas, Shastras and ancient texts enriches the entire family and makes them lucky (Ved puran saasatr vichaaram…. Badbhaagi Naanak ko taaram- Gatha Mahla 5.20) 11. Vedas describe the glory of one God (Kal mein ek naam kripaanidhi … ih vidhi Ved bataavai- Rag Sortha Mahla 9 Shabd 5) 12. Do not say that Vedas are false. False are those people who do not analyze (Ved katev kahahu mat jhoothe jhootha Jo na vichaare- Rag Prabhati Kabirji Shabd 3) 13. Those who studied Vedas were called Vedis. They initiated noble virtuous acts. Listening to Rigveda, Samveda, Yajurveda and Atharveda destroyed all sins. (Jinai Ved padhyo suvedi kahaaye… Padhe Sam Vedam Yajur Ved Kattham Rigam Ved paathayam kare bhaav hattham… Atharav Ved pathayam suniyo paap nathiyam…- Dasham Guru Granth Sahib Vichitra Natak Adhyaya 4) To check more examples of glory of Vedas in Guru Granth Sahib refer the following: 14. Chauth upaaye chaare Veda- Rag Bilawal Mahla 1 Thiti 15. Chache chaar Ved jin saaje chaare khani chaar juga- Rag Asa Mahla 1 Pati Likhi Shabd 9 16. Oordh mool jis saakh talaaha chaar Ved jit laage- Gujri Ashtapadiyan Mahla 1.1 17. Chare Ved hoye sachiyaar- Asadi Var Mahla 1 Var 13 18. Chaturved mukh vachni uchre- Rag Gaudi Mahla 5 Shabd 164 19. Chaturved pooran hari naai Ramkali Mahla 5  Shabd 17 20. Chaar pukaarahi na tu maane Ramkali Mahla 5 Shabd 12 21. Chaar Ved jihwa bhane- Rag Sarang Mahla 5 Shabd 131 22. Brahme ditte Ved Rag Malar Var Mahla 2 Var 3 23. Chaare Ved Brahme kau diye padh padh kare vichari- Rag Asa Mahla 3 Shabd 22 24. Chaare Ved Brahme np furmaayia- Maaru Solahe 3.22 25. Chaare deeve chahu hath diye eka eki vaari- Vasant Hindol 1.1 26. Vedu pukaare vaachiye vaani brahm biaas- Shreeraag Ashtpadiyan 1.7 27. Vedan ganh bole sach koi- Maajh Vaar Mahla 1 Vaar 12 28. Deeva jale andhera jaai Ved paath mati paapan khaai- Raag Suhi 29. Ved pukaarai punn paap surag narak ka veeu- Raag Saarang Vaar 1.16 30. Gurumukhi parche Ved vichari- Raag Ramkali Sidh Gosht Shabd 28 31. Puchhahu Ved pandatiyaan muthi vin maane- Rag Maaru Ashtpadiyan 1.6 32. Man hath kine na paaiyo puchhahu Vedaam jaai- Shri Raag Vaar 3.10 33. Smriti saasat Ved vakhaanai bharmai bhoola tat na jaanai- Rag Maajh Ashtpadiyan 3.18 34. Veda mahi naam uttam so- Rag Ramkali Mahla 3 Aanand 19 35. Hari jeeu ahankaar n bhaavai Ved kook sunaavahi- Rag Maaru 3.9 36. Jugi jugi aapo aapna dharm hai sodh dekhahu Ved puraan- Rag Vilaaval 3.4 37. Saasat Ved puraan pukaarahi dharam karahu shat karam dradaiya- Vilaaval Mahla 4.2 38. Naanak vichaarahi sant jan chaar Ved kahande- Rag Gaudi Vaar 4.12 39. Vaani brahm Ved dharam dradahu paap tajaaiya bal raam jeeu- Suhi Chhant 4.2 40. Das ath chaar Ved sabh poochhahu jan naanak naam chhudaai jeeu- Maaru 4.8 41. Smrat saasat Ved vakhaane jog gyaansidh sukh jaane- Rag Gaudi 5.111 42. Ved puraan smrat bhane- Gaudi 5.144 43. Saasat smrat Ved vichaare mahaapurushan iu kahiya- Rag Gaudi 5.162 44. Ved saasat jan pukaarahi sunai nahi dora- Rag Aasa 5.152 45. Saasat Ved smriti sabhi….- Gujri 5.2 46. Chaar pukaarahi na tu maanahi- Ramkali 5.12 47. Kahant Veda gunant guniya- Salok sahaskriti Mahla 5.14 48. Ved puraan saasatr vichaaram- Gatha Mahla 5.20 49. Ved puraan saadh sang- Rag Gaudi 9.6 50. Ved puraan padhai ko ih gun simre hari ko naama- Rag Gaudi 9.7 51. Ved puraan jaas gun gaavat taako naam hiye mein dhar re- Gaudi 9.9 52. Ved puraan smriti ke mat sun nimash na hiye vasaavai- Rag Sorath 9.7 Now Guru Granth Sahib also consists of several verses that appear to be condemnation of Vedas. These are often cited to prove that Sikhism is a separate cult. However, this is a very childish argument. How can Guru Granth Sahib condemn Vedas when it also praises it to an extent that it calls Vedas divine and that those who do not appreciate Vedas as foolish? In reality, the condemnation of Vedas relate to those people who only mug up Vedas but do not live their lives accordingly. Or those people who distort the message of Vedas by claiming to have expertise. The likes of western indologists and communist historians who see beef and wine in Vedas perfectly exemplify the target of this condemnation. And why Guru Granth Sahib, Vedas themselves condemn such hypocrites. Rigveda 1.164.39 very clearly announces – "What can the Richas of Vedas do for a person who does not possess intellect". Upanishads and Geeta also condemn a person who claims expertise in Vedas but do not preach. If one reviews the Guru Granth Sahib dictionary by renowned Sikh scholar Tara Singhji, you would find a striking similarity between what he wrote on Vedas and what was written by Swami Dayanand. Thus we see that Sikhism represents the essence of Vedic wisdom in simple language of common man and rejects all those external features that are wrongly associated with Hinduism. Our humble reverence to the great Sikh Gurus who saved the society by lighting the lamp of Vedic wisdom when there was utter darkness. Lets now work to carry forward their noble legacy by living by this wisdom and bringing transformation in self, society and world through service, devotion and actions.

Soma, Alcohol and Vedas

Source: http://agniveer.com/3965/soma-alcohol-and-vedas This is a rebuttal on the most frivolous claim that Vedas talk about alcoholism or intoxication by use of some narcotic called Soma. As mentioned in a previous article, the growing popularity of Vedas in recent months seems to be the catalyst for a sudden surge in this allegation. We received a challenge few days ago to explain our stand on this issue. We would get straight to work, explore the truth and address some of the allegations. Allegation: All leading scholars have asserted that Vedas speak of merits of consuming Soma or intoxicants. All Vedic Rishis were addicts of Soma. Agniveer: The above statement is not at all an allegation. On contrary its a fact. And its a fact that makes us admire Vedas so much. Its a fact that has compelled renowned intellectuals of the world to admire Vedas in awe. Its a fact that drives us to put our best efforts to spread the culture of Soma consumption across the world. What needs to be understood is that this intoxication of Soma is no ordinary intoxication. It is that intoxication which inspires noble souls to relentlessly pursue the vision of universal well-being and even face harshest of miseries with a peaceful smile. Multiple meanings of Soma Soma has multiple meanings. However the core essence is that Soma refers to something that produces happiness, peace, relaxation and enthusiasm. Probably that is why in later era, its usage as synonym of alcohol or intoxicant got popular. After all, a hungry dog sees only meat in every body! Same goes for perverted beings. Let us now review some alternate meanings of Soma: - Soma refers to Moon because moonlight provides peace. That is why Mo(o)nday is Somvaar. Now is Moon a wine-shop that it is so called (assuming that Soma means alcohol or narcotic)? - A peaceful and amicable person is called Saumya. Now if Soma means an intoxicant, then why people across different parts of India name their children Saumya? One is invited to read any dictionary to know what Saumya (सौम्य) means. Refer dictionaries of Marathi, Gujarati, Kannada, Bengali, Malayalam etc and you would find scores of words derived from Soma that mean friendliness. - The famous temple of Gujarat (that was plundered by a butcher called Mahmud Ghazni) is called Somnath. If Soma means intoxicant, then perhaps the temple should have allowed it! But as referred earlier, it means a gentle lord or lord of the moon. - Soma also refers to certain medicines that promote longevity and act as relaxant. For example, Giloya which is very useful in heart diseases and provides a cooling effect on body. Primary meaning of Soma in Vedas In Vedas however, in most places, Soma refers to God or Ishwar focusing on those qualities of Ishwar that provides us with peace, bliss, satisfaction and global vision. In few places ESP in Atharvaveda, it has come to mean certain medicines. But nowhere can it be termed to mean a mundane intoxicant. Thus, Rigveda 1.91.22 states that: "O Soma, You alone create the medicines that heal us. You alone create the water that quenches our thirst. You alone create all moving objects, sense organs and living beings and also give us this life. You have provided expanse to this universe and you alone enlighten the world to eradicate darkness." Now only a fool would claim that Soma refers to any intoxicant or alcohol when Soma is said to be creator of universe, stars, life, objects etc. Very clearly Soma refers to the Supreme Lord – the Ishwar or God. And hence, Soma intoxication implies entrenching oneself completely in devotion to that Supreme Lord. To see Him everywhere and guide oneself solely by His inspiration is Soma intoxication. To follow only the inner voice that communicates with us every moment and rejecting all worldly and sensory pressures is Soma intoxication. To rise completely above the old habits, past tendencies and false ego is  Soma intoxication. To surrender totally to Him is Soma intoxication. A rough analogy would be with Superconductivity. Once a material is taken below a certain threshold temperature, suddenly resistance becomes zero. Similarly when we have practiced following our inner voice sufficiently, suddenly the world seems to different – so enlightening, so refreshing, so blissful and so blessed by Him everywhere. This stage of heightened association with Ishwar is the stage of Soma intoixcation that Vedas describe in detail. And yes, it is only when Rishis have reached this stage that they get Vedic inspirations and are able to comprehend meaning of Vedic mantras. It is then that the Rishis 'see' the Vedic mantras through the eyes of intellect. In fact, one is called Rishi only after she or he has reached this enlightening stage of Soma intoxication. Ayurveda very clearly defines what an intoxicant is: Sharngadhar 4.21: A substance that destroys intellect is called an intoxicant. To understand Soma better and see why it cannot refer to any material/mundane chemical even closely related to alcohol, intoxication or narcotics, let us review a few more mantras on Soma. Rigveda 9.24.7: Soma is not only pure in itself but also purifies everything else. Some is extremely sweet and promotes noble qualities. It destroys sinful tendencies. Even a dumb person that understand that Soma refers to something intellectual and spiritual and not something as disgusting as alcohol or narcotics Rigveda 9.37.36: O Soma, purify us from everywhere. Enter us with excitement and strengthen our speech. Inculcate a sharp intellect within us. Thus while alcohol or narcotics is taking to dumb the mind, Rishis yearn for Soma because it sharpens the mind and gears them into noble actions. Rigveda 9.108.3: O Soma, You purify everything. You are the best source of enlightenment. You lead us towards immortality. Should we say more! Atharvaveda 14.1.3: Ordinary people consider that as Soma which is used as medicine. But the enlightened ones seek the Soma of intellect which materialistic minds cannot even comprehend! If we review the Pavamana Parva of Samaveda Purvarchika, we can get a wider glimpse of the Vedic Soma. It is described as something that brings enthusiasm, tolerance and valor. 1.2: O Soma, purify me. 1.3: O Soma, you are source of vitality and bliss. 1.4: O Soma, your intoxication is worth imbibing. 6.5: O Soma, you give birth to our intellect. 6.8: Use Soma to produce intellect. 9.2: Soma provides us with intelligence. 7.12: Intelligence seeks Soma. 9.6: Soma enhances intellect. Thus while Soma produces intoxication, this intoxication actually strengthens our intellect and reduces dumbness. 2.5 of Pavamana Parva describes Soma as Chetan or living. Thus Soma is not something inert. It is a living force that enhances intellect. It is the Supreme Lord! How can thus a sensible person relate it with a mundane narcotic? This Parva of Samaveda provides some more adjectives of Soma: 3.2: One who sees everything actively (Vicharshani) 5.9: Extremely intelligent (Vipra) 5.9: Best of the scholars (Angirastamah) 9.1: Expert (Vichakshanah) 8.4: Knows self (Swarvidah) 2.10: Sees everything clearly (Kavi) 3.6: Knows his duties perfectly (Kratuvit) 11.1: An intoxication that inspires us to perform duties perfectly (Kratuvittamo Madah) 8.4: One who knows the path clearly (Gatuvittamah) 1.7: Adept (Daksha) 1.8: Source of adeptness (Dakshasadhana) 4.2: Adeptness that provides happiness (Daksham Mayobhuvam) 5.11: Provides strength (Vajasatam) 6.7: Protector of world (Bhuvanasya Gopaa) If this be not enough, the Parva also states Soma to be: 5.1: One seated on the home of immortality 6.3: One who inspires noble minds towards fundamental truth (Rita) 6.2: Speaks to us (Inner voice) 2.3: Destroys hatred 4.12: Inspires towards friendship and solidarity 4.14: Destroys meanness and violence 10.11: Destroys corrupt mindset 8.4: Devoid of sins 6.6: Provides whatever is worth obtaining 6.1: Greatest donor 7.4: Carrier of life force 4.3: Desired by non-violent minds This is merely a small sampler from the copious references from Vedas that very clearly establish Soma as the pure blissful Ishwar and its intoxication as complete surrender to the Supreme Lord. Vedas and intoxication Almost every other mantra of Vedas yearn for enhancement of intellect/ health and repulsion towards all those tendencies and articles that destroy these. Be it the Gayatri Mantra or the Mrityunjaya, all exemplify this. To conclude the discussions, let us provide a few references from Vedas that condemn intoxication. Rigveda 10.5.6: One becomes sinful if he or she crosses even one of the 7 restraints. Yaskacharya defines these 7 sins in his Nirukta as: Theft, Adultery, Murder of a noble person, Abortion, Dishonesty, Repeating misdeeds and consumption of alcohol. Rigveda 8.2.12: Those who consume intoxicants lose their intellect, talk rubbish, get naked and fight with each other. Rigveda 7.86.6: An action performed as per the inner voice does not lead to sins. Dumb arrogance against inner voice, however, is source of frustration and miseries in same manner as intoxication and gambling destroy us. Ishwar inspires those with noble elevated thoughts towards progress and propels down those who decide to think lowly. Lowly acts performed even in dreams cause decline. Atharvaveda 6.70.1: Weak minds are attracted towards meat, alcohol, sensuality and womanizing. But O non-violent mind, you focus your mind towards the world in same manner as a mother cares for her child. In summary, intoxication is considered as recipe for weakness, failure and destruction! Allegation: Even Vivekananda has asserted that Vedas justified alcoholism. How do explain: "The old gods were found to be incongruous — these boisterous, fighting, drinking, beef-eating gods of the ancients — whose delight was in the smell of burning flesh and libations of strong liquor. Sometimes Indra drank so much that he fell upon the ground and talked unintelligibly. These gods could no longer be tolerated." This is taken from http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_2/jnana-yoga/maya_and_the_evolution_of_the_conception_of_god.htm Agniveer: If this is indeed written by Swami Vivekananda, it only shows that he had not studied Vedas properly and his thoughts on Vedas were influenced by western indologists. It also shows that every human being, howsomuch great may have imperfections. So one should not accept anyone blindly and instead apply her own analytical faculty to discover the truth. While we respect Swami Vivekananda as a charismatic personality, powerful orator and impressive writer on neo-Vedanta, he is not an authority for us in matters of Vedas. It seems that Swami Vivekananda due to his lack of study of Vedas coupled with bias towards meat made this statement, if at all he stated so. We have provided with specific references from Vedas that beef and alcohol have no place in Vedic dharma. Instead of quoting personal views of Swami Vivekananda or any person for that matter, one should quote from Vedas to refute the stand that has been taken by us as well as all sages from inception of Vedas till date. By the way, another interesting point to think about is that if indeed Vedas recommend beef and alcohol, why have been the traditional Vedic Brahmins farthest from these vices for ages? Just food (not beef or alcohol!) for thought. Allegation: Vedic scholars like Radhakrishnan and K M Munshi – founder of Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan – have also stated that Vedic rishis used to drink alcohol and eat beef. Agniveer: We are not sure about Dr Radhakrishnan, but we agree that K M Munshi held such views that he expressed in his novel Lopamudra. We would only say that many works of K M Munshi have been derogatory to our ancient heritage and role models as well as are completely baseless. Several of his novels are full of vulgarity. His series on Krishna was extremely offensive. Same goes for Lopamudra. He was a political person and it is unfortunate that he treaded into an area that he shouldn't have unless he had the right competence. The works of Bharati Vidya Bhawan in this area have been most damaging and misleading. Please refer "Vedon ka Yatarth Swaroop" by Pt Dharmadeva which comprehensively addresses false allegations of Vedic Age, Lopamudra and other derogatory texts. You can obtain it from www.vedicbooks.com But regardless of views of personalities howsomuch famous or influential – Dr Radhakrishnan, KM Munshi, Swami Vivekananda or whosoever – we would seek specific and logical references from Vedas instead of empty quotes. Allegation: If Soma means a medicinal plant that no one knows, then all the verses of Vedas that talk of Soma become useless today. Agniveer: We have already shown earlier that Soma means bliss-providing Ishwar. But even if Soma means a medicine that no one knows today, that does not make Vedas irrelevant. That only imply that humanity should strive to explore such useful medicines. A book like modern Quran that demands blind acceptance without having even the time to understand it (there is only one life as per modern scholars of Quran!) has huge number of verses that are supposed to be Gaib or incomprehensible for humans. Then what is the problem with having a vast number of verses in Vedas that are not understood by dumb minds today? After all Vedas provide you with a long cycle of rebirths to finish your homework! It also does not demand that one should complete the course of Vedas or even believe in Vedas to achieve some Heaven and escape some permanent Hell. Allegation: If Vedas do not talk of alcohol or intoxication, why do we have words like Soma, Mada, Madhu in Vedas that relate to intoxication. Agniveer: This is most stupid argument. 1. Vedas offered the first words that depicted root essence. Based on that later vocabularies were built. For example, Soma means bliss giving. Intelligent people used it to depict friendly people etc. But for people on path of decline, even alcohol is apparently bliss giving. Same for other words. 2. Don't we have similar examples in other languages? Gay means a happy person. But what it means today is known to all of us. Interestingly older dictionaries would not even have homosexual as a meaning for gay. Meat not only means flesh but also substance of a point. In fact almost all words have multiple meanings. Only dumb people would try to distort meaning of a sentence through wrong usage. In conclusion, the only reasons why one would see alcohol in Vedas are either they have not studied Vedas or have an antipathy towards Vedas. For rest of us, Vedas only encourage for enhancement of intellect and knowledge. And thus condemn anything that diminishes these. The Soma Ras of Vedas is the divine devotion of the Supreme that elevates us from all miseries, all frustrations, all doubts, all sins and galvanizes us towards virtuous actions with unimaginable enthusiasm and ultimate bliss. May we all work together to spread pursuit of this Soma in entire universe and pray for immortality of all. The call of Soma is for the brave. The call of Soma is for the Yajna (noble selfless actions). The call of Soma is for those warriors who have glorified themselves through constant struggle and relentless efforts. O Soma seekers, destroy the dogs of lust and greed and listen to the most beautiful melody of Soma. (Rigveda 9.101.13) References: Works of Pt Chamupati, Prof Rajendra Jijnasu and Prof Dharmadeva Vidyamartanda.

No Beef in Vedas – 2

Source: http://agniveer.com/3942/no-beef-in-vedas-part2/ No Beef in Vedas We had published an analysis of the allegation that Vedas have references of beef-eating and animal sacrifice in http://agniveer.com/68/no-beef-in-vedas/ . We provided ample evidences in this work that: A. Vedas are completely against animal killing and violence on innocent creatures B. Vedic Yajna is by definition non-violent and animal sacrifice is against Vedic precepts C. Contrary to claims of beef consumption in Vedas, there are references that call for protection of cows and destruction of those who kill this most productive and harmless animal. Thankfully after the publication of this work, the slanderous campaign against Vedas has lost its teeth significantly and no reasonable rebuttal to the content of the work ever surfaced. However, a few minor voices have continued to mislead people on this issue using splinter quotes from translations of Vedic literature by incompetent western indologists and juxtaposing them with their own agenda. In this work, we would attempt to address some of those allegations and make the two part work a reasonable single point reference to counter any such misled campaign in future. For those desiring a more detailed exposition, we have already provided a list of references at the end of Part 1 of the work. So lets begin: Allegation: It is well-known that animal sacrifice was necessary in Yajna. Vedas are full of praise of Yajnas. Agniveer: Yajna word is derived from root 'Yaj' by adding Nan pratyaya. Yaj root has three meanings : Devapuja (behaving appropriately with the entities around- worshipping Eeshvar, respecting parents, keeping the environment clean etc are few examples), Sangatikaran (Unity) and Daan (Charity). As per Vedas, these form the primary duty of human beings and hence Yajna is so emphasized not only in Vedas but in almost entire Indian literature of ancient era. What is important however is the fact that Yajna has no reference to animal killing whatsoever. In fact, Nirukta (Vedic vocabulary) clearly states in 2.7 that Yajna is called Adhwara. Dhwara means violence and hence it is totally banned in Yajna. In other words, forget about animal killing, any kind of violence – through mind, body or voice – is completely banned in Yajna. Adhwara is used to imply Yajna in a large number of mantras in the Vedas. For example, Rigveda 1.1.4, 1.1.8, 1.14.21, 1.128.4, 1.19.1, Atharvaveda 4.24.3, 18.2.2, 1.4.2, 5.12.2, 19.42.4.  Around 43 mantras in Yajurveda refer to Adhwara. In fact Yajurveda 36.18 clearly states that "May I look upon everyone – Sarvaani Bhootani (and not only human beings) with friendly eyes." Thus, Vedas, nowhere justify animal sacrifice and on contrary condemn any form of violence on innocent beings. Historically, there may have been prevalence of animal sacrifice, but that has nothing to do with content of Vedas. Many Muslim girls and boys have been working as vulgar models and actresses in film industry. In fact in Bollywood, most top actors and actresses have been Muslims. This does not necessarily mean Quran justifies vulgarity. Similarly, adultery and pre-marital sex is widespread in Christian countries. This does not mean Bible demands them to indulge in these vices. In same vein, while animal sacrifice may have been an historical phenomenon due to decadence of Vedic values, we openly challenge anyone to cite even one single reference from Vedas that talk of animal sacrifice in Yajna. Allegation: If that be so, what about Ashwamedha, Naramedha, Ajamedha, Gomedha yajnas? Medha means killing and Vedas even justify Naramedha (human sacrifice). Agniveer: We have already discussed in Part 1 that the word medha does not necessarily mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to the intellect. Alternatively it could mean consolidation or nurturing, as evident from the root meaning of medha I.e. Medhru San-Ga-me (refer Dhatupath) When we already know that Yajnas are supposed to be Adhwara or non-violent, why should we take Medha to mean violence? Don't we call an intelligent person – Medhaavi or name our daughters Medhaa. Do we imply they are violent people or intelligent persons? Shatpath 13.1.6.3 and 13.2.2.3 clearly states that: A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra the nation or empire is known as the Ashwamedh yajna. Thus likes of Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaq, Netaji, Shivaji, Tilak etc performed Ashwamedha Yajna. To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make a good use of the rays of Sun or keep the earth free from impurities[clean] is called Gomedha Yajna. The word Gau also means the Earth and the yajna dedicated to keep the Earth the environment clean is called Gomedha Yajna. (refer Nighantu 1.1, and Shatpath 13.15.3). The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna. Dedicated efforts for training and productivity of people is also Naramedha Yajna or Purushmedha Yajna or Nriyajna. Aja means grains. So Ajamedha Yajna refers to increasing agricultural productivity or in a very narrow sense : using grains in Agnihotra. Refer Shantiparva 337.4-5. Vishnu Sharma in Panchatantra (Kakoliyam) clearly states that those who perform animal sacrifice in Yajna are fools because they do not understand Vedas properly. If one goes to Heaven by animal sacrifice, what could be the path to go to Hell! Mahabharat Shantiparva has two shlokas in Shantiparva that those who state that Yajna contain alcohol, fish or meat are frauds, atheists and devoid of knowledge of Shastras. (263.6, 265.9) Allegation: What about Yajurveda 24.29 which uses words 'Hastina Aalambhate' that means sacrifice of elephants? Agniveer: Who told you that Alambha derived from Labha root means sacrifice or killing? Labha means to acquire or gain. While Hastina has a deeper meaning beyond elephant, even if we take it to mean elephant in this mantra, it only says that the king should acquire elephants for nurture of his kingdom. What is so violent about it? Alambha is used in several places to mean 'acquire' or 'gain'. For example, Manusmriti prohibits indulging in women for Brahmacharis by saying " Varjayet Streenam Alambham". Thus this conjecture is completely out of place. May be those who concocted Aalambhate to mean killing in Vedic mantras were themselves addicted  to killing animals for food and hence their first instinct of deriving benefits from animals was to imply killing them. Allegation: But what about 'Sanjyapan' used in Brahmana and Shraut texts to mean sacrifice? Agniveer: Refer Atharvaveda 6.10.94.95 which says that we should do Sanjyapan of mind, body and heart. Does it mean we should commit suicide! Sanjyapan simply means unity and nurture. The mantra says that we should strengthen our mind, body and heart and ensure they work in unity. Sanjyapan also means 'to inform'. Allegation: You are escaping every time from being trapped. But no more. What do you have to say about Yajurveda 25.34-35 / Rigveda 1.162.11-12 which states that: "What from thy body which with fire is roasted, when thou art set upon the spit, distilleth,— Let not that lie on earth or grass neglected, but to the longing Gods let all be offered." "They who, observing that the Horse is ready, call out and say, The smell is good; remove it; And, craving meat, await the distribution,—may their approving help promote our labour." Very clearly there is explicit description of horse sacrifice. Agniveer: We believe you have quoted from the trash works of Griffith. The first has no reference to horse. It simply means that when people are suffering due to high temperatures/ fever, the doctors should care for them and provide them treatment. In second mantra, all he did was to assume that Vaajinam word means 'horse'. However, 'Vajinam' means a brave/strong/ dynamic/ fast entity. Thus horse is also known as Vaajinam. There can be many interpretations of the mantras, however none lead to horse sacrifice. In fact, even if we mean that Vaajinam means horse, still the very verse in fact means that those who attempt to kill horses (Vajinam) should be prevented from doing so. We strongly recommend reviewing the translation by Swami Dayanand Saraswati for these mantras. Also, refer to huge number of mantras provided in Part 1 of the article (http://agniveer.com/68/no-beef-in-vedas/ ) that explicitly prohibit animal killing and severe punishment for animal killers – especially killers of horses and cows. Allegation: What about reference to Goghna or killing of cows in Vedas? What about Atithigva/ Atithigna or a person who served beef to guests? Agniveer: In Part 1, we gave ample references of cow being Aghnya or Aditi – not worthy of being killed. We also gave references of strict punishment in Vedas for those who destroy cows. Gam root means 'to go'. That is why planets are also called 'Go' because they move. Atithigna/ Atithigva means one who goes towards the guest or serves his guests sincerely. Goghna has several meanings. Even if we take 'Go' to mean cow, Goghna means Go+Han : Approaching cow. (Han root means Movement and Knowledge apart from Violence). There are many references in Vedas where Han is used for approaching and not killing, For example, Atharvaveda states "Husband should Han-approach the wife." Thus these allegations are equally baseless. Allegation: Vedas talk of not killing young cows. But old barren cows (Vashaa) are supposed to be killed. Similarly, Uksha or bulls should be killed as per Vedas. Agniveer: This hypothesis was popularized in recent times by yet another pseudo-scholar D N Jha to defend his assertion of beef-eating in Vedas despite obvious contradictions that come up because of verses in Vedas that state the exact opposite. With home-grown defective pieces, who needs enemies from outside! The fact is that Uksha refers to a medicinal herb, also known as Soma. Even someone like Monier Williams in his Sanskrit-English Dictionary states the same. Vashaa refers to controlling powers of God and not a barren cow. If Vasha is used to mean a barren cow, then many Vedic verses will make no sense. For example, Atharvaveda 10.10.4 uses Sahasradhara or Thousand flows in relation with Vasha. How can a barren cow be compared with Sahasradhara used to denote ample food, milk and water. Atharvaveda 10.190 states that Vashi means controlling power of God and is recited twice daily in Vedic Sandhya. In other verses, Vashaa is used also as productive land or a good wife with children (Atharvaveda 20.103.15) or a medicinal herb. Monier Williams also uses the word to mean a herb in his dictionary. We fail to understand which divine inspiration prompted these pseudo-scholars to concoct that Vashaa means a barren cow. Allegation: Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6.4.18 clearly states that if a couple desires a noble son, they should eat Meat with rice (Mansodanam) or Bull (Arshabh) or Calf (Uksha). Agniveer: 1. Now that there is nothing to show in Vedas, focus of allegation has shifted to Upanishads. But even if one is able to prove beef eating in Upanishads, that still does not prove that there is beef in Vedas. And the foundation of Hinduism is that Vedas are supreme. Refer Purva Meemansa 1.3.3, Manusmriti 2.13, Manusmriti 12.95, Jabalasmriti, Bhavishya Puran etc which clearly state that if there is discrepancy between Vedas and other Shastras, then Vedas are considered supreme and the rest is rejected. 2. Having said this, we will show that the particular references from Brihadaranyak has been misinterpreted. 3. Let us take Mansodanam first. There are 4 more verses just before this verse that recommend eating particular edibles with rice for having a child with Vedic wisdom of different types. The other edibles are: Ksheerodanam (Milk with rice), Dadhyodanam (Yogurt with rice), Water with rice and Tila (a pulse) with rice for experts in other Vedas. Thus it is ONLY for mastery of Atharvaveda that Mansodanam or meat with rice is recommended. This itself shows that the particular reference is an anomaly. 4. In reality, the right word is Mashodanam and NOT Mansodanam. Masha means a kind of pulse. Hence there is nothing fleshy about it. In fact, for pregnant women, meat is completely prohibited as per Ayurveda. Refer Sushruta Samhita. There is also a verse in Sushrut Samhita that recommends Masha for husband and wife for a good son. Thus it is obvious that Brihadaranyaka has also explained the same concept as elucidated in Sushruta Samhita. There is no reason why the two texts would differ in Masha and Mansa. 5. Even if someone asserts that it is not Masha but Mansa, still Mansa means pulp and not necessarily meat. There are ample usages of Mansa as pulp in ancient texts. Thus Amramansam means pulp of mango. Khajuramansam means pulp of date. Refer Charak Samhita for such examples. Taittriya Samhita 2.32.8 uses Mansa for curd, honey and corn. 6. We have already seen that Uksha means a herb or Soma, even as per Monier Williams Dictionary. The same dictionary also lists Rishabh (from which Arshabh is derived) to mean a kind of medicinal plant (Carpopogan pruriens). Charak Samhita 1.4-13 lists Rishabh as a medicinal plant. Same is mentioned in Sushrut Samhita 38 and Bhavaprakash Purna Khanda. 7. Further both Arshabh (Rishabh) and Uksha mean bull and none means 'calf'. So why were synonyms used to mention the same thing in the shloka from Brihadaranyak. This is like saying, one should eat either curd or yogurt! Thus, obviously the two words mean two different things. And considering that all the other verses mention herbs and pulses, these words also mean the same. Allegation: What about Mahabharat Vana Parva 207 that explicitly states that King Rantideva used to have Yajnas where huge number of cows used to be killed? Agniveer: Again, as mentioned previously, if there is dispute between Vedas and any other text, then Vedas are considered supreme. Further, Mahabharat is a grossly interpolated and adulterated text and hence not considered authority in itself. The allegation of cow-killing at Rantideva's palace is a fraud allegation refuted decades ago by several scholars. 1. Anushasan Parva 115 lists Rantideva as one of the kings who never consumed meat. How can that be possible if beef was amply available at his palace? 2. We have already proven that Mansa does not necessarily mean meat. 3. The particular shloka alleges that each day 2000 cows were killed. This means more than 720,000 cows were killed each year. Is it logical to take such a shloka seriously? 4. Mahabharat Shantiparva 262.47 asserts that one who kills cows or bulls is a great sinner. The same Mahabharat calls King Rantideva a great saint and pious person. How can there be such a blatant contradiction in same text? 5. In reality, the shlokas have been distorted by misled scholars like Rahul Sankrityayana who are known for their Vedas bashing. Rahul Sankrityayana deliberately quoted only 3 lines of the verse and left 1 line from Dronaparva Chapter 67 first two shlokas. He misinterpreted Dwishatsahasra to mean 2000 when it actually means 200 thousand. This itself shows his competence in Sanskrit. None of these lines have any reference to beef. And when combined with 4th line that he deliberately missed, it means that Rantideva had 200,000 cooks in his kingdom who used to serve good food (rice, pulses, cooked food, sweets etc) day and night to guests and scholars. Then the word 'Masha' from the next shloka was changed to 'Mansa' to imply that it talked of beef. 6. On contrary there are ample verses in Mahabharat which talk of non-violence and condemn beef eating. Further they praise charity of cows and their nurture. 7. Fools have interpreted Badhyate to mean killing. However this is not so as per any Sanskrit text on grammar or usage. Badhyate means to control. Thus, there is no way that one can prove that King Rantideva used to have cows killed. To conclude, all allegations of beef or meat in Vedas or Vedic texts are merely desperate attempts by perverted minds to project their own vices on the most noble texts of the world. May the light of wisdom enlighten their minds and may we all together make the world a sensible place.

There is no Beef in Vedas by Agniveer

Source: http://agniveer.com/68/no-beef-in-vedas/

The material presented here is based on a thorough and objective analysis of roots of Vedic words, the context in which they appear, Vedic Vocabulary,  Philology, Grammar and other tools critical for correct interpretation of the Vedic mantras. Thus this research series does not merely rely on blind reproduction of works of Max Muller, Griffith, Wilson, Williams and other indologists on Vedas and Vedic language. While they are more popular in contemporary western academia, we have objective reasons to conclude that their works are far from authoritative. We shall explore this facet in more detail in this research series.

Welcome to this first part of the research series on critical evaluation of Misconceptions surrounding the Vedas – the first books of knowledge on earth.

For centuries aspersions have been cast upon the Vedas; the primary holy scriptures of the Hindus of having unholy contents. If one really started believing in those aspersions, the entire Hindu philosophy, culture, and traditions would reduce to nothing but savagery, barbarism and cannibalism.

The Vedas – the very roots of Hinduism, rather the first source of knowledge on earth – are meant for guiding the actions of human being in order to lead a blissful life.

This slanderous campaign has been unleashed by different vested interests to embarrass Hindus around the world citing specific references from the Vedas.

This also comes handy in convincing poor and illiterate Indians to give up their faith on the grounds that their fundamental holy books – the Vedas – contain all the inhuman elements like denigration of women, meat-eating, polygamy, casteism and above all – beef eating.

The Vedas are also accused of animal sacrifice in sacrificial ceremonies popularly known as the YAJNA. Interestingly a section of home-bred intellectuals claiming to have deep study of ancient India has also come up, who cite references from works of western indologists to prove such unholy content in the Vedas.

Saying that the Vedas permit beef-eating and cow-slaughter amounts to striking a lethal blow to a Hindu’s soul. Respect for cow forms a core tenet of Hinduism. Once you are able to convince him of flaws in the foundation of this core tenet and make him feel guilty, he becomes an easy prey for the predator faiths. There are millions of ill-informed Hindus who are not empowered to counter argue and hence quietly surrender.

The vested interests that malign the Vedas are not confined to foreign and home-bred indologists alone. A certain class among Hindus exploited the rest of the population including the socially and economically weaker sections by forcing them to believe and follow what they said in the name of Vedas or else face the wrath.

All the slanders heaped upon the Vedas can be attributed mainly to the interpretations of commentaries written by Mahidhar, Uvat and Saayan in the medieval times; and to what Vam-margis or the Tantra cult propagated in their books in the name of the Vedas.

In due course the falsehood spread far and wide and they became even more deep rooted when western scholars with their half baked knowledge of Sanskrit transliterated these interpretations of commentaries of Sayan and Mahidhar, in the name of translating the Vedas.

However, they lacked the pre-requisite understanding of Shiksha (Phonetics), Vyakarana (Grammar), Nirukta (Philology), Nighantu (Vocabulary), Chhanda (Prosody), Jyotish (Astronomy), Kalpa and so on that are critical for correct interpretation of the Vedas.

The purpose behind this series of videos is to objectively evaluate all such misconceptions about the Vedas – the foundation of human knowledge and establish their piety, sanctity, great ideals and philosophy that cater not only to Hindus but to every human being without bars, bias or discrimination of any kind.

Section 1: No  violence against animals
——————————————
Yasmintsarvaani bhutaanyaatmaivaabhuudvijaanatah
Tatra ko mohah kah shokah ekatvamanupasyatah
Yajurveda 40.7

“Those who see all beings as souls do not feel infatuation or anguish at their sight, for they experience oneness with them”.
How could people who believed in the doctrines of indestructibility, transmigration  dare to kill living animals in yajnas? They might be seeing the souls of their own near and dear ones of bygone days residing in those living beings.
———————————————
Anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayee
Samskartaa chopahartaa cha khadakashcheti ghaatakaah
Manusmrithi 5.51
Those who permit slaying of animals; those who bring animals for slaughter; those who slaughter; those who sell meat; those who purchase meat; those who prepare dish out of it; those who serve that
meat and those who eat are all murderers.
———————————————
Breehimattam yavamattamatho maashamatho tilam
Esha vaam bhaago nihito ratnadheyaaya dantau maa hinsishtam pitaram maataram cha
Atharvaveda 6.140.2

O teeth! You eat rice, you eat barley, you gram and you eat sesame. These cereals are specifically meant for you. Do not kill those who are capable of being fathers and mothers.
——————————————–
Ya aamam maansamadanti paurusheyam cha ye kravih
Garbhaan khaadanti keshavaastaanito naashayaamasi
Atharvaveda 8.6.23

We ought to destroy those who eat cooked as well as uncooked meat, meat involving destruction of males and females, foetus and eggs.
——————————————-
Anago hatya vai bheema kritye
Maa no gaamashvam purusham vadheeh
Atharvaveda 10.1.29

It is definitely a great sin to kill innocents. Do not kill our cows, horses and people.

How could there be justification of cow and other animals being killed when killing is so clearly prohibited in the Vedas?
———————————————
Aghnyaa yajamaanasya pashoonpahi
Yajurveda 1.1

“O human! animals are Aghnya – not to be killed. Protect the animals”
———————————————
Pashunstraayethaam
Yajurveda 6.11

Protect the animals.
———————————————
Dwipaadava Chatushpaatpaahi
Yajurveda 14.8

Protect the bipeds and quadrupeds!
———————————————-
Kravy da –kravya[ meat obtained from slaughter] + Ada [ the eater]—the meat eater.

Pisacha — pisita [meat] +asa [eater]—the meat eater.

Asutrpa — Asu [breath of life] + trpa [one who satisfies himself on]—one who takes others life for his meals.

Garba da and Anda da – the foetus and egg eaters.

Mans da – the meat eaters

Meat eaters have always been looked down in Vedic literature. They have been known as Rakshasas, Pisacha and so on….All these words are synonyms of demons or devils that have been out-cast from the civilized human society.
——————————————–
Urjam no dhehi dwipade chatushpade
Yajurveda 11.83

“May all bipeds and quadrupeds gain strength and nourishment”

This mantra is recited by Hindus before every meal. How could the same philosophy which prays for well-being of every soul in every moment of life, approve of killing animals?
———————————————–
Section 1: No  violence in Yajna

Yajna never meant animal sacrifice in the sense popularly understood. Yajna in the Vedas meant a noble deed or the highest purifying action.

—————————————–
Adhvara iti Yajnanaama – Dhvaratihimsaakarmaa tatpratishedhah
Nirukta 2.7

According to Yaaska Acharya, one of the synonyms of Yajna in Nirukta or the Vedic philology is Adhvara.

Dhvara means an act with himsa or violence. And therefore a-dhvara means an act involving no himsa or no violence. There are a large number of such usage of Adhvara in the Vedas.
———————————————

In the post-Mahabharata period, misinterpretation of the Vedas and interpolations in other scriptures took place at various points intime. Acharya Shankar reestablished the Vedic values to an extent.

In the more recent times, Swami Dayanand Saraswati – known as the grandfather of modern India – interpreted the Vedas as per thecorrect rules of the language and authentic evidences. His literature, which includes commentary on the Vedas, Satyarth Prakash loosely translated as Light of Truth, An Introduction to the Vedas and other texts led to widespread social reformation based on Vedic philosophy and dispelling of myths surrounding the Vedas.

Let us discover what the Vedas have to say on Yajna.

————————————–
Agne yam yagnamadhvaram vishwatah pari bhuurasi
Sa id deveshu gacchati
Rigveda 1.1.4

O lord of effulgence! The non-violent Yajna, you prescribe from all sides, is beneficial for all, touches divine proportions and is accepted by noble souls.
—————————————-

The Rigveda describes Yajna as Adhvara  or non violent throughout. Same is the case with all the other Vedas. How can it be then concluded that the Vedas permit violence or slaughter of animals?

The biggest accusation of cattle and cow slaughter comes in the context of the Yajnas that derived their names from different cattle like the Ashwamedh Yajna, the Gomedha Yajna and the Nar-medh Yajna. Even by the wildest stretch of the imagination the word Medha would not mean slaughter in this context.

It’s interesting to note what Yajurveda says about a horse
——————————————————–
Imam ma himsirekashafam pashum kanikradam vaajinam vaajineshu
Yajurveda 13.48

Do not slaughter this one hoofed animal that neighs and who goes with a speed faster than most of the animals.
———————————————————-

Aswamedha does not mean horse sacrifice at Yajna. Instead the Yajurveda clearly mentions that a horse ought not to be slaughtered.

In Shathapatha, Ashwa is a word for the nation or empire

The word medha does not mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to the intellect Alternatively it could mean consolidation, as evident from the root meaning of medha i.e. medhru san-ga-me

Raashtram vaa ashwamedhah
Annam hi gau
Agnirvaa ashwah
Aajyam medhah
(Shatpath 13.1.6.3)

Swami Dayananda Saraswati wrote in his Light of Truth:

A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra the nation or empire is known as the Ashwamedh yajna.

“To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make the food pure or to make a good use of the rays of Sun or keep the earth free from impurities[clean] is called Gomedha Yajna”.

“The word Gau also means the Earth and the yajna dedicated to keep the Earth the environment clean is called Gomedha Yajna”

“The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna”.
———————————————–

Section 3: No beef in Vedas

Not only the Vedas are against animal slaughter but also vehemently oppose and prohibit cow slaughter.Yajurveda forbids killing of cows, for they provide energizing food for human beings

———————————
Ghrtam duhaanaamaditim janaayaagne maa himsiheeh
Yajurveda 13.49

Do not kill cows and bulls who always deserve to be protected.

—————————————-
Aare gohaa nrhaa vadho vo astu
Rigveda 7.56.17

In Rigveda cow slaughter has been declared a heinous crime equivalent to human murder and it has been said that those who commits this crime should be punished.
—————————————–
Sooyavasaad bhagavatee hi bhooyaa atho vayam bhagvantah syaama
Addhi trnamaghnye vishwadaaneem piba shuddhamudakamaacharantee
Rigveda 1.164.40 or Atharv 7.73.11 or Atharv 9.10.20

The Aghnya cows – which are not to be killed under any circumstances– may keep themselves healthy by use of pure water and green grass, so that we may be endowed with virtues, knowledge and wealth.

—————————————
The Vedic Lexicon, Nighantu, gives amongst other synonyms of Gau[ or cow] the words Aghnya. Ahi, and Aditi. Yaska the commentator on Nighantu, defines these as-
Aghnya the one that ought not to be killed
Ahi the one that must not be slaughtered.
Aditi the one that ought not to be cut into pieces.

These three names of cow signify that the animal ought not to be put to tortures. These words appear frequently throughout the Vedas in context of the cow.

——————————————–

Aghnyeyam saa vardhataam mahate soubhagaaya

Rigveda 1.164.27
Cow – The aghnya – brings us health and prosperity

Suprapaanam Bhavatvaghnyaayaah
Rigveda 5.83.8
There should be excellent facility for pure water for Aghnya Cow

Yah paurusheyena kravishaa samankte yo ashwena pashunaa yaatudhaanah

Yo aghnyaayaa bharati ksheeramagne teshaam sheershaani harasaapi vrishcha
Rigveda 10.87.16

Those who feed on human, horse or animal flesh and those who destroy milk-giving Aghnya cows should be severely punished.

Vimucchyadhvamaghnyaa devayaanaa aganma
Yajurveda 12.73
The Aghnya cows and bulls bring you prosperity

Maa gaamanaagaamaditim vadhishta
Rigveda 8.101.15
Do not kill the cow. Cow is innocent and aditi – that ought not to be cut into pieces

Antakaaya goghaatam
Yajurveda 30.18
Destroy those who kill cows

Yadi no gaam hansi yadyashwam yadi poorusham
Tam tvaa seesena vidhyaamo yatha no so aveeraha
Atharvaveda 1.16.4

If someone destroys our cows, horses or people, kill him with a bullet of lead.

Vatsam jaatamivaaghnyaa
Atharvaveda 3.30.1
Love each other as the Aghnya – non-killable cow – loves its calf

Dhenu sadanam rayeenaam
Atharvaveda 11.1.34
Cow is fountainhead of all bounties

The entire 28th Sukta or Hymn of 6th Mandal of Rigveda sings the glory of cow.
Aa gaavo agnamannuta bhadramakrantseedantu

Bhooyobhooyo rayimidasya vardhayannabhinne

Na taa nashanti na dabhaati taskaro naasaamamitro vyathiraa dadharshati

Na taa arvaa renukakaato ashnute na samskritramupa yanti taa abhi

Gaavo bhago gaava indro me achhaan

Yooyam gaavo medayathaa

Maa vah stena eeshata maaghanshasah

1. Everyone should ensure that cows are free from miseries and kept healthy.
2. God blesses those who take care of cows.
3. Even the enemies should not use any weapon on cows
4. No one should slaughter the cow
5. Cow brings prosperity and strength

6. If cows keep healthy and happy, men and women shall also keep disease free and prosperous

7. May the cow eat green grass and pure water. May they not be killed and bring prosperity to us.

———————————————-

What more proofs does one need to understand the high esteem in whichnot only the cow but each living being is held in the Vedas.

The learned audience can decide for themselves from these evidences that the Vedas are completely against any inhuman practice… to top it all the Beef and Cow slaughter.

There is no Beef in Vedas.

——————————————
Bibliography:

1.    Rigveda Bhashya – Commentary on Rigveda by Swami Dayanand Saraswati

2.    Yajurveda Bhashya – Commentary on Yajurveda by Swami Dayanand Saraswati
3.    No Beef in Vedas by BD Ukhul

4.    Vedon ka Yatharth Swaroop (True nature of Vedas) by Pt Dharmadeva Vidyavachaspati
5.    All 4 Veda Samhita by Pt Damodar Satvalekar

6.    Pracheen Bharat me Gomamsa – Ek Sameeksha (Beef in Ancient India – an analysis) by Geeta Press, Gorakhpur
7.    The Myth of Holy Cow – by DN Jha
8.    Hymns of Atharvaveda – Griffith
9.    Scared Books of the east – Max Muller
10.    Rigveda translations by Williams/Jones
11.    Sanskrit English Dictionary – Monier Williams
12.    Commentary on Vedas by Dayanand Sansthan
13.    Western Indologists – a study of motives by Pt Bhagvadutt
14.     Satyarth Prakash by Swami Dayanand Saraswati
15.     Introduction to Vedas by Swami Dayanand Saraswati
16.     Cloud over understanding of Vedas by BD Ukhul
17.    Shathpath Brahman
18.     Nirukta – Yaska Acharya
19.     Dhatupath – Panini
————————————————————

Addendum on 14 April 2010:

After this article, there was severe reaction from various sources who cannot live with the fact that Vedas and ancient culture of our nation could have been more ideal than their current communistic ideals. I received several mails that tried to refute the articles by citing additional references that support beef-eating. These include 2 mantras from Rigveda, and some Shlokas from Manu Smriti and a few other texts. An example is the comment from Avtar Gill on this page itself. On these, I have to say the following:

a. The article has given evidence from Manu Smriti itself which states that even one who permits killing is a murderer. Thus all these additional shlokas are either from adulterated Manu Smriti or misinterpreted by twisting of words. I recommend them to read Manu Smriti by Dr Surendra Kumar which is available from http://vedicbooks.com

b. A typical example of foul play by those hell-bent on justifying their obsession with beef in ancient texts, is to translate Mansa as ‘meat’. In reality, ‘Mansa’ is a generic word used to denote pulp. Meat is called ‘Mansa’ because it is pulpy. So mere presence of ‘Mansa’ does not mean it refers to meat.

c. The other texts referred by them are among dubious ones not considered authoritative evidence. Their modus operandi is simple – state anything written in Sanskrit as Dharma and translate the way they want to prove whatever they want. This is how they have been fooling us all by filling our textbooks with all unverified demeaning claims.

d. With regards to Vedas, they could come up with two mantras that supposedly justify beef eating. Let us evaluate them:

Claim: Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
Fact: The mantra states that in winter, the rays of sun get weakened and then get strong again in spring. The word used for sun-rays in ‘Go’ which also means cow and hence the mantra can also be translated by making ‘cow’ and not ’sun-rays’ as the subject. The word used for ‘weakened’ is ‘Hanyate’ which can also mean killing. But if that be so, why would the mantra go further and state in next line (which is deliberately not translated) that in spring, they start regaining their original form.

How can a cow killed in winter regain its health in spring? This amply proves how ignorant and biased communists malign Vedas.
Claim: Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”

Fact: The mantra states that brilliant scholars enlighten the world in the manner that wood enhances the fire of Yajna. I fail to understand from where did Avtar Gill and his friends discover Indra, cow, calf, horse and buffalo in this mantra!

In summary, I continue the challenge to everyone – cite one single mantra from Vedas that justify beef-eating and I shall be eager to embrace any faith that he or she may decide for me. If not, they should agree to revert back to the Vedas.