Friday, October 4, 2024

The Vedas and Maxmuller

 




The Vedas and Maxmuller


Authored by Shri Sudhindra

Reproduced by Dr. Vivek Arya


It is said : “All is fair in love and war.’’ We can safely add a rider and say that politics knows no scruples and since International Christianity is a totalitarian political creed she considers no means as foul or unfair to achieve her ends which is to force the entire world to go on its knees before her. With this object Christianity has adopted in the past, and will continue to adopt in future, many an innovation to uproot the Vedic Dharma of the Hindus. Her missionaries have impersonated as Hindu sanyasis ; they have tried to implant a false Veda and one of their numbers, Max Muller, attempted, deliberately, to misinterpret the Vedas! These acts, or rather misdeeds, can hardly be the doings of saintly hearts dedicated to the service of man whom God had created in His own image. Nor should they look forward to salvation because of this. 

At one stage of human history the Romans had attempted, though unsuccessfully, to Romanise religion. Later when Christian political powers became militarily strong they planned to Christianise politics. Of the latter we find more than one examples in this country. 

When on the fateful 23rd June 1757, Clive defeated the forces of Suraj-ud-Dowla at Plassy (Bengal) the British East India Company virtually took over political control of India. As a result the Company now needed more Englishmen to assist in the administration of this enormous empire. 

A very large number of the Englishmen who came out to India were the products of Christian Church seminaries from where nearly all of them came out with one common conviction that the whole world must be baptised and made Christian. One such Englishman who came out to India in 1834 was Thomas Babigton Macaulay on whom, later, a Lordship was conferred for the services he had rendered to the Church and the State. 

What type of a man was this Macaulay is usually not sufficiently well known in this country. He was the son of Zachary Macaulay and the grandson of Rev. John Macaulay, a Presbyterian (one of the different sects of Christianity) minister at Inverary ; Babington Macaulay’s mother was Selina Mills, the daughter of a Quaker. Babington Macaulay was “‘severely educated’’ in the rigid Calvinism (Christian religious belief expounded by John Calvin, the French theologian—it was a rigid creed and the transgressors were severely punished—one, Servetus, was burned alive). Thomas Babington Macaulay is introduced to the world as a “‘historian, essayist and a politician’? but to call him an historian would be a misnomer. In a cyclopaedia we read about him that ——

"in 1848 appeared the first two volumes of his History of England—this brilliant rhetorical exposition, although touched with partisanship and with a tendency to paradox, has attained the position of a classic.” 

This need give us no surprise if we do not lose sight of the fact that in his childhood he had received severe Christian education. His young mind had gathered a bias which like any one else he too could not give up when he started writing. He believed, perhaps honestly. that there is but only one true religion in the world and that is Christianity. We get a very clear glimpse of this attitude in one of his essays which he wrote in April 1839 when he was a mature man, 39 years old. In ‘Education in India' he writes  (Historical Essays by Lord Macaulay, pp. 387, 389) : 


“The education of the people, conducted on those principles of morality which are common to all forms of Christianity, is highly valuable as a means of promoting the main object for which Government exists...There is assuredly no country where it is more desirable that Christianity should’ be propagated.”

                         Macaulay had first come out to India in 1834 as the legal advisor to the Council of India and had stayed here for four years. In 1839 he was in England, was elected an MP and evidently wrote the above lines as a result of his experience and observation in this country during the four years of his stay. That Macaulay had a sharp intellect and a forceful pen no one denies. But it seems his rigid and severe education which he: received as a Christian child stood all his lifetime in his way of becoming an impartial man and a scholar. He gave another proof of his bigoted religious zeal and partisanship when he successfully intervened for the introduction of English language. Arthur W. Jose is of the opinion (The Growth of the Empire, p. 204) that:

 “by a resolution of March 7, 1835, the brains as well as the. swords of all India were placed at the disposal of the (British) Indian Government.’’

 The object of the British Government, which was to try to make India a perpetual slave, appeared for a while to have been achieved but Macaulay had his eye on a far distant target. It was to convert India and the Hindus to Christianity. Only thus the political and cultural slavery of the Indians would be complete. This enemy of India and India’s ancient culture and religion who has been paraded so often and so long as a friend of India unwittingly gave himself away when he wrote a letter, October 12, 1836, to his father. The letter reads (The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay by Rt. Hon’ble Sir George Otto Trevelyan Bart, pp. 329, 330): 

“Calcutta. October 12, 1836—My Dear Father...Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully—the effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious. No Hindoo who has received an English education, ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy, and some embrace Christianity. It is my belief that, if our plans of education are followed up, there will nor be a single idolater among the respectable castes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the prospect.—Ever yours most affectionately, T.B. Macaulay.” 

Letters reveal a man and this letter throws bare the ignominious mind and heart that this British Lord concealed behind the veneer and polish of English education. The docile and peace loving Hindu was told, as he is being briefed today, that English was the window to the world and that the English schools were opened to spread education. But this letter written by Macaulay to his father and which he would have very much wished to have been destroyed after having been received and read exposes Macaulay, who masqueraded as a Friend of India, as a bigoted Christian missionary. He rejoiced at the prospects of this land and its people becoming in the next thirty years, by 1866, Christians. He rejoiced, it appears, at the prospects of succeeding in his plans of education which aimed at slow but sure and complete destruction of the culture and faith of those of whom he feigned, professed and pretended to be friend. He was like a ‘ravening wolf in the clothing of sheep’ and that is why those who understand the role he played as a great enemy of India often exclaim in utter disgust that if Parmatman would save us from our such friends we would ourselves take care of our enemies ! 

In the holy Bible (New Testament, Luke IX: 62) we get this to read as reported to have been said by Jesus Christ: 

“No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. "

Macaulay, who had been severely educated in his childhood, having once put his mind, heart and muscles to the inglorious and irreligious job of destroying Hinduism did not want, like a true Christian, to look back. As a servant of God he was prepared to do all within his power to fit himself for the Kingdom of God. His plans of education included, without any doubt, additional plans of attack on Hinduism from different directions. His keen eyes were in search of someone who would prove handy and agree to become a tool in his hand to further his mission. He was in search of a scholar who could, and would, translate to twist and interpret (or rather misinterpret) Hindu Shastras to Macaulay’s liking. Macaulay’s eyes fell on Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900) who was a German by birth. He picked him for his purpose. 

At this point we shall allow ourselves a little diversion and explain another side-event which had gone a long way in the wilful and planned misinterpretation of the Vedas in which Max Muller was to engage himself. One Col. Boden had founded at Oxford the Boden Chair of Sanskrit. That the intention and the purpose behind the founding of this chair of Sanskrit was only and exclusively to find ways and means to convert the Hindus to Christianity is very clear from Col. Boden’s will that he made before his death. Writing the Preface of his Sanskrit-English Dictionary M. Monier Williams makes a mention of Col. Boden’s will in these words: 

“I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of the Boden Chair, and that its Founder, Colonel Boden, stated most explicitly in his Will (August 15, 1811 A.D.) that the special object of the munificent bequest was to promote the translation of Scriptures into Sanskrit so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion."

It was thus at Oxford, the much advertised seat of learning, that the conspiracy to kill Hindu culture and convert Hindus to Christianity was hatched. Macaulay was a product of this cell and to this cell had been attached in his fruitful years that scholar of Sanskrit whom we know today as Max Muller. 

We have no ground to believe that Max Muller had originally himself wanted to misinterpret the Vedas. He was a man and a scholar of integrity and, perhaps like nearly all scholars, a man without any means. The political conditions in Germany in those days were so unsettled that it must have imposed additional strains, mental and monetary, on Max Muller. So when Macaulay called Max Muller for discussions Max Muller saw in this interview a rare chance for continuing his scholarly researches which must have been extremely dear to his heart. This infamous interview (28th December, 1855) between Macaulay and Max Muller was the real undoing of Max Muller. In 1855, while Macaulay was an experienced worldly man of about 55 years, Max Muller was an immature young man of 32. Against Macaulay who was a politician and, as the saying goes, who had already arrived, Max Muller was a scholar...a man of letters and thought...still struggling to make his mark in the difficult field of scholarship that he had chosen for himself. The youthful ambitions in his scholarly heart gave him many a painful pangs. The simple. inexperienced scholar in him was no match for the crafty politician that was Macaulay. From what Mux Muller said afterwards about this interview we can safely presume that Macaulay had put all his might, skill, craft and rhetoric to subdue, vanquish and win over the scholar Max Muller. Max Muller had to choose between a life of unknown, squalor and want and in the end die unsung and unremembered and a life of fame and plentiful which Macaulay promised him. He knew and realised that in his acceptance of Macaulay’s proposition lay hidden the chance of succeeding as a scholar and in the refusal the possibility of fading into oblivion. Macaulay had made up his mind either to win over Max Muller to his side or jettison him and render him completely innocuous. He was prepared to attack the young scholar with all his might and his job was made easy by the unpreparedness of Max Muller who was caught off balance. Without any doubt Macaulay used every means to confuse, confound and muddle Max Muller’s independent thinking to prevent him from reaching, for himself, a sane, just and correct decision. To achieve this Macaulay very much used, and played upon, Max Muller’s emotions to defeat him. He gave such heavy and alternate doses of ‘fear’ and ‘hope’ that under the well planned onslaught Max Muller’s determination to resist gave way and he succumbed. ‘‘Fame is the thirst of youth” and “is the last infirmity of a noble mind.” The noble mind of young Max Muller fell a prey before the rosy prospects of fame held out before him by this British politician. Max Muller was now in Macaulay’s bag. 

 In India we usually fail to appreciate fully the harm that Christianity has done to us by robbing us of our intellectuals and thinkers. By a calculated process she has always tried and attempted to siphon off to her side the intelligentsia of our society—the thinkers who can influence the masses. According to this Christian plan. concerted attempts were made in Calcutta to convert to Christianity Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the great Indian intellectual. Conscious of their failure to succeed in Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s conversion the Rev. Deocar Schmid had written to the Secretary of the Church Missionary Society London on December 1, 1819 to say that 

“I know how much interest you take in what concerns Ram Mohan Roy. I cannot altogether be silent about him, altho’ I have not any joyful news to report. His state of mind is still quite the same.” 

Raja Ram Mohan had ultimately smashed all their hopes when he told these Christian Fathers : “I was born a Hindu and shall die a Hindu.” Max Muller had very high regard for the teachings of the Vedas and had his thinking been not subverted by Macaulay he might have been one of the greatest supporters and exponents of the Vedic Truths. In his conversion we not only lost a possible friend but instead got a bigoted enemy. The loss was therefore double fold. 

We have ample evidence to prove to the hilt that Max Muller himself was unhappy over the decision he had taken. He was conscious of the wrong he had committed on the advice and instigation of Macaulay. After his interview with Macaulay on December 28, 1855 Max Muller had said with a heavy heart: 

“I went back to Oxford a sadder man and a wiser man.” 

Sadder because as a scholar he had yielded to the politician ; because he had succumbed to the temptation of gold which, he knew, had undone many a scholar in the past. In the bargain thus struck between him and Macaulay he had agreed to prostitute his scholarship for a purpose in which, till then at least, he hardly had any faith. He had bartered away his pen and brain for the glittering gold mohars. He was sadder because it simultaneously announced the death of the free Max Muller in him and the birth of the slave Max Muller. We (the Hindus) have in this country a very well known saying which is very dear to our hearts. According to this : “For the family sacrifice the individual ; for the community the family ; for the country the community and for the soul (atma) the whole world.” According to a similar Christian saying : 

“What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul.”?

 Max Muller was sad because he had faltered both as a true Christian and as a true Vedantist ; he had sold his atma (soul) to feed his body. He was a wiser man because he had now shed all his spiritually ideological thinking in order to live and lead a comfortable worldly life. As time passed, Max Muller grew, in this respect, wiser and yet more wise except perhaps during the last few years of his life when he might have been repenting. Man can be as great an hypocrite as he wishes to be but an intellectual can easily outdo, outstrip and outdistance an average man in this field and Max Muller was no exception. He was paid by the British East India Company for misinterpreting the Vedas and in all fairness to him it must be admitted that he did well and to his best ability the job that was assigned to him and for which he, his pen and his scholarship had been hired. In this respect he was a conscientiously honest man though the same cannot be said of him as a scholar. In India we often hear it said that it is extremely hard and difficult to be a sadhu but any one might easily become a ‘missionary’ which at its best is a mercenary profession like many another. Max Muller had now turned a Christian missionary and he did what is usually expected of one. He bent all his energies, henceforth, in running down Hinduism just for the sake of running it down. He admits this in one of his letters written in 1866 A. D. to his wife. He says (Life and Letters of Frederick Max Muller):

 “This edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will Hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India—it is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years.”

 It is clear that the uprooting of the Hinduism was the only mission in which the scholar (?) and savant (?) Max Muller was engaged. In another letter he made a confession of his collusion in the theo-political conspiracy hatched and perfected by the British East India Company to wipe out Hinduism and supplant Christianity. Admitting this guilt, which in the present day we call by the new political name of ‘Subversion’, Max Muller had written (December 16,1868 A.D.) to the Duke of Argyl, the then Minister for India : 

“The ancient religion of India is doomed and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be ?” 

That the ancient Hindu religion of India was doomed was the verdict of Max Muller and since time has proved this prophecy to be utterly false its prophet must now be turning most uneasily in his grave. When Max Muller made this prophecy the post of the British Prime Minister was held by Viscount Henry John Temple Palmerston, better known as Lord Palmerston. At the resignation of Lord Aberdeen, he became the British Prime Minister in the year 1855—the same year in which Max Muller had his infamous interview with Macaulay. Palmerston was a product of another Christian seminary—St. John’s College—and was a Christian like Macaulay. He lent full support to Macaulay in his mission and himself was of the opinion that it was not only the duty of Britain but also in her ultimate interest that Christianity should be propagated in India. During the years 1859-1866 Lord Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) was the Secretary for India and this policy of propagating Christianity in India received his support too as according to him each and every Christian was a link in the chain and a source of strength to the British Commonwealth. With so many powerful supporters around him Max Muller was overawed and found the climate and environments very suitable for the furtherance of his ignominious mission on which Macaulay had launched him. 

Macaulay had planned a multi-pronged attack on Hinduism. From one side Christianity was to be introduced to the Hindu through the medium of Sanskrit and from another Hinduism was to be misrepresented to him through the medium of English. It was therefore thought necessary, officially and unofficially, to decry all other translations and interpretations of the Vedas and commend, uphold, prize, laud, applaud, eulogise and recognise the one and the only one translation by Max Muller which on purpose misinterpreted the Vedic teachings. 

This was a part of the plans of education or rather mis-education Clandestinely thought out by Macaulay to subvert and pervert the Hindu mind and create in it doubt and misgivings about Hinduism. That the purpose was to shut out from the Hindus any interpretation of the Vedas, by a Hindu is clear from more than one vituperations of Max Muller. In one instance, while reviewing the La Bible dans L’ Inde Max Muller wrote that 

“the author scems to have been taken in by the Brahmins in India.” 

Here, has not Max Muller given himself away ? His distrust and mistrust of the Brahmins is symptomatic. He knew it too well that Brahmins as a class were devoted to the reading and the teaching of the Vedas and their (the Brahmins’) interpretation of the Vedas was likely to differ from his. We also realised that there would surely be some voices raised in protest, and of dissent. As a clever strategist, therefore, he planned to run down Brahmins and their teachings. We had made up his mind to disparage and slight all others who differed from his mis-interpretation. His above quoted review was written to reprove, rebuke and censure Louis Jacolliot, the French scholar, who was the author of La Bible dans L’ Inde because in his book he had glorified India by calling her ‘‘the Cradle of Humanity and land of love.” 

The big idea of an universal Christianity had not only been successfully sold to Max Muller but he had also become himself its zealous vendor and a hawker. He had now reached a mental stage where nearly every Christian missionary not only accepts himself but tries to enforce on others the belief that there is but only one true religion in this world and that is Christianity. He reacted impolitely, and often haughtily, towards those who ever opened their mouth, or wrote, to question or even slightly doubt anything that the Bible contained. When another German scholar Dr. Spiegel expressed his opinion that the Biblical theory of the creation of the universe was borrowed from outside, Max Muller retorted, as if stung by a wasp, to say(Chips from a German Workshop by Max Muller, 147). : 

‘A writer Like Dr. Spiegel should know that he can expect no mercy; nay, he should himself wish for no mercy, but invite the heaviest artillery against the floating battery which he has launched in the troubled waters of Biblical criticism.’’ 

Max Muller was being true to his salt and when he said that Dr. Spiegel should expect no mercy for his criticism of the Bible he perhaps implied as much that he should expect, like him, no money either.  That Max Muller was consistent in his antics is evident from another letter (in 1897 A.D.) which he wrote to Shri B.V. Kamesvara Aiyar who had translated in English Sandhya-Vandana and Purushasukta. Decrying Kamesvara Aiyar’s efforts in low tones Max Muller wrote to him :

 “I think you are sometimes unfair to western scholars. Sayana himself offers one or more interpretations of a rik; why should not western scholars be allowed the same privilege ?”

Commenting on this letter of Max Muller Shri Kamesvara Aiyar says in his foreword that:

 “If I have here and there appeared to speak lightly of the work of western scholars it is not because I think lightly of their work but because I feel sad that...they appear to me to have failed to grasp the spirit of the Vedic teaching.” 

Max Muller accepted that there could possibly be “one or more interpretations of a rik’ but stubbornly chooses and sticks only to his own interpretation presumably because it serves his nefarious purpose best. It is only religious bigotry that prevents him from accepting the possibility that his interpretation might be wrong and the other man’s correct. He seems to have gradually and completely lost the power to think independently. Of this he gave another proof when he wrote a letter to his son. 

He said : “Would you say that any one sacred book is superior to all others in the world ? It may sound prejudiced but taking in all I say, the New Testament.” When we consider what some other people think of, and have said about, the New Testament and its teachings the statement made by Max Muller looks like the one made by a child who does not mind uttering untruth for a handful of sweets. There can be no doubt that he knew the world shall not believe his word because, as he feared, Ais statement was highly prejudiced. As he wanted to boost himself and his interpretation of the Vedas Max Muller did not like any other interpretation (of the Vedas) to get into the hands of the Hindus. If this happened, he was mortally afraid, the other interpretation might explode the myth of his scholarship built up deceitfully and cunningly on stilts provided by Macaulay and the British East India Company. That is why Max Muller relentlessly criticised and censured the translation of the Vedas done by Swami Dayanand. In his letter (January 29, 1882) addressed to Byramjee Malabaree he advised the Indians to be careful and keep away from those interpretations of the Vedas which like the one by Dayanand Saraswati “over value” their teachings. Max Muller was a past master in the art of running down his rivals and contemporaries. He chose the medium, time and the occasion carefully whenever he wanted to decry any of them. We get a glimpse of the masterly touch in his letter to Byramjee Malabaree. He said,

 “I wanted to tell those few at least whom I might hope to reach in English, what the true historical value of this ancient religion is, as looked upon, not from an exclusively European or Christian, but from a historical point of view. I wished to warn against two dangers, that of undervaluing and despairing the ancient national religion, as is often done by your half-Europeanised youths, and that of overvaluing and interpreting it as it was never meant to be interpreted of which you may see a painful source in Dayanand Saraswati’s labour on the Vedas."

With other odious failings Max Muller combined in him, in good measure, presumptuousness of a religious fanatic. He thought that the Vedas were meant to be interpreted in the way he had done and also that the way they should be interpreted was to be exclusively decided by him. He presumed that he knew more about, and of, the Vedas than the Hindus who grow with them and under their teachings and that he was the only authority to interpret them. This is akin to something like saying that a Jew is more competent to interpret the Quran and Muslim the Old Testament ; that a physicist is more competent than a horticulturist to explain the way different fruits grow. Max Muller indulged too heavily and too often in the abuse of self-publicity and thought that he was always to have the last word. 

What was really wrong with Max Muller is not easy to state with much accuracy. We can nevertheless make some sincere efforts to guess it as best we can. The lofty teachings of the Vedas had tickled his imagination, in the earliest stages of his studies, to an extent that he found it difficult to contain himself. He was young and as Byron said, ‘‘fame is the thirst of youth.” Max Muller wished to be famous and when Macaulay called him into his presence and explained his scheme Max Muller at Once recognised his opportunity. Like Thomas Moore "who woke one morning and found himself famous”, Max Muller found fame within his easy grasp when he met Macaulay. “I am not covetous of gold; but if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive.” so said the great Shakespeare. When Max Muller saw the possibility of getting gold and honour both he found the temptation too great to resist. He fell a prey to the sin and agreed to do what Macaulay wanted of him, viz., engage in wilful misinterpretation of the Vedas of the Hindus with the explicit purpose and aim of uprooting Hinduism. “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them” and greatness was virtually thrust upon Max Muller by Macaulay who could have as easily picked up another person as well to do this ignominious task. It is not hard to imagine that Macaulay must have pointed out this possibility to Max Muller and used it to overcome his resistance. When all is said it has to be admitted, however, that unless Max Muller had that grain in him Macaulay would have not been successful in making him agree to undertake the odious and soul killing job. ‘In Fame’s temple”, in the words of Zimmerman, “there is always a niche to be found for rich dunces, importunate scoundrels, or successful butchers of the human race’’ and in search of fame, and gone blind and mad after it, Max Muller undertook the job, and pledged to do it well, of butchering the culture of the Hindus and uproot their Dharma—the task In which he engaged himself thereafter laboriously, systematically and also sincerely. 

Why did Macaulay pick up only Max Muller for doing the abominable and the hideous job and not another European scholar ?. Was Max Muller then the only European who called himself, or pretended to be, a Sanskritist ? We shall endeavour to answer both questions. It is ordinary common sense that for any important mission or project to succeed it is absolutely necessary to have a right person for each right job. Only dirty souls will stoop sufficiently low to do an equally dirty job. An astute politician like Macaulay would not pick up a wrong person and risk his entire scheme. Then, for his project he would pick up only a man who would agree to be hired to become a killer of Hinduism. Macaulay must have made careful and secret enquiries concerning the suitability of Max Muller, his temperament and his inclinations and found him ‘fit’ for the job. 

Macaulay had planned to annihilate, or rather inject poison into the veins of, Hinduism. He was on the lookout for an assassin. As a true ‘fisher of men’ he had thrown his net wide and ultimately caught Max Muller. There were several other Europeans who had equal knowledge of Sanskrit and dabbled in the study and the interpretation of the Hindu Scriptures. However, as honest men and scholars of integrity they owned and accepted, unlike the presumptuous Max Muller, their shortcomings. To illustrate the point we shall here quote what Schopenhauer, another great German scholar, thought of the knowledge of, and the proficiency in, Sanskrit of European scholars :

 “I add to this the impression which the translation of Sanskrita words by European scholars, with very few exceptions, produce on my mind. I cannot resist a certain suspicion that our Sanskrita scholars do not understand their text better than the higher class school boys their Greek or Latin.’ 

We shall also add here the opinion of Swami Dayanand. It reads, 

‘‘The impression that the Germans are the best Sanskrit scholars, and that no one has read so much of Sanskrit as Professor Max Muller, is altogether unfounded. Yes, in a land where lofty trees never grow, even ricinus communis or the castor oil plant may be called anoak. The study of Sanskrit being altogether out of question in Europe, the Germans and Max Muller may there have come to be regarded as highest authorities.”

A self-conceited man that was Max Muller he could not ignore or forgive this forthright criticism of his talents and scholarly abilities and so he did his best to advise people to keep away from translations of the type made by Dayanand Saraswati. Here is another opinion of a great Sanskrit scholar (Guru Datt Vidyarthi) concerning these European Sanskritists and Max Muller: 

‘‘For, if the Vedic philosophy be true, the interpretation of the Vedas, as given at present by Professor Max Muller and other European scholars, must not only be regarded as defective and incomplete, but as altogether false.” 

All these opinions were snuffed out by heavy publicity and the official recognition, which clandestinely supported whatever distorted and falsified versions of the Vedas emanated from the pen which Macaulay had pushed into Max Muller’s fingers. Patronised by the State ( British Government) a quack Sanskritist was insidiously hoisted up as the greatest scholar of this language and to complete the job of uprooting Hinduism his spurious and altogether false interpretations of the Vedas were made the subject of study in Indian schools and colleges to the exclusion of all others. 

  Schopenhauer once said that ‘In India our religion (Bible) will now and never strike root; the primitive wisdom of the human race will never be pushed aside by the events of Galilee, On the contrary, Indian Wisdom will flow back upon Europe, and produce a thorough change in our knowledge and thinking.” All this proved to be a bitter dose for the Christian Max Muller who reacted in the only manner that can be expected of a religious got. He said : 

“Here again the great philosopher seems to me to have allowed himself to be carried away too far by his enthusiasm for the less known. He is blind to the dark side of the Upanishads and he wilfully shuts his eyes against the bright rays of eternal truths in the (Christian) Gospel, which even Ram Mohan Rai was quick enough to perceive behind the mist and clouds of tradition that gather so quickly round the sunrise of every religion.” 

Max Muller had preconceived notions and ideas engrafted on his mind in favour of Christianity and against Hinduism. He not only saw, as a result, only defects in Upanishads where they did not exist but also wanted every one else to accept his versions. That Max Muller was an enemy of Hinduism in the shining garb of a friend cannot be doubted any more. That he was also a Christian missionary like many others is a fact which we in this country often fail to recognise though he was not the first Christian missionary to attack Hinduism from behind carefully concealed identity. Before Max Muller there was one Robert de Nobili (1577-1656) who was an Italian Jesuit (a sect of Roman Catholics, a member of the Society of Jesus founded by Ignatius Loyala in 1533 and with which St. Xavier was connected) and who came to India in 1605. We get this description of this Nobili in Stephen Neill’s A History of Christian Missions (pp. 183-185) :

 “To win the Indians he would become an Indian, and abandoned everything that could offend, such as the eating of meat and the wearing of leather shoes. He adopted the Ochre (Kavi) robe of the holy man, and as far as could he converted himself Into a Sanyasi Guru. He mastered classical Tamil. To this he was later to add Telugu and Sanskrit: he was, it is believed, the first European ever to “study the ancient classical languages of India. The secret could not be indefinitely kept. A Parava Christian told some of the converts that Nobili was really a Parangi (Farangi). In order to defend himself he wrote a deceleration in in Tamil on Olais, the strips of palm-leaf locally used in place of paper and had it nailed to a tree in front of his house: I am not Parangi, was not born in the land of Parangis nor was I ever connected with their race.” 

This description of Nobili says that to win the Indians he would become an Indian but not a Hindu. The distinction is clever indeed and is intended to cover his impersonation. In another book (Introduction to the Science of Language by A.H. Sayce, Vol I, pp. 43-44) this point is more than made clear by the author who affirms that Nobili transformed himself into a Brahman, learnt Tamil, Telugu, and Sanskrit, adopted the cord (sacred thread), marks, garb, diet and submitted to caste. A man like Nobili who was nothing but an impostor was described by the ‘celebrated philologist Max Muller” as ‘our first Sanskrit scholar’. Birds of the same flock fly together and as a Christian missionary Max Muller could not have but praised Nobili, another Christian missionary, and what he had done. Both had engaged themselves in a covert attack with the fixed purpose of destroying and uprooting Hinduism. Both had a common objective ; only the means and the methods and mediums each chose for himself differed and this was done only to avoid being detected which usually happens when an old method is utilised the second time for the purpose of subverting from within. 

Max Muller did not hesitate, whenever he got a chance, to praise, exalt and extol to the sky Christianity and its virtues. He often overdid it to an extent that immediately he gave himself away. By siding persistently on the side of Christianity, day in and day out, he securely laid the foundation for a solid charge against his sense of impartiality, scholarly integrity and truthfulness. However hard his supporters and admirers might try, their protestations cannot and shall not ever absolve him of the accusation that he suffered incurably from partisanship which he exercised in favour of Christianity. Here is what he once said: 

“History seems to teach that the whole human race required a gradual education, before, in the fulness of ‘times, it could be admitted to the truths of Christianity—that religion, the religion of Buddha, was spread far beyond the limits of the Aryan world and, to our limited vision, it may seem to have retarded the advent of Christianity among a large portion of the human race, But in the sight of Him with whom a thousand years are but as one day, that religion, like all the ancient religions of the world, may have but served to prepare the way of Christ by helping through its very errors, to strengthen-and deepen the ‘ineradicable yearning of the human heart after the truths of God.” 

Max Muller was a Christian Missionary and as one he not only sang songs in. its praise, he also solicited and made efforts to secure converts to his religion. ‘We shall quote one of his letters in extenso to show that he, was always ready to prompt, persuade and encourage .people. to embrace Christian faith. Addressing N.K. Majumdar, a Brahm Samajist, he wrote in 1899:

 “You know, for many years I have watched your efforts to purify the popular religion of India, and thereby to bring it near to the purity and perfection of other religion's, particularly of Christianity. The first thing you have to do is to settle how much of your ancient religion you are willing to give up, if not all, as utterly false, still as antiquated. You have given up a great deal—polytheism, idolatry and your elaborate sacrificial worship. Take then the New Testament and read it for yourself, and judge for yourself whether the words of Christ as contained in it satisfy you or not. Christ comes to you as he comes to us in the only trustworthy records preserved of him in the Gospels. We have not even the right to consider how differently we interpret them ourselves. If you accept His teachings as they are recorded, you are a Christian. Tell me some of your chief difficulties that prevent you and your countrymen from openly following Christ, and when I write to you I shall do my best to explain how I and many who agree with me have met them and solved them. From my point of view, India, at least the best part of it, is already converted to Christianity. You want no persuasion to, become a follower of Christ, then make up your mind to work for yourselves: The bridge has been built for you by those who came before you. Step boldly forward, it will not break under you and you will find many friends to welcome you on the  other shore and among them none more will be delighted than your old friend and fellow labourer F. Max Muller.” 

According to Max Muller Christ comes in the ‘only trustworthy records preserved of Him in the Gospels” and the “bridge has been built’? and there will be ‘“‘many friends to welcome” on the other shore any one who became a Christian. Does all this not smack of monomania and religious zealotry ? This writing which emanated from the pen of the so-called celebrated Max Muller looks like an excerpt taken from some cheap and common place Christian tract issued for free distribution in some mission land. This Christian missionary whom the British Imperialism and the Christian Church extolled as Professor Max Muller, thought that the ancient Hindu religion was false and Christianity was nothing but truth and that the former needed to be purified. Max Muller indulged in dubious writing and knew how afterwards to twist it to his own advantage. Sometimes he brought in other people’s names to impress the reader play upon his emotions or to soften the opposition. In his reply to Schopenhauer he had referred to Raja Ram Mohan Roy in these words: 

"He is blind to the dark side of the Upanishads and he wilfully shuts his eyes against the bright rays of eternal truths in the Gospel, which even Ram Mohan Rai was quick enough to perceive—.” 

The only purpose here of dragging in the name of Raja Ram Mohan Roy is to impress the Hindus and tell them an untruth which on the strength alone of Max Muller’s statement they would reject as a lie. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a far greater intellectual than the partisan Christian missionary who thus made use of his name. Ram Mohan Roy was an honest and straightforward man who loved and worshipped truth. He wrote several tracts and books during his life time. He wrote against the Sati custom and the Christian Church applauded him when he wrote against. idol worships. As is usually the case the Christian Church tried hard to twist Raja Ram Mohan’s writings to her advantage and present the whole thing as if influenced by the Christian 'Church ‘and as if Raja Ram Mohan Roy had turned a Christian. This is an old tactic which Christianity has employed, often with success, to alienate a Hindu from the Hindu society. At this time efforts were being made actually to convert Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Christianity. The  Christian missionaries and Fathers pestered him so much that they nearly got on his nerves, especially because they tried to impose Christianity on him and the people from the back door. Asa result, Raja Ram Mohan Roy decided to write his The Precepts of Jesus which, when it appeared, made those Christian missionaries very angry and annoyed. According to one Christian writer, Stephen N. Hay, the Assistant Professor of History, the University of Chicago:

“Then, in January, 1820, he (Raja Ram Mohan Roy) published The Precepts of Jesus which immediately aroused the ire of the missionaries, both in Calcutta and at Serampore. As early as February, 1820, The Friend of India (This was the newspaper which was first established by Christian missionaries and which later became The Statesman, now published from Calcutta and New Delhi. The Statesman proudly used to announce its direct descent from the Friend of India published an anonymous article ‘Some Remarks on Publication, entitled ‘The Precepts of Jesus’, This was the review which Deocer Schmid acknowledged privately was his and Joshua Marshman’s work.” 

From the foregoing we can easily understand how mischievously and wrongly did Max Muller use, and bring in, the name of Raja Ram Mohan Roy to gain a hearing. When Max Muller was introduced as a Sanskrit scholar, a savant and a Hindu Rishi born in Germany, many people in this country were easily taken in by this Christian propaganda. Luckily, and as it always happens, the Truth has now gradually started dawning on the gullible Hindu. He knows now for certain that Max Muller was only a Christian missionary and was no better or worse than another though he excelled nearly all others in one respect, viz., he chose for himself a highly sophisticated weapon with which to annihilate Hinduism and which he wielded with dexterity. This truth that he was a Christian missionary is not now hidden from the world. His friends have admitted it to the great chagrin and embarrassment of International Christianity. To quote one here. Rev. Edward Bonverie Pusey D.D., who was educated at Christ Church, Oxford, and was Max Muller’s friend, wrote to him saying : 

“Your work will form a new era in the efforts for the conversion of India, and Oxford will have reason to be thankful tor that ; by giving you a home, it will have facilitated a work of such primary and lasting importance for the conversion of India.” 

The cat is out of the bag and we can be sure no one shall be able again to put it back. How far Macaulay and Max Muller were able to harm and damage, and how much of this damage is irreparable, of it only time and posterity will be the judges. There is no doubt, however, that both strived hard and planned meticulously to murder Hindu culture and Dharma. But as no one can bring about a perfect murder they too failed in their irreligiously ignominious and despicably opprobrious intentions. While Macaulay, who was first and last a politician, could have some valid excuse for engaging himself in this heinous pursuit, there is none to absolve Max Muller, who pretended himself to be a scholar, of the shameful charge of complicity and collusion in this gigantic theo-political plot. 





Tuesday, October 1, 2024

The Vedas and the Bible


 

The Vedas and the Bible

[Authored by Brahm Datt Bharti,Reproduced by Dr. Vivek Arya]

Christianity, has been the loudest in condemning Polytheism, while herself supporting the Christian brand of the cult of the plurality of Gods under the very bemusing TRIDEISM. The Christians. need only to be told that they knoweth not what they are doing. Christianity needs hardly to be reminded of the advice that Jesus Christ is reported to have given in His Sermon on the Mount : “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in-thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

 Whenever young Hindu boys and girls go to England or the United States of America for studies they usually share a common experience. Sooner or later they are invited (this happens more readily in the States than elsewhere) to an evening (Christian) church meeting where nearly always an elderly, fatherly looking person puts a question to the young Hindu student, though the person putting the question takes due and predetermined precaution to look and appear as agreeable as possible according to the exigencies of each case. The question that is always asked is : ““What do you think of the Vedas ?” The purpose hidden behind this question is manifold and the enquirer is more than assured in his mind of the inability of an average young mind, whether Indian or British, whether Hindu or Christian, to answer a question of this type. Yet the elderly, fatherly looking person makes it a practice to put the very question which he does not expect to be sufficiently and well answered, to every young Hindu girl or boy student purposefully invited to these (Christian) church meetings. This purpose is shrouded in the confusing impression that is intended to be left on the young mind when he or she finds himself or herself unable adequately to answer the question. That is not ail. The confused young mind is further confounded by the answer which the elderly, fatherly looking person usually offers after pausing for a while. According to the elderly, fatherly looking person the Vedas are primitive by which is meant that they are crude, old fashioned and uncivilised. 

Why is all this done and done so subtly and dramatically is something that would interest all serious students of theo-psychology. It is not difficult at all to understand that the elderly, fatherly looking person while describing the Vedas as primitive only uses the phrase which was first used by Max Muller who in his letter (1866 A.D.) to his wife had admitted (Life and Letters of Frederick Max Muller) : ‘This edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India. It is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three  thousand years.” The aim of this modern elderly, fatherly looking person is as much to uproot Hinduism as it was of Max Muller. Hence the description of the Vedas as primitive by both. 

The Vedas are described by the Christians as the Bible of the Hindus. Taking, a cue from such definitions the Hindus have now started defining the Bible as the Veda of the Christians. Whatever it might mean, all would agree on the statement which applies equally to both that each set of these books describe; and defines a particular religion—in one case Hinduism and in the other Christianism. A comparison would, therefore, be possible between the Vedas and the Bible only on one plane, viz., of the capacity of each of these two, sets of books to give  true and correct picture of the: Supreme Being whom both the Hindus and the Christians accept to exist unlike the atheists. Apart from this, both can be treated as collection, of so much paper and ink though the one may be less or more old fashioned than the other in respect of the cover and the bindings which hold the pages together. The primitiveness or otherwise of those two sets of religious books can-be better judged, and only, by scrutinizing what each of them teaches in this behalf and this is what we propose doing here. 

We come across the following well known mantra in Rig Veda : 

इंद्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुर, अथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान, एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वनमाहुःI ऋग्वेद - 1.164.46

Translated into English this would mean : Supreme Spirit is the protector of all, and pervades and gives light to all bright things. He is called Indra, or the glorious ; Mitra or the friendly ; Varuna or the greatest and the best; Agni or the adorable. Though one, Brahm (He) is called by the learned by many names, such as Agni-(the adorable), Yama (the ruler), Matrishiva- (the mighty). 

In Rig Veda we again get the following to read :

 सु॒प॒र्णं विप्रा॑: क॒वयो॒ वचो॑भि॒रेकं॒ सन्तं॑ बहु॒धा क॑ल्पयन्ति । छन्दां॑सि च॒ दध॑तो अध्व॒रेषु॒ ग्रहा॒न्त्सोम॑स्य मिमते॒ द्वाद॑श ॥ ऋग्वेद - 10.114.5

which ‘means that the learned and the wise describe (and imagine) the One God by many forms of expressions. Speaking of’ Brahm (Him) as the creator of all creatures 

Yajur Veda tells us : 

तदे॒वाग्निस्तदा॑दि॒त्यस्तद्वा॒युस्तदु॑ च॒न्द्रमाः॑। तदे॒व शु॒क्रं तद् ब्रह्म॒ ताऽआपः॒ स प्र॒जाप॑तिः ॥-यजुर्वेद 32.1

Here again we have the same thought. This mantra says that he is Agni (adorable) ; He is Aditya (imperishable) ; He is Vayu (omnipresent) ; He is Chandrama (the giver of happiness); He is Shukra (the creator); He is Brahma (the great) ; He is Apah (all peryading) ; He is Prajapati (the Lord of all -creatures), None can entertain any doubt whatever that the creator of all creatures can be no one but the One Supreme Being and only: the One Being. 

The Yajur Veda again tells us : 

अने॑ज॒देकं॒ मन॑सो॒ जवी॑यो॒ नैन॑द्दे॒वाऽआ॑प्नुव॒न् पूर्व॒मर्ष॑त्। तद्धाव॑तो॒ऽन्यानत्ये॑ति॒ तिष्ठ॒त्तस्मि॑न्न॒पो मा॑त॒रिश्वा॑ दधाति ॥-यजुर्वेद 40.4

He (God) is one, He does not move, and yet is swifter than the mind ; the senses (devas) cannot reach Him, although he is already in them. In the ten mantras (Rig, Mandal 10, Sukta 121, Mantras 1 to 10) we have absolute clarification in support of the monotheism that is preached and taught by the Vedas. The first of these ten, mantras tells us that in, the beginning there was God: He was the One Supreme of all created beings. Is it difficult to understand that beginning means the beginning and not removed in time and space from that that was the beginning. | 

In Rig Veda (X:121:9) we again get the same affirmation that the religion of the Vedas is only monotheism. Here we (His children) take a vow saying that “Unto that Great God alone shall we offer (our) prayers.” In Atharva Veda we read स नः पिता जनिता स उत बन्धुर्धामानि वेद भुवनानि विश्वा ।i.e. He is our father, Only the self-bigoted will refuse to accept that one can have only One father. In Atharva Veda (13:4:20) we are told तमि॒दं निग॑तं॒ सहः॒ स ए॒ष एक॑ एक॒वृदेक॑ ए॒व ॥ that Brahm (Ishwar) is One and truly is One only. Rig Veda (6:36:4)  once again tells us पति॑र्बभू॒थास॑मो॒ जना॑ना॒मेको॒ विश्व॑स्य॒ भुव॑नस्य॒ राजा॑  that He is the master of all the worlds. We know it too well that the master does not mean someone who shares his master ship with any one else. 

Rig Veda advises us (8:92:22) आ त्वा॑ विश॒न्त्विन्द॑वः समु॒द्रमि॑व॒ सिन्ध॑वः । न त्वामि॒न्द्राति॑ रिच्यते ॥ : O Indra 

(the glorious), there is none superior to Thou. Rig Veda says again (1:94:13) दे॒वो दे॒वाना॑मसि मि॒त्रो अद्भु॑तो॒ वसु॒र्वसू॑नामसि॒ चारु॑रध्व॒रे। - that Thou are the greatest (God) of all. The Rig tells us once again (8:96:4) that among those who deserve our respects. Thou are the most respectable of all. 

Anyone who sets out to find for himself the religion of the Vedas is sure to come to the one and only one conclusion that the Religion of the Vedas is a pure and unadulterated Monotheism. However, a bigot, a religious fanatic and someone whose faculty of independent reasoning has been badly tempered in his childhood shall find it difficult, or rather near to impossible, to be objective and detached and impartial in his studies and judgement of the religion of the Vedas. Such people usually start with some preconceived ideas implanted on their immature minds by ecclesiastics who have an axe of their own to grind. Such people have continuously tried to distort the Teachings of the Vedas and present the Vedic Religion as Polytheism or Henotheism. They did this because it suited their theo-political purpose and in their hideous plans they received more than ample support from the Hindus who while watching these depredations of these propagandists did not care to stir and repudiate these false allegations of Polytheism and Henotheism. There is no doubt that an appreciable number of the Hindus worshipped, and still worship, idols. Because some Hindus indulged in idol worship and because the Vedas are of the Hindus some non- Hindus, especially some’' Christian missionaries mischievously suggested that idol worship was permitted by the Vedas and that the religion of the Vedas was Polytheism or Henotheism. This is like saying that homoeopathic system does not rest on the principle of similia similibus curontur (like is cured by like) because, BECAUSE, some homoeopaths use allopathic medicines. What a logic! This is exactly how Christianity tried first to throw Polytheism into the Jap of the Hindus and then accuse Hinduism of believing in Polytheism or Henotheism. This theo-political conspiracy against Hinduism was lent great support by Christian missionaries like Max Muller who on purpose misrepresented and misinterpreted the Vedic Teachings with the sinful and villainous aim of uprooting Hinduism. This intrigue against the Hindus and their monotheistic religion of the Vedas was carried another step forward, and afforded great impetus, by the British East India Company who had then on its staff rabid communalists and religious fanatics like Thomas Babingson Macaulay. These misinterpretations of the Vedas by Max Muller were officially prescribed as text books in schools and colleges with the aim of implanting on the minds of young Indians (Hindus in particular) the harmful and the false idea that the religion of the Vedas was not monotheism and that the Aryans worshipped forces of nature. Side by side the same young people were being constantly told in schools and colleges that monotheism was a discovery of Christianity. That is how by this dual attack Hinduism was desired to be uprooted. 

What is this Henotheism which Christianity has tried to force upon the unwilling Hindus? Henotheism is described 5, the Concise Oxford Dictionary as the ‘‘belief in one God without asserting that he is the only God’. A little careful examination of this definition of Henotheism ought to convince any impartial person of the depravity of the mind who first coined this word. If the One God Is not the only God how He can be she One God ? This new word was coined with the explicit purpose of confusing the world and throw something meaning near-to-nothing and suggest an ism between Monotheism and Polytheism. This was thought to be necessary by some Christian missionaries because the enlightened section of Christianity had refused to accept in whole the Christian theory that Polytheism was  the religion of the Vedas. The bigoted section, therefore, decided, as a compromise, to tone down their claim and make it less weeping. With this in mind they invented Henotheism— belief in one God without believing that He is the only one God, which is equal to saying “belief in Monotheism without believing that He is the only Supreme being” !

The Hindus have said it time and again that the religion  of the Vedas is Monotheism but some non-Hindus want them to believe otherwise. They insist on this merely because, according to them, Hindus call God by more than one names like lndra, Agni, Varuna and others. Some of the people who raise this objection do this honestly because majority of them fail to comprehend what the Hindus mean when they address Him by these names. But there are many more who refuse to try to understand because it will go against their ecclesiastical interest. We shall try to explain this riddle allegorically. A man owns a house which has, we arbitrarily fix the number, three rooms. When he thinks of an enemy or thieves attacking him he imagines the house to be a ‘citadel or a fort’. When he sits near the fireplace in the sweet company of his family he calls it his ‘paradise’ and at another time when he is doing his Studies he describes it as his ‘Nalanda’. Now, is there anything wrong with this ? No, because he every time means only the one house that he possesses. He has only different names for it. Do not some parents sometimes have more than one names for their only (one) child? Do these several names mean, then, more than one child ? No, never. Does not a man call his wife by more than one names? Sometimes she is ‘darling’, sometimes ‘dear’, sometimes ‘my love and soul’, sometimes ‘my trouble’, sometimes ‘mother of--.? Does it all mean more than one wives ? No, not; at all. From the foregoing discussion we can come only to one inescapable conclusion, and it is that the Religion of the Vedas is Monotheism. 

Before we try to find out the religion of the Bible one point would need, clarification. The Bible consists of two parts and the second part is known as the New Testament which defines Christianity. In the present discussion we are concerned only with the New Testament because Christians base their religion (Christianity) only on the teachings of Christ and disown the Hebrew part (the old Testament) of the Bible. 

The Christians believe in God the Father, God the Son (Christ) and God the Holy Ghost (Spirit). This is the cornerstone of their belief. They also assert that not only there are three persons (God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost) but also that each God is equal in power and glory and that these Three are One. Is it not analogous to saying that a+b+c =D and also that a and b and c each is equal to D? If a and b and c each is equal in power, then each of the three should be equal to one-third of D in power. Supposing that each a and b and c is equal in power to unity then a+b+c should be equal to 1+1+1, i.e. three, and not unity as is claimed by Christianity. Again if God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are accepted.to be equal in power and glory there must be another Being who must be above them and who must have created them. Or, if no fourth Being created them, then they must have created one another, but the one who is not yet created cannot have the power to create someone else. 

If these three coexisted, then they must have been so brought into existence by some other Being that they would find it possible to begin to coexist in time. Examined from whatever angle, this theory of three in one and three equal to one falls to ground: For yet further probe we shall again bring in the allegory of the house we introduced earlier while trying to know the religion of the Vedas. This new owner, this time a Christian, ‘appears to be saying something like this : ‘‘I have this house of three rooms. Each room is equal in size and also that each room is equal to the whole house which has three rooms !” There is nothing to prevent likewise Christianism from calling its Trideism (three Deities) by the name of Monotheism ! ‘Christianism might.as well, and with equal indifference, create another dozen, a score or a hundred Gods and still describe it as Monotheism provided it has backing of high pressure publicity which it today enjoys all over the globe. 

There is absolutely no doubting the fact that Christianism worshipped three Gods and that thus the religion of the New Testament was limited Polytheism which we shall call Trideism. It was only when Christianism came in contact with the Vedas that it discovered Monotheism. This discovery made some Christian theologians more than uneasy and over a period they developed, as usually happens in such circumstances, a sort of inferiority complex which soon ended into a strong hatred for the Hinduism and their Vedas, Christianity had preached too long, for about sixteen centuries, this Trideism which she preferred to call Trinitarianism and found now herself incapable of undoing the damage that had already been done. As she could no longer think of rising to the high level of Vedic Monotheism she decided to pull down Hinduism to her own spiritual level, This meant thus either Polytheism or at least Henotheism. 

In 1605 one Robert de Nobili had set his feet on the Indian soil. He was an Italian, then 28 years old, and was a Jesuit. His mission was to convert the Hindus to Christianity and with this in his mind he learnt and studied Tamil and Sanskrit. He studied the Vedas and other religious books and was evidently impressed by the lofty teachings of the Hindu Dharma but as his mind was closed he wanted somehow to convert the Hindus of this country. With this purpose alone he caused a false and concocted fifth Veda to be written so that the Hindus might be mislead off the right Vedic Teachings. He was in constant correspondence with Rome and some other religious centres of Europe. As he himself came from Italy and was a Jesuit he had more intimate contact with the Italian intelligentsia who were interested to know more, and as much as possible, about Hindu Dharma of the Vedas. There is no doubt that Nobili had made the personal discovery that the Vedas taught nothing but pure monotheism. There is no doubt either that he reported this discovery to Rome with a sense of theological surprise. 

In the 16th century there had lived another man in Italy, Laelius Socinus (b. 1525, d. 1582), who had rejected the Christian Trideism as irrational and unacceptable to reason. But since Christianity believed fully in Trideism he was declared a heretic because he preached monotheism. In 1546 he had become a member of a secret society at Vicenzay, formed for the purpose of discussing religious matters and which had arrived at the conclusion that the doctrine of three Gods in one (Trideism) was untenable and that many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church were repugnant to reason. When the nature of the deliberation of the members of this secret society were made known it was broken up ; several members were put to death and others including Laelius Socinus had to flee to other places of safety. While still in exile he died at Zurich. This Socinus had a nephew, Faustus Socinus, who was born in 1539 and lived till 1604. He too was obliged to leave his town for his heretical views (monotheism). The senior Socinus had written several religious treatises (Dialogue inter Calvinum et Vaticanum De Sacramentis, De Resurrectione Corporum) some of which fell into the hands of Faustus who started publishing these. As the Church regarded all this heretical, Faustus had to flee to Basel to escape the Inquisition. Laelius and Faustus had committed the sin of preaching monotheism which was against the established Trideism of Christianity and the very fact that they were for this reason in constant danger of losing their lives proves beyond doubt that monotheism was not acceptable to Christianity. 

Faustus died in 1604 and Nobili came to India in 1605 when he was 28 years old. Nobili could not have come, therefore, to India without some impressions of the cult of monotheism that was preached by Laelius and Faustus. On arrival in India he found in the Vedas a reconfirmation and reaffirmation of monotheism. As a Jesuit and member of the Catholic organisation which was responsible for the Inquisition, he could not accept monotheism of the Vedas because this was opposed to the Christian theory of three Gods in one, i.e., Trideism. The attempts started being made, therefore, to prove (on false evidence) that the Vedas taught something worse, i.e., Polytheism or Henotheism. Despite all these efforts no one can deny that the Vedic Teachings had their impact on the Christian thinking. There is additional, and sufficient, historical evidence to prove that the Christian Church frowned on anyone, and all, whoever rejected, or did not accept, Trideism or expressed a belief in One God. In 1662 a large number (2000 at least) of clergy were ejected from the Established Church under the Act of Uniformity because they had refused to accept Christian Trideism and professed instead monotheism which they called unitarianism. They considered Christ as a mere mortal and believed in One God. This was not acceptable to the Christian Church and, therefore, in 1658 they were banished from Poland under pain of death in England and on the continent the Unitarians were burnt at stakes. It was only in 1813 that they were freed from these disabilities from which for so long they suffered. All this shows conclusively that Christianity is a religion which believes in three Gods and abhors the idea of monotheism which the Vedas preach. 

In 1813 the Christian Church under pressure of public opinion agreed to accept Unitarianism as one of the many isms in which Christianity believes and is today divided and subdivided. In 1793, on November 11, William Carey (b.176I, d. 1834) had arrived in India as a Christian missionary. He was employed on an indigo plantation and operated in different parts of Bengal. In 1799 another group of Christian missionaries arrived which included Joshua Marshman (b. 1768, d. 1837) and William Ward (b. 1764, d. 1823). These missionaries settled near Calcutta at Serampore where Carey soon joined them. It is from here that the Christian newspaper Friend of India was started and from which the Statesman, now published from Delhi and Calcutta, claims a ‘direct descent’. This group tried very hard to convert Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Christianity and in 1818 (on March 19) another Christian missionary arrived in Serampore to join this group. He was Rev. William Adam. This Adam came in frequent touch with Raja Ram Mohan Roy because it seems he was especially charged with the sacred duty of subverting and perverting the mind of this great Hindu intellectual. What happened is of immense importance and of great historical value. It concerns directly the topic that is under discussion here. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a Hindu ; he believed in the Vedic Teachings and he was a staunch monotheist. In the course of their (friendly?) discussions the Raja often laughed and made a merry sport of the Christian dogma of three Gods (Trideism) to which Rev. Adam was wedded. He could find no answer to the arguments of Raja Ram Mohan Roy who supported monotheism and then the strange thing happened which usually happens in such circumstances, The Christian missionary, Rey. William Adam, who had set out to convert Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Christian Trideism, gave up (sloughed off) his belief in three Christian Gods and became a monotheist and ultimately a Vedantist. The Christian publicity machine always tries either to conceal this historical news from the public or tries hard to twist it to suit her own purpose. The fact that Raja Ram Mohan Roy did convert this Rev. William Adam was mentioned in Anglo-India, Vol. I, on page 238 and cannot be denied. Rev. William Adam had gone for wool but went away shorn, From this time onward Adam started preaching monotheism or Unitarianism as they call it. This again was unacceptable to the established Christian Church for the reason that it went against the established teachings of limited Polytheism, i.e., ‘Trideism of Christianity. For this sin, therefore, the Rev. William Adam, the Christian missionary, who was especially sent to India to convert the Hindus to Trideism (limited Polytheism), was expelled from the Christian Church ! In the Annual London Report of the Missionary Society, which is dated 20th June 1822, a statement in regard to Adam appears in these words : "We mention with deep regret that Mr. Adam, late one of their number (i.e., of the workers in Calcutta), had embraced opinions derogatory to the honour of the Saviour, denying the proper divinity of ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ’ in consequence of which the connection between him and the Society has been dissolved.” Rev. Adam had to pay this price because he had revolted against Christian Polytheism, disguised cleverly from the view of the common man under the sophisticated name at Trinitarianism. This proves once again and to the hilt that Christianity not only believes in, and practises, the cult of three Gods but also scoffs at and tries to punish all those who show any signs of drifting away from this particular brand of Polytheism. 

Some Christians have been heard to remark that Christians call the one God by the three different names in the same manner as the Hindus call their One Brahm by so many names. This explanation holds no water at all. Firstly, because Christianity accuses for so doing Hinduism of practising the cult of Polytheism or Henotheism. Why then Christianity must fall into the same error knowingly ? Secondly, the Hindus call by different names the One Brahm but Christianity calls by three names three different persons. Christianity admits that these three persons are equal in power and glory. Equal? Who and equal to whom ? When it is a matter of equality, then the comparison must be between two or three separate entities. Father and son are always ‘wo different persons and never one, however anyone might try to quibble. 

Raja Ram Mohan Roy (Rammohun Roy) was engaged, over a long period, in discussions of a religious nature with the Christian missionaries of Serampore, In 1823 he published his Final Appeal to the Christian Public in Defence of “The Precepts of Jesus’. On page 634 we get the following to read : 


‘Lastly, I tender my humble thanks for the Editor's (of Friend of India) kind suggestion in inviting me to adopt the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; but  I am sorry to find that l am unable to benefit by this advice......I have lone relinquished every idea of a plurality of Gods, or of the persons of the Godhead... Whatever arguments can be adduced against a plurality of Gods strike with equal force against the doctrine of a plurality of persons of the Godhead ; and, on the other hand, whatever excuse may be pleaded in favour of a plurality of persons of the Deity can be offered with equal propriety in defence of Polytheism.'


It is abundantly clear that the Christian missionaries of Serampore who knew thoroughly the Christian scriptures wanted Raja Ram Mohan Roy to adopt only the doctrine of free Gods (Trinitarianism) and not of One God. Since the Raja continued to believe in, and practise, the cult of the One Supreme Being as preached by the Vedas he continued to remain a Hindu as before: he could not be accepted as a Christian as long as he did not accept the theory of three Gods or Godheads ! 

Discussing the same point Raja Ram Mohan Roy wrote on page 612 of his Final Appeal (Ibid) : “I answer, because common sense tells us that a son, as well as a servant, must be acknowledged to be inferior to his father or master. Again, we find David called the son of God, Solomon the son of God, Adam the son of God, and in short the whole children of Israel denominated sons of God; yet represented in scriptures as inferior to God their father; nay, moreover, Jesus the son of God positively declares himself to be inferior to his father....'My father is greater than I.’ Is it not interesting theological history that one of the three persons in the trinity on whose behalf Christianity speaks readily and willingly admits himself to be inferior to the first person in the Trinity but that his followers should insist on disputing his inferiority vis-a-vis the father ? Why ? Because Christianity cannot reconcile itself! to the idea of One God (monotheism),. She is wedded to this limited Polytheism (Trideism) and she has already gone Coo far to retrace her steps, Acceptance of Monotheism so date in the day threatens her of complete extinction as a religion, Can she possibly do this? No, never. The entire hierarchy will rise In revolt to safe guard its vested interests.

The question that remains to be answered is whether or not the Bible (the New Testament) lays down this cult of Trideism. We can very confidently say ‘yes’ and can be sure of receiving the full support of the established Christian Church. Here is what we find on page I15 of the Christian Faith, 1960, by David H.C. Read, D.D.: 

‘There is no question about this emphasis. Not only is the Trinity expressed in creed and catechism, but it is a constantly-recurring note in Christian prayers, hymns, and blessings. We baptise ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost’, we sing ‘Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost’, we pray ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost’. All the Churches that are members of the World Council, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, are avowedly and explicitly Trinitarian.'

The author of this book lends a mystical touch to it when he further says:

 ‘‘We find another clue to the importance of this doctrine in a curious feature of Church life and history. It seems to be generally true that the Christian community in every age has been nourished by a belief in the Trinity, so that when this belief has waned the strength of the Church has waned with it... Christian communities that abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity have nearly always tended to die away.” 

A Unitarian when asked to comment on this remarked that it is an age old practice with the Trinitarians to play ‘upon the fear complex of the believers in order to boost up their crumbling creed. Whatever might be the differences between the two it gives us sufficient evidence in support of the assertion already made that Christianity believes in, and practises, Polytheism under cover of Trideism and that the Bible supports this belief in the three Gods or three Godheads. 

We now come back to the beginning of this discussion .The Vedas preach and teach us the cult of One Supreme Deity (Monotheism) and there is no reason to believe the contrary despite the insinuations and misinterpretations purposefully made against the Vedic Teachings by some Christian missionaries. The Vedic Teachings on the Supreme Being are unchangeable now or in the distant future. Writing in Superiority of the Vedic Religion W.D. Brown, the British Philosopher, agreed that “It (Vedic Religion) recognises but One God. It is a thoroughly scientific religion, where religion and science meet hand In hand. 

Here theology is based on Science and Philosophy.” While giving some quotations from the Vedas Count Bjornsjerne said that 

‘‘these truly sublime ideas cannot fail to convince us that the Vedas recognise only one God.” 

As against this the Bible of the Christians teaches (limited) Polytheism (Trideism) and as such spiritually the Biblical teachings are not only very primitive but they also look, in this age, to have already grown stale. 






Saturday, September 14, 2024

क्या 'द्रविड़' भारतवर्ष के आदिवासी हैं?






क्या 'द्रविड़' भारतवर्ष के आदिवासी हैं?

लेखक- डॉ० शिवपूजनसिंहजी कुशवाहा "वैदिक गवेषक"
प्रस्तोता- प्रियांशु सेठ

जब भारतवर्ष पराधीन था और अंग्रेजों का प्रभुत्व था तब उन्होंने हमारी भाषा, वेष, इतिहास, संस्कृति सब का विनाश करने का प्रयत्न किया था। उन्होंने इतिहास में लिखवाया कि आर्य लोग भारत वर्ष के मूल निवासी नहीं वरन् बाहर से आए थे। यहां के आदि वासी कोल, भील, संथाल, मुण्डा, उरांव, द्रविड़ प्रभृति थे; पर यह बात सरासर भ्रम-पूर्ण है!

'आर्य समाज के संस्थापक महर्षि दयानन्द जी महाराज ने लिखा है कि-
(प्रश्न) इस देश का नाम क्या था, और इसमें कौन बसते थे?
(उत्तर) इसके पूर्व इस देश का नाम कोई भी नहीं था और न कोई आर्यों के पूर्व इस देश में बसते थे। क्योंकि आर्य लोग सृष्टि की आदि में कुछ काल के पश्चात् तिब्बत से सीधे इसी देश में आकर बसे थे।

(प्रश्न) कोई कहते हैं कि यह लोग ईरान से आये। इसी से इन लोगों का नाम आर्य हुआ है। इनके पूर्व यहां जंगली लोग बसते थे कि जिनको असुर और राक्षस कहते थे। आर्य लोग अपने को देवता बतलाते थे और उनका जब संग्राम हुआ उसका नाम देवासुर संग्राम कथाओं में ठहराया।
(उत्तर) यह बात सर्वथा झूठ है क्योंकि-
•विजानीह्यार्यान्ये च दस्यवोबर्हिष्मते रन्धया शासद व्रतान्।। -ऋ०, मं० १/सू० ५१/मं० ८।।
•उत शूद्रे उतार्ये।। -अथर्व०, कां० १९ व ६२।।

यह लिख चुके हैं कि आर्य नाम धार्मिक विद्वान् आप्त पुरुषों का और इनसे विपरीत जनों का नाम दस्यु अर्थात् डाकू, दुष्ट, अधार्मिक और अविद्वान् है। तथा ब्राह्मण, क्षत्रिय, वैश्य, द्विजों का नाम आर्य और शूद्र का नाम अनार्य्य अर्थात् अनाड़ी है। जब वेद ऐसे कहता है तो दूसरे विदेशियों के कपोल-कल्पित को बुद्धिमान लोग कभी नहीं मान सकते।'(१)

महर्षि दयानन्द जी महाराज के इस लेख से स्पष्ट ज्ञात होता है कि विदेशियों की बात कपोल-कल्पित है।
आज मद्रास राज्य में "द्रविड़ मुन्नेतरम कजघम" नामक साम्प्रदायिक दल ने आर्यों से द्वेष करना, भारतवर्ष का मानचित्र जलाना, द्रविड़ास्थान" की मांग करना प्रारम्भ कर दिया है। इस दल के प्रमुख नेता श्रीयुत सी०ऐन० अन्नादुराई हैं। 'हिन्दी भाषा' का ये लोग प्रबलरूप से विरोध करते हैं। श्री राजगोपालाचार्य भी कभी २ 'द्रविड़ास्थान' का समर्थन करते हैं तो महान् आश्चर्य होता है। वास्तव में 'द्रविड़' यहां के आदिवासी नहीं है वरन् वे स्वयं आर्य हैं। यहां द्रविड़ों के आर्य होने का कतिपय प्रमाण दिया जाता है-

(क) राजर्षि मनु जी कहते हैं-
"शनकैस्तु क्रियालोपादिमाः क्षत्रियजातयः।
वृषलत्वं गता लोके ब्राह्मणादर्शनेन च।।४३।।
पौण्ड्रकाश्चौड्रद्रविडा: काम्बोजा यवनाः शकाः
पारदा पह्लवाश्चीनाः किराता दरदाः खशाः"।।४४।। [मनुस्मृति, अ० १०]
अर्थ- "ये क्षत्रिय जातियां धीरे धीरे शास्त्रानुकूल कर्मों के लोप होने और ब्राह्मणों के दर्शन न होने के कारण लोक में वृषल (पापी और दुष्कर्मा) हो गई- पौण्ड्रक, चोड, द्रविड़, काम्बोज, यवन, शक, पारद, पहलव, चीन, किरात, दरद, खश।"

मनुस्मृति के सुप्रसिद्ध माष्यकार "श्री कुल्लूक भट्ट जी" भी इनका अर्थ करते हैं-
इमा वक्ष्यमाणाः क्षत्रिय जातप उपनयनादिक्रियालोपेन ब्राह्मणानां च याजनाध्यापन प्रायश्चित्ताद्यर्थदर्शनाभावेन शनैः शनैर्लोके शूद्रतां प्राप्ताः।।४३।। पौण्ड्रादिदेशोद्भवाः सन्तः क्रियालोपादिनाशूद्रत्वमापन्नः।।४४॥
अर्थात्- "ये क्षत्रिय जातियां उपनयनादि क्रिया के लोप से ब्राह्मणों के और यज्ञ, अध्यापन, प्रायश्चित आदि के अभाव से धीरे धीरे लोक में शूद्रता को प्राप्त हो गई। पौण्ड्रादि देशों में उत्पन्न क्रिया लोप से शूद्रत्व को प्राप्त हो गए।" राजर्षि मनु जी स्पष्ट द्रविड़ों को क्षत्रिय बतलाते हैं।

(ख) श्री अविनाशचन्द्रदास जी लिखते हैं-
"The dark skinned and Dasyus mentioned in the Rigved were not the people of the colarian and Dravidian races, but they were either the dark nomadic Aryan Savages and remanants of the race in its on ward march towards progress on the non sacrificing Aryans tribes who did not subscribe to the orthodox Vaidic faith, and accept the Vaidic gods and hence were put down as "blacks" to depict their character."(२)

अर्थात्- "ऋग्वेद में बताए हुए काली चमड़ी वाले दास और दस्यु, कोल और द्रविड़ जाति के लोगों में नहीं थे। किन्तु या तो वे खानाबदोष जगली आर्यों में से थे, या उन आर्यों के शेष थे, जो पूर्व समय में उन्नति पथ पर पड़ गये, परन्तु ये (काले) अयाज्ञिक रहे और आर्य देवताओं के पूजक भी नहीं रहे, न उनका विश्वास वैदिक मार्ग पर रहा। अतः ये 'काले' कहकर पुकारे गये, उनका चित्र उनके व्यवहार के कारण ही ऐसा खींचा गया।"

द्राविड़ों को आयों ने सभ्य बनाया-
(ग) पुनः श्री अविनाशचन्द्र जी लिखते हैं-
"The Dravidians were famous in ancient time for their astronomical knowledge which they undoubtedly derived from the Vaidic Aryans."(३)

अर्थात्- द्रविड़ लोग प्राचीन काल में अपनी ज्योतिष विद्या के लिए विख्यात थे, इस विद्या को निस्सन्देह उन्होंने वैदिक आर्यों से सीखा।

(घ) मद्रास यूनिवर्सिटी के श्री बी०आर० रामचन्द्र दीक्षितार एम०ए० ने अपने व्याख्यान में कहा था कि-
"The fact is that the Dasyus were not non-Aryans. The theory that the Dasyus-Dravidians inhabited the Punjab and the Ganges valley at the time of the so-called Aryan invasion of India, and over come by the latter, they fled to South India and adopted it as their home cannot stand. To say that all India was a wild country once, and that it was civilised by the invading Dravidians first and by the invading Aryans next, cannot carry conviction. home.....
In the same way we have to look upon the theory of a Dravidian race. If the Aryan race theory is a myth, the theory of the Dravidian race is a greater myth. The word Dravida is the name for the speakers of a group of South Indian languages Tamil, Malayalam, Kanarese and Telugu."(४)

अर्थात्- "तथ्य यह है कि दस्यु अनार्य न थे। यह सिद्धान्त कि दस्यु-द्रविड़ लोग पंजाब और गंगा की घाटी में रहते थे जब आर्यों ने भारत पर अभियान किया और आयों से पराजित होकर वे दक्षिण भारत में भाग गए और उसी को उन्होंने अपना गृह बना लिया; प्रामाणिक नहीं है। यह कथन कि समस्त भारतवर्ष एक जंगली देश था, और इसको पहिले आक्रमणकारी द्रविड़ और पुनः आक्रमणकारी आर्यों ने सभ्य बनाया, यह भी विश्वसनीय नहीं।
उसी तरह हमें द्रविड़ जाति के सिद्धान्त को देखना है। यदि 'आर्य जाति' का सिद्धान्त कल्पित है तो द्राविड़ जाति का सिद्धान्त उससे भी अधिक कल्पित है। द्राविड़ यह शब्द तामिल, मलयालम, कन्नड़ और तेलुगु इस दक्षिण भारतीय भाषा वर्ग के बोलने वालों का नाम है।"

इन प्रमाणों से सिद्ध होता है कि "द्रविड़" आर्य क्षत्रिय हैं। आज तक ऐतिहासिक विद्वान् यह निर्णय नहीं कर सके कि इनका मूलस्थान कहां था।

श्री बी०एन० लूनिया, एम०ए० प्राध्यापक इतिहास तथा राजनीति विभाग, होल्कर कॉलेज, इन्दौर लिखते हैं कि-
'द्रविड़-आर्यों से पूर्व को जातियों में द्रविड़ ही सबसे अधिक महत्त्वशाली थे। अभाग्यवश इनका मूल निवास स्थान अभी भी विवाद-ग्रस्त है।"(५)

श्री सी०एस० श्री निवासाचारी एम०ए० तथा श्री एम०एस० रामस्वामी आयगर एम०ए० भी कहते हैं कि- "द्रविड़ों के उद्गम स्थान और उनके इतिहास के बारे में विद्वानों में भारी मतभेद पाया जाता है।..."(६)

अतः राजर्षि मनु जी का यह मत नितान्त सही ज्ञात होता है कि 'दाविड़' क्षत्रिय हैं।

पाद टिप्पणियां-
१. "सत्यार्थप्रकाश", अष्टम समुल्लास
२. "ऋग्वैदिक इण्डिया" पृष्ठ ५६२, तुलना करो, मासिक "वेदोदय" प्रयाग, जुलाई १९३३ ई०, पूर्णसंख्या ४०, पृष्ठ ३५६-३५७
३. "ऋग्वैदिक इण्डिया" पृष्ठ २५३, तुलना करो- मासिक "वेदोदय" प्रयाग, जुलाई १९३३ ई०, पृष्ठ ३५९
४. "Origin and spread of the Tamils" PP. 12,14 तुलना करो "वेदों का यथार्थ स्वरूप", प्रथम संस्करण, पृष्ठ ३४९-३५०
५. "भारतीय सभ्यता तथा संस्कृति का विकास" पृष्ठ २४, [लेखक की मूल पुस्तक "Evolution of Indian Culture " का हिंदी अनुवाद, नवम्बर १९५२ ई० में श्री लक्ष्मी नारायण अग्रवाल, आगरा द्वारा प्रकाशित, प्रथमावृत्ति
६. "प्राचीन भारत" (हिंदू काल, पृष्ठ २२) [सन् १९४८ ई० में श्रीराम नारायणलाल प्रकाशक तथा पुस्तक विक्रेता, इलाहाबाद द्वारा प्रकाशित]

Sunday, August 4, 2024

क्या वृक्षों में जीवन हैं और क्या वृक्ष आदि खाने में पाप है?




क्या वृक्षों में जीवन हैं और क्या वृक्ष आदि खाने में पाप है?

#डॉ_विवेक_आर्य

आधुनिक समाज में खान पान को लेकर एक विशेष दुविधा आज भी बनी हुई हैं, जिसमें सभी व्यक्तियों के अलग अलग दृष्टीकौन हैं। 

इस्लाम और ईसाइयत को मानने वालों का कहना है कि ईश्वर ने पेड़ पौधे पशु आदि सब खाने के लिए ही उत्पन्न किये हैं। नास्तिक लोगों का मानना है कि ईश्वर जीवात्मा आदि कुछ भी नहीं होता। इसलिए चाहे शाक खाओ ,चाहे मांस खाओ, कोई पाप नहीं लगता। अहिंसा का समर्थन करने वाले लोगों का एक मत यह भी है कि केवल पशु ही नहीं, अपितु पेड़ पौधे में भी जीवात्मा होने के कारण उनको खाने में हिंसा है और वृक्ष को काटकर खाने से हम भी मांसाहारी है। क्यूंकि हम उनके शरीर के अवयवों को खाते हैं। यह भी एक प्रकार की जीव हत्या है। निष्पक्ष होकर हम धर्म शास्त्रों पर विचार करे तो हमें इस समस्या का समाधान का हल निकल सकता है। 

संसार में दो प्रकार के जगत हैं।  जड़ और चेतन। चेतन जगत में दो विभाग हैं। एक चर और एक अचर।  वृक्ष आदि अचर कोटि में आते है, जबकि मानव पशु आदि चर कोटि में आते है। 

महाभारत के अनुसार वृक्ष आदि में वनस्पति, औषधि, गुल्म, गुच्छ, लता, वल्ली, तृण आदि अनेक प्रजातियाँ हैं। (सन्दर्भ- ५८.२३)

मनु स्मृति में बीज या शाखा से उत्पन्न होने वाले को उदभिज्ज स्थावर बीज कहा गया है। (सन्दर्भ- १.४६)

मनु स्मृति के अनुसार मनुष्य जब शरीर से पापाचरण करता हैं तो उसके फलस्वरूप अगले जन्म में वृक्ष आदि का जन्म पाता है। (सन्दर्भ- १२.९)

मनु स्मृति के अनुसार जो मनुष्य अत्यंत तमोगुणी आचरण करते हैं या अत्यंत तमोगुणी प्रवृति के होते हैं तो उसके फल स्वरुप वे अगले जन्म में स्थावर = वृक्ष, पतंग, कीट ,मत्स्य , सर्प, कछुआ, पशु और मृग के जन्म को प्राप्त होते है। (सन्दर्भ- १२.४२)

आगे मनु महाराज स्पष्ट रूप में घोषणा करते हैं की पूर्वजन्मों के अधम कर्मों के कारण वृक्ष आदि स्थावर जीव अत्यंत तमोगुण से अवेषटित होते है। इस कारण ये अंत: चेतना वाले होते हुए आन्तरिक रूप से ही कर्म फल रूप सुख दुःख की अनुभूति करते है। वाह्य सुख सुख की अनुभूति इनको नगण्य रूप से होती है अथवा बिलकुल नहीं होती। 

आधुनिक विज्ञान में वृक्षों में जीव विषयक मत की पुष्टि डॉ जगदीश चन्द्र बसु जीवात्मा के रूप में न करके चेतनता के रूप में करते है। देखा जाये तो दोनों में मूलभूत रूप से कोई अंतर नहीं होता क्यूंकि चेतनता जीव का लक्षण है। भारतीय दर्शन सिद्धांत के अनुसार जहाँ चेतनता है, वही जीव है और जहाँ जीव है, वही चेतनता है। 

आधुनिक विज्ञान वृक्षों में जीव इसलिए नहीं मानता है क्यूंकि वो केवल उसी बात को मानता है। जिसे प्रयोगशाला में सिद्ध किया गया है और जीवात्मा को कभी भी प्रयोगशाला में सिद्ध नहीं किया जा सकता। डॉ जगदीश चन्द्र बसु पहले वैज्ञानिक थे। जिन्होंने ऐसे यंत्रों का अविष्कार किया वृक्षों पौधों में वायु, निद्रा,भोजन, स्पर्श आदि के जैविक प्रभावों का अध्यनन किया जा सकता हैं। 

यहाँ तक शास्त्रों के आधार पर यह सिद्ध किया गया है कि वृक्ष आदि में आत्मा होती है, अब शास्त्रों के आधार पर यह सिद्ध करेंगे की वृक्ष आदि के काटने में अथवा पौधों आदि को जड़ से उखारने में हिंसा नहीं होती है। 

संख्या दर्शन 5/27 में लिखा है कि पीड़ा उसी जीव को पहुँचती हैं। जिसकी वृति सब अवयवों के साथ विद्यमान हो अर्थात सुख दुःख की अनुभूति इन्द्रियों के माध्यम से होती है। जैसे अंधे को कितना भी चांटा दिखाए , बहरे को कितने भी अपशब्द बोले, तो उन्हें दुःख नहीं पहुँचता। वैसे ही वृक्ष आदि भी इन्द्रियों से रहित है। अत: उन्हें दुःख की अनुभूति नहीं होती। इसी प्रकार बेहोशी की अवस्था में दुःख का अनुभव नहीं होता। उसी प्रकार वृक्ष आदि में भी आत्मा को मूर्च्छा अवस्था के कारण दर्द अथवा कष्ट नहीं होता हैं और यहीं कारण है की दुःख की अनुभूति नहीं होने से वृक्ष आदि को काटने, छिलने, खाने से कोई पाप नहीं होता और इससे जीव हत्या का कोई भी सम्बन्ध नहीं बनता। 

भोजन का ईश्वर कृत विकल्प केवल और केवल शाकाहार है और इस व्यस्था में कोई पाप नहीं होता, जबकि मांसाहार पाप का कारण है।

मनु 5/48  के अनुसार प्राणियों के वध से मांस उपलब्ध होता है, बिना प्राणिवध किये मांस नहीं मिलता और प्राणियों का वध करना दुःख भोग का कारण हैं, अत: मांस का सेवन नहीं करना चाहिए। 

ईश्वर की वाणी वेद का प्रमाण है कि —

१. मांसं न अश्नीयात् ॥ अर्थः मांस मत खाओ । २. मा नो हिंसिष्ट द्‍विपदो मा चतुष्पदः ॥ अथर्व॰ ११ । २ । १ ॥ अर्थः दो पग वाले (मनुष्य, पक्षी आदि) और चार पगवाले पशुओं को मत मारो । ३. इमं मा हिंसीर्द्‍विपाद पशुम् ॥ यजु॰ १३ । ४७ ॥ अर्थः इस दो खुर वाले पशु की हिंसा मत करो ।

प्रमाण सब से अधिक बलवान होता है । आर्यों को उचित है कि वे अपने जीवन को प्रमाणों के अनुरूप परिवर्तित करें ।

Monday, July 29, 2024

Guru Arjan Dev Martyrdom


 

Guru Arjan Dev Martyrdom

Dr. Vivek Arya

Guru Arjan Dev, fifth in succession is honoured as the founder of Shri Hari Mandir, the Adi Granth and his martyrdom. Guru had good relations with Akbar but His son Salim later known as Jahangir was just opposite to Him. Salim even once tried to poison Akbar but failed. Jahangir later sat on the Mughal throne. He faced revolt from his son Khusrau. He was responsible for killing his own son.

Jahangir's hatred for the Guru

Jahangir hated Guru Arjan for several reasons. First he was opposed to all those who had been in Akbar's good books. Secondly, Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (Sufi) incited Jahangir against Guru Arjan when he halted at Sarhind in pursuit of Khusrau. Thirdly, Shaikh Farid Bukhari was leading the vanguard of the army which was pursuing the Prince. He was the first leader to know about Khusrau's visit to the Guru He declared that the Guru should have captured him and ought to have handed him over to the Emperor. He therefore considered the Guru a rebel. Jahangir also took the same view. He wrote in his autobiography,

"A Hindu named Arjan lived at Goindwal on the bank of river Beas in the garb of a Pir and Shaikh. As a result many of the simple- minded Hindus as well as ignorant and foolish Muslims had been persuaded to adopt his ways and manners, and he had raised aloft the standard of sainthood and holiness. He was called Guru. From all sides cowboys and idiots became his fast followers. This business had been flourishing for three or four generations. For a long time it had been in my mind to put a stop to this vain affair (dukān-e-bātil) or to bring him into the fold of Islam. In these days when Khusrau passed along this road, this foolishly insignificant fellow (mardak-e- majhul) proposed to wait on him. Khusrau happened to halt at the place where he lived. He came and met him. He discussed several matters with him and made on his forehead a finger-mark in saffron. In the terms of Hindus it is called Qashqa and is considered propitious."

In pursuit of Khusrau Jahangir halted at Goindwal while his army had gone ahead to capture Khusrau. Jahangir writes, 

"I call God to witness that while at Goindwal, at this perilous crisis, I experienced some strong forebodings that Khusrau was coming to my presence."

 Just then the news came that royal forces were victorious and Khusrau had been taken prisoner.

Jahangir summons the Guru to Lahore

Khusrau was arrested on the eastern bank of river Chenab on April 26, 1606. He was produced before Jahangir on May 1 and was partially blinded. The Emperor then summoned Guru Arjan to Lahore. The Guru had realized that being surrounded by enemies on all sides his end was near. Before his departure he consoled his wife Ganga thus,

 "This body abideth not for ever. Wherefore a wise person should not love it Whatever is born perisheth, and whatever is high falleth sooner or later. This is nature's law. . . Live thou when I am gone, mourn not for me, and make no effort of thine own to separate thy soul from thy body."

Jahangir first punish him with death. But later commuted it by a fine of two lakhs of rupees, and ordered him to efface certain verses in the Adi Granth. Guru Arjan refused to pay the fine. The Guru was imprisoned in the Lahore Fort. May-June are the hottest months there. He was chained to a post in an open place exposed to the sun from morning to evening. Below his feet a heap of sand was put which burnt like a furnace. Boiling water was poured on his naked body at intervals. His body was covered with blisters all over. In this agony the Guru used to utter. 

Terā kiyā mitha läge. Nām padārath Nanak mänge

[Whatever you ordain appears sweet. I supplicate for the gift of Name.]

The Guru's death

The Guru suffered from 'heat apoplexy.' Sewing up political prisoners in fresh hides of animals seems to be a general practice in those days. A month earlier two main supporters of Khusrau had been treated similarly. Husain Beg was sewn in a fresh ox hide and Abdur Rahim in the green skin of an ass. The same punishment was now proposed for the Guru. When the raw hide of a cow was brought before him, he shuddered at its sight. The Guru asked permission to bathe in the Ravi as he did not want to die unclean. He was sent thither with a strong escort, but the swift current owing to the melting of snow carried away his weak and emaciated body. This took place on 30 May, 1606. The Guru was only 43 years old. His smadhi was later on erected at the site on the bank of river Ravi opposite to the Fort of Lahore.

Shaikh Ahmad of Sarhind expressed utmost delight at Guru Arjan's murder. In a letter written to Shaikh Farid Bukhari entitled Murtza Khan, the Governor of Panjab, he said,

"The execution at this time of the accursed Kafir of Goindwall with whatever motive. . . is an act of the highest grace for the follo- owers of Islam."

 He added that the Hindus should be treated as dogs. Jazia should be imposed upon them and cow slaughter should be allowed in the open.

Trumpp says that,

 "Guru Arjan's death is the great turning point in the development of Sikh community, as from that time the struggle commenced that changed the entire character of reformatory religious movement."

Guru Hargovind was appointed after his father martyrdom. He was imprisoned in the Gwalior fort for 12 years by Mughals. His Son Guru Teg bahadur was beheaded in Chandni Chowk. All these atrocities enabled the need for armed struggle and later for the establishment of Khalsa and downfall of cruel Mughals. 

(Hariram Gupta, vol.3 p.148-153)