Ved: R’gved: Mandal 1: Sookt 1: Mantr 2.

Feb20 by Durgesh

Ved: R’gved:

Mandal 1: Sookt1 : Mantr 2

DSM Satyarthi

2. Agnih poorvébhirr’shibhireedyo nootanairut

S’ dévān éh vaxati.

———————————————————————————————————

Agni¹⁰ is laudable by ancient R’shis¹¹ and modern ones¹². He collects dévs¹³ here¹⁴ appropriately¹⁵.

———————————————————————————–

10. It has been discussed quite in detail in the commentary of 1^st Mantr what Eīshān ParamBrahm Parmātmā means by ‘Agni’.

It is certainly not only ‘the god of fire’ as Max Muller, Griffith, Mac Donell, H.H.Wilson, Oldenberg and Professor Louis Renou etc. have told us.

They all had apparently based their various translations of R’gved on the commentary of Āchārý Sāyañ.

Pt. Yudhishthir Meemānsak has discussed the matter somewhat in detail.

In his Hindi Essay ‘Vedārth ki Vividh Prakriyāon ki Aitihāsik Meemānsā’ ‘The Historical Analysis of different schools of translations of Ved’ he has discussed the translations of Ved before Yāgyic or Yajnic period.

It is quite natural, we can’t find Āchārý Sāyañ and his Vedārth Prakāsh discussed there.

Pt. Yudhishthir Meemānsak has found in his researches:

‘We can divide the vast period from the beginning to today in four parts with reference to the translations of Ved―

1.To the end of Kr’tyug.

2.Trétā to the end of Dvāpar.

3.From the beginning of Kali to the 19^th Century of Vikram.

4.It starts from the 20^th Century of Vikram.

The second way, we can divide it is as follows:

1.Pre- Yāgyic Period.

2.Earlier Yāgyic Period.

3.Later Yāgyic Period.

4.Modern Times.’

―‘Vedic Siddhānt Meemānsā’ ‘The

Analysis of Vedic Principles’: Pt. Yudhishthir Meemānsak: Part I : 1991 AD: p.66: translation from original Hindi: Durgāshankar Mahimvat Satyarthi.

Shatpath Brāhmañ explains―

‘Brahm hyagnih’ ‘Only the Brahm is Agni’ (1|4|2|11)

Agnirvai dévānām vratpatih, étaddh vai dévā vratam charanti yatsatyam’ ‘Agni is the Lord of sacred vows of Devs. Only this the vrat, sacred vow, the Devs practice, which is true’(1|1|1|2|5)

Let’s discuss what does ‘hi’ ‘only’ mean in ‘Brahm hyagnih’ ‘Only the Brahm is Agni’ (1|4|2|11) when I myself have written in the commentary of previous mantr that ‘Agni’ does mean ‘Eishan ParamBrahm Paramatma‘ , one who obeys Him and spreads the knowledge of His Ved among His creations everywhere and to everyone, and the element of fire inherent in fire, like electricity, self respect, to be aggressive etc.

As these are at least three meanings what is meant here inShatpath Brāhmañ by ‘Brahm hyagnih’ ‘Only the Brahm is Agni’ (1|4|2|11)?

It means the ultimate original meaning of ‘Agni’ is ‘Brahm’.

The expression is like the expression ‘Satyamev Jayte’ meaning ultimately truth prevails.

It is clear therefore that from ‘Agni’Shatpath Brāhmañ means Eīshān Param Brahm Parmātmā. Though where it is clear from the context that Eīshān is not meant, the primary person referred to, is The President of entire Creations living in ‘Absolute Space’ ‘Param Vyom’. Other persons who lead others to Light are the third; Eīshān terms here ‘Agni’.

11. For ‘ancient R’shis’, the original words used by the God, are― ‘Poorvébhirr’shibhih’.

R. T. H. Griffith has commented on it:

‘Ancient Seers: said by Sāyañ to be Bhr’gu, Angiras, and others, the expression indicates the existence of earlier hymns.’

H. H. Wilsonhas also commented:

‘Ancient and Modern Sages: The term ‘Poorv’ and ‘Nootan’, ‘Former’ and ‘Recent’, applied to Rishis or Sages, are worthy of remark, as intimating the existence of earlier teachers and older hymns.’

If they mean that entire Ved is not revealed at a time, the revelation was in installments, so that with respect of later revealed hymns, there were earlier revealed hymns also, it’s true.

It is never claimed by the persons, having deep knowledge of Hinduism, that Ved is revealed as a whole at a single time.

However, some mischievous persons have claimed that by above-mentioned comments, R. T. H. Griffith and H. H. Wilson meant, there were some hymns even prior to those of R’gved.

This is quite mischievous and motivated with ill intentions against Hindus and the Vedic Movement.

Every human being irrespective of one’s caste or creed must be anti-‘antiism’.

To have any blind anti psychosis against any person or any group of persons is not a civilized attitude at all.

If a person or a Group of persons is found to be involved in unwanted and uncalled for activities, only that particular person or only that Group of persons must be punished for its anti social activity.

It is entirely unjustified that the entire community, whichever it maybe, should be held responsible for the anti social activity that particular person or only that Group of persons has performed.

Atheism is no more a school of thoughts, considered absolutely infallible.

The pseudo confusion was created deliberately by then Soviet Union.

It provided oxygen also to the erroneous belief, then held by most of the people.

Fortunately, with the Collapse of Soviet Union and Communism this erroneous belief is also collapsing getting no oxygen for its survival from anywhere.

It is clear, therefore, that only Socialism is the only resortCommunism now has.

Communism and Socialism both are different in its means only.

As far as the target is concerned, the both are not very much different.

Communism wanted to establish a particular political and social system, which suited it for its own survival by hook or crook.

Socialism is trying to establish the same political and social system via Democracy.

Communism and Socialism both are actually atheist schools of thoughts.

With the Collapse of Communism, Socialism is desperate now.

It can be observed everywhere if one only wants to see it.

The History stands to evidence, that Communism and Socialism were related till now as an elder and younger brother.

The Communism was the elder brother and the Socialism was the younger.

The elder brother was more developed and successful.

Or, at least, it considered itself to be so.

With the end of it, Socialism is desperate feeling itself alone, and even unwanted somewhat.

It’s also feeling that its own end is not very much far away.

Moreover, with its end, the school of thought that is taking its place, is no other else but ‘Dharm’.

Mind you, I’m not talking of Religion now.

I’m talking of Dharm.

It is something far deeper than the Religion.

Even the great Islam, which defeated Judaism and Christianity successfully once, but not Hinduism fully; now surrendering to Dharm whether it acknowledges it, or not.

Everybody knows that Dharm has proved to be more successful than Religion even.

Why is it so?

Because Dharm has meditation as their processes of Worship to help in evolution of human beings further, from where they are at that particular moment, while the Religion has Prayer.

Both Hinduism and India progressed once non stop, as they had meditation, as their process of worship.

Their meteoric non stop progress diminished in its fast speed ,only when Hindus all but practically abandoned Ved and Brahmyagy or Stavan and accepted Vedetar books and prayer as its substitutes.

Meditation is a Scientific System while the Prayer is an Emotional one.

Meditation is a masculine approach towards the Metaphysical, while the Prayer is a Feminine one.

The Meditation is an aggressive way to achieve what one wants to, while the Prayer is the submissive.

12. ‘Nootanairut’ ‘and modern ones’.

It is clear from this Ved Mantr, thus, that if Ved is an Eternal Law Book, as it claims to be; there will be no such time when the ‘Rishis’ will not be there.

R’shi Dayanand has proved it true.

Saint Augustine has said:

‘The religion, which is called the Christianity today, was in the ancient people too.

It was continuously present from the beginning of the humankind till Lord Jesus Christ assumed human body.

The ancient religion was called the Christianity since the times of Lord Jesus Christ.’

―‘Dharm ka aadi srot’: Pandit Gangaprasad Upadhyay p.18: Translated from original Hindi : DSM Satyarthi

Al Qur’an Al Kareem does also say:

‘Alif lām mīm.₁

ZālikAl Kitāb Lā raib fīhi Hudallilmuttaqīn.₂

Allazīn yu’minūn bilghabi v’ yuqīmūnassalāt v’ mimmā razaqnāhum yunfiqūn.₃

Vallazīn yu’minūn bimā unzil ilayk v’ mā unzil min qablik v’ bil ākħirati hum yūqinūn._4′

‘Alif. Lam. Mim.This is the Book: there is no doubtabout it. It is guidance to Godfearing people,who believe in the unseen , establish the Salats and expend out of what We have bestowed on them; who believe in the Book We have sent down to you (i.e. the Qur’an) and in the Books sent down before you, *7 and firmly believe in the Hereafter.’

― Al Qur’an Al Kareem: 2 Al Baqarah: 1-4

In the seventh footnote, Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi, the founder of Jamaete Islami; has written:

‘The fifth requirement is that one should believe in the Books revealed by God to His Prophets in the various ages and regions of the world, in the Book revealed to Muhammad (peace be on him) as well as in those revealed to the other Prophets who preceded him.

The door of the Qur’an is closed to all those who do not consider it necessary for man to receive guidance from God.

It is also closed to those who, even if they believe in the need for such guidance, do not consider it necessary to seek it through the channel of revelation and prophethood, but would rather weave their own set of ideas and concepts and regard them as equivalent to Divine Guidance.
This door is also closed to those who believe in Divine books as such, but confine this belief to those books accepted by their forefathers, and spurn Divine Guidance revealed to anyone born beyond their own racial and national boundaries.

The Qur’an excludes all such people and is prepared to open the source of its grace only to those who believe that mankind does require Divine Guidance, who acknowledge that this guidance does not come to people individually but reaches them through Prophets and Divine Books and who are not given to racial or national chauvinism but are devotees of Truth alone, and are therefore prepared to submit to Divine Guidance wherever it be found.’

―Towards understanding the Qur’an

The same principle is repeated in Al Qur’an Al Kareem

again in 43^rd Soorat, ‘Sooratal Zukhruf’:

‘Ha’. Mim. By the Clear Book; verily We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you may understand. Indeed it is transcribed in the Original Book with Us; *2 sublime and full of wisdom*3.’

― Al Qur’an Al Kareem:43 Az Zukhruf:1-4

In the second and third footnotes, Maulana Saiyad Abul Aala Maududi, the founder of Jamaete Islami; has written:

‘“Umm al-Kitab “: the “Original Book“: the Book from which all the Books sent down to the Prophets have been derived.

In Surah (56)AI-Waqi`ah the same thing has been described as Kitab-um-Maknun (the hidden and preserved Book) and in Surah (85)AI-Buruj 22 as Lauh-i Mahfuz (the Preserved Tablet), that is, the Tablet whose writing cannot be effaced, which is secure from every kind of interference.

By saying that the Qur’an is inscribed in Umm al-Kitab, attention has been drawn to an important truth.

Different Books had been revealed by Allah in different ages to different Prophets for the guidance of different nations in different languages, but all these Books invited mankind to one and the same Faith: they regarded one and the same thing as the Truth; they presented one and the same criterion of good and evil; they propounded the same principles of morality and civilization; in short, they brought one and the same Din (Religion).

The reason was that their source and origin was the same, only words were different; they had the same meaning and theme which is inscribed in a Source Book with Allah, and whenever there was a need, He raised a Prophet and sent down the same meaning and subject-matter clothed in a particular diction according to the environment and occasion.

Had Allah willed to raise the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be His peace) in another nation instead of the Arabs, He would have sent down the same Qur’an in the language of that nation.

In it the meaning and content would have been expressed according to the environments and conditions of the people and land; the words would have been different and the language also different but the teaching and guidance the same basically, and it would be the same Qur’an though not the Arabic Qur’an.

This same thing has been expressed in Surah (26)Ash-Shu`ara, thus:

“This (Book) has been revealed by the Lord of the worlds. The trustworthy Spirit has come down with it upon your heart so that you may become one of those who are (appointed by God) to warn (the people) in plain Arabic language; and this is also contained in the scriptures of the former peoples.” (vv. 192-196). (For explanation, see (26)Ash-Shu`ara: 192196 and the E.N.’s on it).

3 This sentence is related both to Kitab-i mubin and to Umm al-Kitab.

Thus, it is in praise of both the Qur’an and the Original Book from which the Qur’an has been derived.

This praise is meant to impress the fact that if a person does not recognize the true worth of this Book and does not benefit from its wise teachings because of his own folly, it would be his own misfortune.

If someone tried to degrade it and found fault with it, it would be his own meanness.

It cannot become worthless on account of someone’s lack of appreciation of it, and its wisdom cannot be eclipsed by anyone’s throwing dust at it.

This is by itself a glorious Book, which stands exalted by its matchless teaching, miraculous eloquence, faultless wisdom and the sublime personality of its great Author. Therefore, none can succeed in minimizing its value and worth.

In verse 44 below the Quraish in particular and the Arabs in general have been told that the revelation of the Book for which they are showing such lack of appreciation had provided them a unique opportunity of honour, which if they lost, would subject them to a severe accountability before God. (Please see E.N. 39 below).’

―Towards understanding the Qur’an

Lord Bhagvan Manu has also said, almost the same thing in Manu Smr’ti:

‘Etaddeshprasootasy’ sakaashaadagrjanmanah,

Svam svam charitram shixeran pr’thivyaam sarvmaanavaah.’

‘All the followers of Manu have educated their own characters, on the earth, with the grace of their earlier births on the land, (India).

―Manu Smr’ti: 1|139

When it is the Truth, we haven’t another alternative, except to accept, that there are not two ‘Dharm’ in the Multiverse, neither three, nor four, nor more so.

Dharm is also ONLY ONE, in the same manner, as the God, Eīshān Param Brahm Parmatma, Allah; Himself is.

And, when it is the Truth, all we Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. have to reconsider whether our behavior with each other is perfect.

When we criticize Ved, actually we don’t criticize Ved alone; we criticize Al Qur’an Al Kareem and Bible too, as well.

When we criticize Bible, actually we don’t criticize Bible alone; we criticize Ved and Al Qur’an Al Kareem too, as well.

When we criticize Al Qur’an Al Kareem, actually we don’t criticize Al Qur’an Al Kareem alone; we criticize Ved and Bible too, as well.

If we ONLY understand, this FACT, our behavior with each other will be quite different from that today.

As far as Ved is concerned, R.T. H. Griffith, H.H. Wilson, Friedrich Max Muller, W.D. Whitney; none had the goal to produce Ved, in its true form, in the languages it was produced by them.

They were not devoted to Ved, neither impartial even.

They were devoted to the Evolution Theory and to keep British rule then in India.

Thomas Babington Macaulay has clearly stated:

‘It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.^[5]‘

—Wikipedia

They were interested in Ved, because they wanted to prove the Evolution Theory, through Ved and to rule then Indians.

It was natural for them, therefore, to close their eyes from every fact that contradicted the Evolution Theory and their vested sinister interest.

It can be easily seen, thus, that it was not a scientific approach at all.

There was scientific approach if the facts discovered, did not contradict the Evolution Theory and their vested sinister interest.

The scientific approach was abandoned, if the facts found, contradicted the Evolution Theory and their vested sinister interest.

We have to remember it, while we refer to the translations of Ved, by these gentlemen.

However, even they could not find any book written before Ved.

They did not agree that Ved was revealed in the beginning of the Creations/ Multiverse.

Even then, they had to agree that Ved is the Everfirst Book written anywhere.

Now, if the Evolution Theory was entirely correct, as it was produced in those days, it was necessary that Ved should not preach MONOTHEISM.

The problem was, that Ved not only preached MONOTHEISM, it preached PANENTHEISM as well.

The proper way to understand Ved is to understand it, first, not as to contradict itself.

Ved presented itself as an answer to Gayatri Mantr.

Naturally, Ved must have been interpreted, at least, according to Gayatri Mantr.

But, it was not done.

Ved was deliberately interpreted according to Sāyañ Bhāshý.

They said that the only Complete Commentary on Ved available, is Sāyañ Bhāshý, the Commentary of Āchārý Sāyañ.

Though, even the Commentary of Āchārý Sāyañ is not available, completely, on Atharv Ved.

The earlier Commentaries on Ved were Samhitas, Shakhas, and the Brahman Granths.

But, the difference in these Commentaries on Ved and the Sāyañ Bhāshý, was that the Sāyañ Bhāshý was in the sequence of the Mantrs, while these earlier Commentaries on Ved were not in that particular sequence.

Yet, they were, and are; Commentaries on Ved.

It was made the critical difference, and Sāyañ Bhāshý was selected to interpret Ved, as the most authentic source.

It can be seen that the decision was wrong and heavily biased.

Sāyañ Bhāshý, as already has been said, was not representing Ved in its original form.

It was deliberately written to justify the rituals found, in those days, in then Hindu Society.

Hindu Society was termed authentic, to serve their vested sinister political purposes, and even the Samhitas, Shakhas, and the Brahman Granths were interpreted according to the rituals found in it, in Sāyañ Bhāshý, as well as the Ved itself, as if Hindus should NOT follow Ved, THE VED should follow the Hindus.

Nonsense!

Hindus are not revealed by the God.

The Ved is reveled by Him.

Actual Hinduism of Ved is, therefore, not found in Sāyañ Bhāshý, and therefore, not in its western translations too.

Not only this, there was another situation too, of the Hindu Society, in the British Regime, that also did help the then westerners.

In the days of the British Empire, the Hindu Society thought that the Samhitas, Shakhas, and the Brahman Granths were also Ved.

Ridiculous! Yet true.

Moreover, it was not from the days of the British Empire.

It was as old as the days of Akbar the Great.

Akbar wanted to reconstruct India, according to Ved.

Alas, it was not possible.

Normal Hindus, nowadays, think that the Muslims of those days were obstacles in it.

Certainly NOT.

They are quite mistaken.

Not only the Muslims of those days, were obstacles in the reconstruction of India by Akbar the Great, the Hindus of those days were also obstacles in it.

It was the main reason, Akbar the Great had to devise a new religion Dine Ilahi.

The then British Empire and the other westerners, devoted to the Evolution Theory, rather than to Ved, enjoyed every benefit of this idiosyncrasy of the then foolish Hindus.

They also rejected to accept that the Samhitas, Shakhas, and the Brahman Granths were Commentaries on Ved, NOT VED itself.

It was useful to them as a political, diplomatic policy,THEN.

They accepted, Sāyañ Bhāshý was the only authentic Commentary on Ved, available then.

Nevertheless, their problem was not solved fully.

Āchārý Sāyañ were requested to justify the then rituals, found in the contemporary Hindu Society, NOT to refuse to accept the TRUE FORM of Ved.

Therefore, Sāyañ Bhāshý contains the TRUE FORM of Ved also in even so many of Ved Mantrs’ commentaries of Āchārý Sāyañ.

13. ‘S’ dévān éh vaxati‘

Who are these ‘Devs’ whom this ‘Agni’ collects here properly?

The persons who have divine attributes, and do divine deeds, of course.

Ved/Hinduism wants to build a human society that is based on principles.

It does not want to build a communal society that call itself ‘Hindu’, and work for the progress of those so called Hindus only.

Ved, and therefore Hinduism; wants to build a society of ‘Sukr’ts’/NOBLE DOERS only.

Moreover, it does not want the persons, who are wicked, even to flourish:

‘Vinaashaay’ ch’ DUSHKR’TAAM’.

‘And to destroy the wicked/evil doers.’

—Shrimad Bhagavad Geetaa: 4| 8

And why does Ved wants to collect these ‘Devs’ here appropriately?

‘Ut devaa avhitam devaa unnayathaa punah,

utaagashchakrusham devaa devaa jeevayathaa punah.’

‘Divine ones! Divine ones!
raise up the downtrodden.
And, Divine ones! Divine ones! Make him to live again, who hath done evil.’
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 4/13/1
‘Utaagashchakrusham devaa devaa jeevyathaa punah.’
‘And, Divine ones! Divine ones! Make him to live again, who hath done evil.’
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 4/13/1
tells us that a person dies because of his/her evil doings.

There is another Mantr also that confirms this very conclusion:
‘Vidyaam chaavidyaanch yastadvedobhayagvong sah,
Avidyayaa mr’tyum teertvaa vidyayaamr’tamashnute.’

‘Science and nescience, who knows the both simultaneously; by nescience crossing the death, by science, he obtains the eternity.’
–Ved2 Yajurved|40|14

‘Avidyayaa mr’tyum teertvaa vidyayaamr’tamashnute.’
‘By nescience crossing the death, by science, he obtains the eternity.’

Thus, it also defines the ‘AAGAH”EVIL’.
It’s nothing else except NESCIENCE.
So, Ved tell us, not to resort to NESCIENCE so that we can live long, and ultimately can WIN OVER DEATH too.
We can’t do it, if we don’t work at all:
‘Kurvanneveh karmaani’
‘Only Doing works here.’

Saint Augustine of Hippo, hasn’t preached anything else when he preached:
“Love the sinner and hate the sin” (Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum)(Opera Omnia, vol II. col. 962, letter 211.), literally “With love for mankind and hatred of sins “[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hip…

There are some questions from some persons on the subject, since it was written.

I received the questions through E-mail.

I reproduce them here along with the answers for the benefit of all.

‘there is a question 1what meaning of aagah in vedik sanskrit .

‘Aagah’ in Vedic Sanskr’t means ’sin/crime/nescience’.

2.after a long time a man hates sinner not his/her evil doings like ravan ,laden how we descrease hates to him.

It is not necessary to decrease the hate for him.
Actually we hate him for his sins.
If he hadn’t sinned we haven’t hated him ever.
So, practically, it’s enough if we understand the PRINCIPLE of —
‘Ut devaa avhitam devaa unnyathaa punah,
Utaagashchakrusham devaa devaa jeevyathaa punah.’
‘Divine ones! Divine ones!
raise up the downtrodden.
And, Divine ones! Divine ones! Make him to live again, who hath done evil.’
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 4/13/1

and ACT ACCORDINGLY.

We can’t raise any downtrodden till we don’t hate him.
Lord Ram did not send Laxman to Ravan, when Ravan was dying, to learn politics from him, hating Ravan.
He killed Ravan.
But this single action from him, tells us, that he did not kill him because he hated him.
He killed Ravan, because he had to punish him.
It was actually death sentence to Ravan, because he dishonored an Ammulkaynat, Khadeejah Alkitab.
Lord Ram could not forgive Ravan for it.
Only, Ammulkaynat, Khadeejah Alkitab could forgive him.
She did not.
Hence the death sentence was administered ultimately.

3 how much time should be given to descrease their sins i mean what is the last limit of his/her when will we punish them.

Lord Ram sent Pavan Putr and Angad to Ravan to explain the situation.
We have to do the same and give proper time to understand as Lord Ram did to Ravan.
It depends on practical situations to determine the length of time necessary.
It may differ from situations to situations.

Write again, if you have still some questions.

14. ‘Ih‘. In the movement of Ved/ Hinduism:

‘Imaam naareem Sukr’te dadhaat.’

‘Kr’n’vanto vishvamaaryam.‘

15. ‘Aa‘. Never use the means, harmful to humanity, for it.

R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 3

——————————————————————————————

More Commentary on Ved from DSM Satyarthi:

1. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 1

2. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 2

3.R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 1| Mantr 3

4. R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 5| Mantr 3