Ved: 1 R’gved: Mandal 1| Sookt 7| Mantr 8

Ved: 1 R’gved:

Mandal 1| Sookt 7| Mantr 8

Ashŧak 1| Adhyāý 1| Anuvāk 2| Varg 14

Ideal Love Maker: DSM Satyarthi

———————————————————————————–——————-

Vr’shā yūthév vansagah kr’shŧīriyartyojasā. Eīshāno apratishkutah.

———————————————————————

¹Like the herds of the cows, of the bull capable to have an orgasm², ideal love maker³, attains the human beings⁴ with dominant elegance⁵. Eīshān does never negate⁶.

———————————————————————-

1. R’shi: Madhuchchhandā Mahimvat Vaishvāmitr

Dévtā/Divine Subject: Indr, the controller of organs

Chhand/Meter: Pipīlikāmadhyā Nichr’dGāyatrī

2. You must act exactly akin to a bull in this matter.

You lose human beings if you act otherwise.

You must never fight this inherent tendency in you.

It is not harmful to the human society.

If it were, We haven’t allowed it to be inherent in you.

Never allow yourself to be a prey for the evil ones.

They always talk of justice, but never actually mean it.

If possible, they would always be the first to do injustice to others.

That’s why this movement is not based on well talkers, ‘Suvaktr’.

It is based on Sukr’ts, well doers.

We are not proposing talks here.

We are proposing actions:

‘Kurvannévéh karmāñi jijīvishéchchhagvong samāh,

Évam tvayi nānyathéto’sti n’ karm lipyaté naré.’

—Ved: Yajurved: 40|2

‘Doing Karm only, here, one should wish

to live hundreds of years.

Only this is the way for thee, none else;

So Karm cleaveth not to man.’

Never believe on what they say.

Always watch what they do:

‘Mukham padmdalākāram vāchā chandanshītalā,

Hr’dayam krodhsanyuktam, trividham dhūrtlaxañam.’

‘Face as handsome as a flock of lotuses, speech as cooling as sandalwood, heart is full of fury, the three are symptoms of a perfidious.’

A Sukr’t must never decline polygamy, if he is capable.

In a system of life that never compromises with the matrimonial right to the evil doers, polygamy cannot be negated absolutely.

It cannot be denied that there may be a time too, when Sukr’ts are not so many in numbers, enough to practice monogamy with the entire womankind.

What is another practical option then except polygamy for Sukr’ts?

Yes, the evil doers can raise hell on it.

They can protest that only monogamy is a human practice, polygamy is an animalistic.

But, all their protest must be faced bravely to establish a human society marching ahead aggressively to infinite divinity.

Fight with the evil doers for the cause:

‘Udyachchhadhvamap raxo hanāthémām nārīm sukr’té dadhāt.

Dhātā vipashchit patimasyai vivéd bhago rājā pur étu prajānan.’

‘Stand up/Raise ye. Smite away the demons. Set this woman for well doer. Inspired holder/guardian must know especially the husband for her. The well knowing politician come first/ahead for her genital organ.’

—Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 14| 1| 59

3. An ideal love maker, ‘Vansagah’, is not the one who makes love to please his beloved for the time being only.

An ideal love maker, ‘Vansagah’, is the one who makes love to please his beloved forever.

How it can please forever his beloved if the future of her children is not safe in a corrupt and wicked society?

It is an established fact now that Polygamy is now almost out of our civilized systems of life.

Only some Islamic countries are practicing it now.

They claim Al Qur’an Al Kareem and Islam allow it.

‘Allow it’, Not order it.

Yet, it’s legal there.

The countries that practice monogamy always ridicule it, always criticize it and claim it’s against humanity.

Why?

They claim it’s a grand oppression on womankind.

Their claim is of course true if all the husbands are really Sukr’ts.

Is it true?

The oppression on womankind is still there if a husband is not a Sukr’t.

Monogamy has not stopped it.

Monogamy is not successful in stopping the oppression on womankind.

It’s only a lollipop the present civilized society has presented to the womankind.

Hinduism was stressing its optimum on humankind that it’s the only way to end the oppression on womankind to necessitate a Sukr’t and Sukr’t husband only.

If a man is not Sukr’t he must never be allowed to have any matrimonial rights at all.

The womankind was agreeing with Hinduism and avoiding a dushkr’t almost always as a husband.

The societies that were formed only to get rid of constant reforms Hinduism was adamant to bring in the mankind were upset how to face this practical problem.

Their own womankind was not only opting for a Hindu husband, they were resorting to have at least a clandestine Hindu lover, if it was not possible for them to have a Hindu husband.

The concerned societies were not worried of the oppression on their womankind.

They were never.

And to speak a never unspoken bold truth, they are not still now.

They have never considered it even as a possible option to end the oppression on their womankind to be Sukr’t themselves.

If they had there was nothing else to stop them from joining Hinduism.

Instead of doing this, they proposed monogamy and divorce to score on Hindus, to their own womankind.

Hence the monogamy and divorce were devised by non Hindu societies.

It was not for the benefit of their womankind to get rid of the oppression of their mankind.

No, it was not.

It was only claimed to be so.

Actually it was a lollipop to their own womankind to keep them away from a Hindu husband/ Hindu lover.

Gradually such non Hindu societies even started to claim, entirely shamelessly, that Hinduism oppresses womankind.

It practices polygamy and requires from womankind never to resort to any divorce at all:

‘Ihaiv stam mā vi yaushŧam vishvamāyurvyashnutam,

Krīdantau putrairnaptr’bhirmodmānau své gr’hé.’

‘Remain ye both only here. Don’t be separated. Enjoy whole life sporting with sons grandsons, rejoicing in your own home.’

—Ved: R’gved: 10|85|42

‘‘Ihaiv stam mā vi yaushŧam vishvamāyurvyashnutam,

Krīdantau putrairnaptr’bhirmodmānau svastakau.’

‘Remain ye both only here. Don’t be separated. Enjoy whole life sporting with sons grandsons, rejoicing in the beautiful home.’

—Ved: Atharv Ved: 14|1|22

Their womankind fell for it because they were never told the true facts.

They were taught not to be educated.

Why education for women at all?

Why should they learn anything except to please their own mankind?

It explains why the non Hindu societies were so adamant not to educate their own womankind.

Their education liberated their women and sent them to Hindus.

When they could not stop them even then, they resorted to their Honor Killings even instead of controlling and improving themselves to be Sukr’ts.

4. You lose human beings if you act otherwise.

5. You must never forget that the politeness does not mean cowardliness. You must be polite in your behavior, but never a coward.

There are always some persons, everywhere, who can’t differentiate between politeness and cowardice.

Actually, they don’t want to.

Hinduism advocates politeness, not cowardice.
Angad tells Ravan:
‘Ram tej bal budhi vipulaai,
Shesh sahas shat sakahin n’ gaai.
Sak sar ek shoshi shat saagar,
Tav bhraatahin poochheun Naynaagar.
Taasu vachan suni saagar paaheen,
Maangat panth, kr’paa man maaheen.’

‘Even hundreds of thousands Shesh can’t describe Ram‘s vigor, capability and vastness of wisdom.
He can dry hundreds of seas with only one arrow.
Yet, he has asked your brother.
Respecting his advice, he is asking a way from sea. He has kindness in his heart.’
–Shri Ramcharit Manas: 5 Sundarkand 55|1-3

This incidence is very important to learn how we should behave, according to Hinduism.
We should not lack vigor.
It’s one thing to use our vigor unjustifiably, it’s quite another thing we lack vigor, at all.
Our Lord Ram, did not lack vigor, yet he never used it unjustifiably.
He was not incapable.
His capability was almost unlimited.
Yet, he never used his capability for anything unjustified.
He was not a fool.
The vastness of his wisdom can be seen analyzing every decision he took in his life.

Yet, he never used his wisdom to exert and impose even his decisions on others.
He always encouraged every person, who came into his contact, to express his views if he/she had a difference of opinion.
He even acted on their advices, REJECTING HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION.
This is why he is called MARYADA PURUSHOTTAM.

But, even then, is this politeness indefinite?
Certainly not.
Even this very incidence makes it quite clear:

‘Vinay’ n’ maanat jaladhi jad, gaye teen din beeti,
Bole Ram sakop tab, bhay’ binu hoi n’ preeti.’
‘Three days have passed. Foolish sea did not grant the request.
Lord Ram, then, quite angry, said:’There won’t be love until it isn’t afraid.’

‘Lachhman baan sharaasan aanoo,
Sokhaun vaaridhi vishish Kr’shaanoo.’

‘Laxman! bring the arrow and the bow.
with a special arrow, I’ll dry the sea.’

‘Shath san vinay’, kutil san preetee,
Sahaj kr’pan’ san sundar neetee.
Mamtaarat san gyaan kahaanee,
Ati lobhee san virati bakhaanee.
Krodhihi sham, kaamihi Hari kathaa,
Oosar beej bhaye phal yathaa.
As kahi Raghupati chaap chadhaavaa,
Yah mat Lachhiman ke man bhaavaa.’

‘Request to a wicked, Love with a wicked diplomat schemer,
Nice policy with a vowed mean,
Describing ultimate truth to an obsessed selfish,
Peace to an angry person, and the divine history of Param Purush to a sex obsessed one;
All these things are as if sowing seeds into an unfertile land.’
Speaking thus, Lord Ram became ready to throw the arrow.
Laxman appreciated this policy.’
–Shri Ramcharit Manas: 5 Sundar kand: 1-5.

The lessons to learn from this incidence are:

1. Our first approach must not be aggressive, however powerful we are.

The principle involved here is:

‘Dushmanī jamkar karo, lékin yé gunjāish rahé,

Gar kabhī hum dost ban jāyén, to sharmindah na hon.’

‘Do enmity at your highest, but keep the place even then, that if we become friends ever, we should not be ashamed of us.’

2. We should wait for a reasonable time to let our request to be granted.
3.We should NEVER wait indefinitely.

We must always be the men of action, never the men of pretexts:

‘Kurvannév karmāñi jijīvishéchchhatagvong samāh,

Évam tvayi nānýthéto’sti n’ karm lipyaté naré.’

‘Doing Karm only, here, one should wish

to live hundreds of years.

Only this is the way for thee, none else;

So Karm cleaveth not to man.’

—Ved: 2 Yajurvéd: 40|2

‘Karmañyévādhikārasté mā phaléshu kadāchan,

Mā karmphalhéturbhūrmā té sango’stvakarmañi.’

‘Only in work is your right, never in results.

Don’t be result-obsessed, neither your obsession ever be in worklessness.’

—Shrīmad Bhagvad Gītā: 2|47

4. If all the possibilities of peace are exhausted, we should NEVER surrender to wickedness.

5. WE MUST attack it.

It was the policy till we flourished.
Unfortunately, there emerged some impractical persons who did not know anything of human psychology.
They advocated indefinite politeness that was never taught by Hinduism.
All the cowards praised them.
Unfortunately, cowards are always more everywhere than the brave ones.
Cowardice does not require anything to be done.
Bravery does.
So, every person who does not want to work, always supports cowardice in the disguise that they are supporting PEACE.
No, they are certainly not.
They are supporting future slavery of the entire society to the wicked.