Agné vratpaté vratam charishyāmi
Tachchhakéyam tanmé rādhýatām
1Agni, the master of vrat2, (say) I’ll follow vrat3. May I have strength therefor4. That both5 give me success/wealth6.
From this absolute untruth7, I take to truth8 by worship9.
Dévtā/ Divine Subject: Agni.
It’s a vrat, a sacred vow instead.
Vishñu has to protect Havý, but it doesn’t mean Agni doesn’t have to do anything with it.
It’s at least a vrat for Agni.
Even if he/she is not as capable as Vishñu to protect Havý, it is too nevertheless his sacred duty to help Vishñu in it.
S/he doesn’t understand its all-pervading significance, but even then, it’s his/her duty to take the normal persons to light.
It’s a sacred duty of a person who spreads Our knowledge to everyone that s/he understands his/her position correctly in the system.
A person that doesn’t understand his/her responsibility in the system and a person that understands it, can’t act similarly.
He/she is an educated person.
The main difference between sacrificial translations and commentaries of Ved according to Sāyañ, Mahīdhar etcetera, and its Principles Oriented Commentary such as this one I am presenting is that Agni is presented in them as a deity.
It was a great conspiracy actually to weaken India of the British realm.
A sincere student of history can’t understand how it was possible that the Hindus and Musalmīn who fought the holy war of Independence in 1857 together cut each other’s throat only after 90 years in 1947.
The British administration did what East India Company could never even think.
No, I am not telling hate the today British and today Britain for it.
We allowed them to do it.
We let them to poison our hearts against each other to the extent that ultimately we cut our throats instead of cutting theirs.
The polytheistic translations and commentaries of Ved were deliberately done and spread everywhere.
Under the disguise of the upliftment of the downtown actually the monotheistic intellectuals of Ved were deliberately ignored and suppressed.
Yes, there were tyrannies of both, but not to the extent, it was told to Hindus and downtrodden deliberately.
- ‘Rādhýtām’ Dvivachan. Lot lakār.
If there isn’t anything contrary in the context, generally it implies the spouse, husband for a wife and wife for a husband.