Ved: 2 Yajurved:

Poorv Vinshati:

Adhyāý 1: Mantr 2.

DSM Satyarthi

———————————————————————————-

Vasoh pavitramasi. Dyaurasi. Pr’thivyasi. Mātarishvano gharmo’si. Vishvdhā’asi. Paraméñ dhāmnā dr’agvonghasv. Mā hvārmā té yagýpatirhvārshīt.

———————————————————————————-

¹Strainer² of vasu³ art thou. Thou art bright planetary/galaxy system⁴. Earth art thou⁵. Thou art Mātarishvan’s⁶ Tap/Gharm⁷. Thou art the holder of all⁸. Strengthen with Supreme Abode⁹. Don’t call¹⁰. Your master of best work¹¹ should not call¹².

—————————————————————————–

1. R’shi: Paraméshŧhī Prajāpati.

The Param Purush/the absolute man is Paraméshŧhī. He has been nominated by Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā Himself, to play the same role in the democratic system of all His infinite creations, as the President plays in a Parliamentary Democratic System.

But there are some differences too:

A. He is nominated not chosen, as it is required in a Parliamentary Democratic System.

B. His authority can be challenged in the Supreme Court of Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā only, nowhere else.

C. The persons who are atheists have nothing to complain as they don’t believe in the Existence of Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā Himself. They have not to believe in the existence of Param Purush too, similarly.

Param Purush is also capable to execute his authority himself, almost like Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā.

Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā is Almighty.

Param Purush is also almost almighty, having only one supreme authority above him, Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā.

D. One can differ with Param Purush, but one can’t challenge his authority anywhere else except in the court of Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā.

E. Param Purush is immortal, while the other Presidents are not.

F. A difference of opinion with Param Purush is not necessarily a disobedience to Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā, until it is against Ved itself.

Dévtā/Divine Subject: Yagý, Best Work.

Chhand/Meter: Svarāŧ Ārshī Trishŧup.

Svar: Dhaivat.

2. ‘Strainer’ ‘Pavitram’.

Yet, this translation of ‘Pavitram’ does not convey its complete sense, the Mantr/Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā/Ved does want to convey.

Ralph Thomas Hochkin Griffith claims that he has followed Āchārý Sāyañ and Mahidhar here.

Yet, the fact remains that both of them never claimed to explain Ved according to the principles it wants to establish for humanity leading aggressively to divinity.

Ved was not revealed by Eishān Param Brahm Paramātmā to perform the rituals prominent at the times of Āchārý Sāyañ and Mahidhar.

Āchārý Sāyañ and Mahidhar were not present when the Ved was being revealed on Lord Vedarshis or on Param Purush.

Neither the rituals, prominent at the times of Āchārý Sāyañ and Mahidhar, were present there anywhere.

How then is it justified to interpret entire Ved according to them?

Ved is not responsible for those rituals whatsoever they were.

Ved never claims, anywhere in it, that it was revealed so that the human beings can perform some rituals.

On the quite contrary, Ved claims that it is the Eternal Constitution for entire humankind:

‘Svayambūryāthātathyato’arthān vyadadhāchchhāshvatībhyah samābhyah.’

‘The Self Existent has constituted the aims, according to facts, for the eternal realms/years.’

—Ved: 2 Yajurved: 40|8

How then a follower of Ved can ignore what Ved itself claims about it?

It was King Bukk’s idea that Ved should be translated according to the sacrificial rituals prominent in his times.