Ved misinterpreted: Correct interpretations: Durgesh

Posted in the Hindu Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#1 Sep 25, 2008
Challenger, a hate monger; writes:

Mercy of Hindu woman towards the horse:

Despicable
To insult and humiliate women further, the religious books speak of women having sexual intercourse with animals or expressing desire for intercourse with them. What further insult can be heaped on women.
In 'Yajur Veda' such references are found at a number of places where the principal wife of the host is depicted as having intercourse with a horse.

For example consider the following hymn:
"All wife of the host reciting three mantras go round the horse. While praying, they say:'O horse, you are, protector of the community on the basis of good qualities, you are, protector or treasure of happiness. O horse, you become my husband.'" - Yajur Veda 23/19.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#2 Sep 25, 2008
The original Mantr:
'Gan'aanaam tvaa gan'patigvong havaamahe,
priyaan'aam tvaa priy'patigvong havaamahe,
nidheenaam tvaa nidhipatigvong havaamahe,
Vaso! mam aahamajaani garbhadhamaa
tvamajaasi garbhdham.'

'Of troops thee troop-leader we call,
Of loved ones thee, leader of loved ones we call,
Of treasures thee, lord of treasures we call,
O who arranges dwellings and wealth! Mine. I do know properly the one who makes pregnant.
You know properly the one who makes pregnant.'

Where is there any mention of any horse?

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#3 Sep 25, 2008
The hate monger writes:
'Despicable
To insult and humiliate women further, the religious books speak of women having sexual intercourse with animals or expressing desire for intercourse with them. What further insult can be heaped on women.'

We don't find any such thing in the text.
Instead, on quite contrary, we find here:
'aahamajaani garbhadhamaa
tvamajaasi garbhdham.'

'I do know properly the one who makes pregnant.
You know properly the one who makes pregnant.'

Who is this ONE WHO MAKES PREGNANT:'GARBHADH'?
The reciter/writer/revealer of the Mantr knows him PROPERLY:'AA AJAANI'.
The follower/hearer of Mantr also knows him PROPERLY:'TVAM AJAASI'

He is the one famous in Ved:
'Udyachchhadhvamap raxo hanaathemaam
naareem SUKR'TE dadhaat.
Dhaataa vipashchit patimasyai vived,
bhago raajaa pur etu prajaanan.'

'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

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#4 Sep 25, 2008
Ved is very careful in the matter.
It does not recognize the right of any DUSHKR'T to make a woman pregnant.
It calls them 'RAXAH''THE DEMONS'.
It orders its followers to stand up, to raise themselves and to SMITE AWAY THE DEMONS:'AP RAXO HANAATH'.
It orders in clear words:
'SET THIS WOMAN for WELL DOER'
'IMAAM NAAREEM SUKR'TE DADHAAT'.
It allows no carelessness in the matter:
'Inspired holder/guardian must know especially the husband for her.'
'Dhaataa vipashchit patimasyai vived'.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#5 Sep 25, 2008
Here in Yajurved, it is as careful too as it is in Atharv Ved 14|1|59:
'I do know properly the one who makes pregnant.
You know properly the one who makes pregnant.'
'aahamajaani garbhadhamaa
tvamajaasi garbhdham.'

Only a hate monger,like Challenger, can imagine a horse here.
No such word is there IN TEXT.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#6 Sep 25, 2008
Hinduism builds its society on SUKR'TS, not on horses as the hate mongers claim.
Hinduism is, thus, builds a society of SUKR'TS WELL DOERS only.
An evil doer does not have any matrimonial rights, in Hinduism, thus; while the woman marrying him, is not bound to be a well doer.
She may be a well doer, she may be NOT.
Any woman can marry a Sukr't, even if she does not agree with his system of life.
That's why PITR'YAGY', Not MAATR'YAGY'.
That's why 'ANUVRATAH PITUH PUTRO', not 'Anuvratah MAATUH putro'
That's why PATRIARCHAL SYSTEM OF HINDUISM, not Matriarchal.
It's not gender biased actually.
It's GOOD DEED biased, to build an eternal humane society MARCHING AGGRESSIVELY TO INFINITE DIVINITY always.
'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
'Om ishe tvorjje tvaa vaayav sth' devo vah savitaa praarpayatu shreshthtamaay' karman'aapyaayadhvamaghnyaa'in draay' bhaagam prajaavateeranameevaa'ayaxmaa maa v' sten eishat maaghshagvagvonso dhruvaa'asmin gopatau syaat bahveeryajmaanasy' pashoonpaahi.'
'Om! for food/the energy of desire, thee. For energy, thee. Breezes are ye. Divine Creator impel, you all, to noblest work. Complete properly, Inviolable female! share for the controller of organs.Rich in offspring/subject. Free from sickness. Free from diminishing. No thief rule on you, no evil-praiser. Be constant in this master of 'go', numerous! Guard the cattle of the worshiper.'
-Ved: 2 Yajurved: 1/1

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#7 Sep 25, 2008
Lord Kr'shn announces:
'Yada yada hi dharmasy' glaanirbhavati, Bhaarat!
abhyutthaanamadharmasy', tadaatmaanam sr'jaamyaham.
paritraan'aay' saadhoonaam,
VINAASHAAY' CH' DUSHKR'TAAM,
DHARMSANSTHAAPNAARTHAAY' sambhavaami yuge yuge.'

'Whenever persons feel humiliation for noble deeds, Bhaarat! and pride on evil deeds; then I create myself. To protect the nobles and to destroy the wickeds, to establish humanity leading to divinity, I do appear in every era.'
-Shrimad Bhagvad Geeta: 4/7-8

VINAASHAAY' CH' DUSHKR'TAAM'
'TO DESTROY THE WICKEDS'
DHARMSANSTHAAPNAARTHAAY'
'to establish humanity leading to divinity'

What is Dharmsansthaapan?
What is establishment of humanity leading to divinity?
Destruction of wickeds: VINAASHAAY' CH' DUSHKR'TAAM'
Then who will remain?
Obvously,
SUKR'TS:THE NOBLES.
'IMAAM NAAREEM SUKR'TE DADHAAT'
'SET THIS WOMAN FOR WELL DOER.'
To which particular well doer?
The woman HERSELF will decide it, none else:
'Brahmcharyen' kanyaa yuvaanam vindate patim,
anadvaan brahmcharyen'aashvo ghaasam jigeershati.'
'By following orders of Brahm, girl obtains a young husband. By following orders of Brahm, a draft ox, a horse, strives to gain food.'
-Ved: 4 Atharv Ved: 11/7/18

Only the foolish and childish persons, like Hassan 007, and Challenger; can claim, thus, that women are not given any right, or mistreated, in Hinduism.

The ridiculous thing is, that they claim, a religion, that says women have half authenticity than men for evidences in courts, a religion that does not acknowledge that a woman is raped till there are not four eye witnesses, has given more rights to womankind than Hinduism.
Even blind communalism must have some limits of its idiosyncrasies.
Aryan

Croydon, UK

#8 Sep 26, 2008
Good Job Durgesh

I just realised I posted the wrong translation in response to is propoganda posts. The version I have from Devi Chand has certain sections missing, and it was missing the section Challenger was quoting, but I had assumed it wasn't because it misread the numbers. This is what happens when one has to rely on translations! Thank god we have a Sanskritist like you with us on the forum!
'Gan'aanaam tvaa gan'patigvong havaamahe,
priyaan'aam tvaa priy'patigvong havaamahe,
nidheenaam tvaa nidhipatigvong havaamahe,
Vaso! mam aahamajaani garbhadhamaa
tvamajaasi garbhdham.'
It is so obvious from this transliteration that verse is mentioning Ganpati/ganesha.
Where is there any mention of any horse?
These foreign translators see horses, cows and bulls when there are none. When you read their pathetic translation, they have filled the translations with incoherent references to animals such as:

"Oh Maruts, the shining ones advancing on their steed, born of Agni, thou children of the cow"

If they are born of agni(fire/energy) then naturally they would shine, so how could they be riding steeds, and if they are children of fire/energy, then how can they be a children ofa cow. It is such nonsense that I've spotted in these translations that disgusted me.

In actual fact the Orignal Sanskrit is not saying this at all: It is saying "Oh Maruts, the shining particles moving swiftly advance on to us, born of energy/fire, they are the children of the LIGHT.

What a huge difference eh. This is why anybody who wants to read the Vedas has to read one by a skilled Sanskrit expert or Vedic Pundit.
Suraj

India

#9 Sep 26, 2008
just tell me in ur religion wife has to be burnt alive if his husband dies (this verse has been removed from vedas by swami viveknanda)still u are claming women has equal right in hinduism.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10 Sep 26, 2008
Suraj wrote:
just tell me in ur religion wife has to be burnt alive if his husband dies (this verse has been removed from vedas by swami viveknanda)still u are claming women has equal right in hinduism.
My friend every religion has had a bad history and bad customs so does Hinduism. These things do not exist anymore. In todayís Hindu system husband and wife are treated equally and have been given equal rights and respect. This is the beauty of our religion, it has the flexibility to change and adapt to the changing time and changing sociopolitical scenario.
Aryan

Rochdale, UK

#11 Sep 26, 2008
Couch Potato,

You do not have be an to be apologist. First of all if what Suraj says is true, it is a cause for concern and would make one evalaute Hinduism. As the Vedas are what define Hinduism, such teachings in the Vedas would significantly refute their status as enlightened texts.

As Swami Dayananda Saraswati would say we should be be prepared to see the truth. Rather than apologising to Suraj for a verse Suraj has not even posted for our examination, tell him to produce evidence for his assertion or apologise to US for misrepresenting our texts.

He says the Vedas contain a verse that says a women should be burnt. Ask him for the reference. which book, which section, which Sukta, which verse.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#12 Sep 26, 2008
Who said I was being apologetic? I just wanted him to know that all religion have been known to have ill-treated some strata or the other in history. Why shout at Hinduism only?
Aryan

Rochdale, UK

#13 Sep 26, 2008
That is called being apologetic. You are essentially saying, "Yeah we have our faults, but others have faults too" well in that case both are as bad as one another and we should reject both. The trouble is by responding like this you indirectly concede to them that what they allege is true. This is why I said, you don't have to apologise to these ignormourses. Rather ask them to cite the evidence for their claims.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#14 Sep 26, 2008
Accepting whatís wrong is the best value our religion has given to us, and I am not going to hesitate from saying that there were some aspects of our religion that are not acceptable to modern society and people have right to criticize for that.
But for the sake of comparison there has to be a benchmark and people against Hinduism have no such benchmark, so they use high pitched voices to highlight the only two negative behaviors in Hinduism that existed in History. If they look at Hinduism now they see no such fault so they do what they can do best, i.e., tell us how bad our past has been. They donít want to look at whatís happening in India now as it scares them. English donít like the fact that Indian companies are talking over their companies; Americans donít like Indian companies as they think they are losing jobs because of them and some of the Muslim countries just donít want to see India as a 21 century powerhouse.
Aryan

Rochdale, UK

#15 Sep 26, 2008
Couch Potato, you are missing the point. I am not saying that there aren't reprehensible aspects about Hindu culture, in fact ever since the collapse of the Vedic age Hindu culture has gome from one low to the other and the Hinduism practicised today has barely any resemblance to the Vedic religion. What I am saying is that the original claimaint, Suraj is alleging that wife-burning is a practice prescribed in the Vedas and by apologising to the claimaint you are indirectly conceding his points, when in fact you should be asking him for evidence of his claims.

This is not something specific to you, but many Hindus either out of embarrasement or ignorance hear people make misrepresentations of Hinduism and do not challenge them but indirectly accept them and give apologies.

You do not have to apologise. Simply ask the claimaint to produce evidence or apologise to you for for misrepresenting your religion.
Aryan

Rochdale, UK

#16 Sep 26, 2008
I think Durgesh has done an excellent job of setting Challenger straight by rendering an accurate translation of the verse that this ignorant fellow alleged said women were made to have sex with horses.

The same academic acumen is required by all Hindus today. Hinduism is the most misrepresented religion in the world and it is our duties as Hindus to correct those misrepresentations, or else allow those misrepresentations to propogate.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#17 Sep 26, 2008
I understand what you are saying and I do feel the need of intellectual dialog over Hindu Religion. But I donít think jumping back and forth into the history is going to do any good to us, nor to the people we are up against. Some of the interactions happening in the forum are far from discussing Hinduism, even our guys have turned into other religion bashers. What do we expect in return? By piling up on individuals we are only turning slight apprehensions against Hinduism into believes which will not only affect one individual, but affect the entire worlds thinking towards us. Each and every objection or comment here has to dealt softly bearing in mind that our slight mistake is going to hamper Hindu image in the eyes of the world.
Aryan

Wallington, UK

#18 Sep 26, 2008
I don't see why this point requires any futher discussion. If somebody makes a false claim about Hinduism, simply ask them to give the evidence.

This is not a complex issue.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#20 Sep 26, 2008
Aryan wrote:
Good Job Durgesh
I just realised I posted the wrong translation in response to is propoganda posts. The version I have from Devi Chand has certain sections missing, and it was missing the section Challenger was quoting, but I had assumed it wasn't because it misread the numbers. This is what happens when one has to rely on translations! Thank god we have a Sanskritist like you with us on the forum!
<quoted text>
It is so obvious from this transliteration that verse is mentioning Ganpati/ganesha.
<quoted text>
These foreign translators see horses, cows and bulls when there are none. When you read their pathetic translation, they have filled the translations with incoherent references to animals such as:
"Oh Maruts, the shining ones advancing on their steed, born of Agni, thou children of the cow"
If they are born of agni(fire/energy) then naturally they would shine, so how could they be riding steeds, and if they are children of fire/energy, then how can they be a children ofa cow. It is such nonsense that I've spotted in these translations that disgusted me.
In actual fact the Orignal Sanskrit is not saying this at all: It is saying "Oh Maruts, the shining particles moving swiftly advance on to us, born of energy/fire, they are the children of the LIGHT.
What a huge difference eh. This is why anybody who wants to read the Vedas has to read one by a skilled Sanskrit expert or Vedic Pundit.
Quite right, and thank you.
No translation of Ved, however best, in my opinion, can replace the original Vedic text.
That's why our ancestors labored so much in Samhita Paath, Jataa Paath, Ghan Paath, Maalaa Paath etc. to preserve the original Vedic text.
We are indebted to our learned ancestors very much.

“A multiversalist Humanist”

Since: Dec 07

Jabalpur

#23 Sep 26, 2008
Aryan wrote:
Couch Potato,
You do not have be an to be apologist. First of all if what Suraj says is true, it is a cause for concern and would make one evalaute Hinduism. As the Vedas are what define Hinduism, such teachings in the Vedas would significantly refute their status as enlightened texts.
As Swami Dayananda Saraswati would say we should be be prepared to see the truth. Rather than apologising to Suraj for a verse Suraj has not even posted for our examination, tell him to produce evidence for his assertion or apologise to US for misrepresenting our texts.
He says the Vedas contain a verse that says a women should be burnt. Ask him for the reference. which book, which section, which Sukta, which verse.
True.
I've already asked him.
He can't produce any, because there never was any such verse .
If it was there, why Kaushalya, Kaikeyi, and Sumitra, any of these three widows of Dashrath, did not follow it?
It was an Aasur tradition, not Vedic, at all.
Sulochna followed it, and Ravan did not stop her.
Hindus adopted it afterwards from Asurs, in their profound stupidity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hindu Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
married bottom gay (Nov '13) 9 min samar 100
Raigarh kharsia gay sex (Jun '13) 10 min Deepak 703
housewife 10 min love 3,311
Bangalore gay sex (Mar '13) 10 min zabi 27,192
Marathi sex Pune,satara (Jun '13) 11 min santosh 2,289
1000 rs me ladki apke ghar pe ayegi. (Feb '13) 11 min Dehradun 600
only haryanvi (Aug '12) 13 min Gabru chora 486
Delhi gay sex (Feb '13) 18 min hey 91,050
Ahmedabad gay (Aug '12) 25 min deepak 41,225
Sexy hindi chat (Dec '12) 28 min prasant tamang 13,744
hyderabad gay sex (Apr '13) 30 min krishna shaa 24,885

Hindu People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE