TruthaboutHinduism

Answering Hinduism
Skip to content

HOME

ABOUT

LIST OF ARTICLES

https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/concept-of-god-in-arya-samaj-protestant-hinduism-

part-1/

Concept of God in Arya Samaj (Protestant

Hinduism) Part 1
Written by Abd Al Muhsin Al Hindy

This section deals with the Concept of God (or Concept of Gods later well make things more evident) in
Protestant Hinduism(so-called rya Samj), the concept of God in Protestant Hinduism is grossly
and totally incoherent. In fact its also doubted whether this could be called as concept
of God or not. It seems, the very definition of God was not fathomed by Moolshankar. The
conception of God in Protestant Hinduism itself is sufficient to prove the false nature of this
cult. Its quite amazing to see how Moolshankar describes his god (Ishwar), he extensively
stresses on his gods omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, formlessness and shapelessness.
Nowadays we see fanatical zealots, hate-mongers like Agniveer, propagating his works, as
these (Mahendra Pl, Agniveer -now claims to be a Movement) being a blind-followers of Moolshankar like
other protestant Hindus. Here well try to demystify the concept of God in Protestant Hinduism and show
how rational and coherent it is.

The protestant Hindus propagandise, their cult to be Monotheistic in nature and claim their
scriptures teach worship of One God exclusively, this is what people are usually informed by the
protagonists, but the reality of their belief will be evident in the following passages.Vedas only
teach polytheism not monotheism.

We read, Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati)writing in his book (Satyarth Praksh), that the Vedas
strictly preach and teach Monotheism and this was his belief [delusion] too. In fact the translator
Durg Prasd writes in the book (Satyarth Prakshs translation, pg. 60) that Satyarth Prakash an
exposition of the monotheism and civilization of the ancient Aryans. It seems that
his (Moolshankars) blind -followers truly believe that this book (Satyarth Praksh) deals with
monotheism, nonetheless this so-called monotheism of protestant Hinduism will be scrutinized to
truth.
a.1) Is Ishwar the Creator?

Protestant Hindus go around talking of so-called one god Ishwar who is the creator. But what
they really mean by the Creator? Lets see.
First, Moolshankar wrote that God is the creator of all, then contradicts himself, by stating that
Paramtm [God], tm [Human Souls] and Prakriti [Primordial matter], are beginning-less and
uncreated! So how come God is (Ishwar) creator of all? We shall probe into this case, and expose
some amazingly incoherent beliefs of protestant Hindus.
Mooshankar wrote (quotes Yajurveda 36:3)
Omniscient, Sustainer and Ruler of the Universe, Creator of all, Eternal

[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 3, pg.33 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

It wasnt slip of pen that Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) wrote Creator of all but this has been
stated in other parts of Satyarth Praksh too. For instance, Moolshankar quotes Rigveda
I am the controller of the universe, know me alone as the Creator of all
-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 7 ,pg.205 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
Similarly, stated by Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) on pg. 207(Tr.Chiranjiva),
If He were localized to some particular place, He could never be Omniscient, Inward Regular
of all, Universal Controller, Creator of all, Sustainer of all and the Cause for resolution.
So we read, at first Moolshankar states that Ishwar (God) is Creator of alland later he goes on to
state that there are 3 entities which are Uncreated, Eternal, Beginning-less.
The three entities which are uncreated eternal, beginning-less here Moolshakar (Daynanda
Saraswati)quotes SHWETA SHWATER UPNISHAD, 4: 5and states:
The prakriti, the soul and God, all of them, are uncreated.

They are the cause of the whole universe.

[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8, pg.244 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

As he (Moolshankar) states in Satyarth Prakash-

How many entities are eternal or beginningless?

A-Three God, the soul, and the prakriti (matter).

-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 8 ,pg.243 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]

According to Moolshankars (and protestant Hindu) theology there are 3 beginning
less, uncreated ,immortal entities
1)

Paramtm (Ishwar/God)

2)

Prakriti (Primordial matter)

3)

tm (Human Souls,note -well be using plural i.e. Human Souls for clarity)

This philosophers stance (uncreated primordial matter) adopted by Moolshankar is self-contradictory

in many areas, for instance Moolshankar seem to claim in monotheistic Vedas, but this stance of
co-eternal prakriti (Primordial matter) and tm (Human Souls) explicitly disqualifies prostestant
Hindusim from the claim of monotheism, as this undermines and infringes the absolute
monotheistic nature of God and reduces Him (God) to an position of an artificer a Demiurge.
Now, if this is the case (co-eternal, uncreated Prakriti and tm) then, why did Moolshankar write God
is the creator of all? This is an explicit contradiction, which is easily noticeable. Its understood
that God is uncreated but what of Prakriti (Primordial matter) and tm (human souls)? Who
created them?[their being eternal,uncreated is not possible, rationally and logically especially for those who claim
to be monotheistic] And if God isnt their creator as these 2 things are uncreated (as per protestant
hindu belief), then why is God or in protestant Hindu
terminology Ishwar Parameshawar called Creator of all. This is quite contradictory and absurd.

In fact this is a white lie.

Agniveer,

the fanatic hate-monger wrote

Q: Who created the world? Ishwar or someone else?

A: Ishwar created the world in same manner as an engineer creates a machine. He is thus theengineer of the
world. But like engineer, He used existing raw material or Nature (matter/ energy approximately) to create the
world.

Q: Did Ishwar not create Nature as well?

A: No, Nature or raw material is eternal (beginningless and endless) like Ishwar. Being eternal, there is no
cause for origin or destruction of Ishwar or Nature.
[Source http://agniveer.com/2775/creation/]

We learn that Protestant Hindu God Ishwar is the engineer of the world, who uses raw material to
create the world, this stance of protestant Hindus is quite fanciful, and irrational as it insults the
concept of God itself in its entirety. I wonder why, dont these protestant Hindus call Ishwar, an
engineer when they believe so?
So, this incapability of Ishwar is also affirmed and stated by the hate-monger Agniveer, I wonder
how a rational person (assuming Agniveer is rational- I know its very farfetched, but lets give him benefit of
doubt and assume) can accept such gibberish, incoherent theological views!
In fact this absurdity is also supported by Vedas

God, the Lord of final emancipation is in truth the creator of all that hath been and what yet shall
be; and what grows on earth.
[Yajurveda Ch. 31, verse 2, pg.
302 Tr. Devi Chand]
Worship Him, Whose beautiful sacrifice, wealth, strength, and mighty glory are enjoyed by the
Heaven and Earth; Who is the creator of all beings, the Embodiment of great happiness, Allpervading and Supplier of food.
[Yajurveda Ch. 33, verse 23, pg. 312
Tr. Devi Chand]
Its to be noted that, the second verse states in an interrogative way Who is the creator of all
beings All-pervading Here again this statement is contradictory to the beliefs of Protestant
Hindus, in order to prove this lets first define beings. Andbeingmeans
being noun [

C or U ]

a person or thing that exists or the state of existing

[Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary CD- ROM, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University
Press 2008]
So being means a person or thing that exists or the state of existing. So we ask
doesnt Prakriti (Primordial Matter) exist? Doesnt tm (Human Souls) exist? Yes of course they
do, as stated by Moolshankar. Then how can Ishwar be the creator of all beings when Prakriti
and tm are uncreated? Then is Ishwar creator of them? No, as stated by Moolshankar, then
why is it stated in the above quoted verse of Yajurveda that the All-prevading (i.e Ishwar) is
the Creator of all beings? This is nothing but pure contradiction which is repeated in many of the
Vedic verses.Later, in the article well see that Ishwar is not the creator of timeetc
Questions which mavericks like us would like to ask
a) How can Ishwar be creator of all (or creator of all beings) as claimed by protestant Hindus
when, they themselves believe(state) in uncreated-ness of Prakriti and tm?

b) Who created prakriti, if Ishwar the Protestant Hindu God, didnt? [Rationally its impossible to
prove uncreated-ness ofPrakriti , especially when those claiming this are also claiming to be Monotheistic.]

c) Who created tm, if Ishwar the Protestant Hindu God, didnt? [Rationally its impossible to
prove uncreated-ness of tm, especially when those claiming this are also claiming to be Monotheistic.]

This ameliorates exposure of the reality of protestant Hindu theology in the eyes of TruthSeekers. Now coming to some amazing facts, which will really expose the distortions (of
meanings) from the protestant Hindu cult.
Moolshankar wrote in Satyarth Praksh Ch.1 pg. 5 (quoting Kaivalya Upanishad)
He is called Brahma the Creator of the Universe
And, in the footnotes the translator Dr. Chiranjiva commentsThe word Creator used in the sense of
Maker as according to Vedic Philosophy there is no such thing as creation or the evolution of something out of
nothing.

Also we find Agniveer the Hate-Monger, Islmophobe confessing and admitting the fact that

GOD NEVER CREATED US.

And because God never created us, He also never destroys us. Creation and destruction of soul is
NOT the scope of work of God. Thus, just as God is beginningless and endless, so are we. We have
existed along with God always and shall continue to do so.
[Source http://agniveer.com/1985/why-did-god-create-us/]
Now astonishingly, we learn, that in the so-called Vedic Philosophy theres nothing like Creation
out of nothing and that the word Creator is used in Sense of Maker. One would be tempted to
question, Why not simply use the word Maker why use the word Creator? The answer to it is simple,
to fool people and blind-followers (protestant Hindus).As how can one believe in a God who is not
the Creator but just the Maker or Fashioner of it.
So we are left with the philosophical excreta of philosophers brains
evolution of something out of nothing.

thats there is no such thing as creation or the

And we also see how the hate-monger Agniveer tries to get his incoherent, unintelligible belief,
explained with few nonsensical words like Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the scope of work
of God, we wonder Whats the Scope of God? Does scope even apply on GOD?Is God something
like created beings that Scope applies to him, or is Agniveer trying to anthropomorphise God and
apply Human-related characteristics/attributes to Him? By the way, is God(according to
Agniveer)some sought of professional , for instance an Accountant , whos been asked to handle
Software engineers post , and cries out saying Its out of my scope of work!! Its pretty disgusting to
see people insulting God by using such vernacular (like Creation and destruction of soul is NOT the

scope of work of God). We do not think that such a statement needs a refutation (still we shall expose
such irrationalities for those people seeking truth); such obscurely illogical statement arises out of pure
ignorance of monotheism and pure blind following (as in case of Agniveer). We will be dealing with

the reasons and causes of such irrational statement in our next subsection, wherein those reasons
and causes shall be refuted and debunked.
It will be worthwhile and of immense benefit to state one verse from the Holy, Noble Qurn
wherein Allh Azz wa Jall (the alone worthy of worship, One true Almighty God) says which means
Do they attribute as partners to Allh those who created nothing
[Surah al-Araaf, Ayat 191]
So true! See the misery and state of these Protestant Hindus, how they worship those who create
not! These poor protestant Hindus set up partners (by worshipping Ishwar who creates
nothing) with Allh who alone is the true Almighty God, the creator of Al -Alamn [Total Creation] .
We would ask our readers and especially the truth seekers to see[and learn a lesson, so that you may
not fall into the same dark pit] how these protestant Hindus have wronged themselves by worshipping
false God , who is unable to create anything.
For now well leave the readers and truth-seekers with this verse and let them ponder upon it
and contemplate whether they are on truth or falsehood, now coming back
So this only proves that Ishwar (Protestant Hindu God) is Incapable of
1)

Creating Prakriti (Primordial Matter) and tm (Human Souls).

2)

Destroying, Annihilating Prakriti and tm.

This sufficiently proves that Incapability is an attribute (characteristic) of Ishwar. This also proves
that Ishwar isnt omnipotent or All-Powerful. But Moolshankar seems to state something
opposite to it, he states (quoting Rigveda)
Mayest thou (Vishnu) O Omnipresent and (Urukrama) Omnipotent Being, shower Thy
blessings all around us
-[Satyarth Prakash Ch. 1,pg.2 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
So what does Omnipotence mean? Lets have it defined
Omnipotent

adjective formal

having unlimited power; able to do anything

[Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary CD- ROM, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University
Press 2008]

All the words, like Omnipotent, All-Powerful, creator are just empty words used by Moolshankar
& Co. for deluding people and poor blind-followers of his (Moolshankar). As we read earlier that ,
if Ishwar isnt able to create Prakriti and tm then this inability of creating things renders
him free of the title Creator and also this raises questions on Ishwars Omnipotence. These
questions will be dealt, in the later part of the section, for now lets see whether Moolshankar ,
believed in Omnipotence of Ishwar?(Weve seen a quote above , now lets see his belief in detail).
Moolshankar was and ardent believer of Ishwars Omnipotence (at least he made it seem so), we
read in various places in Satyarth Praksh, where he claims God to be Omnipotent, All-Powerful.
Vayu: the Omnipotent
Being,
(Satyrath Prakash Ch 1, pg.71 Tr. Durga Prasad)

The verse means: May (bhavatu) the Infinite Spirit (Parmatma) who is Omnipotent

(Satyrath Prakash Ch 1, pg.77 Tr. Durga Prasad)

O Lord Thou Who art the Protector of the universe and the Veda, and art Omnipotent,
Omnipresent
-(Satyarth Prakash Ch. 10,pg.368 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja )
Hence, we learn that Moolshankar did believe in Omnipotence of his Ishwar, but was this
Omnipotence true? Or what did Moolshankar mean by Omnipotence? As stated earlier
Omnipotence, All-Powerful et al. are just empty words for Moolshankar, this will be evident
below. In fact, Moolshankar goes on to distort the meanings of words like All-Powerful and
Omnipotence to fit his beliefs, for instance Omnipotence according to him does not
mean having unlimited power; able to do anything.
the fanatical Protestant Hindu-extremist, hate-monger also affirms and believes in the
so-called All-Powerful Ishwar, he wrote
Agniveer

Finally, Yajurveda 40.8 lists the properties of Ishwar as follows:

Paryagat Omnipresent,
Shukram All-powerful,
[Source http://agniveer.com/1566/eternity-of-vedas/]
Elsewhere too, with vigor same is stated by this mere hate- monger
But Vedic Ishwar is truly all-Powerful

 [Source http://agniveer.com/2728/more-on-vedic-god/ ]
But according to him (Moolshankar) its (omnipotences meaning) something different, this is what he
answered when a questioned, regarding Ishwars inability of creating prakriti.
Q God being Omnipotent, He can also create prakriti the primordial matter and the soul. If He cannot,
He cannot be called Omnipotent.

We have explained the meaning of the word Omnipotent before. But does Omnipotent mean one
who can work even the impossibilities. If there be one who can do even such impossible things
as the production of an effect without a cause, then can He make another God, Himself die,
suffer pain, become dead and inert, inanimate, unjust, impure and immoral or not? Even God
cannot change the natural properties of things as heat of the fire, Fluidity of liquids and inertness
of earth, etc. His laws being true and perfect, He cannot alter them.Omnipotence, therefore, only
means that He possesses the power of doing all His works without any help.
-[Satyarth
Prakash Ch. 8, pg.251 Tr. Dr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja ]
A.

Primarily, its to be noted that Moolshankar states he has explained the meaning of word
Omnipotence, earlier in the book, on which well expound soon. Secondarily, we learn that
according to Moolshankar omnipotence isnt the ability to do anything but only means the power
of doing all His works without any help.(This is moolshankars proposed definition). We see Moolshankar,
distorting the meaning of Omnipotence in order to hide the fact that Ishawar isnt omnipotent or All-Powerful
and this factuality is impossible to grasp for any believer (theist) in God, hence in order to delude people and his
own self Moolshankar indulges in namely two things Distortion of meaning and Sophistry.
a.2) Is Ishwar Omnipotent (All-Powerful) and what does Omnipotence mean to protestant Hinduism?

Now coming to the explanation of the meaning of Omnipotence by Moolshankar, which he

stated to have explained earlier, wherein he uses sophistry in order prove his beliefs, which is
quite amusing(hilarious) to read.
In order to, prove that his (Moolshankar) meaning (proposed definition) of Omnipotence and conception of
God is correct,Moolshankar disgustingly, indulges in sophistry. These question explain the situation to us
Is God All-powerful or not?

Yes, He is, but what you understand by the word All- powerful is not right. It really means that God
does not require the least assistance from any person in all His works such as Creation,
Sustenance and Dissolution of the Universe, and administration of Divine Justice. In other
words, He does all His works with His own infinite power.
[ Satyarth
Prakash , Ch 7,pg 208 ,Tr. Dr. Chiranjiva]
A.

But we believe that God can do whatever He likes. There is no one above Him.
A. What does He like? If you say that he likes and can do all things, we ask Can God kill
Himself? Orcan He make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery
and the like? Or can He be unhappy? Your answer can only be in the negative, as these things are opposed to the
nature and attributes of God; hence your contention, that God can do all things, does not hold good.

Our meaning only, therefore, of the word All-powerful is true.

[ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7,pg 208 ,Tr. Dr. Chiranjiva]

We would also like to quote the hate monger, Islmophobe Agniveer, so as to expose his ignorance, this
Islmophobe wrote
Q: Is Ishwar Omnipotent or All-Powerful?

A: Yes, He is omnipotent. But that does not mean He can do whatever He wants. Doing whatever one may want
is sign of indiscipline. On contrary, Ishwar is most disciplined.Omnipotence means that Ishwar does not need
help of any other entity to conduct His duties creation, management, destruction of universe. He is selfsufficient to conduct His duties. But He would act only as per His duties. For example,He will not kill Himself to
create another Ishwar. He cannot make Himself an idiot. He cannot do theft or dacoity etc.

[Source http://agniveer.com/2708/understanding-vedic-god/ ]

These (above) emphasized (by us) interrogative questions were asked by Moolshankar (&
Agniveer) to prove that his god (Ishwar)is not omnipotent (as per the meaning of the word) in true sense
but has limited omnipotence. Moolshankar (so does Agniveer)seems very eager and zealous to prove
that his god (Ishwar) is not at all omnipotent in true sense, but merely is called so. Moolshankar
seems to be trying pretty hard, to prove his definition of Omnipotence to be true, but drastically
fails at it, as will be evident. Now coming to his silly, hilarious questions:
Firstly its to be noted that Moolshankar, states (assumes) that the answers to the questions will be
in negative, I wonder why didnt the questioner reply or why wasnt his reply (in detail or were these
questions and answers made-up by himself, thats the case most probably) stated in Satyarth Prakash . Now
replying to the insinuations and irrationality of Moolshankar and Agniveer.
We would be pleasured to ask
Do these attributes or qualities/characteristics (Killing, ignorance, theft, adulteryetc.) befit Almighty
God or belong to him? Of course not, Moolshankar also agrees by writing these things are opposed
to the nature and attributes of God. Now, we would like to question, how come these things are
applied to God? Also, its should be noted that these are qualities of humans and not of God, so
how can these be applied to God or how could one judge Gods capability in terms of these [human] acts? Same
deviant principle of judging and understanding God in human context and human attributes is
followed by Agniveer , our readers need not get surprised after all Agniveer is a mere blindfollower of Moolshankar .We read Agniveer stating Doing whatever one may want is sign of
indiscipline. On contrary, Ishwar is most disciplined What a show of irrationality and
illogicalness! This statement of Agniveer shows us his conceptualization of God. What Agniveer
states here is pure irrationality, God the Almighty is the creator of Discipline and hence he is not
subjected to it , we wonder how could Agniveer even think of such a thing , he judges God in the
light of human attributes and behavior!

Hence the so-called argument that doing whatever one wants is a sign of indiscipline is only
applied to humans and not to God Almighty. Also, another aspect should be pointed out is
that God Almighty by nature and definition is the Most-Perfect or All-Perfect, hence the one whos perfect
by nature needs no discipline at all, on contrary its only those who have the tendency to get
deviated (like humans, animalsetc) and indulge in non-disciplinary acts and behavior need
discipline and are subjected to it or judged by it.
This understanding of God in scales of human attributes and behavior, only show the
anthropomorphic tendencies of Agniveer and his gross incoherency. To enlighten Agniveer we
would present here, what Allh Azz wa Jall (the only One True Almighty God) says which means:
There is nothing like Him(Allh)
[Surah Ash- Shura Ayat 11]
This verse proves and shows the obligation of rejection and negation of resembling God the Most Perfect, with His
creation or anything else. This is what we Muslims believe, in fact this is the most basic and

fundamental principle which we Muslims are taught at first, hence as stated above, there is no
similitude, resembling, likeness of God [There is nothing like Him], so are his attributes [His
attributes are perfectly Unique , and have no resembling, Similitude] , hence we ask Protestant Hindus, to
ponder upon it and we think and Agniveer too comes under Protestant Hinduism, so we would
also ask him to humbly ponder upon this truly, great and glorious principle which every theist
should believe in. This principle will help Agniveer get rid of his anthropomorphic tendencies
understanding God in light of Human attributes/context/behavior, as this verse makes clear that
there is nothing like unto God.
Weve also read what Moolshankar wrote; in fact both Agniveer and Moolshankar suffer from
same disease of sophism, and irrationality [moreover both have the anthropomorphic tendency of
understanding God and judging him in Human behavioral patterns, attributes]. Questions (like Can God Kill
Himself et al.) asked by Moolshankar and Agniveer are similar [like both ask whether God can kill
himself and create godsetc] , hence we would refute and debunk the questions (insinuations) asked by
Moolshankar, and indirectly Agniveers questions will be debunked too.
Now coming back to the questions of Moolshankar
And we would now again like to ask Why would God need to steal something, when he is the creator of
that thing and can create it? Yeah, only the Protestant Hindu god (Ishwar) would need to steal things
as he is not the Creator but only the efficient cause (acc. to Protestant Hindu Theology), as
prakriti (Primordial Matter) is eternal and uncreated like God , so it is possible that he could steal a
bit from prakriti (Primordial Matter).So why would God Almighty need to steal? Its ridiculous of
Moolshankar to ask such hilarious and incoherent questions and this only adds up to his
ignorance.
Now scrutinizing a bit more, Moolshankar also questions can He[God] become ignorant, commit sins
such as theft, adultery and the like this is really hilarious and irrational. By scrutinizing and
observing questions similar and those asked by him we, learn a lot of Moolshankars state of

mind and the basis of his belief system. Well see questions similar to Moolshankars first to
show the real problem in his approach and then refute his questions.
Basically what Moolshankar is trying to ask If God can do anything, can He make it impossible for himself to do something [like adultery, theftetc]?

Such questions becomes even clearer when we examine a related question: Can God create an
uncreated being? The problem here is that the questioner has already defined the being to be
uncreated and then proceeds to ask for something that contradicts that definition. The problem is
in the questioners terms, not any lack in Gods potential. The same is true when asking God to
make a circle with four sides. Having already provided a definition of a circle that could never
include a four-sided figure, such a question is absurd. Something is certainly self-contradictory
here, but it is the questioners terminology and not the omnipotence of God. The answer to the
question (Can God kill Himself?) of Moolshankar is-. Well, killing (death) isnt ability; its the inability to
live moreover death is a creation (death is created and Gods uncreated) of God, so its quite irrational to
ask such questions as creation can never overcome the creator in any sense. The immortal cannot
die because that defies His attribute of immortality. Similarly, the omnipotent cannot create a
task that He cant complete because such a task is merely a figment of ones imagination and
could not exist, not because He is incapable.Can God make 1=2? Well if 1=2, then it wouldnt be
1! So the idea is self-contradictory, not God.
The question also reminds us of the idea of what happens when an immovable rock meets an
unstoppable force? The two things cannot exist in the same universe. Likewise, if God exists then all
things which contradict His attributes are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the
realm of imagination and cannot be brought into existence.

Similar is the question (of Moolshankar) can He make other Gods like Himself .In fact the phrase can
He make other Gods like Himself is explicit sophism or false/invalid argument, and is a
contradiction in terms, because the mere fact that something is created (can He make) means that
it cannot be a God. This question is like asking could God create a god who is not a god? It is selfevident that the answer can only be: The power of God has nothing to do with that, because the
idea that something can be a god and not a god is illogical and is irrational, and the power and
might of God has nothing to do with irrationalities.
In fact all the questions asked by Moolshankar and Agniveer are just instances of sophism and
are self-contradiction

Can God kill Himself?

Can He (God) make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant, commit sins such as theft, adultery
and the like?

Can He (God) be unhappy?

God is eternal and uncreated[in fact even Moolshankar attest to this , that his god Ishwar is eternal and
uncreated] by nature and definition hence God killing himself is irrational and contradictory in
terms , also Killing (or dying) is a humans act or attribute, like Humans kill humans, Humans die.

So what we see is Moolshankar first defining God to be uncreated and eternal then posing a
sophistic questions which are purely contradictory and irrational , Moolshankar is only
contradicting himself.
As for creating God then again God is Uncreated and eternal, hence what is created cannot be
god so its irrational and spurious even to think of such absurdities.
Same for questions like, can God become Ignorant, God by nature is All-wise and AllKnowledgeable hence again its contradiction and irrational, also things like ignorance, adultery
sins, theft are all instances of human behaviors, attributes or actions and in no way can they ever
be applied to God or used to judge God. Same with being Unhappy, being happy and unhappy
are human attributes/characteristics and traits, not of God ,also these things contradict Gods
attribute of Perfection(All-Perfect) hence God by nature being perfect is not subject to such things
and state, such queries are but contradiction. As God exists hence all things which contradict His attributes
are imaginary, non-existent and impossible. They are forever bound to the realm of imagination and cannot be
brought into existence. Also the Power, Majesty and Might of Almighty God have nothing to do with Irrationalities.

Hence we see Moolshankar using sophistry (false-invalid arguments) to prove that Omnipotence in
fact means the power of doing all His works without any help. And not able to do anything which in
fact, is the true and right definition of being Omnipotent.
Concluding, it will be beneficial to note, how Moolshankar uses his irrationality and Sophistry to
prove things. Like first he defines Ishwar as uncreated and beginning-less and then questions
whether God can kill himself? thats so self-contradictory and irrational of him. Again and
again he repeats his irrational questions like can He(God) make other Gods like Himself , same here
he as defined and stated God to be Uncreated , then ask can God makeother Gods? This is what
happens when you swallow the excreta of philosophers brain. This is pure irrationality and this
will be evident, even to novice or amateur, lets see what a mathematician opines about such
ridiculous questions.
Mathematicians Opinion

Summing up the section, I would like to present a short quote from a revert to Islm Dr. Jeffrey
Lang, a mathematician [Professor of Mathematics at University of Kansas, US] (an ex-atheist)]
If God is all-powerful, can He become a man, terminate His existence, tell a lie, be unjust, or
create a stone too heavy for even Him to move? These somewhat silly riddles most often arise from
imposing unnecessary and contradictory assumptions on certain attributes of God or by assigning
unwarranted additional attributes to Him.

[Even Angels Ask, Dr. Jeffrey Lang, pg. 69, Beltsville, 1997]
We are pretty sure that every intelligent, sane and unbiased person will believe such questions
to be silly, and illogical.
It would also be beneficial (concisely) to state the reasons why Moolshankar delved into such
absurdities which are totally untenable. Its necessary to note that Moolshankar was reluctant

enough to apply (judge and understand) human attributes to God in order to prove his point; also his
conception of God in his mind was somewhat anthropomorphic in essence. This also shows how
Moolshankar swallowed the excreta of philosophers and atheists (in fact, sophistry was chiefly used by
atheist to disprove God and his existence) brain in order to forward his claims, delude people from the
straight path and malign and corrupt monotheism.
Islmic Stance

To enlighten people about Islm and present a true picture of Islm (which the Hate-mongers and
quacks like Mahendra Pl, Agniveer cowardly and hypocritically dont do, due to their bias, prejudice and hate for
Islm.) well shortly and very briefly present Islmic point of view here, very concisely for our

readers and truth Seekers

Whos the Creator?

Allh the Most-Merciful says which means,

That is Allh, your Lord, the Creator of all things, L ilha ill Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but
He). How then are you turning away (from Allh, by worshipping others instead of Him)?

[Surah Al-Mumin , Ayat 62]

See you O, protestant Hindus your only One True Almighty God (Allh) states that He is the
Creator of all things; still you turn away from Him and worship false-god?
And in another verse of the Noble, Holy Qurn, Allh Azz wa Jall says which means,
Such is Allh, your Lord(none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Creator of all things.So worship
Him (Alone), and He is the Wakl (Trustee, Disposer of affairs or Guardian) over all things. [Surah, AlAnaam, Ayat 102]

Again theonly One True Almighty God (Allh) states that He alone is the Creator of all things and
calls every of his creation to worship Him alone.
Is God (Allh) Omnipotent or All-Powerful?

Allh the Most-Merciful says which means,

Truly, Allh is Ever Most Powerful, All-Wise.

[Surah An-Nisaa, Ayat 56]

Verily, Allh is Ever Oft-Pardoning, All-Powerful.

[Surah An-Nisaa, Ayat 149]

Truly, Allh is All-Knowing, All-Powerful.

Verily, Allh is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.

[Surah An-Nahl, Ayat 70]

[Surah Al-Mujaadilah, Ayat 21]

We think the above quoted verses speak for themselves; we need not re-write what the verses
make so explicitly evident. We learn that Allh Azz wa Jall is Omnipotent unlike the protestant

Hindu god Ishwar who isnt, moreover he (Ishwar) is dependent over other to engineer hence is
not even the creator- well expound on this issue later in the article.
We all know that Al-Qurn al-Kareem cannot be translated, its a well known fact attested by
approximately every Arabic scholar be it Muslim or non-Muslim, Al-Qurn is perfectly unique
and hence there is no question that its glory and perfection can be conveyed in any other
language except that in which it was revealed (we can only try and convey interpretation of its meanings),
and even the famous briton translator of the Quran Marmaduke Pickthall(An famous English
literati who reverted to Islm)confessed saying
The Koran cannot be translated It is only an attempt to present the meaning of the Koran and
peradventure something of the charm in English. It can never take the place of the Koran in
Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.
[The Meanings of the Glorious Koran, pg. vii, Alfred A. Knopp Inc., 1930]

What we can do, is somehow show and translate the interpretation of meanings of Glorious,
Noble Qurn, in different languages.Hence its to be understood that all the Qurnic verse quoted here in
the article are mere interpretation of the meanings of the Noble Qurn.
Strengthen your Understanding

Summarizing this sub-section (i.e. A) Is Protestant Hinduism Monotheistic?), we would like to review
what weve learnt about protestant Hindu theology, their creedal system and Protestant Hindus
Ishwar(Protestant Hindu God) isnt the Creator but simply the Maker , Engineer ,Fashioner of
the world , as he didnt create Prakriti (Primordial matter) nor tm (Human Souls) as per Protestant
Hindu Theology. What does this necessitate?
1)

This belief itself proves protestant Hinduism to be non-Monotheistic, as in Monotheistic

belief everything is dependent on God, but here 2 entities namely Prakriti (Primordial
matter) and tm are independent. Where as God is dependent on Prakriti (Primordial
matter) for Making engineering Fashioning Universe etc things out of it.

This belief rips God of his one main and very important attribute thats Uniqueness ,
Ishwar(Protestant Hindu God) isnt unique as he shares the very same attribute with
Prakriti (Primordial matter) and tm , that is attributes like Uncreated ,Beginning less .This
makes Vedic God (Ishwar) a mere artificer and Demiurge , which results to pure Polytheism.

This belief also , entitlesPrakriti (Primordial matter) and tm (Human Souls) to be Partners
of God, in being Uncreated and in Making and engineering of Universe as the
Protestant Hindu God(Ishwar) is dependent on both tm(Human Souls) and
Prakriti (Primordial matter) to bring about this Universe. This in Islm is known
as Shirk orAssociationism, which is in fact polytheism. Hence Protestant Hinduism by
nature is Polytheistic.

Weve also proved that protestant Hinduism doesnt regard its God to be Omnipotent or
All-Powerful and their use of these words is totally futile as these are used just used in
empty sense without affirming the meanings of these words.

2) Weve

also learnt and seen how Moolshankar and his blind-follower Agniveer use Sophistry to
prove their point.
There are many other points and proofs which expose the falsity of the protestant Hinduism
being Monotheistic, these points and proofs shall be discussed and stated in the next sub-section.
Rate this:

Rate This
Share this:

Twitter

Facebook

Related

Concept of God in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) Part 2In "Responses"

Response to No Corruption in VedasIn "Responses"
Women in Hinduism: Conflict between Swami Dayanand and Internet AryasIn "Responses"
This entry was posted in Responses and tagged agniveer, Aryan, Atma, Concept of God, Creation,creator, Dr.Chiranjiva
Bhardawaja, ishwar, Monotheism, Omnipotence, Prakriti, Protestant Hinduism,satyarth prakash, Swamy Dayananda
Saraswati, Theology on January 1, 2014.
Post navigation
Concept of God in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) Part 2Caste and Racial Discrimination

AUTHORS

truthabouthinduism

CHECK LIST OF ARTICLES FOR LATEST POSTS

Search for:
Search

CATEGORIES

General (62)
Rebuttals (4)
Responses (12)
The Twenty Twelve Theme. Blog at WordPress.com
https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/concept-of-god-in-arya-samaj-protestant-hinduism-part-2/
.

TruthaboutHinduism

Answering Hinduism
Skip to content

HOME

ABOUT

LIST OF ARTICLES

Concept of God in Arya Samaj (Protestant

Hinduism) Part 2
Written by Abd Al Muhsin Al Hindy
The proponents (blind-followers) of protestant Hinduism stress that their cult (and Vedic Hinduism) is
strictly monotheistic and has nothing to do with dualism, polytheism, pantheism, monistic or any
other conception of God but monotheism. Whereas the orthodox Hindus maintain the opposite,
that Vedic Dharma (Vedic Religion) is not monotheistic and the cult(Protestant Hinduism, so-called Arya
Samj) is unorthodox and deviated. In order to solve this mystery, well be showing few more proofs,
which will prove that protestant Hinduism is purely non-monotheistic, wearing garb of
monotheism in order to delude and lead people astray, especially those who try to seek truth. This
sub-section aims at exposing the polytheist (i.e. protestant Hindus) posing as monotheists. In the previous subsection (i.e. A) Is Protestant Hinduism Monotheistic?) ,weve already provided many proofs, to prove

the non-monotheistic nature of protestant Hinduism, still we want to block any mice holes
through which any such false claim could be made or even be thought of.
b.1) Ishwar is Dependent not Independent

Weve seen the proposed definition for Omnipotence by the protestant Hindus, now its time to put this proposed
definition to scrutiny and see whether it can rightly depict the true picture of Protestant Hindu god Ishwar. Again in a
precise manner well be stating the proposed definition as given by protestant Hindus
Agniveer the

new Islmophobe (once was a wannabee but now is full-fledged Islmophobe), hate-monger wrote

Omnipotence means that Ishwar does not need help of any other entity to conduct His duties creation, management,
destruction of universe. He is self-sufficient to conduct His duties
Moolshankar Tiwri (Daynanda Saraswati) wrote
It really means that God does not require the least assistance from any person in all His works such as Creation, Sustenance and
Dissolution of the Universe, and administration of Divine Justice. In other words, He does all His works with His own infinite

power. [SP, Ch 7, pg. 208, Tr.Chiranjiva] [See Sub-section a.2 for the complete source]
Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) wrote
God stands in need of nobodys least help in doing His work of creation, preservation, and destruction, and in doing
equitable justice to souls according to their merits and demerits. In other words, He accomplishes all His works out of His
own infinite power.
[Satyarth Prakash Ch 7, pg.211 Tr. Durga Prasad]
In the earlier sub-section we had hinted at the dependent nature of Ishwar, and InshAllh well expound on it more
in this sub-section, as we read above, that the proposed definition of Omnipotence is [Ishwar]
does not need help of any other entity as stated by the Islmophobe Agniveer. But does Ishwar stands true to
thisproposed definition? We learn that according to Mooshankar, his god Ishwar needs nobodys help? Well thats
quite contradictory to the apparent facts, which weve seen and other are mentioned below.
Weve have sufficiently shown the distorted nature of the proposed definition of Omnipotence by Moolshankar, and
shown his deception, now we seek to elaborate something which readers may have noticed in our early points but
may not have fathomed it completely. Above we saw the definition of Omnipotence by Protestant Hindus where they
claim that Omnipotence means God does not require the least assistance from any person or Ishwar does not need help of
any other entity or God stands in need of nobodys least help.

The problem with their proposed definition is that their god Ishwar does not stand true even upon this definition ! Ishwar
does require the assistance (help) of tm (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter) for the creation of this universe.
All of his duties (Ishwars) are dependent on basically two things tm (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter),
hence he is not self-sufficient nor is he independent of others and their help.
For instance, what if tm (Human Souls) refuse to (or dont) inhabit the bodies created by Ishwar using Prakriti? As
according to protestant Hinduism, tm (Human Souls) are sat (eternal) and have chit (conscious) , where as Ishwar is
sat (eternal) has chit (conscious) and has nanda (bliss)[hence protestant god Ishwar is known as Satchidananda], and
prakriti( primordial matter) is only sat(eternal) and lacks the other 2 attributes.
As these souls have conscious they are responsible whether or not to associate themselves with the bodiesetc
made using prakriti, by Ishwar. And this is what is stated by a Protestant Hindu Pandit in his book

Souls tend to associate themselves with matter but are free to do so with God .

In the former case they are subject to births

and deaths, in the latter case they acquire bliss which is a divine attribute. In both cases it retains its individuality being
uncreated and indestructible.
[The Handbook of rya Samj, pg 41, Pandit Vishnu Ll Sharm, rya Pratinidhi Sabh]
We question, what if all the tma (Human Souls) refuse to associate themselves with Ishwar and matter (Ishwar made
Bodiesetc)? The making of this universe cannot be completed, without their help and co-operation! Now you need not
be scholar or even a graduate from MIT, Harvard or NASA to predict and guess the outcome of such situation! Its
evident that Ishwar is NOT Self-sufficient and requires assistance (needs prakriti) from prakriti for making universe and
co-operation from tm to make the universe working. So who does Ishwar need and depend?
1)

tm (Human Souls)

2)

Prakriti(Primordial matter)

Ishwar depends and needs Prakriti (Primordial matter) for creating this universe, hence he cannot be self-sufficient or
independent.Moreover Ishwar also requires tm (Human Souls)to make his universe living or active as mere
bodies without souls are nothing but matter. Hence for a working, active universe Ishwar heavily depends upon his
two other partners named above.
Now lets assume for the sake of argumentation, that
tm (Human Souls) totally including everyone of the souls, agree to either associate with, matter (Ishwars making i.e.
Universe, Human BodiesEtc) or Ishwar, so will then Ishwar be Omnipotent according to the proposed definition of
omnipotence by protestant Hindus?
Of course not as, even then Ishwar will still be dependent on prakriti (Primordial Matter), for making universe, Human
bodies, animal bodiesetc as Ishwar cannot create primordial matter(prakriti) nor destroy it, he is a mere Fashioner
or Engineer of it ,in terms of Agniveer.
Hence in no way, either by the correct definition of Omnipotence or by the distorted definition (proposed definitionby
protestant Hindus) is Ishwar OMNIPOTENT.
This ultimately proves that God is purely in need of the other 2 co-eternal entities. Hence even the proposed
definition of Omnipotence (i.e. God does not require the least assistance from any person or Ishwar does not need help of
any other entity or He is self-sufficient to conduct His duties.) is too big for Ishwar. And that he (Ishwar) does not stand up
to this definition. This materialistic view of creation makes protestant Hinduism very close to materialism; it would be
ridiculous of thinking them to be monotheistic in any sense.
Now, that weve learned how desperately Ishwars in need of prakriti and Human souls, but lets see another
scenario, where Ishwar has run into bankruptcy. Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati), wrote in his Bible of Hate
(Satyarth Praksh) :
13. No, there can be no dearth of souls, because the emancipated souls are replaced by new ones that God creates.
A

Fifthly, if you say that God creates new souls, the material out of which He creates them will eventually run short ;
because a bank, however wealthy it may be that has a constant drain on it, but has no income, is sure to become
bankrupt sooner or later.
[Satyarth Prakash, Ch 9, pg. 287, Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
Q. God replaces the saved souls with the newly created souls on earth. So they never come to an end.
A

If God creates new souls, the material out of which He creates them, will be exhausted ; for, however much a treasure
may be, it will sooner or later run out, if there be nothing bat drawings upon it and no puttings in it.

 [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 9, pg. 264, Tr.Durga Prasad]

What, youve read above is a question posed to Moolshankar related to emancipation souls (he was trying to refute the
notion that souls are created at which he fails drastically) , and while answering this question Moolshankar states that matter is
limited and will get exhausted one day or the other . Its the protestant Hindu belief that except god (Ishwar) the other 2 entity are
finite. Hence this makes Moolshakar assert that prakriti (Primordial matter) is limited and one day will get depleted.
This belief of limited or finite prakriti (Primordial matter) strengthens our argument of Ishwar being dependent and
provides a blow to the so-called, distortedly fake, Omnipotence of Ishwar.
Mavericks like us would question
What if prakriti (Primordial matter) gets depleted?

Well, Ishwar will no longer be able to provide for the Humans Souls (tm) for their sustenance. And then
Ishwar will be in a big trouble! And when Ishwar cannot provide for Humans Souls (tm) living in material
bodies engineered by Ishwar using prakriti (Primordial matter) then by effect Ishwar will cease to be the
Sustainer of his own engineerings (i.e Human Bodies,Universeetc) So this rips Ishwar from the attribute
ofSustainer too.

Seccondly, this strengthens our claim that Ishwar is extremely dependent on prakriti (Primordial Matter).

b.2) Attributes of Ishwar

Attributes and names of God are the crux of theology of any religious denomination and these attributes are very
intrinsic to the concept of God, as these attributes define and make us understand what God is to an extent. Since
early times, mankind has been in an abyss of darkness due to its misunderstanding of these attributes of God, its
these attributes which play a major role in conceptualizing the Concept of God in any religion, and if these attributes
are misunderstood then the consequences are devastating. Well be having a concise look at the names and
attributes of Ishwar as stated and understood by Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati)
Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) wrote
ViratAgniVishwaHiranyagarhbhaVayuTejasIshwarAdityaPrajnaAUMMitraAryama Indra
VrihaspatiVishnuUrukramaaBrahmaBhumi Surya Atma Paramaatmaa ParameshwarSavita
Deva Kurvera Prithivi JalaAkaashAnna and attaVasuRudir Naaraayana, ChandraMangala
BudhaGarutmaan.
[ Satyarth Prakash. Ch 1, pg 8-18, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
Durg Prasd translates it as,
Virat-The word virat (an illumer) is derived from the root raj': to illume or shine, with the prefix vi and kvipa
termination. He who illumes and manifests the world in various forms, is called Virat. Hence it means God.
Pita Maha

God is called Pita Maha, because he is the father of fathers.

Prapita Maha

God is called Prapita vuhat because Le is the father of the fore-fathers of fathers.

God is called Mata, because he has at his heart the amelioration of all just as a kind and benevolent mother
wishes her children ease and comfort in right good earnest. It is derived from ma: to respect and ta an affix.
Mata

AgniVishwaHiranyagarhbhaVayuTejahGuruAcharyaChitNitya
Mitra Kavi Shiva

Ishwar

[ Satyarth Prakash. Ch 1, pg 74-88, Tr. Durga Prasad]

Aditya

ProPrajna

Here above, weve enumerated few (reproducing all names would take a huge amount of space, and would be un-yielding) names
of protestant Hindu god Ishwar, as enlisted by Moolshankar in his Bible of Hate (i.e. Satyarth Praksh). There is huge
controversy what these name mean, for instance Orthodox Hindus maintain that Agnimeans fire primarily where as
Moolshankar believes it to be a name of Ishwar. We wont be delving into this controversy as its beyond the scope of
this article (treatise), the purpose of mentioning this was to show the vast differing between mainstream Hinduism and
protestant Hinduism, and to expose these so-called names of God, we need just a single verse from the divine
revelation from Allh Azz wa Jall our alone One true God.
The Noble Qurn says which means,
You
do
not
worship
besides
Him
but
only
names
which
you
have
named (forged)

you
and
your
fathers

for
which
Allh
has
sent
down
no
authority.
The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is
the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.

[Surah al-Yusuf, Ayat 40]

We see how the Noble Qurn refutes the misdoings of people like Moolshankar, his predecessors and other
polytheists, the above divine verse from the Noble Qurn clearly states that the different names, which are claimed
to be of the one true Almighty God (Allh) by the polytheists like protestant Hindus are just FORGERIES by these
protestant Hindus and their deviant predecessors. These protestant Hindus like their idol worshipping predecessors
have merely concocted names which have no authority from the true Almighty God (Allh).
The above verse, also makes it clears, that this protestant Hindu POLYTHEISM has no authority from the One True
Almighty God (Allh), hence we Muslims would like to call our protestant Hindu truth-seekers and our readers to the
straight path True Religion , Islm.
Now coming to the attributes of Ishwar the protestant Hindu god, weve earlier stated/proved few attributed of
Ishwar they are

Incapability

Dependency

We shall also have a look at some other attributes of Ishwar which are problematic rationally and logically.
b.2.1) Is Ishwar Incomparable?

Moolshankar wrote (Quotes Rigveda 10:121, 1)

Love and worship that Supreme Spirit, O men, Who is the support of all the luminous bodies (such as the sun ), the one Incomparable
Lord

[Satyarth Prakash , Ch 8, pg. 243, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

The One Incomparable Supreme Spirit alone is the Witness
[Satyarth Prakash , Ch 8, pg. 276, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
And even the Vedas claim Ishwar to be Incomparable
The Incomparable One Effulgent Lord, with mobile atoms, producing the Earth and Heaven, with His mighty force
puts the universe in motion
[Yajurveda Chapter 17, Verse 19, pg-179, Tr. Devi Chand]

God is the Creator of the whole universe, full of knowledge. Ubiquitous Sustainer, Maker, Seer, and foremost of
all.He is known as the Incomparable One
[Yajurveda Chapter 17, Verse 26, pg-180, Tr. Devi Chand]
We learn that Moolshankar holds his god Ishwar the so-called supreme spirit to be incomparable, also his
interpretation of Vedas assert to this.
But according to the same Yajurveda , which first states that Ishwar is Incomparable but later on compares him to
ashining man of knowledge
God

pervades all the objects of Nature. He is Father of the wise, and Guardian of all living creatures. He is Self
Effulgent, and being Creator, shines like the shining man of knowledge. Let all attain to Him.
[Yajurveda Chapter 37, verse 14, pg-337, Tr. Devi Chand]
The above quoted verse, aptly states Ishwar shines like the Shining man of Knowledge, so here we see Ishwar
himself(Vedas were created by Ishwar as per their belief) comparing his own-self to a shining man of knowledge, what more
evidence do we need? Amazing, isnt it? How incoherent are Vedas! I think this should be enough to prove our
point, also another important point to be noticed is anthropomorphism, Yajurveda clearly states the Hindu protestant God Ishwar,
shines LIKE the shining man of knowledge! This is explicit anthropomorphism, of which few instances were quite evident
from Moolshankars (and his blind-follower) writings which we had quoted in earlier sections.
Though the above quoted verse satisfactorily proves our point, we shall provide one more verse from the same
Yajurveda which shows how anthropomorphic Vedas are and that Ishwar is compared in Vedas itself.
Persons, who are excellent like God, noble like other good people, equal towards all, affectionate towards all,
respectable, well balanced, and possessors of worldly objects, succeed in life.
[Yajurveda Chapter 17, verse 81, pg-188, Tr. Devi Chand]
The above quoted verse clearly compares two entities that are
1) Persons
2) Ishwar (God)
It (verse) states that there are Persons who are excellent LIKE God! So, there is someone (here persons) like God,
according to Vedas!
We think its completely proven with no ounce of doubt left, that Ishwar is Comparable and that Vedas are selfcontradictory. Still for the sake of argumentation and nailing the issue lets see some other facts which prove Ishwar to
be completely comparable.
Moolshankar(Daynanda Saraswati) wrote
The soul was never created. It is beginningless like God and the material cause of the universe primordial matter.
[ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7 pg. 222 Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
27. What are God and the soul in essence, and what are their natures, attributes and actions?
A.- In essence they are both conscious entities. By nature both are pure, immortal and virtuous, etc,

Prakash , Ch 7 pg. 223 Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

[ Satyarth

Above quoted statements of Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) prove the following things
1)

Ishwar and Human

(also prakriti as stated in Section A).

Souls (tm) are beginning-less

2)
Human Souls (tm)and Ishwar have by nature IDENTICAL attributes for instance , they both are CONSCIOUS ,pure,
immortal, virtuousetc
So what does this prove? Such belief-system legitimizes Comparing the protestant Hindu god Ishwar to Human
Souls (tm) and prakriti (Primordial matter) as all the 3 entities are
a)

Beginning-less, b) Eternal, c) Uncreated

So its possible to say that Ishwar is Eternal like(identical) prakriti or Ishwar is beginning-less like(identical) Human Souls or Ishwar
and other 2 entities are alike in 3 attributes namely beginning-less, Eternal, Uncreated-ness
The problem is with IDENTICAL attributes (Eternal,Uncreated,beginning-less,etc), these identical attributes make Ishwar comparable and
co-equal to the other 2 entities, which is violation of monotheism, and disqualifies protestant Hinduism from the claim of being Monotheistic.
Identical attributes prove that Ishwar is identical to and resembles somewhat to Human Souls (tm)and
prakriti(Primordial Matter), to some extent.
b.2.2) Is Ishwar Coequal

According to Moolshankars (Daynanda Saraswati) belief, Ishwar is not coequal as stated by him in Satyarth PrakashThere is none beside, Thee, who is equal to Thee or above Thee.
[Satyarth Prakash, Ch.1 pg. 35Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
The Great Eternal Spirit undergoes no modifications, requires no instruments to work with, has no equal nor any superior. He is the
Supremely Powerful Being, endowed with innate Omniscience, Omnipresence and Infinite activity. SHWETA SHWETAR UPANISHAD 6,
8.
[Satyarth Prakash, Ch.1 pg. 218 ,Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Although, Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) seems to be zealously ascribing non-coequality to his Ishwar, the reality
of the matter is totally different which we want to shed light upon. So does Ishwar have someone equal to him or
equal to him in anything? Yes, of course he is (coequal) as proven above (earlier-subsection), Ishwar is coequal to Human
Souls (tm) and prakriti (Primordial Matter).Ishwar is coequal as he has identical attributes which make him coequal in
1)

Eternity

2)

Uncreated-ness

3)

Beginning-less-ness.

As all the 3 entities are eternal, uncreated and beginning-less. Hence Ishwar is coequal undoubtedly. Also Ishwar is coequal in Consciousness, virtue, purity with Human Souls (tm) as these are identical attributes shared by the two, as stated by
Moolshankar. Not only is Ishwar Co-equal in eternity with the above stated entities but also with other as stated by
Moolshankar
the prakriti, the souls, time and space which are all uncreated and eternal.
[Satyarth Prakash , Ch 8, pg 253, Tr.Chirajiva Bhardawaja]
Earlier, weve stated the major 3 eternal entities but there are few other entities which are eternal and Uncreated
according to Moolshankar Tiwri (Daynanda Saraswati) they are time and space. So its perfectly fine to say that, Ishwar
is Coequal in Eternity and Uncreated-ness not only with Human Souls (tm)and prakriti (Primordial Matter)but also
with time and space.

Apart from these proofs there are other proofs which we want to put light upon which will explicitly and evidently
prove that Ishwar is coequal to Human Souls (tm)and prakriti (Primordial Matter)etc
Protestant Hindu theology, states that the number of cause of this universe are as follows
5. How many causes are there of the Universe
A.-Three The efficient , the material and the common. The efficient cause is the one by whose directed activity a thing is made, and by
the absence of whose directed activity nothing is made. It does not change itself, though it works changes in other things. The material
cause is one without which nothing can be made. It undergoes changes, is made and un-made. The common cause is one that is an
instrument in the making of a thing, and is common to many things. The efficient cause is of two kinds:- The Primary efficient cause is the
Supreme Spirit the Governor

Of all, Who creates the universe out of the prakriti (matter), sustains it, and then resolves it into its elementary form.
The secondary efficient cause is the soul. It takes different materials out of the universe created by God and moulds
them into different shapes.
The material cause is the prakiti which is the material used in the making of the universe. Being devoid of intelligence it
can neither make nor unmake itself, but is always mad or unmade by a conscious intelligent being; though here and
there even one kind of dead matter (but those changes are never ordered). Let us take an illustration. God made
seeds (of different kinds), when they fall into a suitable soil and get the proper amount of water and nourishment, they
develop into trees; but if they come in contact with fire they perish. All ordered changes in material things depend for
their occurrence on God and the soul.
All such means as knowledge, strength and hands, and instruments, time and space, that are required for the making of thing
constitute its common cause.

Now take for illustration a pot. The potter is its efficient cause clay its material cause, whilst the rod, the wheel and
other instruments, time, space, light, eyes, hands (of the potter), knowledge and the necessary labour, etc., constitute
its common cause. Nothing can be made or unmade without these three causes.
[ Satyarth Prakash, Ch 8, pg.247-248, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) wrote in his Bible of Hate (i.e Satyarth Praksh) that the Universe has 3 Causes, and without
which the existence of Universe is impossible, these three causes are
1)

The Efficient Cause: (it has two types)

a)
Primary Efficient Cause (Ishwar protestant Hindu god).
b)
Secondary
(tm Human Souls).
2) The Material
(Prakriti Primordial Matter).

Efficient

Cause

Cause

3) The Common
Cause
(common cause is one that is an instrument in the making of a thing for instance knowledge, strength, hands, instruments, time and
space).

Earlier we proved that Ishwar is not a Creator but he is only a Maker Engineeretc but this is the partial truth Ishwar
isnt the Maker or Engineer of the universe in complete sense he is just a part or one of the causes
which engineer or make the universe and his other partners are listed above. This again evidently proves that Ishwar
is coequal with

tm (Human Souls).

Prakriti (Primordial matter).

Common Cause (i.e. instruments, knowledge, time, spaceetc)

Ishwar has equal partners (entities), which assisted him in managing and engineering of the universe (who are equally
important in engineering of the universe) , which ultimately makes these entities as Coequal to Ishwar as without these the
bringing about of universe is impossible. Hence these coequal causes of the universe are coequal to Ishwar. Later on
Moolshankar states that the making of universe requires 6 Causes!
Now mark how the descriptions of the six shaastraas harmonize with each other.
The Mimaansaa says, Nothing in this world can be produced without proper application.
The Niyaaya says, Nothing can be produced without the material cause.
TheVaisheshika says, Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time.
The Yoga says, Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.
The Saankhya says, Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms.

The

Vedaanta

says,

Nothing

can

be

made

without

Maker.
This shows that the Creation of the world requires six different causes which have been described separately one by each
separate Shaastra. There is no contradiction in these descriptions. The six Shaastras together serve to explain the phenomenon of
Creation in the same way as six men would help each other to put a thatch on the roof of a house .

[Satyarth Prakash, Ch 8, pg.260, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Above Moolshankar(Daynanda Saraswati), states that the so-called Creation of universe, requires 6 different Causes
they are application, material cause, time ,skill(with knowledge and thought), Combination of atoms and Maker.
Basically these are the same three causes which according to Moolshankar brought about the universe, except that
here he (Moolshankar) expands the three causes to 6, but we think its quite incoherent to do so, as combination of
atoms come under material Cause (atoms) and Common Cause (combining application of atoms) and requisite skill,
knowledge and thought. Also come under Common cause so does application, and the other 2 causes are clearly
same(Maker=Ishwar,Material, Cause=prakriti.Hence its quite incoherent of Moolshankar to first propose 3 causes of the
world then to make them 6.We also read Moolshankar stating that the so-called Creation of the Universe with six
causes is just like six men who HELP (again Moolshankar himself implies that Ishwar needs help of other 5 causes, hence Ishwar is
not Omnipresent even according to the proposed definition) each other in putting a thatch on the roof of the house.
The problem arises from the necessity of at least 3 causes of the Universe which necessitates that Ishwar is Coequal. As it could be questioned Can the making, engineering of Universe be brought about without the material cause or by Ishwar
alone? Of Course not, this evidently equates Ishwar (Primary Efficient Cause) and other causes as they all are equally important for the
engineering of Universe. Hence this proves Ishwar (Primary Efficient Cause) to be Co-equal in work of engineering or making the Universe,
with other Causes.

Lastly, what weve discovered is that according to protestant Hindu theology Ishwar is coequal in Eternity, Uncreatedness , Beginning-less with tm (Human Souls) , Prakriti(Primordial matter), also he(Ishwar) is co-equal with time and space
in terms of uncreated-ness and eternity. Ishwar (in terms of engineering the universe) also is co-equal with all the causes
which bring about the Universe, he (Ishwar) may not be totally/Completely equal to his counterparts (tm ,Prakriti,time, space
etc) but he indeed is equal to them in many terms as proven above.
Islmic Stance

It would be beneficial that we precisely state the Islmic view point on Incomparability and Coequality here, so as to
aid the truth-seekers and those of our readers who are interested in learning more about Islm.
Earlier we had presented a verse from the Noble, Holy Qurn [ There is nothing like Him(Allh)] which should have
made the Islmic stance very clear with regard to Incomparability and Coequality but we would like to present
another proof which may annihilate any doubt persisting in the minds of our readers. Allh the Most-Merciful says
which means
And there is none coequal or comparable to Him (Allh).

[Soorah al-Ikhlaas , Ayat 4]

This

Soorah (Chapter) of
the
Noble,
Holy
Qurn
is
known
as at-Tawheed
(The Oneness of Allh, His Attributes and Names, Belief in Absolute Monotheism) , which shows how important its for every
monotheist
to
believe
in
the Incomparability and nonCoequality
of God. The famous exegete al-Imm, Imad Ad-Din Ismail bin Umar bin Kathir wrote in his Commentary Tafsir al-Qurn
al-Adhim commenting on this verse
So how can He(Allh) have a peer among His creatures who can be equal to Him, or a relative who can resemble Him Glorified, Exalted
and far removed is Allah from such a thing.

And Ibn Abi Htim and At-Tirmidh recorded

This (Verse) means there is none similar to Him (Allh), none equal to Him and there is nothing at all like Him
And Ash-Shaykh Abdur-Rahmn ibn Nsir as-Sadwrote in Tayseer al-Karim-ur-Rahmn Fe Tafseer Kalm Al-Mannn
There is nothing like Him (Allh), in His Names, His Attributes His actions, Blessed and Exalted is He
We hope this concise, presentation of Islmic stance on the issue we are dealing with should quench the thirst of
knowledge seekers for now and clear doubts. We learn that Islm calls people to a pure Monotheistic; complete way
of life, unlike other religions which lead them into a pit of darkness. Also we learn how stringently and absolutely
Islm is Monotheitic and that protestant Hinduism no where near it. The above verse is explicit and needs not
explanation at all; we think this should make the Islmic point of view evident and clear any misconception of Truthseekers or our readers, if there.
b.2.3) Is Ishwar a Stealer

Does, Ishwar steal? Or is stealing one of the characteristics of Ishwar? This is an important issue as this will help
our truth-seekers see the reality without any mist or fog, people may have seen numerous of concted claims which
aim to debase the Most-High , Most-Merciful Allh Azz wa Jall by protestant Hindus, in fact their articles are filled with
insults directly or indirectly , but our aim here is not to debase or insult anyone as this is not from our manners, but our aim
is just to bring out the TRUTH, so that people may be guided and made aware of certain facts.So is Ishwar a stealer?
Well, let Yajurveda answer it, this Veda mentions the following versesMighty God, through the veda, singing Thy praise, I pray unto Thee. The sacrificer through oblations and praises
hankers after Thee. O God worshipped by many, never disrespected, give us in this world your knowledge. Steal not
our life.
[Yajurveda Chapter 18, Verse 49, pg-198-99 Tr. Devi Chand]
O Worshipful God, with my prayer, I attain unto Thee through vedic knowledge. A worshipper longs to realise Thee
with his oblations. O praiseworthy God, worthy of respect, give us Thy knowledge in this world, steal not our life from
us.

[Yajurveda Chapter 21, Verse 2, pg-228, Tr. Devi Chand]

We hope the above mentioned verses establish the fact, that according to the Vedas Ishwar is considered as
anStealer who steals away the life of humans, isnt it amazing how Ishwar labels himself (according to protestant hindus ,
Ishwar
Stealer.

revelead

Vedas)

We wonder, whats the use of such useless and insulting attribute to be applied to God. Again, human
attributes (characterstics) that too negative characterstics are applied to God the Almighty, such an insult of God was
never expected from theist, forget those claiming to be monotheists. Vedas are clear here (these are words of Vedas not
ours), that Ishwar is a stealer we need not write more, it is enough for those who truly seek truth.
b.2.4) Communion with Ishwar Polythieism par excellence.

Have you ever heard that humans can unite with God! Well if not then we welcome you all to learn how to have a
union with God as per Moolshankar and his cult.According to Moolshankar humans can unite with God by
performing(practicing) Sandhyaopaasanaaspecifically speaking by doing Upaasanaa Communion.
Moolshankar defines Upaasanaa
The word upaasanaa literally means to come close to. All that is required in order to come close to God by the practice
of the the Octapartite (eight parts or stages) yoga and directly see the Omnipresent, Omniscient God should be
accomplished.
[Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.215, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
Moolshankar wrote
Communion results inunion with the Great Being and in direct cognition of Him.
[Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.210, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
Increase your knowledge instantly without any study [Dummies welcomed]

By doing Upaasanaa, a man can be united with God! Now lets learn how to do Upaasanaa in brief.
When a man desires to engage in Upaasanaa (communion), let him resort to a solitary, clean place and get
comfortably seated, practise Praanaayaama (control of breath) reatrain the senses from the pursuit of outward
objects, fix his mind on one of the following places:- the navel, the heart, the throat, eyes, the top of the head or the spine. Let him,
then, discriminate between his own soul and the Supreme Spirit, get absorbed in contemplation of the latter and
commune with Him. When a man follows these practices his mind as well as the soul becomes pure and imbued with
righteousness. His
knowledge
and
wisdom
advance
day
by
day
till
he
obtains
salvation.
He who contemplated the Deity in this way for even one hour out of the twenty-four hours always continues to advance spiritually.

[Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.216, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Above weve seen how to perform communion with God (Ishwar) as per Moolshankar, but did anyone notice
something fishy? Yes, we did.One of the benefits of Upaasanaa or Communion with Ishwar is that people performing this
communion advance in Wisdom and Knowledge!! Reading this we were intimidated to question, so if Upaasanaa can advance people
in Wisdom and Knowledge as per claims, so can upaasanaa increase the knowledge of people without studying? Its for first time; weve
heard that just by breathing in and out while concentrating on one of yours of body part like navel youll advance in Knowledge! So will a
student appearing for matriculation (10th) without studying anything and just by doing upaasanaa pass with the finest marks (first rank)?
Gain Absolute knowledge and superhuman- psychic power [Superman is humbly invited (pun intended)]

Not

only
this
but
people
attain superhuman
psychic
(Moolshankar advances his stance from advance in knowledge to absolute knowledge)

power and absolute

knowledge
by doing upaasanaa as stated by

Moolshankar
The great sage Vyasa holds that when a man attains a beatified state in this life by virtue of direct communion with God
and acquisition of superhuman psychic powers and absolute knowledge , he recovers his original pure self and enjoys
extreme bliss.

 [Satyarth Prakash, Ch 11, pg.358, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

We wonder, if people had just started performing upaasanaa and had not studied, would we humans have reached this stage of scientific
development.
Obviously, the answer is no, upaasanaa in no way increases a persons knowledge as knowledge can only be acquired by study and not just
concentrating at your navel or head..Etc! In addition, we think no rational person can believe that just by doing upaasanaa one can
attain absolute
knowledge or superhuman
psychic
powers .
In
fact
humans
cannot
have
absolute knowledge as perfectly complete knowledge is of God and none other. Humans attaining absolute knowledge
or perfect/ complete knowledge is impossible as this is attributed to God exclusively as God by nature and definition has perfectly complete
or absolute knowledge, hence stating that God and humans both have absolute knowledge is equaling God and humans which is polytheism
showing anthropomorphic tendencies .

We hope that this method of increasing or advancing knowledge isnt prescribed to scienctist, researcheretc
especially that of our country as we love our country and would love to see it at the pinnacle of scientific
developments which is not possible via performing upaasanaa. Here are few verses from Vedas which proudly state
this pagan concept.
Attain to Godhead through Upaasanaa

The learned yogis who amongst the learned attain to Godhead, who first of all acquire communion with God , without
whose aid no place of happiness is sanctified, dwell neither on heavens heights nor on the face of the earth.

[Yajurveda Ch 17, verse 14, pg-178, Tr. Devi Chand]

The above verse states how one can attain to Godhead! And that is by upaasanaa.There are more such polytheistic
verses in the polytheistic Vedas which teach such utter pagan polytheism which is vulgar to monotheists.
Communion in Vedas

Oh universal vedic text, thou art full of vigour and valour, may we attain unto thee, the master of the yajna. O God,
may we be in communion with Thee, everyday, morning and evening, bowing unto Thee through our intellect.

[Yajurveda Ch 3, verse 22, pg-40, Tr. Devi Chand]

May life succeed through the service of God and the sages. May life-breath thrive through union. May the eye thrive
through the service of God and the sages. May the ear thrive through the service of God and the sages. May the
voice thrive through the service of God and the sages.
[Yajurveda Ch18, verse 29, pg-196, Tr. Devi Chand]
Not only this but the Vedas also state that this communion or unification more elaborately, in few verses where the
human souls is united with God,
Unification of God and human soul -united with God

Let each joint of thine be full of vigour. Let thy noble nature guard thy wealth. Let the
imperishable sap of Gods devotion be for thy joy.
Let thy soul be united with God.

-[Yajurveda Ch 20, verse27, pg-220, Tr. Devi Chand]

vast like space, immersed in
the contemplation of the Beautiful God, deathless in its purity, full of strength, enjoyer of space and pure water,
extending over all ;
O charitably disposed person, just as a virtuous person, becomes united with the soul immortal,

[Yajurveda Ch 28, verse 27, pg.283 Tr. Devi Chand]

How does being united with God sound to a monotheist? Well, obscenely insulting to God! We as monotheist would
like to reprimand and disparage this polytheistic concept where man and God are said to be united! This is
polytheism par excellence. Associating man with God is such a filthy idea, but our protestant Hindu brothers/sisters

here are not only associating but also uniting him with man.!! Communion and unification of God with man, isnt an
allegation but an insult to God which no monotheist will ever tolerate, nor do we, hence we ask protestant Hindus to
correct their deviated beliefs and seek truth that they may be guided.
Above we read Moolshankar, propogating the pagan polytheistic concept of communion or unification with Ishwar.
Look at this hypocritical double-standard nature of protestant Hindus, where accuse orthodox (mainstream) Hindus of
polytheism and on the other side themselves are immersed in pure polytheism.This communion where Ishwar and
human soul become One or unified is pathetic and irrational.
Let us show our readers the incoherency of protestant Hindu theology according to protestant Hindu theology, Ishwar is inseparably one
with thefollowing [see the sub-section (b.3) for the reference and more on the topic] : tm (Human Souls) ,Prakriti(Primordial matter). If
Ishwar is already (inherently) inseparably one with tm, prakriti etc then whats the use of upasanaa? According to
protestant Hindu Ishwar is omnipresent, he pervades everything that exists, hence is inseparably one with everything

that exists.So if Ishwar is already united with everything then whats the use of Upaasanaa, in any sense?
Mooshankar states upaasanaa helps us come close to God.But the rational question is if Ishwar is already pervading
everything including humans then why is upasanaa needed, because when both Ishwar and human souls
are inseparably one and close to each other upaasanaa is useless?
Claiming that Ishwar is inseparably one with everything but still far and away from everything is like stating 1+1 = 2 at first , then claiming
1+1 = 1; is this rational? Only one of the two statements can be true. Either Ishwar pervades everything hence
necessarily he is inseparably one which make them one and there is no more closeness than being one. Or Ishwar
and other entities arent inseparably one and are not close to each other.Claiming that both the statements are true is

logical fallacy and incoherency of protestant Hindu theology.

And heres the logical fallacy found in the Vedas
God moves in the eyes of fools. He is motionless. He is far distant from the irreligious and ignorant,
within this entire universe, and surrounds it externally.

and near the yogis. He is

[Yajurveda Ch 40, verse 5, pg.347 Tr. Devi Chand]

The above statement shows the logical incoherency of Vedas and protestant Hindu thelogy, the verse firstly states
that God moves in the eyes of the fools, this proves he is near them then goes on to state that God is far distant from
the irereligious and ignorant then further states that he is within the entire universe and surrounds it externally.!!What
a show of illogicalness, if God (Ishwar) is within entire universe and surrounds it then how can he be far distantfrom
the irreligious? This is explicitly contradictory as Ishwar due to his omnipresence cannot in any sense be far
distant from anyone his omnipresence necessitate his being inseparably one and close with everything that exist.
Finally, this concept of unification or communion is polytheistic and cannot be fathomed by a rational mind as this is
against the general percepts of rationality and logicality. Also this concept preaches polytheism in the vilest form,
this unification or communion
is nothing but labeled as Shirk [associationism- setting up partners or associating false gods with Allh(talaetc), please refer to
Islmic texts for the complete meaning of Shirk] in Islm and this shirk necessitates (leads) a person to be a polytheist.We think
we have amply provided our readers with evidences proving protestant Hinduism to be polytheistic but heres the
clincher with which we intend to conclude this section(b.2.4).Protestant Hindu pandit Vishnu Ll wrote
Souls tend to associate themselves with matter but are free to do so with God.

[The Handbook of rya Samj, pg 41, Pandit Vishnu Ll Sharm, rya Pratinidhi Sabh]
We dont think there moreexplicit statement that this which admits the associationism (shirk) which necessitates
polytheism in protestant Hinduism.
b.2.5) Similar Attributes Agniveer confesses protestant Hinduism to be polytheistic(Agniveer Contradicts Moolshankar)

As weve stated, attributes or characterstics of God are the crux of any theology and people have erred a lot, and few
of
those
who
erred
are
the Guru
and
Chela
[Moolshankar and Agniveer] . Agniveer exposes his illiteracy in Islm and not only in Islm but also contradicts

Moolshankar, did agniveer really read the Bible of Hate (Satyarth Praksh)? Seemingly Agniveer never read the complete
Satyarth Praksh or why would he contradict Moolshankar.Agniveer commented/wrote in his article (This article of
agniveer exposes the novice nature of Agniveer in comparative religion and his total ignorance of Islm, weve would have with pleasure
refuted his ignorant and illiterate allegations but this would disturb the flow of this article hence we will prevent ourself from doing so,
InshAllh his baseless allegations will be refuted soon.)
Sharing attributes with Allah is nothing but Shirk

[http://agniveer.com/3839/islam-the-religion-of-tauheed/]
Though Agniveer does not understand the concept of Shirk, but here he does contradict his own creed by stating
thatSharing attributes with Allh is Shirk (please refer to authentic Islmic texst for the complete and correct understanding and
meaning
of
Shirk) by
which
he
means
polytheism. Hence agniveer states that if God shares any of his attributes with humans then that is gross polytheism. But what does
Moolshankar state, and is Agniveer a polytheist according to his own words? Let us display, how Agniveer clearly states
protestant Hinduism to be polytheistic .Moolshankar wrote
31. God and the soul possess the attributes of Existence, Consciousness and Blissfulness common to each other and are
therefore, one. Why do you then refute this belief?

A.-The fact of two things possessing a few attributes common to each other does not make them one. Take for instance, solids and
liquids and fire, all these are inanimate and visible but that does not make them one. The dissimilar attributes differentiate them. The
hardness and prevent them from being considered as one. Or take another illustration. Both a man and an ant see with their eyes, eat with
their mouths and walk with their feet, yet they are not one and the same, having their bodily forms different from each other, a man having
two feet whilst an ant many, and so on.

[Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.233, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Now coming to the, the confession of Agniveer that protestant Hinduism is polytheistic, according to Agniveer sharing
common attributes is polytheism. We think weve shown a lot of common attributes between Ishwar, tm (Human
Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter), for instance all of them have share identical attributes namely, Eternal, uncreated,
beginning-less hence according to Agniveer himself, protestant Hindus are polytheist! But amazingly Agniveer conflicts
Moolshankar by stating that sharing attributes means polytheism.Hence Agniveer himself accepts that he is a
polytheist (if he believes in protestant Hinduism).
Now let us come to our stance we shall make our stance crystal clear; the correct rational belief is thus:

Attributing
attributes/characterstics identical
to that of human, animaletc (attributes of creation, or anything unworthy) to God is polytheism.God and humansetc (creation) cannot
have COMMON (identical) attributes, having common (identical) attributes is purepolytheism

For instance Ishwar has both identical and common (common attributes usually mean identical to some ones hence they are called
common) attributes to that of tm (Human Souls) and Prakriti (Primordial matter), namely all share or have attributes
eternal, uncreated, and beginning-less, these three attributes are not only identical but also common.
Let us make one thing crystal clear, there is a huge difference between IDENTICAL and SIMILAR (in name
only)attributes, God and humans may have attributes similar (in name only) for instance both God and humans have a
similar
attribute (in
name
only) called existence.
Both
God
and
humans exist.
But the modality of existence of God is unknown, his existence befits his Majesty and Might and is not like our existence , only the
name of the attribute is similar. For example, we all have heard the famous electronic cum computer manufacturing
company Apple so
is
this Apple company
similar
to
an Apple
(fruit)? Of course not, only the name is similar. Or is the famous software company Oracle same to an Oracle (an
authoritative person who divines the future,a shrine where an oracular god is consulted)? Of course not, they only have similar name
and nothing else, so the modality of existence of God is unknown and his existence has no comparison/resemblance nor is similar to
anything , we hope our readers and truth-seekers remember the sublime, glorious verse from the noble quran which

we quoted earlier
There is nothing like Him(Allh)

 [Soorah Ash- Shura, Ayat 11]

Any attribute of God cannot be identical to that of any creature nor does God have common attributes with his
creature, though he may have attributes with similar name.
Does similarity in attribute name necessitate God and man to be similar?

Though the question is inherently ridiculously hilarious, as it is well established that similarity in names does not
necessitate that God and humans are similar.Nonetheless well be delving into such ridiculous question in order to
make this matter clear for our readers.
Similarity in name (of attributes) in no sense necessitates, that God is similar to the one whos name (of attribute) is
similar.As the name of attribute of God is Perfect [as God Himself is All-Perfect, also its (name of attribute) divinely revealed and is
eternal] where as the name (of attribute) of humanetc [whos name (of attribute) is similar] are created not perfect nor are
divinely revealed or eternal. Hence God has no resemblance whatsoever with his creature in anything, nor
resemblance with any attributes of any creature.
There are many such rationally proved reasons which prove that similarity in name of attributes does not make two
things similar, but weve restricted ourself as this topic is out of the scope, of this article.We hope the matter is clear.
We would have written more for the benefit of our readers but this would disturb the flow of our article ,also this topic
is out of scope of this article as stated earlier, InshAllh well someday write on this subject too, as time permits
us.Weve read Agniveer admitting protestant Hinduism being polytheistic; also he contradicts his Idol named
Moolshankar. All these things should be enough for a sincere truth-seeker.
b.3) Protestant Hindu Trinity [Vedic Trinity]
As we have seen, that the protestant Hindus basically believe in 3 uncreated, eternal, beginning-less, non-destructible entities they are
Paramtm, Prakriti, tm.

And

these three are also very important in engineering or making the universe as Ishwar(Paramtm)
is the Primary Efficient Cause whereas Prakriti (Primordial matter) is the Material Cause and tm (Human Souls)is the Secondary
Efficient Cause. And these three play an important role in protestant Hindu theology in factuality these are the major
role players and everything in protestant Hindu theology revolves around these three entities, and we wonder how
come these people label themselves as monotheists? The protestant Hindu trinity, just like everything in Christianity
revolves around the Christian concept of trinity (i.e. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit) everything in protestant
Hindu theology revolves around these 3 entities which constitutes to the major part of their creed. The protestant
Hindu trinity is made up of
1) Paramtm
(Ishwar/God)

2) Prakriti
(Primordial matter)

3) tm
(Human Souls)

The above three entities make up the Trinitarian Doctrine of protestant Hinduism, though not exactly identical to that
of Christianity, nonetheless both share the confusing and irrational trinity in theology. According to protestant Hindus
Ishwar is Father of all Humans and other creatures, as stated in Vedas
I have prayed to the Effulgent, All sustaining God, May the Lord Fatheraccept my prayer.
[Yajurveda, Ch 2. verse 11 pg.31 Tr. Devi Chand]
O God, Thou art certainly the Embodiment of grace, self- Existent, our Father, obeisance be to Thee.

 [Yajurveda, Ch 3. verse 63 pg.45 Tr. Devi Chand]

The year, pervaded by the Almighty Father, is thirty-four-fold.
[Yajurveda, Ch 14. verse 23 pg.152 Tr. Devi Chand]
There are numerous such verses but for the sake of brevity few are stated, also same is stated by
Moolshankar(Daynanda Saraswati) in his book, he also notes few names of Ishwar as
Pitaa (paa to protect, rear) One who protects all. Just as a father, through paternal love and kindness always desires the
good of His children, even so does God -is the Father of all desire happiness for all . Pitaamaha The father of
fathers. Prapitaamaha The Great-Grandfather.
[Satyarth Prakash, Ch.1 pgs. 13-14, Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
Thou art the Sustainer of the Universe, Father of all; may we contemplate Thy holy adorable nature so that Thou mayest guide our
understanding.

[Satyarth Prakash, Ch.1 pgs. 34-35, Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

We learn that Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) believed Ishwar to be the Father of all, and not only Father but Father
of Fathers and also the Great-Grandfather. So we again see similarity between the protestant Hindu trinity and the
Christian trinity. But does this end here? No not at all, another zealously fanatic protestant Hindu pandit states
We have heard it contended by Christian divines that the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood, of man were first
preached by Christ. For the benefit of such critics we quote the following mantra from the Rig Veda (I. 6. 16. 10).
Thou art ever the Imperishable, the self-effulgent, the unchangeable, and the Lord of all! Thou art the mother, the father
and the son. Thou art Glorious, Indestructible, the Creator of the five breaths which, support life,! Conscious Brahama,
thou art ever manifest, though others (soul and matter) sometimes become imperceptible. Thou art the Creator of the
universe!
Other mantras in which the fatherhood of God is specifically mentioned are, Rig Veda (1. 1.9) ; Yajur (Veda III. 24; XVII.
17; XVII. 27; XXXII. 10).
[Handbook of rya Samj , pg.49-50 ,by Pandit Vishnu Ll Sharm, Published by rya Pratinidhi Sabh]
Amazingly, not only Ishwar is Father, but also the mother and also the Son ,now this really is interesting! Ishwar seems
to be really multi-faceted entity, its evident how protestant Hindus are trying hard to match-up with so-called Christian concepts of
peace Fatherhod and brotherhood . But in doing so they have erred gravely and exposed their
incoherent conceptualization and understanding of God.
The problem with Christianity is their claim of God being 3 different entities still is 1 , its something similar to protestant Hindu
theology, where the 3 entities are eternal, uncreated and beginning-less still only Ishwar has the right to be God or is
known as God and the other 2(entities i.e. tm and Prakriti) arent, while the other 2 entities have a large amount of
action and role to play(if not equal) also Ishwar is totally dependent on these two for nearly everything right from
engineering the universe to giving bliss to the human souls (on Moksha). We read that Ishwar is Father of Fathers, GreatGrandfather, Father, Mother and the Son (a step ahead of Christian dogmas)

It would be a beneficial to note another important point which weve been stressing and proving since the beginning
of this article cum treatise, is the anthropomorphic tendencies of protestant Hinduism, again here they expose how
greatly they view God in human framework or conceptualize God in human-resembling manner. Above protestant
Hindus are zealously eager to prove that their god Ishwar is the paragon of Fatherhood through which they aim to
prove their god is loving like a Father and that this concept of Fatherly love was present in the Vedas even before the
existence of Bible, but in doing so they follow the Christian and anthropomorphize God and resemble His relation with
His creatures similar to that of Human bonds and relationship. What the protestant Hindus dont realize, is that the
relation of man and God is way too pure, spiritual and higher than that of man with his Father, mother or Son . And it would be a great

oppression against humanity, asceticism and spirituality on the part of protestant Hinduism to undermine and debase
the pure relation of man with God by resembling and equaling it with human relationships. Concluding the paragraph,
we learn that Ishwar is The Father [ and relations like (Son, Mother, Great-grand Father), Humans have] in the protestant Hindu
trinity.
In order to strengthen the proofs of our statements heres some more evidences, where the relation between God
and Humans is identified and resembled with that relationships between humans.
Moolshankar (Daynanda
wrote (quoting Rig Veda, 10:48, 5.)

Saraswati)

God teaches in the Veda I, O men, lived before the whole universe came into being, I am Lord of all, I am the
eternal cause of the whole creation. I am the source and giver of all wealth. Let all men look up to me alone as children do
to their parents.

[Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.205, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Moreover he (Daynanda Saraswati) writes
Just as God and the soul stand to each other in the relation of the pervader and the pervaded, so do they do in the relations of one who is
served and the servitor, the supporter and the supported, the Master and the servant, the Ruler and the ruled, the Father and the son.
[Satyarth Prakash, Ch 7, pg.225, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Above quoted statement (pg.225) of pandit Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati), explicitly defines the relation
between tm (Humans Souls) and Ishwar (protestant Hindu god), like that of the Father and the Son! Other instances of the
relation between God and Soul provided by Mooshankar seem to be fine, like the Ruler and the ruled
[God is the Ultimate Ruler and rules over everything], Master and the servant, served and the servitor, the supporter and the supported,
all these instances are fine as they dont debase the relationship of God to mere Human relations like that of the Father and Son.
And in the quote from pg. (205, above the quote of pg.225) pandit Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati) wrote Let all men look up to me
alone as children do to their parents what more evidence would a unbiased person need to acknowledge the fact that
protestant Hinduism debases and undermines the pure relation between God and man with that of Father/Mother and
the Son. Its to be noted that the relation between a mother and a son or the father and son is very important and high

amongst humans, also should be respected highly but resembling the relation between God and humans to that of
human bonds/relationships is a fatal error which would lead to the corruption and undermining spirituality.
The trinitarian doctrine of protestant Hindus is confusing and incoherent to a rational mind; it is far removed from
being anywhere near to rationality. Christians claims their concept of triune to be monotheistic so is the claim of
protestant Hinduism with different variables and few constants.
In Christianity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 different/distinct entities, still they are not 3 Gods but they
are 1 God. Something similar in essence is propounded by, Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati)
God and the soul are two distinct entities by virtue of being different in nature and of being possessed of dissimilar
attributes and characteristics. They are, however, inseparable one from the other, being related to each other as
the pervader and the pervaded and have certain attributes in common. Just as a material object has always been and
shall always be, distinct from the space in which it exists and as the two have never been, nor shall ever be one and the
same, even so are God and the soul to each other. Their mutual relation is that of the pervader and the pervaded, of father and son and
the like.

[Satyarth Prakash, in A Statement of my belief pg. 727, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

Also, Moolshankar (Daynanda Saraswati)wrote,

It is only because He is even more subtle than the soul and the prakriti, and pervades them, that He can grasp them
and transform them into this visible universe.

 [ Satyarth Prakash, in Ch 8 pg. 252, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

As can be read above, according to Moolshankar(Daynanda Saraswati) , Ishwar is the subtlest of the 3 entities and pervades all. All the 3
entities are distinct but still are inseparable, seem to be using some sought of glue! As per protestant Hindu theology , the 3 eternal ,
uncreated, beginning-less entities (i.e Ishwar,Prakriti and tm) are distinct but are inseparable one, which simply means and
that they are Ishwar, Prakriti and tma, DISTINCT but areNOT SEPRATE. So what does this mean? Moolshankar is

trying to teach us two things

1)

They [2 entities] are, however, inseparable onefrom the other

Just as a material object has always been and shall always be, distinct from the space in which it exists and as
the two have never been, nor shall ever be one and the same, even so are God and the soul to each other.
2)

Moolshankar claims Ishwar and tm

(tm) cannot become ONE and

to be insperable one but further goes on claiming that Ishwar and human souls
the same. What hes trying to imply is that Ishwar and human souls ( tm) are
distinct/different entities with few similar attributes that cannot be divided/parted/disjoined or separated, but they are
not the same.
Meaning of Inseparable
incapable of being separated or divided

[Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged HarperCollins Publishers, 2003]

Not separable; incapable of being separated or disjoined.

[Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913]

not separable; that cannot be separated or parted

[Websters New World College Dictionary Copyright 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio]
After reading the meanings, I guess the matter will be more clear, and our readers will understand, Moolshankar is trying to state that Ishwar
is
different
not
like
Humans
souls
except
few
common
attributes
,
but
they
are inseparably
one
meaning joined and cannot be divided , which ultimately leads us to the conclusion They[Ishwar,Prakriti, tm] are one with many
different attributes among which some are common and identical to all three [ like earlier proved all three have identical
eternity, uncreated-ness, beginning-less-ness , commonly shared which make them co-equal in that attributes.]
This is something close and similar to the Christian concept of triune. 3 different entities but still One (or 3 in 1), same here with a minor
difference 3 different entities (as Ishwar pervades everything including Prakriti) but areinseparable one or joined/undivided. Irrational
and illogical concept also very lowly to a mind of monotheist, who believes in perfect Uniqueness of God. This issue needs a detail exposure,
but unfortunately presently its beyond the scope of the article, Insh Allh, well expound in it in greater detail later, as time

permits, but briefly its a gross violation of Monotheism.

The above belief is labeled as Shirk in Islm or Associationism, above Moolshankar adamantly states God and humans souls to be
inseparable one which is pure instance of polytheism. Here he adjoins and associates, Human Souls to God, which is superfluously
polytheism. Such a belief can hardly be recognized as Monotheistic, in-fact this is more than polytheism it can be better labeled
as Polytheism. Its irrational even to think of such bizarre belief, where God is JOINED/ UNITED and cannot separate himself from other
things.
We would, here like to shed light upon, the double-standards and hypocritical nature of protestant Hindus,
Agniveer,

the Islmophobe and hate-monger wrote

Not only this, Vedas also refuse existence of any angel or Prophet or incarnation who is necessarily required to act as
an agent between You and Ishwar.

To give a rough analogy:

Ishwar of Vedas = God of Christianity minus the concept of Trinity minus the necessity to surrender to Jesus
Ishwar of Vedas = Allah of Islam minus the necessity to accept Muhammad as final Prophet.
In other words, If someone says first part of Shahada : l ilha illallh (There is no other God except one and only
Allah) but rejects the second part : Muhammadur raslullh (Muhammad is his messenger), that is close to concept of Vedic
God.
In Islam, it is Shirk or greatest sin to worship anything except Allah. If you take this concept further and also refuse to accept any
Muhammad or Gabriel as necessary to be remembered apart from Allah, you are avoiding Shirk as per Vedas.

-[Source-http://agniveer.com/2708/understanding-vedic-god/ ]
Here we see ignorance of Agniveer at its best and his pathetically low level of Islmic knowledge and understanding.
It seems we need to give Agniveer, the hate-monger few baby lessons about Islm, so lets start.
The first, delusion we see is the claim that Vedas refuse to acknowledge any Prophet who is necessarily required to
act as an agent between You and Ishwar. The thing that amazes us, the most, is this persons confident lies (though
being white lies) and misinterpretations of religious texts of Islm.
Its totally wrong, absurd and misleading that, Vedas dont have Agents, to prove it lets go to the inventor of this
protestant Hindu cult, thats Moolshankar and he wrote
36. Whose hearts did God reveal the Vedas in?

A.-In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Vayu, Sama, and Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angira, respectively.
SHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11: 4,2.3.
Q. But it is written in the Shwetashwetar Upanishad, In the beginning God created Brahma and revealed the Vedas in his
heart.SHEWTAR UPANISHAD 6:18. Why do you say that they were revealed to Agni, and other sages?

Brahma was instructed in the knowledge of the Veda through the medium of the four sages , such as Agni. Mark what
Manu Says:
A.

In the beginning after human being had been created, the Supreme Spirit made the Vedas known to Brahma
through Agni, etc., i.e., Brahma learnt the four Vedas from Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angira. MANU: 23

[ Satyarth Prakash , Ch 7, pg.237, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]

In addition, Durg Prasd translates it as,

Q. To whose mind and at what time did God reveal the Vedas ?
A In the beginning of the creition God revealed a Veda to the soul of each of the four sages, called Agni, Vayu, Adittya, and
AngiraGod caused them communicated through Agni and others to the mind of Brahma. See what Manu says, I. 23,

In the beginning the Great God, having made men, blessed Brahma with the four Vedas through the four sages,
called Agni and others Brahma received the Rig, Yajur, Sanaa and Atharva Vedas from Agni Vayu, Aditya, and Angira.
[Satyrath Prakash Ch 7, pg.229 Tr. Durga Prasad]
What

we
have
seen
is
that
protestant
Hindu
god Ishwar
revealed
Vedas
and through them Brahma learnt these Vedas, so what does this mean ? Its clear that here these Rishis are
sought of Prophets (or may be Agents). And its amazing to see that Agniveer wrote

to four

Rishis

nothing but some

Vedas also refuse existence of any angel or Prophet or incarnation who is necessarily required to act as an agent between You and
Ishwar.

So again here Agniveers claim, of Vedas refusing to believe the existence of Prophets'(or so-called Agents) is refuted by
his own leaders and his own belief (we think he is a protestant Hindu isnt he, hence blind-following of Moolshankar is obligatory on
him isnt it?Thats what they are taught!) . The meaning of Rishis (here -as used by Moolshankar) is in fact is quite similar, to the
notion of a Prophet and we also read above that through the medium of the four Rishis Brahma was instructed the
knowledge of Vedas. So this simply proves how the four Rishis acted as Agents between Brahma and Ishwar, and in
fact all the others( excluding the four Rishis) learnt the knowledge of Vedas via these four Rishis , hence its evident that
these Rishis are mere Agents between Ishwar and people. Somewhat (to an extent) similar to, the Prophets conveyed
the message and knowledge of Divine Inspiration and revelation so did the rishis do.
Hence, the claim made by Agniveer, of Vedas refusing to accept an agent or prophet is contradictory to Agniveers
own creed! We think its pretty much apparent that protestant Hindus have 4 agents from whom they understood
Vedas. Now coming to a question of similar nature asked by the master (swmi) of Agniveer Moolshankar.
Moolshankar wrote
53. Nor is God minded to lay open the secret thing to you but God chooseth what he will of his apostles to know them. Believe
therefore, in God and his apostles. (3:174)

C. ~ Why does this verse inculcate faith in Mohammad along with that in God, when the Mohammedans process to believe in
none but God, and hold that none is worthy of sharing homage with Him? Hence they cannot call God
Incomparable. If it be argued that this verse only teaches that people should have faith in Mohammad as a Prophet, we should like to
know where is the necessity of Mohammad (being regarded as a Prophet). If God cannot accomplish His desired object without
making him His Prophet, He is certainly powerless.
[Satyarth Prakash, Ch14, pg.673 Tr.Chiranjiva Bhardawaja]
Well, weve proved, that Vedas have the concept of agents and something similar is being questioned by
Moolshankar , but firstly its to be noted that Moolshankar has misquoted the Holy, Noble Qurn, here the Ayat
quoted(3:174) by Moolshankar is provided , and it in no way matches with that of Moolshankars citation. Heres the
Ayat as per the reference provided by Moolshankar.
Right translation of interpretation of meaning of the Ayat reference provided
So, they returned with grace and bounty from Allh. No harm touched them; and they followed the good Pleasure of
Allh. And Allh is the Owner of Great Bounty.
-[ Soorah Aal-Imraan(3), Ayat 174]
This is typical of protestant Hindus including the likes of Agniveer, who often misquote, misinterpret and provide
unknown-faulty translation of Islmic texts.Nonetheless, here we shall answer the silly objections raised by
Moolshankar, despite of the fact that we do not have the correct reference, but have understood the basic objection.
Moolshankar here is trying to question the belief in Prophets held by Muslims. So why do Muslims believe in
Prophets(Alayhimus Salm)? The questioned can be simply answered by another question. Why do protestant Hindus
believe in the 4 rishis, why do they not reject these rishis? Of course, because it was to them, the Vedas were revealed
as per protestant Hindu theology.
Now answering the question of Agniveer and Moolshankar which is better articulated by Agniveer, he wrote (earlier full
source is provided, see above)

Ishwar of Vedas = Allah of Islam minus the necessity to accept Muhammad as final Prophet.
In other words, If someone says first part of Shahada : l ilha illallh (There is no other God except one and only
Allah) but rejects the second part : Muhammadur raslullh (Muhammad is his messenger), that is close to concept of Vedic
God.

In Islam, it is Shirk or greatest sin to worship anything except Allah. If you take this concept further and also refuse to accept any
Muhammad or Gabriel as necessary to be remembered apart from Allah, you are avoiding Shirk as per Vedas.

Let us teach Agniveer some basics of Islm, his illiteracy of Islm is apparent and is disgusting that such a person is
criticising Islm, who does not even know nick about Islm. Nonetheless, let us educate him. Firstly, this illiterate
does not even know what the shahdatayn (loosely, testimony of faith) means! Before going further let me provide our
readers with correct meaning of Shirk in Islm, Agniveer clearly lack basic comprehension of Islm, hence has stated,
In Islam, it is Shirk or greatest sin. Shirk does not literally mean Greatest Sin as stated by Agniveer.Shirk to state in a
very concise set of words (loosely), means Assocationism or Associating or setting up partners with Allh as done by
protestant Hinduism. Hence, Shirk is an act thats considered the evilest and greatest sin, which takes you out of the fold
of Islm.[Please refer to Islmic texts to comprehend the correct meaning of Shirk , as explaining it in detail here is out of the scope of this
article]

Expounding on Shahdatayn, in brief (there could be volumes written)

Meaning of [L ilha illallh]

That none has the right to be worshiped and deified except Allh, the only one Almighty true God. It is the belief and
affirmation no one deserves to be worshipped except Allh , its obligation and action upon it.So L ilha negates
anyone besides Allh deserving of worship no matter who it is.And illallh affirms the fact that only Allh has right to be worshipped and
derserves to be worshipped. Elucidating a little bit more,
L ilha illallh, has 2 pillars- Which are :
1)

Negation (nafee) 2) Affirmation (ithbaat)

The first pillar: Negation

L ilha, negates all

the types of shirk, and neccissitates in disbelieving in everything, that is worshipped besides Allh.

The second pillar: Affirmation

Illallh, affirms

that none deserves to be worshipped, except Allah and necessitates acting upon it.

Here are few scholars who expounded on it, (Well quote them in brief)
Ash-Shaykh
wrote (Al-Ilh)

al-Islm

al-Imm Ibn

Taymiyyah

is al-Malooh (the one whos deified) and al-Malooh is the one whos deserving of Worship Thus, the meaning of it:
That none has the right to be [deified and] worshipped, except Allaah.
Al-Imm al-Qurtubee

wrote L ilha illallh : That there is none other worthy of worship besidesAllh

Al-Imm al-Hfidh al-Hakamee wrote

Allah (l Mabood bi haqq illallh)

So the meaning of Lilhaillallh is : There is no deity worthy of worship in truth , besides

Al-Imm Abdur Rahmn ibn Hasan aal ash-Shaykh And the meaning of L ilha illallh There is no deity worthy of worship in truth ,
besides Allah(lMabood bi haqq illallh)
Hence anyone who basically knows what L ilha illallh means, would not indulge in such silly and incoherent question as done
by the Guru and Chela (Moolshankar and Agniveer).

Now coming to the second part of the Shahdatayn that is Muhammadur raslullh
This part itself is a proof that the Shahdah does not contain anything near to shirk! We think that the this part makes
it crystal clear that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allh and this indirectly refutes those who claimed prophets to be
children of God or incarnate of God hence this part is a refutation and rebuking against the polythiestic nature of
those who made man God, and nowhere does it associate man and God.Now lets expound briefly on this part

of Shahdatayn. This is the inward and outward recognition of the fact that Muhammad (sal-Allhu alayhi wa sallam) is the
Slave and Messenger of Allh to all the people ,whos to be followed. And this part also has two pillars
1)

Negation (nafee) 2) Affirmation (ithbt)

The first pillar: Negation

The negation of exaggeration, divinity adulation.etc

The second pillar: Affirmation

The affirmation of Slave-ship and Messengership of Muhammad (sal-Allhu

him(Muhammad) being the Slave and Messenger of Allh to all the Humanity.

alayhi

wa

sallam) ,

meaning

In-fact to refute [silly conjectures of protestant Hindus] there are many verses in the noble, holy Quran, which evidently
refute the conjectures of protestant Hindus, for instance
Say (O
Muhammad
[sal-Allhu
alayhi
wa
sallam]):
revealed to me that your Ilh (God) is One Ilh (God i.e. Allh).
[al-Kahf

am

only

man

like

you.

It

has

been

(18) Ayat 110]

And Muhammad [sal-Allhu alayhi wa sallam]): is no more than a Messenger

[Aal-Imrn (3) Ayat 144]

These Ayaat, clearly refute the silly, useless objection and claims raised by those who are incompetent in Islm.The verses state,
that Muhammad (sal-Allhu alayhi wa sallam)is mere a man like all of us , and upon him was the holy, divine , noble Qurn
revealed.This verse clearly states Muhammad the prophet of Mercy(sal-Allhu alayhi wa sallam), to be a Man(Slave and
Messenger) whos been honored by his Sole Creator , the only one True God, by revealing to him (Muhammad) the noble
Qurn and elevating him to a certain degree(in honor).

And moreover the noble, prophet of Mercy Muhammad (sal-Allhu alayhi wa sallam) said
I eat as a slave eats, and I sit as a slave sits, for verily, I am a slave.
[Saheeh

al-Jami as-Sagheer]

And,
I am only the slave of Allh, and His Messenger. I do not like you to elevate me above my rank in which All h, the Exalted, has
placed me.
[Ahmad and Nasaii]

He also said,
Do not adulate me, as the Christians adulated the son of Maryam. I am only a slave; call me the slave of Allh and
His Messenger.
[Al-Bukhri & Muslim]

We see how the noble Prophet claimed to be a mere Slave of Allh and also forbade people from exaggerating or
adulating him like the Christians did to Jesus and made him a god! Like the Hindus(orthodox) make anyone who claims
to be a incarnate of God a God.There should be no more objection or silly conjectures as this is totally enough even for
dummies to understand the Islmic stance on Prophets.
We think by now, it should be clear that the Shahdatayn does not associate Muhammad (sal-Allhu alayhi wa sallam)to
Allh Azz wa Jall in fact it disassociates Muhammad from divinity, exaggeration and makes him a mere slave and
messenger of the only one true Almighty God, to all the Humanity.And in factuality the Shahdatayn itself is proof of
monotheistic nature of Islm.

Agniveerthe

Hate-monger wrote

If you take this concept further and also refuse to accept any Muhammad or Gabriel as necessary to be remembered apart from
Allah, you are avoiding Shirk as per Vedas.
Poor agniveer, here explicitly humilates himself by exposing his , total ignorance of Islm and even of minor concepts
of it (Islm).Firstly, Vedas nowhere teach the sublime and truthful concept of Shirk (denouncing,rejection,censuring of
Shirk) in-fact Vedas are Book of Polytheism who have taught polytheism ,wearing the garb of monotheistic book (as per
protestant Hinduism).Weve seen many instance of such polytheism advocated by Vedas in the preceding subsections.Any intelligent man ,after reading the above words of agniveer would be forced to question himself- How
come remembering God and his Slave and Messenger constitute to Shirk? Such incompetent and logically devoid
question, stemmed only due to the ignorance of Islmic concepts on the part of protestant Hindus.Also such
belief (so-called remembering of Muhammad as a messenger and slave of Allh) is hilariously irrational, how can remembering
God and stating a Human to be his slave and Messenger make upto shirk? If this is the belief of protestant Hindus
then just by saying Oh! How perfectly did God make humans would make people polytheist isnt it? God and humans are
remembered together here!! Hilarious!! O you protestant Hindus go and learn the meaning of Shirk and the basic
concepts of Islm, then talk, as your ignorance will only humiliate you before the entire world.
Now, coming to a similar question asked by MoolshankarIf it be argued that this verse only teaches that people should have faith in Mohammad as a Prophet, we should like to know where is the
necessity of Mohammad (being regarded as a Prophet). If God cannot accomplish His desired object without making him His Prophet, He is
certainly powerless.

Well, this silly conjecture or at-most objection can be answered by simply asking Why does protestant Hinduism
inculcate faith in the 4 rishis to be seers to whom Vedas were revealed ? Why dont the protestant Hindus reject these rishis?
Or believe as many Hindus believe Vedas to be the the work of these rishis? We think many would have received the
answer by now, but still to make it clear, well concisely state reasons why it is a necessity for Muhammad (sal-Allhu
alayhi wa sallam) being regarded as a Prophet.
1)

Because, the holy, Noble Qurn was revealed to Muhammad(sal-Allhu alayhi wa sallam), which necessitates him to be the
Messenger.Its foolish to pose such a question (i.e. where is the necessity of Mohammad (being regarded as a Prophet) .Its
clearly established that the one who receives the revelation from God is a Prophet/Messenger! So wheres the necessity to ask such a
silly question? We think that Moolshankar did not even comprehend the meaning of Messenger or what intelligent person would ask such a
question?

2)

Believing in the Messenger-ship (or Prophethood) of Muhammad (sal-Allhu alayhi wa sallam)is necessary as this proves that
he is a mere Slave and Messenger of Allh also this is a helps stop people making Muhammad as an Avatr of God, like in
Hinduism every other reformer(this was with reformers , just thing what they may have done with Messengers ) is made an
incarnate of God.This acts as an repellent against those who seek to apply divinity to the prophets or Messengers.
3)
The belief or faith in a messenger is a necessary part, because without believing a person to be a messenger how can one
believe in the book or inspiration/revelation hes received, for instance , why do protestant hindus believe in the 4 people to be
rishis to whom the vedas were revealed? Why just not believe in the vedas (while rejecting the rishis)? Is not such question
foolishly hilarious? It is just like believing in(the truth of) a news flashed on news channel, while maintaining the news channel to
be always spreading false and fake news.
The answer is simple, disbelieving in the messengership of a messenger also necessitates disbelieve in the revelation he has been
provided with. Hence if protestant Hindus were to disbelieve that the vedas were revealed to the four rishis, they would be
rejecting the vedas, as how can a rational person believe in the revealtion of a messenger and reject him? Hence, the protestant
Hindus believe in the four rishis. Thus, disbelief in a messenger necessitates disbelief in the revealtion he has come with.

There are numerous reasons and points which could be stated here but for the sake of brevity weve stated only a
few.The above silly question , evidently exposes the credentials of Moolshankar, we wonder how can such a person
be labeled Maharishi by his blind-follwers who could not even grasp easy concepts like such , and posed such
ridiculously baseless question.
Lastly, Moolshankar again exposing his irrational mind wrote
If God cannot accomplish His desired object without making him His Prophet, He is certainly powerless.

Weve seen whos powerless and whos not in the sub-section of Ishwar being Omnipotent or not.Above statement of
Moolshankar is just like stating that If Ishwar cannot accomplish His desired object without making him the 4 people his rishis, He is
certainly powerless So is this true, protestant hindus? Well, the answer will be in negative. Therefore, why this doublestandard.The answer to Moolshankars defunct question is God does what He wills (The perrogative belongs to Him
alone) and it is the humans who need Prophets and Messengers so that they may be guided not God.
Now coming to one of the reasons for debunking this conjecture or useless-objections of Agniveer and Moolshankar
was to show their double standards and hypocricy.We included the refutation of the conjectures, in this subsection for
this particular reason, so that people may see the true face of these quacks and ignobles claiming to be Scholars and
nobles. We left our reader with the bizzare and absurd belief of Ishwar,tma and Prakriti being inseparably one or
JOINED, UNDIVIDED.
Here we can see the double standards and hyocricy of Moolshankar and protestant Hindu who criticize Islm, for the
Shahdatayn containing the mention of Prophet Muhammad, and stating it to be Shirk'(poor polemics dont even
know the meaning of shirk), which has been totally debunked. But what of Protestant Hinduism? They adjointm,
Prakriti to Ishwar stating them to be inseparably one still claim to be monotheist! We would like to question what can
this be called? If just the mere mention of Prophet Muhammad as being the slave and Messenger of Allh, is
polytheism (as claimed), then what would they label this belief of theirs? Well this is pure polytheism where God (whom
they call Ishwar) is JOINED to tm, prakriti and is inseparably one.We wonder who taught Moolshankar and his blindfollowers the meaning of Monotheism.
This unification of the three eternal entities [Paramtm (Ishwar), tm, Prakriti] is purely an instance of Shirk or
associationism, and this theory of unification is stated in Vedas
Let thy soul be united with God.

Let each joint of thine be full of vigour. Let thy noble nature guard thy wealth. Let the
imperishable sap of Gods devotion be for thy joy.
[Yajurveda Ch 20, verse 27, pg.220 Tr. Devi Chand]
vast like space, immersed in
the contemplation of the Beautiful God, deathless in its purity, full of strength, enjoyer of space and pure water,
extending over all ;
O charitably disposed person, just as a virtuous person, becomes united with the soul immortal,

[Yajurveda Ch 28, verse 27, pg.283 Tr. Devi Chand]

There are plently of verses(see the sub-section b.2.4 for more about this polytheistic concept) exposing this polytheistic doctrine
of unification of God and Human souls in vedas, but weve resorted to only two as these are satisfactorily enough to
expose this vilest form of polytheism, in fact its no less than pantheism.The verses claim unification of God and
human souls.Now may we ask, if the mere utterance of name of prophet Muhammad as the slave and messenger of
Allh the Almighty, in Shahdatayn is polytheism as per protestant Hindus then what would this unification of
God (Ishwar Paramtm) and Human Souls (tm) be labeled as? Well, the answer is simple and outrightly evident; this
is nothing but pure polytheism under guise of monotheism. Let us provide another instance of pure and outright
exclamation of associationism (Shirk) which necessitates polytheism by the protestant Hindu pandit-scholar
Souls tend to associate themselves with matter but are free to do so with God.

[The Handbook of rya Samj, pg 41, Pandit Vishnu Ll Sharm, rya Pratinidhi Sabh]
This is pure polytheism, where tm is associated or set up as a partner to God! Isnt this enough for true, sincere
truth-seeker? We think there can be no more explicit statement then this though there are many such statements
available in the works of protestant Hindu scholars.So may we ask Agniveer What is this? This is nothing more than
pure polytheism.
Christianity and protestant Hinduism both have three different, distinct entities, but are one (inseparably one according to
protestant Hindus). Both the concepts be it chrisitian or protestant Hinduism both constitute to polytheism as both
associate , 2 entities to God (if not more) and claim that they are one. Both these denominations, believe all the three
entities to be distinct and different still to be one in the case of protestant Hinduism inseparably one. Though there are
differences in this concept, in essence it is same. This concept is a violation and insult to monotheism, which takes

these belief systems out of the fold of monotheism.Both even are similar in claiming monotheism , both claim to be
monotheistic in nature . However, the problematic issue is that none of the two stands true to the test of
monotheism.So in essence the Christian trinity is not different from the protestant Hindu trinity (Vedic Trinity), both share
the same belief of 3 different entities being inseparably one, give or take few issues. The basic framework of thining
about god in both chrisitianity and protestant Hinduism is same.
In essence, protestant Hinduism is similar to Christianity. Its widely accepted by many academicians, scholars and
even orthodox Hindus that Protestant Hinduism has been inspired by Christians and has adapted/edited Hindu beliefs
in order to respond to Christians by making Hinduism something modern, and also have tried to make Hinduism
something like Christianity in terms of Love, Proselytism et al. As the Hindu-fascist (more correctly Hindutva-vadi)Shrikant
G. Talageri states in his book The Rigveda A Historical Analysis, in Section III- Appendices -:
The Christian missionaries treated Hinduism as inferior to Christianity on various counts: namely, idol-worship,
polytheism, etc. Instead of countering these religious prejudices and pointing out that there was nothing superior to
polytheism in monotheism, or superior to idolworship in Christian forms of worship, the Arya Samaj adopted these
prejudices, and sought to counter the Christian propaganda by insisting that Hinduism, in its pristine and pure form,
as represented in the Vedas, was more monotheistic and non-idol-worshiping than Christianity itself. This was rather
like accepting and adopting the European prejudice which treats white-skinned people as superior to dark-skinned people, and
then
trying
to
show
that
Indian
skins
are
whiter
than
European
skins!

Another point of Christian superiority to Hinduism, in the eyes of the Christian missionaries, was the claim that
Christianity had One Divine Book which was the revealed word of God, while the Hindus had a large and
miscellaneous assortment of religious books. The Arya Samaj sought to counter this by raising the Vedas to that status: the Vedas
thus became the one and only Divine Book (the four Samhitas being treated as parts of one indivisible whole) revealed by God .
Anyone, who has read Satyarth Praksh and other protestant Hindu manuals, books, will take no time to
acknowledge the influence and impact of Christianity on protestant Hinduism and the consequences of such influence
and impact. Though Moolshankar had put all his energy to reform Hinduism by reinterpreting Vedas and other
Shashtras as per his whims, its to be noted that all such things done were in line with Christian principles and
methods and were done in- order to present Hinduism as a competitor against so-called monotheistic (undoubtedly
Polytheistic) and modern faith like Christianity.
And as Ronald Neufeldt writes,
Even in the case of Daynanda, whose relationships with Christians tended to be polemical, one finds an emphasis
on a personal God who rules in terms of justice, compassion and orderliness and the assertion that these beliefs are
in accord with the dictates of conscience and reason. Clearly there is much here that parallels the language of missionaries
and indologists alike, and in some cases at least there is the admission of indebtedness to the teachings of bible and the
missionaries.

[The Response of the Hindu Renaissance to Christianity in Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters , pg.
38-39, ed. H. Coward, 1993]
Also as Harold Coward writes,
Dayananda made Hinduism a religion of the book by adopting the Protestant principle of sola scriptura and applying it to the
Vedas

[Dayanandas Approach to Other Religions, in G.R.Garg, World Perspectives on Swami Dayananda Saraswati, pg. 267,
1984]
Moolshankar used the protestant principle of Sola Scriptura , and demoted Upanishads, Brahmanasetc to the level
of smriti (from shruti) and only the Samhit portion were or are called as Vedas by him and his blind-followers. In fact if
we were to see today, we can find numerous similarities between protestant Hinduism and Christianity with regards to
their presentation, organization and proselytizingetc. For instance we can see how , fanatics like Mahendra Pl,
Agniveer et al. use Character Assassination'(to malign noble Prophet Muhammad Sallal lhu alayhi wa Sallam) as a tool against
Islm, this was first used by Christians against Muslims as they very well-knew, Islm taught and commanded strict
mannerism and respect, even toward bitter enemies , hence by attacking the character of the noble Prophet they
were sure that Muslims wont get so lowly and unethical, due to stringent Islmic mannerism and secondly the high
respect Muslims held for Jesus Christ , as we believe him to be prophet of the Almighty ,hence (Muslims) would not

retaliate by abusing, debasing or maligning Jesus. Protestant Hinduism also follows something similar to protestant
chrisitianity and thats the watchword by Luther back to Bible, where as Moolshankar cried out back to Vedas.
And this same Character Assassination is used by protestant Hindus against Islm; moreover they (protestant Hindus like
Agniveer et al) use the same arguments and claims concocted by the Christian missionaries and Christian
Islmophobes. Their style of proselytizing and converting people is similar to that of Christians, using deception and
are double-faced, at times theyll be talking of global peace, brotherhood and behind the back theyll be found abusing
and maligning your religion, on false accounts and fake information.
If anyone were to read polemical works by protestant Hindus against Islm , he would fore sure be struck by the
striking similarity between their(protestant Hinduism and Christianity) methods, works and arguments, in factuality most of
the arguments hurled at Islm by protestant Hindus are borrowed from Christian Orientalists and missionaries. There
are tremendous amount of similarities between these two paragons of polytheism and false-hood, but due to space
and time scarcity we wont be dealing with those, in here for now.
Strengthen your Understanding

Summarizing this sub-section [i.e. B) Protestant Hinduism and Monotheism an Antithesis], we would like to review what
weve learnt about protestant Hindu theology, their creedal system and Protestant Hindus

Ishwar is Dependent on tm (Human Souls) prakriti (Primordial matter)

Attributes of Ishwar

Ishwar
is
comparable and
that
Shining
Man
of
Knowledge or Ishwar
Shining
Man
of
Knowledge and
person
who
are
excellent
Anthropomorphic tendencies of protestant Hindus are explicitly evident.

for bringing out the making of this universe.

are incapability, dependency. Ishwar shares identical attributes with tm and prakriti, for
instance attributes like beginning-less, eternal, uncreated.
Ishwar
shines

that

there
like

is like
LIKE

are
Ishwar.

Ishwar is co-equal in Eternity, Uncreated-ness, Beginning-less with tm(Human Souls), prakriti (Primordial
matter), also he (Ishwar) is co-equal with time and space in terms of uncreated-ness and eternity. Also Ishwar
needs help of and has co-equal partners tm (Human Souls), prakriti (Primordial matter) to make or engineer

the universe.

Ishwar is a stealer

Communion with Ishwar is nothing but pure polytheism

who steals away life of beings.

which has crossed the boudries and needs severe

rejection and reprimanding.

Agniveer confesses protestant Hinduism to be polytheistic by stating similar attributes

Protestant Hinduism is not monotheistic but is Trinitarian

1.

Paramtm
(Ishwar/God)

2.

Prakriti
(Primordial matter)

3.

tm
(Human Souls)

is assocaitionism which
leads to polytheismwhere as Moolshankar states that Ishwar has common/identical attributes with other
entities.Agniveer contradicts Moolshankar and shoots his own foot.
and Protestant Hindu Trinity (Vedic trinity) is made up of

as per protestant Hinduism which only solidifies and proves that

protestant Hinduism is polytheistic if not pantheistic.
tm and Paramtm are united and inseparably one

and they follow Christians in their style of proselytism, polemics and have
tried to make Hinduism similar to Christianity to an extent.
Protestant Hinduism is inspired by Christianity

Rate this:

Rate This
Share this:

Twitter

Facebook

Related

Concept of God in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) Part 1In "Responses"

What is Hinduism?In "General"
Mulshankar on Jainism and BuddhismIn "General"
This entry was posted in Responses and tagged agniveer, arya samaj, Atma, chamupati, DEVI CHAND,Dr.Chiranjiva
Bhardawaja, ishwar, jaydev sharma, kshemkarandas trivedi, lekh
ram, Monotheism,Omnipotence, polytheism, Prakriti, Rishis, satyaprakash, satyarth prakash, shraddhanand, swami
prabhupada, Swamy Dayananda Saraswati, tulsi ram, vedas, vedic trinity, vidyalankar, zakir naik onJanuary 1, 2014.
Post navigation
Hinduism and Religious ToleranceConcept of God in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) Part 1

AUTHORS

truthabouthinduism

CHECK LIST OF ARTICLES FOR LATEST POSTS

Search for:
Search

CATEGORIES

General (62)
Rebuttals (4)
Responses (12)
The Twenty Twelve Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/vedas-are-not-eternal/

TruthaboutHinduism

Answering Hinduism
Skip to content

HOME

ABOUT

LIST OF ARTICLES

Vedas are not eternal: A detailed Analysis

Written by Mushafiq Sultan

Majority of the Hindu and Non Hindu scholars of Vedas accept Vedas to be of a finite
date. Only a minority of Hindus especially the Arya Samajis claim that the Vedas are eternal and beginningless. This
they try to explain only by mere conjecture and some philosophical gymnastics. As far as the tangible evidence is
concerned, there is no reason to believe in this myth of Vedas being eternal. We will analyse this topic from many
angles and thus build a coherent view that Vedas are of a finite date. When the finite age of the Vedas is established,
it will bring to rest many false theories and questions that are built on this supposition that Vedas are eternal.

THE METHODOLOGY
1.

If the Vedic language Sanskrit has itself originated from another language or both originated from a common
language then Vedas will be disproved to be eternal.

2.

If Vedas never claim to be eternal and from the beginning, but internal evidence shows that Vedas were
written at a finite date, then also this claim of Vedas being eternal will collapse.

3.

Those who uphold this view of eternity of Vedas also claim that Vedic teachings are for all times. Thus if it
can be shown that Vedic teachings are obsolete,or time-bound the claim of eternity of Vedas will fall apart.

4.

If many teachings and concepts within the Vedas are similar to those of Zoroastrian religion, the why should
we not conclude that Vedic Religion has been derived from Zoroastrianism, beacuse the Parsis
(Zoroastrians) consider their religion older than the Vedic Religion

1. THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE

This article besides showing that the present Vedas are not eternal, will also throw some light on the much debated
topic of Aryan invasion of India. It is worth noting that many foreign nations came to India. The Scythians, The
Mughals, The Afghans and The Arabs, all came here and were victorious. Thus, the farther we look back in history;
we come to know that this nation has always been overrun by foreign powers. However, the opposite wave, i.e. the
inhabitants of this area (whoever they would have been) going and overrunning foreign lands is not established. Thus
if we establish that Sanskrit and Persian languages have a lot in common, it will follow that Sanskrit (and hence the
Vedas) have origins in the Persian language and religion as it were the Persians who come here and not vice versa.
It will also allow us to establish that what we know as Hinduism is not the indigenous religion of India, and hence the
extremist hindus have no ground to question the presence of Islam in this country.
Those things which are related to humans in such a way that we use them almost daily and we take their names in
our daily life, are very similar in Sanskrit and Persian. This is significant evidence that Aryans came from Iran (Persia)
into India and settled here. Thus, Vedas which are written in Sanskrit and related to the Aryan people can in no way
be eternal.
To prove this from the linguistic perspective, I will present before you a comprehensive list of similar words in Persian
and Sanskrit. The words will be transliterated in English, so that it becomes easy to understand the similarity in the
pronunciation.

The list of such type of similar words goes upto thousands. However, to avoid making this article too long, I have
provided only 60 words, to make my point. I feel this is sufficient to establish that Sanskrit has been derived from
Persian or both have the same origin.[1] Since the Vedas are in sanskrit and we have shown that sanskrit is itself a
derived language, it proves that Vedas have been written at a finite date in history. This was the linguistic evidence.
2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE (WHAT DO THE VEDAS SAY?)
Let us take a look at some Vedic Mantras which falsify the claim that Vedas are beginningless. I will provide the
scanned images of the orginal text plus the hindi translation by Arya Samaj as well as the English Translation and my
comments.
1. Following is the scanned image from Yajur Veda Adhyay (Chapter) 13; Mantra (Verse) 37 and then the english
translation.

O Learned man! You have gained knowledge from ancient scholars. You are charitable. Join your trained horses to
your chariots, ready to face your enemy and establish yourself on the throne on justice.
The mantra is clearly referring to ancient scholars who were well verses in the ways of warfare. Thus the Vedas were
compiled in the times when civilization had progressed to the extent that chariots were used and warfare was known.
2. Yajur Ved Adhyay 12; Mantra 111 reads

O Man, follow thou the scholars, those who are aware of the ups and downs, those who have extensive knowledge,
who are righteous, who passed away in the first age (Satyug). This is what I command you.
It is clear that these verses, and hence the book, have been written after Satyug, which is believed by Hindus as the
first age in their division of time periods. So Vedic finite nature is established.
3. Further, it is mentioned in Yajur Ved Adhyay 19; Mantra 38

O our Father, Grandfather and Great-Grandfather. Purify our life. Fulfill our wishes and our hard work in all ways.
Keep us away from those evil dog-like humans who live near and far.
This shows that Vedas were written at a time when many generations of humans had passed from the first humans
and there were people who believed and disbelieved in the Vedas, the latter being compared to evil dogs. Thus Vedas
were written at a finite time.
I can go on and on posting passages from the Vedas which refute the claims of Vedas being from the beginning. But,
it will make the article too long. So I will suffice with mere references, like the one presented above, which throw more
light on this topic. Yajur Veda 34:16 speaks about ancient knowledge and scriptures (Puranas and other shastras),
which were present before the Vedas. Same is mentioned in Yajur Veda 34:27.
3. ARE VEDIC TEACHINGS VALID OR OBSOLETE?
Now I wish to explore whether the teachings of the Vedas are applicable for all times or not. The main principle of
Religion is to make a disciplined individual with an exceptional morality. A Book which is upheld as a constitution for
human living must provide ways of knowing God, of worship, of handling wordly affairs, social system, solid principles
for a clean culture. However, when we study the Vedas, we find it devoid of all these points.[2]
RigVeda mentions numerous gods (devataas). When it mentions Agni, we feel that Agni is the supreme deity and no
other is equal to Agni. But when we read about Indra, we feel Indra is the supreme and no one is comparable to
Indra[3]. In total, there are 33 gods that are divided into 3 categories; 11 of the heavens, 11 of earth and 11 of water.
Later these 33 gods increase in number and become 330 million[4].

The whole 9th Mandal (Book) of RigVeda has ended with praising the Soma Juice (Soma ras). The Soma god
(Devataa) is on the same level as Agni. There has been a dispute concerning this Soma Juice between traditional
sanskrit scholars and Swami Dayanand. Some say it is the name of wine, some consider is as bhang, a preparation
from the leaves and flowers (buds) of the female cannabis plant. Swami Dayanand and his followers say that Soma
was a plant used to make an energizing drink but surprisingly it has become extinct and we cannot find it anywhere
today. This implies that an entire Mandal (Book) of RigVeda has become useless.
I will give you extracts on various topics from the Vedas, so that you may yourself assess the level of its teachings.
About Soma
Those desiring to perform Yagya (fire ritual) have given you Soma from the waters That Soma is majestic,
imperishable, having lot of hair on it, and oblique on the edges. [Rig Veda Mandal 1; Sukt 135; Mantra 6]
Notice that the Mantra calls Soma as imperishable () and Arya Samaj and other scholars say that it has
perished. So either they must accept that this Vedic Mantra has been proven false or accept that the Vedas are
promoting crime because the only option left for them is that Soma is wine or bhang, both intoxicating substances.
Like the Mantra above there are numerous other Mantras encouring people to drink Soma Juice aka Bhang. So you
can yourself assess what kind of a book will promote this vice and can it be considered as divine scripture? Some of
the other Mantras of Rig Veda mentioning Soma are 1.130.2; 3.58.4; 6.44.21; 1.137.2; 1.176.5; 1.168.3. These show
that at the time of the writing of Vedas Soma Juice aka Bhang was consumed at lot.
Encouraging and glorifying robbers, dacoits, murderers cheats and looters
Homage to the conquering, piercing Lord of assailing bands, homage to the towering sword-bearer, to the Master of
thieves homage! Homage to the gliding robber, to the roamer, to the Master of forests homage! Homage to the cheat,
to the arch-deceiver, to the Master of stealers homage! Homage to the wearer of sword and quiver, to the Master of
robbers homage! Homage to the boltarmed murderers, to the Master of thieves homage! Homage to the swordbearers, to those who roam at night, to the Master of looters homage! 22 To the turban-wearing haunter of mountains,
Master of land-grabbers homage! Homage to you who bear arrows and to you who carry bows. Homage to you with
bent bows, and to you who adjust your arrows, to you who draw the bow and to you who shoot be homage! 23
Homage to you who let fly and to you who pierce, homage to you who sleep and to you who wake, homage to you
who lie and to you who sit, homage to you who stand and to you who run.
[Yajur Veda Adyay 16; Mantras 20-23]
What kind of a book will pay homage to looters, dacoits, land-grabbers, theieves, and murderers? Can this book be a
guide for humanity? Notice that the sanskrit word that has been translated as Homage is Namah (???). So there are
no doubts about the fact that Vedas glorify crimes and criminals. Sorry for being offensive but the text is clear. So
those Arya Samajis who unnecessarily point fingers at Islam should check their own books.
Even after these passages from the Vedas have been presented can any anti-Islamic Arya Samaji dare to claim Vedic
teachings as eternal? These teachings can in no way be accepted.
4. ZOROASTRIAN SOURCES OF VEDAS

Sun occupied a very significant position in the religion of Ancient Persian and Zend Avesta. Similarly at
various places in the Vedas Sun god (Surya Devata) occupies a significant position. [Rig Veda Mandal 4;
Sukt 14 ]

In the Zend Avesta, god Mithra is glorified as I announce (and) carry out (this Yasna) for Mithra of wide
pastures, of the thousand ears, and of the myriad eyes. [Yasna 1:3]. Similarly Mitra is glorified in Rig Veda
3:59 MITRA, when speaking, stirreth men to labour: Mitra sustaineth both the earth and heaven. Mitra
beholdeth men with eyes that close not. To Mitra bring, with holy oil, oblation.

Vayu Devata is mentioned in both Zend Avesta and Vedas. See for example Yasna 25:5

Yima Xa?ta is mentioned throughout the Zend Avesta and so is Yama Raja mentioned in thhe Vedas. He
has same roles in both the Scriptures, i.e. the ruler of the dead.

Thrita is called the First Healer in Avesta-Venidad; Fargard 20. Similarly Trita Aptya is mentioned as healer in
the Vedas.

In Zend Avesta, especially in its HOM YASHT section, Haoma is described as a herb and worthy of worship.
Similarly, as we have seens before, Soma is called a herb and deserving worship. For details see HOM
YASHT in Avesta- Yasna and Rig Veda Mandal 9 SOM MANDAL.

Agni is taken as an object of worship in both scriptures.

The methods of sacrifice, worship and the words used in worship are so strikingly similar that were I to
reproduce here those passages, it can make a voluminous book. To illustrate i will provide only one example
of how similar the prayers to Mitra are

We offer up libations unto Mithra, the lord of wide pastures, who gives a happy dwelling and a good dwelling to the
Aryan nations. May he come to us for help! May he come to us for ease! May he come to us for joy! May he come to
us for mercy! May he come to us for health! May he come to us for victory! May he come to us for good conscience!
May he come to us for bliss! he, the awful and overpowering, worthy of sacrifice and prayer, not to be deceived
anywhere in the whole of the material world, Mithra, the lord of wide pastures. [Khorda Avesta 10 Mihr Yasht 4-5]
Mitra, of holy strength, I call, and foe-destroying Varuna, Who make the oil-fed rite complete. Mitra and Varuna,
through Law, lovers and cherishers of Law, Have ye obtained your might power Our Sages, Mitra-Varuna, wide
dominion, strong by birth, Vouchsafe us strength that worketh well. [Rig Veda Mandal 1; Sukt 2; Mantras 7-9]
From the above analysis any logical person can conclude that claim of Vedas being eternal is merely a hoax and
moreover they cannot be the ultimate guide book for humanity.
May God always guide us to the truth and keep us firm on it.

FOOTNOTES
[1] This is the opinion of the majority of scholars.
[2] Famous Hindu Scholar Dr. Radhakrishnan says,

The Vedas do not contain a systematic account of dharma. They indicate the ideals and mention certain practices.
Rules and commands, as distinct from instances of conduct, are found in smritis and dharmashastras, which are
practically synonymous. Smritis literally refer to what is remembered by the Sages, who are well versed in the learning
of the Vedas. Any rule in a smriti for which a Vedic source can be found becomes invested with the suthority of the
Veda. [Religion and Society, Page 109]
[3] See Hinduism P 20-24 by Swami Vivekananada
[4] See The Cultural Heritage of India, P.8,9 by Swami Shraddanand
Rate
Aboutthis:
these ads

2 Votes
Share this:

Twitter

Facebook

Related

Origin of Vedas, Their Inspiration, and AuthorityIn "General"

Hindu Scriptures Battle of SupremacyIn "General"
Scientific Errors in Vedas Part IIn "General"
This entry was posted in General on May 14, 2014.
Post navigation
Do Muslims worship the Kaaba or Black Stone?Hindu Scriptures Battle of Supremacy

AUTHORS

truthabouthinduism

CHECK LIST OF ARTICLES FOR LATEST POSTS

Search for:
Search

CATEGORIES

General (62)
Rebuttals (4)
Responses (12)
The Twenty Twelve Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/response-to-no-hatred-invedas-part-i/

TruthaboutHinduism

Answering Hinduism
Skip to content

HOME

ABOUT

LIST OF ARTICLES

Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part I

Written by Sulaiman Razvi

Other religious books are seen as terror manual by some hate mongers. These hate
mongers deliberately misinterpret other scriptures. They claim that only Vedas preach
non Violence, religious tolerance and that it doesnt command to kill those who reject
Hinduism. This article is a response to those Hindus who have come up with weak
rebuttal. Now lets start reading the pathetic rebuttal of the apologist on Rig Veda
3.53.14

VERSE:
Among the Kikatas what do thy cattle? They pour no milky draught, they heat no
caldron. Bring thou to us the wealth of Pramaganda; give up to us, O Maghavan, the
low-born. Rig Veda 3.53.14

FANATICS ANALYSIS:

When it has been clearly established that Anarya means terrorist and the allegators
have themselves given reference from Nirukta and Swami Dayanand (I am not sure of
later source), where is the confusion?
The mantras prays that Cows that give milk and sources of prosperity have no utility in places where
terrorists thrive. They be better put to use for prosperity of noble people .

In other words, if Al-Qaeda or Maoists have lots of weapons and wealth, these better
come to peaceful people than stay with them. This means that the country should adopt
policies that ensure that wealth goes to deserving people and not criminals and
terrorists. It is on basis of such mantra that all civilized nations put strict control and
security on distribution of currency and critical resources.

Vedas also have prayers that call for reformation of terrorists into civilized beings. Refer
Rigveda 6.22.10 that states that Daas should be made Arya. How could it be possible
if these were to denote races or specific geographies?

RESPONSE:
Wow, really great, today even a thief can justify theft with this logic saying that Since he
wasnt utilizing his stuff properly so I stole it to make optimum utilization.

On what basis has the writer come to the conclusion that Anarya means terrorist?
although as per their definition anyone who does not follow the Veda is wicked, Demon,
Barbarous, Violent terrorist. But he is suppose to quote the reference. First lets have a
look at the meaning of Anarya given by Dayanand Saraswati,

The Dwijaas( the twice-born) Braahmanaas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyaas are called

Aryas, while the Shudras are called Anaryas, or Non-Aryas.ATHARVA VEDA 19:62 Satyarth
Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, page 266, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.

Dayanand also writes that all people living outside Aryavarta are Demons and
Barbarians. During the Vedic period the inhabitants of Aryavrata (present day India)
were mostly Veda followers, this is why he say that all people living outside Aryavrata
are demons (Rakshasha, Dasyu). V.S Apte gives the following meaning for Dasyu
Dasyu name of a class of evil beings or demons; an outcast; a thief; a villain; a
desperado Sanskrit English Dictionary page 366

In short, anyone who doesnt follow the Vedas including poor Shudras are Barbaric
(Malechha), Demons (Dasyus, Rakshasha) and Anarya (Non-Aryans). Now lets move
on to some more authoritative texts. The writer quotes no reference that Anarya means
terrorist, However lets look at what Yaska Acharya writes on Rig Veda 3.53.14,

Nirukta 6.32 What are the cows doing in Kikata? Kikata is the name of a country where the nonAryans dwell. Non-Aryan tribes are (so called because it is said),What have they done?
Or their assumption is that religious rites are useless. They neither get the milk to mix with the soma, nor
kindle fire.

So those poor people of Kikata tribe were looted not because they were terrorist as the
writer (who is a extremist himself) says but as the Vedas commands to kill the person
who doesnt bring offerings to the Ishwar, It is mentioned in Vedas,

Rig Veda 1.176.4 Slay everyone who pours no gift, who, hard to reach, delights thee
not. Bestow on us what wealth he hath: this even the worshipper awaits.

For more details on religious intolerance, read my article Killing Infidels in Vedas

VERSE:

Atharva Veda 20.93.1 May our hymns give you great delight. Display your bounty,
Thudered. Drive off [kill] the enemies of the Vedas.

FANATICS ANALYSIS:

The controversial phrase is :

So it calls for destruction of hatred against Brahma and NOT any Vedic text hater.
Brahma is a more subtle concept and refers to the source behind entire creation and
hence the feeling that all human beings are equal. It also refers to pure intelligence. So
the mantra calls for destruction of those forces that attempt to harm the scholars or
sources of intelligence. In other words, those who want to bomb our schools, centers of
excellence, intelligence departments or attempt to harm our intelligent masses should
be destroyed just as we destroyed Osama Bin Laden and Talibanis. Also the mantra
does not say that people should be destroyed specifically. It says that the very forces
including systems and processes that attempt to thwart free intellectual pursuits
should be destroyed. Because only through freedom of introspection and enhancement
of knowledge can one seek happiness for self and society.

MY RESPONSE:
Nice try, but in vain. Firstly lets see what does the word [Brahmadvish] means.
Endorsing his Gurus definition one of the prominent scholar of Arya Samaj named
Satya Prakash Saraswati gives the following meaning,

[Rig Veda Samhita, by Satya Prakash Saraswati and Vidyalankar, Vol 4, page no 1294,
Published by Veda Pratishthana, New Delhi, 1977]

Dayanand Saraswati founder of Arya Samaj gives the following meaning,

Brahmadivsh = Those who oppose Veda and Ishwar

[Rig Veda Hindi translation, Mandala 2, page 323]

Other Arya Samaj translations have also translated it as Those who reject Veda,
Swami Prabhupada translates it as those envious of Vedas so now its established that
whoever rejects or opposes Vedas should be killed. The writer is giving his own
meanings to the words, I wonder why isnt he using the translations of prominent Hindu
scholars especially the Arya Samaj. The writer is trying his level best to twist and distort
the verses. Suppose if the Vedas says to protect a stone the writer may explain it in this
way
Vedas says to protect the stone, Since stone is part of Prakriti and all of us are created
out of Prakriti so this is actually saying to protect the Humans, so the correct translation
would be O resplendent Lord, the giver of technology , bestower of Infosys, Wipro,
Apple, Microsoft, IBM you are the source of knowledge of Bill Gates, Ratan Tata, protect
the noble humans from the evil terrorists and drive them off.
The writer should stop giving his own interpretations. For more information on
Brahmadvish read my article Killing Infidels in Vedas.

VERSE
,
[ : ]

FANATICS ANALYSIS:

As detailed in previous references, hatred is reserved ONLY for those who blatantly
flout this guideline and cause damage to innocents. In other words, ONLY terrorists
deserve our hatred. There is not one mantra in entire Vedas that call for hatred on basis of
personal or theological beliefs. So terrorists should be dealt with iron hand and be firmly
destroyed just as Osama Bin Laden was killed recently. Those who deal with terrorists
softly bring havoc to society. Once again, definition of terrorist is clear He is someone
who kills innocents and harms public property. Very rightly, these are the most severe
crimes in all civilized countries of the world perfectly in lines of Vedas. That is why
USA has to send a mission in Abbotabad to destroy terrorists like Osama. But in this, to
ensure that no illogical meaning is derived, the original translation clearly specifies that
this phrase refers ONLY to violent people. Refer Yajurveda Bhashyam Part 2 page 510
published by Ramlal Kapoor Trust which is based on original manuscripts. I reproduce
the relevant portion:

.
So this mantra refers only to violent people and ONLY official security personnel are
allowed to carry such operations, not ordinary masses, as per Swami Dayanand. In
other words, mantra says that Police and Military should protect people by destroying
terrorists.

MY RESPONSE:
It is already established that as per the Vedic injunction, whoever rejects Vedas is a
terrorist, Barbarian, Demon. The writer is mixing all the sentences here. Further there is
no Sanskrit word for Hinsak (Violent person) in that verse. It says to kill the person who
hates us (Ishwar) and WHOM WE HATE.

Yajur Veda 15.15 This one in front, golden-tressed, with sunbeams; the leader of his
host and his chieftain are Rathagritsa and Rathaujas, and Pujikasthal: and
Kratusthal his Apsarases. Biting animals are his weapon, homicide his missile weapon;

to them be homage: may they protect us, may they have mercy upon us.In their jaws we
place the man whom we hate and who hates us.

(Shri Ram Sharma Acharyas Hindi translation)

The writer may still argue that this verse refers only to violent people, but what about
other verses which explicitly commands to kill whom Ishwar hates? The entire hymn of
Atharva 2.19 is dedicated in burning those who hate Ishwar and to whom Ishwar hates,

Atharva Veda 2.19.1 Burn thou, O Agni, with that heat of thine against the man who hates

us, whom we hate.

Atharva Veda 10.5.25 from earth we bar him who hates us and whom we hate.

The Arya Samaj commentary states that a, Man should satisfy himself by killing his
enemies with the miraculous powers given by God

Atharva Veda 10.3.3 This charm shall conquer and cast down thy foemen. Be thou the
first to slay the men who hate thee.

Can the writer still say that it commands to kill only violent people since the above verse
clearly states to be the first one to kill who just Hates him. These violent verses commands
to kill the haters of god and the haters of the Aryas (So called noble people).

The writer states There is not one mantra in entire Vedas that call for hatred on basis of
personal or theological beliefs

What does the writer has to say about this verse,

Nirukta 5.17 When, with his foot, will he trample the infidel man like a mushroom? When
indeed will Indra hear our prayers?[ Rig Veda 1.84.8]
When, with his foot, will he trample the unworshipping man like a mushroom

Ishwar is merciless, violent savage who doesnt forgive persons who hates him, who
rejects Vedas, who utters blasphemous words against him. For more details on this read
my article Killing Infidels in Vedas

VERSE:
[ ] , , , , , , [ ::]
Atharva Veda 12.5.62 Rend, rend to bits, rend through and through, scorch and
consume and burn to dust, the one who rejects the Vedas

FANATICS ANALYSIS:
The current context of the mantra starts at least from 12.5.47 and continues till 73. In reality, the mantra
is dedicated to Brahmagavi (). This refers to fundamental unchangeable laws of nature. The entire
chapter details how those who refuse to act as per unchangeable laws of nature due to false ego get
destroyed. There is no mention whatsoever of any person or group of person trying to kill anyone. The
mantras assert that those who try to silence the voice of intellect or truth get destroyed themselves. These
mantras have been the foundation of all revolutionary movements that have ever happened to oppose the
voice of tyranny. The chapter is an inspiration for all truth seekers. It elaborates how ultimately laws of
nature destroy the greatest of power achieved through tyranny. It elaborates how wealth obtained through
tyranny is actually a curse. It elaborates why the mightiest of rulers should be scared of harming a truthseeking scholar. Mantra 12.5.58 clearly calls this Brahmagavi Aghnye. So it is in feminine gender and
means non-violent. So it is clear that the mantras talk of wider laws of nature and not inciting into killing
innocents because of difference in viewpoints. On contrary, the mantras clearly assert that those who
think of killing innocents get destroyed as per Laws of nature. So yes, the mantra does say that
Brahmagavi or Fundamental Truths of Nature destroy the perpetrators of terror and hatred in most
merciless manner.

MY RESPONSE:
The deceptive explanations of this writer are really commendable. Where and how does
he get such deceptive ideas? Veda calls Indra as Mayavi (Vedic fraud) but in reality this

guy deserves the title. The word Aghnya is explained here Beef Eating in Vedas and Other
Hindu Texts by Mushafiq Sultan
The translation is taken from the Arya Samaj website,

Atharva Veda 12.5.62 Rend, rend to bits, rend through and through, scorch and
consume and burn to dust, the one who rejects the Vedas

Arya Samaj commentary on this verse states:

Godly persons shall always be ready to kill irreligious people

[Kshemkarandas Trivedi (Arya Samaj) on Atharva Veda 12.5.62, p.576]

He writes on Atharva Veda 12.5.54

Vedic followers should destroy infidels- page 574

[Source:http://aryasamajjamnagar.org/atharvaveda_v2/pages/p574.gif ]

It is mentioned in Vishnu Purana,

When the glorious Vishnu heard their prayers he emitted from his person an illusory
form wliich he gave to the celestials and said. This illusory form shall so deceive the
Daityas, that being led astray from the path of the Vedas, they shall be slain ; for all gods, demons
and others, who shall transgress the authority of the Veda, shall perish by my prowess
which I exercise for the preservation of the universe. Go then ; be not affraid ; this
illusory form shall go before you. celestials, it shall be of great service to you, this day.Vishnu Purana 3.17, Edited and Published by Manmath Nath Dutt, page 228.

VERSE:
,

, ,
[ , ]

, ?
?

FANATICS ANALYSIS:

Ideally we should not be analyzing this because it does not refer to Vedas. Swami
Dayanand was also a human and there may be typographical errors in his writings. So
instead of following him as Prophet, wise people should look at the overall theme of his
message and act accordingly. However, still we could not help analyze this because

whatever has been presented is a blatant shameless lie. This alone exposes the intent
and designs of those who wrote or promoted such hatred against Vedas. As per Quran,
they are worst of the creatures. Hindus are very particular about food habits. This is not to
do with religion but standards of hygiene. So while the western world adopted practices like
washing hands with soap after loo or cleaning hands several times before eating only
after advent of soap and wash basin technology, Hindus have been following hospitalstandard hygiene practices since inception of civilization. So just as a doctor would not
eat with a sweeper because of hygiene issues, same is true with Hindus. Even today, in
west people do not even clean their parts after loo with water properly. They simply rub
with dry paper. In very few places, people actually wash hands with soap after loo. 125
years ago, when Dettol was not there, people would simply rub off hands in dust or
sprinkle some water. No conservative Hindu will take a bite without a bath. And before
and after each meal, he would clean hands, face and feet properly. Even within a family,
people would not touch each other or eat with them unless they are clean. The utensils
used for loo, bathing and cooking are different. Anything that touches ones saliva or
even lips is never eaten by others even after washing. It is simply thrown away. So all
that Dayanand implied was eating with foreigners (from same plate) who have not
complied with hygiene practices like bath and cleaning hands properly after loo. Or
blindly imitating their food when we have more relevant and tastier options available. As
a matter of fact, the variety and quality of good food available in India is comparable to
no other place in the world. Regardless of all, the reference provided is fake. Satyarth
Prakash does not even have any reference to Chandals here.
Notice the most shameless fraud.To malign Swami Dayanand, Yavan has been replaced
by Musalmaan, Antyaj by Chandal and Jaati-Bhed by Jaat Paat ka Bhed Bhaav.- Yavan
does not mean Muslim but someone who hates Hindus. Or else, the same Swami would
not have started his Lahore Arya Samaj from home of a Muslim while Swamiji was
staying there (in a Muslims home)

MY RESPONSE:
The writer is cherry picking from a rebuttal and also distorting it like he does with his
Veda. Here is what was written in the rebuttal by Mushafiq Sultan,

 ,
, ,
[ ,
11, 375 : , , 2010]

, ,
? ?

Mushafiq Sultan has clearly given the

reference [ , 11, 375 : , , 2010
] so how can there be any confusion.

Dayanand Saraswati wrote,

They eat and drink most indiscriminately, ie., they even eat and drink with Europeans,
Mohammedans and out cast people, etc. They must have thought that promiscuous eating and
drinking and the breaking of caste alone will lead to their reformation as well as to that of
their country but such thingscan bring about no reformation, on the contrary may cause great
mischief.- Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, p.468, Ch 11 Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.

This is the English version of the passage which is translated by a Arya Samaji named
Dr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja. Dr. Bhardwaj writes in the amendment of the word Yavana,

* The term Yavanas is equally applied to the Greeks and the Mohammedans, etc.-By
Dr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja, in the book Satyarth Prakash, page 361

Further a author named Rajmohan writes,

Yavan = a pejorative term for foreigner or Muslim.- Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the
Empire, By Rajmohan Gandhi, page 275

So this Shameless fraud is not done by any Muslim but by Arya Samaj whose
monopoly is being Mayavi (Vedic fraud).

Dayanand Saraswati mentioned only the restrictions of food and cooking, in page 326 of
Satyarth Prakash Dayanand wrote that there is no harm (for Aryas) in eating with other
Aryas but did not mention whether a Arya Samaji can have food with Shudra, Muslim or
Christian. He even made discrimination on eating with low caste people or the food
offered by them,

Question) Should the Dwijaas (twice-born) cook their food with their own hands or is it
permissible to eat food cooked by the Shoodraas (low-casted)?
Answer.~ They can eat what has been cooked by the Shoodraas; because it is the duty
of Dwijas Brahmans, Khatriyas and Vaishyasboth men and women) to devote
themselves to the dissemination of knowledge, the service of the state, the breeding of
cattle, and to agriculture, trade and arts ( and not to waste their time in cooking, etc.) But
they should not eat or drink out of a Shudra utensils or what has been cooked in his own house except in
case of emergency.

Here is an authority for this statement:- In the houses of the twiceborn, Shudras i.e., ignorant men and women incapable of following any higher pursuit
should do the cooking and other domestic service. APASTAMBH II.ii, 2,4. But they
should keep their bodies and clothes, etc., clean. While engaged in cooking in the
houses of the Aryas- the twiceborn they should have their mouths covered ( witha piece of cloth)
so that their beath may not contaminate the food, and their saliva may not fall into it ; they should wash
before cooking. They should take their food after the Aryashave been served.- Satyarth
Prakash, By Dayanand Saraswati, page 319, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja

Dayanand also writes,

would you eat food out of the hands of a scavenger or a Mohammedan who cooked it
with his own hands in some place out of your sight.- Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand
Saraswati, page 320, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.

So what he meant to say is that all Shudras and Muslims are ugly and filthy. I have seen
some Brahmins who are very unhygienic, Can a Shudra (ignorant as per Mulshankar)
eat with such Brahmins? Since Dayanand quotes from Apastambha, let me add a Sloka
from Apastambha concerning this issue

Apastamba Sutra, Prasna I, Patala 6, Kanda 18 According to some (food offered by

people) of any caste, who follow the laws prescribed for them, except that of Sudras, may be
eaten.

Dayanand said that a Shudra can cook food since it the duty of Shudra to carry out
labor work, but did he actually practice it? Dayanand is said to have refused to partake
food in the house of a Brahmin when he learnt that the food was cooked by a Shudra,
Pandit Lekh Ram who was a close disciple of Dayanand writes about the incident,
In 1879, while on a trip to Dehra Dun, a Brahmo Samajist named Babu Kali Mohan
Ghosh invited Dayanand to his house for a meal. Dayanand replied that he had no qualms in
eating in his house but added that he had heard that Brahmo Samajists sometimes employed low caste
cooks.

This, he said, he did not approve of. The Babu admitted that Brahmo Samajists
did not consider it wrong to eat food cooked by anyone, irrespective of caste, but said
that he himself did not have a low caste cook. Thereupon, Dayanand agreed to eat at
his house.
The next day, Pandit Lekh Ram writes, his own brother, Har Gulal, informed him that
Dayanand had accepted the Babus invitation. Hearing this, Pandit Lekh Ram took some
food and went straight to Dayanands room. He gave the food to him to eat, and told him
that he had committed a major blunder by accepting the Babus invitation because at one time a Bhangi
woman used to cook food in his house. Dayanand replied that he had no knowledge of this and that the
Babu had cheated him. He returned to the Babu the food he had sent for him and, instead, ate the food
that Pandit Lekh Ram had brought.- Pandit Lekh Ram, Quoted in Ghazi Mahmud Dharam Pal, Arya
Samaj aur Swami Dayanand, Islamia Press, Lahore, p.430. [Source]

So in reality Dayanand never practiced it, in fact he perceived Muslims, Shudras and
Christians to be worst and uglier than cow dung. He writes,

Question:- As you plaster the kitchen floor with cow-dung (and mud), why do you not
then also use human excrement for the same purpose? Why is not the kitchen polluted
when the dung is used in it?
Answer:- The dung is not so foul-smelling as the human excrement. The cow-dung
being greasy does not so easily come off the floor, nor does it soil the dress, nor does it
look dirty. Dirt does not come off the dry dung so easily as off the mud. The place that has
been plastered with a thin coating of mud and dung properly mixed together looks nice . If the kitchen,
wherein food is cooked and sometimes also eaten, the naturally therefore particles of
food, such as breadcrumbs, sugar and butter, drop sown on the floor which being thus
made dirty attracts flies, insects and other such creatures be not swept, plastered and
properly cleaned every day, it would be as dirt as a privy. The kitchen, therefore, should be
properly plastered with mud and dung, swept and kept thoroughly clean.- Satyarth Prakash, by
Dayanand Saraswati, page 325, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.

If not partaking food with Christians, Muslims and Shudras was all about Being
hygienic then why did he tell his followers to plaster kitchen with Cow Dung? Today we
all know that Dung and Urine are wastes of the body which carries thousands of harmful
bacteria. This shows that he considered non Aryans to be uglier than his Holy cow
dung. Cow dung and urine are one of the Panchgavyas (5 Products of cow) which are to
be consumed. So where is the hygiene here? Vedas even say that Urine (particularly
Humans urine) is a potent remedy.

VERSE:
Yajurveda 30.5 says that just as God created Brahmin for Vedas, He created lecherous
for sex. So just as Brahmins dharma is Vedas, Kshatriyas dharma is protection,
Vaishyas dharma is business, Shudras dharma is service, similarly dharma of a lecher
is to promote vulgarity and adultery. So Vedas legitimize spread of vulgarity.
,
. .
( ),
(
). , , ,

 , .
, , ,
.
FANATICS ANALYSIS:

The standard of allegation itself speaks volumes of the intellect of the creator of this
argument.
I am not sure what is the source of this translation, but given that the modern fanatics
have an obsession to condemn Swami Dayanand, let us review his translation.
To understand the context, let us review the previous mantra 30.5 as well. It says that
may the just king give everyone due reward and punishment as per his or her deeds in
same manner as Supreme Lord provides fruits of actions justly to all living beings.
So the mantra is a reemphasis on Law of Karma that motivates us all to conduct noble
actions and desist us from foolish deeds.The next mantra states that:
May the Lord (of world as well as country) give due reward or punishment to various
people Brahmin for promotion of wisdom, Kshatriya for right leadership, Vaishya for
conduct of business, Shudras for their selfless service, thief for thriving in darkness,
murderers for killing noble people, impotents for sinful acts (one who conducts sinful
acts is impotent as per Vedas as he or she is incapable of producing anything
worthwhile), terrorists for attacking innocent people, lechers for adultery, criminals for
lowly acts.

MY RESPONSE:
Lets analyse Yajur Veda 30.5
Yajur Veda 30.5 For Brahman (Priesthood) he binds a Brahman to the stake for Kama
[Sex] a harlot

Can the writer quote the Sanskrit words which he translated as May the Lord (of world as
well as country) give due reward or punishment to various people , Now he may argue that the
verse 3 of this chapter mentions this and that it is in continuity. Lets read Yajur Veda
30.3
Yajur Veda 30. 3 Savitar, God, send far away all troubles and calamities [from us], And
send us only what is good.

So this is the writers distortion of his Vedas, there are no Sanskrit words which he
translated as May the Lord (or the country) give due rewards or punishment. For more
details on this verse, read my article There is Indeed Obscenity in Vedas.
continue reading Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part II
Rate this:

5 Votes
Share this:

Twitter

Facebook

Related

Response to Women in Hinduism/Vedas Part IIIn "Responses"

Killing Infidels in VedasIn "General"
Response to No Corruption in VedasIn "Responses"
This entry was posted in Responses on May 14, 2014.
Post navigation
No Inheritance for Woman in VedasResponse to No Hatred in Vedas Part II

AUTHORS

truthabouthinduism

CHECK LIST OF ARTICLES FOR LATEST POSTS

Search for:
Search

CATEGORIES

General (62)
Rebuttals (4)
Responses (12)
The Twenty Twelve Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/response-to-no-hatred-in-vedaspart-ii/

TruthaboutHinduism
Answering Hinduism
Skip to content

HOME

ABOUT

LIST OF ARTICLES

Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part II

Continued from Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part I

VERSE:
There are several mantras in Vedas that called God a fraud (Mayavi). Swami Dayanand
suggests that one should use fraud to defeat enemies. So Vedic God is a cheater.
() . ::
|
||
! . ,
.
.
- , ,

, , , .
:
:
:
:
:: .
( ) .
.

FANATITCS ANALYSIS:

We are not sure of the source of first translation quoted by the fanatic brigade. But let us
review the complete essence provided by Swami Dayanand. It states:
- , ,

, ,
So it is clear that the likes of Osama Bin Laden and perpetrators of genocide be
destroyed through all means. To catch a criminal, police is allowed to use fake decoys.
All civilized societies allow use of such means to destroy criminals and terrorists. Hitler
was captured in his bunker. Osama was eliminated in a night operation. Many a
criminals are caught by police through this method. If criminals be allowed to freely use
fraud but we do not counter them with Bheda (tact), then soon whole world will be
Somalia!
Thankfully such stupid concepts do not appeal to most civilized nations of the world, and
hence world is still a sensible place to live!
But to ensure that one does not misinterpret such mantras to justify crookedness in
general, Vedas also clearly specify that all innocent peaceful persons be protected
at all costs. For example the 3rd mantra of same Sukta emphasizes that peaceful
people be not only protectedbut one should also put special efforts to increase their
prosperity under all circumstances.
In brief, Vedas recommend exactly what is the ideal benchmark for any civilized country
of today.
The translation of Rigveda 4.16.9 as per Dayanands commentary is available on Arya
Samaj Jamnagar site. There is not even remotest reference to Supreme Lord being
fraud or Makkar or Mayavi as alleged by the fanatics. We also checked 5 other
publications but failed to find such an interpretation anywhere.
On contrary, the Mantra asserts that the king should constantly increase prosperity of
peaceful noble people and destroy the terrorists who commit fraud and hatred.
The controversial word here is Mayavanabrahma () = Mayavan + Abrahma
( +). So instead of calling Brahma as Mayavan (fraud), the mantra
calls Abrahma (or those devoid of intellect or opposite of Brahma) as fraud. The

next word used for them is Dasyu ( ) making the meaning very clear Those who
use fraud, hate intellect and perform terrorism should be destroyed.

MY RESPONSE:
Here is the translation of Rig Veda 1.11.7 by Shri Ram Sharma

Pandit Jaydev Sharma translates Maya as crooked/devious wisdom.

Capellars Sanskrit dictionary gives the following meanings

Maya supernatural or wonderful power, wile, trick, deceit, sorcery, illusion, phantom,
unreality (ph.); being only in appearance, a feigned or phantom (cf. seq.).
S.V Apte, in his English-Sanskrit Dictionary 3rd edition[1920] in pages 94, 99 and 173
gives the following meanings for the word
Maya/Mayin- Fraud, Fraudelent, Deception, Deceptive, Delusion
Besides Dayanand also gave similar definition to the word Maya, So this suggests that
Vedic God Indra is indeed a Fraud. The author writes,
Had fanatic minds known even the basics of Sandhi (rules of joining of words) in
Hindi or Sanskrit, they would not have committed such a blunder
Is he acknowledging the fact that Arya Samaj scholars are fanatics? Because the word
Mayavan in Rig Veda 4.16.9 is translated by Pandit Jaydev Sharma (Arya Samaj) as
Kutil Mayavi. The writer is juggling so much, Mushafiq Sultan gave reference to Rig
Veda 4.16.9 only to show that the word Mayavi or Maya is translated by Dayanand as
crooked wisdom, here is what Dayanand translated,

Finally the writer has accepted that the word Mayavi means Fraud, he should once
again read Rig Veda 1.11.7 which calls Indra as Mayavi. He is not able to explain the
main verse Rig Veda 1.11.7 which clearly calls Indra as Fraud, this is why he has
skipped that verse and jumping to Rig Veda 4.16.9. The writer is giving his personal
definition to the words. As for the word Abraha, he is mistranslated it also. He also
writes For example the 3rd mantra of same Sukta emphasizes that peaceful
people be not only protected but one should also put special efforts to increase their
prosperity under all circumstances
This verse is also mistranslated by the writer, the verse is
Rig Veda 4.16.3 When the Bull, quaffing, praises our Iibation, as a sage paying holy
rites in secret, Seven singers here from heaven hath he begotten, who een by day have
wrought their works while singing.

He is misinterpreting Mulshankars words also, he translated Bhed as Tact, correct

definition would be Polarizing or Dividing. He is forging Dayanands commentary by
mixing all his lines, lets read once more what Dayanand wrote,
- , ,

Dayanand has divided the words Dusht and Shatru (Enemy) by adding the word Aur
(And), that means you have to use those tricks like corrupting, Polarizing, Luring and
beating not just on Dusht but also on your Enemies. Here the word Dusht doesnt mean
wicked as usually spoken, but in Vedas the wicked is the one who rejects Vedas,
Dayanand in Rig Veda 4.16.9 translated Dasyu as Dusht.

It is already established that all the people living outside Aryavrata or those who doesnt
follow Vedas are Dasyus. Sam, Dam, Bhed are meaningless when dealing with
terrorists because terrorists deserve only punishment, then why does it say to lure with
money if its about dealing with terrorist? Can Vedas be word of god which tells to
Polarize, Corrupt, Lure or beat your enemies? The word of God never teaches such evil
things, Messengers gave an example by forgiving their staunch enemies, If anyone
slaps you on the right cheek, you should turn to them your other cheek also.

VERSE:
Vedas provide no option of divorce for women and force them to tolerate the husband
regardless of his deeds. Its the Hindu Law that allows divorce rights to women.
, , , , ,
.
. , , .
.

FANATICS ANALYSIS:
If divorce is so much against Hinduism, what made Hindus themselves adopt such a law
for themselves? As per Hindu law, a woman need not seek permission from husband for
divorce. But as per Islamic Laws, a women can opt only for Khula request for divorce.
The husband may or may not accept it. His decision is final. Countries like Saudi Arab
have stopped Khula since several years and hence women there have no options.
Kindly cite one single mantra from Vedas that asserts that woman cannot leave her
husband under any circumstance

MY RESPONSE:
The writer is only showing his insecurity by mocking other religions without clarifying the
question. Hindu law is created by the Government of India, as far as the Hindu scripture
is concerned there is not a single verse which allows a woman to divorce. This is why
the writer has not quoted any verse and behaving like a frustrated kid. Maharishi Manu
clearly states,

Manu Smriti 9.65 In the sacred texts which refer to marriage the appointment (of
widows) is nowhere mentioned, nor is the remarriage of widows prescribed in the rules
concerning marriage.
Dayanand Saraswati also did not prescribe widow remarriage, He preferred Niyoga as
alternative, So it is clear that Hindu scripture do not support women remarriage.The
most authentic Smriti of Arya Samaj states (which the writer hasnt quoted),
Manu Smriti 5.154. Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or
devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a
faithful wife.
Can he provide any evidence to show that Saudi government has stopped Khula? The
Hadith mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, book Divorce 63, hadith no 197 states that wife of
Thabit Bin Qais took Khula without any hassle. If the Husband is not willing to divorce
then the Arbitrary committee or Judicial/Sharia court will enforce the divorce which is
evident from the same chapter Hadith no 198. Also read Sunan Abu Dawud, book 11,
Hadis 2091 which clearly gives women to exercise her choice.

VERSE:
. . [ /]
//
.
,
.

FANATICS ANALYSIS:
Yet another foolish allegation. It has been made amply clear as what is Dharma and
whom does Vedas extol to fight against. The Vedic message is that Ahimsa Paramo
Dharmah Non-violence is the greatest religion. Refer Chapter 2 of Upadesh Manjari by
same Swami Dayanand Saraswati who is being quoted.
So those who are terrorists are enemies of Dharma and deserve to be destroyed with
iron hand. And those who do not do so bring miseries to themselves and their nation. If
what USA did against Osama Bin Laden or what India did against Pakistan in Indo-Pak

wars or what Shivaji did against Afzal Khan and Aurangzeb or NSG heroes did against
terrorists in Taj Mumbai is indeed wrong, then yes Vedas do urge us to not sit idle and
indulge in such wrongs. The only condition (as mentioned before) is that no innocent/
peaceful person should be made a victim. But of course, fanatics like Al Qaeda would
hate to accept that others shall also resist their terror attacks with iron hand!

MY RESPONSE:
Why is he talking about terrorists so much? Is he forcing the Oxford University Press to
change the definition of Terrorist as those who do not follow Vedas?
However, here is another translation of Arya Samaj
O king, make progress in thy duty of administration, extend happiness to the virtuous.
O terrible chastiser, burn down the irreligious foes. O splendid person, humiliate and
consume utterly like dried up stubble, him, who encourages our foe.- Yajur Veda 13.12,
Tr. Devi Chand, p.138.
Hinduism was not even a religion before the advent of other religions, it was the
monopoly of high caste Brahmins who could introduce new verses to satisfy their
whims. Just as slaughtering animal in Yajna is non violence similarly slaying disbelievers
is also non violence and duty of the Vedic followers. Read the articleKilling Infidels in
Vedas to see the violent passages of Vedas. Yajur Veda 13.12 clearly states about
killing disbelievers, but the writer wont digest this truth due to his extreme hypocrisy. He
considers Shivaji the plunderer as freedom fighter. Should I remind him of Shivajis
Surat loot?

VERSE:
, , .
. ,
/// .

( ) . . //
||
, .

. // ,
.
. //
|
,
, .
,

.
.

FANATICS RESPONSE:
It hardly matters if someone believes Vedas to be divine or not. Because Vedic God will not put him
in Hell for blasphemy nor promise a paradise full of harlots for obedience. The Vedic Law of Karma is
much more robust, comprehensive, just and rigorous.

MY RESPONSE:
Arya Samajis usually resort to mocking other religions when they fail to explain Vedas.
Vedas are indeed not the words of God, its a fact which may be extremely hard to
digest, you can find more information in this article written by MushafiqTextual
Corruption in Vedas.
By the way which version of Vedas is the writer following? Vedas award death penalty
for Blasphemy,
Atharva Veda 12.2.23 He who dwells fixed in the atmosphere, smiting the blasphemers
of the god that do not sacrifice to him be reverence with ten Sakvari-stanzas.

The writer should thoroughly study his Vedas, he is unaware of the Apsara (nymph)
concept, Illicit relation with widow besides women and prostitutes are created for lust

and sex as per the Yajur Vedas. So instead of using such derogatory words against
other religions he should check it first with his Vedas. I recommend him reading the
article Vedic Paradise: An Overview

VERSE:
- .
,
. .
, , .
. |
||
[ //]

FANATICS ANALYSIS:
If there is one text in the world that talks of pure meritocracy, it is the Vedas. But those
on gun-point have no option but to keep abusing Vedas regardless of facts.
The current Manu Smriti is an adulterated literature
On contrary, if we look at available translations of scriptures like Bible and Quran, they
smell of racism and hatred against non-believers. They call for special tax on nonbelievers and condemn them to eternal Hell.
They call for special tax on non-believers and condemn them to eternal Hell. Many
enlightened Christians and Muslims are thus attempting to reinterpret these texts but
they are termed as apostates by the fanatics. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarh
Muslim University, was decreed a fatwa of death for his liberal views on these issues.
Galileo was imprisoned for proving that earth is round and sun does not move around
earth!

MY RESPONSE:
There is no need to say which scripture preaches hatred, it is clearly seen from the
behavior of Arya Samajis and their incapability in explaining the violent verses, and it is
them who is reinterpreting the scriptures. This writer who claims to be a Arya Samaji is
defying his guru Dayanand Saraswati according to whom Manu Smriti was alone
authentic Smriti (pg 148 Satyarth Prakash), he used more than 200 verses from Manu

Smriti in his book Satyarth Prakash. Have a look at the words used by Dayayand
Saraswati against other religions,
What a nice trap have the Jainees set to attract fools who would like nothing better than
to be placed in the way of attaining salvation without having to do (righteous) deeds. We
do not think that there exists a religion more idiotic than this.- Satyarth Prakash, by
Dayanand Saraswati, page 559, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja.
These people [Buddhists] have come to believe in such stupid things by rejecting the
Veda and God.- Satyarth Prakash, by Dayanand Saraswati, page 517-18, Tr. Chiranjiva
Bhardwaja.
God of other religions does not command to kill people just because they make no
offerings to him. Moreover Arya Samaj is criticized by many Hindus for its
fundamentalism which is evident from their bible of hate called Satyarth Prakash and
the attitude of Arya Samajis which is much worse than savages.
in this Age of Kali a community has sprung up known as the Arya Samaj, who
members are ignorant of the import of the Vedas in the parampar system. They decry
all bona fide cryas and pose themselves as the real followers of the Vedic principles,
but in fact such non-ryans do not follow the Vedic principles.- Swami Prabhupada
(ISKON) [Source]
The Arya Samajis can go to any extent of hypocrisy, They proudly promote their hatred
but physically attack others when their beliefs and ideologies are exposed, here is an
example http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/3-killed-100-injured-in-Rohtak-ashramclash/articleshow/20020428.cms

VERSE:

. . // . |
||
, .
.

 / . .
, , . ?
.
. //
.
|
||
, () .
- () .
( ) ().
. // |
||
, . .
. . , -
.
. //-
.
|
||
|
||
, , , ,
. ,
. ,
.

FANATICS ANALYSIS:
Readers are advised to refer to any relevant source for actual meanings as provided by
Swami Dayanand. Of course there can be alternate meanings as well, but you would
have to work really hard to lower your intellect in order to discover stupid miracles in a
scientific text like Vedas.

Rigveda 3.33.5: Just as wide rivers full of water reach their goal by meeting with ocean,
similarly intellectual pursuits bring peace and happiness to those willing to be followers
of intelligence.
Rigveda 4.19.9: Just as rivers emerging from mountains acquire the lands of the plains,
similarly the king should snatch away property rights of a son who does not believe in
charity. In all situations, king should work for prosperity of the subject.
Rigveda 4.18.2 O Lord, may I not come through the way of womb which is very painful.
May I do such actions that I need not take this path again and I get free from cycle of
death and birth. I shall put my best efforts for this.
Atharvaveda 4.5.6-7 Which fool said that this contains a mantra to recite so that thieves
sleep? It simply states that everyone should have a peaceful sleep in night. However the
guard should keep vigil till others get awake.
This mantra says that guards should not sleep in night and soldiers at borders with
fanatic country should also keep vigil.

MY RESPONSE:
The writer is behaving like a hypocrite now. He is begging to use authentic source, I
wonder why didnt he use Arya Samaj translation for Yajur 13.12, Atharva Veda 12.5.62,
20.93.1 etc.,? The translation of Rig Veda 3.33.5 is grossly incorrect, let me quote the
translation from a Arya Samaji,
[The sage speaks] I, the disciple of an enlightened teacher, having acquired necessary
knowledge, now desirous of protection, solicit your favour and address with
earnest prayer to you the rivers before me. O rivers, charged with water, rest a moment
from your course at my request.- Rig Veda 3.33.5, Tr. SatyaPrakash Saraswati, p.1175,
Vol 4.
Yaska Acharya writes: The seer Visvamitra was the domestic priest of Sudas, the son
of Pijavana. Visva-mitra, friend of allHe, i.e. Visvamitra, implored the rivers to become
fordable. (He addressed them) in the dual as well as in the plural number.- Nirukta 2.24
It is further mentioned,

Stop your courses for a moment, ye great floods, at my friendly bidding. I, the son of
Kusika, and desirous of protection, invoke the river with a sublime hymn.[Rig Veda
3.33.5]I call upon the river with a great- Nirukta 2.23
The question is that, in this verse Viswamitra is speaking to rivers moreover does rivers
stop flowing just by his command? The writer has failed to answer this question and
making vulgar remarks on other religions (which I have not mentioned here).
Rig Veda 4.19. 9 Lord of Bay Steeds [Indra], thou broughtest from the ant-hill the
unwedded damsels son whom ants were eating. The blind saw clearly, as he grasped
the serpent, rose, brake the jar his joints again united.

Rig Veda 4.18. 2 Not [from this womb] this way go I forth: hard is the passage. Forth
from the side obliquely will I issue. Much that is yet undone must I accomplish; one must
I combat and the other question.

It would be good if the writer gives the explanation of Atharva Veda 4.5.6-7 from Nirukta
or other early commentaries.

VERSE:
, , ?
?
. , .
?

 .
.
, ?

FANATICS ANALYSIS:
The 4 Vedas have 4 different themes. Rigveda is analytical and focuses on knowledge.
Yajurveda is practical and focuses on actions. Samaveda is devotional and focuses on
emotional intelligence. Atharvaveda is implementation-oriented. All 4 require different
faculties and hence provided to different Rishis. Overlap of mantras does not mean
anything. The same sentence indifferent contexts bring out different meanings. Further
with different tones, meaning changes completely.
Only fools will claim that all duplicate sentences and equations from any text book be
removed!

MY RESPONSE:
Most of the verses and hymns of Sama Veda are taken from Rig Veda, So why were
Sama Vedas (Emotional intelligence) passages taken from Rig Veda (focuses on
knowledge )? Was Ishwar confused as where to add the emotional or knowledge verses
so he mixed them in both books? Furthermore, several Rig Veda and Atharva Veda
verses are also same. What was the necessity of adding it in Atharva Veda when it was
already present in Rig Veda? Can the writer give some examples from the repetitive
verses which has completely different meaning?
Its not possible to quote all the repetitive verses, so I will quote few, The entire hymn of
Atharva Veda 20.5 which has total number of 7 verses are taken from Rig Veda 8.17.713. Atharva Veda 20.45 the entire hymn which has 3 verses is taken from Rig Veda
1.30.4-6.
Atharva Veda 20.95 has 4 verses out of which 3 verses are taken from Rig Veda
10.133.1-3, Did Ishwar forgot to add the first verse of Atharva Veda 20.95 in the Rig
Veda that he later rectified it?
Sama Veda book 1, chapter 1, 3 Soma Pavamana has total 3 verses which are taken
from Rig Veda 9.66.10-12. There are numerous repetitive hymns and verses and all of
them delivers the same meaning.

VERSE:
.
, . :
. |
||
|
||
|
||
//-
, . , .
. .
() .
() . .

FANATICS ANALYSIS:
Another bogus claim. When Vedas contain no history, it is in vain to discover historical
persons in Vedas. By that logic, Nayak in Vedas refer to Zakir Naik and Rahman in
Quran refers to Dayanand! Further, what happened to love for translation by Swami
Dayanand? One can refer his translation and see that
Vasishtha refers to scholar
Mitra-Varun to bipolar forces (in this case Prana and Udana or exhalation and
inhalation)
Urvashi special knowledge
The first mantra states that those who attempt to control their breathing through
Pranayam and pursue knowledge with full enthusiasm obtain extreme bliss. Second
mantra states that first birth happens through parents. But one who takes second birth
through education achieves true bliss and glory. In reality, there is not one single
evidence so far that Vedas have anything except rationality, justice, morality and
inspiring lessons for entire humankind. Vedas belong to entire humanity and hence all
rational minds should explore Vedas to seek amazing lessons for life instead of hating

them due to a general hatred against non-believers. Hatred leads to miseries. May we
all revive the spirit of Vedas in entire humanity and strengthen our foundations.

MY RESPONSE:
Yaska Acharya writes on this verse,
Nirukta 5.13-14 Urvashi is (the name of) a naiad, (so called because) she pervades
wide regions (uru + as- to pervade ), or she pervades by means of thighs [Sexual
Intercourse] On seeing her, the seminal fluid of Mitra and Varuna fell downO
Vasistha,thou art certainly the son of Mitra and Varuna. Brahman, O Brahman, thou wert
born from the mind of Urvasi. (Thou art) the drop that fellin divine fervour.
Does it need any additional explanation? This shows how Mayavi (Vedic fraud) the
writer is. He misinterpreted Vedic verses, Dayanands translation and commentary, and
even Nirukta. But our Hindu brothers doesnt seem to care about it, they only deliver
compliments without even understanding what this guy wrote. I pray that this writer
should become capable of digesting the truth, May his hypocrisy vanish so that he may
understand the right path.
Rate this:

6 Votes

Share this:

Twitter

Facebook

Related

Response to Science in VedasIn "Responses"

Response to Women in Hinduism/Vedas Part IIn "Responses"
Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part IIn "Responses"

This entry was posted in Responses on May 14, 2014.

Post navigation
Response to No Hatred in Vedas Part IMulshankar on Jainism and Buddhism

AUTHORS

truthabouthinduism

CHECK LIST OF ARTICLES FOR LATEST POSTS

Search for:
Search

CATEGORIES

General (62)
Rebuttals (4)
Responses (12)
The Twenty Twelve Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.