The Moslem Conquest of India

Here is an extract from the book “The Story of Civilization” by Will and Ariel Durant. It relates to the conquest of India by unlettered, brutal barbarians driven by lust for war, wealth and women, and full of hatred of others that we know is so typical of the monotheists. While the two Durants give a good account of the initial centuries of Muslim invasion of India and their barbarity on Hindus, being worshipers of the dead Jew, they too cannot escape monotheistic bigotry in their reporting. They have proclaimed in this extract that Hindus were following cults (not a religion) and that the invasion by illiterate Muslims only “advanced that weakening of Hindu physique and morale, which had been begun by an exhausting climate, an inadequate diet, political disunity, and pessimistic religions.”

The idiots could never explain if Hindus were living in so much superstition, eating inadequate food, following a pessimistic religion and surviving in an “exhaustive climate” (presumably, for Americans and Europeans, all temperatures above zero degree centigrade are exhausting), how the hell could Hindus accumulate so much wealth through trade and industry and become the richest nation of the world which poor barbarians (presumably following superior monotheistic religions) would try to attack again and again for loot — they only way of becoming rich the monotheistic barbarians know. Just 300 years after Muslim attacks on India, another brand of monotheistic barbarians were roaming the seas looking for India for loot and plunder.

The two Durant zombies further proclaim: “Weakened by division, it [India] succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life.” These dudes come from a White civilisation that was destroyed by the Roman invasions, could never recover or protect their indigenous spiritual traditions, and even today follow a religion (xianity) imposed by alien invaders. But they tut-tut so much about Hindus who for 1000 years fought so hard with the invaders that they still remain Hindus and preserve all their traditions.

Anyway, read the following extract for what happens to a superior, cultured, wealthy polytheistic civilization with a great tradition of science and arts, when it gets invaded by monotheistic barbarians living in poverty and ignorance and burning with hatred for everyone superior to them in the civilizational scale.

The Moslem Conquest of India
An Extract from ‘The Story of Civilization’ By Will & Ariel Durant [Volume 1, Chapter 16]

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India’s boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in.

For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came. The first Moslem attack was a passing raid upon Multan, in the western Punjab (664 A.D.) Similar raids occurred at the convenience of the invaders during the next three centuries, with the result that the Moslems established themselves in the Indus valley about the same time that their Arab co-religionists in the West were fighting the battle of Tours (732 A.D.) for the mastery of Europe. But the real Moslem conquest of India did not come till the turn of the first millennium after Christ.

In the year 997, a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became sultan of the little estate of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. Mahmud knew that his throne was young and poor, and saw that India, across the border, was old and rich; the conclusion was obvious. Pretending a holy zeal for destroying Hindu idolatry, he swept across the frontier with a force inspired by a pious aspiration for booty. He met the unprepared Hindus at Bhimnagar, slaughtered them, pillaged their cities, destroyed their temples, and carried away the accumulated treasures of centuries. Returning to Ghazni, he astonished the ambassadors of foreign powers by displaying “jewels and unbored pearls and rubies shining like sparks, or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates.”

Each winter, Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richer than before. At Mathura (on the Jumna), he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver and jewellery; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labour of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground.

Six years later, he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. In the end, he became, perhaps, the richest king that history has ever known. Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could be found to offer more than a few shillings for a slave. Before every important engagement, Mahmud knelt in prayer, and asked the blessing of God upon his arms. He reigned for a third of a century; and when he died, full of years and honours, Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age.

Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi, destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its palaces to establish the Sultanate of Delhi – an alien despotism fastened upon northern India for three centuries, and checked only by assassination and revolt.

The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-ud-Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind – fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, “were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands.”In one victory of this warrior (who had been purchased as a slave), “fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”

Another sultan, Balban, punished rebels and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, removing their skins, stuffing these with straw and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. When some Mongolian habitants who had settled in Delhi, and had been converted to Islam, attempted arising, Sultan Ala-ud-din (the conqueror of Chitor) had all the males – from fifteen to thirty thousand of them – slaughtered in one day.

Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer, dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy, surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel’s wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle. He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, “there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court, a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging” the victims“ and putting them to death in crowds.”

In order to found a new capital at Daulatabad, he drove every inhabitant from Delhi and left it a desert; and hearing that a blind man had stayed behind in Delhi, he ordered him to be dragged from the old to the new capital, so that only a leg remained of the wretch when his last journey was finished.

The Sultan complained that the people did not love him, or recognize his undeviating justice. He ruled India for a quarter of a century, and died in bed. His successor, Firoz Shah, invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves, and died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenceless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand.

These rulers were often men of ability, and their followers were gifted with fierce courage and industry; only so can we understand how they could have maintained their rule among a hostile people so overwhelmingly outnumbering them. All of them were armed with a religion militaristic in operation, but far superior in its stoical monotheism to any of the popular cults of India; they concealed its attractiveness by making the public exercise of the Hindu religions illegal, and thereby driving them more deeply into the Hindu soul. Some of these thirsty despots had culture as well as ability; they patronized the arts, and engaged artists and artisans — usually of Hindu origin — to build for them magnificent mosques and tombs; some of them were scholars, and delighted in converse with historians, poets and scientists. One of the greatest scholars of Asia, Alberuni, accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni to India, and wrote a scientific survey of India comparable to Pliny’s “Natural History” and Humboldt’s “Cosmos”.

The Moslem historians were almost as numerous as the generals, and yielded nothing to them in the enjoyment of bloodshed and war. The Sultans drew from the people every rupee of tribute that could be exacted by the ancient art of taxation, as well as by straightforward robbery; but they stayed in India, spent their spoils in India, and thereby turned them back into India’s economic life. Nevertheless, their terrorism and exploitation advanced that weakening of Hindu physique and morale, which had been begun by an exhausting climate, an inadequate diet, political disunity, and pessimistic religions. The usual policy of the Sultans was clearly sketched by Ala-ud-din, who required his advisers to draw up “rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion.”

Half of the gross produce of the soil was collected by the government; native rulers had taken one-sixth. “No Hindu,” says a Moslem historian, “could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold or silver… or of any superfluity was to be seen …. Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment.” When one of his own advisers protested against this policy, Alauddin answered: “Oh,Doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have a great deal. Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate and property.”

This is the secret of the political history of modern India. Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.



Filed under Ancient India, Islam, Jihad, Uncategorized

159 responses to “The Moslem Conquest of India

  1. Jaipal

    @Indian Realist,

    Your comments on the Durant idiots is very correct and apt.
    I was thinking the same thing only.

    If Hindus were really that weak, as alleged by Durant, then how is it
    that they could fight and score many battle victories against the Muslim
    invaders over one thousand years? The Hindus successfully defeated
    the Arab Muslim invaders for 300 years, scoring at least 30 battle
    victories against them consecutively. Contrast this with Christian Spain


  2. Jaipal

    Christian Spain got conquered by Arab Muslims in just 5 years but the
    Indian Hindus successfully repulsed Arab attacks for 300 YEARS.
    Arabs could never get beyond the Sind even after trying for that many years. Contrast this Hindu resilience with other nations of the same period. Those nations collapsed like house of cards in just few years.
    A good example of this is the Persian empire. A huge empire like that
    collapsed in just 5 measly years to Arab Muslims. But the Hindus endured.


  3. Jaipal

    Even against the latter day Turks, there are HUNDREDS OF INSCRIPTIONS
    recording Hindu battle victories against the Turks, against the Ghaznavid
    Turks and Delhi Sultanate Turks. In fact the first wave of Turkic attacks
    was resisted and defeated by the end of the 14th century, around 1390 AD by Hindu forces. The second wave of Turkic attack, in the form of
    Mughals, was also resisted and defeated by the Hindu Marathas quite
    systematically for 120 years, 1640 AD-1760 ad. The Muslim Mughals
    could never succeed against the Hindu Marathas at any time.

  4. Jaipal

    The Vijayanagar Empire was a Hindu military state that stood like a rock
    against the Bahmani’s for nearly 300 years. The Hindu Jats in the North,
    particularly the Khap Panchayats, have many battle triumphs against
    Muslim invaders over a long period. There is a big book detailing
    Hindu Jat military victories against the Turks. It is in Hindi. The title
    of the book is “Jat Viron ka Itihaas” by Captain Dileep Singh Ahlawat.

  5. Jaipal

    Just for some interest, Muslim historians mention in their own records,
    of a Hindu king, by the name of Bhartu, who in 1226 AD, defeated and
    slaughtered more than 120 000 Turks in one shot by his hand and sword.
    This is mention is found in Fakir-i-Mudabbir. Now how would Will Durant
    explain this Hindu accomplishment if Hindus were weak in phisique and
    whatnot?? Clearly Durant is simply rehashing colonial propaganda
    without any real original thought on the subject.

  6. jo

    Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya (also known as Hemu Vikramaditya, Raja Vikramaditya or simply Hemu) (1501–5 November 1556) was a Hindu emperor of north India during the sixteenth century AD, a period when Mughals and Afghans were vying for power in the region.
    Born in a humble family, Hemu rose to become Chief of the Army and Prime Minister to Adil Shah Suri of the Suri Dynasty. He fought Afghan rebels across North India from the Punjab to Bengal and the Mughal forces of Akbar and Humayun in Agra and Delhi, winning 22 consecutive battles.

    Hemu acceded to the throne of Delhi on 7 October 1556, assuming the title of “Vikramaditya” that had been adopted by many Hindu kings since Vedic times. His rajyabhishek (coronation) as Samrat was held at Purana Qila in Delhi.
    Hemu re-established the native Hindu rule (albeit for a short duration) in North India, after over 350 years of Muslim(Turkic and Mughal) rule. Some historians say that this rule was on the pattern of a strong Hindu state prevailing in South India for more than three centuries, known as ‘Vijaynagar Empire’. Hemu struck coins bearing his title.
    Nirod Bhushan Roy considers Hemu to be “the harbinger of a new era in which the Hindus were to share equally with the Muhammadans the burdens of the state”

    • Jaipal


      Thank you for the post on Himu. I had a discussion with
      Indian Realist on another post about Himu.
      It seems that Himu actually defeated Humayuun even earlier,
      before the 1556 AD battles in Agra and Delhi.

      You may recall that after Babar’s death, Humaayuun was chased
      out of India by Sher Shah Suri but it seems that the battles were
      actually fought by his general Hemachandra. Therefore, the credit
      for booting out Humayuun, then should actually go to Himu rather
      than Sher Shah Suri.

      About this sharing of power, there is some wrong notions here.
      Hindus were never lacking political power even at that time.
      Hindu kings and kingdoms continued to exist and were waging
      a war of resistance against the Muslim invaders stationed at Delhi.
      The Delhi Sultanate was basically confined to Delhi and some suburbs
      around it. Entire North India was never really under its control.
      In North India, there were dynasties Katehar Rajputs in Kateharkhand,
      Mithila Dynasty in North Bihar, Khap Panchayats throughout the
      Ganga-Yamuna Doab, Rajput States in Rajasthan and Central India,
      Vijayanagar Empire in South India, Ahom Dynasty in Assam.
      All these Hindu dynasties were independent of any Muslim control.

      • jo

        The Ahom Kingdom (1228–1826, also called Kingdom of Assam)was a kingdom in the Brahmaputra valley in Assam, India that maintained its sovereignty for nearly 600 years and successfully resisted Mughal expansion in North-East India.
        Established by Sukaphaa, a Tai prince from Mong Mao, it began as a Mong in the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra river based on wet rice cultivation. It expanded suddenly under Suhungmung in the 16th century and became multi-ethnic in character, casting a profound affect on the political and social life in the entire Brahmaputra valley.
        From the beginning the relation between the Ahoms and the Mughals was hostile and that was due to certain factors, such as, Mughal alliance with Koch Bihar, the western enemy of the Ahoms and secondly the growing advance of the Mughals in north-eastern frontier which alarmed them. While the Mughals supported Lakshminarayan, son of Nara Narayan of Koch Behar, the Ahom king Sukhaamphaa (1552-1603) entered into alliance by marrying the daughter of Lakshminarayan’s cousin Raghudeva, the son of Chilarai who became the ruler of the eastern part of the kingdom, Koch Hajo which included the modern districts of Goalpara, Barpeta, Kamrup, Darrang and a part of Sonitpur (up to Bharali).
        This dynastic alliance between Ahom and Koch was renewed afterwards by the next Ahom king Susenghphaa (Pratap Singha, 1603-1641) who married a daughter of Raja Parikshit. It is true that with a view to satisfy the territorial ambitions of his own nephew, Nar Narayan allowed partition of his kingdom.
        But unfortunately, in spite of being pacified, Raghudeva and his successors remained all along hostile towards the Koch royal house and this rivalry and antagonism between these two frontier states invited intervention and aggression of their two mighty neighbourhood powers: the Mughals on the west and Ahoms on the east.
        In 1679, during the reign of Sudoiphaa or Parvatiya Raja, Laluk Barphukan, the Ahom viceroy of Gauhati, and his brother entered into a conspiracy and invited the Nawab of Bengal to take possession of the fort at Saraighat.
        Accordingly in March Laluk Sola made over Gauhati to the Mughals in return for a promised reward of four lakhs of rupees and an assurance to support Laluk’s candidature for the throne of Assam.
        In 1681, Gadapani was formally installed as sovereign of Assam under the name Gadadhar Singha (Supaatphaa, 1681-1696). His first act after taking reign was the dispatch of an army against Mansur Khan, which succeeded in recovering Gauhati in August 1682 after a decisive encounter at Itakhuli.
        The Ahoms expelled Mansur Khan from Gauhati and re-established their possession over the territories extending up to the river Manaha (Manas).
        Thus, Manaha (river Manas) became once more the western boundary of Assam and it remained as such till the occupation of the western Assam by the British in the year 1824.

        • rahul r

          “They have proclaimed in this extract that Hindus were following cults (not a religion)”
          What’s wrong with that? Indians did not have a religion as such. And the unity of this region was forever punctured by casteism and the multiplicity of cult followings. The Shaivas fought with the Vaishnavas for supremacy. Still others in line were the Shaktas, the Jains, the Buddhists. Every cult had its own rules and set of followers who, more often than not, looked down upon the others. How could one expect unity in such a case? If you look at it with eyes wide open, you would see that it is the foreign invasions that actually made Indians realise “unity”. Till then what prevailed was pure cult worship. There was, in fact, no term for the Hindu religion. The word had to be coined by Raja Ram Mohan Roy. And this was in the 18th c. A.D.

          This is what Wikipedia says about “Hindu”:

          “The Hindu religious texts like Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas etc. did not use the term ‘Hindu’ or an equivalent thereof, or any name at all for that matter to refer to the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula nor the religion of the inhabitants.”

          • jo

            @rahul r
            YOU ARE WRONG.

          • Vineet

            Dear Rahul

            You too seem to be captive of western school or commie school of thought….

            • rahul r

              dear jo and vineet,

              i understand what you are saying and why. with due respect to our faiths let us first understand this thing that the very word “religion” was never existing in india before the advent of the foreigners. because we never cared to label ourselves. that which we call “hinduism” today is a system of philosophy, a way of living life. being monotheists, the britishers could not understand what this all was. we were practising whatever we wanted: Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Jainism, Buddhism, Shaktism. and the britishers felt this chaotic and hence tried to label this system. the word “hindu” had to be invented. it never existed.


              i am not from the western school of thought. it is the western school that demands “labels”, or what we call “-isms”. our system, on the other hand, cared a damn for labels. we just tried to live the righteous path without getting labelled with any “-isms”. that is the essence of our faith. it is not surprising that the sanskrit language has no exact term for the word “religion”. the closest candidate is “dharma (धर्म)”. but we all know that “dharma” means “the righteous path or duty”. a father has his dharma towards his child, a child towards his parents, a student towards his teachers, a husband towards his wife. not just that, even the dharma that we have to observe with respect to our own body due to our physical and/or physiological limitations is called “sharir dharma (शरीर धर्म)”.

              “religion” demands faith. “dharma”, on the other hand, is all-embracing. it embraces the cult followers, the theists and the atheists alike. “religion” requires a holy book to preach fundamentalism – bible for christians, kuran for moslems. “dharma” needs no single holy book. we have called the gita the hindu holy book only because of this demand by westerners for a holy book for religions. but we do not have just one. we have the vedas, upanishads, aranyaks, brahmanas. furthermore, epics like the ramayana and mahabharata also teach dharma in their own way.
              so essentially what we need is “dharma” and not “religion”. let us not follow the western school of thought and get dragged into “religion”.

              • Vineet

                Gud sir

                Our “HInduism” is actually “Sanatan Dharm” loosely translated into Eternal Righteousness and we should focus on that

                • Jaipal

                  @Rahul r,

                  The word Hindu is actually found in Sanskrit scriptures like Meru Tantra,
                  Vrddha Smriti, Sabdakalpadruma, Medini Kosh, Adbhut Kosh ect.
                  Ashoka himself mentions the word “Hind” itself for India in his inscriptions
                  in 300 BC. The other name for Hindus is “Arya” or those who follow
                  Arya Dharma/Vedic Dharma/Sanatana Dharma. This word is found
                  in Vedas, Brahmanas, Upanishads, Ramayana, Mahabharatha.
                  Arya was another name for Hindus who followed Sanatana Dharma/Hinduism! Very funny how you seem to be so confused.

                  • Jaipal

                    @Rahul r,

                    Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma is indeed a religion and perhaps the
                    only true religion existing in the world. Islam and Christianity are not
                    religions but cults in the real sense of the word. They have political goals also. In Hinduism, the many Hindu gods are nothing but the various
                    manifestations of the one Hindu God named Brahman in the Vedas.
                    There is no difference between the Hindu Gods. They and the concepts
                    behind ritiualistic worship exist within a common Hinduu iritual framework

                    I tis you who is confused. Hinduism has always been one.

                    • Jaipal

                      To understand the oneness of Hindu religion, you should read the book
                      by Rajiv Malhotra on oneness of Hinduism. His is a scholarly book.
                      It should enlighten you.

  7. /* The idiots could never explain if Hindus were living in so much superstition, .. how the hell could Hindus accumulate so much wealth through trade and industry and become the richest nation of the world which poor barbarians (presumably following superior monotheistic religions) would try to attack again and again for loot — they only way of becoming rich the monotheistic barbarians know. */

    What you’ve said of the Durants is also true of modern day Hindus who spit on the caste system & scream discrimination at the mention of caste & orthodox Hindus.

    They can’t / haven’t ever explained why Hindusthan was so rich, inspite of so much ‘caste discrimination’ .their standard answer is it was “dharma” without any clue what it implies.

  8. Makarand Sane

    Hi , Can you shed some light on the Aryan invasion onto the ancient India and how these bloodscuking aryan killed and butchered the native Indians calling them “rakshas” and “Asurs”? ..I will be glad to know this……

    • jo

      @Makarand Sane
      Hi , Can you shed some light on the Christian invasion onto the ancient Grease and how these bloodscuking Christian killed and butchered the native Americans calling them “pagan” and “infidel”? ..I will be glad to know this……
      Aryan invasion theory is just an artificial theory ..a parody….of Christian invaders who are responsible for enslave Africans,ethnic cleansing of native Americans and destruction of Greco-roman Hellenistic agro-cultural civilization.

      • kumar

        read the hindu mythologies and you will understand that the aryan invasion theory is not a hoax. all myths are fraught with the aryans exterminating the asuras, who are not demons as translated to give it a sacrosanct meaning. asuras were the native rulers of indian provinces whom the aryans had to “fix” in order to ease their rule and supremacy. the asura kings were benevolent kings and the citizens were happy during their rule. the extermination of the asuras is in fact the story of how aryans gained supremacy, falsely glorified by calling aryans as gods and asuras as demons.

        we should learn to decipher the true meaning of the myths. ram v/s ravan, vaman v/s bali, narsinha v/s hiranyakashipu, etc all these are the aryans dominating over natives. read the myths rationally and you will understand.

        • ravi

          The English word “Aryan” is borrowed from the Sanskrit* word Arya meaning ‘Noble**’ it was used initially as a national name to designate the worshippers of the Hindu deities*** and especially Indra**** according to Brahmanical principles (performance of sacrifice, Yajna).
          According to Swami Vivekananda:
          The Aryans were kind and generous, and in their hearts which were large and unbounded as the ocean and in their brains gifted with superhuman genius

          Swami Dayananda’s creation, the Arya Samaj, is a unique component in Hinduism. The Arya Samaj unequivocally condemns idol-worship, animal sacrifices, ancestor worship, pilgrimages, priestcraft, offerings made in temples, the caste system, untouchability, child marriages and discrimination against women on the grounds that all these lacked Vedic sanction. The Arya Samaj discourages dogma and symbolism and encourages skepticism in beliefs that run contrary to common sense and logic. To many people, the Arya Samaj aims to be a “universal church” based on the authority of the Vedas.

          Among Swami Dayananda’s immense contributions is his championing of the equal rights of women – such as their right to education and reading of Indian scriptures – and his translation of the Vedas from Sanskrit to Hindi so that the common man may be able to read the Vedas. The Arya Samaj is rare in Hinduism in its acceptance of women as leaders in prayer meetings and preaching.

          Hitler wanted a pure Aryan race, people with blue eyes, blonde hair, muscular (in the case of men) and beautiful (the case of women). He wanted all Germans to be racially pure because he wanted to start his own “super” perfect race, even though he did not have blonde hair or blue eyes! Also there was a lot of speculation about him being homosexual, even though he sent homosexuals to concentration camps etc.For men it was essential to be fit for military service, while women of child-bearing age were expected to be very fertile..

          So ,there are so many definition are available,all contradict each other.But it is clear that eastern concept
          of aryan is related to virtue(not race like western concept according to Hitler).
          In the light of western concept( according to Hitler)Aryan invasion theory was created.
          In the light of eastern concept{according to Swami Vivekananda beliver of monism (vedanta)who is not very much fond of idle worship ,Swami Dayananda,against idle worship }Aryan invasion theory could not be created.
          And one thing is clear ,it is sanskrit word .Sanskrit(see the footnote * )is also not related to
          any locality(as all other language deserve),but related to virtue called dev-bhasha- language of hindu -deity (see footnate ***)
          So,aryan invasion theory is a conspiracy against Dravidian( people or peoples or is a term used to refer to the diverse groups of people who natively speak languages belonging to the Dravidian language family. Populations of speakers of around 220 million are found mostly in Southern India. Other Dravidian people are found in parts of central India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. The most populous Dravidian people are the Telugus, Tamils, Kannadigas and the Malayalis. Smaller Dravidian communities with 1–5 million speakers are the Tuluvas, Gonds and Brahui.)

          *The Sanskrit verbal adjective sánskrita- may be translated as “put together, constructed, well or completely formed; refined, adorned, highly elaborated”. It is derived from the root san-skar- “to put together, compose, arrange, prepare”, where sa- “together” (as English same) and (s)kar- “do, make”.

          The term in the generic meaning of “made ready, prepared, completed, finished” is found in the Rigveda. Also in Vedic Sanskrit, as nominalized neuter sanskritám, it means “preparation, prepared place” and thus “ritual enclosure, place for a sacrifice”.

          As a term for “refined or elaborated speech” the adjective appears only in Epic and Classical Sanskrit, in the Manusmriti and in the Mahabharata. The language referred to as sanskrita “the cultured language” has by definition always been a “sacred” and “sophisticated” language, used for religious and learned discourse in ancient India, and contrasted with the languages spoken by the people, prakrita- “natural, artless, normal, ordinary”.

          **Noble means person who posses Integrity(in thought and action with rationality),Chivalry,Courage &Self-sacrifice(for any good cause).

          ***Hindu deities:Within Hinduism a large number of personal gods (Ishvaras) are worshipped as murtis. These beings are significantly powerful entities known as devas. The exact nature of belief in regards to each deity varies between differing Hindu denominations and philosophies. Often these beings are depicted in humanoid or partially humanoid forms, complete with a set of unique and complex iconography in each case. The devas are expansions of Brahman into various forms, each with a certain quality.
          In the Rig Veda 33 devas are described, which are personifications of phenomena in nature.

          ****Indra : the King of the gods or Devas and Lord of Heaven or Svargaloka in Hindu mythology. He is also the God of War, Storms, and Rainfall and is associated with Vajrapani

        • nikhil


          In Hinduism, the asuras (Sanskrit: ) are non-suras, A DIFFERENT GROUP OF POWER-SEEKING DEITIES besides the suras, sometimes considered naturalists, or nature-beings, in constant battle with the devas.

          IN EARLY VEDIC TEXTS, BOTH THE ASURAS AND THE DEVAS WERE DEITIES who constantly competed with each other, some bearing both designations at the same time.

          In late-Vedic and post-Vedic literature the Vedic asuras became lesser beings; whilst in Avesta, the Persian counterpart of the Vedas, the devas began to be considered as lesser beings.

          Later, in the Puranas, Kashyap is portrayed as the father of both, devas and asuras. In the Puranas, Kashyap is said to have married 60 daughters of Daksha Prajapati and fathered all beings on earth including devas, asuras, manavas and the entire animal world.

          According to the Vishnu Purana, during the churning of the ocean the DEITIES came to be known as asuras because they rejected Varuni, the goddess of sura or wine; while the devas accepted her and came to be known as suras.

          Alain Daniélou says:
          It is significant that it was not for their sins that the anti-gods had to be destroyed but because of their power, their virtue, their knowledge, which threatened that of the gods—that is, the gods of the Aryas.

          The antigods are often depicted as good brahmanas (Bali, Prahlada). Defeated, they serve the gods faithfully (Siva Purana).

          • nikhil

            Varuni or Varunani is the female consort of Varuna and the goddess was adopted by Varuna when she came out of the ocean, during the churning for amrita(immortal nectar).
            She represents the purifying nectar of immortality (amrita).
            She is “the agent of transcendent wisdom”.
            Sanskrit Hinduism Dictionary III on a-sura
            a-sura. Demon; term arose when Diti””s sons refused to drink the liquor (sura) offered by Varuni, daughter of Varuna.

        • nitha

          Deva, are Lithuanian Dievas (Latvian Dievs, Prussian Deiwas), Germanic Tiwaz (seen in English “Tuesday”) and the related Old Norse Tivar (gods), and Latin deus “god” and divus “divine”, from which the English words “divine”, “deity”, French “dieu”, Portuguese “deus”, Spanish “dios” and Italian “dio”-the Greek father of the gods, are derived.

        • nitha

          According to the Ramayana RAVANA was the son of a BRAHMIN father, a Prajapti (Lord Brahma’s descendents) and a Rakshasa mother, thus attaining a status of Brahmarakshasa
          .RAVANA was an AGNIHORTRI BRAHMIN and a great devotee of Lord Shiva.

          RAVANA was born to a great sage Vishrava (or Vesamuni), and his wife, the daitya princess Kaikesi. RAVANA was born in the Devagana, as his grandfather, the sage Pulastya, was one of the ten Prajapatis or mind-born sons of Brahma and one of the Saptarishi (Seven Great Sages Rishi)

          in the first Manvantara. Kaikesi’s father, Sumali (or Sumalaya), king of the Daityas, wished her to marry the most powerful being in the mortal world, so as to produce an exceptional heir. He rejected the kings of the world, as they were less powerful than him. Kaikesi searched among the sages and finally chose Vishrava, the father of Kubera.


          Ravana later usurped Sri Lanka from his half brother Kubera and became the King of Lanka.


        • nikhil

          Panchkanya mantra is


          Meanings: Ahilya(Gautam rishi’s wife), Draupadi(Pandava’s wife), Sita(Ram’s wife), Tara (King Harichandra’s wife) MANDODARY (RAWANA’S WIFE) whoever chant’s this name, god will remove his all sins.

    • som

      @Makarand Sane


      Kashyapa { was an ancient sage (rishis), who is one of the Saptarshis in the present Manvantara; with others being Atri, Vashishtha, Vishvamitra, Jamadagni, Bharadwaja AND according to the Vedic Knowledge, he is the son of Marichi, one of the ten sons (Manasa-putras) of the Creator Brahma.}was married to the thirteen daughters of Daksha, among them were Aditi, Diti and Danu.

      (1)His sons with Danu are the DANAVAS {sons of Danu, who in turn was a daughter of Daksha<<<<<< Danu is connected with the waters of heavens and she is probably associated with the formless, primordial waters that existed prior to the creation<<<<<<the name is connected with the PIE root *danu,"river" or "any flowing liquid" and is associated with the river Danube,the Danavas<<<<<<revolted against the Devtas under the leadership of Bali,and others, but were defeated.<<<<<<Danavas were classified as good and bad Danavas<<<<<<.David Frawley asserts that many ancient European peoples, particularly the Celts and Germans, regarded themselves as children of Danu, with Danu<<<<<< meaning the Mother Goddess,….. who was also, like Sarasvati in the Rig Veda, a river Goddess<<<<<< the Celts called themselves Tuatha De Danaan<<<<<<<while the Germans had a similar name<<<<<<<.ancient European river names like the Danube and various rivers called Don in Russia, Scotland, England and France reflect this.<<<<<<<< the Danube which flows to the Black Sea is their most important river and could reflect their eastern origins}.

      (2)His sons with Diti are the DAITYAS{<<<<<<in Hindu mythology, the Daityas are a clan or race of Asura as are the Danavas<<<<< Daityas were the children of Diti and the sage Kashyapa<<<<<<they were a race of giants who fought against the Devas because they were jealous of their Deva half-brothers<<<<<<< the female Daityas are described as wearing jewelry the size of boulders(POETIC EXAGGERATION) }

      (3)His sons with Aditi are the Adityas, who considered DEVAS{.<<<Deva is the Sanskrit word for deity, its related feminine term is DEVI In modern Hinduism<<<<<<< it can be loosely interpreted as any benevolent supernatural being<<<<<. the DEVAS in Hinduism, also called SURAS… are often juxtaposed to the ASURAS, their half brothers<<<<<..DEVAS are also the maintainers of the realms as ordained by the Trimurti<<<<<< they are often warring with their equally powerful counterparts the ASURAS.<<<<<and are also called SURAS}.


      Rakshasa were most often depicted as ugly, fierce-looking and enormous creatures, black as soot and with two fangs protruding down from the top of the mouth as well as sharp, claw-like fingernails. They are shown as being mean, growling like beasts and as insatiable cannibals who could smell the scent of flesh. Some of the more ferocious ones were shown with flaming red eyes and hair, drinking blood with their palms or from a human skull (similar to vampires in later Western mythology). Generally had they could fly, vanish, and Maya (magical powers of illusion), which enabled them to change size at will and assume the form of any creature.

    • Sindhus

      Why do christians look down upon Indian christians and blacks as dirty people? why did they kill millions of Indians because they did not convert during British rule?

      • Jaipal

        @Makarand Sane,

        All the Asuras/Rakshakas/Danavas are the descendants of Vedic Rishis.
        Did you know that?. Asuras are the descendants of the Vedic God
        Brahma, so how can they be so called Dravidians or scheduled castes/tribes ect?? Use your brain will you?

        The myths in Hinduism are not about any invading Aryans suppressing
        native Indians/Dravidians. They are about Good versus evil.
        Such myths exist in every ancient culture. Are you going to start
        claiming that even in those cultures, there were Dalits who were suppressed?? You have no intellect worth the name.

    • Shlok

      @Makarand INsane, talking the same nonsense again and again and again doesn’t make it the truth. If you cared to read our earlier posts, you would see light. Like it or not, Hindus have no reason to feel ashamed of their ancestors, culture and religion. But YOU DO. Of course, there is no doubt that either you or someone in your family converted to Christianity, but your ancestors were also Hindus. But right now you consider yourself to be a Christian, and like it or not, Christian lineage is a very, very bloody one. Unlike you, who have to rely on the likes of Mueller, Griffiths and Thapar to interpret our scriptures, we will just choose to rely on the Holy Bible. So, I repeat my advise to you again is to keep quiet and don’t make a bigger display of your insanity

  9. Makarand Sane

    Also would like you to shed some light on the terrorist activities of Adi Shankaracharya in reviving hinduism ,the process in which he assively carried out the destructin of the Buddhism faith by demolishign the “Stoopas” and converting the “Buddha” idol into “shivlingam” ??? what about the massacre of so many innocent buddhists done by hindus under the leadership of Adi Shankaracharya????

    • Indian Realist

      Aryan invasion is a missionary hoax and killing of buddhists is a hoax by communist historians of JNU. Which part of this is not clear?

    • jo

      @Makarand Sane
      Also would like you to shed some light on the terrorist activities of Vatican killed a lot more in their slave trades, forced conversions and also their invasions and destructions of the Mayan, Aztec and Inca civilizations in the Americas .

      The Vatican probably has the most blood in its hands than any other government or institution in history.

      • Harish

        The 1510 Requerimiento, in relation to the Spanish invasion of South America, demanded that the local populations accept Spanish rule, and allow preaching to them by Catholic missionaries, on pain of war, slavery or death, although it did not demand conversion.

        Slavery was part of the local population’s culture before the arrival of the conquistadors.

        Christian missionaries provided existing slaves with an opportunity to escape their situation by seeking out the protection of the missions.

        On December 1511, the Dominican friar Antonio de Montesinos openly rebuked the Spanish authorities governing Hispaniola for their mistreatment of the American natives, telling them “… you are in mortal sin
        … for the cruelty and tyranny you use in dealing with these innocent people”.

        King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response. Enforcement was lax, and while some blame the Church for not doing ANYTHING to liberate the Indians.

        Nevertheless, Amerindian populations suffered serious decline due to new diseases, inadvertently introduced through contact with Europeans, which created a labor vacuum in the New World

        • ravi

          @jo……….AND HOW CUNNING THEY WARE…..!!!
          The Jesuit Reductions were a particular version of the general Catholic strategy used in the 17th and 18th centuries of building reductions (reducciones de indios), in order to Christianize the indigenous populations of the Americas more efficiently.

          The reductions were created by the Catholic order of the Jesuits in South America, in areas inhabited by the Tupi-Guarani peoples, which generally corresponds to modern day Paraguay.

          Later reductions were extended into the areas that correspond to Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Uruguay.

          In these regions the Jesuit reductions were different from the reductions in other regions, because the Indians were expected to adopt Christianity but not European culture.

          Under the Jesuit leadership of the Indians through native “puppet” caciques, the reductions achieved a high degree of autonomy within the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires.

          With the use of Indian labour, the reductions became economically successful. When their existence was threatened by the incursions of Bandeirante slave traders, Indian militia were created that fought effectively against the colonists.

          The resistance by the Jesuit reductions to slave raids, as well as their high degree of autonomy and economic success, have been cited as contributing factors to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Americas in 1767.

          The Jesuit reductions present a controversial chapter of the evangelisational history of the Americas, and are variously described as JUNGLE UTOPIAS OR AS THEOCRATIC REGIMES OF TERROR.

    • kumar

      this is what happens when faith turns into fanatacism and adi shankara is one of the earliest paragons of it. even today many buddhist stupas are idiotically worshipped by people as shiv ling. a living example is the mandapeshwar caves in mumbai.

      • ravi


        Caves in India were only made by Buddhist Monks. There was a group of monks that stayed in the caves that we today know as Khaneri caves. These monks were interested in Arts. This is very clear by looking at the various caves that are found all over the world. Other cultures also liked art and have created painting and structures of stones but the Buddhist were the ones to dig into stones to create livable caves. Back to history of the caves. During the occupation of the khaneri caves, these monks found another location were they created a hall of paintings.
        The cave was created by the Buddhist monks and then they hired travelling Persian’s to paint.
        The Buddhist monks asked the Persians to paint the life of Lord Shiva. This makes this cave interesting as the it BRINGS MANY RELIGIONS TOGETHER. BUDDHIST CAVE, PERSIAN PAINTERS AND HINDU GOD.

        The name of the cave Mandapeshwar means Mandap Pe Eshwar. Hall of painting of Lord.

      • alok misra

        yes. adi sankara kill losts of budists. history does not speaks of this. but he killed lots of them.

        • som

          @alok misra
          “adi sankara kill losts of budists. history does not speaks of this. but he killed lots of them.”
          Please provide the link or give the reference of book,name of author,page no.Publishing house,Price,availability (book store) and PRINTING EDITION
          YEAR as quickly as possible,

          • karan

            @alok misra
            “adi sankara kill losts of budists. history does not speaks of this. but he killed lots of them.”

        • Indian Realist

          Misra Jee: Pls put aside your chillum.

          • alok misra

            Adi Sankara institutionalised the persecution of Buddhists during his short life span of 32 years. In actuality Adi Shankaracharya had spent his early years until the death of his mother at 15 in a Buddhist monastery. It was when his Abbott refused him permission to cremate his mother that he had revolted and become rabidly anti Buddhist.

            He persuaded local kings to patronise his version of hinduism which he termed ‘sanatana dharma’ while at the same time, destroying Buddhist monasteries, killing monks and capturing their religious sites and teachings making them ‘hindu’. Towards the end of his short life, defeated in debate by the Buddhist Mahapandita Vasubandhu, Adi Shankaracharya was compelled to embrace Buddhism once again, as was the norm then. He died out of the sheer shame of his defeat!

            pls see in below wala link:


            • Indian Realist

              Please don’t troll this site. We don’t allow propagandists here.

            • John

              Adi Sakaracharya killed buddhist through shord without the help of any king and army.

              • John

                History should remember him a great killer ,who killed million of buddhist alone .

              • Jaipal


                You don’t have much of a brain, do you?
                You must be one of those “rice christians”, eh?
                Sold your soul for some bags of rice.

                First of all how could Adi Shankara kill millions of Buddhists without
                having any army? What were those Buddhists doing ?? Sleeping??
                Were they not many in number?? Did they not offer resistance??

                So don’t talk nonsense about a subject you have no clue about.

            • Shlok

              @Alok, I haven’t read a more trash and worthless article. Even Thapar writes bettter. ‘It is well known’, your friend says, but the question is how, when and where??? The claim of your insane writer that Shankaracharya embraced Buddhism towards the end of his life is absolutely nonsensical. Really, you excel all the other insane persons that have appeared here time to time. The enmity that you people are trying to create between Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs is non-existent. For that matter, Dalai Lama in 2001 and again in 2004 re-iterated that Hindus and Buddhists are twin brothers and sisters. Please check the sites


              Rather than beleiving in crazy persons like Alok Misra, Makarand INsane and Cynical, we Hindus and Buddhists believe to take guidance from our saints and Dalai Lama

    • Sindhus

      You see, it was common for Buddhist kings to convert people by sword in those days (e.g. Ashok). So there was resistance by Hindu kings later…may be blood shed took place..but it only proves you sow so shall you reap…so on one should force one’s religion/beliefs on others…

      • Sindhus

        so NO one should force one’s religion/beliefs on others…

        • alok misra

          No need to blame any religion in particular, dear friends. All religions are the same when it comes to fanatacism. Hindu kings were not much different. No need to say that Hinduism is tolerant. It is only that most of the history has been wiped out by the priestly class, read brahmins, in the pre-medieval period. The bloody part has been erased and what has flown to us is only the feel-good part. This is why nobody knows much about Adi Shankara and how he died so young. He was a ruthless brute no doubt.

          • Jaipal

            @Alok Mishra,

            You look at your own contradictory statements, will you?
            How do you know that Adi Shankara used violence against Buddhists
            when you yourself admit that no records remain which could prove it??

            If there are no records surviving to tell the tale of Adi Shankaras’
            alleged brutality against Buddhists, then how do you know what
            really happened?? How can you say with certainty about Adi Shankara
            when no records exist to tell what really happened??

            Clearly, you are imagining some bullshit and making things up
            without having any basis.

      • Shlok

        @Sindhus, my suggestion, when you answer retards like INsane and others, please don’t fall into their trap. Ashok never used any violence to convert Hindus to Buddhists. Yes, he aggressively propogated Buddhism, that is true. But, he was not a despot like these Muslims and Christians were. There is absolutely no justification in the theory that Pushyamitra Sunga killed the last Maurya king because he was a Buddhist. Absolutely trash. The last Maurya king had become a weakling and was not fit for rule. Kings in ancient India did fight among themselves but religion / denomination was not the issue.

    • Jaipal

      @Makarand Sane,

      All myth and nonsense from you, as usual.
      Adi Shankara did nothing of the kind. He had no army nor
      did he kill any Buddhists. Many Buddhists reconverted to Hinduism
      peacefully due to his convincing arguments. Buddhism was wiped
      out from India because of Muslims.

  10. nikhil


    Dr. B. B. Lal, Dr. S. P. Gupta and Dr. Shashi Asthana in their article ‘Indus Sites’, say,
    “The Indus civilization was the culmination of a long process of cultural configuration that was going on through several millennia in the geographical tract between the hills of Baluchistan and the Ghaggar basin. The culmination or the change from the early Harappan to Harappan seems to have taken place in the SARASWATI basin. The distribution map of Harappan sites shows quite clearly the concentration of Indus sites with early Harappan material overlaid with mature Harappan in the basin of SARASWATI and its tributaries”.

    It is for this reason, that Dr. S. P. Gupta suggests that instead of persisting with the older title, Indus civilization, we might as well call it SARASWATI CIVILIZATION

    Ghosh and Hussain of the Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur have discovered a number of beds of SARASWATI river in which one is of ocean going SARASWATI . Other beds they have dated 1800 BC and the ocean going SARASWATI bed is thousands of years earlier than those, according to them.

    The SARASWATI civilization had flourished for thousands of years over a vast area and abundant waters of the river, were helping the civilization in every way.
    But the drying up of the SARASWATI river, which was a natural calamity, forced the sites to be vacated .

    • nikhil

      (1)Dravidian have NOT been disgracefully treated, neglected for the last 6,000 years by Aryan AS PER PROPAGANDA MADE BY WESTERN IDEOLOGISTS
      (2) The history of the Indus Valley civilization, it is NOT new comers who have driven away Dravidian people from the Indus Valley to the jungle fastness AS PER PROPAGANDA MADE BY WESTERN IDEOLOGISTS.
      (3)The whole history of Dravidian people is NOT one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India punctuated by rebellions and disorder AS PER PROPAGANDA MADE BY WESTERN IDEOLOGISTS,

      • som

        n 2011, Indian police accused the Chinese government of providing sanctuary to the movement’s leaders of Naxalite–Maoist organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict
        There were reports in the media recently that Maoists have been acquiring and experimenting with chemical weapons. It is foolish that the central govt instead of treating the Maoist problem as purely a threat to our national integrity & security, are mixing up issues of development and other real or imaginary grievances with it. Can we expect anything better from a Home Minister who is busy releasing ‘innocent muslim youth’ from prisons while the Maoists wreak havoc across the nation? The short-sightedness of the courts seems to be perfectly in congruence with the tunnel vision of the government!

  11. som

    Muzaffarnagar Riots 2013: The Hate Games

  12. John

    Adi Shankaracharya was a ruthless brute because he had killed buddhist through shord although it was not written in history of any account such as buddhist ,jaini,greek,persian etc. only one wave page which is not associated with any cronicle of that but very much trustworthy is avialable now.

  13. som

    So,this wave link is fake which is not related to any history of buddhist,jain,persian,greek account ,not any of these account and their cronicle it was mentioned that Adi Shankaracharya was a killer of Buddhist.
    So,this wave link is not trustworthy and simply fake.

    • John

      No,wave page of Lama Narayan Singh is very much trustwortby produced by alok
      misra ,because he is most respected.

      • som

        @John the baptist
        Your Lama Narayan Singh and your friend alok misra the baptist are fraud.

      • Jaipal


        No serious historian of Indian history takes you or your lama’s version
        seriously. You guys are just a bunch of frauds pretending.

        • karan

          These missionaries want to create misunderstanding between north and south Indians ,want to introduce a bloody war among them , to finish their unfinish target that is Christianisation which is nothing but surrogate westenisation .

        • rahul r


          just because one person writes some shit in a book does not mean that the shit is holy after centuries have passed. it is said that devas, danavas, daityas are sons of kashyap. so what was kashyap doing as a father? could he not teach morals and ethics to his own children daityas and danavas that they became so vicious. if they are sons of rishis, as you say, then these rishis did not duties of fathers.

          what you fins in vedas is nothing but sacrifice. the brahmins of the vedic age were meat-eaters. even beef-eaters. ashwamedh yagna is horse sacrifice. that horse was later killed and his flesh eaten.

          when buddhist and jain philosophies were being accepted by public, the brahmins started losing ground. so they took up vegetariansim like in jainsim and budhism. only to rival other religions. seeing that vedas do not have any true value they had to think of writing upanishads which are again copy of jain and buddhist philosphy only with some additions. gita was written and all exsitng philosophies were blended to show that the gita contains all philosophies. when adi sankara came into picture he cuold see hinduism losing ground and he therefore started revivalist movement. why else was there a need for revival if hinduism was the best and greatest of all religions? explain this mr jaipal. sankar wrote so may stotras and shlokas to attract people to hinduism. marketing strategy nothing else. propagandism. it is just underdogs fighting back.

          some shit is written thousands of years back and people living in a space age believe in it so blindly. holy shit.

          • Jaipal

            @Rahul R,

            Just because Maharishi Kashyap may not have been able to correct
            his wayward Daitya/Asura sons does not mean that he was a bad father. After all, the Devas were his sons too and they turned out just fine.
            Good and bad exists in every society. That is a fact of life.
            The forces of good need to keep fighting the forces of evil and weed it out from time to time. Nothing really wrong with that.

            Get some historical sense will you? The principal Upanishads were all
            composed in the pre-Buddhistic era and therefore cannot be copied from Buddhism or Jainism.

          • karan

            @rahul r
            An American university has made study of Gita compulsory for all its students by including it in its “core course.” The Seton Hall University ( has taken this decision observing the importance of Gita in life. University administration says that through the wisdom of Gita, students can better understand and cope with the complexities of life and be better prepared to face all the life’s challenges.
            The autonomous Catholic Seton Hall University was established in New Jersey in 1856. Professor A.D. Amar working with the University’s Stillman Business School said the decision to make Gita compulsory for all students is an unprecedented one. Out of the University’s total strength of 10,800 students, about one-third are non-Christians. There are a huge number of Indian students studying at the University.

            • som

              @rahul r
              You have not insulted vedas by calling them holy shit.You have insulted all the holy books in the world – including vedas ,GITA and bible and others.
              We are not biased like you. all this great thought was written in some great era and people like you are insulting to their ideas.

              In future,Gita will be compulsory for all its students by including it in its “core course,in all university ,all over the world.

        • Shlok

          @Jaipal, no they are not pretending. They are FRAUDS, they are LIARS, they are INSANE

  14. karan

    @rahul r
    Then after arival of Islam and Christianity
    and Independence one ideology has been came into existance that is “Hindutva “to face the challanges of these political ideologies.
    These two ideologies who are responsible for destruction of great Inca ,Greek civilization
    are trying to brainwashing people of India.

  15. ravi

    @rahul r
    These two ideologies one is “My God is true ,your God is false and Jesus is only saviour” and other is “My God is true ,your God is false and Mohammad is last prophet” are Global enemies of each other fighting in so many fronts around the world want to finish their unfinish target here in India ,

    • nikhil

      @ rahul r
      just because two person write some shit in
      two books do not mean that the shots are holy
      after centuries have passed. it is said that
      Christians and Muslims are sons of
      same God so what was God doing as a
      father? could he not teach morals and
      ethics to his own children Christianity and
      Islam that they became so vicious.

      • nikhil

        @rahul r
        “what you fins in vedas …….brahmin are beef-eaters.*
        Do you have any wave link or have q book then please inform me as soon as possible.

      • Shlok

        @Nikhil, and not just that. Do you know why Adam and Eve had to be banished after eating the apple? Because they had to excrete, and as Paradise was a holy place, there were no toilets. So the question is everything is predestined as these Semitic faiths believe, why was human being created in the 1st place, secondly why did God put the forbidden apple, and why did he banish them when Eve persuaded Adam to eat it? If all was pre-desined, how can we blame Adam & Eve for it? But no, it gets worse. Because Adam & Eve had committed this sin of eating the apple, all human beings have to take up their sins. So, forget about our sins. Even a baby of 2 months is sinful because she is taking this descended sin from Adam & Eve. This collective sin is a truly Semitic concept, and that is why Jesus had to appear to remove these sins. This is what Christians believe. It is really astounding and incredible what they believe and yet the Johns, the Makarand INsanes, etc laugh at our Puranas….

  16. Ramesh

    @ rahul r the baptist
    “Brahmins were beef eater.”
    Please send information regarding above subject book I.e Name of author,price,page no.,year of publication,publishing house etc.
    And if you have any wave link please inform me
    as soon as possible.

    • Ramesh

      @rahul r the baptist
      some shit is written thousands of years
      back and people living in a space age
      believe in it so blindly that sun goes around the earth in bible. holy shit.

  17. ravi

    @ rahul r
    Now the modern time Rakshsas,Daityas ana Asuras invented new fake cocktail ideology I.e. Dravidian Christianity to attract people to Christianity
    It is not just marketing strategy but more than that just “divide and rule ideology ” to convert India into mutual hostile camp to subjugate land,property and culture.They are not just
    propagandist but enemy of Unity and Integrity of India.

  18. ravi

    @rahul r
    when great Indian philosophies which are originated by great hindu kings such as Sidhartha and Mahavira buddhist and jain philosophies were
    being accepted by Hindus , the Hinduism influenced and enriched.
    But jainsim became confined in some part of India and budhism spreaded all over world but Thai,Chinese, Burmise, Mangolian were not accepted Vegiterianism , It is very much confined in Brahmins.
    Upanishads ,Aranyak and Brahmins which are
    not copy of jain and buddhist philosphy.
    Gita is nector of all Knowledge.

    • rahul r


      my comments were only on hinduism. hinduism is no doubt one of the best of all existing religions but we must admit what the reality was and not live in some misbelief that we were greatest and unconquerable. we need to be more receptive in our thoughts. if the vedas talk nothing but sacrifice then that’s a fact and any casual reading of the vedas will tell you this.

      as far as islam and christianity are concerned they are far worse. they spread their religion in the past not by word but by sword. majority of the world follows these two religions and they do not know that their religions were forced down their own throats thousands of years back. religion is for the upliftment of the self and the society at large. these two religions never understood this and are just a bunch of zealots gone haywire.

      my only concern we should not follow what they have done.


      you want wave links and websites. people like you on the internet want all readymade answers and are not ready to do some research on their own. i can understand forwarding links but have you done your homework before commenting are you just being carried over by a wave? have you read the vedas, the upanishads? and have you also read the bible? have you read any books on the subject or are you just another couch potato wanting all knowledge to be delievered at your doorsteps?

      • Ramesh

        @rahul r
        How much time you need to provode link that Brahmin in time of veda were habitual to eat beef. I wish to provide sufficient time for that i.e. one month .

        Is it sufficient for you?

        • Ramesh

          @rahul r
          …although I am completely disagreed with you in every account.

          • rahul r


            I knew you have not read any of the Vedas neither Bible but are just another vain babbler who wants to put his mouth in everything without doing anything on your own. I am sure most of the people who have put their comments here are also of your category.

            When acclaimed historians, even Indian historians and even people like Swami Vivekanand have admitted in their works that beef eating was very popular in Vedic and post-Vedic period. I admire Swami Vivekanand and I am sure you also do. So please take efforts and also read what he wants to say. You are like only want to take his name. How many of you have read his works?

            For people like you I am giving a few references. I am quite sure that even after reading this you will continue arguing. Because the fact is you only want to stay happy in what “you think” about the world is and do not actually want to “look at it”.

            1. Shukla Yajurved Adhyay 23; shlok 19 – 31
            2. The complete work of Swami Vivekanand, Vol. 3, Page 174
            3. The complete work of Swami Vivekanand, Vol. 3, Page 536
            4. Aitarey Brahman, Book 2, paras 6 and 7
            5. Aitarey Brahman, Book 7, Paras 1
            6. ShabharBhashya on MimamsaSutra

            Most of the books are available in market. If you need translation for book no. 6 read the one by Shri Ganganath Jha.

            Now the next step is that you should buy these books and read them. Take 1 or 2 months. I can give you references but I am not going to buy books and courier them to you.

            • Ramesh

              @rahul r
              There are no such thing written by Swami Vivekananda .it is just your mis -interpretation(about beef eatlng).

            • Shlok

              @Rahul R, please don’t bore us with the same repetitiions. We are well aware of you secularists’ posturing to Hindus. Of course, you concede that Islam and Christianity are brutal, but you also fall in the same Marxist trap that we weren’t much better. I am sorry, we don’t believe in the trash of Romila Thapar, RS Sharma, Irfan Habib and their cronies. As I have said over here, any normal person can see that places of different denominations have existed in India since time immemorial. You don’t need to be a historian for that. Go to Ellora, go to Girnar, go to Osian, go to Khajuraho, go to Kanchipuram. Shaivite, Vaishnav, Shakta, Jain, Buddhist, all have existed side by side. Go to Hemkund Saheb, where a temple to Lakshman exists side by side with the most beautiful Gurudwara. A person who can see can see the truth. A person who pretends to be blind cannot be helped.
              Please about the beef eating, I have already replied Sunil, Cynical and others. Stop quoting from 3rd rate sources. I have already mentioned in these columns that Swami Vivekananda was not a top scholar in shrutis, he was influenced by Mueller whom he had met during his trip to London. Swamiji was not God. His contributions in the field of energizing Hinduism was the greatest, but it does not mean that he couldn’t make mistakes. In terms of philosophy, he was a proponent of Advaita. In these columns, it has already been mentioned how Maharishi Dayananda had challenged all these persons like Griffiths and Max Mueller but they were too afraid to accept the challenge. People whose own knowledge of Sanskrit was poor were allowed to translate the Vedic scriptures and fools like you actually believe in their each and every word

              • Shlok, I am very impressed by your clarity-borne brief explanations. We have to keep our ammunition dry against the smellfungus like Alok Mishra, Makarand Sane, Cynical, et al., and give them back in the same coin. These bubbleheads need to be put in their place.
                I strongly believe that Aryan Invasion Theory, Hindus’ killings of Buddhists, et al., are all stratagems used by the Missionaries to the hilt to tear apart the very religious, social, and ethical fabric of the great Bharat Varsha. And the so-called intellectuals, the Marxist historians, the pseudo-secularists and the champions of free expression aid them in destroying the very concept of nationhood of Bharat. This is a very dangerous trend and we should do our utmost to prevent the designs of these anti-Hindu forces from succeeding.
                Once again, hope that you and many other Hindu friends on this blog continue with untiring efforts to beat back utter falsehoods and naked half-truths invariably indulged in by these people viscerally inimical to Bharat Varsha in general and Sanatana Dharma in particular.

                • Shlok

                  @N.V.Sudhakar, thanks a lot for your compliments, which I accept with all humbleness. I also look forward to more of your posts on this site. Happy Diwali

                • anand

                  mr. sudhakar, helo. u forgot to name the another bastard rahulr with nonsense stories on vedas and stuff.

      • karan

        @rahul r
        You are correct about Islam and Christianity,they had spread through sword.

  19. Ramesh

    @rahul r
    I want wave links and websites. people like
    me on the internet want all readymade as well as reserch works.
    I have some reserch work of my own about Advait Vedanta -the ultimate truth.

  20. Ramesh

    @rahul r
    You insulted Vedas calling it holy shit in very much disresprctive way.
    But you admired Swami Vivekananda who was very fond of Veda ,in most respective way.
    What a contradiction!!!
    You have called Hinduism is a cult or precisely a bunch of cult in very much disrespective way.
    But leter called Hinduism a way of live in most respective way.
    . I am sure you are a special category with full of
    Why you are doing this? That we know very well.

    • rahul r


      so, swami shlokanand. you consider yourself the smartest of the lot, is it? well then. so you are above habib, sharma, thapar, mueller, griffith, vivekananda, ramakrishna and perhaps even adi shankara and ramanuja. good.

      folks, vivekanand was not a “top scholar”. swami shlokanad is. shlkoanand maharaj ki jai.

      i never said that vivekanand is god. and that applies equally to adi shankar, ramanuja, ramkrishna, dayanand, shiva, vishnu, brahma and all the pantheon. none of these is god.

      “People whose own knowledge of Sanskrit was poor were allowed to translate the Vedic scriptures”

      so according to you only dayanand is the authority to translate sanskrit. so even if he misinterprets you will say it is true. and when others make genuine attempts you will say they are fake. be happy in your misconceptions.


      i have not insulted vedas by calling them holy shit. i have insulted all the holy books in the world – including vedas and bible and others. i am not biased like you. all this nonsense was written in some stupid era and people like you are falling prey to their ideas.

      i admire swami vivekanand for the same reason that shlok has mentioned. does not mean i worship vivekanand. so whether he was fond of vedas or kuran is immaterial. i admire his qualities not his person. get that clear in your head first and dont rush to conclusions.

      and again you have read incorrectly what i have written. i have said that hinduism was a bunch of cults and not just one cult. and why can’t cults be a way of life? there is even a bhakti cult of kabir and dnyaneshwar and mirabai. is that not their way of life?

      you misinterpretations are what cause contradictions. but i cant blame you for that. both you and sklok love and revel in misinterpretations.

      • Shlok

        @Rahul R, the problem with ‘professional hoppers’ like you is that you just don’t understand the background of the sites that you jump into, and always add up some irrelevant comment that has no sense to the topic concerned. That is why I made it clear that the posturing of persons like you is nothing new. “Be good to all”, “All religions are equal” “God doesn’t teach us to hate others”, etc… of course these are standard fares that you hear day in and day out from our Hindu swamis and intellectuals. Unfortunately, this sugary preaching of “All religions are equal” is done by Hindus without reading others’ scriptures. Which Christian priest or Muslim mullah says this? Similarly, your rejoineder to Ramesh that you insulted all books,not just the Vedas, is typcial of atheistic Hindus, who know nothing about Hinduism, where even an atheistic person like Kanad was considered a Rishi. Where even Katyayana, who wrote the Kamasutra was considered a great person. So, bracketing Hinduism with the Semitic faiths is your biggest folly, which is why I have told you and others that opening one’s mouth before thinking is considered a hallmark of a fool.

        Anyway, I want to ask you a question, which I hope you will reply. Would a Christian accept a translation of the Bible done by Osama bin Laden? Would a Muslim accept a translation of the Quran done by the Pope???

        Whoever said only Dayanand translated the Vedas. Even Ramana Maharishi and others did it. Besides the Vedas are easily available on the net. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Sanskrit can read and tally with what Dayanand says and what Griffiths says. You don’t need to be brainy for it

        If no, then why do Hindus have to accept a translation of the Vedas done by Max Mueller, a person who mentioned to his wife the goal of converting every single Hindu to Christianity. The same person who said the Vedas couldn’t be older than 500 BC or so, because that would interfere with Christian God’s creation and the great flood, etc… So, Mueller was keeping Christian terminology in mind while translating the Rig Veda!! Therefore, if you are not aware of all this background, all your lectures will prove hollow to all of us.

        i am sorry this bhakti cult or that cult is again a Western definition of the various streams in Hinduism, all of which are found in the srutis. Therefore sir, your interpretations are outdated and have expired. They definitely have no use in intellectual sites like this one.

        And finally a compliment. I am happy that you are an admirer of Swami Vivekanand. Are you aware of Swamiji’s views on Christianity and these missionary ‘intellectuals’ who created havoic in India during British rule. Persons like you copy paste from anti-Hindu websites on what Swamiji said about beef eating, but do not bother reading Swami Vivekananda’s complete works. If you admire Swamiji’s qualities and since I don’t think persons like you have the patience to read the complete works, may I suggest you to read Swamiji’s set of lectures, ‘From Colombo to Almora’ and then you can understand the gist of Swamiji’s message to Hindus, including persons like you.

        In the same vein, don’t know if it was you or someone else who quoted Ambedkar who had strong views on the Puranas. But, Ambedkar admired the Vedas, which these people conceal. And Ambedkar was absolutely against Islam and Christianity, which also these persons hide. Instead Ambedkar has only become useful to anti-Hindus and pro-Muslims and Christians, forgetting Ambedkar’s crusade against these two faiths.

        • Jaipal

          @Rahul R,

          There was no beef eating in Vedas. It is a hoax.
          it has been refuted by this research work:

          By Sanskrit scholar Shri BD Ukhal

        • anand

          mr shlok. good answered to asshole rahulr. he is talking without knowing all facts. christian throw bread in well and convert hindu to christian.

      • non- cynical

        @rahul r
        “i have not insulted vedas by calling them holy shit. i have insulted all the holy books in the world – including vedas and bible and others. i am not biased like you. all this nonsense was written in some stupid era and people like you are falling prey to their ideas.”
        -rahul r
        good idea .keep it up.!!!

        • non- cynical

          @rahul r

          “arise,awake,stop not until your goal is achieved.”
          -Swami Vivekananda
          Not just Insult veda bible and others. by calling them holy shit,but prove it.
          good idea .keep it up.!!!

      • non- cynical

        @rahul r
        Do not insult Vedas.
        Things will go very bad for Hindus if a staunch Catholic like Rahul Gandhi becomes the prime minister.Hindus will die in their sleep.

        • non- cynical

          @rahul r
          Do not insult Vedas.
          Muslims will not allow Hindus to live in peace. They will keep on inciting them to pick up a fight, if and when Hindus respond they will cry wolf. In 2006 had gone to Trimbakeshwar Jyotirling near Nasik there was no mosque. In 2009 a mosque had come up close to the temple.
          Soon there will be AZAAN blaring from loudspeakers at such high volumes that all devotees and prayers wd be distrubed.
          Outside Sankaracharya Mutt at Kanchipuram too a mosque came up in the 1980’s. AZAAN loudspeaker is so loud that it can be heard in the temple complex, disturbs prayers.

          • ravi

            non- cynical
            30 miles before reaching Mecca there are prominent signboards to warn that non-Muslims are not allowed beyond that point.No,this is not for any activity like building a school,it is even to just proceed beyond that warning board.That being the Islamic way of enforcing their sanctity,here we have a case where the holiest Hindu pilgrimage is planned to be sacrilaged.Mosques with loud speakers will follow,slaughter houses will spring up and then Hindus cannot take their own religious processions.

          • ravi

            Apart from the blatant attempt to build mosques right next to Hindu temples and the resultant murder and mayhem, one thinks of the horrific slaughter of innocent animals, especially the cow.

            The Congress has from the beginning catered to the vote bank, but in the case of Sonia Gandhi there is the additional factor that as a Roman Catholic she is singularly indifferent to Hindus and Hinduism.

      • nikhil

        @rahul r
        You have said that hinduism was a bunch of cults!!!

        Cult SIMPLY MEANS illegitimate (not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules) religion.

        • karan

          European governments continue to list Hinduism as a primitive cult and be allowed to get away with this insult to all Indians.

          Indians should take the Europeans to task for this kind of behaviour and ask for an explanation about why Hinduism has been listed as a cult while Judaism, Buddhism and Islam are listed as legitimate religions.

  21. rahul r

    Ah well !!

    In that case, there is no beef-eating in the Vedas. I agree that the Vedas are the most sacred of Hindu literature.


    • ravi

      In any case, there is no beef-eating in the Vedas. We agree that the Vedas are the most sacred of Hindu literature.

    • Jaipal

      @Rahul R,

      Did you read the link I sent on there being no beef-eating in Vedas?
      Have you really seen the truth or are you being sarcastic?

      I gave you evidence debunking your claims. Are you convinced or

  22. rahul r


    I thought I should have stopped all this by now as I don’t want to hurt anyone’s sentiments. But since you have asked whether I did read your link, then yes, I did.

    If you want to know why then please read further, else let us put an end to this because I reiterate that I sincerely do not wish to hurt anyone’s sentiments – religious or otherwise.

    At the outset, let me admit that I don’t claim to be a scholar in Sanskrit. But, yes, I do have a fair background of the language. So, while reading your link, I have not just referred to the various translations offered in the link but have also compared them (within my scope and knowledge) with the original Sanskirt hymns.

    Let me quote a few examples of what I came across in the link:

    1. “ukshannay vasannaya” (उक्षान्नाय वशान्नाय)
    I do not know if you have any background of Sanskrit, but if you don’t then please refer to Sanskrit dictionary.
    uksha = ox
    vasha = cow
    And in this hymn “uksha” and “vasha” are mentioned one after the other clearly signifying their relation to each other. And read what the swamis translate it as: “agricultural products, dairy products”.
    Could you let me know which word in this hymn signifies “agricultural products”?

    2. “mahisha”
    Clearly means a “buffalo”. At the most, it means “mahishasur”, the notorious demon.
    Dr. Krishan Lai has translated the word ‘mahisha’ as cloud. Such a translation is nowhere to be found in any dictionary.
    Furthermore, “Indra” is not the same as “Sun”. Yet, he is translating “Indra” as “Sun”. So, Dr. Lai is clearly twisting the original meaning to fit his own whims and fancies. And even if we assume “Indra” is “Sun”, you will find that suddenly these swamis are translating “Indra” as “Self” in a later Shloka. Clearly reflects a bias of mind. I will come to that later.

    3. Now, in this one “Brihaspati” becomes the “Sun”. And the swamis themselves have mentioned “cows” and have put in bracket “i.e. rays or the lost wisdom”.
    What have “cows” got to do with “rays or lost wisdom”?

    4. “parvatebhyo”
    Parvat = mountains
    Look at the translation: caves of mountains (i.e. behind the clouds).
    There is absolutely no synonymy between clouds and mountains and the translating swamis are clearly twisting the meaning.

    5. “indra uttarah”
    Clearly means “Indra replies” or “Indra speaks”.
    The swamis have translated “Indra” as “Self”. Previously, they had translated “Indra” as “Sun”.

    6. The article says:
    “the term ‘vrishabham’ is translated by Wilson as bull but according to Mr.S.N.Shastri it is the strength which helps to shower grace on the praja i.e. people.”
    We know that one of the meanings of “vrishabh” is bull (In fact, this is the only meaning). But see the twisted meaning in the translation. Elsewhere they are translating it as “strengthening and joy-showering foods”.
    If the same word “vrishabh” means “bull” as well as “strengthening and joy-showering foods” it is anybody’s guess what it points to. You cannot say a bull is a joy-showering food without eating it, right?

    6. Mention of so many animals being offered as sacrifice is clear in RgVeda hymn X.91.14.
    “asvasa rishabhasa ukshano vasa mesha ahutah”
    Asva = horse
    Rishabha = bull
    Uksha = ox
    Vasa = cow
    Mesha = sheep
    Ahutah = to offer as Ahuti i.e. sacrifice
    Clearly indicates that these animals were burnt or offered in sacrifice.
    How else can you translate this?
    Previously, these same swamis equated “rishabh” as “joy-showering foods”. Why not do so in this one as well? Because the swamis are helpless here as so many animals are named that they cannot twist the meaning of each and every single animal.

    7. Look at this piece of translation:
    “When the body is being entirely consumed (on the funeral pyre) with the flames brightened by butter, another body with new fat and new marrow is being provided (to the departed soul in a fresh womb). May not this bold fire, exulted in his fierce heat, and full of pride, embrace and consume your new body to ashes (which is being given to you elsewhere).”
    It is very clear that most of the things put inside the brackets by these swamis is a “covering up” or a “misleading” meaning. When most of the hymns here talk about “animal sacrifice” inserting some weird meanings like “soul” and “Self” in brackets itself is clear-cut that the original author of the Vedas had no such thing in mind. Nowhere in the original Sanskrit hymns mentioned in the link is there any word that means “soul” or “self”. It is therefore clear that the swamis are biased in translating.

    Let us understand that the Vedas have not been written at once and by one person. They are a collection of hymns gathered over centuries. It is therefore obvious that the later Vedic period may have a different ideology compared with the early Vedic ones. The very fact that somewhere in these Vedas they talk of “stop cow sacrifice” itself means “at least some people were doing that in the early Vedic period”. Why else would they feel the need for prohibition? It is because men do evil that the saints have to say “Stop evil. Don’t kill. Don’t hurt.” Had man never done evil or killed or hurt, the saints would not have needed to say all this.

    Your link has only strengthened my belief that the Vedas do contain references to cow slaughter. Thanks for the enlightening link.

    • girish

      mr. rahul r

      after u posted this i read the link of jaipal. most of what u say seems correct. tranlsations don’t seem proper.

      perhaps mr. jaypal should send new link.

    • Shlok

      @Rahul R, oh… so you have a background of Sanskrit language. Very good. Now, let us see how you would translate for me these 4 words:

      a) Goswami
      b) Hrishikesh
      c) Chandramukhi
      d) Mrigayani

      If you were Griffith’s chamcha (which you definitiely seem to be, you would translate them in following ways:

      a) God of the cows
      b) A sage with long hair
      c) A face physically created from the rocks of the moon
      d) eyes physically plucked out from a deer & implanted on a woman’s face

      This is what Griffiths and even perhaps Wilson would have done

      Now, just in case our Rahul Roy does not know, the correct translations of the above 4 words are:

      a) Master of the senses
      b) Master of the senses
      c) One with a beautiful face
      d) One who has beautiful eyes

      Now smart boy, another information for you. The writer of this blog has repeatedly said that it is not the job of us to educate Western educated or rather captive persons like you. But, kya kare? Main aadat se majboor hoon. Murkhon ko sachaai bataana, is ka main ne hamesha prayaas kiya hain.

      Have you heard of Monier-Williams? You can check in wikipedia about him. He was the 2nd professor of the Boden Chair of Sanskrit at Oxford University, which had been set up for the express purpose of familiarizing Westerners to Sanskrit in order to make it easier for them in their mission to convert Hindus.

      Even though having such nefarious designs, Monier-Williams definitely did make an effort to learn Sanskrit, definitely his Sanskrit was better than Griffiths, Muellers and Wilsons Sanskrit. In his dictionary, he translates the word Uksha as a medicinal herb

      Unlike the Upanishads and the Smritis, the Vedas were written poetically, and one comes across many metaphors. When you have crazy persons translating poems, the results are dangerous

      Therefore, whether you have a craving for beef or not, or whether your heart says that yes Hindus ate beef, or whether you bet with your next door neigbhour that cows were sacrificed, I really don’t care

      Ancient Hindus did not eat beef. Chapter close, book close

      • Shlok

        @Rahul R, there seems to be some problem while sending links. Whenever I try sending them, I am unable to send the post. Anyway, please read Arunabh Talwar’s “Vegetarianism and the Vedas”. It is a masterly work. You may google with this name, and you will immediately get the entire link. It is fantastic.|

        Once you have finished reading and understanding this, I can send you more

        • rahul r


          Yes. All books which favour your own biased views will be “masterly works”. Read it yourself and be happy. I care a damn for such books.

      • Avantika DRAVITH

        Hil, I might be considered as one of the hoppers that Shlok mentions. I am a Singaporean of Indian descent, currently a student in HKU. My whole family is an ardent follower of Swami Vivekanand.

        I think that the real beauty of our religion lies in the Upanishads and the Bhagwad Geeta, and this is exactly what Swamiji was preaching, especially the former.

        The Vedas are mystical and not easy to understand, but the message of the Upanishads, called as Vedant, are the essence of the Vedic knowledge. So, Swamiji was preaching this; he didn’t have to be aware of the Vedas.

        I think this site is too concentrated on the material realm and subjects, forgetting the essence of our Dharma is in its spirituality. The beginning of spiritual life is Atma – Darpan, knowing the self

        The soul is our real identity, as the Upanishads and Bhagwad Geeta declere

        Even Swamiji’s reference to beef-eating was not a statement, but as an example of the elasticity of Hindu beliefs. I don’t know whether ancient India consumed beef or not, but I am astounded on the interest on this subject by our critics. Even if ancient Hindus ate beef, so? They have not been having since the later Vedic texts and later scriptures, that is at least since 2,000+ years.

        In Vedic times, even women wore the sacred thread and were seers and scholars. Why not emulate that aspect, rather than raising this bogey of beef eating. It is beyond my comprehension

        Thanks for allowing me to write, Avantika

        • rahul r


          You are very correct. And that is the point I wanted to come to at the end.

          Assuming that there was beef-eating in the Vedas, how does that matter? In some later tradition it was abolished. And today we call the cow sacred. The story ends there. This would be a very sensible argument rather than just pushing across some mistranslations.

          And then just because I found a reference of beef-eating in the Vedas does not mean that I am preaching cow-slaughter or that I want people to start consuming beef. I myself am against killing of animals. So, if there is a reference to cow-slaughter in the Vedas, so what? Nobody is asking them to start that practice again. But let us not be blind to what is so visible and obvious.

          • Shlok

            @Rahul R, wow what lofty ideas? Of course, when you started or rather joined in the ‘debate’ you were not narrating such views. If at that time you had mentioned that ‘look our ancients ate beef, but since quite some time they don’t, and worship of cow is an integral Hindu tradition’ almost no one would have even felt offended. But read your earlier posts, and look the way that you write now.

          • Indian Realist

            Nothing is visible in Vedas about beef eating. It is mischevious translations by missionaries where a “bull” will be cleverly translated as “cow” and so on.

        • Shlok

          @Avantika, no surely persons like you are a bonus to this blog site, I am sure that all readers will agree. I agree with your views. You know what the subject matter is, and I concur with your views. Even to the point of beef eating, I had made it very clear – though persons like Rahul R were not around then – that I can’t understand the attempts to prove that our ancients ate beef. I had categorically stated that even if it was so, why should it become a propoganda for our foes? So, even now it is Rahul R or one of his friends who started this issue. Of course, I do not accept that the ancients ate beef, but yes I agree with you that even if they did, it should not be a big issue.

          Nowadays, at the tip of your fingers, one can come across all sorts of information. In those days, even when Hitler was massacring Jews, not many were aware. In a similar vein, many of our swamis of those days preached of all religions being equal, without actually reading other scriptures. However, now it is not difficult to for anyone to browse through the entire Bible

          So you are correct. I have read through the entire works of Swami Vivekanand. He was not an expert on the Vedas, but on the Upanishads. SImilarly, Dayanand Saraswati was an expert on the Vedas and probably not on the Puranas. Dayanand’s message was “Back to the Vedas”

          That’s why when I told Rahul R that Swamiji was not God, that is what I meant. Swamiji or others didn’t have access to the net like we do so today. Therefore, Swamiji was an expert in the field of his study, but not necessarily the entire scriptures that make up Hinduism

          BTW, I have lived for some years in Indore, and was a frequent traveller to Avantikapur – that is the ancient name of Ujjain. I don’t know if you are aware of your name’s connection with this most holy city

    • Jaipal

      @Rahul R,

      Sanskrit is of two types, namely Vaidika and Laukika.
      Vedic Sanskrit is the language of the Vedas whereas laukika Sanskrit
      is the language of the classical literature.

      The point is the words in the Vedic language have different
      meanings and usage/context when compared to the Classical
      Sanskrit. The Sanskrit dictionaries which you are consulting
      are largely of the classical sanskrit, not so much the Vedic.

      Sanskrit words can have multiple meanings too, depending on
      context/usage. The translations done by the swamis are based on
      the Vedic sources like Nighantu/Nirukta of the Vedic language and
      not the Classical Sanskrit. There is a difference between the two.

      • rahul r


        “Sanskrit has multiple meanings.” As if I never knew that.

        Anyways, in that case please find out all the meanings you can for the following Sanskrit words: महिषा, उक्ष, वशा

        You are free to refer to any dictionary – whether written by a Westerner, Easterner, Northerner, Southerner, Indian, non-Indian, Hindu, non-Hindu,

        And then check your own translation with the translation done by the so-called swamis in Jaipal’s link:

        And then bask in your own vainglory.

        • Shlok

          @Rahul R, please check this:

          Sanskrit English Meaning

          उक्ष Uksha Large

          उक्षन् Ukshan Large

          उक्षन् Ukshan Bull

          उक्षन् Ukshan One of the 8 chief medicaments

          उक्षति / -ते { उक्ष् } ukshati/ukhsha to throw out; emit seed; sprinkle; be strong; sprinkle or scatter in small drops; emit

          महिष Mahisha Buffalo; great; coming from or belonging to a buffalo; powerful; great priest; of a priest; sun; of a female apartment

          वशा Vasha Ewe; cow; any woman or wife; arani tree; species of plant;

          वृषभ Vrishabh Bull; ox; manly; mighty; vigorous; strong; velvet bean & at least 8 more meanings given

          • Shlok

            @Rahul R, your ‘check any dictionary’ the very 1st I found on the net, that I sent above, already has multiple meanings for Vrishabh and others. In your article to Jaipal yesteday, you had mentioned Vrishabh’s ONLY meaning is bull. Look, I have not read the link sent out by Jaipal, neverthless I have mentioned over here that when persons like you and Griffiths start translating poetry, the result is disastrous.

          • Ramesh

            महिष Mahisha Buffalo; great; coming from or belonging to a buffalo; powerful; great priest; of a priest; sun; of a female apartment
            उक्ष Uksha Large
            वशा Vasha Ewe; cow; any woman or wife;

            • rahul r


              Very well. Nice translation. You have got all the synonyms.

              Now, the next step is to see what you get when you put all of them together in one hymn RgVeda hymn X.91.14.

              The only common thing in all of these is “animals”. Plus, in the hymn you will also find “Mesh” which is a ram, again an animal.

              So, there you are. You have proved your own hypothesis wrong.
              Good Luck.

              • shankar

                Any animal means it may be cow or it may not be.

                • jo

                  Beef is a Culinary names , menu names , or kitchen names are
                  names of foods used in the preparation or selling of
                  food, as opposed to their names in agriculture or in
                  scientific nomenclature . The menu name may even
                  be different from the kitchen name. For example,
                  from the 19th until the mid-20th century, many
                  restaurant menus were written in French and not in
                  the local language.
                  Examples include veal ( calf), calamari (squid ),
                  scampi (Italian-American name for shrimp ), and
                  sweetbreads ( pancreas or thymus gland ). Culinary
                  names are especially common for fish and seafood,
                  where multiple species are marketed under a single
                  familiar name.

              • Shlok

                @Rahul R, I am also sending below excerpts from renowned Vedic scholar and translator of the Rig Veda, Prof. David Frawley, from renowned historian Sandhya Jain, and finally from the very person who translated X 91.14

                If we look at the whole of the Rig Veda, which is the oldest and the longest Vedic text (routinely said to be anywhere from 3500 to 5000 years old), the main Vedic offerings are ghee (ghrita), honey (madhu), Soma, milk (go, payas), yogurt (dadhi), grain (yava) and other plant and dairy products, which are mentioned hundreds of times. Soma, a plant juice, is said to be the supreme offering to the Gods.

                References to actual animal sacrifices do exist in the Rig Veda but are relatively few, only a handful, and even these are often highly symbolic. Animal sacrifice (pashu bandhu) is outlined in several Vedic texts as one of many different possible offerings, not as the main offering. Even so, the animal could only be killed along with special mantras and rituals. The killing of the bull is not mentioned as a type of pashu bandhu. The goat is the main animal used. A special horse sacrifice also existed (ashvamedha) but was a royal ritual taking an entire year to consecrate a single animal for the sacrifice, not a common article of food!

                (David Frawley)

                Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?
                Author: Sandhya Jain
                Publication: Deccan Herald
                Date: December 20, 2001

                Under the pretext of disseminating true knowledge about the past to young, impressionable school children, a perverse assault has been launched upon the religious sensitivities of the Hindu community. Marxist historians allege that ancient Hindus ate beef, that this is recorded in their sacred scriptures, and that this should be taught to school children. The Hindu prohibition on cow slaughter, they say, is a more recent development and Hindus are shying away from this truth because it is intimately linked with their sense of identity.

                A Marxist specialist on ancient India, ignorant in both Vedic and Panini ‘s Sanskrit, claims that the Shatapatha Brahmana and Vasistha Dharmasutra clearly state that guests were honoured by serving beef. She also cites archaeological evidence as reported by H.D. Sankalia. While the lady thinks her evidence is irrefutable, I have decided to pick up the gauntlet.

                To begin with, the Shatapatha Brahmana is Yajnavalkya’s commentary on the Yajur Veda, and not a revealed text. As for the Vasistha Dharmasutra, the legendary Sanskritist, late P.V. Kane, said, “beyond the name Vasistha there is hardly anything special in the dharmasutra to connect it with the Rgveda.” Kane also added, “grave doubts have been entertained about the authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas.Dh.S. as the mss. (manuscripts) contain varying numbers of chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly corrupt in several places. many verses.bear the impress of a comparatively late age.” Kane tentatively places this text between 300-100 B.C., that is, long after the end of the Vedic age.

                According to archaeologists, the early Vedic age tentatively falls between the fourteen century BC to the first millennium BC. The later Vedic period lies between 1000 BC to 600-700 BC. But if we go by astronomical dating of some of the hymns, we get a period of 7000 BC for a portion of the Vedas.

                The honest question, however, is whether the Vedas offer evidence about cow slaughter and beef-eating, and if not, how the controversy arose in the first place. A few clarifications are in order before we proceed. The word ‘cow’ (gau), for instance, is used throughout the Vedas in diverse senses, and, depending on the context of the verse, could mean the animal cow, waters, sun-rays, learned persons, Vedic verses, or Prithvi (earth as Divine Mother).

                Then, Vedic society was heterogeneous, pluralistic, and non-vegetarian. In theory, it is possible that the cow was killed and eaten. The fact, however, is that throughout the Vedas the cow is called a non-killable animal, or “aghnya.” According to “An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles” (Vol. I, Deccan College, Poona), “aghnya” means “not to be killed or violated” and is used for cows and for waters in the presence of which oaths were taken.

                The Rig and Sama Veda call the cow “aghnya” and “Aditi”, ie. not to be murdered (Rig 1-64-27; 5-83-8; 7-68-9; 1-164-40; 8-69-2; 9-1-9; 9-93-3; 10-6-11; 10-87-16). They extol the cow as un-killable, un-murderable, whose milk purifies the mind and keeps it free from sin. Verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who kills a cow. The Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16) for such a crime; the Rig Veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15).

                Hence, it seems unlikely that the cow would be slaughtered to entertain guests, as claimed by Marxist historians. But before coming to any conclusion, the archaeological evidence should also be examined. Archaeologists have excavated bones of cattle in huge quantity, “cattle” is a collective noun which includes the cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all other bovine animals. Nowhere in the world can experts differentiate between the bones of cows and other cattle recovered from excavations.

                There are good reasons for this difficulty. Most of the bones found are not whole carcasses, but large pieces of limbs. Experts feel that these could be the remains of animals that died naturally and were skinned for their hide and bones. Ancient man used bones to make knives and other tools; the splintered bones found could be part of the tool-making exercise. In all honesty, therefore, cattle bone finds do not prove cow slaughter or the eating of cow meat, especially when all literary evidence points in the opposite direction.

                There has been talk about cut-marks on the bones. But apart from tool-making, even if a tanner skins dead cattle for the hide, he will inflict cut marks on the carcass. Scientifically, it is not possible to say if the marks on the bones are ante-mortem or post-mortem. This can be determined only where the body is intact (animal or human), by analyzing blood vessels, tissue, rigor mortis and other factors.

                Fortunately, there is now clinching evidence why the Marxist claim on cow-flesh rests on false premises. As already stated, the allegation rests mainly on literary sources and their interpretation, and we are in a position to trace the source of the mischief – the Vachaspatyam of Pandit Taranath and his British mentors.

                Pandit Taranath, a professor of grammar at the Calcutta Sanskrit College, compiled a six-volume Sanskrit-to-Sanskrit dictionary, which is used by scholars to this day. The Vachaspatyam is a valuable guide for scholars because there are certain words in the samhita (mantra) section of the Vedas that are not found later in the Puranas.

                What most Sanskrit scholars have failed to notice is that Taranath artfully corrupted the meanings of a few crucial words of the Vedic samhita to endorse the meaning given by Max Muller in his translation of the Vedas. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has exposed this beautifully in “The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism” (Motilal Banarsidass).

                The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the Rig Veda “in such a scornful manner that Hindus themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of the Vedas,” while a Hindu pandit would “compile an elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic mantras.” As Hindus would not question a dictionary by a Hindu pandit, the British would be able to claim that whatever Max Muller wrote about the Vedas was according to the dictionary of the Hindus.

                Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words – goghn and ashvamedh. “Goghn” means a guest who receives a cow as gift. Panini created a special sutra to establish the rule that goghn will only mean the receiver of a cow (and will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath ignored Panini’s injunction and wrote that “goghn” means “the killer of a cow.” He similarly converted the ashvamedh yagna from ‘ritual worship of the horse’ to the “killing of the horse.”

                The Swami proves the British hand in this mischief through the patronage given to Taranath by the Government of Bengal in 1866, when Lt. Governor Sir Cecil Beadon sanctioned ten thousand rupees for two hundred copies of his dictionary. This was a king’s ransom in those days, as even in the 1930s the headmaster of a vernacular primary school received a salary of twenty rupees a month. Today, ten thousand rupees is the equivalent of two million rupees.

                When the basic premise upon which all modern translations rest is thus knocked off its pedestal, what beef is left in the theory that Vedic Hindus enjoyed the flesh of the cow? I rest my case.


                The same H H Wilson whose translation you use for X.91.14, also writes the following about the cow in the Rig Veda, “She (the cow) is the mother of Rudras, the daughter of the Vasus, the sister of the Adityas, the home of the ambrosia (amrita) – I have spoken to men of understanding – kill not her, the sinless inviolate cow”

                • Shlok

                  @Rahul R, from the above, you can see I am quoting from diverse sources, including from the same Wilson who claims that cows were slaugthered in one place, and says that they should not be killed in another place.

                  I think that rather than both of us forcing each other to accept each others viewpoints, I appreciate your response to Avantika.
                  So, your contention is that beef was eaten at one time according to the Vedas, but then according to the very same Vedas it was prohibited. And then since time immemorial, the cow has been held sacred.
                  My contention is that beef was never eaten in ancient India, and that is so throughout our scriptures and the cow is still sacred
                  So, the commonality is that finally, the Srutis do prohibit eating of beef, either throughout (as mainstream Hindus claim) or at a later stage (as you claim). But that’s ok.

                  The only other bone of contention is your using abusive word about the Holy Vedas and then defending it by saying that you believed all other holy books of other religions were the same. However, this is by and large a Hindu believers site and you offend believing Hindus by such statements
                  So, if you can desist from that, I don’t think there would be any problems to your expressing your opinion. We don’t need to make it look like a war. Definitely you are better than persons like Cynical and Makarand Insane who hate Hindu values, whereas you have yourself spoken of your admiration for Swami Vivekanand

              • shankar

                The Rig Veda (10.87.16-19) speaks about the flesh of the cattle and the horses:
                The fiend who smears himself with flesh of cattle, with flesh of horses and of human bodies,
                Who steals the milch-cow’s milk away, O Agni,—tear off the heads of such with fiery fury.

                The cow gives milk each year, O Man-regarder let not the Yātudhāna ever taste it.
                If one would glut him with the biesting, Agni, pierce with thy flame his vitals as he meets thee.

                Let the fiends drink the poison of the cattle; may Aditi cast off the evildoers.
                May the God Savitar give them up to ruin, and be their share of plants and herbs denied them.

                Agni, from days of old thou slayest demons never shall Rākṣasas in fight o’ercome thee.
                Burn up the foolish ones, the flesh-devourers let none of them escape thine heavenly arrow.

                — Rig Veda (10.87.16-19)

                Some consider this as a disapproval of the cow slaughter and meat eating in general.
                Others put it in the context of demons and evil spirits (Yātudhāna) stealing the cattle and the milk, and mention that the beef eating was common in the Vedic times.
                Multiple Rigvedic verses, contain references to the slaughter of cattle, horses and other animals, as well as meat eating; however, translation is debated:

                • jo

                  The concept that ‘a purely vegetarian diet is an indication of spiritual progress and an advanced culture’ is a later development in India. Even ascetic Brahmans were not strict vegetarians

                  • ravi

                    Meat eaters have always been looked down in Vedic literature. They have been known as Rakshasas, Pisacha( pisita [meat] +asa [eater]—the meat eater)and so on….
                    All these words are synonyms of demons or devils that have been out-cast from the civilized human society.

                  • ravi

                    And ….Ravana ….. ascetic Brahman…..a Rakshasa…a Demon king is also well known.

                    • singh

                      Brahmins are not from a single ethnic stock. As various tribes and communities were assimilated into the Hindu social structure, each tribe’s shaman or medicine man or priest or philosopher would be accepted as a Brahmin, while their ruler would become a Kshatriya, and things like that. That’s why South Indian and Bengali Brahmins are significantly darker skinned than north-west Indians – there has clearly been a lot of gene flow into the brahmin pool. This would result in higher IQ genes flowing into the brahmin pool.

                • ravi

                  Yes… meat eating was common among Rakshasas, Pisacha( pisita [meat] +asa [eater]—the meat eater),demons and evil spirits (Yātudhāna) in the Vedic described in Rig Veda (10.87.16-19)

                • ravi

                  A Rakshasa is said to be a mythological humanoid being or unrighteous spirit in Hinduism. As mythology made its way into other religions, the rakshasa was later incorporated into Buddhism. Rakshasas are also called man-eaters (Nri-chakshas, Kravyads). A female rakshasa is called a Rakshasi, and a female Rakshasa in human form is a Manushya-Rakshasi. Often Asura and Rakshasa are interchangeably used.
                  Name of famous Rakshasa

            • rahul r

              By the way, when I said that the ONLY meaning is so and so, it means that what we can put in context. So, you see the context and then you do the translation. Use all the permutations and combinations of the meanings you mentioned here and translate RgVeda hymn X.91.14.When there is clearly an “Ahuti” in RgVeda hymn X.91.14 and so many animals mentioned, you are obviously not going to consider “vasha” as a “woman” or “wife”; or “mahish” as female apartment.
              Thanks, anyways for your scholarly attempts.

              • Shlok

                @Rahul R, you forgot that Vasha also means the arani tree or species of plant. Today, I was going through another site and vasha is mentioned as fat, butter.
                Whatever the case, even talking about the passage as such, why is it that if they were offered to Agni, they were to be slaughtered? Agni, the God of fire, is represented as a person, just like the great Indra, the God of rains is also a person. So, if at all these animals are being offered to Agni, so why should we think they are being killed? In ancient times, cows were being offered to Brahimins. It was not for slaughter.
                For sure, throughtout the Vedas, bull is used to describe strength. Gau does not only denote cow the animal, but also earth, learned person, sun rays, etc.. so the Vedas are not some kind of narrative scriptures like the Ramayana or Mahabharat, or even the Bible or Quran. The Vedas are mystical, they are symobolic, they are poetic.

  23. karan

    Yasmintsarvaani bhutaanyaatmaivaabhuudvijaanatah
    Tatra ko mohah kah shokah ekatvamanupasyatah
    Yajurveda 40.7

    “Those who see all beings as souls do not feel infatuation or anguish at their sight, for they experience oneness with them”.
    How could people who believed in the doctrines of indestructibility, transmigration dare to kill living animals in yajnas? They might be seeing the souls of their own near and dear ones of bygone days residing in those living beings.

    • karan

      In Hinduism, yajña (yagya or yadnya) or yagam is a ritual of offerings accompanied by chanting of Vedic mantras (also “worship, prayer, praise, offering and oblation, sacrifice” ) derived from the practice in Vedic times. Yajna is an ancient ritual of offering and sublimating the havana sámagri (herbal preparations) in the fire. The sublime meaning of the word yajna is derived from the Sanskrit verb yaj, which has a three-fold meaning of worship of deities (devapujana), unity (saògatikaraña) and charity (dána).

      An essential element is the ritual fire – the divine Agni – into which oblations are poured, as everything that is offered into the fire is believed to reach God. The term yajna is linguistically (but not functionally) cognate with Zoroastrian (Ahura) Yasna.

      Rituals associated with temple worship in Hinduism are called agamic, while those involving communication with divinity through Agni are considered to be Vedic.

      Temple rites in modern-day Hinduism are a combination of both Vedic and agamic rituals. The ritualistic portion of the Hindu scriptures is called Karma-Kanda.

    • som


      The Agamas (not Vaidic) are a collection of Sanskrit,Tamil and Grantha scriptures chiefly constituting the methods of temple construction and creation of idols, worship means of deities, philosophical doctrines, meditative practices, attainment of sixfold desires and four kinds of yoga.

      The Agamic(not Vaidic) religions are also called Tantrism, although the term ‘tantra’ is sometimes used specifically to refer to Shakta Agamas. The origin and chronology of Agamic religions remain contentious. The tantras are considered innumerable with various sects.

      Some popular agama(not Vaidic)-based religions are those of Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta, Ganapatya, Kaumara, Soura, Bhairava, and Yaksha-bhutadi-sadhana.

      The Shaiva Agamas(not Vaidic) revere the Ultimate Reality as Lord Shiva (Shaivism). The Vaishnava-Agamas (not Vaidic)adore the Ultimate Reality as Vishnu (Vaishnavism). The Shakta-Agamas(not Vaidic) (Tantras) venerate the Ultimate Reality as Shakti(not Vaidic) (Shaktism). Each set of texts expands on the central theological and philosophical teachings of that sect. There exist 28 Saiva Agamas(not Vaidic), 77 Shakta Agamas (not Vaidic)and 215 Vaishnava Agamas(not Vaidic), and their upa-agamas(not Vaidic).


      Agamas(not Vaidic) have been dated either as post-vedic texts or as pre-vedic compositions. In the Malay language the word Agama (not Vaidic)literally means ‘religion’.

      Agama(not Vaidic) traditions have been the sources of Yoga and Self Realization concepts in the Indian subcontinent, including Kundalini Yoga and encompass traditions of asceticism.

      Tantrism(not Vaidic) includes within its fold Buddhist(not Vaidic) and Jaina(not Vaidic) tantras suggesting that Hindu, Jaina(not Vaidic) and Buddhist(not Vaidic) tantrism developed separately after arising from common sources of Tantric (not Vaidic)elements.

      The Agamic(not Vaidic) tradition, in general, has been dated to the pre-Mauryan period as references to the tradition are found in later vedic literature of Atharvaveda.

      The agama tradition is often contrasted with the nigama tradition; the latter possibly a reference to the unchanging vedic tradition.

      The Hinduism of today is in many way a blending of agama and nigama approaches.


      • Harish

        Well said.
        Veda means knowledge, perfect knowledge, either material or spiritual.


        nigama-kalpa-taror galitaṁ phalam idam (SB 1.1.3).


        Kalpa-taru. Kalpa-taru means desire tree. Desire tree… We have got experience; from the mango tree we get mango, and from coconut tree we get coconut. But desire tree means whatever you want, you can get. Even you can get purīs and halavā from the tree. that is called desire tree.

        So the Vedic literature is called nigama-kalpa-taru. Nigama, Vedic literature, desire tree, kalpa-taru, taru, kalpa-taru.

        In the Vedic literature every knowledge is there.

        Veda means knowledge, perfect knowledge, either material or spiritual.



        • Ramesh

          Let us understand that the Vedas have NOT been written at once and by one person.

          They are a collection of hymns AGAMA AND NIGAMA APPROACHES gathered over centuries.
          It is therefore obvious that the later Vedic period NIGAMA may have a different ideology compared with the early Vedic AGAMA ones.

          The very fact in Yajurveda 40.7,Manusmrithi 5.51,Atharvaveda 6.140.2,Atharvaveda 8.6.23,Atharvaveda 10.1.29,Yajurveda 1.1,Yajurveda 6.11,Yajurveda 14.8,Yajurveda 11.83“stop cow sacrifice” itself means “at least some people were doing AGAMA that in the early Vedic period”.

          Why else would they feel the need for prohibition of AGAMA ?

          It is because men do evil that the saints have to say “Stop evil. Don’t kill. Don’t hurt.”
          Had man never done evil or killed or hurt, the saints would not have needed to say all this.


          This knowledge has only strengthened our belief that the Vedas do not contain references to cow slaughter.
          This knowledge is sufficient for enlightening us.

  24. Ramesh

    As you know Sanskrit ,so you could understand about the great efforts of Vedas to removing bad traditions.
    May be you will disagree with rahul r about some mis-interpretations.
    If you donot know Sanskrit , then also you could understand that series of reforms took place through books.
    In Yajurveda lot of hymns avialable against animal sacrifice.

  25. Jaipal

    @Rahul R,

    Even if we take into account that some animal sacrifices were
    practised, it does not mean that meat eating in Vedic India was a
    way of life, practised everyday or encouraged by the Vedic tradition.
    Sacrifices were done only on some special occassions.

    For example. Ashvamedha yaga, was not an everyday ritual.
    It was only done on some special occassions, when a King was
    desirous of building an empire and subordinating his rivals.
    It was not a common way of life practised by the majority of people
    in the Vedic period.

    So for practical purposes, meat eating is not really encouraged as an
    everyday practise by the Vedas for the Hindu faithful.

    • raj

      And…Ashvamedha yagya….totally stopped.

    • rahul r


      At the very outset, I want to thank you both for participating in such a healthy debate. Of all the people who debated with me, I could find your replies the most sensible and pertinent (no ill-feelings for others). Honestly, there was no real intention of malice in any of my comments, and Shlok, as you rightly pointed out some of my remarks on the Vedas were admittedly derogatory. I would like to request the administrator / moderator of this site to kindly delete any such remarks as deemed fit, as there was no real intention to hurt anyone’s sentiments.

      Irrespective of whether there are or there are not (as you claim) references to beef-eating and cow-slaughter in the Vedas, it is definitely undisputed that in the long run, the cow was deemed sacred and cow-slaughter was officially banned. The real point is even if there are a few acute references to cow-slaughter or beef-eating in the Vedas, how does that matter? And even if there are such references, hasn’t this religion metamorphosed from this primitive practice into becoming a highly sophisticated philosophical system? Isn’t that a mark of progress? Doesn’t that signify that we have had a generation of forward-thinkers several millennia back who could salvage the society from such crude practices and deliver them to the loftiest thoughts and ideals as could be found in the Upanishads? Are the foundations of this religion so fickle that the religion would crumble like a house of cards if there are such references in the Vedas ?

      At present, I am doing my doctoral studies on Vishishta Advaita Siddhanta (Ramanuja and Bodhayana). Of course, whatever I wrote here has nothing to do with it but my comments here were a part of my own research done a few years back with some of my fellow-researchers. We had stayed in Pune for quite some time to refer several ancient books and treatises available at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. So what was presented here about the Vedas was only a part of that research.

      However, when I reached the conclusion of my research a couple of years back, I did not feel ashamed or insulted. On the contrary, I felt proud. Not of my research or of my findings, but of the broad-mindedness and tolerance shown by the later Vedic seers by taking it upon themselves to challenge crude customs and accommodate refined ones in their place. Needless to say, these were definitely for the welfare of the society. How many of the existing religions (fraught with bigots and zealots) can boast of such refinements in thinking, challenging their own age-old beliefs?

      Thank you once again and please forgive me if I have hurt any of your sentiments.

      • nitin the philosopher


        Good thoughts. Praise be with you.


      • pradeep kumar


        You are right. We are tolerant and broadminded from ancient times. And we are ready for new things and throw out customs no longer beneficial to society. Good point and well-expressed.

      • Shlok

        @Rahul R, I appreciate your response. Yes of course, engaging in healthy debates has always been an integral part of our culture. A ‘closed – door society’ which doesn’t tolerate any other viewpoint has been the hallmark of the Semitic faiths. OK, I am glad that we have no quarrels, just different opinions. I am also a great follower of Swami Vivekanand. Whatever happened happened, let bygones be bygones

      • anil kumar sinha

        Rahulr, you have explained the beauty of our religion so nicely sir. well said and good luck to you.

  26. karan


    This shlok of Rig Veda (10.87.16-19) is related
    to man-eater ,beef eater Rakshasa (clearly mentioned) of Vaidic times.

  27. som

    Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu’s first duty in fulfilling religious obligations to God and God’s creation as defined by Vedic scripture. Many Hindus believe this law also pertains to all living animals and therefore a third of Hindus are vegetarian.

    Under the belief of karmic consequences all of our actions, including our choice of food, have Karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.

    “The fiend who smears himself with flesh of cattle, with flesh of horses and of human bodies, Who steals the milch-cow’s milk away, O Agni,—tear off the heads of such with fiery fury.”
    -Rig Veda 10.87.16-19

  28. Hariharan

    Every Hindu should feel proud. about the reformist approach within the system of Hinduism for the welfare of society.
    Hinduism always accommodates and shares
    good thoughts to other religions.

    Other religion should learn this thing from our
    religion I.e.way of life.

  29. You undoubtedly really really know what your are doing, you’ve included a significant number of bases. Love! %KW%

  30. Thanks a great deal for discussing this with everybody you truly recognise what you are speaking approximately! I’m impressed, I need to declare. Rarely do I strike a site that’s equally educative and intriguing, and without a doubt, you’ve hit the nail to the head. stressful situation


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s