TruthaboutHinduism

Answering Hinduism
https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/onvedic-deities/
Skip to content

HOME

ABOUT

LIST OF ARTICLES

On Vedic Deities
Written by Mushafiq Sultan
Every Sookt (hymn) of the Vedas has a distinct Devata (deity) and a Rishi (poet). The Devata of a
Sookt is one whose praises have been sung in that Sookt. For example, the Rishi of the first ten
hymns of Rigveda is Madhuchanda Vishvamitra and the Devata of the first hymn is Agni. The
subsequent hymns have Vaayu, Indra, etc as their Devatas.
According to Nirukt, the authentic glossary of Vedas,
Deva is

(so called) from making gifts (da) or from being brilliant (dip), from being radiant (dyut),
or because his sphere is heaven. He who is called deva is also calleddevata. [Nirukt 7:15]
How important is it to know the Devata of a hymn? This can be evaluated from the following
statement of Nirukt 7:4.
The stanzas whose deity is not specified, such stanzas belong to the same deity to whom that
particular sacrifice, or a part of the sacrifice, is offered. Now, elsewhere than the sacrifice, they
belong to Prajapati according to the ritualists; and to Narasamsa according to the
etymologists.
The importance of Devatas can also be inferred from the fact that there is no Sookt in the Vedas
which is not addressed to a Devata or in which supplication is not made to a Devata. The
classical understanding of the Devatas is that they possess intellect and are superior to humans.

Number of Devatas, Their Categories and Their Attributes

In all four Vedas, nearly 400 Devatas have been mentioned. In common undertanding their
number is said to be 330 million. Rigveda alone contains the names of 171 Devatas (see Devata
Parichay, by Shri Damodar Satvalekar). The mention of 33 Devatas is found at many places in the
Vedas, out of which, 11 are of the earth, 11 of mid-air and 11 of sky.
The number of Devatas generally found in Hindu Pantheon is 33. For example, Rigveda 1:34:11
says,
Come, O Nasatyas, with the thrice-eleven Gods; come, O Asvins, to the drinking of the
oblation. Make long our days of life, and wipe out all our sins: ward off our enemies; be with us
evermore.
Similarly it is mentioned in Rigveda 8:30:2,
|
||

Thus be ye lauded, ye destroyers of the foe, ye Three-and-Thirty Deities, The Gods of man, the
Holy Ones. Rigveda 3:6:9

Agni bring hither according to thy wont and gladden the three and thirty gods with their wives
A similar mantra is found in Atharvaved 20:13:4.
According to their places of residence, Devatas have been divided into three types.

prithvisthaani or

terrestrial e.g. Agni

madhyasthaani or

dyosthaani or

aerial e.g. Indra

celestial e.g. Surya

This classification is found in the Vedas as well as in Yaskas Nirukta (7:5) where he says
There are three deities according to the expounders of the Veda. viz. Agni, whose place is on the
earth; Vayu, or Indra, whose place is in the air; and Surya (the sun), whose place is in the sky.

These deities receive severally many appellations, in consequence of their greatness, or of the
diversity of their functions.
Rigveda 1:139:11 says,

O ye Eleven Gods whose home is heaven, O ye Eleven who make earth your dwelling, Ye who
with might, Eleven, live in waters, accept this sacrifice, O Gods, with pleasure.
Rigveda 8:35:3 states,

Aswins, associated with all the thrice eleven gods, with the Waters, the Maruts, the Bhrigus,
and united with the Dawn and the Sun, drink the Soma.
It is impossible to state with confidence who these 33 were, as not only was not the highest
Hindu authority on this subject able to make up his mind with regard to it, but in these very
mantras we see that the 33 did not include all the gods. We read of Agni and the 33 ; the
Aswins and the 33; the 33 and the Maruts, the Dawn, and the Sun all of whom were regarded
and worshipped as distinct independent divinities. This number of thirty-three gods is in the
Shatapatha Brahmana (iv. 5, 7, 2) explained as made up of 8 Vasus, 11 Rudras, and 12 Adityas,
together with Dyaus and Prithivi (Heaven and Earth), while Prajapati makes a thirty-fourth.
However, in a contradictory description, of the same Shatapath Brahmana (xi, 6, 3, 5), Heaven
and Earth are included in the Vasus, while Indra and Prajapati are the 32nd and 33rd respectively.
Thus, there is no consistency in the accounts.
This enumeration could scarcely have been the one contemplated in the hymns, as we have seen
that one of the texts above quoted (Rigveda 1:139:11) assigns eleven deities, who must probably
have been all of the same class, to each of the three spheres, sky, air, and earth. It is also clear
that this number of thirty-three gods could not have embraced the whole of the Vedic deities, as
in some of the preceding texts Agni and the Asvins are separately specified, as if distinct from
the thirty-three. Farther, Indra could not have been, in the opinion of the author of the Shatapath
Brahmana, at least as expressed in this passage, xi. 6, 3, 5, one of the twelve Adityas (as he was

regarded at a later period), since he is separately specified as making up the number of thirtythree gods.
This number thirty three is not all. A much larger number is mentioned in other mantras as
follows,

Three times a hundred gods and thrice a thousand and three times ten and nine have
worshipped Agni. [Rigveda 3:9:9]
The same number is mentioned in Rigveda 10:52:6 and Shukla Yajurveda 33:7.
These devatas are not only residents on earth, air and sky but also dwell in various parts of plants
and animals. For example, Atharvaveda 1:30:3 says,

All Gods who dwell on earth or in the heavens, in air, within the plants, the cows, the waters.
Grant this man life to full old age, and let him escape the hundred other ways of dying.
In another passage (Rigveda 1:27:13) the gods are spoken of as divided into great and small,
young and old.

Veneration to the great gods, veneration to the small gods : veneration to the young, veneration
to the old. We worship (all) the gods as well as we are able; May I not omit the praise of the
elder divinities.
This distinction, however, is contradicted in another passage, Rigveda 8:30:1

None of you, o gods, is small or young. You are all great.

Origin of Devatas

In the Rigveda the Devatas are spoken of as immortal. For example Rigveda 1:24:1 says,

Of whom, or of which divinity of the immortals, shall we invoke the auspicious name ? Who
will give us to the great Aditi, that I may again behold my father and my mother?
Rigveda 10:65:15 says,
|
||

Immortal Gods have I, Vasistha, lauded, Gods set on high above all other beings. May they this
day grant us widely-famed food: you Gods, preserve us evermore with blessings.
The following references of Rigveda also mention gods as immortal. 1:72:2, 1:72:10, 1:189:3,
3:4:11, 3:21:1, 7:11:1 etc.
However, totally contradictory passages describe them as being the offspring of Heaven and
Earth, as we shall see. In Rigved 1:113:19, Usha, the Dawn, is charaterized as the mother of all
gods (devaanaam maataa).
|
||

In Rigved 2::26:3, Brahmanaspati is called their father (devaanaam pitaram).

 |
||

In Rigved 9:87:2, Soma is said to be the father and skilful GENERATOR of the gods (pitaa
devaanaam janitaa sudakshah).
|
||

In Rigved 9:96:5, the same deity is described as the generator of Heaven, Earth, Agni, Surya, Indra
and
Vishnu (janitaa
divo
janitaa
prithviyaah
janitaa
Agner
janitaa Suryasya janitaa Indrasya janitota Vishnoh)
|
||

The birth of Indra is mentioned in various places, speaking of his father and mother, thought they
are not named. For example, Rigved 4:17:4 says

Some portion of (his strength) Indra derives from his mother, some portion from his father: he
who through his progenitor, has begotten (the world), and animates its vigour repeatedly, as the
wind is driven by thundering clouds.
See also Rigved 8:45:4; 8:66:1 and 10:134:1.
In Rigved 6:59:2, Indra and Agni are said to have had one generator and to be twin-brothers
(samaano vaamjanitaa bhrataraa yuvam yamaav ihehamaataraa).

Atharvaved 1:30:2 speaks of some of the gods being fathers and others being sons ( ye vo devaah
pitaro ye cha putraah sachetaso me shrinuta idam uktam).
In Rigved 4:54:2 and Yajurved 33:54 it is said that Savitri bestows immortality on the gods
(devebhyo
hi
prathamam
yajniyebhyo
amritatvam
suvasi
bhaagam uttamam).

However, in Rigved 6:7:4, Agni, by his power or skill, is said to confer immortality on the gods,
who worship him when he is born like an infant and shines forth from out of his parents ( tvaam
visve amrita jaayamaanam sisum na devaah abhi sam navante . tava kratubhir amritatvam aayan vaisvaanara yat
pitror adeedeh).
Even further in Rigveda 9:106:8, the gods are said to drink Soma to attain immortality ( tvaam
vaaso amritaaya kam papuh).
Their powers and prerogatives

The gods can do whatever they will; no mortal, however hostile his disposition, can thwart their
designs (Rigved. 8:28:4. Yathaa vasanti devaas tad id asat tad esham nakir aa minat. araavaa chana
marttyah). The same is said of the Maruts in Rigveda 8:20:17; and of Indra in Rigveda 8:50:4 and
8:55:4.
It is similarly declared in Rigved 3:56:1, that no one, however skilful and wise, can impede the
first and firm decrees of the gods (naa taaminanti mayino na dheeraah vrataa devaanaam prathamaa
dhruvaani).
Rigved 10:65:15 says that they have dominion over all creatures (Devaan Vasishtho amritaan vavande
ye visvaa bhuvanoo abhi pratasthuh). They are supplicated in Rigved 8:30:3, not to lead the
worshippers far away from the paths of their ancestor Manu (maa nah pathah pitryaad maanavaad adhi
dooram naishta paraavatah).
The gods reward their pious worshippers and punish those who neglect their service: Rigveda
8:2:18. (Ichhanti devaah sunvantam na svapnaaya sprihayanti ). The gods desire a man who pours out
libations, they do not love sleep.
I have here endeavoured to, collect such characteristics and attributes as are in the Veda ascribed
to the gods collectively. In the subsequent articles I will attempt to bring forward the qualities
and functions attributed to each deity. In view of what has been discussed so far, one can easily
see pagan concepts of gods permeating the entire Vedas with a host of contradictions and myths.
Rate
Aboutthis:
these ads

1 Vote
Share this:

Twitter

Facebook


Related

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

What is Hinduism?In "General"
999 Sukta's Lost,Still No Textual Corruption In Vedas?In "General"
This entry was posted in General and tagged 33 crore gods, arya samaj, bible, hinduism, pagan deities,polytheism, polytheism
in vedas, purana, quran, Scripture, upanishad, vedas, zakir naik on January 2, 2014.
Post navigation

?Vedic Paradise: An Overview

AUTHORS

truthabouthinduism

CHECK LIST OF ARTICLES FOR LATEST POSTS

Search for:
Search

CATEGORIES

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

https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/response-to-no-corruption-invedas-2/

TruthaboutHinduism

Answering Hinduism
Skip to content

HOME

ABOUT

LIST OF ARTICLES

Response to No Corruption in Vedas

Written by Mushafiq Sultan
The once upon a time stories do not appeal to me anymore. Pick up any such story and it is a
pure fiction. No wonder kids love such stories. Agniveers latest response (should it be even
called a response) is purely fictional, a castle of lies to deceive the ordinary people and a
desperate attempt to repair his lost credibility. The so-called response deals more with teaching
ways of mockery than a serious response to our research article. By addressing about half of the
article to senseless insults, he hoped to distract his blind followers from the seriousness of our
article. He invents some Panchatantra stories which have no space in a scholarly discussion. I
do not have this time and energy to write similar stuff. I only concern myself to what is being
said, instead of who is saying it.
The lies of Agniveer start outright when he says,
A recent attempt has been by writing articles based on extremely outdated claims to prove that Vedas are also
textually corrupted. We initially chose to ignore this long-rejected stupid research. We thought that someone else
would counter it along with flat-earth theory while we focus on other prominent tasks. But considering the
widespread promotion that is being provided to this viewpoint by petro-dollar power holders, we thought to have at
least a short analysis debunking the myth. Because in an era of misinformation, truth is often nothing but a lie
shouted thousand times!

Did Agniveer really ignore my article? I published my article on March 16, 2011. There was a
consternation in the Vedic camp. See the comments section of Agniveer. Then, I made a video on
the main points of my article. The video can be seen here. Since Agniveer is no scholar of the
Vedas, he must have tried first to somehow refute me. When he couldnt he appealed more
knowledgeable Arya Samajis for help. Agniveer started a new separate thread in the Arya Samaj
community on orkut. Here is the link to the thread.
http://www.orkut.co.in/CommMsgs?cmm=146924&tid=5600429116996922782
As you can see Agniveer desperately appealing for help from his associates. The associates,
being more wise than Agniveer, felt the gravity of my arguments. One associate advised
Agniveer not to be hasty and come to Bilaspur and learn the Vedas properly. But Alas, Agniveer,
who is an IIT pass-out considered it below his dignity to go and learn the Vedas properly. The
hasty rebuttal he has published on his website clearly exposes his shallow knowledge of the
Vedas.

You can also notice in the link given above, that there is a lot of infighting among Hindus on the
exact nature of shaakhaas (branches). They started to cut each others viewpoints and poke fun at
each other. If the very brains to whom Agniveer went begging for help could not solve the
problem, you can imagine of what quality the borrowed rebuttal of Agniveer would be.
Agniveer is so scared of our website that he dared not mention the source article which he was
refuting. He never mentioned my name. This speaks volumes of the spirit inculcated in him by
the Vedas. At least he should have let his audience know what he is refuting. Instead he chose to
paraphrase my arguments so that they look ordinary. Agniveer hopes to keep his blind followers
in the dark. But for how long. The wind of truth will soon blow apart the structure of lies.
Ignoring the unnecessary rants of Agniveer, I would directly go into the subject and expose the
asinine arguments of Agniveer.
What is the total number of Vedas?

Agniveer has resorted to mighty deception to somehow do away with this vital question which
will shake the very foundations of the Arya Dharma/Hinduism call it what you like. It seems that
this IIT pass-out has to be taught the fundamentals of counting. Let me give you an example, to
rip apart his tapestry of deception.
Agniveer wrote,
If you consider only knowledge, Vedas is only 1. If you consider Para and Aparaknowledge (liberating and
mundane knowledge), then Vedas are 2. If you focus onKnowledge, Action and Contemplation, Vedas are 3. If you
consider Rik, Yajuh, Sama, Atharva, Vedas are 4. If you consider each mandala of Rigveda as separate, then there
are 10 Rigvedas. Similarly we have 40 Yajurvedas. If you take each mantra as a different Veda, you have more than
20,000 Vedas.
So number does not matter. They all point to same set of mantras.

What deception?
Consider the letters of the English alphabet. How many letters are there in the English alphabet?
Every good student will answer 26. But one IIT pass-out says, it depends. If you consider
onlyalphabet there is only 1. If you consider vowels and consonants there are 2. If you consider the
English alphabet there are 17. If you consider a, e, i, o, u there are 5. If you consider b, c, d, f, g, h, j,
k, l, m, n, p, q, r, s, t, v, w, x, y, z there are 21.
So number does not matter. They all point to the same set of letters.
Does not this IIT pass-out need to be sacked from his job immediately if he is employed? Should
not his degree be declared fraudulent? Is this man not a danger to society who can sell his
integrity to defend some primitive texts? He cannot even differentiate between the words
number and type. This simpleton IIT pass-out has been so shocked by our research that he
has lost all sense. I had heard a joke on engineers, but did not know that engineer was the great
Agniveer himself.

Ques: Prove that 2/10=2.

Art student : Out of syllabus
Commerce student : Question hi galat hai
Medical student : Its strange yaar, ye kaise ho sakta hai?
Agniveer : It is very easy
2=two
10=ten,
Therefore, 2/10 = two/ten
cancelling (t) we get

wo/en- (1)
W=23rd letter of the alphabet
O=15th letter of the alphabet
E=5th letter of the alphabet
N=14th letter of the alphabet
therefore,
w+o=23+15=38
& e+n=5+14=19
.
Substituting these values in (1)
wo/en = 38/19 = 2
Hence proved!

And the blind followers of Agniveer shout, Hail Agniveer Ji.

Let me remind Agniveer that when I asked the question, What is the total number of Vedas? , I
meant What is the total number of Veda Samhitas? By the title Textual corruption of the Vedas is
implied Textual corruption of the Veda Samhitas.
Having said that let us post mortem the dead refutation of Agniveer.
Agniveer has conveniently evaded the testimony of Mahabharata that Vedas were stolen from
Brahma, demonstrating their insecurity. It also proved that Vedas were NOT memorized.
Agniveer has ignored this. After all Mahabharata has also been written by his own ancestors. Is it
not an insult to his ancestors, to accept their one work and reject the other?
The Number of Veda Samhitas

Traditionally the number of Veda Samhitas has been fixed as 4 viz. Rigveda, Yajurveda,
Samaveda and Atharvaveda. But this reply does not tell the whole story. Why? Things will
become more clear when you will read all of this article.
1.

The Rigveda, containing hymns to be recited by the hotr;

2.

The Yajurveda, containing formulas to be recited by the adhvaryu or officiating priest;

3.

The Samaveda, containing formulas to be sung by the udgtr.

4.

The Atharvaveda, a collection of spells and incantations, apotropaic charms and

speculative hymns.

One information must be remembered. The words Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and
Atharvaveda are NEVER mentioned in the Veda Samhitas. All these names have been given by
Brahmins to identify the books. The earlier terms referred to the different styles of composition,
They were:
1.

ricah,

stanzas of praise

2.

yajunsh,

3.

saman,

4.

atharvangirasah,

liturgical stanzas and formulas

melodies
blessings and curses.

But the collection which now goes by the name of Rig-veda contains in its later parts blessings
and curses, as well as stanzas of praise, together with most of the stanzas which form the text
to the saman melodies of the Sama-veda. Similarly the Atharva-veda contains ricah, stanzas of
praise, and yajunshi, liturgical stanzas mostly worked over for its own purposes, as well as its
characteristic blessings and curses. The Yajur-veda also contains matter of the other Vedic types
in addition to liturgical formulae. The Sama-veda is merely a collection of certain ricah or
stanzas of praise, taken with variations and additions from the Rig-veda, and set to tunes
indicated by musical notations.
So each Veda Samhita is a mixture of all types of mantras. Thus, Rigveda can be called
Samaveda , Atharvaveda and vice-versa. Atharvaveda can be called Rigveda or Yajurveda. Same
is the case with other Veda Samhitas.
Now to our burning question, what is the total number of Veda Samhitas?
Let me use the statement of Patanjali Rishi as the base to solve this question. In the
Mahabhashya, he says,

The four Vedas, along-with their parts diffuse into many forms. There are 101 Shakhas of Yajurveda,
1000 of Samaveda, 21 of Rigveda and 9 of Atharvaveda.
Adding these numbers we get a figure of 1131 Shaakhaas. Agniveer has not responded to this
basic question in a clear and coherent manner. His dilemma can be understood. This is an issue
which shakes the foundations of Vedic Dharma.. The Guru of Agniveer, when asked about this
issue said,
Q. How many Shaakhaas (branches) are there of the Veda?

A. Eleven hundred and twenty-seven.

Q. What are Shaakhaas (branches)?

A. The expositions are called shaakhaas.

Q. We hear of learned people speaking of the different parts of the Veda as shaakhaas. Are they wrong?

A. If you think over it a little, you will understand that they are in the wrong, because all the
Shaakhaas are attributed to Rishis such as Ashwalaayani and others, whilst the authorship of the
Veda is ascribed to God. It other words, as the author of the four Vedas is believed to be God, so
are Rishis held to be the authors of the shaakhaas, such as Ashwalaayani. And besides, all the
shaakhaas take Veda texts and expound them, while in the Veda texts only are given. Therefore,
the four Vedas the books of Divine revelation are like the trunk of a tree, whose branches
(shaakhaas) are the books, such as Ashwalaayani, written by Rishis and not revealed by God
[Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 7]
There is not a shred of evidence to prove that there are 1127 Shaakhaas of the Veda. Patanjali
Rishi CLEARLY says 1131 Shaakhaas.No classical text mentions 1127 Shaakhaas. The Swami is
clearly lying here.
Agniveer wrote,
Oh No. Not again. Branch refers to a particular recension style of Vedas to emphasize certain aspects and making it
relevant to existing time and society. Branches or Shakhas are not eternal. But original Vedas have been preserved
as they were even till today.

The quotation of Maharishi Patanjali is very clear. The four Vedas are made of 1131 parts and these
parts are the Shaakhaas and these Shaakhaas include those which are held as originals by Agniveer. Shaakal
Shaakha (present Rigveda) is already included in the 21 Shaakhas of Rigveda. So, according to
the confession of Agniveer even that is not eternal.

However, the answer to the question, What is the total number of Veda samhitas? is very
simple. There are 1131 Veda Samhitas which on the basis of the mantra types are divided into 4.
The 1131 Shaakhaas can be understood as 1131 versions of Vedas. To make it simple for you,
Rigveda has 21 VERSIONS, Yajurveda has 101 VERSIONS, Samaveda has 1000 VERSIONS
and Atharvaveda has 9 VERSIONS. The bogus claims of Agniveer are buried by this simple
FACT that each Shaakhaa had its own Samhita, Brahman, Aranyak and Upanishad. So dear readers,
what does this tell you? Either Agniveer does not know his own religion or he is lying. If it is the
later it is devilish and if it is the former it is inexcusable.
Out of these 1131 VEDA SAMHITAS 1120 Samhitas are lost. In other words, 99% of the Vedas
are LOST.
Notice that Swami Dayanand Saraswati says that Shaakhaas are expositions of the ORIGINAL
Vedas. But Agniveer is then lying when he says,
Now some fools argue that why are original Vedas are also called by name of Shakhas. The answer is that the
name of Shakha is derived from the Rishi who ensured its preservation from generation to generation. Some Rishis
chose to promote the variations so as to propagate their meaning among masses and specialized students. Some
volunteered to continue preserving the original Vedas so that more Shakhas could be created in future. Why should
we not acknowledge these Rishis? Hence Shaakal chose to preserve the Rigveda, Madhyandin chose to preserve
Yajurveda, Shaunak chose to preserve Atharveveda and Kauthum chose to protect Samaveda. These refer not only to
individuals but entire traditions.

Can Agniveer bring any valid proof to justify his claim? There is not a shred of evidence to prove
what Agniveer said. Where do classical scholars of Hinduism claim that only Shaakal Samhita is
the original? That is a challenge to Agniveer. If Shaakal Rishi preserved the original Rigveda
(Shaakal Shaakha), why are the Samhitas, Brahmans, Aranyaks and Upanishads different for
each Shaakha? Agniveer is compelled to promote unorthodox ideas to defend his sect.
Take the following examples of Rigveda Shaakhas.

Shakha

Shaakala

Samhita

Aranyaka

Upanishad

Shaakala

Aitareya

Aitareya

Aitareya

Samhita
Kaushitaki

Brahmana
Kaushitaki

Aranyaka
Manuscript

Upanishad
Kaushitaki

Brahmana
Shankhayana

exists
Shankhyana

Upanishad
edited as a part of

Brahmana

Aranyaka

the Aranyaka

Samhita
Shankhayan Sankhayana
Baashkala

Brahmana

Samhita

Shukla Yajurveda Shaakhaas

Shakha

Samhita

Madhyandina

Brahmana

Aranyaka

Vajasneyi

survives as

Samhita

Shatapatha

(Madhyandin) Madhyandina

XIV.1-8,

Upanishad

Brihadaranyaka

Shatapatha (SBM) with accents. Upanishad

Kanva Shatapatha
Brihadaranyaka

(VSM)

Kanva (VSK)

Vajasneyi

(SBK)(different

survives as

Upanishad

Samhita

from

book XVII of (different from

(Kanva)

madhyandina)

SBK

above)

Krishna Yajurveda Shaakhaas

Shakha

Samhita

Brahmana

Aranyaka

Upanishad

Taittiriya Brahmana
and Vadhula Br.
Taittiriya

(part of Vadhula

Taittiriya

Taittiriya

Taittiriya

Samhita
Srautrasutra)
Maitrayani

Aranyaka
virtually same as

Upanishad
Maitrayaniya

Maitrayani

Samhita

the Upanishad
Katha Aranyaka

Upanishad
Kathaka

Not Available

(almost the entire Upanishad,

Caraka-

Katha

text from a solitary Katha-Shiksha

Katha

Samhita

manuscript)

Upanishad

As you can see, each Shaakha has its own Samhita. There is no one Samhita. Agniveer, therefore, is clearly lying on
this important issue and why should he not lie when his guru, Moolshanker, condones lying to defend their Dharma.
Swami Danayanad commenting on Shakanacharya says,

Now it must be understood that if it was the belief of Shankar that God and the human soul were identical and that
the world was an illusion, it was not good; but if he had avowed this doctrine simply in order to refute Jainism
more successfully, it was a little good. [Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 11]
So. Agniveer has already got his license to deceive.
Let me elaborate on the nature of the disputes between various Shaakhaas to bury Agniveers deceptive arguments
once and for all.
Nature of Disputes between various Shaakhaas with special reference to Yajurveda
Comparing all the available manuscripts of the Yajurveda, we come to know that they are NOT mere expositions of
the so-called originals. Rather, they contain many different mantras than those found in others. Broadly classified,
Yajurveda has two branches, Krishna and Shukla. The former is predominant in South India and the latter in North
India. At the time of Patanjali Rishi, the Kathaka Samhita was predominant as stated in Mahabhashya 4:3:101.
The different Samhitas differ in the number of mantras, arrangement of mantras, etc. Following is the brief list of the
variations:
1. The very first mantras of all Samhitas are variant. For example see the image below.

2. The last mantra of these Samhitas is also different.

3. There is huge difference in the total number of mantras of all these Samhitas. Vajasneyi Samhita (Madhyandin)
has 1974 mantras, Taittiriya has 1018, Maitrayani has 458, and Katha has 640 mantras.
4. More than 50% of Vajasneyi Samhita is imported from Rigveda. Swami Dayanand, has accepted this fact in the
33rd and 34th chapters of his Yajurveda translation. On this basis, the Vedic scholars are of the opinion that
intermixing of the mantras of Yajurveda and Rigveda has actually broken the Yajurveda chain. The mutual coherence
of the themes of Yajurveda has been lost and by extension the meanings have also been lost.
All these differences between various Samhitas of Yajurveda reveal the fact that these Samhitas are not the
expositions of a so-called original Veda. Rather, these are different versions of one Yajurveda floating around. The
true version cannot be found and the mutual rivalry between these versions is not hidden. The followers of one

Samhita used to condemn the followers of another Samhita. For example, Shatapath Brahmana 1:7:1:3 condemns
the recitation of Taittiriya Samhita.
They then let the calves join their mothers. He thereupon touches (each) calf (in order to drive it away from the cow),
with the formula , The winds are ye!for, indeed, it is this wind that here blows, it is this (wind) that makes swell all the
rain that falls here; it is it that makes those (cows) swell; and for this reason he says the winds are ye! Some people
add here the formula, Going near are ye! but let him not say this, because thereby another (an enemy)
approaches (the sacrificer).
Shatapath Brahman here is referring to Taittiriya Samhita 1:1:1:1, which contains the addional words Going near are
ye or Ye are approachers. In other words, Shatapath Brahman is condemning the recitation of Taittiriya Samhita as
FALSE. Similarly, at many other places in the Shatapath Brahman, Taittiriya Samhita is criticized. How can the likes
of Agniveer explain this censure of Taittiriya Samhita by Shatapath Brahman?
This Shaakha issue is now settled. All Shaakhaas are EQUAL contenders of being the originals. Thus there are 1131
Veda Samhitas and now we have 11 Samhitas left. Agniveer has no authority to claim exclusive originality.
Missing Verses
After the collection and codification of Vedas, many different manuscripts gained currency amongst the Brahmin
groups. The number of mantras in every manuscript continued to be changed. The current version of Rigveda was
collected by Shaakal Rishi and was thus calledShaakal Samhita. It is divided into 10 Mandals (Books).
Nirukt 7:8 mentions the following,
There is a joint oblation offered to Agni and Vishnu in the ten books of the Rigveda.
However, in the entire Rigveda, there is not a single mantra jointly praising Agni and Vishnu. What is meant by joint
oblation here? An oblation is an offering (Late Latin oblatio, from offerre, oblatum, to offer), a term, particularly in
ecclesiastical usage, for a solemn offering or presentation to God. Where is an offering jointly made to Agni and
Vishnu, we would like to see? This is a clear evidence that the Rigveda at the time of Yaska Muni had the joint
oblation offered to Agni and Vishnu, but it is not found in todays Rigveda, demonstrating corruption of the text.
Agniveer wrote,
1. Nirukta wasnt preserved in the way Rigveda was. So Rigveda is much more authoritative, especially after scrutiny
by even the skeptics as mentioned above.
What a scholarly reply? Is Agniveer prepared to delete all references of Nirukt form his website and throw Nirukt in the
dustbin? Why are they still publishing and spreading a polluted book, if it really is polluted? The desperation of
Agniveer can be understood. When Rigveda is being blown apart by Nirukt here, Agniveer is choosing the lesser of
the two evils and casting doubt on Nirukt to save Rigveda, the source of Hinduism. However, this answer is just not
satisfactory. Agniveer first needs to prove that this particular reference of Nirukt is wrong and give evidences of the
same. If he is unable to do so, then Rigveda has been obviously changed. He also has to publicly announce that
Nirukt is a false book and should not be used to establish anything. Hindu scholars should announce the same in
public.

But wait a minute, let Agniveers deception be exposed by his own deception guru, aka Swami Dayananda. In his
Magnum Opus, Satyarth Prakash, the Swami lists several books which should be read and others which should be
avoided. And guess what? He just rips Agniveer apart. The Swami says,
We can liken this to digging up a whole mountain and finding a penny-worth of gold; whilst the study of the books of
the great sages can be well likened to the diving of a man into the sea and finding most valuable pearls in one plunge.
3. Then let them read Nighantoo and Nirukta (books on Vedic Vocabulary and Philology) by Yaska in six to eight
months, but not waste years of their valuable time over Amarkosha and other such books written by atheists.
[Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 3]
and further down he gives a long list of books to be avoided,
The books to be avoided are:1. Grammar:-a.Katantra, b. Saaraswata, c. Chandrika, d. Mugdhabodha. e. Kaumudi, f. Shekhar, g. Monorma, etc.
2.
Dictionary

Amarkosha,
etc.
3.
Prosody

Urittaratnakar,
etc.
4. Shiksha is the Science which teaches the proper pronunciation of words and laws of euphony. Atka Shiksham
Pravakshyami
Pranamyan
matam
yatha.
5.
Jotisha
(astronomy)

Shighrabodha,
Mahurta,
Chintaamani,
ettc.
books
on
astrology.
6.
Poetry

Naya
ka
bheda,
Kuvabja
nand,
Raghuvansha,
Maagha,
Kiratarjunira,
etc.
7.
Mimansa

Dharmasindhu,
Vratarka,
etc.
8.
Visheshika

Tarkasangraha,
etc.
9.
Nyaya
-Yogdishaa,
etc.
10.
Yoga

Hathapradipka
11.
Saankhya

Yagavashishtha,
Pancha
dashi
12.
Medical
Service

Sharangdhar.
13.
Smriti

all
Smritis
except
the
Manu
Smirit
arring
the
interpolated
verses.
14. all Tantras, Puranaas, Upapuraanaas, Ramaayaana by Tulsi Das, Rukmani Mangala, etc., and all books 9of this
kind) written in Bhaashaa.
They ought to be looked upon as snares; once caught in them a student can never know the truth.
Is there no truth to be found in these books?
A.~ There is a sprinkling of truth mixed with a large amount of rubbish, myths and fabrications; but as even the best
food mixed with poison is to be avoided, so should these books.
Ah! These golden words must be pinned on the walls of Agniveers house. Agniveer has already poisoned many
articles on his poisonous website with Nirukta, which according to him is false but not according to his guru. I know
Agniveer is merely using deception to refute me, but deep in his heart he must be really ashamed that he condemned
the great Nirukt in public.
Then, Agniveer is taking recourse to Indologists to save the Vedas. However, Hindu scholars themselves opine that
Vedas have suffered heavy changes. Pandit Ram Gvind Trivedi writes in the preface to his translation of Rigveda,

According to one Mantra of Rigveda (10:114:8), we come to know that it has 15,000 Mantras. However, when we
count the total Mantras, we get 10,469 Mantras. It is possible that like a large portion of the books of Vedic literature
and Vedas were destroyed by the anti-religious, similarly, Mantras too suffered destruction for many reasons.
Agniveer only partially quotes Indologists to deceive the people. Let him taste the same Indologists now.
Prof. Maurice Bloomfield writes in the Introduction to his Hymns of the Atharvaveda,
The nineteenth book is a late addendum, in general very corrupt; its omission (with the exception of hymns 26,
34, 35, 38, 39, 53, and 54) does not detract much from the general impression left by the body of the collection. The
seventeenth book consists of a single hymn of inferior interest. Again, books XV and XVI, the former entirely
Brahmanical prose, the latter almost entirely so, are of doubtful quality and chronology. Finally, books XIV and
XVIII contain respectively the wedding and funeral stanzas of the Atharvan, and are largely coincident with
corresponding Mantras of the tenth book of the Rig-veda: they are, granted their intrinsic interest, not specifically
Atharvanic.
Dr. A.A. Macdonell echoes the same views about Atharvaveda in his book A History of Sanskrit Literature,
The last two books are manifestly late additions. Book XIX. consists of a mixture of supplementary pieces, part
of the text of which is rather corrupt. Book XX., with a slight exception, contains only complete hymns addressed to
Indra, which are borrowed directly and without any variation from the Rigveda. The fact that its readings are identical
with those of the Rigveda would alone suffice to show that it is of later date than the original books, the readings of
which show considerable divergences from those of the older Veda. There is, however, more convincing proof of
the lateness of this book. Its matter relates to the Soma ritual, and is entirely foreign to the spirit of the Atharvaveda. It was undoubtedly added to establish the claim of the Atharva to the position of a fourth Veda, by
bringing it into connection with the recognised sacrificial ceremonial of the three old Vedas. This book, again, as well .
as the nineteenth, is not noticed in the Praticakhya of the Atharva-veda. Both of them must, therefore, have been
added after that work was composed. Excepting two prose pieces (48 and 49) the only original part of Book XX. is
the so-called kuntapa hymns (127-136).
[A History of Sanskrit Literature, A. A. Macdonell, Printed in 1900, Page 188]
Dr. Macdonell even exposes the Rigveda in the following words,
The importance of the latter as a criterion of the authenticity of verses in the Rigveda is indicated by the following
fact. There are six verses in the Rigveda not analysed in the Pada text, but only given there over again in the
Samhita form. This shows that Sakalya did not acknowledge them as truly Rigvedic, a view justified by
internal evidence. This group of six, which is doubtless exhaustive, stands midway between old additions which

(Sakalya recognised as canonical, and the new appendages called Khilas, which never gained admission into the
Pada text in any form.
The six verses he is referring to are, Rigveda 7:59:12, 10:20:1, 10:121:10 and 10:190:1,2,3.
Now, Agniveer should also get rid of Atharvaveda and well as these six verses, when the Indologists are confirming it.
Agniveer, the misled fanatic wrote,
2. The Vishnu of Vedas is same as the Agni. Both refer to same Singular Supreme Entity. Only the misled see
polytheism in Vedas. So joint oblation to Vishnu and Agni is applicable to any mantra that can be interpreted to imply
those characteristics of Supreme that are common in meaning of Agni and Vishnu. This is a research subject for
those who have skills to contemplate deeply on mantras. There is nothing conflicting in it. At best one can say that
Since I dont know anything about Vedas because knowing that would put me in Hell, hence I cannot understand it.
The topic of Vedic deities is a separate one, which is beyond the scope of this article. However, to briefly respond to
the bogus claims of Agniveer, he is trivializing the text of the Vedas because he thinks it is his personal property and
he can twist it as he likes. Extending his bogus argument, Agnim ile purohitam can be changed to Vaishnam ile
purohitam and there will be no difference. May be Maharishi Agniveer has an intention of producing his own Samhita
of Rigveda and is therefore propounding unorthodox views to deceive the people. He is going to the extent of calling
Yaska Acharya misled because Yaska speaks of plural deities in the Vedas. Notice the original words of Yaska,
There is a joint oblation offered to Agni and Vishnu in the ten books of the Rigveda. No person in his right mind
can say that Yaska is speaking of the same deity. If Agni and Vishnu were same, then the words joint oblation
become absurd. Agniveer is considering himself smarter than classical Hindu scholars. He is free to do all the
research he needs, but he will evidently fail.
Agniveer wrote,
3. Interestingly the very people who are currently raising this childish allegation are the ones who also attempt to
prove that Vedas talk of only one Single God. But they use this argument when they want to prove that Vedas and
their modern scripture both talk of the same Singular God, but because their scripture is latest, hence that latest
version should be followed. Hence everyone should start believing in their religion to escape Hell.
This is another proof that Agniveer is not in his right mind. Who is he talking about? Where have I ever claimed that
Vedas talk of only one Single God? Agniveer needs to spend time and study my articles thoroughly before writing
nonsense. I have time and time again emphasized that Vedas teach only NATURE WORSHIP, DARK POLYTHEISM
AND PANTHEISM. I suggest that readers read my article What is Hinduism? to know my position on the conception
of gods in Vedas. May be Agniveer is dreaming that I am affiliated with IRF. I do not endorse the research of IRF on
Hinduism, specially the concept of God in Hinduism. Dr. Zakir Naik is wrongly propagating that Vedas speak about
one God, but then again, he bases his arguments on the works of Arya Samaj. I intend to write a separate article
refuting the notion that Vedas speak of one Supreme God.
Suggested Reading
Concept of Gods in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) -Part 1
Concept of Gods in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) -Part 2
Corruption in recitation

The oral tradition of the Vedas (rauta) consists of several pathas, recitations or ways of chanting the Vedic
mantras.The padapatha consists of dividing the sentence into individual pada or words. The kramapatha consists of
pairing two words at a time. There has been a lot of corruption in the former recitation. I will give some examples to
demonstrate this.
Example 1
Yask Muni, the author of Nirukt and Nighantu, writes that Vaayah is one word [See Nirukt 6:28]. But in the Shaakal
Shakhas (Rigvedas) padapatha, it has been divided and hence became meaningless. Rigveda 10:29:1 is the place
which has made the mistake.

As sits the young bird on the tree rejoicing, ye, swift Pair, have been roused by clear laudation,
Yaska himself criticizes Shakalya and says,
Sakalya has analyzed Vaayah into Vaa and yah, then the finite verb would have had the accute accent and the
sense have been incomplete.
Agniveer wrote ,
Whether we take the word as Va + Yah or Vayo, they both are pronounced in exactly the same manner. Same is true
for Ma + Iha + Naasti. However in Vedic mantras, these words come us Vayo and Mehanaasti. Scholars can have
disputes over how the word should be interpreted. This is a research topic. Depending on their views, they can have
different Pada Paatha or break-up of the words. Perhaps during Yaskas time, someone broke the word in wrong
manner and hence he had to counter it. Similar to the way even we have to counter the most outdated concepts
even today despite the availability of thoroughly verified and edited Vedas!
Pada Paatha is NOT original Vedas. It is one way of preserving Vedas. There are 9 more.
Refer http://agniveer.com/2697/no-textual-corruption-in-vedas/. If an error comes in Pada Patha, it is corrected by
comparing with other methods. And hence today, there is no doubt over what the original Vedic mantras are. (Thanks
to efforts of sages like Yaska from time to time.) I recommend looking at editions of Pt Damodar Satvalekar which is
accepted widely as the most corrected published version.
Agniveer is again shooting himself in the foot. This IITian cant even read properly. Yaska has not countered a
someone, but Sakalya himself. Sakalya has analyzed Vaayah into Vaa andyah, then the finite verb would have had
the accute accent and the sense have been incomplete. The question here is not whether pada patha is the
original or not. The important thing to notice here is that Agniveers original Rigveda is under fire from Yaska. Yaska
is exposing the mistake of Shaakal Samhita. So, agniveer is caught deceiving again. The false reading of Rigveda
has continued to our time also and agniveer is reading the same.

Regarding Mehanaasti, Yaska is again showing how Sakalya is wrong and Gargya the author of Samaveda pada
patha is right. So, Agniveer is lying here too.
Different versions of Rigveda
Shaakal Rishi is called as the collector of Rigveda. He had a number of students, who later expressed many
differences and compiled their own versions of Rigveda. numbering upto 21. There are major differences between
the Shaakal and Baskal samhitas of Rigveda. The kala recension has 1,017 regular hymns, while the Bkala
samhita has a total of 1025 hymns. Thus, around some 50 mantras are missing in kala samhita. There are
differences even over the total number of mantras.
The detailed analysis of the mantra differences in Rigveda will be dealth in a separate article.
Different versions of Yajurveda
Agniveer wrote,
1. Black or Krishna Yajurveda is a branch (Shakha) and not original Yajurveda. It contains original mantras modified
along with historical and explanatory descriptions to suit research interests of specific kind. Shukla or White Yajurveda
refers to those branches of Yajurveda that modify the original mantras if required but do not add additional texts. The
Madhyandini Yajurveda of Shukla Branch is the original Yajurveda and rest are its variations.
Another bogus claim devoid of any solid proof. I have already shown the nature of disputes between various Samhitas
of Yajurveda. Refer to that discussion. There is no proof that only the Madhyandin Samhita is the original and not the
others. Agniveer is conditioned to believe that Madhyandin is the original. What Agniveer is considering as original is
considered an exposition in South India and vice versa. Agniveer deceptively ignored the meat of my argument.
Anyway i will repeat it to sink it into his mind.

Difference between Krishna (Black) and Shukla (White) Yajurveda

The Vishnu Purana gives the following explanation of their names : Vaisampayana, a
pupil of the great Vyasa, was the original teacher of the Black Yajur-Veda. Yajnavalkya,
one of his disciples, having displeased him, was called upon by his master to part with
the knowledge which he had acquired from him. He forthwith vomited the Yajur-Yeda.
The other disciples of Vaisampayana, assuming the form of partridges (tittiri), picked up
from the ground its several dirtied texts. From this circumstance it received the name of
Taittiriya Krishna Yajur-Veda.
Yajnavalkya afterwards, by the performance of severe penances, induced the Sun God
to impart to him those Yajur texts which his master had not possessed. The Sun God
then assumed the form of a horse (Vajin), and communicated to him the desired texts.
Hence the Sanhita was called Vajasaneyi, and also White (or bright) because it was
revealed by the Sun God.

There was a lot of hostility between the two groups.

Agniveer wrote,
So in case you do not have access to original Yajurveda, start with a branch. That would be much more
easy to approach due to explanations and simplifications. And when you have mastered them, you can
have the taste of the original. The keen minds who are less paranoid and more zealous can approach the
original directly as well!

Thus, as per Maharishi Agniveer, making the Madhyandin Samhita available online for
common public is a mistake. They need to first read the man made books and then the
original. But wait, did we not already see that Shatapath Brahman condemns Taittiriya
Samhita as false. So why is Agniveer promoting false texts? May be he has some
hidden agenda.
Agniveer wrote,
2. Ishopanishad is nothing but the 40th Chapter of Yajurveda as it appears in a particular branch of
Black Yajurveda with some modifications. Because this is the greatest text on spiritualism and
philosophy and mother of all other texts like Geeta, other Upanishads and even Darshans, it has a special
place in Vedic literature. Being mother of all Upanishads, it is called Isha Upanishad. Only a paranoid can
explain why he or she thinks that Isha Upanishad cannot be part of Yajurveda.

The deceptive game of Agniveer continues. Agniveer just claimed in point number 1
that Black or Krishna Yajurveda is a branch (Shakha) and not original Yajurveda . But here he is
taking recourse to this very shaakha in order to establish the validity of the
Ishopanishad. I told you he is a deceiver.
Further, according to Agniveers Arya Samaj, Upanishads are NOT Shruti (revealed).
Then, how come has this Upanishad been added to the Veda Samhita? Maharishi
Agniveer gives this reason; Because this is the greatest text on spiritualism and philosophy and
mother of all other texts like Geeta, other Upanishads and even Darshans, it has a special place in Vedic
literature.

The same argument is given by orthodox Hindus as well in favour of the other
Upanishads being revealed texts. Why then does Agniveer not consider other
upanishads as revealed also? By interpolatng an Upanishad into the Vedic samhita,
Agniveer is proving that Vedas are devoid of spirituality and that man-made texts like
Ishopanishad is superior to Vedas. We have always been saying that Vedic Samhitas
are simply useless. Upanishads are far better than Veda Samhitas.

Now you can judge who is a paranoid.

Agniveer evades vital questions

In dealing with my arguments about the problems with the Yajurveda texts, Agniveer evaded
answering many points with the hope that his blind followers will never check the article
properly. Agniveer was so scared of the truth that he did not even give the link of our article and
neither mentioned the source article he was refuting. All this exposes his grand claims that he is
for truth and truth alone.
Questions which Agniveer did not answer:
1. Agniveer did not answer about the schism between the people of Black and White Yajurveda.
2. He did not respond to the differences between the two rival samhitas, in the number and
arrangement of mantras.
2. Agniveer also ignored the argument that a lot of Brahamanas have been inserted into the text
of the Yajurveda. For example, Adhyay 24 is entirely a Brahman; Adhyay 30: verses 7 through
15 are all Brahmanas and not Mantras. Agniveer did not respond to this. What are Brahmanas
doing in Shukla Yajurveda, which he holds as original? Shatapath Brahmana 4:2:3:7-8 testifies to
this interpolation of Brahmans in the Samhita as follows:
7. He draws it without (reciting) a puroru k; for the puroruk is a song of praise, since the
puroruk is a Rik, and the song of praise is Rik; and the libation is Sman; and what other
(formula) he mutters, that is Yagus. Formerly these same (puroruk verses) were apart from the Riks, apart
from the Yagus, and apart from the Smans.
8. The devatas said, Come, let us place them among the Yagus: thus
manifold. Accordingly they placed them among the Yagus, and

this science will be still more

thenceforward this science was

still more manifold.

This rips aparts the deception of Agniveer that Madhyandin Samhita is the original.
How Arya Samaj corrupts the Vedas?

1. In the Yajurveda Bhasya of Dayanand Ji, Adhyay 9, Mantra 20 has been distorted by adding
the word Gamyaat, which is not to be found in the text. Where did this word come from?

Agniveer wrote,
1. Did Swami Dayanand add the word in the mantra? No. The word is found only in Hindi translation in some
editions. Now Swami Dayanand used to dictate meaning in Sanskrit to his pundits who would then translate it in
Hindi as well as transcribe what he said.
But even if he or his pundit added the word in explanation, then you should be thankful to him for attempting to
simplify things instead of taking exceptions.
2. Even if Swami Dayanand added the word in the mantra, that does not make Yajurveda corrupted. It only means
that Swami Dayanand made an error. When did Vedas or Agniveer or Swami Dayanand claim that humans are fully
perfect?

There is a marked contradiction between point 1 and 2. If point 1 is correct then point 2 is
incorrect and vice versa. The Swami has added the word in bracket which means he is hoping to
deceive people that this is part of the text. All the words in brackets mean they are part of the
text. Agniveer would do well to remove this error (read deception) from the market.

2. Comparing the Yajurveda of Gayatri Parivar and Arya Samaj, there are many mantras missing
in one or another of the versions. For example, the 25th Chapter of Gayatri Parivar Yajurveda has
47 mantras. Even the Yajurveda of Ralph Griffith has 47 mantras. But, the Arya Samaj version
has an additional Mantra 48.
Agniveer, the new Maharishi, wrote,
1. So your anger is towards additional bonus that Arya Samaj translation gives you, if I understand properly. This
means that you admit original Vedas to be a subset of existing Vedas with one less mantra. Hence there is no loss of
information at least.

This type of bonus is present in other samhitas of Yajurveda as well, according to you. Then, all
your above arguments simply stand nullified by this one. Dear readers, do you remember what
Agniveer wrote earlier? If you have forgotten, I will republish the golden words,
Black or Krishna Yajurveda is a branch (Shakha) and not original Yajurveda. It contains original mantras
modified along with historical and explanatory descriptions to suit research interests of specific kind. Shukla or
White Yajurveda refers to those branches of Yajurveda that modify the original mantras if required but do not
add additional texts. The Madhyandini Yajurveda of Shukla Branch is the original Yajurveda and rest are its
variations.

So, according to Maharishi Agniveer, Black or Krishna Yajurveda is not original because it
contains many bonuses. Therefore, I thank Agniveer for adding a bonus mantra in his so-called
original and proving that his Yajurveda IS NOT ORIGINAL ANYMORE. The corollary would
be like this. If one bonus mantra of Arya Samaj makes no difference to the text, then the many
bonus mantras of other Samhitas proves that they are more desrving to be called originals.
Agniveer wrote,
2. Now if we review this mantra, is it against rest of the Vedas in its message? If not, then what is the cause of
concern. If you get one additional sentence in Einsteins text on relativity that was written later by an editor but only
emphasizes what Einstein says in rest of the paper, how is that a problem?

Are the bonuses of the other samhitas against their own mantras? Then what are you telling us
they are not originals? What is the cause of concern? By giving Einsteins example, you are
digging your own grave. No sane person would ever edit the TEXT of Einsteins work. They will
only add their explanation and they would mention that this is an explanation and not written by
Einstein, so that people do not confuse it with Einsteins words. But you have added the new
bonus mantra in the TEXT and without even mentioning in the footnote that it is not in the
original. This is called fraud and we should not trust fraud people. What say you Maharishi
Agniveer? Also if other Shaakhaas added explanations, which obiously do not contradict the text,
are you not riding in the same boat?
Agniveer wrote,
3. This is an objection only for those who think that if they mug up the book of divine and say a big sorry for all
their misdeeds and laziness to Supreme Lord, they would easily get Heaven full of virgins. But for Vedic followers,
there are no shortcuts to success. You have to practice what you learn in actions and keep exploring the truth within.
And when you have liberated yourself from ignorance significantly, you would well have re-ignited the Vedas

within. So one harmless mantra in one edition makes absolutely no difference.The only cause of concern could
have been if the verse misled you, which it does not.

Let Maharishi Agniveer produce some evidence for the false charges he has made. Where have
we ever said that just by muggin up the Quran and doing misdeeds will give us heaven? Where
does the Noble Quran say so? How do we know that ONLY ONE HARMLESS MANTRA has
been added to the text? If you can add a mantra to the text, it shows that Vedas can be made by
man. Agniveer Ji, I already knew Vedas were nothing special and are man made. If the verse
does not mislead me, so is the case with other Samhitas.
Regarding virgins of Vedic Swarga, Maharishi Agniveer can read my artcles,

Vedic Paradise: An Overview

Vedic Paradise: The Inside Story

Did Agniveer say that for Vedic followers there are no shortcuts to success? Maharishi! havent
you read the Vedas? If you havent, let me tell you the Vedic shortcuts of entering Paradise.

Strongest is this, performed, of sacrifices: he has reached heaven who has prepared Vishtri. [Atharva Ved 4:34:5]

High up in heaven abide the Guerdon-givers: they who give steeds dwell with the Sun forever. They who give gold
are blest with life eternal. They who give robes prolong their lives, O Soma. [Rig Veda 10:107:2]

Panchodana, when cooked, transports, repelling Nirriti, to the world of Svarga. By him may we win worlds which
Srya brightens. [Atharva Ved 9:5:18]

This wealth I place among the Brhmans, making a path that leads to heaven among the Fathers. [Atharva Ved
11:1:28]
To sum up, according to most mantras in Atharva Ved, feeding the Brahmins with milk and rice ( Kheer), offering goats,
gold, and other Dakshina earns one Paradise. Displeasing a Brahmin gives you a one way ticket to Hell.

Agniveer wrote,
4. By the way, the 25th Chapter has only 47 mantras and that is accepted by one and all.Some publishers publish
an additional mantra due to relevance of context. Perhaps someone inserted it years ago and then no printer
bothered to or rather was not competent enough to scrutinize it. Please send us the name of the publisher and we
shall write to him to correct the mistake. Or even you can write so referring to this article.

So, now you are saying it is not a bonus mantra? What happened dear? Let it remain there.
Why bother to correct this mistake? If you needed a Muslim to tell you that mischief has been
done to the Vedic text, then you all need to hang yourselves in shame. For 150 years you let the
verse remain in the text and want to remove it now? Someone rightly said, Arya Samajis are the
biggest frauds. The bonus mantra is given by all Arya publishers. I can only imagine, how
many such mantras would have been made up due to relevance of the context. Poor Yajurveda.
I think Agniveer should now follow Taittiriya Samhita. His Madhyandin has disappointed me.
Notice that Agniveer is contradicting himself in the same mantra. On one hand he says that the
PUBLISHERS added it due to relevance of context and on the other hand he is mocking them
by saying they are not competent. If they WILLINGLY added it why will they scrutinize it?
3. In Yajurveda Bhashya of Dayanand Ji Adhyay 26, mantra 26, the word Ayohatay
was changed to Apohatay.
Agniveer wrote,

1. This is a printing mistake. Real word is Ayohate ( ). Now in Devanagri script, Ya ( ) and Pa () appear
almost similar. Such errors are found in several places in Vedas because the first time they were being printed, they
were being typeset from hand-written manuscripts. However Pt Damodar Satvalekar did a great job of scrutinizing
all published mantras with manuscripts and manuscripts with various Paatha methods to give to us extremely
authentic editions of Rigveda.
2. But thankfully, the meaning does not change because that was based on actual word.

Come on Maharishi Agniveer. You blame every mischief of your guru on the poor printers. If it
was a printing error, why did the Swami translate Apohatay and not Ayohate? He translated it as
gold instead of the actual meaning iron. Who are you deceiving? The Swami Brahmachari
was looking for gold instead of worthless iron. Changing 1 into 11 is the old habit of Grocers.
When caught out they said, Oh man! This is only a writing error.
4. In Yajurveda Bhashya of Dayanand Ji Adhyay 39, mantra 5, the word Vishyandmaane was
changed to Vishpandmaane.
Agniveer wrote,
Refer previous allegation.

How can you refer it to previous point, when this is a separate fraud? The swami has
translatedVispand and not Visyand. Vispand ( ) means throbbing and Vishyand () means
trickling. Only a fool will call it a printing error. Swami has taken Visyand deliberately to
mistraslate it.
5. The longer ending in Yajurveda 13:58 has been deleted from Arya Samaj version, but exists in
the Gayatri Parivar version .
Agniveer wrote,
It does not matter whether this text is there or not. The meaning of the phrase is implied in overall meaning of the
mantras continued from Chapter 12 itself up to this last mantra of Chapter 13. So for sake of completion of meaning
you can put the phrase, and for sake of brevity you can skip it. A conservative approach would be to keep it. but if
focus is to understand meaning alone, it can be skipped. We suggest having the phrase for sake of completeness.

If Veda is revealed text according to you, do you mean the Words of God do not matter? Is your
God a lunatic who reveals texts in vain? I told this to a Sanatan Dharmi friend. He became upset
and said, Who the hell is Agniveer to suggest what should be Vedas and what not?
Corruption of Samaveda
Samaveda is heavily borrowed from the Rigveda. It consists of a collection of hymns, portions of hymns, and
detached verses, all but 75 taken from the Sakala Sakha of the Rigveda, the other 75 belong to the Bashkala Sakha,
to be sung, using specifically indicated melodies, calledSamagana. There are differences regarding the exact number
of mantras in the Samaveda. As I said earlier, according to Patanjalis statement, sahasravartma
samvedah
, There are thousand branches of Samaveda. However, only three survive:

the Kauthuma Shakha is current in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and since a few decades
in Darbhanga, Bihar,

the Jaiminiya in the Karnatak, Tamilnadu and Kerala,

and the Rn yanya in the Maharastra.

The total mantras in the Jaimniya Shakha is 1687. Kauthama Shakha has 1869 mantras . Thus, 182
mantras are missing from Kauthama Shakha. An analysis of both these versions reveals lots
of Paath-Bhed (variant readings). Besides this, there is a difference in number of songs attributed
to different branches. Shri Satvalekar in his preface to Samaveda Samhita has given the
following table of songs (Samagana).

Songs of Jaiminiya Branch

Songs of Kauthamiya Branch

Gramgeyo-gn:

1233

1197

Aranyageya-gn:

291

294

Ooh-gn:

1802

1026

Oohya-gn:

356

205

Total

3681

2722

We can easily see that the Samaganas of Jaiminiya Version are 1000 more than those of
Kauthamiya Version.
Agniveer wrote,
We have already mentioned that Kauthum Rishi preserved the original Samaveda. Refer the previous discussion on
branches.
Further, Samaveda songs make no sense for the disturbed mind. They represent the melodies that generate from
within when one reaches a high level of enlightenment and exalted state. Jaimini branch offers more variety and you

can experiment with them to find what melody touches you the most. However keep caution avoid spicy food,
meat, alcohol, anger, frustration, hatred etc, study other Vedas as well and practice meditation. Without foundation
of this, you may be simply wasting your time.

When will Agniveer stop lying? What is the proof that only Kauthama Samhita is original?
Whether Samaveda songs make sense or not is no response to the argument of textual corruption.
Samaveda is a mere waste of ink and paper. All except 75 mantras are copied from Rigvedas
Shaakal samhita. The remaining are from Baashkal. Now, if Baashkal is not the original Samhita,
then the 75 mantras of Samaveda are also fake.
Corruption in Atharvaveda

Atharvaveda, also known as Brahmaveda is considered the youngest amongst all other Vedas.
Following is an exmaple of textual corruption in the Atharvaveda.
Atharvaveda Khand 20 and Sookt 127 is part of the Kuntap Sooktas. In the third mantra of this
Sookt there has been an alteration. The Atharvaveda of Arya Samaj and Gayatri Parivar both
have it as follows:

The word preceeding Maamahe is Eeshaai. However, in the Atharvaveda of Pandit Raja Ram
Shashtri of Arya Samaj as well as the Atharvaveda printed in Germany, the text differs as
follows:

Here
the
word
is Rishye
and not Eeshaai. This makes a difference in the meaning of the mantra.

preceeding Maamahe

Agniveer wrote,
Again a case of printing mistake due to bad handwriting in Devanagri manuscript or error by typist. The correct
word is Ishaya. Printing mistakes are not attributable to original texts.

This is not a printing error. Prof. Whitney mentions the variation in the footnote of this word.
This is a manuscript variation. That is why all European scholars such as Griffith, Whitney,
Bloomfield translate it as Seer or Rishi. Agniveer would do well to learn the Vedas properly
instead of blaming all manuscript mistakes on the poor printers.

Points left unanswered by Agniveer

Patanjali Rishi, in his Mahabhasya, has given the first words of all the four Vedas. Patanjali quotes
SHANNODEVEE RABHISHTAYE as the first verse of the Atharvaveda. However, Atharvaveda now
begins with the verse YE NNISHATPAAH PARIYANTA. SHANNODEVEE RABHISHTAYE now appears as
the first verse of the 6th Sukta of the first Kanda or in aggregate the 26th verse . This shows that 25

mantras have been interpolated in the beginning of Atharvaveda.

It is mentioned in Shatapath Brahman 13:4:3:4-8 in the context of the Ashvamedha sacrifice; after
the Yagya (ritual) is completed, the householders should be instructed in Rigveda of the first day.
old men should be instructed in Yajurveda on the second day, handsome youths should be
instructed in Atharvaveda on the third day and handsome maiden should be instructed in
Angirasveda on the fourth day. Angirasveda is attributed to Rishi Angiras who is in the fourth
generation after Rishi Atharva. There is no mention of Samaveda in this reference of Shatapath
Brahman.
Agniveer wrote,
I shall not comment on what exactly this reference from Shatpath means. But even if we take it at face value:
1. Samaveda is not mentioned because Samaveda cannot be simply listened like other Vedas. Samaveda is all about
emotions and meditation. Further, bulk of mantras in Samaveda are already in Rigveda. So there is no purpose of
listening them again.However if the same mantras are meditated upon with emotions and sung, new revelations
would come. But this is not in context of the ritual described. You need to separately practice this art.

Yes, how can you comment because your knowledge of Vedas has taken a big beating by now.
Agniveer is right that bulk of the mantras in Samaveda are already in Rigveda. Agniveer himself
confessed that Samaveda is useless and mere waste of paper, ink and time, because it is mere
repetition of Rigveda.
Agniveer wrote,
2. Even if Rishi Angiras was born 4th generation from Rishi Atharva (I shall not comment on authenticity of this
history), how does it matter? Names of Rishis depict their deeds and specializations and not the names in their
Class X pass certificate. So a specialist in Atharvaveda can name himself Rishi Atharva. Similarly another Rishi can
use synonym of Atharva ie Angiras and use as his name. This is similar to we using Agniveer as our name. Now just
because we call ourselves Agniveer, it does not mean that we are the author of all the mantras in Vedas that have
word Agni.

Agniveer cannot comment on the authenticity of this history because he doesnt know any
history. There are no preserved records of the imaginary authors of the Vedas. The point to be
noted is that it is technically absurd to call the same Veda by different names in the same
sentence, just because the gender is different. Rest of the claims of Agniveer are without any
evidence.
Agniveer wrote,
4. Atharvaveda and Angirasveda refer to same text. They are also called Chhanda in some places. Atharvaveda has
the privilege of multiple names because it is an all-rounder. It adopts from Rik, Yajuh and Sama Vedas are brings
forth their applied aspects. To there are multiple dimensions to it deserving multiple names.

The correct view is that Atharvaveda is divided into two parts, Atharvaved and Angirasved.
Atharvaved as a whole is a later addition to the canon of Vedas, interpolated by Brahmins. Even
within Atharvaved, Angirasved portion is a late addition. Agniveer has produced no evidence for
the multiple names of Atharvaved.
Agniveer wrote,
But if this be the argument for Vedas being corrupted then Quran is perhaps the most corrupted text in the world.
Because Quran is referred by a huge number of names in Quran itself. The word Quran was later adopted for the
text by fighting followers long after death of the peace-loving founder. The founder never knew that this book would
be called Quran. Quran is also referred by names reserved for Jewish and Christian texts in Quran itself! That is
why some scholars conclude that original Quran refers to Bible or Old Testament or some unchangeable text which
was existing ever prior to Testaments and was much bigger in size. This a matter of scholarly debate and we shall
leave it to scholars.

Exactly, the Quran has many names WITHIN the text itself. There was no fighting between the
companions over the names. Agniveer is just throwing red herrings to distract the attention of the
readers from the main topic. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) always referred to it as Al-Quran (The
Quran). Agniveer neither has knowledge of Vedic Dharma nor of Islam. His credibility is already
destroyed. Commenting on the comments of the ignorant does not fetch anything. The topic is
about Vedas so bringing the Quran into the picture is evidence that Agniveer has really no factual
response to the clear textual corruption of Vedas. Our research has been substantial, reasonable
and rational.
Conclusion

Agniveer has problems with my usage of the word accusation. I already know, after thorough
study, that Vedas are false and corrupt. Hence I am justified in using the word accusation. To
accuse according to dictionary means to charge with a shortcoming or error. Check this link to
know more.
All Maharishi Agniveer can do is go into hairsplitting a simple word and build more castles of
lies and deception. You can think why Agniveer is so upset here. Obviously because the
foundations of Vedic Dharma are being shaken here.
Agniveer writes more lies,
4. To take this argument to an extreme, let us state something. Even if all the allegationssorry accusations stand,
still that would NO WAY AFFECT the Vedic religion. This is because the very essence of Vedic religion is
to not blindly and literally translate any text as recipe for life.

To know about the truth of Vedic Religion, go through our disection of Vedas on our website.
You will know the reality with references and exact quotes.
Agniveer wrote,
Vedic texts are like Science textbooks for us and not a roadside Mantra-Tantra book that promises to help us getting
job, marriage, money, destruction of enemy, mesmerism over lover, invisibility, control of Jinna and ghosts etc by
blankly reciting certain mantras on microphone and moving some bones.

Sorry, if you think Vedas are akin to Jhaad Phoonk of Pagla Baba Banarasi, or Ajmer Sharif ka Jaadu, or Shahdara
Wale Miyanji ke Totke or something similar, you are at a wrong place. Get these addresses from any Railway Station
rather than daring to open the minds to think honestly. Or perhaps your own scripture might be a good replacement
for these Babas and Miyans.

All you have to do is read the Vedas yourself and see the kind of primitive, superstitous book it
is. Let me give you a sample of Mantra-Tantra and Jhaad Phoonk.
6. The mother shall sleep, the father shall sleep, the dog shall sleep, the lord of the house shall
sleep! All her relations shall sleep, and these people round about shall sleep!
7. O sleep, put thou to sleep all people with the magic that induces sleep! Put the others to sleep
until the sun rises; may I be awake until the dawn appears, like Indra, unharmed, uninjured!
(Atharvaved 4:5:6-7)

These mantras in Atharvaveda are taught to the Robber. It is claimed that by chanting these
mantras, all the family members of the house, which the robber intends to rob, will sleep so that
the robber can easily rob the house. Now, it is for you to decide what kind of knowledge is this?
Obviuosly knowledge of fraud or in short fraud-veda.

P.S. Since this is a response article, we had to restrict it to the arguments presented. However, to
prove the textual corruption of Vedas, one more article will be added soon with many more
proofs and evidences. Stay tuned and thanks for reading! Beware of Fraud Maharishis.
Rate
Aboutthis:
these ads

4 Votes
Share this:

Twitter

Facebook

Related

999 Sukta's Lost,Still No Textual Corruption In Vedas?In "General"

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

This entry was posted in Responses and tagged arya samaj, corrupted, corruption, hindu
scrupture,interpolated, kashyap, manu smriti, not, preserved, purana, quran, rebuttal, rishi 999, scholars, sukta,vedas, zakir
naik on January 2, 2014.
Post navigation
Vedic Paradise: The Inside StoryTextual Corruption of the Vedas

AUTHORS

truthabouthinduism

CHECK LIST OF ARTICLES FOR LATEST POSTS

Search for:
Search

CATEGORIES

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