Written by Sulaiman Razvi
The writer has tried his level best to show Woman are highly revered in the Vedas. How can they claim that Vedas give equal status to women when Vedas are known for oppressing women, it says Women are devoid of intelligence, she shall not inherit, Women are like sly fox. Women in Vedas is nothing but a commodity, Yajur Veda 30.5 and 30.9 explicitly states that Ishwar has created women for sexual enjoyment. It doesn’t even pray for daughter let alone giving them equal rights, Veda only prays for the birth of Son, it says daughter should be born somewhere else, this asserts that women in Vedas is merely looked as a commodity. Some Hindu apologists instead of accepting oppressive verses, has tried to show equal status of women in Vedas by misquoting them, through means of deceit.
When they couldn’t find verses that gives equal rights or praises women, they used the verses addressed to Vedic Goddesses to show women are highly revered in Vedas, they has also used verses which are to be recited during Marriage ceremony. Those verses can never be used to prove that women are given equal status in Vedas, if Vedas really praises women then Hindu apologists should furnish references from Vedas that gives equal inheritance, verses praying for birth of daughter etc. This is a response to a Hindu fanatic’s article. The reason behind making a response to his article is because he has misquoted the Vedic mantras and commentaries to suit is vested interest, to deceive the gullible people. The writer is being deceitful to propagate his religion as taught by his guru Mulshankar (Dayanand). He pretends to be quoting Arya Samaj Hindi translation but in fact he has mistranslated the Hindi translations also. This is why I will mostly be using Arya Samaj translation as well as orthodox translation of Shri Ram Sharma (Gayatri Parivar) for few verses.
There should me a women army. Let the women be encouraged to participate in war.
(Book: Vagambhraniya, Author: Dr Priyamvada Vedbharti)
Correct translation is
Yajur Veda 16.44 ”Food to the expert in deeds, and to the manager of cow-pens. Food to the efficient couch maker, and to him who lives peacefully in his house. Homage to him who is skilled in mental deliberations, and to him who is proficient in diving deep into intricate topics. Food to him who explores the mysteries of nature, and to him who dwells in inaccessible mountain caves.” Tr. Devi Chand (Arya Samaj)
Yajurveda 13.26: O woman, you do not deserve to be defeated by challenges. You can defeat the mightiest challenge. Defeat the enemies and their armies. You have valour of thousands. Please us all.
Yajur Veda 13.26 Thou art Ashadha, Conquering One. Conquer our foemen, conquer thou the men who fain would-fight with us. A thousand manly powers hast thou: so do thou aid and quicken me.
Here the word Ashadha or Ishtika is translated as Brick, and earth or speech by some. It is a brick which the queen forms first. The Satapatha Brahmana briefly mentions about Ashadha,
Satapatha Brahmana 22.214.171.124-33. He then lays down the Ashadha (invincible brick),–the ‘invincible one’ being this earth, it is this earth he thus lays down. He puts it on the fore-part (of the altar-site), for this earth was created first. And as to its being called Ashadha. The gods and the Asuras, both of them sprung from Pragapati, strove together. The gods saw this invincible brick, even this earth; they put it on (the altar); and having put it on, they conquered (and drove) the Asuras, the enemies, the rivals, from this universe; and inasmuch as (thereby) they conquered (asahanta), it is called Ashadha. In like manner the Sacrificer, after putting on that (brick), conquers (and drives) his spiteful rival from this universe (or, from everything here).
And there is one more verse from Brahmanas which is a commentary of the Vedic verse,
Satapatha Brahmana 126.96.36.199. ‘Thou art Ashadha, the conquering,’ for the gods thereby conquered the Asuras,–‘conquer the enemies! conquer the hostile!’ as the text, so the meaning;–‘thou hast a thousand energies: do thou speed me!’ a thousand means
So this verse is not addressed to a women but to a Brick.
Yajurveda 20.85: Noble woman motivates us to be on path of truth, love and harmony.
Correct translation is
Yajur Veda 20.85 ”Vedic text, the impeller of truthful speeches, the inspirer of perceptions, expatiates on God.” Tr. Devi Chand
Rigveda 2.41.16: O woman, you are the motherly force that provides direction to our life.
This verse is not addressed to a common woman, it’s about people offering prayer to the Goddess, the correct translation is,
Rig Veda 2.14.16 Best Mother, best of Rivers, best of Goddesses, Sarasvati, We are, as ’twere, of no repute and dear Mother, give thou us renown.
Rigveda 6.61.2: The way a powerful river breaks down even strongest rocks and hills, in same manner an intelligent woman destroys the fraud propagated by perverted ones. May we bow to such intelligent women.
Rig Veda 6.61.2 She with her might, like one who digs for lotus-stems, hath burst with her strong waves the ridges of the hills. Let us invite with songs and holy hymns for help Sarasvati [Vedic Speech according to Arya Samaj] who slayeth the Paravatas.
This verse is addressed to goddess Saraswati but according to the Arya Samaj’s Hindi translation it refers to Vedic Speech.
Atharvaveda 7.57.1: Whenever I am hurt emotionally or physically, woman – as a mother, wife, sister etc – provides healing touch and rejuvenates me. I bow in humble respect to her.
Atharva Veda 7.57.1 Whatever trouble hath disturbed and shaken me–I speak with hope, I move, imploring, ‘mid the folk What harm my body in myself hath suffered, now let Sarasvati relieve with fatness.
According to the Shripad Damodar (Arya Samaj) Hindi translation above, this verse is also addressed to Hindu Goddess Saraswati. This is a prayer made to Saraswati.
The writer has quoted some verses about discrimination of women in Vedas and then tried to explain it. He again repeated the same trick i.e., to twist the verses and has given his own interpretation. I will reply to his mistranslated Vedic verses one by one.
Niyog Pratha was a social custom to beget a child that was prevalent in all societies and more so in Biblical and Quranic society. Bible, Quran an Hadiths are full of such references. But Vedas have no mention of Niyoga. People have interpreted Vedic verses to create social custom of Niyog to prevent prostitution in emergency situations. But neither is it a Vedic order nor a compulsory practice in Aryan society. On contrary, many a prophets of Christianity and Islam got children from slave-girls but never made them their wives! Prophet Abraham is supposed to have even attempted to abandon his slave-girl to death after having child from her. Prophet Muhammad is supposed to have the only son from his slave Maria. God only knows the veracity of these stories and support for sex slavery in Bible and Quran. But as far as Vedas are concerned, any relation apart from one single wife/husband is clearly considered to be cause of miseries.
Readers are requested to go through these articles for evidence of Niyoga from Vedas and Arya Samaj scholars,
Can the writer elaborate what are those ”emergency” situations where prostitution would be required? Don’t such people have wives to relieve their desire? Seems like the Rishis created these Niyoga verses to satisfy their whims. The founder of Arya Samaj Dayanand Saraswati wrote
”Niyoga is clearly allowed by the Veda” Satyarth Prakash, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Ch 4, p.142, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja
When Dayanand (who is considered the greatest revivalist) says Veda sanction Niyoga then how can the author defy his Guru?
The writer is acting like a small kid who when caught tries to accuse others of doing the same thing. You can’t even compare having a child on slave with Niyoga, because Niyoga is a Vedic practice where the wife cohabits with other men to beget children or the Brahmin cohabits with several women to relieve his desires. He claims Quran is full of such (Niyoga) references but doesn’t cite any. As far as Prophet’s relation with Hazrat Mariya is concerned there are ample evidence to show that Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) married Marriya al Qibtiyya r.a,
”The muqawqis, or King of the Copts, gave the Prophet (S) two wives as a gift. The Prophet (S) married one[i.e., Mariya], who became the mother of the Prophet’s son Ibrahim, and he gave the other one to Hassan as a wife”.
(Haythami said in Majma al-zawaid, “Tabarani in al-Aswat and al-Bazzar related it, and the narrators in al-Bazzar’s chain are all scholars of sound Hadith as stated by Hisham Kabbani in Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine: Remembrance of Allah and Praising the Prophet, p. 76 Vol. II)
The reason why birth of a daughter became a curse in last 1000 years was due to the butchers from West and Central Asia coming in name of Islamic Jihad to kill men and rape women. The entire history of last 1000 years is full of resistance against these terrorists. Thus people wanted sons who could fight these terrorists or at least not be raped by them the way they used to rape women. Birth of daughter thus became a curse because safeguarding the dignity of a daughter was a challenging task. This is why purdah system came in India. This is why dowry system became prevalent – ensuring safety of women became a risky thing. And soon these evil practices became part of the culture. However Vedas are complete against all this and it is time we get back to Vedas.
As usual the writer tries to blame Muslims for the evil Vedic practices. First of all I want to talk about the Dowry topic. He says all the evil practices became prevalent in India due to Muslims. Can he provide a single reference where Dowry is demanded from women in Islam? Dowry system exists only in Hinduism. Secondly If Muslim rulers were so powerful, cruel and religious bigots that Hindus killed their daughters due their fear then why didn’t the Muslim rulers establish a fully dominant Muslim empire? They could have easily converted all the Hindus by the force of Sword. But almost all the rulers treated Hindus and Muslims alike, never discriminated on the basis of religion and this is evident from the fact that Hindus still make 80% of the population in India, Even the bravest Hindu rulers were defeated by Muslim rulers, you can ascertain the strength of Muslims rulers by this fact.
In the entire article the writer couldn’t quote a single verse that prays for the birth of a daughter, on contrary Vedas say a daughter should be born somewhere else and only a son should be born. With such kind of verses Female infanticide became widely prevalent in Ancient India. A historian writes
‘‘In ancient India approximately 1500 BC, there is evidence of nomadic Vedic Aryan tribes who invaded the land and introduced the custom of Female infanticide (Moor 1811). It was the customary that these tribes would pray for the birth of a male child and pray against the arrival of a female.” – Violence and Abuse in Society: Understanding a Global Crisis, p.121, Angela Brown Miller
He further writes
Edward Moor (1811), a British soldier reporting on female infanticide in ancient India, specified the reasons that made it a necessary practice. In his treatise advocating for female children, ”Vedic Dark Ages”, he wrote ”Obliterating female children was a convenient way to alleviate financial ruin; large dowries prescribed by the Vedas implied that female children were an economic burden; women were of little use to Aryan Warmachines.” In those cultures, the gruesome methods used to murder female infants included posioning, starvation, suffocation, smothering, drowning in a pit filled with milk, burying alive, throwing baby to the crocodiles in the Ganges River, cutting up the child and then feeding it to animals, and throwing the baby girl in the air and chopping her up with unsheathed swords as she fell.”-(ibid)
So these evil practices were introduced by none other than Hindu invaders themselves.
The word ‘Putra’ in Vedas is generic and does not necessarily mean a son but implies a child. This is same as ‘mankind’ does not mean only men but all human beings. In most mantras of Vedas though, word ‘Praja’ is used which again means children. As mentioned previously, there are mantras which desire specifically a daughter. For example, Rigveda 10.159.3, 8.31.8, 9.67.10, Yajurveda 22.22, Rigveda 4.32.23 and Atharvaveda 10.3.20. Thus all these claims of Vedas being male-centric is childish at the best.
Manu Smriti 9.138 Because a son delivers (trayate) his father from the hell called Put, he was therefore called Putra (a deliverer from Put) by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) himself.
Garuda Purana 7.9 The son saves his father from the hell called Put; therefore he was named “Putra” by the Self-existent himself.
Above verses clears all doubts over the term Putra. If the word Putra denotes Children then what does the word Putri mean? Moreover the term ”Veer” is also used in Vedas to mean Son. The word ”Veer” is a masculine word generally used for Warrior but in Vedas it’s been used for Son also. Other verses which the author quoted have been refuted. Its surprising to see that as per Hindu scripture the Son saves the father from hell while the daughter is a burden who does bad. Read Response to Women in Hinduism/Vedas Part II for the refutation of the verses he quoted about Birth of daughters in Veda.
Punsawan Sanskar is recommended for aspirants of both sons and daughters. So there is no male bias here.
The mantra meaning has been distorted to suit the agenda. The mantra has a deep meaning. But simply put it means that: “By Grace of Ishwar, woman is able to have a womb and nurture the child therein. May the woman have a son if she desires and planned so ELSE she may have a girl. [Atharva Veda 6.11.3]”
Thus the mantra simply implies that if couple has planned for a boy, may boy be born else girl be born
What translators have done is to translate ‘Anyatra’ as ‘Elsewhere’ instead of ‘In other condition or else’.
The Vedic methods of procreation suggest ways of deciding either a boy or a girl. But regardless of the
case, Punsawan Sanskar is practiced by all Veda followers. Hence there is no gender bias here.
It is mentioned in Grihya Sutras,
Sankhayana Grihya Surtra 1.19.6 …Pragapati has created him, Savitar has shaped him. Imparting birth of females to other (women) may he put here a man…
Now who will claim that the translation is incorrect as this verse from Grihya Sutra confirms the Vedic verse on Pumsavan Sanskar. The author himself is distorting the translation and blaming others. Shripad Damodar (Arya Samaj) writes in the commentary about Punsavan,
”The birth of a son is called ‘Punsavan’ and birth of a girl is called ”Straishuya”.
Arya Samaji scholar named Vaidyanath Shastri translates Atharva Veda 6.11.1 as follows,
Atharva Veda 6.11.1 ”Ashvatta rooted on the tree of Shami is medicine in conducting the ceremony of Pumsavan. It being used there to perform the Pumsavan, a male birth is certain. This is the means of finding a son. We the house-holders bring and use it in the woman.” Tr. Vaidyanath Shastri
It is also mentioned in Garuda Purana,
Garuda Purana 1.93.11-13 ”Garbhadhana (conception) [is performed] after the menstruation, Pumsavana before throbbing of the child in the womb [with purpose to get a son]” Tr. J.L. Shastri
It is mentioned in Vishnu Smriti,
Vishnu Smriti 27.2 The Pumsavana (ceremony to cause the birth of a male) must be performed before the embryo begins to move.
Read the article Female Foeticide- The Bitter Truth for more information on Punsavan and Female foeticide
The word ”Anyatra” means somewhere, elsewhere, in another place. The author has derived the meaning ”in other condition” from Jaydev’s translation, while giving the meaning from Jaydev’s translation it would have been better for him to quote complete translation of Jaydev Sharma (Arya Samaj),
[Jaydev] Atharva Veda 6.11.3…In other conditions there is possibility to conceive a girl child but by this procedure the woman conceives a male child only.
This is a clear discrimination against birth of daughters. Another verse from Atharva Veda has a prayer to beget several sons,
Atharva Veda 3.23.3 Bring forth a male, bring forth a son. Another male shall follow him. The mother shalt thou be of sons born and hereafter to be born.
If there is already a son then why does it pray for birth of sons again and again? It is somehow understandable if Vedas pray for one son as daughters don’t have the right to perform Vedic tasks which can be performed only by a son. But Vedas praying for sons again and again is a discrimination which has lead the Indian society to adopt the evil practice called female infanticide.
Rig Veda 8.33.17 Do not try to rule over the thought process of woman. She can think very fast and in multiple dimensions.
This is also true. Women can think and connect at emotional levels that is impossible for men. That is why women can nurture children in ways men cannot even think of. What translators have done is to distort ‘Ashasyam’ to mean ‘cannot be taught’while it means ‘cannot be ruled’. Then they translated ‘Raghum’ to mean ‘little’ while it actually means ‘agile’or ‘able to move rapidly in variety of locations’or ‘dynamic’. That is why Raghu of Raghukul to which Ram belonged was named so.
This writer is distorting his own Vedas, he is deliberately mistranslating the verse, the correct translation is,
Rig Veda 8.33.17 Indra himself hath said, The mind of woman brooks not discipline, Her intellect hath little weight.
Above is a Arya Samaj’s Hindi translation, and I am quoting two other much more clear Hindi translations by Shri Ram Acharya and Pundit Ram Govind Trivedi,
Pundit Ram Govind Trivedi’s Hindi translation,
Mahrishi Manu writes
Manu Smriti 9.18 For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of(the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule.
Rig Veda 10.95.15 ”Do not run away from your duties due to indulgence in a woman. Do not share confidential details of country with anyone. They may be wolves in garb who want to destroy you and your country. A woman befriended for sensual purposesis a wolf in disguise. Hence stay away from sensual vices to protect the country.”
Thus the particular mantra can be interpreted variously. The particular mantra is part of an allegorical conversation between Pururava and Urvashi. Pururava has several meanings like Cloud, Air and Person. Urvashi means electricity, speech or a woman. Thus the mantra, rather Sukta, provides deep insights. Let us try to understand the context by taking it as conversation. Interestingly this mantra is uttered by the woman herself!
The deep meanings of mantra also unravel that all those women indulged in luring people by glamor – read actresses, models etc – are basically wolves in disguise. So far the country keeps adoring the Aishwarya Rais and Kareenas and Katrinas and ignoring Rani Laxmis and Ahilya Bais and Rani Karnavatis, we simply cannot prosper. Glam-girls are wolves in disguise. And when political leadership starts getting close to them, nothing can be better recipe for national disaster. This mantra thus asserts that considering women as objects for sensual pleasure is not advisable.
This is the same author who is quoting verses out of context and now asking everyone to read it in context. Below is the correct translation along with Arya Samaj’s Hindi translation,
Rig Veda 10.95.15 Nay, do not die, Pururavas, nor vanish: let not the hideous wolves devour thee. Female friendships do not exist. With women there can be no lasting friendship: hearts of hyenas are the hearts of women.
So where in this verse does it say that it refers to women who lures? This verse refers to women in general, it’s not confined to particular type of women, people like the author should stop giving their own interpretation. Yaska Acharya in his book Nirukta 5.13 writes that Urvashi is the name of a Nymph. Further this verse is explained in Srimad Bhagawatam/Bhagwad Purana,
Bhagawad Purana 9.14.36-38: ”Urvasi said: My dear King, you are a man, a hero. Don’t be impatient and give up your life. Be sober and don’t allow the senses to overcome you like foxes. Don’t let the foxes eat you. In other words, you should not be controlled by your senses. Rather, you should know that the heart of a woman is like that of a fox. There is no use making friendship with women. Women as a class are merciless and cunning. They cannot tolerate even a slight offense. For their own pleasure they can do anything irreligious, and therefore they do not fear killing even a faithful husband or brother. Women are very easily seduced by men. Therefore, polluted women give up the friendship of a man who is their well-wisher and establish false friendship among fools. Indeed, they seek newer and newer friends, one after another”.
Swami Prabhupada the founder of ISKCON writes in the commentaries of these verses
”Canakya Pandita has advised, visvaso naiva kartavyah strishu raja-kuleshu ca: “Never place your faith in a woman or a politician.” Unless elevated to spiritual consciousness, everyone is conditioned and fallen, what to speak of women, who are less intelligent than men. Women have been compared to sudras and vaisyas (striyo vaisyas tatha sudrah). On the spiritual platform, however, when one is elevated to the platform of Krishna consciousness, whether one is a man, woman, sudra or whatever, everyone is equal. Otherwise, Urvasi, who was a woman herself and who knew the nature of women, said that a woman’s heart is like that of a sly fox. If a man cannot control his senses, he becomes a victim of such sly foxes. But if one can control the senses, there is no chance of his being victimized by sly, fox like women. Canakya Pandita has also advised that if one has a wife like a sly fox, he must immediately give up his life at home and go to the forest…Urvaśī frankly explained the nature of a woman. Because of her nature, a woman can respond to even a slight offense from her husband by not only leaving him but even killing him if required….Because women are easily seduced, the Manu-samhita enjoins that they should not be given freedom. A woman must always be protected, either by her father, by her husband, or by her elderly son. If women are given freedom to mingle with men like equals, which they now claim to be, they cannot keep their propriety. The nature of a woman, as personally described by Urvasi, is to establish false friendship with someone and then seek new male companions, one after another, even if this means giving up the company of a sincere well-wisher”. Source for commentaries of verses 36, 37 and 38
So according to Srimad Bhagawatam and the commentary by such great scholar of Hinduism, this Vedic verse refers to ”Women as a Class” not to women like Kareenas, Katrinas, And that all women are like sly fox, cunning, polluted.
The Rishi and Rishika as well as the Deities of this hymn are Urvashi and Puruava, which means their conversation and all that they are saying is a divine inspiration/commandment. So how can some Hindus claim it is Urvashi’s personal views, thus they are not divine words? The deities of this hymn are Puruava and Urvashi which is enough to prove my point.
‘Yajur Ved (Taitriya Sanhita)- “Women code says that the women are without energy. They should not get a share in property. Even to the wicked they speak in feeble manner” [Yajur Ved 6/5/8/2]
Shatpath Puran, preachings of the ‘Yajur Veda’ clubs women, ‘shudras’ (untouchables), dogs, crows together and says falsehood, sin and gloom remain integrated in them. [14/1/1/31] In ‘Aiterey Puran’, preaching of the ‘Rig Veda’ in Harsih Chandra – Narad dialogue, Narad says: “The daughter causes pain”
1. The first reference is not clear. In any case Taitriya Samhita is not original Yajurveda. Kindly provide a reference from actual Yajurveda (Madhyandina Shukla Yajurveda Samhita to be specific, which is the actual Veda Samhita).
2. There is no text called Shatpath Puran and Aiterey Puran. They are Shatpath and Aitereya Brahmans. In any case, again these references are not from Vedas. Further we request the author of these allegations to provide the exact verse
Well, it’s not our fault if there are so many corrupted Vedas available, even the Vedas which you claim to be original is not authentic at all nor can you prove it’s authenticity. But can you show a reference from your ”Original” Vedas that talks about equal inheritance? That verse is from Krishna Yajur Veda and is believed by orthodox Hindus (Mainly south Indians) to be correct/Authentic Vedas along with Shukla Yajur Veda. But the most authentic Smriti of Arya Samaj the Manu Smriti also makes no mention of equal inheritance, it rather says
Manu 8:416. A wife, a son, and a slave, these three are declared to have no property; the wealth which they earn is (acquired) for him to whom they belong.
Further Rig Veda also says that a woman will not inherit the property. Refer to my article No Inheritance for Women in Vedas,
Rig Veda 3.31.2 ‘‘The son does not transfer paternal wealth to his sister. He makes her receptacle of the embryo of her husband. When parents procreate children of either sex, one (the male) becomes the performer of holy rites (he is the legal inheriter), the other (the female) is to be enriched with gifts.” Tr. Satyaprakash Saraswati (Arya Samaj)
There is no polygamy in Vedas, Vedas strictly prohibit Polygamy. Vedas stands only for monogamy.
Where is the reference, We As far as Polygamy in Vedas is concerned there are numerous verses which talks about multiple wives of a man, I will quote few of them
7.18.2 For like a King among his wives thou dwellest: with glories, as a Sage, surround and help us…
Above Hindi translation is of Gayatri Parivar.
Rig Veda 1.116.10…who was without kindred, and made him the husband of many maidens.
For more information read Polygamy in Hinduism for more details.
The Aryans in those days used to attack the original inhabitants of this place, or other tribe within their own race, loot them and snatch away their women. Thus, these militant, wicked men had more wives. This custom of polygamy helped a great deal in bringing down the women. Rig Ved 10/59 says that Lord Indra had many queens that were either defeated or killed by his principal wife.
Any evidence, manuscripts or any vague reference to hypothesis of either Aryan invasion theory or Aryans being a race or even any tribe claiming to be Arya killing or plundering anyone? Please cite a single reference to this most stupid hoax of Aryan Invasion.
Here is the reference
Rig Veda 3.53.14 What do the cattle for thee among the Kikatas, they yield no milk to mix with the Soma, they need not the vessel (for the libation) Bring thou to us the wealth of Pramaganda; give up to us, O Maghavan, the low caste.
Manu Smriti 7.96 Chariots and horses, elephants, parasols, money, grain, cattle, women, all sorts of (marketable) goods and valueless metals belong to him who takes them (singly) conquering (the possessor).
Our challenge is open to all – Cite one single verse in all 4 Vedas that justify Sati Pratha, or support polygamy, or insult women, or justify sex-slavery and we shall quit Vedic Dharma.
Let us add one more allegation referring to Rigveda 10.18.7 which Hindu-haters translate to mean “widow woman should go into fire”. However what the shameless haters have done is to change the word “Agre” in the mantra (which means going ahead) to “Agne” which means fire. The mantra by the way has nothing about widow. It means that: In matters of household management, wife should be the leader.
Swami Vivekananda opines that even at that time women used to have sexual intercourse with a person other than her husband to beget a child. The hymn says:”O woman, get up and adopt the worldly life again. It is futile to lie with this dead man. Get up and become the wife of the man who is holding your hand and who loves you. [Rig Ved 10/18/8]. Apparently this shows that woman is considered to be a property. Whenever and whosoever desired, could become her master.
1. Opinion of Vivekananda or practice of ‘that’ time is none of our concern. Many Hindus go to worship graves or even support Jihadi terrorists of Kashmir. That does not make this a practice sanctioned by Vedas or Hinduism.
2. The meaning of this mantra provided has been slightly distorted and misinterpreted to suit one’s mindset of hatred. Actual meaning is: “O woman, get up from here and come back to the world of living ones. Do not waste your life in grief of one who is dead. You have the children of the person who had held your hand and became your husband, to take care of.”
3. The next mantra (where this mantra comes in Atharva Veda 18th Chapter) refers to a childless widow. It says: “I have seen a young widow rising up from grief of dead to marry again and start her life again away from gloom and darkness.”
4. Thus the mantras give the noble lesson that a widow should not continue repenting on dead one but start life afresh and continue with her responsibilities. These mantras form the foundation in which widow remarriage is encouraged and Sati Pratha is discouraged. And fools quote these very mantras to showcase the entirely opposite stand!
I agree that condition of widows has been miserable for several centuries. This has been primarily because the first targets of all butchers who invaded from West Asia in name of Islam was to rape women – be it army of Qasim, Ghazni, Ghori, Khilji, Lodhi, Babur, Akbar or whosoever. Thus widows would have no one to even fight and lay their life for their dignity. Thus widowhood started being regarded as a curse. And soon it became a evil practice. Thanks to efforts of 19th century reformers especially Arya Samaj, this is no more the case with Hindu society that knows Vedic Dharma.
4. But the plight of women in Pakistan is extremely horrible. With no rights for divorce and the shameful Hudood ordinance, it has been a nightmare being a woman in a Muslim dominated country.
Those verses are mistranslated by the writer. The writer himself should quote the reference as a refutation and then explain it. The correct translation is,
Rig Veda 10.18.7 Let these unwidowed dames with noble husbands adorn themselves with fragrant balm and unguent. Decked with fair jewels, tearless, free from sorrow, first let the dames go up to where he lieth
Rig Veda 10.18 .8 Rise, woman, (and go) to the world of living beings : come, this man near whom thou sleepest is lifeless: beget children from this appointed husband [through Niyoga], the suitor who took thee by the hand.
[This verse is translated into English from Hindi Bhasya]
The verse Rig Veda 10.18.8 is much more worse than one can imagine, this verse is spoken by the dead husband’s brother, this is mentioned in Aswalayana Griha Sutra 4.2.
As per the Vedic rule, after the death of the husband, the dead husband’s bother or any other man is considered Devar i.e., he can have intercourse with the widow at anytime to fulfill his desire and to beget sons.
Arya Samaj commentary on the Rig Vedic verse 10.18.8, page 512 states: ”When a woman capable of conceiving a child becomes widow then she may contract Niyoga with the Appointed Husband to beget childre”
The author says remarriage is strongly encouraged in Vedas but cites no reference for it. As per the Vedic law, a widow should either live a life of austerity i.e., not wearing colorful clothes, jewellery, not laughing etc., or else should enter the pyre of her Husband. She can’t desire to have sex with other men, but other men without any hesitation can have it with her. it is mentioned in
Parasara Smrti 4.32 If a woman follows her departed lord, by burning herself on the same funeral pile, she will dwell in heaven for as many years as there are hairs on the human frame, which reach the number of three crores and a half.
So a woman should either remain widow or ascend the pyre, but why should a woman have this option? Why not make this same rule applicable for men also? As per Hindu scripture a man can marry after the death of his wife but if a husband dies then the wife should either ascend her husband’s pyre or live a life of celibacy. Niyoga is clearly sanctioned by Maharishi Manu in Manu Smriti 9.81. Swami Dayanand Saraswati also discouraged widow remarriage and also said that it is prohibited. Then how can the author go against the teachings of his Guru.
Looks like the author has vowed to blame Islam and Muslims for all the evil practices sanctioned by the Vedas. Women are war booty in Vedic Dharm
As far as Divorce is concerned, a Woman can never ask for divorce
Manu Smriti 5. 154. Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife.
Hindu reformist organization like Arya Samaj did nothing for the betterment of women as the Vedas opposes it. Arya Samajis supports castiesm and Niyoga so how can the author claim such crap. The author writes
” Thus widows would have no one to even fight and lay their life for their dignity. Thus widowhood started being regarded as a curse.”
Didn’t the writer just say that remarriage is strongly encouraged in Vedas? if it is so then why these widows were not remarried so that their Husbands may protect them? Isn’t it the duty of Brother or Son as well to protect the widow? Maharishi Manu writes,
Manu Smriti 9.65 In the sacred texts which refer to marriage the appointment (of widows) is nowhere mentioned, nor is the remarriage of widows prescribed in the rules concerning marriage.
But in case when there is a remarriage of women, the remarried woman, her husband and her son will be isolated, this is what Maharishi Manu says
Manu Smriti 9.160 …the son begotten on a re-married woman, the son self given, and the son of a Sudra female, (are) the six (who are) not heirs, (but) kinsmen.
Manu Smriti .166 …the husband of a remarried woman, and a carrier of dead bodies, (all these) must be carefully avoided.
Sati Pratha was existent in India before the advent of Muslims. Does the writer mean to say that Mudri the wife of Pandu and wives of Hindu god Krishna practiced Sati Pratha due to the fear of Muslim invaders? As there is evidence from Hindu scriptures to show that Sati Pratha was a Vedic custom practiced by some women,
Vishnu Purana 5.38 ”The 8 queens of Krishna, who have been named, with Rukmini at their head, embraced the body of Hari, and entered the funeral fire. Revati also embracing the corpse of Rama, entered the blazing pile, which was cool to her, happy in contact with her lord. Hearing these events, Ugrasena and Anakadundubhi, with Devaki and Rohini, committed themselves to the flames.”
For more information read the article Sati Pratha: The Burning of Widows. The evil practice of Sati Pratha came into existence not because of Muslims, instead the Muslim rulers tried to stop this evil Vedic practice
”Though Mughals tried to impose restrictions on Sati Pratha but could not stop this evil practice. The position of a widow was miserable in the Hindu society. They were not allowed to use ornaments.
The Muslim women had property right of their Husband and father but Hindu women had no property right. The Hindu female had her right only on ornaments and precious articles.”- Pratiyogita Darpan, p.133, by Upkar Prakashan.
It has become habit of Hindu fanatics to start talking about other countries just to cover the ugly part of Hinduism. Islam gives women the right to divorce unlike Hinduism which doesn’t allow women to divorce and even says that widow should either ascend pyre of her husband or live her entire life in simplicity and chastity and chastity here includes obscene practice called Niyoga. Practices like Sati, Niyoga, Dev Daasi, female infanticide shows which religion is oppressive to women. There has been 500% increase in rape of Dalit women. The Indian court had to ban many inhumane Vedic practices and the writer in his hypocrisy crediting Arya Samaj.
In Rig Veda there are references to slave girls being given in charity as gifts. After killing the men-folk of other tribes, particularly of the native inhabitants, their women were rounded up and used as slave girls. It was custom to present slave girls to one other as gifts. The kings used to present chariots full of slave girls to their kith and kin and priests (Rig Veda 6/27/8). King Trasdasyu had given 50 slave girls. It was custom to present slave girls to Saubhri Kandav (Rig Veda 8/38, 5/47/6).
1. Not again! The mantra in 6.27.8 has a ‘Vadhu’ word which has been misquoted blatantly and foolishly. The sukta refers to national security. The actual mantra means: “May the wise king appoint a council of 20 able dynamic persons to create strategies to defend the nation from enemies.” The word “Vadhumatah” means one who is capable and dexterous in handling multiple situations smartly.
2. The reference to King Trasadasyu has been wrongly given again showcasing that no one even bothered to check the references. But whatever be the case, Tradasyu means one who defeats terrorists and criminals and hence ensures peace and progress. Saubhari means a noble person who takes care of students well. The actual mantra in Rigveda 8.19.36 means: “The king who is very philantrophic and protector of noble ones, who has defeated the terrorists has provided me 50 Vadhus.”
3. Now question is that what does Vadhu mean? Vadhu means anything that brings strength, vitality, protection or bliss. Since Vedic philosophy believes that women are source of all happiness that come in a society, Vadhu refers to a new bride who enters home of in-laws. Thus it can refer to a daughter-in-law or wife or a bride in general. It can also mean an armed force that protects the nation. Thus in no way the mantra refers to slave girls. If you take literal meaning of bride, then it means that King gave 50 already wed women to a teacher. Obviously it then means that he arranged for marriage of his graduating students. But a more sensible meaning would be that the king gave a battalion of 50 to a general to protect the country. But no way, can it refer to a slave girl.
How can someone give ”already wedded women”? A bride is not presented to anyone, only a slave girl is presented. The author has mistranslated the verses, below are the verses with correct Hindi translation of Shri Ram Acharya,
Rig Veda 6.27.8 The opulent supreme sovereign Abhy Avartin, the son of Chayamana, presents, Agni, to me two damsels riding in cars, and twenty cows
Rig Veda 8.19.36 A gift of fifty female slaves hath Trasadasyu given me, Purukutsa’s son, Most liberal, kind, lord of the brave.
Rig Veda 1.126.3 Ten chariots drawn by bay steeds, and carrying women, stood near me, given me by Swanaya and a thousand and sixty cows…
If these verses are referring to Bride/Wife then can Hindu tell us How can wives be presented to someone? Is it Niyoga or some other obscene Vedic practice? A slave is a commodity which can be sold, purchased or gifted and that’s what we read in Vedas here, the Woman were gifted to others. The Arya Samaj translation says,
Rig Veda 3.52.3 Eat, Indra, our (offered) cakes and butter; derive enjoyment from our praises, as a lover from women.
The Arya Samaj translation has translated the word Vadhu as Stree (Woman) in this verse, further the commentary states,
”…Like the man longing for a woman is blissed by getting her…”
The sentence here in this verse ”Vadhuyur yoshanaam” means one fond of women. The word Vadhu also means Woman, even the author writes
” Even the most modern Amarkosh 3.102 simply states “Vadhurjaya Snusha Stree Cha” or “Vadhu means Wife, Daughter-in-law or Woman”
Maharishi Manu writes about types of slaves in the most authentic Smriti of Arya Samaj the Manu Smriti,
Manu Smriti 8.415 There are slaves of seven kinds, (viz.) he who is made a captive under a standard, he who serves for his daily food, he who is born in the house, he who is bought and he who is given, he who is inherited from ancestors, and he who is enslaved by way of punishment.
It is mentioned in Upanishad that,
Brihadayanaka Upanishad 6.2.7 He said: ‘You know well that I have plenty of gold, plenty of cows, horses, slaves, attendants, and apparel; do not heap on me what I have already in plenty, in abundance, and superabundance.’
So it is evident that Slavery was prevalent in Vedic period and sanctioned by the Vedic texts.
As for intercourse without marriage, Vedas strictly recommend against it. They recommend a relationship between man and woman that is based on commitments and for a purpose. Hidden relationships or goalless relationships are both rejected
Mr Reference forgot to mention the reference, Can he cite a single reference that prohibits it? Vedas permits extra martial sex and adultery, read my article There is indeed obscenity in Vedas.
As for incest (brother-sister or father-daughter relationship), Vedas recommend harshest punishment
that sets example for society. Further, wine drinking is considered a foolish act
Where is the reference for this? I don’t think it is very difficult to mention the source for what you say, you just have to type it. Or at least give the reference wherein Ishwar prohibits incest? If there isn’t any then why defend it?
Let us first provide meaning of Atharva Veda 20.96.15. It says: ”We shall destroy the person who molests/rapes a woman or kills her children posing as her brother or protector”. This mantra justifies why punishment for rape is death sentence as per Vedic Dharma.
Now let us provide meaning to actual mantra being alleged to have intercourse between father and daughter. This is Rig Veda 1.164.33. The mantra explains the process of food/herb generation through rainfall. It says: Sunlight is like my father because he provides me nourishment and the earth is like my mother because she supports and feeds me. Sun and Earth face each other as if two armies stand against each other. Clouds impregnate the earth with rainfall so that food and herbs are produced that provide us nourishment. Thus this mantra describes a natural phenomenon through allegory and nowhere states that incest is recommended.
Please also note that ‘Duhita’ means one obtained from churning. Thus the mantra also implies that earth is formed from a part of sun that separated out in a process similar to churning. Astro-physicists can corroborate if this process of creation of earth from sun is indeed correct or not.
The correct translation for this verse is,
Atharva Veda 20.96.15 May we exterminate from hence, who in the form of brother, husband, or paramour, approaches thee, and seeks to destroy thy offspring.
I have provided Arya Samaj Hindi translation also, so where does it say Ishwar destroys the person who ”Rapes/Molests Women”, This verse is talking about Ishwar protecting the embryo in womb. This is clearly mentioned in Rig Veda 10.96 the entire hymn speaks about this. I wonder didn’t the writer read previous verses of Atharva Veda 20.96.15 or he deliberately distorted the meaning of this mantra to present it for his interests. Those verses will clear the doubt,
Atharva Veda 20.96.12-13 …The malady of evil name that hath attacked thy babe and womb. That which destroys the sinking germ, the settled, moving embryo, That which would kill the babe at birth, even this will we drive far away.
As far as Rig Veda 1.164.33 is concerned, the writer has mistranslated that verse also, If Vedas really prohibit incest then why doesn’t he quote the verse? The fact is Vedas directly or indirectly promotes incest but doesn’t prohibit it. Read my article There is Indeed Obscenity in Vedas.
Yaska Acharya gives the following meaning for the word Duhita,
“Daughter is called Duhita because she is Durhita (one who does bad) and Durehita (it is better if she stays far away). She is Dogdha (one who sucks parent’s wealth)” -Nirukt 3.4
In the name of ‘beejdan’ (seed donation), they used to have sexual intercourse with issueless women. This was a cruel religious custom and the chastity of the women was not safe. The so called caretakers of the religion were allowed to have sexual intercourse with other man’s wife. From ‘Niyog pratha’ it can be inferred without fear of contradiction that women were looked upon as mere child producing machines. In The Position of women in Hindu Civilization, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar writes: “Though women is not married to man, she was considered to be a property of the entire family. But she was not getting share out of the property of her husband, only son could be successor to the property.” Gajdhar Prasad Baudh says [Arya Niti Ka Bhadaphor, 5th ed., p. 14]: “No woman of the Vedic age can be treated as pure. Vedic man could not keep even the relations brother-sister and father-daughter sacred from the oven of rape and debauchery/adultery named ‘Niyog’. Under the influence of intoxication of wine, they used to recognize neither their sister nor their daughter and also did not keep the relations with them in mind. It is evident from their debauchery and adultery what a miserable plight of women was society in then.”
1. Once more vague allegations and no reference. Once more my request: Cite authentic references from Vedas to claim anything for Hinduism and not some historical allegations.
2. Ambedkar is not an authority on Hinduism. He admits in his writings that he has no knowledge of
Sanskrit and has referred only to western authors in translations of Vedas.
3. And who is this Gajdhar Prasad Baudh? Yet another Prophet or reincarnation of some old prophet that his words are taken so seriously?
4. As for incest (brother-sister or father-daughter relationship), Vedas recommend harshest punishment that sets example for society. Further, wine drinking is considered a foolish act. In fact anything that dumbs mind – wine, lust or anger – is considered foolishness in Vedic custom. But may be this new Prophet has come with some new revelations! We request your new Prophet to cite specific references instead of vague allegations. (I know this statement is getting repetitious but we have no other option)
Swami Dayanand Saraswati (Mulshankar) the founder of Arya Samaj wrote in his book
”Those, however, who cannot control their passions may beget children by having recourse to Niyoga.” By Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Satyarth Prakash, Ch 4, p.130, Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja
He also wrote,
”If a man be not able to control his passions while his wife and she is pregnant, he may contract Niyoga with a (widow) and beget offspring on her…” – Satyarth Prakash, Dayanand Saraswati, Ch 4, pg140 Tr. Chiranjiva Bhardwaja
As we can see, it states that if a man (particularly Brahmin) is unable to control his lust then he can have sex with the widow in the name of Niyoga or Beejdan you can say. This guy is busy making his own sect, his beliefs contradict the teachings of his guru Mulshankar, and also he does not view scholars like Vivekananda as authoritative. Whenever such claims are made which the Veda sanctions Mr. Reference insists for references but Mr. Reference doesn’t provide the reference from Vedas where incest is prohibited. Can Mr. Reference furnish the evidence from Vedas wherein Ishwar recommends harsh punishments for incestuous acts? Vedas does not prohibit incest but it promotes incest in several verses. For more details on obscenity read to my article There is Indeed Obscenity in Vedas.
Read Part 2 of this article Response to Women in Hinduism/Vedas Part II