Q To Karthik

[shvu]

 

This is from another thread...

 

 

Seems like even a few religious leaders, who are actually following Advaita, agree with me. Even a cursory analysis of Sankara's commentary on Brahma sutra reveals that some parts were later day interpolation, as they contradict his sayings elsewhere in the same treatise. I can post in detail, when I get some time. That would be a seperate thread in itself.

 

Interpolation, even otherwise, is a distinct possibility. Sankara mutts, all of them, have been without a head for long periods of time after the Muslim invasion. Some were actually resurrected by the barbaric Muslim kings. In those days, the works were preserved only on manuscripts written on palmyrah leaves. They lasted only for a short time. It doesn't take a great effort for someone to rewrite them, to suit his fancy.

 

 

This is a whole different topic deserving to be on a separate thread.

 

I would like to know which portions of Shankara's BSB are considered to be interpolated by you and on what grounds. Also, I would like to know what changes Aurangzeb made to the Manu Smriti and any other Dharma Shaastras.

 

Thanks

 

 

[karthik_v]

Dear Shvu,

 

Thanks. I will reply to this in detail, in the next 2 or 3 days. I am extremely busy for now. One more thing. I would like to clarify some historical facts with you and see if you have any information on that [no, this is not at all related to this topic]. Is there a way I can email you? If so, on which id?

[shvu]

 

You can e-mail me at shvu@hotmail.com

 

[karthik_v]

Before I show why many of the smritis have been interpolated, I should clarify one thing. Whenever I use the phrase written in the courts of Aurangazeb, I use it figuratively - not literally. In fact, such interpolations started in the courts of the earliest Muslim invaders. For example, Mahmud Ghaznavi had captured many scholars and they wrote in his court. Many Islamic rulers, though terrorists [they were true Muslims] of the first order and barbarians [they followed their "Prophet"], also had a fascination for fine architecture and for having scholars around.

 

We should also start with understanding the social scenario that preceded the the Islamic invasions of the Sind, barely a century after "Prophet" Mohammad died. The Gupta empire had declined, the state was fragmenting and the booming population was making the resources scarce. That is when the Muslims invaded, disintegrating the vestiges of the social institutions that supported learning. That was when institutions lost the support of the state, though gradually. Many of them went underground. Whenever some meagre resource could be found, there was intense competition to get them. That was the time when some of the Brahmins and Kshatriyas manipulated the system for personal gains.

 

Many of these court scholars also had to face the contempt that Islam had for Hinduism. It was very strange for the Muslim rulers to see a Hindu society that wasn't governed by any divine law. They found it strange that their women had a lot of freedom. They had nothing but contempt for what they saw. The Brahmins whom they employed, had to project Hinduism in a way that could parallel Islam. That is how the interpolation of the smritis started. Also, the prominence that the smritis gained in the society.

[karthik_v]

Let us see the interpolations in some of the smritis - which includes dharmashastras. I have borrowed heavily on the writings of Narahari Achar and others for this. Consider beef-eating for example.

 

Vedas considered the cow as something to be protected and as sacred. It was called aghnya, meaning "that which can't be killed". Let us see a few examples from the vedas:

 

"May this inviolable cow yield milk for both the Asvinis and may she prosper for our good fortune". [Rk Veda 1.164.27]

 

"The cow is illustrious and inviolable. Do not kill her". [Yajur Veda]

 

"The cow is inviolable and she yields ghee for the people. Do not kill the cow". [Yajur Veda]

 

At this juncture, you should also consider the meaning of the word madhuparka, which appears for the first time in Atharva veda. It appears in the Rk vedic Sanskrit as madhupeya though. And Rk veda defines what it means: ".....svadU raso madhupeyo varAya", meaning "sweet drink madhupeya". [Rk Veda 6.44.21]

 

Its recipe remains the same to this day, when it is given in marriage ceremonies: Made of milk, honey, jaggery and banana.

 

Some of the early Brahmana texts like Apastamba Brahmana clearly show that Madhuparka and cow are 2 different things:

 

[A guest] who can repeat the [whole] Veda is worthy to receive a cow and the Madhuparka.

[APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 8.5]

 

A cow and the Madhuparka (shall be offered) to the teacher, to an officiating priest, to a father-in-law, and to a king, if they come after a year has elapsed (since their former visit). [APASTAMBA PRASNA II, PATALA 4, KHANDA 8.7]

 

All these things make it clear that the cow was considered sacred and not as something to be eaten. Now, you will agree with me that for a smriti should be bona fide, it cannot contradict what the shruti says. Yet, Manusmriti says:

 

"Madhuparkecha yajnecha pitrdaivatakarmaNi

atraiva pashavo hiMsyA nAnyatretyabravInmanuH"

 

Achar says why this is clear interpolation. First of all vedas declare cows as sacred and as that which cannot be killed. Here Manusmriti includes beef as part of Madhuparka. So, it violates the basic tenet - that a smriti cannot contradict a shruti. The last section of this sloka "iti abravIt ManuH" means "so said manu". This is a clear indication that this sloka is an interpolation, for all the injunctions in Manusmriti are given by Manu. There is no necessity to specify again that it is said by Manu. Only if Manu's injunctions are quoted in some other work, then it is proper to say so.

 

Those who interpolate, often leave some trail as well.

 

Manusmriti is not the only interpolated smriti. Many Brahmanas have also been interpolated, though Manusmriti takes the cake. It declares a guest as a ghognya, meaning "one who causes the killing of a cow" [meaning eats beef]. [Manu III, 119 and 120]

 

Some other smritis go even further and assert that beef is to be served t the guest. [AsvalAyana Grihya sUtra I, 24, 31-33.]

 

Are these smritis not contradicting what the shruti says?

 

Al Beruni writes that the Hindus never eat beef. The upper castes always stay away from all kinds of meat. He writes that even those who eat meat cannot sell it in the market. That clearly shows that even as late as 11th century CE, when the Islamic rule hadn't taken deep roots, meat eating was still a taboo in the Hindu society. Ancient Tamil books that are over 2000 years old old confirm the same. They even say that killing the cow is the greatest sin for which there is no redemption. Yet, Manusmriti glorifies beef eating. Does it not make it clear that it was written in the Muslim court, perhaps Ghazni? Further, if Manusmriti was the code of law which always existed, then how come it never surfaces in any of the epigraphs or in the writings of the travelers?

 

Now, it is easy to guess why some Brahmin interpolated so. The Muslims ate beef. These Brahmins were trying their best to make it sound as if the Hindu scriptures too supported that practice.

 

Note: Narahari achar hasn't given the exact verse numbers in some cases. So, I haven't provided them either.

[karthik_v]

I will subsequently write on why Sankara's Brahma sutra bhasya is also interpolated.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Many Brahmanas have also been interpolated, though Manusmriti takes the cake. It declares a guest as a ghognya, meaning "one who causes the killing of a cow" [meaning eats beef]. [Manu III, 119 and 120]

 

 

I don't have the sanskrit texts with me, but George Buellers translation from Sacred Books of the East series disagrees with the translation you hint at:

 

 

119. Let him honour with the honey-mixture a king, an officiating priest, a Snataka, the teacher, a son-in-law, a father-in-law, and a maternal uncle, (if they come) again after a full year (has elapsed since their last visit).

 

120. A king and a Srotriya, who come on the performance of a sacrifice, must be honoured with the honey-mixture, but not if no sacrifice is being performed; that is a settled rule.

 

 

Regardless, the prior verse states:

 

 

118. He who prepares food for himself (alone), eats nothing but sin; for it is ordained that the food which remains after (the performance of) the sacrifices shall be the meal of virtuous men.

 

 

It is speaking of the remnants of sacrifice. The go-medha yajna is spoken of throughout the Vedas, so there is no contradiction or evidence that this is interpolation.

 

Only a person qualified with spiritual knowledge should eat the remnants of sacrifice, otherwise they will suffer in their next life:

 

 

132. Food sacred to the manes or to the gods must be given to a man distinguished by sacred knowledge; for hands, smeared with blood, cannot be cleansed with blood.

 

133. As many mouthfuls as an ignorant man swallows at a sacrifice to the gods or to the manes, so many red-hot spikes, spears, and iron balls must (the giver of the repast) swallow after death.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Here is another perspective on the word "goghna" found in Manu-samhita. This was originally published in Deccan Herald and is by Sandhya Jain.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

"A killer of a king, a killer of a brahmana, a killer of a cow, a thief, a murderer, an atheist, or a younger brother who marries before his elder, all will go to hell." Valmiki Ramayana 4.17.36

 

The Puranas and Itihasas are full of such statements condemning the killing of cows. Should we believe the Muslims foolishly added one word into Manu Samhita saying killing of cows is allright, while leaving the hundreds of verses found in the Puranas that say the killing of cows is sinful? If they could interpolate the texts, they could have removed those verses to create a consistant interpolation. Rather, it is more logical to conclude that the single use of the word goghna in Manu Samhita and its context may be misunderstood today.

 

[shvu]

 

 

The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the Rig Veda "in such a scornful manner that Hindus themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of the Vedas," while a Hindu pandit would "compile an elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic mantras."

 

 

The most widely used "British translation" of the Rig-veda is by Ralph Griffith and not by Muller. Muller has translated the main Upanishads and the only instance where he mentions meat eating is in Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18. This verse is interpreted to refer to meat-eating by Shankara himself [pre-Islam] in his commentary and so intentional distortion by Muller or interpolation by Islam kings is ruled out here.

 

The problem here is, Indians forcibly try to suppress any possible evidence of meat-eating in scriptures to maintain their vegetarian image. Yaajnavalkya's comment that he finds the flesh of a calf tasty or Agastya eating goat meat or Manu Smriti advocating meat eating are not talked about or else they are tried to be projected as interpolations. Allegations that Islam kings interpolated texts or British, *Marxist* scholars intentionally distorted our scriptures are attempted in order to try and retain the *vegetarian* image. If the Braahmanas were so conscious of Ahimsa, where was the need for the Buddha to rebel against animal sacrifices and preach Ahimsa?

 

The Arya Samaj people consider only the mantra portions as Sruti. The Braahmanas and the Aranyakas are believed to to be commentaries on the Mantras written by humans and therefore are prone to errors. Perhaps this was because they could not try and get around references to meat-eating and in the Shatapatha Braahmana. Contrary to this, all schools of Vedaanta consider all portions of the Vedas as Sruti without discrimination.

 

Coming to interpolations in texts such as Manu Smriti, one can aknowledge the possibility only if,

 

1. There exist multiple recensions of the Manu Smriti.

 

2. Or there exits only one recension, but early references to Manu Smriti cannot be traced to the present version.

 

If neither of the above are true, then there are no grounds to believe the Manu Smriti contains interpolations. This is how it most probably was, always. All four views ( the traditional view, the Arya Samaj view, the Hindu Nationalist view and the historical view) are different and we should be aware of the differences.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

If the Braahmanas were so conscious of Ahimsa, where was the need for the Buddha to rebel against animal sacrifices and preach Ahimsa?

 

 

I think it is acknowledged by most that animal sacrifices occured in the past, but there were no slaughterhouses where animals were killed solely for food. Also, all acharyas (of any line) of the last few thousand years agree that animal sacrifices are forbidden in the age of Kali.

 

And regarding killing of cows, there are hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of verses that establish the sanctity of the cow and forbid causing any harm to it. As has been pointed out before, the very word for cow is aghnya, "that which cannot be killed". Ramayana states a killer of a cow should be killed. Sacrifice was not the mere killing of an animal, not until the Kali yuga when the priests were no longer qualified and lacked mantra-shakti. It is because of these unqualifications that Buddha preached against the animal sacrifices of the Vedas.

 

Regarding ahimsa, the Vedic version is always to not cause harm to anyone.