Indo-Aryan Vedas, Vedic Scholars and the West
TAMIL TRIBUNE, August 2003 (ID. 2003-08-02)
Click here for MAIN INDEX to archived articles (main page)
www.geocities.com/tamiltribune
(NOTE: This article is not about Hinduism. This article is neither pro-Hinduism nor anti-Hinduism. This article is a discussion of some views expressed in Indo-Aryan Vedas, specifically the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda).
Some months ago TAMIL TRIBUNE received an article from an American gentleman holding a doctorate degree (I will refer him as Dr. A hereon). The article stated that answers to today's perennial problems could be found in Indo-Aryan Vedas and that "Veda means pure knowledge".
Not only did I disagree that Vedas have answers to many of today's perennial problems, I took umbrage to the statement that Vedas are pure knowledge. Though Vedas do contain some useful information (not unlike the old books of many civilizations), they also contain some of the most despicable thoughts and assertions that deserve condemnation. How can such books be considered "pure knowledge"?
I wrote a letter to Dr. A. I quoted a few passages from the Vedas and asked him if they are examples of the "pure knowledge"?
1) I quoted Rig Veda 8:33:17 which states, "Lord Indra himself has said, 'The mind of woman cannot be disciplined; she has very little intelligence.' " I commented in my letter to Dr. A, "I hope American ladies meditate on these wise words from the Vedas and accept their place in society." The problem is that many western "fans and admirers" of Vedas have not read Vedas but were selectively spoon-fed by vested Vedic scholars from the Indian subcontinent. The western audience would condemn the Vedas if they are told of some of the most despicable thoughts contained in Vedas
2) I quoted another bit of pure knowledge from Atharva Veda 5:17:8-9 that states, ""If in the process of negotiating betrothal there are first ten suitors of the non-Brahmana varna (Brahmana caste) for a woman (the marriageable girl), all of them lose their claims of marriage and, only the Brahmin, the learned one, if he grasps her hand would be her husband and only he. Not even the man of Ksatriya varna (Kshatriya caste) and not even the man of Vaisya varna (Vaisya caste) but only the Brahmin is the husband of the bride in such cases of claimants of betrothal, and the sun, as it appears, revealing this fact to the people of five classes (4 varnas and the fifth avarna) rises up."
Let us take a closer look at what this source of pure knowledge, the Atharva Veda, says. It says that if eleven men wish to marry a particular lady and if one of them is a Brahmin and the remaining ten are non-Brahmins, the Brahmin should be chosen as the husband because he is a Brahmin. This Brahmin may be a man of bad character and the others may be of exemplary character. That does not matter. The Brahmin must be chosen as the husband because he is born in the Brahmin caste. This Brahmin may be a lazy bum and the others may be hard workers. That does not matter. The Brahmin must be chosen as the husband because he was born in the Brahmin caste. The Brahmin may be a spendthrift and a gambler and the others may spend their money wisely. That does not matter. The Brahmin must be chosen as the husband because he was born in the Brahmin caste. So according to Vedas, a man's (or woman's) ability and character does not matter. What matters is the caste in which he/she was born. How many of you would like to live in such a caste-based society? Yet the Vedas, which espouse this despicable caste-based society, are touted as pure knowledge and cure for all ills of the society.
The Tamil poet Thiruvalluvar (Thiru Valluvar) said about two thousand years ago in his book Thirukural (Thiru Kural), "All are equal at birth; distinction arises based on what they do". This is a more noble philosophy and not the Vedas.
Vedas were written by Brahmins to glorify themselves and to protect their self-interest. But they were touted as holy books to the masses of the Indian Subcontinent and now presented as "pure knowledge" to the West. How can anyone praise the Vedas that espouse such a despicable philosophy that categorizes people into four castes on the basis of their birth and not by how they live their lives? Vedas are also anti-female in their messages. Such thoughts have no place in the modern society where all are equal irrespective of caste, race or sex.
I concluded my letter to Dr. A this way: "If you write about Vedic knowledge, you MUST tell the western audience about these garbage also. Hiding them is unjust. It was (and is) this type of garbage from Vedas that was (and is) used by Aryans to hoodwink and subjugate the native population of the Indian Subcontinent. Western world should know this dirty truth. Knowledgeable people like you should bring it out to the west instead of selectively quoting from Vedas and putting them on a pedestal." (May be I should not have used the word "garbage" but that was my inner feeling about some of the thoughts expressed in Vedas. If it hurts someone's sensibility, I apologize.)
Dr. A was kind enough to send me a reply. But the reply was a disappointment to me. Here are some relevant parts of the reply.
1) Dr. A wrote, "Unfortunately, you have misunderstood the spirit of our article. In your response you accuse us of selectively quoting from Vedas and putting it on a pedestal. However, in your reply, you selectively quoted from the Vedas yourself."
Yes. Of course I quoted selectively from the Vedas. The purpose of the quotes is to show that Vedas are not "pure knowledge". All I have to do is to show a single piece of philosophy from the Vedas that is despicable. That would demolish the assertion that Vedas are pure knowledge. I gave three quotes to Dr. A. There are many, many more.
2) Dr. A wrote, "We did not agree with your commentaries because we felt you misinterpreted the Veda. A more enlightened way of viewing the Vedas is in their totality. Picking a line or two takes the Vedas out of context when compared to the central and total theme."
This reply sounds more like a politician who said something offensive to a sizable segment of voters and later trying to get out of it by saying that he was quoted out of context. I ask any Vedic scholar to explain within the totality of Vedas what this quote means: "Lord Indra himself has said, 'The mind of woman cannot be disciplined; she has very little intelligence.' " (Rig Veda 8:33:17). It means only one thing. It means that women are intrinsically stupid. If Dr. A thinks that it means "women are as intelligent as men" he should have explained it in his letter instead of just stating that I misinterpreted the Vedas. Rig Veda 8:33:17 states plain and clear that "women have very little intelligence".
Those who tout Vedas to the western audience MUST tell them about the despicable caste-based philosophies contained in the Vedas instead of touting them as "pure knowledge". Aryans presented the caste system through Vedas and Manusmrti as religious doctrines and subjugated millions of the native population to a caste-based life of misery and humiliation for the past 3 or 4 millennia. Thanks to the hard work of social reformers like Periyar EVR (E. V. Ramaswamy) and Ambedkar, things are slowly changing in India for the better. To tout Vedas as "pure knowledge" without ever mentioning the evil caste-based philosophies propagated through the Vedas is wrong.
(NOTE: This article is highly critical of the Brahmins who propagated caste-based philosophies through Vedas and subjugated large segments of the population in the Indian Subcontinent to misery and humiliation for millennia. However this article is not against today's Brahmins except for those Brahmin-supremacists who still consider themselves superior to other castes and want to strengthen caste-based Vedic philosophies as basis for today's Indian society. Our quarrel is only with these Brahmin-supremacists, not with the others.)
FSI030731X