007 
 
 The Terminology of the Vedas 
 qnci European Scholars, 
 
 • By 
 Pandit '"Ki.ru Datta Vidy^rthi
 
 THE 
 
 TERMINOLOGY OF THE YEDAS 
 
 AND 
 
 EUROPEAN SCHOLARS: 
 
 BY 
 
 PANDIT GURU DATTA VIDYARTJII, M.A., 
 
 Professor, Physical Science, Government College, Lahore, 
 
 CHICAGO EDITION. 
 
 Printed and published under the auspices of the 
 Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Punjab. 
 
 Jin (j or t;: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE MXJFID-] AM TRESS. 
 
 .1893. 
 
 * - ■> v •> 4 , »«-> 
 
 9 • » * 1 i 
 
 • I 
 
 1 '
 
 «. i. i 1 «- 
 
 t I. t. t
 
 3001 
 
 THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE VEDAS* 
 
 AND 
 
 EUROPEAN SCHOLARS. 
 
 With us, the question of the terminology of the Vedas is of the 
 
 highest importance, for upon its decision will depend the verdict to bo 
 
 m passed by the future world respecting the great controversy to rage 
 
 «> between the East and the West, concerning the supremacy of the Vedic 
 
 = philosophy. And even now, the determination of this question in- 
 
 z volves issues of great value. For, if the Vedic philosophy be true, 
 
 the interpretations of the Vedas, as given at present by Professor Max 
 
 Miiller and other European scholars must not only be regarded as 
 
 imperfect, defective and incomplete, but as altogether false. Nay, in the 
 
 light of true reason and sound scholarship, we are forced to admit their 
 
 ^entire ignorance of the very rudiments of Vedic language and philosophy. 
 
 ^ We are not alone in the opinion we hold. Says Schopenhauer, "I add 
 
 _ to this the impression, which the translations of Sanskrit works by 
 
 ; European scholars, with very few exceptions, produce on my mind. I 
 
 cannot resist a certain suspicion that our Sanskrit scholars do not 
 
 understand their text much better than the higher class of school boys 
 
 their Greek or Latin." It will be well to note here the opinion of 
 
 Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the most profound scholar of Sanskrit of 
 
 his age, on the subject. He says, " The impression that the Germans 
 
 are the best Sanskrit scholars, and that no one has read so much of 
 
 Sanskrit as Professor Max Miiller, is altogether unfounded. Yes, in a 
 
 '^sjand where lofty trees never grow, oven riciuus communis or the 
 
 * A paper of this immo was submitted to the public by the writer early in 1888 
 but it was necessarily brief and incomplete. It lias now been thought advisable to 
 give to the same thoughts and principles a new garb, more suited to the requirements 
 of the reading public of the present day, to amplify the same truths by interesting 
 illustrations, and to supplement them by others that ar« necessary to complete the 
 treatment of the subject. 
 
 :i. r >4r,4
 
 castor-oil plant may be called an oak. The study of Sanskrit being 
 altogether out of question in Europe, the Germans and Professor Max 
 Miiller may there have come to be regarded as highest authorities.... 
 I came to learn from a letter of a principal of some German Uni- 
 versity, that even men learned enough to interpret a Sanskrit letter 
 are rare in Germany. I have also made it plain from the study of Max 
 Miiller's " History of Sanskrit Literature" and his comments on some 
 mantras of the Veda, that Professor Max Miiller has been able only to 
 scribble out something by the help of the so-called tihas, or paraphra- 
 ses of the Vedas, current in India."* 
 
 It is this want of Vedic scholarship among European scholars, this 
 utter ignorance of Vedic language and philosophy that is the cause of 
 so much misimpression and prejudice even in our own country. We 
 are, indeed, so often authoritatively told by our fellow-brethren who 
 have received the highest English education, but are themselves entirely 
 ignorant of Sanskrit, that the Vedas are books that teach idol-worship 
 orelement worship, that they contain no philosophical, moral or scienti- 
 fic truths of any great consequence, unless they be the commonest 
 truisms of the kitchen. It is therefore a matter of greatest concern to 
 learn to attach proper value to the interpretations of these European 
 scholars. We propose, therefore, to present a rough outline of those 
 general principles, according to which Vedic terms should be inter- 
 preted, but which European scholars entirely ignore ; and hence much 
 of the misinterpretation that has grown up. 
 
 In the discussion of philosophical subjects, prc-conceived notions 
 are the worst enemies to encounter. They not only prejudicially bias 
 the mind, but also take away that truthfulness and honest integrity from 
 the soul, which alone are compatible with the righteous pursuit and 
 discernment of TRUTH. In the treatment of a question such as the 
 estimation of the value of system of philosophy or religion, extreme 
 
 * Satyartha Prakasha, 3rd Edition, page 278.
 
 sobriety and impartiality of the mind are required. Nor is it to be 
 supposed that a religious or philosophical system can be at once 
 mastered by a mere acquaintance with grammar and language. It is 
 necessary that the mind should, by an adequate previous discipline, be 
 raised to an exalted mental condition, before the recondite and invisible 
 truths of Man and Nature can be comprehended by man. So is it with 
 Vedic philosophy. One must be a complete master of the science of 
 orthoepy, the science of language, the science of etymology, the science 
 of morals, the science of poetry, and the sciences of geology and 
 astronomy ;* he must be well vei*sed in the philosophy of dltarma, the 
 philosophy of characteristics, the doctrines of logic or the science of 
 evidence, the philosophy of essential existences, the philosophy of 
 yoga, and the philosophy of vedanta;f he must be a master of all these 
 and much more, before he can lay claims to a rational interpretation 
 of the Vedas. 
 
 Such, then, should be our Vedic scholars — thorough adepts in 
 science and philosophy, unprejudiced, impartial judges and seekers 
 after truth. But if impartiality be supplanted by prejudice, science 
 and philosophy by quasi-knowledge and superstition, and integrity 
 by motive, whereas predetermination takes the place of honest inquiry, 
 Truth is either disguised or altogether suppressed. 
 
 Speaking of the religion of the Upanishafs and the Bible, says 
 
 Schopenhauer, who has ' washed himself clean of all early-engrafted 
 
 Jewish superstitions, and of all philosophy that cringes before these 
 
 superstitions ' : — 
 
 "In India, our religion (Bible) will now and never strike root; 
 the primitive wisdom of the human race will never be pushed aside 
 by the events of Galilee. J On the contrary, Indian wisdom will flow 
 
 * These are the well-known six Vedangiia : — 1. Shiksha, 2. Vyakarana, 3. Nirukta, 
 4. Kalpa. 5. Chhanda, and (5. Jyotisha. 
 
 t Those are the well-known six Upangas or Darshanas :— 1. Purva Mimansa, 
 2. Vaisheahika, 3. Nyaya, 4. Sankhya, 5. Yoga, and 6. Vcdanta. 
 
 % It is well-known how the astronomical and geographical discoveries of Galilio 
 and liiB telescope were forced upon the world in spite of the prisons and dcath-racka of 
 $ho so-called Christians,
 
 4 
 
 back upon Europe, aud produce a thorough chango in our knowing 
 and thinking/' 
 
 Let us now hear what Professor Max Midler has to say against 
 
 the remarks of this unprejudiced, impartial philosopher. He says: 
 
 "Hero again, the great philosopher seems to me to have allowed 
 
 himself to be carried away too far by his enthusiasm for the less known. 
 
 He is blind for the dark side of the Upanishat ; and he wilfully shuts 
 
 his eyes against the bright rays of eternal truths in the Go sp el, which 
 
 even Ram Mohan Roy was quick enough to perceive, behind the mist 
 
 and clouds of tradition that gather so quickly round the sunrise of every 
 
 religion." 
 
 With the view that the Christianity of Max Muller may be set 
 
 forth more clearly before the reader, we will quote from the " History 
 
 of Ancient Sanskrit Literature." Says Max Muller — 
 
 " But if India has no place in the political history of the world, 
 it certainly has a right to claim its place in the intellectual history of 
 mankind. The less^the Indian nation has taken part in the political 
 struggles of the world, and expended its energies in the exploits of 
 war and the formation of empire, the more it has fitted itself and 
 concentrated all its powers for the fulfillment of the important mission 
 reserved to it in the history of the East. History seems to teach that 
 the whole human race required a gradual education before, in the 
 fulness of time, it could be admitted to the truths of Christianity. All 
 the fallacies of human reason had to be exhausted, before the light 
 of a higher truth could meet with ready acceptance. The ancient 
 religions of the world were but the milk of nature, which was in due 
 time to be succeeded by the bread of life. After the primeval 
 physiolatry, which was common to all members of the Aryan family, 
 had, in the hands of a wily priesthood, been changed into an empty 
 idolatry, the Indian alone, of all the Aryan nations, produced a 'new 
 form of religion, which has well been called subjective, as opposed to the 
 more objective worship of nature. That religion, the religion of 
 Buddha, has spread far beyond the limits of the Aryan world, and to 
 our limited vision, it may seem to have retarded the advent of 
 Christianity among a large portion of the human race. But in the 
 sight of Him, with whom a thousand years are but as one day, that 
 religion, like all the ancient religions of the world, may have but 
 served to prepare the way of Christ, by helping through its very errors, 
 to strengthen and to deepen the ineradicable yearning of the human 
 heart after the truth of God/'* 
 
 * Max Muller's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 31 — 32.
 
 Is not this Christian prejudice ? Nor is this with Mai Miiller 
 alone. Even more strongly does this remark hold good of Monier. 
 Williams, whose very object in writing the book, known as "Indian 
 Wisdom/' is to caricature the Vedic religion which he calls by the 
 name of Brahmanism, and to hoist up Christianity by the meritorious 
 process of deliberate contrasts. Writes Monier Williams, "It is one of 
 the aims, then, of the following pages to indicate the points of contact 
 between Christianity and the three chief false religions of the world, 
 as they are thus represented in India." * 
 
 Speaking of Christianity and its claims f t as supernaturally com- 
 municated by the common Father of mankind for the good of all His 
 creatures/ he says : — 
 
 " Christianity asserts that it effects its aim through nothing short 
 of an entire change of the whole man, and a complete renovation 
 of his nature. The means by which this renovation is effected may 
 be described as a kind of mutual transfer or substitution, leading to a 
 reciprocal interchange and co-operation between God and man's 
 nature acting upon each other. Man — the Bible affirms — was 
 created in the image of God, but his nature became corrupt through 
 a taint, derived from the fall of the first representative man and 
 parent of the human race, which taint could only be removed by a 
 vicarious death. 
 
 "Hence, the second representative man — Christ — whose nature 
 was divine and taintless, voluntarily underwent a sinner's death, that 
 the taiut of the old corrupted nature transferred to him might die also. 
 But this is not all. The great central truth of our religion lies 
 not so much in the fact of Christ's death as in the fact of His 
 continued life. (Rom. viii. 34). The first fact is that He of His own 
 free-will died ; but the second and more important fact is that He 
 rose again and lives eternally, that He may bestow life for death 
 and a participation in His own divine nature in place of the taint 
 which He has removed. 
 
 "This, then, is tho reciprocal exchange which marks Christianity 
 and distinguishes it from all other religions — an exchange between 
 the personal man descended from a corrupt parent, and the personal 
 God made man and becoming our second parent. We are sepa- 
 rated from a rotten root, and are grafted into a living one. We 
 part with the corrupt will, depraved moral sense, and perverted 
 judgment inherited from tho first Adam, and draw re-creativo 
 
 * Monier William's Ix-cliun Wisdom, Introduction, p. 36.
 
 6 
 
 forco— renovated wills, fresh springs of wisdom, righteousness, and 
 knowledge — from the ever-living divine stem of the second Adam, to 
 which, by a simple act of faith, we are united. In this manner is the 
 grand object of Christianity effected. Other religions have their 
 doctrines and precepts of morality, which, if carefully detached from 
 much that is bad and worthless, may even vie with those of Christianity. 
 But Christianity has, besides all these, what other religions have not — 
 a pei'sonal God, ever living to supply the free grace or regenerating 
 Spirit by which human nature is re-created and again made Godlike, 
 and through which man, becoming once again 'pure in heart,' and still 
 preserving his own will, self-consciousness, and personality, is fitted to 
 have access to God the Father, and dwell in His presence for ever."* 
 
 Again, speaking of Brahmanism, he says — 
 
 " As to Brahmanism, we must in fairness allow that according 
 to its more fully developed system, the aim of union with God 
 is held to be effected by faith in an apparently personal good, 
 as well as by works and by knowledge. And here some of the 
 lines of Brahmanical thought seem to intersect those of Christianity. 
 But the apparent personality of the various Hindu gods melts away, 
 on closer scrutiny, into a vague spiritual essence. It is true that 
 God becomes man and interposes for the good of men, causing a 
 seeming combination of the human and divine — and an apparent 
 interchange of action and even loving sympathy between the 
 Creator and His creatures. But can there be any real interaction 
 or co-operation between divine and human personalities when all 
 personal manifestations of the Supreme Being — gods as well as 
 men — ultimately merge in the Oneness of the Infinite, and nothing 
 remains permanently distinct from Him ? It must be admitted 
 that most remarkable language is used of Krishna (Vishnu), a sup- 
 posed form of the Supreme, as the source of all life and energy (see 
 pp. 144-148, and see also pp. 456, 457) ; but if identified with the 
 One God he can only, according to the Hindu theory, be the source 
 of life in the sense of giving out life to re-absorb it into himself. 
 If, on the other hand, he is held to be only an incarnation or 
 manifestation of the Supreme Being in human form, then by a 
 cardinal dogma of Bi'ahmanism, so far from being a channel of life, 
 his own life must be derived from a higher source into which it 
 must finally be merged, while his claim to divinity can only be due 
 to his possessing less of individuality as distinct from God than 
 inferior creatures. "t 
 
 And lastly in conclusion, he says — 
 
 "It is refreshing to turn from such unsatisfying systems, however 
 interspersed with wise and even sublime sentiments, to the living 
 
 * Monier William's Indian Wisdom, Introduction, pp. 40 — 41. 
 t Ibid, pp. 44 — 45.
 
 energizing Christianity of European nations, however lamentably 
 fallen from its true standard, or however disgraced by the incon- 
 sistencies and shortcomings of nominal adherents — possessors of its 
 name and form without its power." 
 
 " In conclusion, let me note one other point which of itself stamps 
 our religion as the only system adapted to the requirements of the 
 whole human race — the only message of salvation intended by God 
 to be gradually pressed upon the acceptance of all His intelligent 
 creatures."* 
 
 It is clear, then, that Professor Monier Williams is labouring 
 under hard Christian prejudices, and cannot be viewed in any way 
 as an unprejudiced, impartial student of the Vedas. No wonder then, 
 if modern sophisticated philology, propped by the entire ignorance of 
 the laws of interpretations of Vedic terms, and fed by the prejudices of 
 Christian superstitions, should raise its head against Vedic philosophy 
 and gain audience among European Christian nations or deluded 
 educated natives of India who possess the high merit of being innocent 
 of any knowledge of Sanskrit language or literature. — 
 
 But now to the subject. The first canon for the interpretation 
 of Vedic terms, which is laid down by Taska, the author of Nirukta, 
 is that the Vedic terms are all yaugika.^ The fourth section of 
 the first chapter of Nirukta opens with a discussion of this very 
 subject. Yaska, Gargya, Shakatayana and all other Grammarians and 
 Etymologists unanimously maintain that Vedic terms are all yaugika. 
 But Yaska and Shakatayana also maintain the rnrhi J terms are 
 also yaugi&ct) i. e., were originally framed from the roots 5 whereas, 
 Gargya maintains thai only rurhi terms are not yaugika. The section 
 concludes with a refutation of the opinions of Gargya, establishing it as 
 
 * Monier William's Indian Wisdom, Introduction, p. 46. 
 
 f A yaugika term is one that has a derivative meaning, that is, one that only 
 signifies the meaning of root together with tho modifications affected by tho affixes. 
 In fact, the structural elements out of which the word is compounded, afford tho 
 whole and tho only clue to the true signification of the word. The word is purely 
 connotative. 
 
 J A rurhi term is the name of a definite concrete object, where the connotation 
 of the word (as structurally determined) gives no clue to tho objeet denoted by the 
 "word, ttence, ordinarily it means a word of arbitrary significance.
 
 8 
 
 ' true "that all terms whether Vedic or rurhi are i/augikas. It is on this 
 . authority of Nirukta that Patau jali quotes in his Mahabhashya the 
 
 same opinion, and distinguishes the Vedic terms from Rurhi terms by 
 
 the designation of naigamd. Says Patairjali — 
 
 and a line before this, — 
 
 The sense of all this is, that all the Rishis and Munis, ancient 
 
 authors and commentators without exception, regard Vedic terms to 
 
 .be yaugika, whereas laukika terms are regarded by some as rurhi also. 
 
 This principle, the European scholars have entirely ignored, and 
 hence have flooded their interpretations of the Vedas with forged or 
 borrowed tales of mythology, with stories and anecdotes of historic 
 or pre-historic personages. Thus, according to Dr. Muii*,t the following 
 historical personages are mentioned in the Rig Veda, the rishis Kanvas, 
 in i, 47-2; Gotamas, in i, 71-16; Gritsamadas, in ii, 39-8; Bhrigavas, in 
 iv, 16-23 ; and Vrihaduktha, in x, 54-6. But what is the truth! The 
 words Kanva, and Gritsa only signify learned men in general \ (see 
 ' Nighantu iii, 13) ; the word Bhrigavah only signifies men of intellect 
 
   (see Nighantu, v. 5). The word Gotama signifies one who praises; 
 • and Vrihaduktha is simply one whose uJcthas, or knowledge of natural 
 
 properties of objects is vrihat or complete. It is clear, then, that if 
 - this principle is once ignored, one is easily landed into anecdotes of his- 
 torical or pre-historic personages. The game might be said of Max 
 Midler discovering the story of Shuv'ah-shepa in the Rig Veda. . Shepa, 
 
   which means contact, (Nirukta iii-, 2,— (^q; j\-q^ W^fr\ ^fiHlWt) being 
 suffixed to t^»t: or s^ which means knowledge (*3T 1HH*. 3J^3T 
 'ifflcti'fT^WRT ) means onewho has come into contact with knowledge, 
 
 , i. e., a learned person. It shall appear, in the progress of this article, 
 . how mantra after mantra is misinterpreted by simply falsifying this law 
 of Nirukta. 
 
 * : Mahabhashya, Chap. Ill, Sect, iii, Aph. 
 
 t Muir's Sanskrit Texts, Vol. Ill, pp. 232—231.
 
 To an unprejudiced mind, the correctness of this law will never 
 be doubtful. For, independently of the authority of Nirukia, the 
 very antiquity of the Vedas is a clear proof of its words being yaugika. 
 And even Professor Max Muller, in his mythological moods, is 
 compelled to confess at least concerning certain positions of the Vedas, 
 that their words are yaugika, Sayslie, " But there is a charm in these 
 primitive strains discoverable in no other class of poetry. Every word 
 retains something of its radical meaning every epithet tells ; every 
 thought, in spite of the most intricate and abrupt expressions, is, if 
 we once disentangle it, true, correct, and complete."*" 
 
 Further again, says Max Muller, " Names... are to be found in the 
 Veda, as it were, in a still fluid state. They never appear as appellations 
 nor yet as proper names; they are organic, not yet broken or smoothed 
 down."t 
 
 Can there be anything clearer than this ? The terms occurring in 
 the Vedas are yaugika, because "they never appear as appellatives, nor 
 yet as proper names/' and because " every word retains something of its 
 radical meaning." It is strange to find that the self-same Max Muller 
 who has perceived the yaugika character of words in some mantras 
 of the Vedas, should deny the same characteristic to other portions 
 of the Vedas. Having said that words are yaugika in these pri- 
 mitive strains, the Vedas, he proceeds to say, "But this is not the case 
 with all the poems of the Veda. It would be tedious to translate many 
 specimens of what I consider the poetry of the secondary age, the 
 Mantra period. These songs are generally intended for sacrificial pur- 
 poses, they are loaded with technicalities, their imagery is sometimes 
 mo*e brilliant, but always less perspicuous, and many thoughts and 
 expressions are clearly borrowed from earlier hymns. "X This he calls 
 the Mantra period. The primitive strains belong to what is called the 
 
 * Max Muller's Ilistory of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, page 553. 
 t Ibid, p. 755. 
 % lbid> p. 658.
 
 10 
 
 Chhandas period. Ho describes the characteristics of the Chhandas 
 period, as distinguished from the Mantra period, that has been above 
 described thus : " There is no very deep wisdom in their teaching, their 
 laws are simple, their poetry shows no very high flights of fancy, and 
 their religion might be told in a few words. But what there is of their 
 language, poetry and religion, has a charm which no other period of 
 Indian literature possesses; it is spontaneous, original aud truthful."* 
 Professor Max Miiller quotes Rig Veda, VII. 77, as a specimen hymn 
 of the Chhandas period. Says he, " This hymn, addressed to dawn, is a 
 fair specimen of the original simple poetry of the Veda. It has no 
 reference to any special sacrifice, it contains no technical expressions, 
 it can hardly be called a hymn, in our sense of the word. It is simply a 
 poem expressing, without any efforts, without any display of far-fetched 
 thought or brilliant imagery, the feelings of a man who has watched 
 the approach of the dawn with mingled delight and awe, and who was 
 moved to give utterance to what he felt in measured language." t 
 
 From these quotations it will be clear that Professor Max Miiller 
 regards different portions of the Vedas belonging to different periods. 
 There are some earlier portions, ( according to Max Miiller's highly 
 accurate calculations, the very exactness and infallibility of which Gold- 
 stucker bears ample testimony to ) which he calls as belonging to the 
 Chhandas period. The word Chhanda, in laukiha Sanskrit, means 
 spontaneity. Hence he regards Chhandas period to be the one, the 
 hymns of which period only teach common things, are free from the 
 flight of fancy, and are the spontaneous utterances of a simple (foolish) 
 mind. The Mantra period (2,900 years older) is full of technicalities 
 and descriptions of elaborate ceremonies. Now we ask what proof has 
 Max Miiller given to prove that the different portions of the Vedas 
 belong to different periods. His proofs are only two. Firstly, the ill- 
 conceived, confused idea of the difference between Chhandas and 
 
 * Max Muller's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 526. 
 t Ibid, p. 562.
 
 11 
 
 Mantras ; and secondly, the different phases of thought represented by 
 the two portions. 
 
 We will consider each of these reasons in details. 
 
 Says Yaska — 
 
 *rer. *t^rt w^ifa wr^tict ^t*r: ^rtct 
 
 which means that there is no difference in the meaning of mantra and 
 chhandas. The Veda is called the mantra, as through it one learns the 
 true knowledge of all existences. The Veda is also called the chhandas, 
 as it removes all ignorance, and brings cn3 under the protection of 
 true knowledge and happiness. Or, more explicitly still, we read in 
 Shatapatha, VIII. 2.— 
 
 The mantras {deva) are called <V//i#?ir/rt,s'foraknowledgeof all human 
 conduct is bound up with them. It is through them that we learn all 
 righteous conduct. The yaugika sense of the words will also lead 
 to the same conclusion. Mantra may be derived from the root man, to 
 think, or matri, to reveal the secret knowledge. Panini thus derives 
 the word chhandas \ ^f^TJ^{W< II Chhandas is derived from the root 
 chadi to delight or illumine. Chhandas is that the knowledge of which 
 produces all delight or which illumines every thing, i.e., reveals its 
 true nature. 
 
 The second reason of Max Miiller for assigning different 
 periods to different portions of the Vedas, is that there arc two 
 different phases of thought discoverable in the Vedas. The one is the 
 truthful and simple phase of thought and corresponds to his Chliandas 
 period. The other is the elaborate and technical phase of thought 
 that corresponds to his Mantra period. But what proof has Max 
 Miiller to show that the hymns of his secondary period are full of 
 
 * Unadi Kosha, iv. 219.
 
 12 
 
 elaborate and technical thought ? Evidently this, that he interprets 
 thorn thus. If his interpretations were proved to be wrong, his 
 distinction of the two periods will also fall to the ground. Now, why- 
 does he interpret the hymns of the mantra period thus ? Evidently, 
 because on the anthority of Say ana and Mahidhara, he takes the words 
 of those mantras to signify technicalities, sacrifices, and artificial objects 
 and ceremonies, or, in other words, he takes these words not in their 
 yaugika, but in their rurhi sense. It is clear, then, that if Max 
 Midler had kept in view the canon of interpretation given in Nirukta, 
 that all Vedic words are yaugika, he would not have fallen into the 
 fallacious anachronism of assigning different periods to different parts 
 of the Vedas. 
 
 But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many 
 scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognised 
 scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilization when 
 laws of nature are little known and but very little understood, when 
 mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods 
 of correct reasoning are very seldom observed. On the other hand, 
 analogy plays a most important part in the performance of intellectual 
 functions of man. 
 
 The slightest semblance, or visage of semblance, is enough to 
 justify the exercise of analogy. The most palpable of the forces of 
 nature impress the human mind in such a period of rude beginnings 
 of human experience by motions mainly. The wind blowing, the fire 
 burning, a stone falling, or a fruit dropping, affects the senses 
 essentially as moving. Now, throughout the range of conscious 
 exertion of muscular power will precedes motion, and, since even tho 
 most grotesque experience of a savage in this world assumes this 
 knowledge, it is no great stretch of intellectual power to argue that 
 these natural forces also, to which the sensible motions are due, are 
 endowed with the faculty of will. The personification of the forces of
 
 13 
 
 nature being thus effected, their deification soon follows. The over- 
 whelming potency, the unobstructible might, and often the violence, 
 with which, in the sight of a savage, these forces operate, strike him 
 with terror, awe and reverence. A sense of his own weakness, 
 humility and inferiority creeps over the savage mind, and, what was 
 intellectually personified, becomes emotionally deified. According 
 to this view, the Vedas, undoubtedly books of primitive times, consist 
 of prayers from such an emotional character addressed to the forces of 
 nature including wind and rain — prayers breathing passions of the 
 savage for vengeance or for propitiation or in moments of poetic 
 exaltation, hymns simply portraying the simple phenomena of nature 
 in the personified language of mythology. 
 
 It is therefore more agreeable for these scholars to believe that 
 the Vedas, no doubt books of primitive times, are records of the my- 
 thological lore of the ancient Aryans. 
 
 And since, even according to the confessions of Max Miiller, higher 
 truths of philosophy and monotheism are to be found here and there 
 in the Vedas, it has become difficult to reconcile the mythological 
 interpretations of the main part of the Vedas with the philosophical 
 portions. Says Max Miiller, " I add only one more hymn [Rig. x. 121] 
 in which the idea of one God is expressed with such power and deci- 
 sion that it will make us hesitate before we deny to the Aryan nations 
 an instinctive monotheism. "* It is therefore argued by some that the 
 mythological portions are earlier than philosophical ones ; for the 
 primitive faith as already indicated is always mythology. 
 
 The fundamental .error of this supposition lies in regarding a 
 contingent conclusion as a necessary one ; for although mythology may 
 bo the result of barbarous intellect and analogical reasoning, it is not 
 necessarily always so. It may even grow up as a degenerate, deformed 
 and petrified remnant of a purer and truer religion. The history of 
 
 • Max Miillor's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 568.
 
 14 
 
 religious practices, primarily desig Qed to meet certain real wants, 
 degenerating, after a lapse of time, on the cessation of those wants 
 into mere ceremonies and customs, is an ample testimony of the truth 
 of the above remarks. Had the European scholars never come across 
 the mythological commentaries of Say ana andMahidhara, or the puranic 
 literature of post-vedic, (nay anti-vedic) period, it would have been 
 impossible for them, from the mere grounds of comparative mythology 
 or Sanskrit philosophy, to alight on such interpretations of the Vedas as 
 are at present current among them. May it not be, that the whole 
 mythological fabric of the puranas, later as they are, was raised long 
 after the vitality of true Yedic philosophy had departed from their 
 words in the sight of the ignorant pedants ? Indeed, when one 
 considers that the (Jpanishats inculcate that philosophical 
 monotheism, the parallel of which does not exist in the world — a 
 monotheism, that can only be conceived after a full conviction in the 
 uniformity of nature, — and that they together with the philosophical 
 darsltanas all preceded the puranas j when one considers all this, one 
 can hardly resist the conclusion that, at least in India, mythology rose 
 as a rotten remnant of the old philosophical living religion of the 
 Vedas. When through the ignorance of men, the yaugika meanings of 
 the Vedic words were forgotten, and proper names interpreted instead, 
 there grew up a morbid mythology, the curse of modern idolatrous 
 India. That mythology may thus arise on account of the decay of the 
 primitive meaning of old words, even Professor Max Miiller admits, 
 when speaking of the degeneration of truth into mythology by a pro- 
 cess, he styles ' dialectic growth and decay ' or dialectic life of religion. 
 He says — 
 
 " It is well known that ancient languages are particularly rich 
 m synonyms, or, to speak more correctly, that in them the same 
 object is called by many names — is, in fact, polynymous. While in 
 modern languages most objects have one name only, we find in ancient 
 Sanskrit, in ancient Greek and Arabic, a large choice of words for the 
 same subject. This is perfectly natural. Each name could express 
 one side only of whatever had to be named, and not satisfied with one
 
 15 
 
 partial name, the early trainers of language produced one name after 
 the other, and after a time retained those which seemed most useful 
 for special purposes. Thus the sky might be called not only the 
 brilliant, but the dark, the covering, the thundering, the rain-giving. 
 This is the polyonomy of language, and it is what we are accustomed 
 to call polytheism in religion.* &c. &c. (pp. 276-277.) 
 
 Even, in the face of these facts, European scholars are so very 
 
 reluctant to leave their pre-conceived notions that, as an example of 
 
 the same influence, Frederick Pincott writes to me from England : 
 
 " You are right in saying that the commentators, now so 
 much admired, had very little, if any, better means of knowledge on 
 Vedic Terminology than we have at present. And you are certainly 
 right in treating the Puranas as very modern productions ; but you 
 are wrong in deducing India's mythological notions from such recent 
 works. The Rig Veda itself, undoubtedly the oldest book which 
 India possesses, abounds in mythological matter." 
 
 Do the expressions "you are certainly right," and "you are 
 wrong" amount to any proof of the Vedas abounding in mythology? 
 But further he says, "After the great shock which the spread of Bud- 
 dhism gave to the old Indian form of faith, the Brahmans began to 
 make their faith seriously philosophical in the ~ Darshanas. Of course* 
 many bold philosophical speculations are found in the Upanishats 
 and even in the Sanhiias ; but it was at the time of the Darshanas 
 that the religion was placed on a really philosophical basis." 
 
 Nothing shows so great a disrespect towards the history of another 
 nation as the above. One is indeed wonder-struck at the way in which 
 European scholars mistrust Indian chronology, and force their hypo- 
 thetical guess-work and conjecture before the world as a sound histori- 
 cal statement of facts. Who, that has impartially studied the darskana 
 literature, does not know that the darshanas existed centuries before 
 even the first word of Buddhism Avas uttered in India ? Jaiminij 
 Vyasa and Patanjali had gone by, Gautama, Kanada and Kapila wero 
 buried in the folds of oblivion when Buddhism sprang up in the 
 darkness of ignorance. Even the great Shankara, who waged a 
 manly war against Buddhism or Jainism, preached nearly 2,200 years 
 
 * Max Muller's Lectures on the Scienco of Religion, pp. 27G-277.
 
 16 
 
 ago. Now this Shankara is a commentator on Vyasa Sutras, and was 
 preceded by Gaudapada and other Acharyas in his work. Generations 
 upon generations had passed away after the time of Vyasa when Shan- 
 kara was born. Further, there is no event so certain in Indian History 
 asMahabharata, which took place about 4,900 years ago. The darshanas, 
 therefore, existed at least 4,900 years ago. There is a strong objection 
 against the admission of these facts by European scholars, and that 
 objection is the Bible. For, if these dates be true, what will become 
 of the account of creation as given in the Bible ? It seems, besides, that 
 European scholars, on the whole, are unfit to comprehend that there 
 could be any disinterested literature in the past. It is easier for them 
 to comprehend that political or religious revolutions or controversies 
 should give rise to new literature through necessity. Hence the 
 explanations of Mr. Pincott. The old Brahmaus were superstitious, 
 dogmatic believers in the revelations of the Vedas. When Buddhism 
 spread like wild fire, they thought of shielding their religion by 
 mighty arguments and hence produced the darshana literature. This 
 assumption so charmingly connects heterogeneous events together 
 that although historically false, it is worth being believed in for the 
 sake of its ingenious explauatory power. 
 
 To return to the subject. Yaska lays down a canon for the 
 interpretation of Vedic terms. It is that the Yedic terms are yaugika. 
 Mahabhashya repeats the same. We have seen how this law is set 
 aside and ignored by the European scholars in the interpretations of 
 the Vedas, whence have arisen serious mistakes in their translations of 
 the Vedas. We have also seen how Dr. Muir falling in the same 
 mistake interprets general terms as proper nouns; and how Max 
 Miiller also led by the same error, wrongly divides the Vedas into two 
 parts ; the Ckhandas and Mantras. We have also seen how due to 
 the ignorance of the same law, Mantras upon Mantras have been 
 interpreted as mythological in meaning, whereas some few Mantras 
 could only be interpreted philosophically, thus giving rise to the
 
 17 
 
 ■question of reconciling philosophy with mythology. To further 
 illustrate the importance of the proposition, that all Vedic terms are 
 yaugika, I herewith subjoin the true translation of the 4th Mantra 
 of the 50th Sukta of Rig Veda with my comments thereon and the 
 translation of the same by Monier Williams for comparison. Surya, 
 as a yaugika word, means both the sun and the Divinity. Monier 
 Williams takes it to represent the sun only. Other terms will become 
 explicit in the course of exposition. The Mantra runs as follows : — 
 
 fnfTsjf§ss^sr?ft ssftf^ff^fa ^Sj i fa*sWT vrr1% ft^f n 
 
 The subject is the gorgeous wonders of the solar and the electric 
 worlds. " A grand problem is here propounded in this illfm/r^. Whoishere 
 that is not struck with the multiplicity of objects and appearances ? Who 
 that has not lost thought itself in contemplation of the infinite varieties 
 that inhabit even our own planet ? Even the varieties of plant life 
 have not yet been counted. The number of animal and plant species 
 together with the vast number of mineral compounds may truly be 
 called infinite." But why confine ourselves to this earth alone. Who 
 has counted the host of heavens and the infinity of stars, the innu- 
 merable number of worlds yet made, and still remaining to be made? 
 What mortal eye can measure and scan the depths of space ? Light 
 travels at the rate of 180,000 miles per second. There ai*e stars 
 from which rays of light have started on their journey ever since the 
 day of creation, hundreds of years ago, the rays have sped on and on 
 with the unearthly velocity of 180,000 miles per second through 
 space, and have only now penetrated into the atmosphere of our 
 earth. Imagine the infinite depth of space with which we are on all 
 sides surrounded. Are we not struck with variety and diversity in 
 every direction? f s not differentiation the universal formula ? Whence 
 have these manifold and different objects of the universe proceeded ? 
 How is it that the same Universal-Father-spirit permeating m all 
 and acting on all produced these heterogeneous items of the uni- 
 verse ? Where lies the causo of difference ? A difference so 
 striking and at once so beautiful ? How can the same God acting
 
 18 
 
 upon the universe produce an earth here and a sun there, a planet 
 here and a satellite there, an ocean here and a dry land there, nay, 
 a Swami here and an idiot there ? The answer to this question 
 is impressed in the very solar constitution. Scientific philosophers 
 assure us that colour is not an intrinsic property of matter as popular 
 belief would have it. But it is an accident of matter. A red 
 object appears red not because it is essentially so, but because of an 
 extraneous cause. Red and violet would appear equally black when 
 placed in the dark. It is the magic of sunbeams which imparts to 
 them this special influence, this chromatic beauty, this congenial colora- 
 tion. In a lonely forest mid gloom and wilderness, a weary traveller 
 who had betaken himself to the alluring shadow of a pompous tree, 
 lay down to rest and there sunk in deep slumber. He awoke and found 
 himself enveloped in gloom and dismal darkness on all sides. No earthly 
 object was visible on either side. A thick black firmament on high, so 
 beclouded as to inspire with the conviction that the sun had never 
 shone there, a heavy gloom on the right, a gloom on the left, a gloom 
 before and a gloom behind. Thus laboured the traveller under the 
 ghastly, frightful windspell of frozen darkness. Immediately the 
 heat-carrying rays of the sun struck upon the massive cloud, and, as 
 if by a magic touch, the frozen gloom began to melt, a heavy shower 
 of rain fell down. It cleared the atmosphere of suspended dust 
 particles ; and, in a twinkling of the eye, fled the moisture-laden 
 sheet of darkness resigning its realm to awakened vision entire. The 
 traveller turned his eyes in ecstatic wonder from one direction to the 
 other, and beheld a dirty gutter flowing thei^e, a crystalline pond 
 reposing here, a green grass meadow more beautiful than violet plant 
 on one side, and a cluster of variegated fragrant flowers on the other. 
 The feathery creation withpeacock's train, and deer's slender legs, and 
 chirrup of bh'ds with plumage lent from Heaven, all, in fact, all darted 
 into vision. Was there naught before the sunhad shone? Had verdant 
 forest, rich with luxuriant vegetation, and filled with the music of
 
 19 
 
 birds all grown in a moment ? Where lay the crystalline waters? 
 "Where the blue canopy, where the fragrant flower? Had they been 
 transported there by some magical power in a twinkling of the eye 
 from dark dim distant region of chaos? No, they did not spring up 
 in a moment. They were already there. But the sunbeams had not 
 shed their lustre on them. It required the magic of the lustrous sun 
 to shine, before scenes of exquisite beauty could dart into vision. It 
 required the luminous rays of the resplendent orb to shed their 
 influence before the eyes could roll in the beautiful, charming, 
 harmonious, reposeful and refreshing scenes of fragrant green. Yes, 
 thus, even thus, is this sublimely attractive Universe, Tfa*T f^i" 3 ^ , 
 illuminated by a sun ^EJ^TWTfa, the Sun that knows no setting, the 
 Sun that caused our planets and the solar orb to appear Wtm^i <£, 
 the Sun that evolves the panorama of this grand creation, f^S^SJrT, 
 the eternal Sun ever existing through eternity in perpetual action for 
 the good of all. lie sheds the rays of His wisdom all around; the 
 deeply thirsty, and parching, blast-dried atoms of matter drank in, to 
 satiation, from the ever-flowing, ever -gushing, ever-illuminating rays 
 of Divine wisdom, their appropriate elements and essences of 
 phenomenal existence and panoramic display. Thus is this universe 
 sustained. One central sun producing infinity of colours. One central 
 Divinity, producing infinity of worlds and objects. Compare with 
 this Monier William's translation : — 
 
 " With speed beyond the ken of mortals, thou, sun, 
 Dost ever travel on, conspicuous to all. 
 Thou dost create the light, and with it illume 
 The entire universe.' ' 
 We have shown why we regard Chhandas and Mantra as synony- 
 mous. We have also seen how Max Miiller distinguishes between 
 Chhandas and Mantra, regarding the latter as belonging to the secon- 
 dary age, as loaded with technicalities, and as being less perspicuous 
 than the former. He points out its chief character to be that *■' these
 
 20 
 
 songs are generally intended for sacrificial purposes." Concerning 
 this Mantra period, he says, "One specimen may suffice, a hymn 
 describing the sacrifice of the horse with the full detail of a super- 
 stitions ceremonial. (Rig Veda, i. 162)." 
 
 We shall therefore quote the 162nd Sukta of Rigveda, as it is 
 the specimen hymn of Max Miiller, with his translation, and show 
 how, due to a defective knowledge of Vedic literature and to the 
 rejection of the principle that Vedic terms are all yangiha, Professor 
 Max Miiller translates a purely scientific hymn, distinguishable in no 
 characteristics from the chTiandas of the Vedas, as representative of 
 an artificial, cumbersome and highly superstitious ritual or ceremonial. 
 
 To our thinking, Muller's interpretation is so very incongruous* 
 unintelligible, and superficial, that were the iDterpretation even re- 
 garded as possible, it could never be conceived as the description of 
 an actual ceremonial. And now to the hymn. The first mantra runs 
 thus : — 
 
 TTT^Tt fa^t 3^ ^JUgft^ ^^T TT^rT: nfos** I 
 
 Max Miiller translates it, " May Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Ayu, 
 Indra, the lord of the Ribhus, and the Maruts not rebuke us, because 
 we shall proclaim at the sacrifice the virtues of the swift horse sprung 
 from the gods." 
 
 That the above interpretation may be regarded as real or as true, 
 let Professor Max Miiller prove that Aryans of the Vedic times enter- 
 tained the superstition that at least one swift horse had sprung from 
 the gods, also that the gods Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Ayu, Indra, 
 the lord of Ribhus and the Maruts, did not like to hear the virtues of 
 the swift horse proclaimed at the sacrifice, for, if otherwise, they would 
 have no reason to rebuke the poet. Not one of these positions it is 
 ever possible to entertain with validity. Even the most diseased con- 
 ception of a savage shrinks from such a superstition as the "swift
 
 21 
 
 horse sprung from the gods." It is also in vain to refer for the veri* 
 fication of this position to the ashicamedha of the so-called Puranas. 
 The whole truth is that this mythology of ashwamedha arose in the 
 same way in which originates Max Miiller's translation. It originates 
 from an ignorance of the dialectic laws of the Vedas, when words 
 having a yaugiha sense are taken for proper nouns, and an imaginary 
 mythology started. 
 
 To take, for instance, the mantra quoted above. Max M tiller is 
 evidently under the impression that Mitra is the ' god of the day/ 
 Varuna is the god of the ' investing sky/ Vayu or Ayu is the 'god of 
 the wind/ Indra the ' god of the watery atmosphere/ Eibhus, ' the 
 celestial artists/ and Maruts are the f storm-gods.' But why these gods? 
 Because he ignores the yaugika sense of these words and takes them as 
 propor nouns. Literally speaking, mitra means a friend ; varuna, a 
 man of noble qualities; aryama } a judge or an administrator of justice; 
 ayu, a learned man; indra, a governor; ribhuhsha, a wise man; 
 marutahs, those who practically observe the laws of seasons. The word 
 ashwa which occurs in the mantra does not mean ' horse' only, but it 
 also means the group of three forces — heat, electrictity and magnetism. 
 It, in fact, means anything that can carry soon through a distance. 
 Hence writes Swami Dayanand in the beginning of this Sukta :— 
 
 " This Sukta is an exposition of ashwa vidya which means the 
 science of training horses and the science of heat which pervades 
 everywhere in the shape of electricity." That 'ashwa' means heat> 
 will bo clear from the following quotations : — 
 
 ^m s{ ccTT *FCTO^ f^TT ^W "snftfvr. Il Rig Veda. 
 
 The words ashivam agnim show that ashwa means agni or Heat. 
 And further — 
 
 (Rv. i. 27. I.)
 
 22 
 
 which means : Agni, the a$hwa f carries like an animal of conveyance 
 the learned who thus recognize its distance-carrying properties. Or 
 further — 
 
 Shatapatha Br. I. iii. 3.29-30. 
 
 The above quotations are deemed sufficient to show both meanings 
 of ashwa above indicated. 
 
 Professor Max Miiller translates the "devajafa" of the mantra as 
 "sprung from the gods." This is again wrong, for he again takes 
 deva in its popular {laukika) sense, god; whereas devajafa means "with 
 brilliant qualities manifested, or evoked to work by learned men :" 
 the word deva meaning both brilliant qualities and learned men. Again 
 Max Miiller translates "virya" merely into virtues, instead of "power- 
 generating virtues." The true meaning of the mantra, therefore, is — 
 
 " We will describe the power-generating virtues of the energetic 
 horses endowed with brilliant properties, or the virtues of the vigorous 
 force of heat which learned or scientific men can evoke to work for 
 purposes of appliances (not sacrifice). Let not philanthropes, noble 
 men, judges, learned men, rulers, wise men and practical mechanics 
 ever disregard these properties*" With this compare Max Miiller' s 
 translation — 
 
 " May Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Ayu, lndra, the lord of Kibhus, 
 and the Maruts not rebuke us, because we shall proclaim at the sacri- 
 fice the virtues of the swift horse sprung from the gods." 
 
 We come now to the second mantra which runs thus :— • 
 
 ^rfaftfsnwirerT irr§crsr ?nrf?f wtai qwfft *rafar i 
 
 Max Miiller translates it thus — 
 
 " When they lead before the horse, which is decked with pure gold
 
 23 
 
 ornaments, the offering, firmly grasped, the spotted goat bleats 
 while walking onwards ; it goes the path beloved by Indra and 
 Pushan." 
 
 Here again there is no sense in the passage. The bleating of the 
 goat has no connection with the leading of the offering before the horse, 
 nor any with its walking onward. Nor is the path of Indra and Pushan 
 in any way defined. In fact, it is very clear that there is no definite 
 specific relation between the first mantra and this according to Miiller's 
 translation, unless a far-fetched connection be forced by the imagination 
 bent to discover or invent some curious inconceivable mythology. And 
 now to the application of the principle that all Yedic terms a,reyaugika > 
 Max Miiller translates reknasas into gold ornaments, whereas it only 
 means wealth (see Nighantu, ii. 10). Rati which signifies the mere act 
 of giving is converted into an ' offering; ' vishvarupa, which only means 
 one 'having anidea of all forms,' is converted into 'spotted'; aja which 
 means ' a man once born in wisdom, being never born again' is 
 converted into a ' goat ' ; memyat, from root mi to injure, is given to 
 mean 'bleating' ; sujjrdng, which means, from root prachh to question, 
 ' one who is able enough to put questions elegantly ; ' is translated as 
 'walking onward' ; pathah, which only means drink or food, is trans- 
 lated into 'path' ; and lastly, indra andpushan, instead of meaning the 
 governing p3ople and the strong'are again made to signify two deities 
 with their proper names 'Indra' and 'Pushan.' Concerning the word 
 patha, writes Yaska, vi. 7 — 
 
 Muk/iato nai/anti, which means, they ' bring out of the organ of 
 speech, or they explain or preach,' is translated by Max Miiller into 
 ' they lead before.' 
 
 It is thus clear that, in the one mantra alone, there are nine 
 words that have been wrongly translated by Max Miiller, and all is
 
 24 
 
 due to this that the yaugika sense of the words has been ignored, the 
 rurhi or the laukika sense being every where forced in the translation. 
 The translation of the mantra, according to the sense of the words we 
 have given, will be — 
 
 " They who preach that only wealth earned by righteous means 
 should be appropriated and spent, and those born in wisdom, who are 
 well versed in questioning others elegantly, in the science of form, and 
 in correcting the unwise, these and such alone drink the potion of 
 strength and of power to govern." 
 
 The connection of this mantra with the foregoing is that the 
 asluva vidya, spoken of in the first mantra, should be practiced only 
 by those who are possessed of righteous means, are wise, and have the 
 capacity to govern and control. 
 
 We come now to the 3rd mantra of 162nd Sukta. 
 
 -*m wftt: g€t *%*i ^mf^r^T ^^ vrnft ^%th fa*$n^: i 
 
 Max Miiller translates it thus — 
 
 " This goat, destined for all the gods, is led first with the quick 
 horse, as Pushan's share ; for Tvashtri himself raises to glory this 
 pleasant offering which is brought with the horse." 
 
 Here, again, we find the same artificial stretch of imagination 
 
 which is the characteristic of this translation. How can the goat be 
 
 'destined for all the gods/ and at the same time be 'Pushan's share' 
 
 alone ? Here Max Miiller gives a reason for the goat being led first 
 
 as Pushan's share; the reason is that 'Tvashtri himself raises to glory 
 
 this pleasant offering.' Now who is this Tvashtri, and how is he 
 
 related to Pushan ? How does Tvashtri himself raise to glory this 
 
 pleasant offering ? All these are questions left to be answered by 
 
 the blank imagination of the reader. Such a translation can only do 
 
 one service. It is that of making fools of the Vedic rishis whom Max 
 
 Muller supposes to be the authors of the Vedas,
 
 OK 
 
 The word vishwadevyas, which. Max Muller translates as 'destined 
 for all the gods/ can never grammatically mean so. The utmost that 
 one can make for Max Mailer on this word is that vishwadevyas should 
 mean ' for all the devas/ but 'destined' is a pure addition unwarranted 
 by grammar. Vishwadevya is formed from vishwadeva by the addi- 
 tion of the suffixy«£ in the sense of tatra sadhu, (see Ashtadhyayi, IV. 
 4, 98). The meaning is — 
 
 or Vishwadevyas is whatsoever is par excellence fit to produce useful 
 properties. ' We have spoken of Max Muller translating pushan, which 
 means strength, into a proper noun. Tvashtri, which simply means 
 one who befits things, or a skilful hand, is again converted into a proper 
 noun. Purodasha, which means food well-cooked, is translated into 
 offering. The words ' which is brought with' are of course Max Miiller's 
 addition to put sense into what would otherwise be without any sense. 
 Arvat, which, no doubt, sometimes means a horse, here means knowledge. 
 For, if horse were intended, some adjective of significance would have 
 bo changed the meaning. Saushravasaya Jinvatiwhieh means ''obtains 
 for purpose of a good food," (Shravas, in Yedic Sanskrit, meaning 
 food or anna) is translated by Max Muller into ' raises to glory.' 
 The true meaning would be — "The goat possessed of useful properties 
 yields milk as a strengthening food for horses. The beat cereal is 
 useful when made into pleasant food well prepared by an apt cook 
 according to the modes dictated by specific knowledge of the pro- 
 perties of foods." 
 
 We have criticised Max Miiller's translation of the first three 
 mantras of this sukta in detail, to show how he errs at every step ; in 
 every case, the error consisting in taking the ruhri meaning instead 
 of the yaugika one of the word. It will not be difficult to pass from 
 mantra to mantra till the hymn is finished, and show that the true 
 origin of all errors lies in not recognising the yauyilca sense of Vedio
 
 26 
 
 terms. But wo deem the above three mantras as sufficient. We, 
 however, subjoin herewith Max Mulleins translation of the remaining 
 mantras of this hymn, with our occasional remarks in the foot-notes. 
 Max Midler's Translation : — 
 
 4. When thrice at the proper seasons, men lead around the 
 sacrificial horse which goes to the gods, Pushan's share comes first, 
 the goat, which announces the sacrifice* to the gods. 
 
 5. Hotri, Adhvaryu, Avayo, (Pratiprasthatri), Agnimindha 
 (agnidhra), Gravagrabha (Grasvatut), and the wise Sanstri (Prasas- 
 tri), may you fill the streams (round the altar) with a sacrifice which 
 is well-prepared and well-acomplished.t 
 
 G. They who cut the sacrificial post, and they who carry it, they 
 who make the ring for the post of the horse, and even they who bring 
 together what is cooked for the horse, may their work be with us. 
 
 7. He came on — (my prayer has been well performed), the 
 bright backed horse goes to the region of the gods. Wise poets 
 celebrate him, and we have won a good friend for the love of the gods. 
 
 8. The halter of the swift one, the heel- ropes of the horse, the 
 head-ropes, the girths, the bridle, and even the grass that has been put 
 into his mouth, may all these which belong to thee be with the gods. 
 
 9. What the fly eats of the flesh, what adheres to the stick, or to 
 the axe, or to the hands of the immolator and his nails, may all these 
 which belong to thee be with the gods 4 
 
 * The word yajna which originally indicates any action requiring association of 
 men or objects, and productive of beneficial results, is always translated by European 
 scholars as sacrifice. The notion of sacrifice is a purely Christian notion, and has no 
 place in Vcdic philosophy. It is foreign to the genuine religion of India. Hence all 
 translations in which the word sacrifice occurs are to be rejected as fallacious. 
 
 t Max Midler herein puts five words as proper nouns, and therefore does not 
 accept their yaugika sense. The words ' round the altar' are supplied by Muller's 
 imagination on the ground that sacrifices are conducted at the altar. Both ideas are 
 foreign to Vedic philosophy. 
 
 X Here Max Midler does not understand the structure of the sentence. The 
 original words are ashvasya kravisho which he takes to mean the flesh of the horse, 
 birl kra visho is an adjective qualifying ashvasya, the whole really means, 'of the pac- 
 ing horse.' Kravisho does not mean ' of the flesh' but 'pacing' from the root hram, 
 to pace. The meaning would be, '' What the fly eats of whatever dirty adheres to the 
 horse," &c. Again the words swarau and swadhitau are translated into stick and axe, 
 which is never their meaning.
 
 27 
 
 10. The ordure that runs from the belly, and the smaller 
 particles of raw flesh, may the immolators well prepare all this, and 
 dress the sacrifice till it is well-cooked.* 
 
 11. Tho juice that flows from thy roasted limb on the spit after 
 thou hast been killed, may it not run on the earth, or the grass; may 
 it be given to the gods who desire it. t 
 
 12. They who examine the horse when it is roasted, they who 
 say "it smells well, take it away/' they who serve the distribution of 
 the meat, may their work also be with us.J 
 
 13. The ladle of the spot where the meat is cooked, and the 
 vessels for sprinkling the juice, the vessels to keep off the heat, the 
 covers of the vessels, the skewers, and the knives, they adorn the horse. 
 
 14. Where he walks, where he sits, where he stirs, the foot- 
 fastening of the horse, what he drinks, and what food he eats, may all 
 these which belong to thee, be with the god ! 
 
 15. May not the fire with smoky smell make thee hiss, may not 
 the glowing cauldron swell and burst. The gods accept the horse if it 
 is offered to them in due form. 
 
 16. The cover which they stretch over the horse, and the golden 
 ornaments, the head-ropes of the horse, and the foot-ropes, all these 
 which are dear to the gods, they offer to them. 
 
 17. If some one strike these with the heel or the whip that thou 
 mayst lie down, and thou art snorting with all thy might, then I 
 purify all this with my prayer, as with a spoon of clarified butter at 
 the sacrifice. 
 
 * Amaaya kravisho, which means ' raw food yet undigested and disposed to como 
 out' is similarly translated by Miiller into raw flesh here. Ami is the state of the 
 undigested food in tho belly. Here again Miiller docs not follow tho structure of the 
 mantra. 
 
 t Agnina pachyamanad, which means ' forced by the heat of anger,' is translated by 
 Miiller as roasted ; and hatasya, which means propelled, is here translated by Miiller 
 as " killed:' 
 
 % The translation of this mantra is especially noteworthy. The word wajinarH 
 from waja, cereals, is here taken as meaning horse, and Professor Max Miiller is so 
 anxious to bring forth the sense of the sacrifice of the horse that, not, content with this* 
 be interprets mantn bhiksham apaste, which means 'he serves the absence of meat* 
 into ' he serves the meat.' Can there be anything more questionable.
 
 28 
 
 18. The axe approaches the 34 ribs of the quick horse, beloved 
 of gods. Do you wisely keep the limbs whole, find out each joint 
 
 and strike.' 9 *' 
 
 19. One strikes the brilliant horse, two hold it, thus is the 
 custom. Those of thy limbs which I have seasonably prepared, I 
 sacrifice in the fire as balls offered to the gods.t 
 
 20. May not thy dear soul burn thee, while thou art coming 
 near, may the axe not stick to thy body. May no greedy and unskilful 
 iinmolator, missing with the sword, throw thy mangled limbs together, 
 
 21. Indeed thou diest not thus, thou sufferest not; thou goestto 
 the gods on easy path. 
 
 The two horses of Indra, the two deer of the Maruts have been 
 yoked, and the horse come to the shaft of the ass (of the aswins) J 
 
 22. May this horse give us cattle and horses, men, progeny and 
 all sustaining wealth. May Aditi keep us from sin, may the horse of 
 this sacrifice give us strength." — pp. 553 — 554. 
 
 We leave now Max Midler and his interpretations, and come to 
 another commentator of the Vedas, Sayana. Sayana may truly be 
 called the father of European Veclic scholarship. Sayana is the author 
 from whose voluminous commentaries the Eui*opeans have drunk in 
 the deep wells of mythology. It is upon the interpretation of Madhava 
 Sayana that the translations of Wilson, Benfey andLlanglois are based. 
 It is Sayana whose commentaries are appealed to in all doubtful cases, 
 "If a dwarf on the shoulders of a giant can see further than the giant, 
 he is no less a dwarf in comparison with the giant." If modern exegetes 
 and lexicographers standing at the top of Sayana, i.e., with their main 
 
 * The number of ribs mentioned by Miiller is worth being counted and verified. 
 Yarikri which means ' a zigzag motion ' is here translated as ' rib.' This requires proof. 
 
 j Twashtu rashvasya is here translated as ' brilliant horse,' as if ashva were the noun 
 and tvashtn its-qualifying adjective. The reverse is the truth. Tivastha is the noun 
 signifying electricity, and ashva is the qualifying adjective signifying all -pervading. 
 The words, "offered to the gods," in the end of the translation are pure addition of 
 Max Miiller. to give the whole a mythological coloring. 
 
 % Hari is again as a rurhi word translated into two horses of Indra and xjrishati 
 into two d.cr of maruts. The ' Shaft of the ass ' is perhaps the greatest curiosity, Max 
 Miiller could present, as a sign of mythology.
 
 29 
 
 knowledge of tlie Vedas borrowed from Saj^ana, should now exclaim, 
 " Sayana intimates only that sense of the Vedas which was current in 
 India some centuries ago, but comparative philology gives us that 
 meaning which the poets themselves gave to their songs and phrases" ; 
 or if they should exclaim that they have the great advantage of putting 
 together ten or twenty passages for examining the sense of a word 
 whichoccursin them, which Sayana had not : nothing is to be wondered 
 at. Madhava Sayana, the voluminous commentator of all the Vedas, 
 of the most important Brahmanas and a Kalpa work, the I'enowned Mi- 
 mansist, — he, the great grammarian, who wrote the learned comment- 
 ary on Sarskrit radicals : yes, he is still a model of learning and a 
 colossal giant of memory, in comparison to our modern philologists and 
 scholars. Let modern scholars, therefore, always bear in mind, that 
 Sayana is the life of their scholarship, their comparative philology, and 
 their so much boasted interpretation of the Vedas. And if Sayana was 
 himself diseased — whatsoever the value of the efforts of modern scholars 
 —their comparative philology, their new interpretations, and their so- 
 called marvellous achievements cannot but be diseased. Doubt not that 
 the vitality of modern comparative philology and Vedic scholashipis 
 wholly derived from the diseased and defective victuals of Sayana' s 
 learning. Sooner or later, the disease will develop its final symptom 
 and sap the foundation of the very vitality it seemed to produce. No 
 branch of a tree can live or flourish when separated from the living 
 stock. No interpretations of the Vedas will, in the end, ever succeed 
 unless they are in accord with the living sense of the Vedas in the 
 Nirukta and the Brahmanas. 
 
 I quote here a mantra from Rigveda, and will show how Sayana's 
 interpretation radically differs from the exposition of Nirukta. The 
 mantra is from Rigveda ix. 96. It runs thus : — 
 
 t£3\ ?z*n?rT ^f^frri^T^t *fm: qfaa «<iifa t»^ ii
 
 30 
 
 Says Sayana : — 
 
 "God himself appears as Brahma among the gods,Indra, Agni, &e; 
 He appears as a poet among the dramatists and writers of lyrics; He 
 appears as Yashishtha, &c. among the Brahmanas ; He appears as a 
 buffalo among quadrupeds ; He appears as an eagle among birds ; 
 He appears as an axe in the forest; He appears as the soma- juice 
 purified by mantras excelling in its power of purification, the sacred 
 waters of the Ganges, &c, &c." 
 
 The translation bears the stamp of the time when it was produced. 
 It is the effort of a Pandit to establish his name by appealing to 
 popular prejudice and feeling. Evidently when Sayana wrote, the 
 religion of Tndia was "pantheism" or everything is God ; evidently 
 superstition had so far increased that the waters of the Ganges were 
 regarded as sacred ; incarnations were believed in ; the worship of 
 Brah ma, Vasishtha and other rishis was at its acme. It was probably 
 the age of the dramatists and poets. Sayana was himself a resident of 
 some city or town. He was not a villager. He was familiar with the 
 axe as an instrument of the destruction of forests, &c, but not with 
 the lightning or fire as a similar but more powerful agent. His 
 translation does not mirror the sense of the Vedas but his own age. 
 His interprepation of bra/ima, kavi, deva rishi, vipra, mahisha, mriga, 
 shyena, gridhra, vana scw/a, pavitra — of all these words, without one 
 exception, is purely rurhi or laukika. 
 
 Now follows the exposition of Yaska in his Nirukta, xiv, 13. There 
 is not a single word that is not taken in its yaugika sense. Saya 
 Yaska : — 
 
 ^snwTa?' wnT^rT?nfTTosi*ralTr w®\ irefo ^m ^r^wt- 
 
 1SFTTfafrT33i> ^T^TT H^fo MTCT^ ^PT ^WWt T^TW\f%2nfar
 
 31 
 
 We will now speak of the spiritual sense of the mantra as Yaska 
 gives it. It is his object to explain that the human spirit is the central 
 conscious being that enjoys all experience. The external world as 
 revealed by the senses finds its purpose and object and therefore 
 absorption in this central being. The indriyas or the senses are called 
 the devos, because they have their play in the external phenomenal 
 world, and because it is by them that the external world is revealed to 
 us. Hence Alma, the human spirit, is the bra/nna devanam, the 
 conscious entity that presents to its consciousness all that the senses 
 reveal. Similarly, the senses are called the kavnyah, because one learns 
 by their means. The A 'tuna, then, is padavi ha cin am or the true sentient 
 being that understands the working of the senses. Further, the At ma 
 is nshir vipranam, the cognizors of sensations ; vipra meaning the 
 senses as the feelings excited by them pervade the whole body. The 
 senses are also called the mrigax, for they hunt about their proper 
 aliment in the external world. A/ma is mahisho mriganam, i.e., the 
 great of all the hunters. The meaning is that it is really through the 
 power of Atma that the senses are enabled to find out their proper 
 objects. The Atma is called shyena, as to it belongs the power of 
 realization ; and gridhras are the indriyas, for they provide the material 
 for such realization. The Atma, then, pervades these senses. Further, 
 this Atma is stvadhitir vananam, or the master whom all indriyas 
 serve. Swadhiti means Atma, for the activity of Atma is all for itself, 
 man being an end unto himself. The senses are called vana, for they 
 serve their master, the human spirit. It is this Atma that being pure 
 in its nature enjoys all. Such, then, is the yangika sense which Yaska 
 attaches to the mantra. Not only is it all consistent and intelligible 
 unlike Sayana's which conveys no actual sense ; not only is each word 
 clearly defined in its yaugiika meaning, in contradistinction with Sayana 
 who knows no other sense of the word than the popular one; but there 
 is also to be found that simplicity, naturalness and truthfulness of 
 meaning, rendering it independent of all time and space, which*
 
 32 
 
 contrasted with the artificiality, burdens'omeness and localisation of 
 Sayana's sense, can only proclaim Sayana's complete ignorance of the 
 principles of Vedic interpretation. 
 
 It is this Say an a, upon whose commentaries of the Vedas are based 
 the translations of European scholars. 
 
 We leave now Max Miiller and Sayana with their rurhi transla- 
 tions and come to another question, which though remotely connected 
 with the one just mentioned, is yet important enough to be separately 
 treated. It is the question concerning the Religion of the Vedas. 
 European scholars and idolatrous superstitious Hindus are of opinion 
 that the Vedas inculcate the worship of innumerable gods and goddesses, 
 Devatas. This word, devata, is a most fruitful source of error, and it is 
 very necessary that its exact meaning and application should be 
 determined. Not understanding the Vedic sense of this word, devata 
 and easily admitting the popular superstitious interpretation of a belief 
 in mythological gods and goddesses, crumbling into wretched idolatry, 
 European scholars have imagined the Vedas to be full of the worship of 
 such materials, and have gone so far in their reverence for the Vedas 
 as to degrade its religion even below polytheism and perhaps at par 
 with atheism. In their fit of benevolence, the European scholars 
 have been gracious enough to endow this religion with a title, a name 
 and that is Henotheism. 
 
 After classifying religions into pol atheistic, dualistic and monothe- 
 istic, remarks Max Miiller, "It would certainly be necessary to add two- 
 other classes — the henotheistic and the atheistic. Henotheistic religions 
 differ from polytheistic, because, although they recoguize the existence 
 of various deities, or names of deities, they represent each deity as- 
 independent of all the rest, as the only deity present in the mind of the 
 worshipper at the time of his worship and prayer. This character is 
 very prominent in the religion of the Vedic poets. Although many gods 
 are invoked in different hymns, sometimes also in the same hymn, yet 
 there is no rule of precedence established among them ; and, accoidin 

 
 33 
 
 to the varying aspects of nature, and the varying- cravings of human 
 heart, it is sometimes Indra, the god of the blue sky, sometimes A gni, 
 the god of fire, sometimes Varuna, the ancient god of the firmament, 
 who are praised as supreme without any suspicion of rivalry, or any 
 idea of subordination. This peculiar phase of religion, this worship of 
 single gods forms probably everywhere the first stage in the growth of 
 polytheism, and deserves therefore a separate name."* 
 
 To further illustrate the principles of this new religion, henotheism, 
 says Max Miiller, "When these individual gods are invoked, they are 
 not conceived as limited by the power of others as superior or inferior 
 in rank. Each god is to the mind of the supplicant as good as all the 
 gods. He is felt, at the time, as a real divinity, as supreme and absolute, 
 in spite of the necessary limitation which, to our mind, a plurality of 
 gods must entail on every single god. All the rest disappear for a 
 moment from the vision of the poet, and he only who is to fulfil their 
 desires stands in full light before theeyesof the worshippers. 'Among 
 you, gods, there is none that is small, none that is young • you are all 
 great indeed,' is a sentiment which, though perhaps, not so distinctly 
 expressed as by Manu Vaivasvata, nevertheless, underlies all the 
 poetry of the Veda. Although the gods are sometimes distinctly 
 invoked as the great and the small, the young and the old (Rv. i, 27-13), 
 this is only an attempt to find out the most comprehensive expression 
 for the divine powers, and nowhere is any of the gods represented as 
 the slave of others." 
 
 As an illustration, "when Agni, the lord of fire, is addressed by the 
 
 poet, he is spoken of as the first god, not inferior even to Indra. While 
 
 Agni is invoked, Indra is forgotten; there is no competition between 
 
 the two, nor any rivalry between them and other gods. This is a most 
 
 important feature in the religion of the Veda, and has never been taken 
 
 into consideration by those who have written on the history of ancient 
 
 polytheism, "t 
 
 * Max Miiller : Lectures cm the Science of Religion, London, 1873, pp. 1-41-142. 
 t Max Miiller : History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 552-553.
 
 34 
 
 We have seen what Max Midler's view of the Religion of the Vedas 
 is. We may be sure that the review of other European scholars also 
 cannot be otherwise. Is henotheism really, then, the religion of the 
 Vedas ? Is the worship of devatas an essential feature of Vedic worship ? 
 Are we to believe Max Miillei*, and assert that the nation to which he 
 hesitates to deny instinctive monotheism has so far uprooted its 
 instincts as to fall down to an acquired belief in henotheism ? * No, not 
 so. Vedas, the sacred books of the primitive Aryans, are the purest 
 record of the highest form of monotheism possible to conceive. Scholars 
 canuot long continue to misconstrue the Vedas, and ignore the laws of 
 their interpretation. Says Yaska: — 
 
 ug^af ?rt^ff: *r *r*tft vr^rfcr n— Nirukta, vii, l. 
 
 Devata is a general term applied to those substances whose 
 attributes are explained in a mantra. The sense of the above is that 
 when it is known which substance it is that forms the subject of 
 exposition in the mantra, the term signifying that substance is called 
 the devata of the mantra. Take, for instance, the mantra, 
 
 ^fn( ^ gtTcre ^ ^rer^^i ii ^rt ii * ii ^rTOT^nrf^w 11 
 
 "I present to your consideration agni which is the fruitful source 
 of worldly enjoyments, which is capable of working as though it were 
 a messenger, and is endowed with the property of preparing all our 
 foods. Hear ye, and do the same." 
 
 Since it is agni that forms the subject-matter of this mantra, agni 
 would be called the devata of this mantra. Hence, says Yaska, a 
 mantra is of that devata, with the object of expressing whose 
 properties, God, the Omniscient, revealed the mantra. 
 
 "We find an analogous sense of the word devata in another part of 
 Nirukta. Says Yaska — 
 
 Mux Mullor : History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 546.
 
 35 
 
 3pfr *prerf%*Nfl" ^ II Nirukta, i. 2. 
 
 * Whenever the process of an art is described, the mantra that 
 completely describes that process is called the devata (or the index) of 
 that process.' 
 
 It is in this sense that the devata of a mantra is the index, the 
 essential key-note of the meaning of the mantra. There is in this 
 analysis of the word no reference to any gods or goddesses, no 
 mythology, no element worship, no henotheism. If this plain and 
 simple meaning of devata were understood, no more will the mantras, 
 having marut for their devata or agni for their devata, be regarded as 
 hymns addressed to the storm-god or the god of fire ; but it will be 
 perceived that these mantras treat respectively of the properties oi marut 
 and of the properties of fire. It will then be regarded, as said else- 
 where in Nirukta — 
 
 %€t ^RT^T ^RTST ^EHrRT^T ^T WT^t vrWrftfcT 3T || 
 
 Nirukta, vii. 15. 
 that whatsoever or whosoever is capable of conferring some advan- 
 tage upon us, capable of illuminating things, or capable of 
 explaining them to us, and lastly, the Light of all lights, these are the 
 fit objects to be called devatas. This is not in any way inconsistent 
 with what has gone before. For, the devata of a mantra, being the 
 key-note of the sense of the mantra, is a word capable of rendering an 
 explanation of the mantra, and hence is called the devata of that 
 mantra. Speaking of these devatas, Yaska writes something which even 
 goes to show that people of his time had not even the slightest notion of 
 the gods and goddesses of Max MiUler and superstitious Hindus — gods, 
 and goddesses that are now forced upon us under the Vedic designation, 
 davata. Says he — 
 
 ^% HT^Tft^I^W ^% ^^wfrTfa^c^' fas^ri II 
 
 Nirukta, vii. 4. 
 ' We often find in common practice of the world at large, that 
 learned men, parents, and atithis, (or those guest-missionaries who
 
 36 
 
 have no fixed residence, but wander about from place to place benefiting 
 the world by their religious instructions), are regarded as devatas or 
 called by the names of devatas.' It is clear from the above quotation, 
 that religious teachers, parents and learned men, these alone, or the like, 
 were called devatas and no others, in Yaska's time. Had Yaska known 
 of any such idolatry or henotheisin or devata worship which supersti- 
 tious Hindus are so fond of, and which Professor Max Miiller is so 
 intent to find in the Vedas, or had any such worship prevailed in his 
 time, even though he himself did not share in this worship, it is 
 impossible that lie should not have made any mention of it at all, 
 especially when speaking of the common practice among men in 
 general. There can be no doubt that element worship, or nature 
 worship, is not only foreign to the Vedas and the ages of Yaska and 
 Panini and Vedic rishis and munis, but that idolatry and its parent 
 mythology, at least in so far as Aryavartais concerned, are the pi'oducts 
 of recent times. 
 
 To return to the subject. We have seen that Yaska regards the 
 names of those substances whose properties are treated of in the mantra 
 as the devatas. What substances, then, are the devatas ? They are all 
 that can form the subject of human knowledge. All human knowledge 
 is limited by two conditions, i.e., time and sjiace. Our knowledge of 
 causation is mainly that of succession of events. And succession is 
 nothing but an order in time. Secondly, our knowledge must be 
 a knowledge of something and that something must be somewhere. 
 It must have a locality of its existence and occurrence. Thus 
 far, the circumstances of our knowledge, time and locality. Now to the 
 essentials of knowledge. The most exhaustive division of human know- 
 ledge is between objective and subjective. Objective knowledge is the 
 knowledge of all that passes without the human body. It is the 
 knowledge of the phenomena of the external universe. Scientific men 
 have arrived at the conclusion that natural philosophy, i.e., philosophy 
 of the material universe; reveals the presence of two things, matter and
 
 37 
 
 force. Matter as matter is not known to us. It is only the play of 
 forces in matter producing" effects, sensible, that is known to us. Hence 
 the knowledge of external world is resolved into the knowledge of force 
 with its modifications. We come next to subjective knowledge. In 
 speaking of subjective knowledge, there is firstly the ego, the human 
 spirit, the conscious entity; secondly, the internal phenomena of which 
 the human spirit is conscious. The internal phenomena are of two 
 kinds. They are either the voluntary, intelligent, self-conscious 
 activities of the mind, which may hence be designated deliberate 
 activities, or the passive modifications effected in the functions of the 
 body by the presence of the human spirit. These may therefore be 
 called the vital activities. 
 
 An apriori analysis, therefore, of the knowable leads us to six things, 
 time, locality, force, human spirit, deliberate activities, and vital 
 activities. These things, then, are fit to be called devatas. The 
 conclusion to be derived from the above enumeration is, that, if the 
 account of Nirukta concerning Vedic devatas, as we have given, be 
 really true, we should find Vedas inculcating these six things — time, 
 locality, force, human spirit, deliberate activities and vital activities, as 
 devatas and no others. Let us apply the crucial test. 
 
 We find, however, the mention of 33 devatas in such mantras as 
 these: — 
 
 II. to ^rf^srf m w m^T faftfat i 
 
 rn^i (jnrf^sT?*n%^snsjfaTt fa$ > wr X. xxii. 4-27. 
 
 Yajur, xiv. 31. 
 
 " The Lord of all, the Ruler of the universe, the Sustainer of all, 
 holds all things by 33 devatas." 
 
 " The knowers of true theology recognize the 33 devatas performing 
 their proper organic functions, as existing iu and by Him, the One and 
 Only." 
 
 t$t 5464
 
 38 
 
 Let us, therefore, see what these 33 davatas are, so that we may be 
 able to compare them with our apriori deductions aud settle the 
 question. ^V r e read in Shatapatha Brahmana — 
 
 ^i7^^ diiftd'srrfafr 11311 3kth *rere ?f?r i ^fag ss€H ^nfgi^rr- 
 frg th^ws ^N ^trra ^werrfa tir ^(^ tot fti n% ^r- 
 
 3irW ^?T ff?T I ^SOT tj^% m^n ^ ^TT^q^ ^^T^Tl^^'e^TT^- 
 
 Tf?r i ^T^ar *tt*tt: *m%*i&m ^rTf^snr tot ^vs ^ht^ott 3t>r cwt 
 
 f^y OTITIC Ml Tf^rf ffWT^Tf^T sfrT II $ II 3OTJT T*$: 3kW. H*TT. 
 
 xrfHfrf?T i ^*rfa?r t^^t sra: xT^rmfTrfrfa i 3ot*t: ^OTfasr fas 
 
 SjfaRfa 3OT*Tt S^ ^fa VWZ TffT II ^ || *acff{7i (5RJT. ^WT Wta TTcf 
 OTt^t^T tti* ^ W$ %3T Tfa I 3OT*?f ft ^Tfassnsf ^ m^€f?T I 
 
 ^rnfft *nara tItt ^fr^^f ti*ot n c it ci^rf : sr^m^i ^ tj^otsw ^qsreHr 
 
 ^f^T^rf II xiv. 16.* 
 
 The meaning of the above is : — 
 
 "Says Yajnavalkya, O Shakalya, there are 33 devaias; & vasus 
 11 rudras, 12 adit.gds, indra and prdjdpati; 33 on the whole. Th© 
 eight vasus are 1. heated cosmic bodies, 2. planets, 3. atmospheres, 
 4. superterrestrial spaces, 5. suns, 6. rays of ethereal space, 7. satellites, 
 8. stars. These are called vasus (abodes), for the whole group of exist- 
 ences resides in them, for they are the abode of all that lives, moves, 
 or exists. The eleven rudras are the ten nervauric forces enlivening 
 the human frame, and the eleventh is the human spirit. These are 
 called the rudras (from root rud to weep), because when they desert the 
 body, it becomes dead, and the relations of the dead, in consequence of 
 
 * Vide Swami Dayanand Saraswati's Veda Bhashya Bhumika, p. 66.
 
 39 
 
 this desertion, begin to weep. The twelve adityas are the twelve 
 solar months, marking the course of time. . They are called 
 adityas as by their cyclic motion they produce changes in all objects, 
 and hence the lapse of the term of existence for each object. Adityas 
 means that which causes such a lapse. Indra is the all-pervading 
 electricity or force. Prajdpati is yajna (or an active voluntary asso- 
 ciation of objects, on the part of man, for the purposes of art, orasso- 
 ciation with other men for purposes of teaching or learning) . It also 
 means the useful animals. Yajna and useful animals are called prajd- 
 pati, as it is by such actions and by such animals that the world at 
 large derives its materials of sustenance. " What, then, are the three 
 devatas /"' — Asks Shakalya. Says Yajnavalkya, they are locality, name 
 and birth. 'What are the two devatas?' — asked he. Yajnavalky, 
 replied, ' the positive substances, prdna, and negative substances, anna. 
 Ad/tyard/iais the universal electricity, the sustainer of the Universe known 
 as sutrdtmd. Lastly, he inquired, ' Who is the one Devata ? ' And 
 Yajnavalkya replied, " God, the adorable." 
 
 These, then, are the thirty-three devatas mentioned in the Vedas. 
 Let us see how far this analysis agrees with our a priori deduction. The 
 eight vasus enumerated in Shatpatha Brahmana are clearly the locali- 
 ties ; the twelve adityas comprise time; the eleven rudras include, 
 firstly, the ego, the human spirit, and secondly, the ten nervauric forces 
 which may be approximately taken for the vital activities of the mind, 
 electricity is the all-pervading force ; whereas prajdpati, yajna or 
 pashus may be roughly regarded as comprising the objects of intelligent 
 deliberate activities of the mind. 
 
 When thus understood, the 33 devatas will correspond with the 
 six elements of our rough analysis. Since tho object, here, is not so' 
 much to show exactness of detail as general coincidence, partial 
 differences may bo left out of account. 
 
 It is cleat', then, that the interpretation of devatas which Yaska 
 gives is the only interpretation that is consistent with the Vedas and
 
 40 
 
 tho Brahnianas. That no doubt may be left concerning the pure 
 monotheistic worship of the ancient Aryas, we quote from Nirukta 
 again — 
 
 *nwn*3n!*nTT*n ^ ^nwi w^n ^m*T ^sffwrsm^ ^n: 
 
 S*$\ '^TSflrgWnfor =TT "^TT^FTT W$ ^3^1 ^3^1 II Nirukta vii. 4. 
 
 tl Leaving off all other devatas, it is only the Supreme Soul that is 
 worshipped on account of its omnipotence. Other devatas are but the 
 pratyangas of this Supernal Soul, i.e., they hut partially manifest the 
 glory of God. All these devatas owe their birth and power to Him. 
 In Him they have their play. Through Him they exercise their 
 beneficial influences by attracting properties useful and repelling 
 properties injurious. He alone is the All in All of all the devatas." 
 
 From the above it will be clear that, in so far as worship is con- 
 cerned, the ancient Aryas adored the Supreme Soul only, regarding 
 Him as the life, the sustenance and dormitory of the world. And yet 
 pious Christian missionaries and more pious Christian philologists are 
 never tired of propagating the lie before the world that the Vedas incul- 
 cate the worship of many gods and goddesses. Writes a Christian 
 missionary in India : — 
 
 " Monotheism is a belief in the existence of one God only ; poly- 
 theism is a belief in the plurality of gods. Max Miiller says, f If we 
 must employ technical terms, the religion of the Veda is polytheism, 
 not monotheism.' The 27th hymn of the 1st Ashtaka of the Rigveda 
 concludes as follows : ' Veneration to the great gods, veneration to 
 the lesser, veneration to the young, veneration to the old ; we wor- 
 ship the gods as well as we are able : may I not omit the praise of 
 the older divinities." * 
 
 The pious Christian thus ends his remarks on the religion of the 
 Vedas. " Pantheism and polytheism are often combined, but mono- 
 
 * John Murdoch: Roligioua Iteform, Part III, Vedic Hinduism.
 
 41 
 
 theism, in the strict sense of the word, is not found in Hinduism/ 
 Again says the pious missionary, c f Ram Mohan Roy, as already mention- 
 ed, despised the hymns of the Yedas, he spoke of the Upanishads as the 
 Vedas, .and thought that they taught monotheism. The Chhandogya 
 formula, ' eTcamevadwitiyam brahma,' was also adopted by Keshub 
 Chander Sen. But it does not mean that there is no second God, but 
 that there is no second anything — a totally different doctrine." Thus 
 it is obvious that Christians, well saturated with the truth of God, are 
 not only anxious to see monotheism off the Vedas, but even off the Upa- 
 nishats. Well might they regard their position as safe, beyond assail, 
 on the strength of such translations as these:—* 
 
 "In the beginning there arose the Hiranyagarbha {the golden germ.) 
 •—He was the one born lord of all this. He established the earth and 
 this sky : — Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice V — < 
 Max Miiller. 
 
 " He who gives breath, He who gives strength, whose command all 
 the bright gods revere, whose shadow is immortality, whose shadow 
 is death : — Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice V — Ibid. 
 
 Hiran} r agarbha, which means ' God in whom the whole luminoug 
 universe resides in a potential state ' is translated into the golden germ. 
 The word jata/i is detached from its proper construction and placed in 
 apposition vrith. pat ir, thus giving the sense of " the one born lord o£ 
 all this." Perhaps, there is a deeper meaning in this Christian transla- 
 tion. Some day, not in the very remote future, these Christians will 
 discover that the golden germ means ' conceived by the Holy G//ost y ' 
 whereas f the one born lord of all ' alludes to Jesus Christ. In one of 
 those future happy days, this mantra of the Veda will bo quoted as 
 an emblematic of a prophecy, in the dark distant past, of the advent 
 of a Clm'st whom the ancients knew not. How could they, then, adore 
 him, but in the language of mystic interrogation ? Henco the transla- 
 tion, "Who is the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice ? " Even 
 the second mantra, Max Miillcr's translation of which we have subjoined
 
 lllUi 
 
 42 
 
 above, lias been differently i ranslated by anaudacious Christian. What 
 Max Miillcr translates as " lie who gives breath," was translated by 
 this believer in the word of God, as " He who sacrificed Himself, i.e., 
 Jesus Christ." The original words in Sanskrit are c ■$ ^a re f, ' 
 which mean " he who gives spiritual knowledge." 
 
 Let us pass from these mantras and the misinterpretations of 
 Christians to clear pi*oofs of monotheism in the Vedas. We find in 
 Rigveda the very mantra which yields the golden germ to European 
 interpreters. It runs thus — 
 
 *r ^ren sfMff ^rrg^ff mot ^rre ^fkm fa$*r » 
 
 " God existed in the beginning of creation, the only Lord of the unborn 
 universe. He is the Eternal Bliss w horn we should praise and adore." 
 In Yajur Yeda, xvii. 19, we find— - 
 
 c( Being all vision, all power, all motion in Himself, He sustains with 
 His power the whole universe. Himself being One alone. " 
 
 And in Atharva Veda, XIII. iv. 16 — 21, we find— 
 
 t fo?teft *t ^ftowgsff tt^^ 
 
 ^T rm ^ T£3ft 3%ctf T£=f | ^ ^HsH^ ^cTT ^3T§<ft VT^rT II 
 
 (C There are neither two gods, nor three, nor four, nor ten. He is 
 
 one and only one and pervades the whole universe. All other things 
 live, move and have their existence in Him."
 
 J* 
 
 
 &7 3 5
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 MAP J. 4 1950 
 
 
 Form L9-10m-3,'48(A7920)444 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS A \lf CM