Saturday, March 21, 2015

Misquoted verses of Vedas regarding meat eating

Image Courtesy : “All Rights Reserved Vimanika Comics”

It is sad that these are the translated version of Foreign writers who do not know how sentence is made
in sanskrit and they are translated Our scriptures without having knowledge and understanding of Sanskrit.
This is their cunningness and I have seen that many of Indian scholars also use these translations in their sites.
These translators are Griffith, wilson etc. In which Griffth is most famous on internet.

For better understanding I am explaining each and every mantra mentioned by you here with comparison with Griffth Translation and actual translation:

Query: “Indra says theat, because, Indra was in desperate condition, therefore he cooked intestines of a dog.

[Rig Vda book 4: hymn 18 mantra or verse 13]

Answer : First thing is that there is nothing like Book, Hymn or verse.
For Rig Ved Foreign Translators used Book for Mandal, Hymn for Sukta and Verse for Mantra.
From this you can understand the condition what they have made with their translation.

Mantra in Sanskrit:

अवर्त्या शुन आन्त्राणि पेचे न देवेषु विविदे मर्डितारम |
अपश्यं जायाम अमहीयमानाम अधा मे शयेनो मध्व आ जभार ||

avartyā śuna āntrāṇi pece na deveṣu vivide marḍitāram |
apaśyaṃ jāyām amahīyamānām adhā me śyeno madhv ā jabhāra ||

 

Rigved Mandal 4, Sukta 18, Mantra 13

Griffth Translation: In deep distress I cooked a dog’s intestines. Among the Gods I found not one to comfort.
My consort I beheld in degradation. The Falcon then brought me the pleasant Soma.

Actual Translation:
word by Word:

avartya means to be free from cycle of life and Death
suna–>> This is the real conspirator, one meaning of suna is Dog but from Rigved 7.104.22 it is clear that suna means
to be happy. likely dog is used mainly as svaan not suna.
āntrāṇi means mode of Gyan or Knowledge
pece means to digest or mature. This is taken as cooked by griffth but it is to digest. This is same as
your teacher says to you digest your syllabus.
deveṣu means indriya i.e senses.
marḍitāram means the one that gives happines.
na Vivede means not found.
jayam means nature or prakriti
amahiyamanam means not equal to
apaśyaṃ means to see
syeno means Ishwar in form of Gyan or knowledge.
me means me
madhu means honey or very sweet
a jabhara means to give

So the actual translation of whole Mantra is:
Hrishi is saying I digest or mature all modes of knowledge of God to become happy and free from cycle of life and death.
In between my senses I do not found anyone to provide happiness or pleasure.
I do not saw Prakriti as same as God. Ishwar in the form of Knowledge gives me sweetest BrahmGyan.

Query: “Agni is a Vedic God and is described as fed on Ox and Cow”

[Rig Vda book 10: hymn 16 mantra or verse 7]

Mantra in Sanskrit:

अग्नेर्वर्म परि गोभिर्व्ययस्व सं परोर्णुष्व पीवसामेदसा च |
नेत तवा धर्ष्णुर्हरसा जर्ह्र्षाणो दध्र्ग्विधक्ष्यन पर्यङखयाते ||
aghnervarma pari ghobhirvyayasva saṃ prorṇuṣva pīvasāmedasā ca |
net tvā dhṛṣṇurharasā jarhṛṣāṇo dadhṛghvidhakṣyan paryaṅkhayāte ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 7

Griffth Translation: Shield thee with flesh against the flames of Agni, encompass thee about with fat and marrow,
So will the Bold One, eager to attack thee with fierce glow fail to girdle and consume thee.

Actual Translation: 
aghne ghobhi means from the auspicious voice of knowledgeable person 
varma means defensible shield, cloths etc
pari vyayasva to wear.
pivasamedasa ca means nutrient and loving body layer
saṃ prorṇuṣva means to cover properly
dhṛṣṇu means the fire created by rubbing, fire like Guru
jarhṛṣāṇo means to become very happy
dadhṛgh means to become very hard
vidhakṣyan means to burn opposite sin
net tva paryaṅkhayāte means do not cover you, do not punish you.

So the actual translation of whole Mantra is:
You wear defencable sheild, cloths etc from the auspicious voice of knowledgeble person or Guru and cover properly yourself
with nutrient and loving body layer. So that the fire created by rubbing like Guru to be very happy or to be very hard will
not punish you and burn your opposite sins.

Query: “A ritual enveloping dead body with Cow’s flesh before putting it on fire”.

[Rig Vda book 10: hymn 16 mantra or verse 7-10]

Mantra in Sanskrit:

अग्नेर्वर्म परि गोभिर्व्ययस्व सं परोर्णुष्व पीवसामेदसा च |
नेत तवा धर्ष्णुर्हरसा जर्ह्र्षाणो दध्र्ग्विधक्ष्यन पर्यङखयाते ||

aghnervarma pari ghobhirvyayasva saṃ prorṇuṣva pīvasāmedasā ca |
net tvā dhṛṣṇurharasā jarhṛṣāṇo dadhṛghvidhakṣyan paryaṅkhayāte ||

 

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 7

इममग्ने चमसं मा वि जिह्वरः परियो देवानामुतसोम्यानाम |
एष यश्चमसो देवपानस्तस्मिन देवा अम्र्तामादयन्ते ||

imamaghne camasaṃ mā vi jihvaraḥ priyo devānāmutasomyānām |
eṣa yaścamaso devapānastasmin devā amṛtāmādayante ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 8

करव्यादमग्निं पर हिणोमि दूरं यमराज्ञो गछतुरिप्रवाहः |
इहैवायमितरो जातवेदा देवेभ्यो हव्यंवहतु परजानन ||

kravyādamaghniṃ pra hiṇomi dūraṃ yamarājño ghachaturipravāhaḥ |
ihaivāyamitaro jātavedā devebhyo havyaṃvahatu prajānan ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 9

यो अग्निः करव्यात परविवेश वो गर्हमिमं पश्यन्नितरंजातवेदसम |
तं हरामि पित्र्यज्ञाय देवं स घर्ममिन्वात परमे सधस्थे ||

yo aghniḥ kravyāt praviveśa vo ghṛhamimaṃ paśyannitaraṃjātavedasam |
taṃ harāmi pitṛyajñāya devaṃ sa gharmaminvāt parame sadhasthe ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 10

Griffith Translation: 

Shield thee with flesh against the flames of Agni, encompass thee about with fat and marrow,
So will the Bold One, eager to attack thee with fierce glow fail to girdle and consume thee.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 7

Forbear, O Agni, to upset this ladle: the Gods and they who merit Soma love it.
This ladle, this which serves the Gods to drink from, in this the Immortal Deities rejoice them.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 8

1 send afar flesh eating Agni, bearing off stains may he depart to Yama’s subjects.
But let this other Jatavedas carry oblation to the Gods, for he is skilful.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 9

I choose as God for Father-worship Agni, flesh-eater, who hath past within your dwelling,
While looking on this other Jatavedas. Let him light flames in the supreme assembly.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 10

Now not giving word by word Translation I am giving you full translation of these Mantras.

You wear defensible shield, cloths etc from the auspicious voice of knowledgeable person or Guru and cover properly yourself with nutrient and loving body layer. So that the fire created by rubbing like Guru to be very happy or to be very hard will not punish you and burn your opposite sins.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 7

Hey Tejasvin (Agni)! You do not let make these favored people wicked in every way or direction. He
is loving to the one who give knowledge and Money and parents of disciple like son.all the wise persons and old man are happy on the one who is calm like receptacle humble person, he is preserver of wise persons and drink nectar of knowledge.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 8

From The system of Guru-Disciple explained above, May I able to eliminate the meat eaters, dangerous
wild animals and even death from myself and wicked persons should go to man of law savior King.
and from him other innocent people, knowledgeable person will get money and knowledge and in here in ashram provide knowledge, money and food etc. the Guru provide food of knowledge to disciples

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 9

Cruel meat eater who are like anguish giver as Agni should not come to my home in the dress of wise person. Householders should go to BrahamGyani person and not go to person who feed on money.
because they are like wolf and fire of cemetery or Shamshyan.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 10

Query : “Indra eats bulls”

[Rig Vda book 10: hymn 85 mantra or verse 13]

Mantra in Sanskrit:

सूर्याया वहतुः परागात सविता यमवास्र्जत |
अघासुहन्यन्ते गावो.अर्जुन्योः पर्युह्यते ||

sūryāyā vahatuḥ prāghāt savitā yamavāsṛjat |
aghāsuhanyante ghāvo.arjunyoḥ paryuhyate ||

RigVed Mandal 10: Sukta 85 mantra 13

Griffith Translation : The bridal pomp of Surya, which Savitar started, moved along.
In Magha days are oxen slain, in Arjuris they wed the bride.

Truth: 

Devta of this mantra 10/85/13 is “SURYA VIVAHA” So, this mantra relates to marriage. Mantra asks as to why the marriage is performed .Though, the marriage is performed for maintaining number of good qualities but in this mantra, it is stated that marriage is performed to obtain sons.

So, how why and under whose influence/pressure Mr. D. N. Jha has stated to slaughter the cow on the pious occasion of marriage is not understood. Mr. D. N. Jha’s interpretation of Rigveda Mantra 10/86/14 underlines practice of eating beef, which is absolutely wrong according to Vedas. Devta of this Sukta is ‘VARUNN’ the above mantra relates to the knowledge of celestial bodies/comprising of planets, stars etc.

So it has no concern with eating beef or any non-vegetarian food.

Meaning of above mantra :

SOORYAAYAA VAHATUHU PRAAGAAT SAVITA YAMAVAASRIJAT.

AGHAASU HANYANTE GAAVORJUNYOHO PARYUHYATE.

The mantra states that in winter, the rays of sun get weakened and then get strong again in spring.
The word used for sun-rays in ‘Go’ which also means cow and hence the mantra can also be translated by
making ‘cow’ and not ‘sun-rays’ as the subject. The word used for ‘weakened’ is ‘Hanyate’ which can also
mean killing. But if that be so, why would the mantra go further and state in next line (which is deliberate
ly not translated) that in spring, they start regaining their original form. How can a cow killed in
winter regain its health in spring? This amply proves how ignorant and biased communists malign Vedas.

Query: “Indra says, “They have cooked for me fifteen bulls and twenty cows, so that I may eat the fats as well. Both sides of my belly are full.”

[Rig Vda book 10: hymn 86 mantra or verse 7]

Sanskrit Mantra:

उवे अम्ब सुलाभिके यथेवाङग भविष्यति |
भसन मे अम्बसक्थि मे शिरो मे वीव हर्ष्यति विश्वस्मादिन्द्र उत्तरः ||

uve amba sulābhike yathevāṅgha bhaviṣyati |
bhasan me ambasakthi me śiro me vīva hṛṣyati viśvasmādindra uttaraḥ ||

Rigved Mandal 10 Sukta 86 mantra 7

Griffith Translation: 

Mother whose love is quickly wibn, I say what verily will be.
My,breast, O Mother, and my head and both my hips seem quivering. Supreme is Indra over all.

Now you can see
This is totally misquoted and self made verse even Griffith dont say to to kill cow in this Mantra. So
I am not explaining this Mantra.

Query: ACCORDING TO THE UPANISHAD

“He who wishes, “May as son born to me, who will e a reputed scholar, attend assemblies, speak words that one likes to hear, be versed in all the Vedas and attain full longevity” Should have rice cooked with beef that of a young mature bull and with his wife eat it mixed with ghee. Then they will be able to produce such a son.

[Brahadaranyaka Upanishad Ch 6 Sec 4 Mantar 18]

Answer:

Let us take Mansodanam first. There are 4 more verses just before this verse that recommend eating particular edibles with rice for having a child with Vedic wisdom of different types. The other edibles are: Ksheerodanam (Milk with rice), Dadhyodanam (Yogurt with rice), Water with rice and Tila (a pulse) with rice for experts in other Vedas. Thus it is ONLY for mastery of Atharvaveda that Mansodanam or meat with rice is recommended. This itself shows that the particular reference is an anomaly.

In reality, the right word is Mashodanam and NOT Mansodanam. Masha means a kind of pulse. Hence there is nothing fleshy about it. In fact, for pregnant women, meat is completely prohibited as per Ayurveda. Refer Sushruta Samhita. There is also a verse in Sushrut Samhita that recommends Masha for husband and wife for a good son. Thus it is obvious that Brihadaranyaka has also explained the same concept as elucidated in Sushruta Samhita. There is no reason why the two texts would differ in Masha and Mansa.
Even if someone asserts that it is not Masha but Mansa, still Mansa means pulp and not necessarily meat. There are ample usages of Mansa as pulp in ancient texts. Thus Amramansam means pulp of mango. Khajuramansam means pulp of date. Refer Charak Samhita for such examples. Taittriya Samhita 2.32.8 uses Mansa for curd, honey and corn.

The fact is that Uksha refers to a medicinal herb, also known as Soma. Even someone like Monier Williams in his Sanskrit-English Dictionary states the same.

Vashaa refers to controlling powers of God and not a barren cow. If Vasha is used to mean a barren cow, then many Vedic verses will make no sense.

For example, Atharvaveda 10.10.4 uses Sahasradhara or Thousand flows in relation with Vasha. How can a barren cow be compared with Sahasradhara used to denote ample food, milk and water.
Atharvaveda 10.190 states that Vashi means controlling power of God and is recited twice daily in Vedic Sandhya.

In other verses, Vashaa is used also as productive land or a good wife with children (Atharvaveda 20.103.15) or a medicinal herb. Monier Williams also uses the word to mean a herb in his dictionary.
Uksha means a herb or Soma, even as per Monier Williams Dictionary. The same dictionary also lists Rishabh (from which Arshabh is derived) to mean a kind of medicinal plant (Carpopogan pruriens). Charak Samhita 1.4-13 lists Rishabh as a medicinal plant. Same is mentioned in Sushrut Samhita 38 and Bhavaprakash Purna Khanda.

Further both Arshabh (Rishabh) and Uksha mean bull and none means ‘calf’. So why were synonyms used to mention the same thing in the shloka from Brihadaranyak. This is like saying, one should eat either curd or yogurt! Thus, obviously the two words mean two different things. And considering that all the other verses mention herbs and pulses, these words also mean the same

The word Mansodan is misquoted its Manshodhan which means purify Mind.
Uksha means Herb of Somaras. Ox is called Vrishabh in sanskrit not Uksha.
The quote simply means Rice mixed with herbs purify our mind.

I am giving Pictorial proof here…

Query : “”The eater who eats the flesh of those to be eaten does nothing bad, even if he does it day after day, for God himself created some to be eaten and some to be eater.”

[Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5 verse 30]

Answer: Actual Verse

The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten (for those special purposes).

We know one living entity is dependent on another. This vesre is for all living entity that eats other animals for living not for human.

That is what we can see and that is what Vedas tell us jive jivese Bhojnam now we could easily use this as a licence to kill and enjoy and contrast this with thou shall not kill in the bible and yet we see the opposite, why, because we follow the higher doctrine of ahimsa.

What I find so sad of muslims is that they wish peace in their greating to one another yet they lack in their action

Query: “Eating meat is right for the sacrifice; this is traditionally known as a rule of the gods.”

[Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5 verse 31]

Answer: You conveniently omitted full verse, here it is

‘The consumption of meat is prohibited for yajnas,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the Gods; but to persist (in using it) on occasions is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

And then if we read further which our friend deliberately remains ignorant about for obvious reasons, makes it abundantly clear what we human should not eat.

Now see what Manusmiriti actually says about Eating meat:

Chapter 5

48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

50. He who, disregarding the rule (given above), does not eat meat like a Pisaka, becomes dear to men, and will not be tormented by diseases.

51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

Moreover, you would come accross some reference from adulterated Manusmriti, containing Violence against animals These are additional shlokas are either from adulterated Manu Smriti or misinterpreted by twisting of words. I recommend them to read Manu Smriti by Dr Surendra Kumar.

Query: “God himself created sacrificial animals for sacrifice… therefore killing in a sacrifice is not killing.”

[Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5 verse 39-40]

Answer: Correct verse is

Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created beasts for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

point to be look at in this verse is that sacrifice is not for eating. Manu is talinkg about Beasts which become threat to mankind i.e man eater Tiger, lion etc.

Killing them with the purpose of saving life is not slaughtering but the sacrifice.

 

Query : Yudhishthira and Pitamah Bhishma about what food one should offer to Pitris (ancestors) during the Shraddha (ceremony of dead) to keep them satisfied. Paragraph reads as follows:

“Yudhishthira said, “O thou of great puissance, tell me what that object is which, if dedicated to the Pitiris (dead ancestors), become inexhaustible! What Havi, again, (if offered) lasts for all time? What, indeed, is that which (if presented) becomes eternal?”

“Bhishma said, “Listen to me, O Yudhishthira, what those Havis are which persons conversant with the rituals of the Shraddha (the ceremony of dead) regard as suitable in view of Shraddha and what the fruits are that attach to each. With sesame seeds and rice and barely and Masha and water and roots and fruits, if given at Shraddhas, the pitris, O king, remain gratified for the period of a month. With fishes offered at Shraddhas, the pitris remain gratified for a period of two months. With the mutton they remain gratified for three months and with the hare for four months, with the flesh of the goat for five months, with the bacon (meat of pig) for six months, and with the flesh of birds for seven. With venison obtained from those deer that are called Prishata, they remaingratified for eight months, and with that obtained from the Ruru for nine months, and with the meat of Gavaya for ten months, With the meat of the bufffalo their gratification lasts for eleven months. With beef presented at the Shraddha, their gratification, it is said , lasts for a full year.

Payasa mixed with ghee is as much acceptable to the pitris as beef. With the meat of Vadhrinasa (a large bull) the gratification of pitris lasts for twelve years. The flesh of rhinoceros, offered to the pitris on anniversaries of the lunar days on which they died, becomes inexhaustible. The potherb called Kalaska, the petals of kanchana flower, and meat of (red) goat also, thus offered, prove inexhaustible. So but natural if you want to keep your ancestors satisfied forever, you should serve them the meat of red goat.

[Mahabharata Anushashan Parva chapter 88]

Answer: this query made me laugh and sad at innocence of Hindus no where in this chapter says about
beef but it is saying about cows in donation and to give curd, cow milk and grains to eat.

I am giving whole chapter here in Sanskrit Translated to Hindi.

Query: SWAMI VIVEKANANDA

“You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.” [The complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3, Pg 536]

In the same volume he says,

“There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin;”

[The complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3, Pg 174]

Answer:

Many people quote those, who may be good though one subject (like Yoga) but may not have credible understanding of the Vedas. These quotations are widely used to prove that Vedas prescribe barbaric things like Violence against animals and women, etc but the users of these quotations are unable to provide real proofs (directly from the Vedas and Vedic Granth). Also, we are not sure that these people have really made such comments or not

You can quote Swami Vivekananda and other books to prove that eating beef
is part of the Hindus daily life in the past. However, you have not
considered the commentories written by prophets (empowered living beings
who are sent by God). Only the commentaries on Vedas, Puranas, upanishads,
etc written by prophets are valid. The problem is that most people quote
translation of verses done by famous people such as Swami Vivekananda but
they ignore the translation done by prophets listed below:

Adi Shankara (789-821) (also known as “Shankaracharya”), or Shankara

Bhagavatpaada: Founder of Advaita school of vedanta (incarnation of Lord
Shiva).

Shrimad Ramanujacharya: Wrote Sribhashya, commentary on Brahma Sutras. He
also established Vishistadvaita Siddhanta (incarnation of AdisEsha).

Shrimad Madhvacharya: Founder of the Dvaita school of vedanta (incarnation
of Vayu deva).

Shrimad Nimbarkacharya: Founder of Dvaitadvaita school of
vedanta (incarnation of Sudarshana Chakra of Lord Vishnu).

Shrimad Vallbhacharya: Founder of Shuddhadvaita school of vedanta and
established (incarnation of Agni deva).

These prophets are called prophets because if you read their history it is given that God ordained them to *incarnate* on the earth for uplifting us and enlightening on topics that people were confused. There are many instances in which demigods or absolute God have incarnated on earth and summarized the Hindu religion. You should read their commentaries first. I or you can write commentaries on Vedas, Puranas but it is not authorized one.

There are many great people who are subject to illusions and they have done small mistakes. Take for eg: Gandhiji. He is called mahatma but there are many controversies connected to it which many people refuse to be accept as true. I will not go into detail whether those allegations are true or not. When a sanskrit word ‘go’ is used in Sanskrit it has many meaning. It also has meaning called earth, river, etc. Also the word ‘offering’ doesn’t mean throwing it into fire. That is why we have depend less on translations done by non-prophets.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

EGYPT Sphinx and America's connection With Ancient India

 
Article: March, 2008: Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaobotany.

'Investigation of botanical remains from an ancient site, Tokwa in Uttar Pradesh, has brought to light the agriculture- based subsistence economy during the Neolithic culture (3rd-2nd millennium BC). An important find among the botanical remains is the seeds of South American custard apple, regarded to have been introduced by the Portuguese in the 16th century. The remains of custard apple as fruit coat and seeds have also been recorded from other sites in the Indian archaeological context, during the Kushana Period (AD 100-300) in Punjab and Early Iron Age (1300-700 BC). The factual remains of custard apple, along with other stray finds discussed in the text, favour a group of specialists, supporting with diverse arguments, the reasoning of Asian - American contacts, before the discovery of America by Columbus in 1498'.


 
The Sumerian civilisation developed on the Persian Gulf, growing to strength at around 4 - 3,000 B.C. The 'Plain of the Land of Shinar' is the territory which after 2,000 B.C. became called Babylon. The Greeks named the region Mesopotamia (The land between two rivers), most of which lies in the modern state of Iraq.


Quick-links.







The Sumerians: (Chronology).
The exact origins of the Sumerians are unknown. They entered Mesopotamia c. 4,000 B.C.
The original homeland of the Sumerians is unknown. It is believed that they came from the east (2), but whether by sea or from the highlands is unknown. We know that they are not local people because their language belongs to an isolated language group. During the 5th millennium B.C. a people known as the Ubaidians established settlements in the region later known as Sumer (Mesopotamia) (2) It has been noticed that there are very clear similarities between the Ubaid artwork, and that of of 'Old Europe' Vinca Culture which flourishe

A similar object appears commonly in Mesopotamian art.
(More about Sumeria)d c. 6,000 - 3,500 BC.

 
 Sphinx's in India: '
Purushamriga's'

At the Temple of Chidambaram on a raised platform, two sphinxes are sitting on either side of a grand doorway, guarding the entrance of an ancient temple. They are known to the worshippers and the priests as the divine beings that ward off evil and remove sins. A mysterious smile adorns their human faces, which are surrounded by full lion's mane. One is male, the other is female, and as a faithful couple they have been seated in this way side by side for many centuries. According to this temple's tradition, they dissolve the negative vibrations of all who look at them as they enter the temple.

This Sphinx of India is also playing a role in various legends and mythologies. Some of these mythologies are part of local traditions and describe the purushamriga as the founder of that particular temple, or as otherwise playing a role in its tradition. But they are also found in particular episodes of the great Indian epics, the Mahabharata and Ramayana. And also in some of the Puranas. Thus there is a legend recounting the purushamriga as one of the characters involved with the legendary events surrounding the birth of Tamasa Manu, one of the earlier Manus or human ancestors. When the sons of Lord Rama and Sita leave the ashram of Vasishtha to go in search of their father, they meet the purushamriga on the way. The depiction of the purushamriga as a devotee worshipping the Shiva Linga refers to an episode from the Mahabharata that is well known in the South of India.




References:

1). Michael Wood. In Search of the First Civilisations. 1992. BBC Books.

2) Peter Lancaster Brown. 'Megaliths, Myths and Men'. 1977. Book Club Associates.

3). B. G. Sidharth. The Celestial Key to the Vedas. 1999. Inner Traditions Publ.

4). See Dimmit and VAN Buitenen, Classical Hindu Mythology, for a review of this figure.

9). Rene Noorbergen. Secrets of the Lost Races. 1977. New English Library.
http://co-creatingournewearth.blogspot.com/2012/05/swastika-city-arkaim-siberia-c12000bc.html


http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/india.htm


 


Arkaim- russia ? still mystery

In 1935 aerial photography led to the recognition of several unusual circles in the Southern Urals steppe. It was obvious that those circles were made by humans. At that time no one could explain the origin of these circles, it was a mystery. Twenty of the spiral-shaped settlements, believed to be the original home of the Aryan people, have been identified, and there are about 50 more suspected sites. They all lie buried in a region more than 640km long near Russia's border with Kazakhstan.

The ancient Ural fortress Arkaim located in the Chelyabinsk region is often called the “Russian Stonehenge.” In addition to streets and buildings scientists have found remnants of a water system, metallurgic furnaces, and mines. It is The remains have been dated to c. 2000-1600 B.C. (Gening, Zdanovich 1993, Zdanovich 1995, 1997) also said to be one of the strongest 'anomaly zones' in Russia. 
Arkaim, Russia.
Reconstruction of Arkaim Citadel

The first official sighting of Arkaim was in 1935... 'Using information derived from military aerial photography, the geologist, Batenina, identified a number of these fortresses during the 1960s. A complex of 17 fortresses was discovered in the southern Urals in the region of Magnitogorsk, Troizk, and Orenburg. Excavations have been undertaken at the settlements of Sintashta, Arkaim, Ustje, Kujsak, and others'. (Genning et al 1992: fig. 1; Zdanovich 1995; Vinogradov 1995; Malutina et al 1995). The first research on the Prehistory of Arkaim came in the same year: Batenina, T. M. 1935. Distentsionnye metody pri-ercheologicheskich issledovaniyan v sapovednike Arkaim, pp. 105–6 in Kultura drevnih narodov stepnoi Evrasii i fenomen protogorodskoi civilizacii yuzshnogo Urala 1. Chelyabinsk (“Distant methods of archaeological investigations in the Arkaim.” Culture of the ancient peoples of the Eurasian steppe and the phenomenon of proto-city civilization). (5)In 1987, Arkaim valley in the Southern Urals was going to be flooded and turned into an artificial lake. But before that would happened archaeologists were given a year to find out about the mysterious circles. When archaeologists begun to work they found out that those circles were Arkaim's settlements! It was a sensation! Arkaim is not only a settlement, but it is also a temple and an astronomic observatory! It was round and was 160 meters in diameter. It was surrounded by a ditch that was filled with water. An outside wall was very massive, the height was 5.5 meters and width was 5 meters. The wall had four gates. The largest gate was south-west gate. All the buildings were shaped in half rounds and were connected to the outside wall. Each building had exit to the main street in the city.

The city was destroyed completely by fire. Among the archaeological finds there are no human remains

 or bones of domestic animals. No valuables, no jewellery, no religious objects

 
References:
 
1). http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/07-06-2010/113680-arkaim-0/#
2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkaim
3). http://cosmodromium.blogspot.com/2010/10/unearthed-aryan-cities-rewrite-history.html?zx=d1240879f64cb265
4). http://www.csen.org/koryakova2/Korya.Sin.Ark.html
5). http://www.csen.org/BAR.../04%20Part%203.%20Bronze.Int.pdf
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/megalithicdatabase.htm                                                                
 

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Hindu Idols at Qutub Complex

'Hindu Idols at Qutub Complex
-----------------------------
About the Qutub Minar itself there is overwhelming proof that it was a Hindu tower existing hundreds of years before Qutubuddin and therefore it is wrong to ascribe the tower to Qutubuddin.

Qutubuddin has left us an inscription that he destroyed these pavilions. But he has not said that he raised any tower. The destroyed temple was renamed as Quwat-ul-Islam mosque.

Stones dislodged from the so-called Qutub Minar have Hindu images on one side with Arabic lettering on the other. Those stones have now been moved to the Museum. They clearly show that Muslim invaders used to remove the stone- dressing of Hindu buildings, turn the stones inside out to hide the image facial and inscribe Arabic lettering on the new frontage.

Bits of Sanskrit inscriptions can still be deciphered in the premises on numerous pillars and walls. Numerous images still adorn the cornices though disfigured.

According to a Persian inscription still on the inner eastern gateway of Quwat-ul-Islam mosque, the mosque was built by the parts taken by destruction of twenty-seven Hindu and Jain temples built previously during Tomars and Prithvi Raj Chauhan, and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper.Historical records compiled by Muslim historian Maulana Hakim Saiyid Abdul Hai attest to the iconoclasm of Qutb-ud-din Aibak.

Look at these disfigured Hindu statues and idols, can you name any structure ever built by any Muslim leader where they had Hindu idols'Hindu Idols at Qutub Complex


 About the Qutub Minar itself there is overwhelming proof that it was a Hindu tower existing hundreds of years before Qutubuddin and therefore it is wrong to ascribe the tower to Qutubuddin.
Qutubuddin has left us an inscription that he destroyed these pavilions. But he has not said that he raised any tower. The destroyed temple was renamed as Quwat-ul-Islam mosque.
...
Stones dislodged from the so-called Qutub Minar have Hindu images on one side with Arabic lettering on the other. Those stones have now been moved to the Museum. They clearly show that Muslim invaders used to remove the stone- dressing of Hindu buildings, turn the stones inside out to hide the image facial and inscribe Arabic lettering on the new frontage.
Bits of Sanskrit inscriptions can still be deciphered in the premises on numerous pillars and walls. Numerous images still adorn the cornices though disfigured.
According to a Persian inscription still on the inner eastern gateway of Quwat-ul-Islam mosque, the mosque was built by the parts taken by destruction of twenty-seven Hindu and Jain temples built previously during Tomars and Prithvi Raj Chauhan, and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper.Historical records compiled by Muslim historian Maulana Hakim Saiyid Abdul Hai attest to the iconoclasm of Qutb-ud-din Aibak.
Look at these disfigured Hindu statues and idols, can you name any structure ever built by any Muslim leader where they had Hindu idols
 

Acharya Kanad : Father of Atomic Theory

'Acharya Kanad : Father of Atomic Theory 

John Dalton (1766 – 1844), an English chemist and physicist, is the man credited today with the development of atomic theory.  However, a theory of atoms was actually formulated 2,500 years before Dalton by an ancient Indian sage and philosopher, known as Acharya Kanad. 

Acharya Kanad was born in 600 BC in Prabhas Kshetra (near Dwaraka) in Gujarat, India. His real name was Kashyap. Kashyap was on a pilgrimage to Prayag when he saw thousands of pilgrims litter the streets with flowers and rice grains, which they offered at the temple. Kashyap, fascinated by small particles, began collecting the grains of rice. A crowd gathered around to see the strange man collecting grains from the street. Kashyap was asked why he was collecting the grains that even a beggar wouldn’t touch. He told them that individual grains in themselves may seem worthless, but a collection of some hundred grains make up a person's meal, the collection many meals would feed an entire family and ultimately the entire mankind was made of many families, thus even a single grain of rice was as important as all the valuable riches in this world. Since then, people began calling him ‘Kanad’, as ‘Kan’ in Sanskrit means ‘the smallest particle’.  Kanad pursued his fascination with the unseen world and with conceptualising the idea of the smallest particle. 

He began writing down his ideas and teaching them to others.  Thus, people began calling him ‘Acharya’ (‘the teacher’), hence the name Acharya Kanad (‘the teacher of small particles’) Kanad’s conception of Anu (the atom) Kanad was walking with food in his hand, breaking it into small pieces when he realised that he was unable to divide the food into any further parts, it was too small. 

From this moment, Kanad conceptualized the idea of a particle that could not be divided any further. He called that indivisible matter Parmanu, or anu (atom). Acharya Kanad proposed that this indivisible matter could not be sensed through any human organ or seen by the naked eye, and that an inherent urge made one Parmanu combine with another.  

When two Parmanu belonging to one class of substance combined, a dwinuka (binary molecule) was the result. This dwinuka had properties similar to the two parent Parmanu. 

Kanad suggested that it was the different combinations of Parmanu which produced different types of substances. He also put forward the idea that atoms could be combined in various ways to produce chemical changes in presence of other factors such as heat. He gave blackening of earthen pot and ripening of fruit as examples of this phenomenon. 

Acharya Kanad founded the Vaisheshika school of philosophy where he taught his ideas about the atom and the nature of the universe. He wrote a book on his research “Vaisheshik Darshan” and became known as “The Father of Atomic theory.” In the West, atomism emerged in the 5th century BC with the ancient Greeks Leucippus and Democritus. Whether Indian culture influenced Greek or vice versa or whether both evolved independently is a matter of dispute. Kanad is reporting to have said: ”Every object of creation is made of atoms which in turn connect with each other to form molecules.” 

Poonam Patil Kalra
poonampatilkalra.blogspot.in'Acharya Kanad : Father of Atomic Theory
John Dalton (1766 – 1844), an English chemist and physicist, is the man credited today with the development of atomic theory. However, a theory of atoms was actually formulated 2,500 years before Dalton by an ancient Indian sage and philosopher, known as Acharya Kanad.
Acharya Kanad was born in 600 BC in Prabhas Kshetra (near Dwaraka) in Gujarat, India. His real name was Kashyap. Kashyap was on a pilgrimage to Prayag when he saw thousands of pilgrims litter the streets with flowers and rice grains, which they offered at the temple. Kashyap, fascinated by small particles, began collecting the grains of rice. A crowd gathered around to see the strange man collecting grains from the street. Kashyap was asked why he was collecting the grains that even a beggar wouldn’t touch. He told them that individual grains in themselves may seem worthless, but a collection of some hundred grains make up a person's meal, the collection many meals would feed an entire family and ultimately the entire mankind was made of many families, thus even a single grain of rice was as important as all the valuable riches in this world. Since then, people began calling him ‘Kanad’, as ‘Kan’ in Sanskrit means ‘the smallest particle’. Kanad pursued his fascination with the unseen world and with conceptualising the idea of the smallest particle.

He began writing down his ideas and teaching them to others. Thus, people began calling him ‘Acharya’ (‘the teacher’), hence the name Acharya Kanad (‘the teacher of small particles’) Kanad’s conception of Anu (the atom) Kanad was walking with food in his hand, breaking it into small pieces when he realised that he was unable to divide the food into any further parts, it was too small.
From this moment, Kanad conceptualized the idea of a particle that could not be divided any further. He called that indivisible matter Parmanu, or anu (atom). Acharya Kanad proposed that this indivisible matter could not be sensed through any human organ or seen by the naked eye, and that an inherent urge made one Parmanu combine with another.
When two Parmanu belonging to one class of substance combined, a dwinuka (binary molecule) was the result. This dwinuka had properties similar to the two parent Parmanu.
Kanad suggested that it was the different combinations of Parmanu which produced different types of substances. He also put forward the idea that atoms could be combined in various ways to produce chemical changes in presence of other factors such as heat. He gave blackening of earthen pot and ripening of fruit as examples of this phenomenon.
Acharya Kanad founded the Vaisheshika school of philosophy where he taught his ideas about the atom and the nature of the universe. He wrote a book on his research “Vaisheshik Darshan” and became known as “The Father of Atomic theory.” In the West, atomism emerged in the 5th century BC with the ancient Greeks Leucippus and Democritus. Whether Indian culture influenced Greek or vice versa or whether both evolved independently is a matter of dispute. Kanad is reporting to have said: ”Every object of creation is made of atoms which in turn connect with each other to form molecules.”

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

PINEAL GLAND IS THIRD EYE

Third Eye: This is not proof that the pineal gland is a spiritual eye seeing into other dimensions, but it is proof that it has the biological potential to be an actual eye. So now we have a solid scientific evidence to establish that the pineal gland is in fact a third eye, and we can now begin to speculate why it evolved and if it serves any purpose of spiritual significance.
The first reference of king size third eye was seen in Lord Shiva.

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/proof-that-the-pineal-gland-is-literally-a-3rd-eye/