Naughty boy!
This is exactly what is wrong with these Abrahamic atheists. They do not know & don't understand anything. They behave no different from religious Abrahamics when it comes to Hindus.
Now,they find "punishment for blasphemy" in Rgveda. Was it really so?
Thread (1)
This is exactly what is wrong with these Abrahamic atheists. They do not know & don't understand anything. They behave no different from religious Abrahamics when it comes to Hindus.
Now,they find "punishment for blasphemy" in Rgveda. Was it really so?
Thread (1)
The verse in question is Rgveda 6.72.
Abrahamic Atheists are using an outdated 19th century translation of a Christian scholar Ralph Griffith to prove existence of blasphemy punishments in Rgveda.
This "translation' of Rgveda was published by "The Christian Literature Society"
Abrahamic Atheists are using an outdated 19th century translation of a Christian scholar Ralph Griffith to prove existence of blasphemy punishments in Rgveda.
This "translation' of Rgveda was published by "The Christian Literature Society"
Now, the word used in the original text is निदः (Nidaḥ)
This is wrongly translated as "blasphemer".
निदः comes from root निद् which means "mocking, ridiculing".
The word निंदा meaning "speak ill of(someone)" also comes from the same root. This word is also used in Hindi
This is wrongly translated as "blasphemer".
निदः comes from root निद् which means "mocking, ridiculing".
The word निंदा meaning "speak ill of(someone)" also comes from the same root. This word is also used in Hindi
The word निदः is द्वितीया विभक्ति बहुवचन (accusative plural) of निद्
Which means that it refers to "scorners, ridiculers" or "those who speak ill".
Why then is the word translated as "blasphemers"?
Which means that it refers to "scorners, ridiculers" or "those who speak ill".
Why then is the word translated as "blasphemers"?
The translator claims that he followed the authority of the great 14th century Vijayanagara scholar Sāyanāchārya.
In his verse commentary, Sāyana explains निदः as "speakers of ill of the Gods".
So, was the translation right after all? No, I explain why in subsequent tweets
In his verse commentary, Sāyana explains निदः as "speakers of ill of the Gods".
So, was the translation right after all? No, I explain why in subsequent tweets
The catch here is that verse is NOT talking about all those who speak ill against Gods.
It is talking about specific people.
Griffith's own translation has the verse describing Indra-Soma "finding the sun, finding light, smashing away the darkness"
What is it talking about?
It is talking about specific people.
Griffith's own translation has the verse describing Indra-Soma "finding the sun, finding light, smashing away the darkness"
What is it talking about?
Why did Indra-Soma have to "find the sun"? The clue lies elsewhere.
Griffith's own translation at Rgveda 6.20 and 7.09 says that it were "Panis" who hid the sun and light in their caves!
And Indra brought back the sun. The caves of Panis were forced open by Indra (and Agni)
Griffith's own translation at Rgveda 6.20 and 7.09 says that it were "Panis" who hid the sun and light in their caves!
And Indra brought back the sun. The caves of Panis were forced open by Indra (and Agni)
From Rgveda 10.108 (Bibek Debroy's translation), we again see that it were Panis who ridiculed Indra.
To sum up
1) "Panis" hid the sun and sunlight
2) "Panis" ridiculed Indra
3) God Indra freed the sun and he slayed Panis
To sum up
1) "Panis" hid the sun and sunlight
2) "Panis" ridiculed Indra
3) God Indra freed the sun and he slayed Panis
This is also confirmed from Bṛhaddevatā and Yaska's Nirukta.
The Bṛhaddevatā retells the story of Panis hiding the sun ( metaphorically equated with cows, from Rgveda onwards), Panis insulting Indra, Indra freeing sun & slaying Panis!
"गत्वा जघान च पणीन् गाश्च ताः पुनराहरत्"
The Bṛhaddevatā retells the story of Panis hiding the sun ( metaphorically equated with cows, from Rgveda onwards), Panis insulting Indra, Indra freeing sun & slaying Panis!
"गत्वा जघान च पणीन् गाश्च ताः पुनराहरत्"
Hence, it is clear that the so called "blasphemers" of this verse was a group of people known as "Panis"
But who are the "Panis"?
According to Bṛhaddevatā , the Panis were "Asuras" (a close translation would be "demons").
They reside "on the other side of the Rasa river"
But who are the "Panis"?
According to Bṛhaddevatā , the Panis were "Asuras" (a close translation would be "demons").
They reside "on the other side of the Rasa river"
This is also confirmed from Yaska's Nirukta.
The Nirukta commentary on Rgveda 10.108 refers to "Panis" as demons (asuras).
Basically, a line which said "God Indra slayed demons" has been wrongly translated as "Indra slayed blasphemers"
The Nirukta commentary on Rgveda 10.108 refers to "Panis" as demons (asuras).
Basically, a line which said "God Indra slayed demons" has been wrongly translated as "Indra slayed blasphemers"
Griffith is notorious for such translations
Notice how at Rgveda 2.23.14 he translated Rākshasas (Hindi राक्षस) as "demons".
But maliciously placed "disbelievers' in brackets to give readers a false impression that Hindus Gods are slaying Human disbelievers instead of demons
Notice how at Rgveda 2.23.14 he translated Rākshasas (Hindi राक्षस) as "demons".
But maliciously placed "disbelievers' in brackets to give readers a false impression that Hindus Gods are slaying Human disbelievers instead of demons
Even the new generation of Western Indologists have discarded such blatantly false and outdated translations.
A recent translation of Rigveda by Stephanie Jamison from Harvard university DOES NOT use the word "blasphemer" in the said verse.
A recent translation of Rigveda by Stephanie Jamison from Harvard university DOES NOT use the word "blasphemer" in the said verse.
To sum up
A horrible, outdated 19th century Christian translation of Rgveda writes about a Hindu God slaying "blasphemers"
Whereas the verse in question ACTUALLY talks about the story of the said Hindu God slaying demons (with a deep metaphorical meaning behind it)
A horrible, outdated 19th century Christian translation of Rgveda writes about a Hindu God slaying "blasphemers"
Whereas the verse in question ACTUALLY talks about the story of the said Hindu God slaying demons (with a deep metaphorical meaning behind it)
And then, a random Abrahamic atheist who has no clue and no Knowledge about Hinduism/ India randomly picks up the verse from internet and uses it to proclaim relative superiority of his former religion over Hinduism
Their very premise of blasphemy dεath punishment in Rgveda is very absurd.
No Hindu ever said "Hey blasphemer, I am going to put you to dεath because Rgveda 6.72 says so".
What about Abrahamic religions? The less said, the better.
There is no comparison at all!
No Hindu ever said "Hey blasphemer, I am going to put you to dεath because Rgveda 6.72 says so".
What about Abrahamic religions? The less said, the better.
There is no comparison at all!
Let us be very clear.
Hindus love, respect and worship their Devas very much and they never tolerate Devaninda.
Such Devanindakas were boycotted and excommunicated. Sometimes, even other measures were restored to.
However,blasphemy dεath punishment does not exist in Rgveda
Hindus love, respect and worship their Devas very much and they never tolerate Devaninda.
Such Devanindakas were boycotted and excommunicated. Sometimes, even other measures were restored to.
However,blasphemy dεath punishment does not exist in Rgveda
Loading suggestions...