href="http://www.jivha.com/blog/archives/000856.html"
target=_blank> size=1>Jivha has posted an title="Link to Article by Meera Nanda on Frontline"
href="http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2026/stories/20040102000607800.htm"
target=_blank> size=1>interesting link to an article that debunks the
Vedas, generally speaking, and tries to conclude that the
Vedas are mere “mythology,” to be more specific.

To provide a fitting response to this bigoted article, I will need a
lot of time. However, at the surface, these loose points come
to my mind:

1. The article is completely racist, coming as it is from the Left wing
   magazine, Frontline. A supposedly-objective article will be more restrained in
   its language, will concentrate on the fallacies in the
   argument/theory/tenet/whatever and will not resort to name-calling at the
   first available opportunity. 


2.  The author has an extremely superficial
   knowledge of Hinduism and the Vedas. While I’m no expert in it, I can say with
   a great deal of confidence that she has twisted and misinterpreted several
   tenets of Hinduism to suit her agenda.


3. Prima facie, her statement about the mythos of the
   Vedas is incorrect. The Vedas are not
   mythological. Unless she doesn’t know, or she’s deliberately lying, Indian
   Mythology comprises the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and the
   Puranas. The Vedas (derived from Vid=Knowledge) can be
   broadly thought of as timeless and verifiable truths that were arrived at by
   Rishis (sages) who meditated upon several philosophical matters such as
   creation, destruction, life, God, death, to name a few. Now, the meaning of
   the word mythology signifies, a body of stories
   associated with a culture or institution or person. This definition
   as we can easily attest, be immediately applied to the Ramayana, or the
   Mahabharata.


4. She dismisses several of genuine Vedic achievements and Hinduism’s
   tolerance as a mere disguise for its narcissistic obsession with
   its own greatness. Believe me, if this article was really
   written objectively, none could reach this conclusion. Just an example will
   suffice. If Hinduism wasn’t tolerant, millions of Hindus in India at the time
   of Partition wouldn’t have permitted the Muslims to stay back in India when
   the bargain was that all Muslims in India should move to Pakistan and all
   Hindus of Pakistan, to India. And why doesn’t she quote the instance of the
   fabled migration of the Parsis into India, often held as an example of
   Hinduism’s tolerance?


5. Another example of her one-sided “objectivity” suffices. She seeks to
   dismiss Vedic tenets as “unscientific,” and that there’s nothing “scientific”
   about Vedas and frequently denigrates the concept of Brahman
   (roughly speaking, it is the highest conception of reality). I shall
   quote but a sloka to show her shallow knowledge or
   deliberate falsification. This is from the Taittiriya Upanishad
   where the student asks his preceptor to teach him the knowledge of
   Brahman. The teacher asks him to meditate upon it and return with his
   conclusions. In the process, the student slowly uncovers different
   truths, each finding taking him to a higher level of consciousness,
   or say, nearer the truth. He finally arrives at
   the Brahman state, which he says is Ananda or
   Joy or Bliss. This is the fifth and the final state. The fourth is the
   Vignana state or the scientific state, and declares it in
   these words: Vignanam Brahmeti Vyajaanaat (or Brahman is
   Science). And he reaches one state beyond science, which he
   has previously thought to be the ultimate. While it is beyond the scope of
   this–I meant this to be a short retort, but look where it has landed!–my
   claim is that the author displays a rare talent for intellectual dishonesty,
   superimposing fantastic theories and using them to denigrate Hindusim and the
   Vedas.

And I’m talking as one who is studying the Vedas in their original, as well
as several interpretations (true and false) ascribed to them. Although I do not
claim to be an expert in the field, I am pretty well-informed to recognize
when falsehoods are spoken. However, if anybody is genuinely interested to study
science in ancient India, you can start here:

href="http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/tks_essays_frameset.htm"
target=_blank> size=1>http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/tks_essays_frameset.htm

href="http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/tks_resources_frameset.htm"
target=_blank> size=1>http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/tks_resources_frameset.htm

And no, Jivha I am not at all upset with the anti-religious “tinge” (that’s a
mild word!) with this article. I’m merely furious at its bias. And I don’t deny
that there is nothing negative about Hinduism, and that it’s foolish to extend a
one-size-fits-all approach to say the IIT, the IIM and the rest. That’s taking
it to the the extremes. I agree.

But this article is definitely anti-Vedas and if the Vedas are the sacred
“books” of Hinduism, then it is certainly anti-Hinduism.

A more detailed deconstruction of this article later.