Taming the Blind Ritualist

O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

1. I request You to kindly enlighten us with the truth on the following comments on Your knowledge.

[Shri Hrushikesh asked: Dear Swami, following is the reply given by Mr. Sid Pat for Your argument on the Vedic accent 6 months ago. I have made it in the form of dialogue. I request You to kindly enlighten us with the truth.

Sid Pat: All right. So, the answer is as verbose as the article itself. Not only has it not answered any question, but by going tangential to the questions and answering things that were never asked it shows the struggling of sailors in a sinking boat that has too many holes to plug than there are hands on it. I will just take the 1st and 2nd reply to demonstrate how all the arguments given simply aim to further the anti-Brahmin narrative to sound modern and progressive. An addiction that the colonially handicapped intellectuals have left for us to deal with. If you don't have the heart to face and digest the truth as it is, then please don't read any further... You've been warned.

Swami: The accents have no significance since the sound energy of these accents is inert and incapable of doing any miracle.

Sid Pat: Which Vedic ritual talked about MIRACLES? All this miracle business comes from Abrahamic traditions. Do you realise how far you are from the Vedic ideology? And how close you are to the Western view of the so-called God? There is no GOD in Sanatan Vaidik Hindu Dharma, for your information! There is no concept of ONE GOD either! Where's this coming from, hmm? You think we can't see through all this verbosity?

Swami: The priests have developed a false theory to defend their blind recitation that the sound itself does miracles and removes the problems of the doer of the ritual.

Sid Pat: Oh! So they have even created a theory? Where is it? Can you show it? I have met thousands of priests and devotees and talked to them on this subject. There is no promise of miracles given. In fact, detailed explanations are given about the procedures along with the meaning of specific mantras so that the doers are fully in the know. The devotees clearly say they perform Dharmik rituals to honour their Dharmika kartavyas. If you have an iota of evidence of such a theory, come on, tell me the name of ONE person who has contributed in formulating that theory. And don't give some ridiculous answer like - It's in the minds of people. Or some such unverifiable stuff. You claim to be a knowledgeable person. Give me tangible and testable evidence that there is indeed such a theory. If not, show the evidence of your being ego-free by apologising unconditionally to the priest community for defaming them through your (almost colonial) fantasies

Swami: according to these priests, knowing the meaning of the Veda is not necessary. Using this argument, priests try to convince people to support their blind recitation of the Veda without knowing its meaning.

Sid Pat: Proof for this please. You can't get away with these kind of baseless fake-news-type stuff. I have been to hundreds and thousands of ceremonies, and I have found the priests explaining procedures and meanings wherever necessary. So, give specific proof if you are brave enough.

Swami: now the Vedas are mass printed and well-preserved. They are also safe from any adulteration now. So, in the present context, these priests are wasting time by blindly reciting the Veda when there is no need to take any further efforts to preserve it.

Sid Pat: What a ridiculous statement! The culture and symbolism of the Harappans is well preserved in carvings and statuettes unearthed from the ancient Harappan sites. So, did all that physical preservation through carvings save the people or their culture to persist and stay alive? Now, read the line you have written.

You might say - Oh! Oh! But there are lots of prints too! Right. There were also thousands of manuscripts of Ancient Vedic Sciences in hundreds of libraries across Aryavarta. What happened? Swarms after swarms of the Abrahamic invasions destroyed almost all of those scriptures. You think a printed book can never be lost? You must know books that were printed just 100 years ago and no copy remains of them today. Not one. So, what happened to preservation through printing tech, hmm? Conversely, look at the impeccable preservation of Vedic scripture achieved by LIVING LINE of the Brahmin community that you despise and defame constantly without restraint. Yes. We lost entire Shaakhaas due to the brutal invasions. Entire Gurukulas were stormed into and butchered. You know that history? Or you thought they were living in your abrahamic heaven in those times?

It's incredibly angering that you dare compare these hopelessly outnumbered brave community members to Donkeys carrying loads of gold? Such ungratefulness towards people who sacrificed billions of hours of their lives unconditionally and happily to let the knowledge reach you untampered? You call these people donkeys? Well, then at least they are carrying gold on their backs... what are people like you carrying, hmm? Answer this if you have the courage

Swami: one should study the Veda along with the supporting scriptures on grammar, logic etc., which are known as the Vedāṅgas, “Sāṅgo Vedo adhyetavyo jñeyaśca.

Sid Pat: Absolutely correct. So did you study the preservation efforts by Brahmins while studying and propagating Dharma during the deadly times they were living in? Or do you consider that Vaidik learning should be devoid of any sense of the ground reality and the forces of geo-politics and invasions? If so, how can you claim to have studied Itihasa? You have to collate incidences that happened in the so-called modern times to understand the context and then analyse the reactions of the Dharmiks to the new world order. There is a context to what happened to Vaidik paramparas. Have you studied that context while making snide commentary on the content? Have you? If not, what's your authority in insulting the Vipra in those dire times and today?

Swami: The scripture also says that reciting the Veda, without knowing its meaning, is very bad (Anarthajñaḥ... pāṭhakādhamaḥ)

Sid Pat: What kind of an authority quotes half the verse? Because the other half would clearly puncture, disprove and destroy your baseless arguments about the Vedic Accent itself being incapable of any effect? A Paramparika Guru understands the dangers of quoting parts of any verse. Much like the mistake Gandhi committed when he talked about "Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah" - falsely equating it with ahimsa towards the violent (while actually the shloka was about not being violent in Vaidik Yagyas). That man's folly brought (and is still bringing) such sorrow and violence to this country right to this day. A mistake that history will never forgive. The true Guru and a Vaidik Seer knows it's important to give context by quoting the entire verse. Here is the verse from the Paniniya Shiksha Shaastra that you did NOT want people to see...

gītī śīghrī śiraḥ-kampī tathā likhita-pāṭhakaḥ | anarthajñaḥ alpakaṇṭhaśca śadete pāṭhakādhamaḥ. śikṣa śāṣṭra (Panini)

गीती शीघ्री शिरः कम्पी तथा लिखित पाठकः ।

अनर्थज्ञोऽल्पकण्ठश्च षडेते पाठकाधमाः ॥

(In this verse, the great Maharshi Panini tells us of 6 qualities of Inferior Reciter of the Vedas.)

1. gītī: the one who changes the tone, who arranges it in his own way, as if it were a rāga! The veda must be recited with the required tones, and never otherwise.

2. śīghrī: one who does not respect the rhythm of the recitation, for example who rushes through the anthem. To obtain the full benefit of a mantra (or extract) it is necessary to respect the durations (mātra) throughout the song.

3. śiraḥ-kampī: the one who shakes his head singing. It takes a bodily balance to recite the veda. The vibration of the nāḍī must be able to express itself correctly during the intonation. We cannot accept other vibrations, such as those caused by the swinging of the head.

4. likhita-pāṭhakaḥ: the one who sings while reading the text. The recitation of the veda is done by heart, without written document (likhita).

5. anarthajñaḥ : the one who sings without knowing the meaning of what he recites.

6. alpakaṇṭhaśca : and whoever with a weak voice.

POINT 1 clearly shows that anybody who recites the Vedic scriptures in any other tones or tunes other than the prescribed Vaidik Accents is an pāṭhaka-adhamaḥ - an Inferior Reciter.

In one single word of one single verse from His Shiksha Shaastra, the great Maharshi Panini debunks and trashes your entire ridiculous article titled “Power of the Vedic Hynns: Truth revealed.” You’re exposed and irrevocably so. If you have actually read Vaidik scriptures, now I hope you know how Maharshi Panini would have rated you. I’m afraid hope is too slim here, though.

I must thank you very much for this quote though. This is probably your biggest mistake. One that proves how conveniently you can (and probably always) manipulate such a crucial Vedanga as Shiksha Shaastra. If you can bend and turn and twist such a core scripture, your own God knows what you'd do with the Darshanas! Sad and shameful at the same time, no?

I would have gone into further detail to show how shallow (and uselessly verbose) all these wanna-be answers are. But that’ll be a waste of precious time. Because the person involved is already talking from a self-constructed high pedestal where no other thoughts can reach – no matter how true they are. Such personages don’t have guts to accept their mistakes when they are pointed out. Instead, they try to stage a moral grandstanding by saying I am a friend who talks the bitter truth. What needs to be seen is whether this person can take the bitter truth I have shown and not just apologize to the community he loves to spread hate about, but also to his own followers who he has probably been misleading for years with the feel-good lofty fantasies that are clearly based on a Western (specifically Abrahamic and colonial) point of views on Dharma.

I would add that I have no personal anger or grudge against the person(s) involved here. I have simply asked questions that are uncomfortable and not asked by people for fear that they sound politically incorrect. However, such indulgence in feel-good silence is Adharmik. I am very saddened that for more than half a year, nobody challenged these answers anywhere. That’s a dangerous sign. Kaliyuga? Probably. But we can’t beg for excuses in this matter. Any falsification, distortion, manipulative or convenient quoting of Vaidik Scriptures must be challenged forthright, no matter how controversial it becomes.

Do it whatever the cost. || Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah ||

The only reason people like these thrive is the shameless and unforgivable illiteracy of Hindus regarding their Vaidik Scriptures. Yes, learning Sanskrit might minimize the damage to about 1%. But that line of defense is clearly not powerful enough. Forget about words, one can misinterpret even the Aksharas of the mantras and create havoc. Every akshara in Sanskrit has thousands of meanings that are dictated by the context it is used in. The ONLY way is to learn Vaidik Scriptures from a Paramparika Guru, and not some new age peddlers of false oneness of all ideologies, religions and Gods - whatever that means... I mean, I don’t remember any instance in Itihasa where Devas and Asuras became unified by some empty philosophy? Let me know if you find one. Asuras have to be fought with Raajasika vigour and the cutting analysis of Sage Brihaspati.

May better sense prevail henceforth.

Here is a verse that shows what the Vedas are afraid of...

इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृंहयेत् ।

बिभेत्यल्पश्रुताद्वेदो मामयं प्रहरिष्यति ।।

– पद्मपुराणम् , 1/2/52

Every self-styled preacher must ask oneself - Am I the person this verse is talking about? Only when the answer is a firm negative, take permission from your Guru and then alone utter a word about Vedas. If not, it's a safe and Dharmika behaviour to simply shut up] Your useless servant, Hrushikesh]

2. Will the caste free Hinduism, lead to its death?

[Dear Swami, as discussed on the call with You regarding the comment posted by a Facebook user, after watching the Video which was made based on the discourse given by You on Caste system. Following are his comments:

"Varna Jati system is inherent to any community. Infact it is the Varna system that has saved Hinduism all these years. Caste free religion is death of Hinduism." I request You kindly enlighten us if caste free Hinduism will lead to the death of Hinduism and is it true that Hinduism has been saved due to Varna system? At Your lotus feet, Hrushikesh, Less than a dust particle in Your creation.]

Swami replied:-

1)  I told that the inert sound energy can’t do any miracle because it is an item in the imaginable domain without the unimaginable power needed for doing a miracle. Moreover, it is inert and can’t even think to do a miracle. All rituals are done for miraculous results only. For example, Putrakaameshti ritual (Yajña) is done to get issues, when all the scientific (medical) efforts failed. Of course, people of higher spiritual status do rituals in the angle of worshiping God. But, you say that Sanaatana Dharma does not believe in God! Are you mad? Please get your brain checked by some brain-specialists. I am not telling this as tit for tat, which is to scold you in return. Because of the same reason, your scolding has no basic logic at all proving that your scolding also proves the derailed condition of your brain. My suggestion to you is based on My sympathy to you and not due to revenge.

Please note that I am also born in Brahmins and My surname is Yajñabhaṭṭāraka, which means that My ancestors were profound scholars in performing the ritual or sacrifice or Yajna. Even Swami Dayananda, who supported that caste is by qualities and deeds, was also born in Brahmins. Simply, a soul taking birth in the family of Brahmins is called as Brahma bandhu by the Veda, which means that he is related to the family of Brahmins and not actual Brahmin. Ravana is an example. A Brahmin (Brāhmaṇa) is he/she, who knows the meaning of the Veda and propagates the Vedic knowledge in the society to lead the entire society to become close to God (Brahma nayati iti). According to you, these, blindly reciting the Veda without even themselves not knowing its meaning, are Brahmins! You say that the inert imaginable sound energy (accent) leads the people close to God! If the accent does not do any work, what is its materialistic or spiritual use? The Vedic sound can’t lit the sticks like fire? When Putrakaameshti was done in ancient days, Sanskrit was known to everyone and all understood the meaning of recited Vedic prayers that improved the devotion to God. By such ritual, God was pleased towards their devotion and gave their desired boons. The priests, then, also recited simply the Vedic hymns as today the priests are reciting. Up to this, the situation is common. But, the difference is that in ancient days, all people understood the meaning of recited Vedic hymns since Sanskrit was their mother tongue. Since those people were good scholars also, the inner spiritual knowledge of the Vedic hymns was known by them and there was no need of any explanation. But today, the situation is totally different. The people hearing the Vedic hymns are neither Vedic scholar nor even understand the basic meaning of those hymns since Sanskrit language is not their mother tongue.

The priest is simply reciting the Vedic hymns just like the ancient priest. Even the present priest is not knowing the meaning of Vedic hymns and this brings the difference between ancient Vedic priest and present Vedic priest. The ancient priest is like tiger speaking to tigers. The present priest is a false tiger (fox painted with black scars on its skin) speaking to false tigers. In the present situation, either all shall learn Sanskrit language or at least the priest must be a scholar in Sanskrit so that he can explain not only the basic meaning, but also the inner meaning. The total fault lies on the priest and not on the people attending the ritual. The students may be faulty but not the teacher. When I am propagating the true situation about the Veda, you call Me anti-Brahmin!! I say million times that you are anti-Brahmin since you are not supporting the very meaning of the word Brahmana!

There was one line called Bhattamatam founded by Prabhakara Bhatta, who says that there is no God (Devo na kaścit…), rituals give results by themselves (karmanurūpāṇi puraḥphalāni) and the deity having unimaginable miraculous power is the sound of the Veda itself (Śabda mātra devatā). Whatever you talk resembles the above line. Even Mandanamishra and Prabhakara Bhatta, who followed the path of Purvamīmāṃsā, also were scholars in Sanskrit to carry on this argument. By this difference, you are not to be compared with both of them since you are not a Sanskrit scholar. You may say that you have support of the present priests, who also are not Sanskrit scholars. They also can’t support you because they are believers in God. They are the followers of Shankara, who condemned the Purvamīmāṃsā of Mandana Mishra. Since then, all the priests became believers in God (Brahman) and also believe that there is only one God, called Ishwara. Please tell Me, My dearest friend! To which line of spiritual knowledge you belong? You appear to be master of none and jack of all trades!

You have acquired knowledge from the talks with some people and have not studied the ancient scriptures. I have already told that Bhattamatam says this concept that the sound itself is the miraculous deity to give the results desired by the performer of rituals. Rituals are of two types:- i) Kāmya karma, which is the ritual done to get a miraculous result from the deity, called the Vedic sound. Deity is supposed to have the miraculous power to give the desired result, which could not be achieved through worldly efforts. ii) Niṣkāma karma, which is done without desire for any fruit for the sake of purification of mind. Purvamīmāṃsā does not believe in God and salvation. Hence, it is limited to the rituals done with desires only, which is condemned by the Gita (Kamātmānaḥ svargaparāḥ...).

My dearest friend! Don’t jump with scolding remarks, which show that you have very very little subject that too heard from just public here and there. Even that little subject collected by you is improper and impure due to your crooked intelligence. Avoiding all the wrong jumps, you should have discussed with Me limiting yourself to the subject and when your argument supersedes, at least, then, you should have scolded Me to pacify your rajasic nature. A pot filled with water (scholar) and a vacant pot (an ignorant person) do not make such scolding sounds! Only a pot with little water (heard knowledge here and there, which is also not properly understood) makes such courageous violent sounds. When Mandanamishra saw Shankara, even before debate, he scolded Shankara with horrible abuses. Vyāsa and Jaimini present there condemned Mandanamishra asking him to participate in the debate of the subject. Mandanamishra was highly rajasic as we can observe from his abuse to Shankara.

Mandanamishra (MM):- I am asking Your way (since Shankara came into house through bolted doors).

Shankara (S):- You are asking My way and not Me. What did My way tell you?

MM:- You are the son of a prostitute.

S:- You asked My way and My way replied you that you are the son of a prostitute! Such words of Manadanamishra reveal his extreme rājasic nature. Shankara retorted it, but, without using any rajasic word.

You are jumping up to sky challenging Me to name one person, who told that the rituals are performed for desires, which are not fulfilled by human efforts and to be fulfilled by miraculous powers, called deities by Purvamīmāṃsā. The basis of your high jump is your ignorance of even the fundamentals of scriptures, which is up to downward Pātālaloka! Don’t you know that the book, called Bhāṭṭaprayoga Dīpikā, followed by the present priests is as per the theory of Prabhakara Bhatta, who was the follower of Purvamīmāṃsā. Bhatta says that the miraculous deity giving the boons in the rituals is the eternal Vedic sound! We can argue with a total scholar or with a fully ignorant person, but not with you, who is neither a total scholar nor a total ignorant. Bhatruhari says that a jack of all trades and master of none can never be convinced by even God Brahmā! Had you put your points without your unnecessary jumps, I would have given beautiful answers without these retorting words. One may ask that why should I retort and I should have given simply the answers to the points. It is said that if a person slaps you on one check, you should show the second check provided the opposite person has a trace of culture.

If the opposite person is uncultured, you should retort with ten slaps, then only, he will be silent. A cruel person will be pacified by retorting cruelty only and not by softness as said by Kālidāsa (Śāmyet pratyapakāreṇa…). It is also said that the deficiency in logic of the argument is always compensated by anger (Śeṣaṃ kopena pūrayet). Your ratio of scolding: question is in 90:10 ratio and My scolding: answer is also in the same ratio. Fight must be done with the opponent using the same weapon as used by the opponent! I never have any courage, but, you made Me courageous and thanks for this. In most of the rituals, priests are not giving explanation ‘wherever necessary’. The question of ‘wherever necessary’ does not arise at all because the people attending the ritual don’t know meaning of any word recited by the priest. If they are understanding something and not understanding a little here and there, your statement comes into picture. Except very few, countable on fingers, there is hardly any priest, who knows even the basic meaning (translation) of the Veda. Theory is always based on the concept followed by 99% majority and not on 1% minority! As a real friend, I advise you again and again to consult a psychiatrist as early as possible because in due course of time, you will have to be admitted in a mental hospital! Don’t become angry with Me and retort with more pungent words, because truth is always harsh. You have met several priests. I am born in the family of priests and I Myself am a priest.

2)  You have given an example of preservation of Harappan culture by carvings on stones similar to preserving the Veda by recitation in ancient times when there was no writing technology. The culture was preserved by ancient people through carvings on stones, which can be even seen today. But, the recited Veda by ancient scholars is not seen today like the carved stone. The recitation of the Veda ended when they died. But, the carved stones did not end with the death of those ancient people. How can that can be simile to this? I thought that you will become mad in future. No No. You have already become mad! After reading My remark, you read what you have written. You yourself will understand whether you have already become mad or not. The Veda is printed now and is available permanently like the carved stone and hence, no need of repeating the carvings on stones since already carved stones exist. After seeing the carved stones now, are the people carving again on stones? Once the carved stones are available, there is no need of re-carving. Since recitation is not permanent like carving, re-recitation must be done. Since printing is permanent unlike recitation, re-recitation becomes unnecessary. Once printing is done, there is no need of immediate printing, at least, some generations can avoid blind recitation. The Veda, the word itself means knowledge. Whether you recite or read from the printed book, how does it matter as far as its knowledge to be explained is concerned? First, you take some rest for a long time and then come to Me for discussion so that you will discuss with Me with stable and calm mind without these jumping emotions.

3)  You talk about Abrahamic invasions. Both of us were present at that time and saw those invasions with our eyes! You are God Krishna to remember all the past births and hence, recollect those invasions now also! I am the poor soul, Arjuna, who does not remember things happened in My childhood of even this birth! We have authority of history through books written by some people existing in that time and we are not sure whether they have written books with partiality or not. We don’t have audio video castes of that history. Why do you dig the past and spoil the present? If My ancestor did something wrong to your ancestor, about which there is no perception-authority except a book written by your ancestors about the injustice done by My ancestor, you want to kill Me now? I have also a book written by My ancestor that your ancestor did the injustice actually. Now, you say that your book is right and My book is wrong. I will repeat the same! Where is the end to this? Let us not foolishly waste our time about the past situations and past defects. Let us concentrate on the present time and rectify the present defects, which are judged by the scientific logic. Don’t say that science is modern and hence, I am modern as scientist. Science is nothing but logical analysis, which existed even in the ancient times in the name ‘Tarkaśāstra’ (Tarkyante padārthāḥ asmin iti tarkaḥ). All our ancient scholars were scientists. Without reading logic, one is not entitled to read philosophy (Vedānta). You must examine both Tarka and science to study old and new. You must not follow one thing only blindly and you shall pickup whichever is logical and good from both old and new. A fool follows one (either old or new) and drinks saltwater from the well dug by his ancestors (Purāṇamityeva…, Tātasya kūpo'yamiti…).

4)  O Lord Sid pat! Please read scriptures and come to argue with Me. You scold Me that I called these priests as donkeys carrying the gold without knowing the value of the carried load. My Lord! I have not scolded like this. Sage Yāska scolded the person, who blindly recites the Veda without knowing its meaning. All your scolding goes to sage Yāska, who is the author of ‘Niruktam’, the Vedic grammar respected by all the scholars of Sanātana Dharma. You don’t have knowledge of even Sanātana Dharma, which you are blindly supporting. You are like an advocate coming to the court to argue the case without reading the petition filed by the claimant!

5)  My Lord Sid Pat! Our statements themselves show that who is having perfect scriptural knowledge and who is having the superficial heard knowledge (Śruta pāṇḍityam). You are not even a basic scholar of scriptures. You are just a politician standing in the so called middle aged land of priests (who recited blindly the Veda without knowing the meaning) to be elected by them as their representative to parliament! You leave the scriptures (since you don’t know the alphabets of scriptures) and turn to the practical situations, which are based on wrong history. My Lord! Your honour! I am totally defeated in your hands and leave you with folded hands after prostrating to your lotus feet! If an alive person does boxing with an inert big stone, will the person conquer the stone? I have exhausted all types of scolding (all types of weapons) and hence, I accept My defeat and leave you!

6)  You say that I am correct in saying that the priest must study the Vedangas (logic, grammar etc.), which was said by Sage Gautama. This means that you are agreeing that the priests must know the meaning of the Veda in depth. Then, how can you support the priests not knowing the meaning of the Veda? This is a blunt self-contradiction. Perhaps, you have told this single appreciation while you are in deep sleep!

 7) This verse mentioned by you from Śikṣā is already asked by Dr. Nikhil and the answer was given by Me in detail. Please see that. My objections to your blind emotional points standing as mutual contradictions are given below:-

a) You have accepted that one shall not read without knowing its meaning (Anarthajñaḥ). If you accept this, how can you support the priests reciting blindly the Veda without knowing its meaning? Your acceptance of this point contradicts your blind support to such priests!

b) You say that the Veda shall be read with accent only. This meaning does not come under the word Gītī (singing). If you say that the Veda shall not be sung, this means that no where singing shall be done. But, the Sāma Veda is the Veda sung as song. The Sāma Veda is told as the best (Vedānāṃ Sāmavedo'smi—Gītā). This means that the prose (Yajur Veda) shall not be read as song because a small part of the poem (Ṛg Veda) sung is called the Sāma Veda. This means that you can sing poem as song and not prose as song. The main point is that the word ‘Gītī’ is discussing about singing the Veda and not discussing about the accent in which it is sung as song. Singing is not limited to accent only, but, can be applied to any part of the line as per the freedom of the singer. Such free singing is denied. If you connect the accent to the song, there are three accents:- i) Udātta:- accent to upward direction, ii) Anudātta:- accent towards downward direction and iii) Svarita:- indicated by double Udaatta, which is done as little song. If you object song, one of the accents is condemned. Hence, the condemned singing here is only pertaining to free singing and not singing in a specific way. Singing in specific way is strength of the song (Mātrā balam). Singing in specific way is the Sāma Veda. Hence, Gītī means free singing only and not singing in specific way. If you say that Gītī means all types of singing, the Sāma Veda is condemned. For pleasant hearing, the accent can be followed in a specific way whether it is prose or poetry or a song. I am not objecting this. I am not against the accent, which makes the recitation pleasant to hear. What I say is that the accent is only imaginable sound energy that can’t do any work, be it worldly or supernatural. At least, the ultrasonic sound energy can do certain worldly works in technology. Even that worldly work can’t be done by this accent due to lower frequency. Bhatta says that the accent–sound is the miraculous deity doing miraculous benefits. This theory is condemned by all preachers of Sanātana Dharma like Shankara etc., which is again now mentioned by the priests for their earnings done by blind recitation to cover their defect of ignorance of the Vedic knowledge. On one side, you support Sanātana dharma and on the other side, you follow the theory of Bhatta. I am sorry to mention the name of Bhatta because you don’t know even that the theory supported by you was founded by Bhatta, whose name is beyond your basic knowledge of Sanātana Dharma.

8)  Once the scripture is preserved permanently by printing, it is immaterial whether you quote the scripture by recitation or by looking into the printed book. As far as the concept and its logic are considered, this difference is meaningless. If you say that the tradition of recitation (done in the absence of writing technology) must be continued even if the scripture is preserved permanently, it will be ridiculous. If it is so, all the printed books of science and technology must be neglected and the process of recitation of those books must be adopted. The references given in a research paper must not be done by referring the printed material, but, must be recited only. This will be funny to the climax! Moreover, there is difference between written (likhita) and printed (mudrita) words. ‘Written’ means written on palm leaves, which is not as permanent as ‘printed’ meaning printed on paper, which is certainly far more permanent. In the time of Panini, only written technology on palm leaves existed and not the present real permanent printing technology. The printing must be repeated before the printed book exhausts, which takes a very long time. The written technology is again based on the writing by an individual and the very few copies generated by such written technology can’t be believed as really safeguard step like printing technology. By printing technlogy, a very large number of books are released at a time. Hence, printing technology is very safe step instead of writing technology on plam leaves in which one book is released at a time.

For the safety of preservation, the limited written technology on palm leaves was neglected by Paanini to have a simultaneous recitation technology for preservation of the Veda for more safety. Do you know that there is a rule in Sanātana Dharma that the Veda must be recited by seeing the book only in the rituals related after death (apara karma)? This rule is followed by even the present priests also, whom you are supporting. The concept behind this is that the priest will not miss any word in this way. If a word is missed, the meaning becomes wrong. In the ritual after death, the situation is very serious because the departed soul must be protected by God. Hence, meaning of the Veda or knowledge is very very important compared to blind recitation with accent for the sake of pleasant hearing, in which a word or even a sentence can miss. Do you know that the present priests are swallowing even a good number of sentences during recitation in performing the ritual about which we are unaware since we are not following its meaning? One person told Me “this priest is good. He doesn’t miss even a word in reciting the Vedic hymns”. I told him “How does it matter whether the priest is reciting the whole text or swallows a word or a sentence or even many sentences? We are not knowing its meaning for the sake of which only the Veda is recited. The word Veda itself means knowledge and not hearing blind recitation with pleasant accents”. Since the main angle of the Veda is knowledge and not pleasant hearing, reading from written book is not a sin. In commentaries of Shankara etc., the Vedic statements are quoted without accent. We are not objecting the pleasant hearing by accent at all. Pleasant hearing based on accents is only a very very minor point. You should not attribute any miraculous power to the accent by quoting the example of Indrashatru. You should not say that Indra killed the Vrutra demon because of the accent (Udātta) is reversed to the word Indra instead of the word Shatru. This is not correct because miraculous power is only with God.

Since Indra is a good angel and Vrutra is a bad demon, it is the will of God that Indra should kill Vrutra and not the reverse. Unimaginable miraculous power is always with unimaginable God and not with any imaginable item of this imaginable creation. Such miraculous power will not be present with this imaginable and especially inert sound energy released in the accent (which is not even an ultrasonic wave to do some imaginable physical work atleast). Priests of all other religions are reading the books in the rituals and the meaning is understood because it is in their mother tongue. Do you think that God is not blessing them after those rituals? Reading from the book and explaining is far far better than blind recitation without explaining the meaning. This unfortunate situation is in Hinduism because in the ancient times, Sanskrit was the mother tongue, which is not known even to the present priests today! The Veda means knowledge and does not mean mere blind recitation based on pleasant hearing. I am not objecting this blind recitation based on pleasant hearing based on accent. I am only telling that the concepts of the Veda are more important than pleasant hearing. Knowledge of the Veda understood generates devotion of God and the generated theoretical devotion leads to practical devotion also, which is the practical performance of ritual. By such theoretical and practical devotion, God is very much pleased to grant boons to those desiring for those boons. If the rituals are done without such desires, the extremely pleased God will grant salvation.

I am only opposing the accent arranged for pleasant hearing to be such miraculous and omnipotent God as preached by Bhatta and as exploited by the present priests to cover their defect of blind recitation, which can be directly used as business with customers! How can you support both Bhatta and the present priests on one side and on the other side, support Pāṇini condemning recitation of the Veda without knowing the meaning and also Yāska scolding such priests as donkeys carrying on the load of gold? You can’t find fault with weak voice also when you are considering the knowledge of the Veda. Fast recitation, free singing, vibration of head, referring to written script, weak voice are minor points compared to neglecting the meaning of the Veda because the last point is stressed by several other sages like Gautama (Jñeyaśca...) and Yaaska (Svarṇa bhāra haraḥ). In fact, the word Veda itself means knowledge, the word Adhyayana also means knowledge and the word Paṇḍita also means knowledge as per Sanskrit grammar. These blind priests use even these words to indicate their blind recitation by saying “we have completed the Veda-adhyayana! We are the Vedic Panditas!”. Actually, they are the Veda Pāṭhakas (those, who blindly recited the Veda) and not the Vedic Panditas (those, who have studied the Vedic knowledge in depth!).

Bhartruhari said that even God Brahmā can’t convince people like you, who are pots with little water making lot of sounds. You are just a tiny atom before God Brahmā in reality. But, your high and long jumps are so much that you declare that even God Brahmā is defeated by you! All types of scolding from you are received by God Brahmā. Even now, God Brahmā will bless you, if you realize your blind rigid foolish support to blind traditions, which have split Hinduism in the present times. Your foolish support of Brahmins just by birth makes all the non-Brahmins to fight with even good Brahmins having the related qualities and deeds. The caste system is based on qualities and subsequent deeds only as told by the Gita. A person born in the family of Brahmins without the corresponding qualities and deeds is not a Brahmana, but, a ‘Brahma Bandhu’ as declared by the Veda (Brahma bandhu means not Brahmana, but, related to Brahmanas). You are going against the Veda and against the Gita. A pot maker, excellent scholar in the Vedas was made as president of Yajna by sages by virtue of his knowledge in the Vedas. You can’t realize this value because you have written the word Yajna as Yagya! You don’t know even the spelling of the word Yajna!!! You claim as a scholar of Pāṇini and don’t know what Yāska told. Pāṇini is a grammarian of Sanskrit language whereas Yāska is the grammarian of Vedic language!

I am not angry with you, which means that God Datta is not angry with you. I have spoken in your language so that you will understand the subject very well. Calm down and take rest for some time to suppress your Rajas and Tamas. Then, you understand what God Datta is telling through this medium. If you support the blind tradition and the caste system by birth, you are opposing Guru Datta. If you feel that blind tradition and blind caste by birth are more than Ishwara (God Datta), revolt against Me with more and more pungent words against which I am going to keep silent only since certain souls are going to be condemned permanently by God (Kṣipāmyāsurayoniṣu—Gītā). The Veda promises that the divine knowledge must stick to the truth (Satyaṃ Jñānam), which should not be based on the blind fascination of caste system by birth and shall not be based on their blind traditions followed in the name of loyalty to the elders. By such stupid arguments, finally Hinduism will be leftover with a few blind fools only because all the other people must have been converted in to other religions. Today, other religions also exist in our country. The need of the hour is to bring peace and harmony in our country and in the entire world also to unite Hinduism within itself and unite it with other world religions.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★