Changes

==Discussion==

==Discussion==

Some scholars feel for their dubious narrative of the Vedas,  have interpreted the relationship between Yama & Yami wrongly.  Gaiswald (The religion of Rig veda, page 373) claims that Yama is चन्द्र || Chandra (moon) and Yami is Ushas (dawn). This preposterous understanding as well as the story he quotes to prove his point is ludicrous  it is like asking a question, what are  similarities between a village song of lithuania and a divine praise in the vedas.   To this one may say it is like the same similarities between a Muslim priest and Krishna’s divine descent, in other words there cannot be any similarities'''.''' There are others like Hilley brant have commented made unreasonable and foolish comments on vedas.  

There are many devious agendas of some Indologists in the translation of the suktas. How does one misinterpret the Yama Yami discussion? A foolish person will see that a sister wishes to have union with a brother, as she is unable to control her kaama (desire). And therefore she persuades her brother to engage in lustful activities. Anthropologists and psychologists in their practices are well aware of such behavior in many instances. Often many self-styled Indologists of the missionaries of Christianity project the story of  Yama and Yami in a denigrating way to portray our devatas in a humiliating way. That Yama and Yami are the first persons of human existence and using Christian theology they are compares with Adam and Eve. According to them Creation and the act of it are themselves very "sinful". These discussions are projected as a shameless dialogue between Yama and Yami questioning their ethical stability. However, the Vedas have not mentioned that Yama and Yami were the first persons involved in creation of beings. Specifically, the relationship between Adam and Eve mentioned in Christianity, and Yama as the devata in-charge of ancestors (pitrs) are incomparable. In fact the vedic suktas make it very clear that Yama and Yami did not unite.  Yami symbolizes bhoga shakti (power) and Yama symbolizes power of restraint. Apart from giving respectability to the created modern religion, Christianity, it also helped them to claim ownership of our Shastras. Further, the fake manufacturing of history based on the Christian worldview apart from propagating their religion as superior to the ‘pagan’ natives was also to gain control over the economic, territorial, philosophical resources and most importantly our social capital.  

Dr. Kirti Mishra (Life and society in the Vedic Age) claims that the prayers, tree branches, trees, water, sky, etc. were there to keep human happy. Therefore, he says that our ancestors were living on trees and were aborigines. he further states that the description of Prajapati’s marriages as in the Aitreya brahmana is an uncivilized way of getting married. According to him, Aryans had incestous marriages, the father would marry daughter and mother would marry son and the brothers and sisters would marry each other. There was no restriction amongst family members to marry with each other.  To prove his point he quotes a reference from Engles (the Origin of the Family, Private property and the State). '''By claiming that the  marriage of Prajapati is like actually reality, and he is only a historical person and by accepting the marriage as it is the indologist have proved their whole process of understanding history is faulty.'''  Rawth wilson & Max Muller have defended these theories. According to Max Mueller, Yama is day, Yami is Night, Although Max Muller does not directly say that Yama and Yami were the original people of the Indian culture,  in his book lecture of science (pgs no 510 , 521). To distort the symbolical aspects of our civilisation and misinterpreting its original meaning for colonising us is adharmic and should be termed as cultural genocide. This makes it necessary to understand and present the real meaning

 

Further, Indian historians brainwashed by the Western academic Mafia followed these distortions. Dr. Kirti Mishra (Life and society in the Vedic Age) claims that the prayers, tree branches, trees, water, sky, etc. were there to keep human happy. Therefore, he says that our ancestors were living on trees and were aborigines. he further states that the description of Prajapati’s marriages as in the Aitreya brahmana is an uncivilized way of getting married. According to him, Aryans had incestous marriages, the father would marry daughter and mother would marry son and the brothers and sisters would marry each other. There was no restriction amongst family members to marry with each other.  To prove his point he quotes a reference from Engles (the Origin of the Family, Private property and the State). '''By claiming that the  marriage of Prajapati is like actually reality, and he is only a historical person and by accepting the marriage as it is the indologist have proved their whole process of understanding history is faulty.'''  Rawth wilson & Max Muller have defended these theories. According to Max Mueller, Yama is day, Yami is Night, Although Max Muller does not directly say that Yama and Yami were the original people of the Indian culture,  in his book lecture of science (pgs no 510 , 521). To distort the symbolical aspects of our civilisation and misinterpreting its original meaning for colonising us is adharmic and should be termed as cultural genocide. This makes it necessary to understand and present the real meaning

In  essence those who do not see the vedic suktas from a Bharatiya perspective and Bharatiya understanding, they will be surprised and shocked, and it is not a shocking thing.   We can carefully observe the suktas in their original understanding.

In  essence those who do not see the vedic suktas from a Bharatiya perspective and Bharatiya understanding, they will be surprised and shocked, and it is not a shocking thing.   We can carefully observe the suktas in their original understanding.