7

If a person interpolates scriptures with a good intent e.g., by replacing offending/controversial words/verses that are not current with the times, but doesn't disclose the modifications to maintain the authority of the scripture over the masses, does the person gain any puṇya by doing so?

Similarly, if one alters scriptures with a malicious intent, e.g., by inserting an authentic sounding verse in an important scripture for personal gains e.g., to prove superiority of one Hindu sect over the other, or a king could secretly sponsor additions to Manusmṛti so he can maintain tighter control over his subjects, does it constitute a sin?

Say No To Censorship
  • 30,811
  • 17
  • 131
  • 257
  • 3
    Both kinds of tampering are wrong.. what makes you think that the first kind is ok? – Rickross Apr 28 '18 at 05:26
  • 3
    both kinds are wrong. what one person thinks of as a good tampering may be seen by others as bad. Both are wrong. – Swami Vishwananda Apr 28 '18 at 06:54
  • 2
    Someone should really have tampered the story of sraswati being brahma's wife, it's really freaking out my head. Or maybe it is a tampered story. :P – Anisha Apr 28 '18 at 07:00
  • @sv. The true scriptures will be complete in all aspects, they dont need any alterations - they were thought and/or said and/or written at the highest state of mind. It was written with all future yugas in mind, because such was the state of noble minds. Hence, the need does not arise. But, people do it and hence in the tenents, we understand we should apply our own mind before believing anything by anyone. Punya and sin - when each mind intents, it knows within it, the intent. There is no escaping that. Since it is beyond any of minds perception. – Rahul Apr 28 '18 at 15:40
  • "was written with all future yugas in mind, because such was the state of noble minds" - Sorry, but most Hindus follow laws of respective countries because rules prescribed in scriptures are outdated whether one agrees or not. Also, it's not clear which smritis are to be used in which yuga. No clear boundaries between yugas. @Rahul – Say No To Censorship Apr 28 '18 at 16:33
  • @sv. Agreed. I feel you have ManuSmrithi in mind, true there are many outdated ones-it might have been heavily tamprered. When I say true scripture I mean only Vedas, gita and similar.Who is to decide what is true? None now!Hence, i said our mind.Issue with modifying is it hits even good places down the lane. Gita etc is immortal, dont you agree? Law books-Hinduism does NOT have a good one as of now.May be there were, it got lost.Lets not allow selfish minds to take control of scriptures. – Rahul Apr 28 '18 at 16:57
  • sv there are lot many scriptural statement which are in conflict hiding the inner meaning..we need to decipher new meaning out of it, like in yajur veda says that o god pray unto you to safe gaurd the cattle heards in our yajamans stable.. this sounds meaning less now.. but actually meaning is cattle is gau gau is veda, whatever you heard that is veda help us in safegaurding in our mind that is the meaning.. if you alter the above its supreme sin – Prasanna R Jan 05 '19 at 18:22
  • 2
    “Sorry, but most Hindus follow laws of respective countries because rules prescribed in scriptures are outdated whether one agrees or not.” The fact that people believe the rules prescribed in scriptures are outdated and thus choose not to follow them does not imply that they are outdated. If people started believing rules against murder were outdated it would not mean that murder is okay. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 06 '19 at 03:38
  • "Also, it's not clear which smritis are to be used in which yuga" @sv. This is not true. This is very clear. – Wikash_ Aug 21 '19 at 20:08
  • @Wikash_ It is not, see this answer. There are literally hundreds of smritis. Most people follow local state laws and "the good stuff" from all smritis. Basically, pick and choose. – Say No To Censorship Aug 21 '19 at 20:14
  • @sv. If you look in your link in the answer above you see what I mean. It is very clearly written. – Wikash_ Aug 22 '19 at 06:54

1 Answers1

1

Yes, here is what the Manusmriti says:

If a twice-born man has abandoned a refugee, or has tampered with the Veda, he atones for that offence by living upon barley for one year.—(198)

Ikshvaku
  • 22,130
  • 2
  • 39
  • 116
  • It doesn't say one who interpolated Vedas, it says one who taught the Vedas to a person who is not eligible, i.e, who are not initiated, Shudras, etc. – Spark Sunshine Jan 05 '19 at 16:59
  • @NaveenKick "having wrongly interpreted the Veda or perverted its sense by omitting anusvāras etc.’ (Nārāyaṇa)" , "‘What are you reading?—You have mangled the text,’" – Ikshvaku Jan 05 '19 at 17:02
  • 2
    Okay, I didn't notice the commentary here. – Spark Sunshine Jan 05 '19 at 17:04
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku It is not talking abt interpolation at all... Here is another translation "11.198. A twice-born man who has cast off a suppliant for protection, or has (improperly) divulged the Veda, atones for his offence, if he subsists during a year on barley." – Rickross Jan 06 '19 at 07:31
  • 1
    The Sanskrit word used is viplAvya which comes from viplava .. see the various meanings of viplava from here: http://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?mode=3&script=hk&tran_input=viplava&direct=se .. so it is talking abt a sin a man commits by revealing the secrets of Veda to someone who is considered unfit to know such teachings.. @Ikshvaku – Rickross Jan 06 '19 at 07:34
  • @Rickross That is not the only meaning of that word. See the commentary and see other meanings of the word, such as "damage." – Ikshvaku Jan 06 '19 at 19:06
  • Wrong translation by Ganganatha Jha. His own explanatory notes contradict his translation: ‘Vedam viplāvya.’—‘Having taught the Veda to people who should not be taught’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nandana);—‘having wrongly interpreted the Veda or perverted its sense by omitting anusvāras etc.’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘having intentionally forgotten the Veda’ (Rāghavānanda). Not a single commentator meant it in the sense of interpolation (intentional tampering). – Say No To Censorship Jan 07 '19 at 16:33
  • Also, see Patrick Olivelle's translation. – Say No To Censorship Jan 07 '19 at 16:44
  • @sv. "perverted its sense by omitting anusvāras" is an interpolation. If you omit swaras, the meaning of the words change. The sanskrit word used is "viplAvya" which also means "damage," "ruin," "confuse," etc. – Ikshvaku Jan 07 '19 at 17:49
  • What are anusvāras? – Say No To Censorship Jan 07 '19 at 17:51
  • @sv. Vedic accent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_accent – Ikshvaku Jan 07 '19 at 17:52
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku Omitting Anuswaras is not interpolation at all .. it is just an error of chanting .. interpolation is changing the text altogether – Rickross Jan 29 '19 at 16:57
  • @Rickross If you intentionally omit it, it is an interpolation. – Ikshvaku Jan 29 '19 at 17:18
  • haha no .. even if it's intentional it is still an error of chanting .. not interpolation .. @Ikshvaku – Rickross Jan 29 '19 at 17:20
  • @Rickross Yes it is an interpolation, because if you intentionally remove swaras, then you are changing the meaning of the words. It's just like removing letters and changing letters. – Ikshvaku Jan 29 '19 at 17:24
  • 1
    I don't think u are understanding .. removing/adding anuswara does not change the meaning of the word .. it is just a bindu .. for e.g jalam and jala both mean the same water .. @Ikshvaku – Rickross Jan 29 '19 at 17:26
  • @Rickross Yes it does actually change the meaning. A common example is given in the Vedas itself, involving Indra and Vrtra. Instead of saying "Someone kill Indra," he said "Be killed by Indra," by changing the swara of "shatroh." Also Ajaha can mean either Brahma or goat based on swara. – Ikshvaku Jan 29 '19 at 17:29
  • Do u understand the diff btween Vedic Swara and Anuswara? Anuswara is just the dot @Ikshvaku – Rickross Jan 29 '19 at 17:30
  • @Rickross Oh my bad, yes you're right. Ok, but even in that case, if you intentionally omit that letter, it's still an interpolation. – Ikshvaku Jan 29 '19 at 17:34