VED KA BHED

The Secret of the Vedas

Its address is solely to the Arya Samaj, which

claims that the original teaching of the Vedas is
the same as that of Dayanand Ji. Therefore,
everything mentioned in this pamphlet regarding
the Arya Samaj is referenced from Dayanand Ji's
book "Satyarth Prakash." As an example, ten (10)
teachings of the Arya Samaj are presented, from
which every person will decide that social religion
is completely false and a collection of impure
teachings that can never be considered divine
religion.
 I wish to present a brief critique of some teachings of
Dyanandi philosophy in this pamphlet, based on the
principle that a tree is recognized by its fruit and a
religion by its teachings. My intention is that the
educated group, which is accustomed to viewing every
issue in the light of knowledge and reason, carefully
examines each thought and teaching, deciding with
insight whether such a religion and teaching can be
accepted as true and divine or not.

Based on my study, I have reached the conclusion that

while it is a significant matter for Dyanandi religion to
be considered divine and inspired, such absurd and
disgraceful teachings cannot even be attributed to a
wise and honorable person of decent character. In fact,
it is true that a civilized individual cannot even refer to
these disgraceful teachings. However, it is surprising
and astonishing that learned individuals have so
distorted their nature and hearts that they boldly
present these disgraceful and morally corrupt teachings
in their speeches as evidence of the superiority and
virtue of Dyanandi philosophy.

1
 In writing about natural processes, they depict
preventing it as a sin and a curse. My civility does
not allow me to introduce such disgraceful teachings
to my audience, nor to promote the dissemination of
morally corrupt literature. This is the reason why I
have kept my pamphlet free from the disgraceful
and morally corrupt issue of 'Newg.' Nevertheless,
what has been written is quite sufficient to assess
the truth of Dyanandi religion according to the
principles outlined by Dyanand Ji."

2
 "At the end of the twelfth chapter of Dyanand Ji's
Satyarth Prakash, it is written: * Just as one can tell
by looking at the rice boiling in a pot whether all the
rice is cooked or raw, in the same way, from this
brief writing, good-hearted people will understand
many things.

My intention with this sample from the heap is the

same: that the insightful individuals should study a
few teachings of Dyanandi philosophy and form a
decisive and conclusive opinion on the truth and
falsehood of Dyanandi religion. In light of the facts,
they should consider our social scholars’ grand
claims and judge with fairness how truthful our
friends are in those claims. If there is a true religion
in the world, it is the Arya Samaj; if there is true
teaching, it is of.....

3
 First Teaching of Dyanandi Philosophy

"Look, O ascetic, at the many colors and nuances in the

image of the beloved."

In chapter 3, verse 56 of Satyarth Prakash, Dyanand Ji

writes: "One who does not study the Vedas and remains
engaged in other pursuits becomes a Shudra along with his
son and grandson."

Subhan Allah! What a truth-filled teaching: that a sinner

may become a Shudra. Will any knowledgeable, unbiased
Arya reflect calmly on this? Can such a teaching ever be
true? It is worth considering that if the father does not read
the Vedas, is immoral, sinful, or a Shudra, then whatever
terms our friends wish to use against this person can be
employed. But how can reason accept that a son, who is
fully competent, highly virtuous, and devoted to practicing
the Vedas day and night, could be a Shudra simply because
his father does not read the Vedas? How can it be just that
the punishment for the father's actions results in the son
and grandson becoming Shudras?

4
 We want to ask the Arya Samaj scholars: Is it correct to
attribute the sins of the father—such as adultery, theft,
or immorality—to his son and grandson? Is it right to
involve the son and grandson in the punishment for the
father’s sins, and to mutilate the body parts of the son
and grandson along with the father’s body parts related
to the crime?

Dyanand Ji writes in chapter 6, verse 222 of Satyarth

Prakash: "The thief, in the manner he uses whichever
limb to commit inappropriate acts among people,
should have that limb cut off by the king for the sake of
public admonition."

If considering the son and grandson (who have no

connection to the theft) as partakers in the father’s act
of theft is unreasonable, then involving the son and
grandson in the punishment is contrary to reason and
justice.

5
"It is contrary. Therefore, to hold the son and grandson
accountable for the father’s crime of not studying the
Vedas is entirely baseless and cannot be justified by
reason or justice in any way. And when the son and
grandson are not involved in the crime, it is
unreasonable and unjust to punish them along with the
father. Forcing innocent and blameless sons and
grandsons to become Shudras is a teaching of Arya
philosophy that even a person with ordinary knowledge
and understanding cannot accept. Can we expect a
social scholar to illuminate this philosophical teaching
of Arya philosophy and provide the world with a
satisfactory response on behalf of their religion?

And will they pay attention to our objection?

6
 Second Teaching of Dyanandi Philosophy

In chapter 6, verse 195 of Satyarth Prakash, Dyanand

Ji writes about the battlefield: "A runaway servant,
who flees in fear and is killed by the enemies, carries
the sins of his master. He is punished, and the honor
that he was supposed to receive in this world and the
next is taken by his master."

Allah Allah! This is the teaching of the Vedas, which

our social scholars present to the world as being in
accordance with reason and philosophy. But we
want to ask our friends: Tell us honestly, how can
such a conclusion arise from a rational mind? Can
even a person with ordinary knowledge and
understanding utter such a statement? Certainly not.
Then how tragic and regretful it is that this is
considered an inspired teaching, when, in reality,
there is a great difference between the stain of
prostration and the stain of love; the former is for
the heart, and the latter is for the forehead."

7
 "How astonishing! A servant flees from the battlefield
and is killed by the enemies, and it is decided that he is to
be punished. We would also say to our friends that this is
quite correct and accurate. But it is also stated that he
takes on the sins of his master, and the reward for his
good deeds in this life is taken by his master. This is
something that is certainly entirely false and absurd in
the eyes of every person. Because for a servant to take on
the sins of his master for the crime of fleeing from battle,
and for the master to receive the servant's reward,
cannot in any way be justified by knowledge or reason.

Every person can only be accountable for their own

crimes and actions, not for the actions of others.
Likewise, each person can only be deemed guilty or
punishable for their own deeds, not for the actions of
others. Thus, whatever punishment this runaway servant
receives for his flight will be correct and justified, but
what connection could there be between this servant and
the crimes and wrongdoings committed by his master?
How can this servant be deserving of the punishment for
the sins committed by his master?

8
It is astonishing and truly perplexing that this is the
kind of teaching in Arya philosophy, where the
punishment for sin is not given to the sinner, but to
someone who has no connection to that sin.
Furthermore, it is claimed that the rewards for his
good deeds, charity, and worship will be taken by the
master. For a moment, if we were to assume that this
teaching is inspired, it would lead to several
objections regarding the nature of God.

Firstly, the Aryan God would be deemed unjust, as

He labels an innocent and blameless person as guilty,
and forcibly places the burden of one person's sins
upon another. Secondly, the Aryan God would no
longer be just and fair, because such actions are
entirely contrary to justice, as it is unjust not to
punish the guilty."

9
 "And in return, an innocent and blameless person is
deemed guilty. Thirdly, the Aryan God will be
considered biased, which Dyanand Ji firmly denies. To
avoid this bias, Dyanand Ji accepted reincarnation. He
clearly states regarding injustice that whoever acts
against justice is not God.

Now, there are two things that cannot be avoided: Either

this teaching is accepted as false, and our social friends
should reject it from Satyarth Prakash, or if such absurd
teaching is accepted simply because Dyanand Ji Maharaj
has written it in accordance with the Vedas, then based
on Dyanand Ji’s writing, they should announce the
removal of their God from being unjust and divine.

O social friends! Set aside your biases and consider

whether anyone can ever accept such a teaching as a
principle of truth and reality. Certainly not. Therefore,
we want to say nothing more than this.

10
 Third Teaching of Dyanandi Philosophy

Look at your own oppression and tyranny; if we

mention it, there will be complaints.

In chapter 6, verse 223 of Satyarth Prakash, Dyanand Ji

writes: "Those who, having abandoned religion, are
caught up in unrighteousness and kill others without
any guilt should be killed without hesitation."

In other words, one should kill and then think about it

afterward. O social friends! On one side is the issue of
human life and retribution, and on the other side is the
pure teaching of your sacred religions. Reflect and
think! What kind of educational outlook is Dyanand Ji
presenting to the world regarding Arya philosophy?
Listen and pay attention, and think deeply. Is human
life, human dignity, and the precious existence of a
human being so cheap that it can be destroyed without
careful consideration, without investigating the crime,
and without obtaining complete evidence regarding it?"

11
"Without thoroughly considering the case... to be put to
death, and then to think about it—how ridiculous and
astonishing it is that after killing someone, one is
advised to reflect on it. Reading this makes one exclaim:

'May stones fall on such love of yours, To come and

weep at the shrine after death.'

Can the Arya Samaj ever be deemed worthy to stand

alongside the religions of the world in the light of
knowledge and reason with such a teaching?

And can anyone with even ordinary knowledge and

understanding justify this? Certainly not. So think
deeply: is it not injustice and tyranny to issue a fatwa
for killing instead of inflicting punishment or beating?
Can any individual find refuge under this law? Will a
person not fear the sharp edge of the vengeful sword of
Arya philosophy after even a minor beating?

12
And will not the spirit of the educated community, along
with humanity, justice, and truth, be thrown into turmoil
by this teaching, where under the guise of justice, there is
a doctrine of killing and destruction disguised as reform?

Look closely; the heart's complaint will persist.

Just one glance can decide the heart's verdict.

We want to ask our social scholars, giving them the means

of justice and truth: for God’s sake, just take a moment to
acknowledge God and consider this teaching. Does your
conscience, your heart, your awareness, and your just
soul permit that a person can be killed in exchange for
beating or minor punishment? If your heart and
conscience say no, then this decision is entirely..."

13
 "It is unjust and against justice and righteousness, and
such teaching can never be called divine. So tell me, what
will you say about Dyanand Ji's statement when he
clearly issues the fatwa that 'those who abandon religion
and kill others without guilt should be killed without
hesitation'?

In other words, one should kill first and then think about
it later. Allah Allah! Everyone understands the difference
between killing and inflicting harm or beating. And it is
astonishing that a command to kill is given without
thought and understanding.

To clarify this misunderstanding, I must emphasize that

the term 'without guilt' in Dyanand Ji's statement is a
meaningless phrase that holds no substantive truth.
When Dyanand Ji advises reflection after the act of
killing, how can it be established beforehand that the
person was innocent, who was killed by this unrighteous
individual? Because the victim, who has been struck,
cannot justly receive a beating, and this unrighteous
person cannot be said to have acted without reason.

14
 It is expected that before the killing of the guilty,
thorough investigation and careful consideration
regarding both individuals should be established. But
when this is not permitted, it becomes clear that
Dyanand Ji is issuing a verdict of killing without careful
thought or deliberation.

Thus, setting aside all these matters, an unanswerable

question arises: what could be the meaning of thinking
after the act of killing? And what benefit can come from
reflection, consideration, and deliberation after the
killing? What conclusion can be drawn regarding the
innocence of the victim?

Therefore, if this is the teaching of Arya Samaj that is

presented to us as a guiding principle aligned with
philosophy, knowledge, and reason, then we cannot
regard it as a true or authentic religion."

15
 And certainly, no sensible person in the world can
understand this. How can wise individuals adhere to
a law that requires them to reflect on murder after
committing it? The learned will not mourn for the
victim but for their own intellect when the victim's
soul witnesses this.

The fourth teaching of Dayanand states that after

me, he has repented from harshness, and those who
are quick to regret will indeed regret.

In Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 6, verse 217, Dayanand

writes: 'Women should be witnesses for women, the
virtuous for the virtuous, the Shudras for the
Shudras, and the Chandals for the Chandals.'

16
 We tell our friends, 'Very good, Maharaj, very true, and
absolutely correct.' But consider this: a poor young
woman goes to a shop owned by a sinful shopkeeper to
buy something. This unfortunate man, due to his bad
habits influenced by the impure teaching of "Newag"
(which civilization forbids discussing), commits rape on
this young woman in public at his open shop.
Unfortunately, there is no other woman present. Tell me,
what should this innocent woman do to remedy her
pain? When she knocks on the doors of justice in the
Arya Samaj, she receives a clear answer: 'Unless you
bring a woman to testify against this act, there will be no
hearing for you.' Upon hearing this, she becomes so
bewildered that it feels as if 'if you cut, there is no blood
in the body.'

Affected by the natural feelings of human dignity and

self-respect, she is compelled to ask the learned ones in
the court of Arya Dharma, in astonishment: 'Then what,
is there no justice for us in the Dayanandi religion? And
in such a case, is there no punishment for this heinous
act? I cannot bring women as witnesses in this
unfortunate incident.'"

17
That there was no woman present at the scene. Yes, I can
present a few good-hearted Arya witnesses who were
passing by and gathered upon hearing my screams. They
possess more wisdom and understanding than women
and are the original witnesses, yet she still receives a
straightforward answer: 'We are bound by Dayanand's
command; you see, it is stated in Satyarth Prakash,
Chapter 6, verse 217, that "women shall be witnesses for
women." Therefore, we cannot accept men's testimony
in your case.

Now, imagine that this poor, modest woman reads

Dayanand's command and returns home, hiding her face
in shame with the stain of disgrace. Tell me, what worth
will she attribute to a court and a law that leads her to
such despair? Can she believe for even a moment that
this law deserves to be called divine? That it was made
by a wise person? Absolutely not.

18
 So where are the learned Arya Samajis who wish to
establish peace and justice in the world through their
Vedic religion? Humans, let alone animals, should rush
to provide justice for the wounds of this innocent young
woman, or they should admit that the Arya Samaj is not
capable of imparting true justice, truth, and
righteousness to the world. Similarly, there are
countless other incidents for which, according to this
law, there can be no justice.

Suppose there is a neighborhood with one Chandal

(meaning...) house among all the respectable Arya
Mahatmas. One night, a thief from that neighborhood
enters the Chandal's house and steals whatever cash he
finds. By chance, the Chandal wakes up and confronts
him, upon which the wicked thief retaliates with a
beating. The poor Chandal then cries out and raises an
alarm..."

19
 "He cries out for help from the people. The
neighborhood residents arrive, but the cunning thief
manages to escape with the stolen goods.

Now the question is, where should he go for justice?

To whom should he express his victimhood? Will the
Arya Samaj court be beneficial for him? He will never
obtain justice in that court. Because the learned
magistrate of the Arya Samaj, after listening to his
statement, will ask him if he has a Chandal witness
of his own kind. When he hears that there is no
Chandal witness available because he is the only one
of his kind in the neighborhood, he will hear that
many respectable Aryas can testify and recognize
the thief. The magistrate will then, bound by
Dayanand's law, respond that his plea is rejected
according to Vedic religion. Dayanand has already
decided in Satyarth Prakash that a Chandal's witness
must be another Chandal.

20
Friends, tell me, how can you expect to establish justice and
peace in the world with such a law? Is this the law you
present before the world, claiming that the Vedic teachings
and Arya Dharma are the solutions for human welfare?
What can we say about our friends' ignorance except:

'The idol is seen as God, but there is something else hidden

behind the veil.'

The fifth and sixth teachings of Dayanand:

In Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 4, verse 117, Dayanand writes

that there are eight types of marriage (methods of
procreation): one is Brahma, the second is Deva, the third is
Aarsha, the fourth is Prajapatya, the fifth is Asura, the sixth
is Gandharva, the seventh is Rakshasa, and the eighth is
Paisacha. After this, the details of these marriages are
provided, explaining which type of marriage will be
performed in what manner. Before presenting any form of
marriage, it is necessary to clarify that these eight..."

21
 The types of permissible marriages are such that
none of these types are considered haram or
impermissible in Arya religion. At most, Dayanand
has categorized some as inferior, some as
blameworthy, and some as highly blameworthy.
However, he does not declare any of them as
inherently impermissible or against nature.
Dayanand's words are that among all these
marriages, the Brahma marriage is the most
superior, the Deva, Aarsha, and Prajapatya are
intermediate, while Asura and Gandharva are
inferior, and Rakshasa and Paisacha are extremely
despicable. Now, let’s look at the details of Rakshasa
and Paisacha according to Dayanand's text.

22
 Acquiring a girl through force, theft, or deception is
called Rakshasa.

Friends, reflect deeply and question your own conscience

and faith-filled hearts. Then consider what your heart
and your righteous, modest conscience advise you
regarding this issue. In brief, we want to write that if,
God forbid, the Arya Samaj religion were to rule in India,
could we hope that any respectable or modest woman
would be safe from this law? Would girls not be forcibly
taken day and night based on this law? Would not wicked
and immoral men, seeing beautiful women in their
youth, use this law as a pretext to engage in fighting and
chaos to seize them? And would there not be bloodshed
according to Arya Dharma’s law as a result of such
kidnappings? Yes, it would happen, and it surely would.
Because it is inherently impossible for a decent and
modest person to remain silent upon witnessing the
disgrace and humiliation of their wife, daughter, or
daughter-in-law. Instead, natural feelings will surge
within a modest heart, compelling the mind to act,
sacrificing everything that represents honor and dignity.

23
Forcibly having sexual relations with a sleeping girl
or one who is unconscious due to alcohol, or a mad
girl is called Paisacha.

Thus, the essence and soul of honor in Asia would be

sacrificed. So, knowing and understanding this, even
if it means that we cannot overpower these wicked
and immoral people, by nature, a person will
confront them, even at the risk of their own life,
rather than allow such unclean acts to occur."

24
 Friends, think and reflect:

Is this the teaching that you wish to promote among the

people of the world, calling it a natural teaching?

Is this the teaching that you present as aligned with

knowledge and reason?

Is this the teaching that you describe as consistent with the

principles of civilization and culture?
Is this the teaching that you invite respectable individuals
to accept as divine instruction?
And is this the teaching upon which peace and order can be
established in the world?

Is this the teaching that will make a person noble and

civilized?

And is this the teaching through which a person can attain

salvation?

Finally, tell me, can such a teaching be worthy of being

called divine and godly?

Absolutely not, absolutely not.

25
 Furthermore, Dayanand counts rape as a permissible
form of marriage, merely calling this impure act highly
despicable, thereby opening the door to immorality for
the wicked and depraved members of society.

Friends, how shameful is this? How dark is it that such

impure acts are not deemed unlawful or haram in Arya
Dharma but are only considered highly despicable? I
cannot understand what any knowledgeable person or
educated community would decide about this.

What opinion would they form about this teaching of

Arya Dharma? In my view, to call such ideas divine and
inspired is, God forbid, a great audacity that cannot be
attributed even to a decent and modest person.

My friends, think for yourselves and decide in your

hearts: should such impure acts and the worst actions
be deemed completely unlawful and haram, or merely
highly despicable? And when rape is placed in the
category of despicable..."

26
 Then, if that is the case, the act of adultery that
occurs freely and happily between consenting
parties, without coercion, would be permissible
according to Arya Dharma, right? Because if adultery
is merely considered highly despicable and if forcibly
taking a girl through theft, deception, or fighting is
just blameworthy, then there should be no degree of
objection to consensual adultery.

According to Dayanand's writings, it is permissible

to deceive and take women on the street. Forcible
adultery is allowed, and based on these scenarios, it
would be even more permissible to engage with all
street prostitutes. This is the pure teaching upon
which our friends claim they will make Aryas of
India and indeed the entire world.

It is true.

27
 In the seventh teaching of Dayanand:

"Your greatness reflects the grandeur of the divine."

Dayanand establishes in Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 11,

verse 450, the title that those who give are of three types,
and writes the following question and answer:

Question: How many types of givers (donors) are there?

Answer: There are three types: superior, intermediate, and
inferior.

The superior donor is one who, knowing the proper

context and deservingness, gives for the advancement of
true knowledge and the welfare of all.

The intermediate donor is one who gives for praise or self-

interest.

The inferior donor is one who cannot benefit anyone else

and gives only to support prostitution or entertainers, etc."

28
 In this response, Dayanand acknowledges that spending
on prostitution is considered a lower form of charity or
generosity, and that a person engaging in adultery is
regarded as a low-level giver. Now, I ask my social friends:

In Arya Dharma, is being a donor and being sinful two

different things or the same? Is there a difference
between charity and sin or not? If there is a difference—
and any reasonable person will recognize that there is a
vast difference between a donor and a sinner—then tell
me, can any wise person in the world say anything about
a fornicator except that they are worthless?

29
 Then tell me, what wrath is being unleashed by your
Rishis, especially Maharishi Dayanand, by calling
spending on sinful acts as charity, and referring to the
fornicator as a donor and a generous person?

Will such statements promote fornication and sin,

leading people to carry out these acts under the guise of
charity and generosity, or will they refrain from such
actions? Especially in this age, where the poisonous air
of freedom has corrupted human emotions from all
sides, what effect will this teaching have?

Friends, consider and think about whether such

teachings are beneficial or harmful for humanity. Are
they in opposition to knowledge and ethics, or in
alignment with them?

30
 We know and understand that in response to our
objections, shallow justifications will be employed,
excuses will be made, and an attempt will be made to
twist the argument, claiming that Dayanand did not
truly mean charity or generosity and that calling
fornicators donors and generous individuals was not his
intent. But all these claims will be like weak witnesses
trying to support a flimsy case. We have quoted
Dayanand's words verbatim. Anyone can reflect on them.

It is true that a human is a human and God is God, but

our friends' misunderstanding is profound, as they
consider these to be divine and godly commands. What
else can we say about this?

The messenger is not the one who speaks of this; it is a

deception that tells you there is something else."

31
 Eighth Teaching of Dayanand

In Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 9, verse 329, Dayanand

writes:

"After this, Dharma Raj, that is, the Supreme Being, gives
birth to this living being. It enters through air, food, and
water, or through the pores of the body by the divine
impulse. This is a scientific issue, which I have presented
generally for the amusement of knowledgeable
individuals and educated persons, and particularly for
doctors and healers, so they may reflect on the
philosophical issue of birth according to Vedic Dharma.
Those who are experts in philosophy and science and
have sufficient knowledge about human reality and its
spirit should enjoy Dayanand's philosophical ideas that
the human soul is something that can penetrate through
the pores of the instrument or can enter the human body
through the external aspects.

32
 Doctors and healers should consider whether this
philosophical issue regarding the human or animal
spirit has ever been studied in medical research or in
any medical texts. Can it be true that the human soul,
perfectly created, enters the human body through food,
such as chickpeas, peas, or lentils, and then circulates
to mix with a man’s or woman’s sperm, entering the
womb, where it develops flesh and skin?

Friends, the world has not lost reason and knowledge

to such an extent that anyone would pay heed to such
absurd and nonsensical statements, let alone believe
them. It is clear that what Dayanand Maharaj has
stated is fundamentally incorrect from a scientific
perspective; it cannot be validated by modern medical
principles or by the principles of Unani medicine. Every
sensible person reading this would laugh, saying, 'Glory
be to God, the Vedic Dharma is indeed a strange
religion, and even stranger are its followers, who chant
about knowledge and philosophy while the state of
education is, as God willed, in such an abysmal
condition that it does not align with the principles of
knowledge and reason, nor with philosophy.'"

33
And it conforms correctly to the laws of science. Yes,
there are verbal claims, but regarding this, the
following verse by Mirza Ghalib is sufficient:

"We do not believe in blood coursing through the

veins; what blood is it that does not drop from the
eye?"

Social friends! If there is a claim, then it must first be

proven through modern investigations and Unani
principles. Can we expect that any learned socialite
will courageously uphold Dayanand's issue within
the framework of medical methods or principles to
maintain the dignity of Arya Dharma? Indeed,
someone has aptly written:

34
 Ninth Teaching of Dayanand

"The stature of one whose mother is beneath the veil;

when you reveal it, we are in the mother."

In Satyarth Prakash, Chapter 2, verse 28, Dayanand

writes: "Blessed is the mother who, from the time of
conception until the child is fully educated, guides her
offspring towards virtuous conduct."

Social friends, if anyone has doubts about Dayanand's

virtuous conduct, reading this statement has completely
convinced me that he was indeed a true Brahmachari.
This is why he emphasized virtuous behavior so much
that he advised mothers to instruct even the unborn
child in good conduct. However, Dayanand's kindness to
the world would have been greater if he had also
elaborated on how to guide the unborn child. What
matters should that blessed mother teach the unborn
child about virtuous behavior? Will any elder in the
group of Dayanand's followers and those who follow in
his footsteps endure the difficulty of fulfilling this gap
that Dayanand left, to provide guidance for the people of
the world, or at least for the people of India?

35
 Please make a unique addition to the series of new
discoveries. The greatest cause of distress for parents in
this age is their children's misbehavior and immorality.
However, when our social friends publish this
formulation based on the sacred Vedas, which they claim
contain guidance on all sciences and arts, every blessed
mother will guide her unborn child accordingly. As a
result, all children will be born polite, virtuous, and
civilized from their mother’s womb. I am surprised why
social scholars have not paid attention to this until now.
In any case, our request will surely receive attention, dear
social friends! With this education, you will turn the
entire world into Aryans, indeed.

Who wouldn't die for such simplicity? O God, we fight

without even having a sword in hand.

36
 The Tenth Teaching of the Dyanandi Sect

In the 147th verse of the fourth chapter of Satyarth

Prakash, Dayanand quotes a mantra from the Rigveda
that commands a powerful man capable of marrying to
produce up to ten offspring with a married woman.
Following this, see what Dayanand has written regarding
this mantra. According to this Vedic command, Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, and Vaishya men and women should not
produce more than ten offspring.

Two objections arise regarding the teachings of the

Dyanandi sect. First, why has the Shudra been excluded
from this command, and why is this command specified
only for the three varnas or castes: Brahmins, Kshatriyas,
and Vaishyas? While such exclusion is against Dayanand's
principles of fairness and justice, God cannot be unjust.

37
 So, if it is accepted according to the teachings of Dayanand Ji
that this is the teaching of the Vedas, then this single reason is
enough to establish that the Vedas are not a divine book. In it,
there is a teaching of partiality, which is against the law of
equality and justice. One party is given the freedom to use
whatever God-given power they have to produce offspring,
while the other party's freedom is taken away, forcing them to
limit themselves to having no more than ten children.

The second objection is that if the powerful man who is capable

of procreation still has sexual vigor after ten children, various
bad thoughts arise in his heart, and in the darkness of the night,
his natural desires suggest that since according to Vedic dharma
you cannot have more than ten children, nor can you fulfill your
natural desires with a lawful wife—because apart from this
being against Vedic dharma, there is the risk that if a pregnancy
occurs, the soldiers of Arya Raj Sabha will capture you and you
will have to endure humiliation and disgrace in front of a
gathering. In such a situation, you have no choice but to satisfy
your natural desires through adultery and fornication. Thus,
one is compelled to act on these urges and tarnish one’s
reputation by committing adultery. Now, our social scholars,
tell us, is this command of the Vedas in accordance with natural
law? Can it be said that after ten children, a powerful man's
natural desires are extinguished? And is it possible for that
natural process, which even Dayanand acknowledges cannot be
stopped, to be halted? Absolutely not.

38
Dear friends of Dayanand! Listen and pay attention.
What does Dayanand Ji say regarding this natural
process? According to the rules of creation
established by God, the natural process between
man and woman cannot be stopped, except for
world-renouncing, accomplished scholars and yogis.

Isn’t abortion, the killing of children, and the severe

suffering of widowed women and widowers a sin?

39
Because as long as those who desire offspring and sexual
urges in their youth are obstructed by the rules of
society or community, secret immorality and
misconduct will continue.

After this detailed statement by Dayanand, can anyone

deny that preventing natural processes opens the door
to sin or forces one into sin? Because on one hand, you
will stop them based on Vedic law, saying, 'You already
have ten children, now you will receive a real
punishment,' causing the poor person to lose the
courage to go to his lawful wife. On the other hand, as
Dayanand states, when obstructed by societal or
community rules, secret infidelity and misconduct will
continue, meaning they will go to market prostitutes
and tarnish their reputations, and women will indulge
sinful men, fulfilling their natural desires.

And as per Dayanand's writing, abortion and infanticide

will be practiced.

40
 Social friends! For God's sake, give way to justice and ask
your conscience whether such a teaching can be natural
or not? In my opinion, if your heart is free from
prejudice, you will find the answer that such a teaching
can never be natural. So think and think well about where
your Dayanandi religion is taking you—whether this is
the road on which you can attain salvation, or if you are
being pushed into a cave from which your salvation is
impossible. So now you have the choice; I have fulfilled
my duty. Whether you remain in this Dayanandi belief or
become a true seeker of truth and separate yourself from
it.

And our duty is only to convey (the message)."

41
Believe it or not, the choice is yours; we are made to
understand good and evil in the presence of the
Lord.

(Note: The reference to 'Satyarth Prakash' in this

book is the complete authentic Urdu translation of
the Arya Samaj, which is inscribed on the title:
'Satyarth Prakash by Shri 108 Maharshi Swami
Dayanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, the authentic Urdu
translation, published with permission by Shrimati
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Punjab Arya Company and
Arya Samaj Lahore in 1908.)"

42