Fabricating the “ Fifth Veda “

Robert de Nobili, the notorious Jesuit who masqueraded as a Brahmin, committed fraud by claiming to have discovered what he termed as fifth veda.

Which was showing the entire Indian tradition and culture to be a corrupted subset of Christianity.

In 1774 a French naturalist and explorer named Pierre Sonnerat visited India with a copy of this “ Ezour Vedam”. He put in his personal efforts and actually studied the Indian original Vedas.
He concluded that this document is fake and fraudulent mapping of Vedic spiritual elements on to Christian theology. Adjustments were made to disguise the Christian theology so that one would not be able to recognise the missionary under disguise.
In 1782 the French man declared that “ezour vedam” was a fraud.

To save the embarrassment it was shelved in the archives of Nouvelles Acquisition Francaises under the nondescript name of “Exhibit No 452”.
Max muller made fervent effort to bring it back to further forge his Aryan invasion theory but failed, he did applaud the effort.

Despite the failure the Dravidian Christianity started to call it the original Vedic religion
The success is so evident that in Thirunalveli, Thoothukudi and Kanyakumari the term Vetham is used by even common Hindus to refer to Christianity
Vetha-koil: refers to Church, vetha-puthakam: refers to bible , vetdagama preaching - meets is missionary gathering, vedagama school is bible study classes
Furthering many Vedic terms are used by the missionary to confuse the Hindus , “Dharma Deepika “ is a missionary research journal published by Mylapore Institute of Indigenous studies, an evangelical institution.
In 2000!it published an article projecting Jesus Christ as Prajapathi from purusha hymn of the Rig Veda. Followed by a major evangelical campaign in TN.

The idea was Vedas was a prophecy of Jesus arrival and hence that Christianity is the fulfilment of Vedas.
Source : Breaking India.
@RajivMessage
@arvindneela

More from Culture

One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.


Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:


Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.


Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".


The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.

You May Also Like