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?

11
  • 3
    Both kinds of tampering are wrong.. what makes you think that the first kind is ok?
    – Rickross
    Apr 28 '18 at 5:26
  • 3
    both kinds are wrong. what one person thinks of as a good tampering may be seen by others as bad. Both are wrong. Apr 28 '18 at 6:54
  • 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 7:00
  • @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
  • 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    “Sorry, but most Hindus follow laws of respective countries because rules prescribed in scriptures are outdated whether one agrees or not.” The fact that people believe the rules prescribed in scriptures are outdated and thus choose not to follow them does not imply that they are outdated. If people started believing rules against murder were outdated it would not mean that murder is okay. Jan 6 '19 at 3:38
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)

19
  • 2
    Okay, I didn't notice the commentary here. Jan 5 '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 6 '19 at 7:31
  • 1
    The Sanskrit word used is viplAvya which comes from viplava .. see the various meanings of viplava from here: spokensanskrit.org/… .. 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 6 '19 at 7:34
  • 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
  • 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

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .