“Decolonization of Bhāratīya Scriptures”, Indica Today, December 06, 2025
“Introduction
श्रुतिस्मृतिशिरोरत्ननीराजितपदाम्बुजम् ।
यशोदोत्सङ्गललितं वन्दे श्रीनन्दनन्दनम् ।
śrutismṛtiśiroratnanīrājitapadāmbujam ।
yaśodotsaṅgalalitaṃ vande śrīnandanandanam ।।
नमामि श्रीमदाचार्यान् प्रभून् श्रीविठ्ठलेश्वरान् ।
यद्दृशौ करुणापूर्णे मादृशां सर्वसिद्धिदे ।।
namāmi śrīmadācāryān prabhūn śrīviṭhṭhaleśvarān ।
yaddṛśau karuṇāpūrṇe mādṛśāṃ sarvasiddhide ।।
This article aims to deal with the major misconception created mostly by western diasporas and those who were influenced by them on the concept of Bhāratīya scriptures. At the outset, it is helpful to outline the structure of the discussion. Bhāratīya knowledge tradition has a unique method to discuss any topic in a systematic way, called adhikaraṇaṃ. This method can generally be found in sūtra. Mainly, there are two well known sutras called brahmasūtra and pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra. These sūtras discuss some doubts found in Vedas. They are further divided into adhikaraṇaṃ to make a differentiation between the arguments. In the same way, it can be used to discuss any topic critically. A relevant shloka to that effect is:
विषयोविशयश्चैव पूर्वपक्षस्तदोत्तरम्।
संगतिश्चेति पञ्चाङ्गं शास्त्रे अधिकरणं स्मृतम्॥
viṣayoviśayaścaiva pūrvapakṣastadottaram ।
saṃgatiśceti pañcāṅgaṃ śāstre adhikaraṇaṃ smṛtam ।।
There are a total five limbs on the basis of which our subject matter will be discussed. 1) viṣaya:- viṣaya means subject matter. There should be a subject matter on the basis of which our topic of discussion is based. 2) viśaya:- viśaya means doubt. If there is a topic of discussion then doubt should always be there, without a doubt nothing can be discussed productively. 3) pūrvapakṣa:- pūrvapakṣa stands for a counter argument. Whenever there is a doubt, there should ideally always be a counter argument. 4) uttarapakṣa:- uttarapakṣa means a favoring argument. If someone is giving a counter argument then it should always be answered. For that we have uttarapakṣa. 5) saṃgati:- saṃgati means correlation. It means a correlation between whatever arguments and proofs are given; they must have a correlation. This method is used in the following text to discuss the topic.
1. Viṣaya
The subject matter to this topic is to establish a true format of our Bhāratīya scriptures, undeluded by western influence. Scriptures of Sanatan Dharma are mainly divided into five categories. These are śruti, smṛti, purāṇa, itihāsa, and āgama……”
Read full article at indica.today
The author Rushik Borad basically states in the article that the Westerner researchers were biased towards their religion and attempted to distort the concepts and meanings of Bhāratīya scriptures.
Borad’s concepts of Bhāratīya scriptures implies Post-Vedic/Brahminic view. For instance, regarding Agams he says:
“There are many āgamas like śaivāgama, vaiṣṇavāgama, śāktāgama etc. They deal with the deity worship of the respective gods. This is the format of Sanatan Dharma’s scriptures. …”
Good, so by Sanatan Dharma he probably is excluding Shraman dharms. Because Agams have a totally different concept in Shraman dharms, and are integral part of Bhāratīya scriptures. And although the author did mention Vedas as Śruti, they are also referred to as Nigams in contrast to Agams. Again, Shraman dharms have no such concept.
If I now say that Vedic researchers were/are biased towards their religion and attempted/attempt to distort the concepts and meanings of Bhāratīya scriptures, it would not appear illogical.
We can blame external agencies all we want, but if we are not accepting our own deficiencies and biases then we are making ourself ineffective and untrusted and obstructing our own progress.