`RigvedaadibhaaShya-bhuumika' written by Swami Dayanand Saraswati is the best book to understand the meanings of Vedas. He had written this book in order to make the people understand his commentary in the proper way. A reader cannot understand his commentary on Vedas without the knowledge of principles explained in this work. In order to explain the purpose of this introduction, he wrote at various places as -
1. When this commentary will get published, then the people will come to know the importance of knowledge of Vedas, and also the truth-full-ness of Vedic knowledge.
2. If somebody wants to have the commentary without 'Introduction', he cannot have that.
3. It is to be known that the Introduction is one for all the four Vedas.
(As per his letters published in the book Tatra and Vijyaapan', Pages 39, 87 and 138).
From the above, purpose of commentary is made clear. As a map is required before the construction of a house, in the same way a commentator of Vedas, use to write his beliefs before starting the commentary on Vedas. So without the `Introduction' it is very difficult to understand his commentary on Vedas. Hence he had denied to sell / propagate his commentary without this 'Introduction'. Since it is very important to study the 'Introduction' for the understanding the conceptions about the Vedic principles of the writer, who had offered commentary on Vedas.
The purpose of Swami Dayanand, for writing such a detailed Introduction, was to clear the misconceptions about the Vedic knowledge, as were existing in the light of commentaries of Acharaya Sayana and Mahidhara etc. and thereby the western scholars and the Indian scholars had wrong influence about the knowledge of Vedas. In this light of these commentaries, it was difficult to believe by the common man that - ' Vedas are the books of true sciences and are the knowledge of GOD'. By this 'Introduction' of Swami Dayanand, not only the wrong principles and beliefs of various cults got cleared, but also the readers became able to distinguish between the truth-ness and wrong-ness of various beliefs.
However, the various commentators of Vedas, i.e. Sayana and others had written their 'Introductions' to their commentaries. But those 'Introductions' do not contain the essential beliefs of commentators about the Vedas. And whatever beliefs are explained in those introductions, most of them are either wrong in the light of ancient Vedic knowledge, or whatever are according to ancient Vedic knowledge, are not being followed by them in their commentaries. As at present the commentary of Acharya Sayana is commonly read and taught in the various universities and schools. But in his 'Introduction' he is silent about the `Devtaa' which is subject matter of the verses. In the absence of knowledge of the `Devtaa' = 'Subject' of the verse, how the meaning can be related to the Verse? So the readers of his commentary on Vedas, remain in suspicion that - what Sayana want to convey? Even after the belief that `Vedas are the knowledge of GOD', the misconceptions that these contain the history of mankind, accepting the deities like Indra' etc. as equal to GOD, accepting the particular regions of Heaven and Hell, accepting embodied GOD and thereby propagating Idol Worship etc. are found in his commentary.
Swami Dayanand Saraswati had adopted the method of ancient seers for knowing the meaning of Vedas, for writing his commentary; and by which the wrong conceptions get refuted automatically. He had clarified the method of his commentary on Vedas by the following words -
"Let the wise take a note that we shall observe the following order in the commentary, e.g. (1) Introductory statement (the subject which is explained by GOD in the verse), (2) the Verse, (3) its component words, (4) the word-meaning, (5) the prose order, and (6) purport of the Verse."
By this method no intellectual can prove the history and other misconceptions in the Vedas. This is the clear declaration of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, which is the technique of ancient seers. The essential feature of a commentary is that - what is not in the root, and is not essential, should not be written in the commentary. Swami Dayanand Saraswati had strictly followed this principle. Whereas Sayana etc. had not adopted the ancient method, and they had imagined various conceptions and thereby, given birth to various wrong beliefs. If they would have considered the `Devtaa' = subject of the Verse and written the meaning of component words of Verse only, according to the context = subject, then the imagined misconceptions could not have been established by them in their commentaries. The cause of greatest blunder of their commentary on Vedas, is that they had not adopted the method of ancient seers for writing the meaning of Verses; and hence they were not competent for writing commentary on Vedas.
**Contents and Sample Pages**