Arya Samaj

Shyena

Why is it treated slightly different from the other vedas?

Satyarth Prakash says a male should spend minimum of 18 years studying vedas, 6 years for each veda. The fourth is skipped here

A quote from brahmana also specifically calls atharva veda the fourth, puraanas and itihasa the fifth.

The content of atharva veda also seems a bit different from others.

The only explanation i thought of, is that while the first three vedas are to be learned by dwija, fourth is to be learned by all..

Shishya · Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject:

Namaste PD,

Shyena · Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:11 am Post subject:

Namaste shishy,
Sorry I meant an upanishad and not a brahmana so the revelance is much lesser... You have posted this quote in the 'difference between arya samaj and hinduism' thread yourself, this is the one:

[Chhaandogya Upanishad 7.1.2]
"rigvedam bhagavao adhyemi yajurvedam saamavedam aatharvanam chaturtham itihaasa puraanam panchamam..."
As I dont know sanskrit I cannot interpret it as I would like to... maybe it goes like "atharva veda, the fourth being itihasa and puraanas the fifth" where the "three" are brahmanas, aranyakas and upanishads.

In satyarth prakash its located in chapter 3, "Brahmacharya or Student Life (period of celibacy)"

Shishya · Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject:

Namaste PD,

I wrote a post on this passage from the Chhandogya Upanishad a week ago which can be read here.

As for the quote from the Satyarth Prakash, you might have overlooked that sections marked with the asterix (*) were added later by the translator (-Tr.), and are not the words of Swamiji. In the section entitled 'Scheme of Studies', point 7 says specifically that all four Vedas should be studied together for a period of 6 years.

To be honest, I don't quite see how the translator came to his conclusions unless it was an oversight on his part. Confused

_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject:

Well, I dont think the translator wouldn't speak of anything against swamiji's stance....

Regardless of that, why is the fourth veda slightly different from the other ones...

Shishya · Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject:

Namaste PD,

Shyena · Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:23 am Post subject:

Okay here's another challenge I have encountered regarding atharva veda:
I haven't encountered any phrase (so far) in other scriptures proclaiming atharva veda as fourth, however in the geeta and manu smriti I encountered these lines:

"pitāham asya jagato
mātā dhātā pitāmahaḥ
vedyaṁ pavitram oṁkārā
ṛk sāma yajur eva ca" (Bhagavat Geeta 9.17)

I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable ॐ. I am the rig, sama, yajur veda.

--

"agnivāyuravibhyas tu trayaṃ brahma sanātanam
dudoha yajñasiddhyartham ṛgyajuḥsāmalakṣaṇam" (Manusmrti1.23)

From Agni, Vayu, Ravi; that drew forth the threefold Eternal Veda called Rk, Yajus, Sama for due performance of sacrifice."

Swamiji translated it as "Agni, Vayu, Ravi, Angirasa etc........ he drew forth the fourfold etc...", about which i'm confused.

I encountered this in a debate today and am thoroughly confused now. The only way I settled this is by saying that Atharva Veda is an upa-veda for the priest as 'atharva' means 'fire priest' and during a yajna the fourth priest who is master of atharva veda is generally master of the first three vedas as well and is the one who corrects the other three officiating priests. On this basis, atharva veda is glorified in the chandogya upanishad as the "fourth veda", not in the literal sense but because it is the manual of vedas (thus the biggest of all the three). Hindus who aren't proficient in the true meaning of the threefold vedas cannot understand the fourth. Of course, i still am uncomfortable with this stance...

Can someone give me quotes that show atharva veda is the fourth?

Shishya · Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:

Namaste PD,

A very interesting topic. I have read something somewhere that explains why the Vedas are occasionally referred to as being of different number (there are also passages that say the 'two-fold Veda', meaning the Rig and the Saama), but cannot yet recall the location or I would surely post it. I will keep researching.

However, it should not bother us too much, as Rishi Angiras, the recorder of the Atharva Veda, is mentioned by name several times in the other three Vedas as a figure possessed of supreme knowledge.

And although you seem to discard it, I think your answer is one that is worth exploring further.

Consider the following passage from the Rigvedadi Bhashya Bhumika:

Shyena · Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject:

Namaste Shishya,

Devo · Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:53 pm Post subject:

Namaste,

I am not sure if my little explanation will help, but I'll give it a try. Please keep in mind, I have little or no knowledge of sanskrit.

According to an online site: Atharva means "fourth". Source

This would make sense, since according to another site: c"atvari" = 4. Source

And according to another source:

Atharvan (अथर्वन्, atharvan-; an n-stem with nominative singular अथर्वा atharvā) was a legendary Vedic sage who alongwith Angiras is supposed to have authored ("heard") the Atharvaveda. Source

So, in a nutshell... we can gather that:

C"atharvi" = Number 4 in Sanskrit
Atharva = 4th Vedas
Atharvan = 'Preacher' of the 4th Veda.

Hope this is a correct interpretation of the meaning of these words.

Namaste,
Dev.

Shyena · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:04 am Post subject:

but the line goes
".... aatharvanam chaturtham ...."

Shishya · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:36 am Post subject:

Namaste PD,

Well, while my research continues, why don't you enlighten us as to your theory on the subject? What do the Sanatans have to say about this? Surely, they have a ready answer. Very Happy

_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:14 am Post subject:

Sanatanas believe in four vedas too.... They also believe in geeta, and accept what krishna says - that he is god incarnate*, though the interpretation of his lines vary. They however believe that kali yuga shall prevent us from knowing the true meaning of vedas and that most of the vedas are lost...

*PS: As for my theory, I've already explained it - atharva veda might be an upa-veda, thus unlike the threefold veda, has been subject to corruption - this is why the 'atharvan' part of atharva veda is rejected, only the 'angiras' part is adhered to. Just like every other upa-veda (ayur, dhanur, artha, shtapatya, gandharva); they have been corrupted or lost over time and what remains is exposition, excerpts or tampered version. Atharva veda is however the 'fourth' veda, because according to me it in simple words is 'manual for an atharvaan'. Only after understanding the threefold vedas shall we resort to the fourth veda. This is an apologist theory of mine, and I'm vehemently against this conception on my own. I'm resorting to this because I refuse to adhere to any dogma. As the arya samaj's postulate says - "one should be ready to accept truth and abandon untruth".

*PPS: The stance that atharva veda isn't a part of vedas, isn't preached by any pauraanik. It is believed by hindu critics and apologists. However unlike most apologists who simply discard the atharva veda, i believe it holds philosophical authority, if not any other..

Shishya · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject:

Namaste PD,

I find it hard to believe that some would consider the Atharva not to be considered one of the Vedas - particularly when it is known that the Yajur and the Saama contain mantras taken from the Rig and the Atharva. Also, the Mahabharata contains numerous references to the Vedas as being four in number.

Besides, what would be the point of such conjecture? It seems like an individual who would propose such a thesis would have very little faith in the Vedas to begin with. So, why argue about the canonicity of one of them? Does it help the Marxist or Skeptic if the Atharva is not to be considered as one of the Vedas? I admit, I am not very familiar with the motivation behind such claims. Could you please explain some of the background here, PD?
_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:39 am Post subject:

The "motivation" is that, atharva veda is the most attacked veda for its charms, spells, black and white magic incantations {Swamiji said, ayur-veda originates from this text. The excerpts i found speak of a mould possibly with antiseptic properties}. Buddhists and Jainas of the old have enjoyed attacking AV, hindus resorted to rejecting the atharvan section of the veda, believing the fourth to be corrupted. The other part is supposed to be mainly spells and charms (this is what bothers me the most). It is also supposed to mention Iron* thus not supposed to be older than 1500 BCE.

The reason i however reason in such a critical manner - is because, things like these generate immense amounts of unrest within me that I'm online right now at 4 AM. The only cure for my foolishness is to be burnt down with agni of truth, and let me manifest this agni to burn down others. To say "why do you care what marxists think" - it is this mentality that is leading to ruin of hindus, and abuse of the so called "elite class brahmins" when they form the minority as well the downtrotten of the society; being born a brahmin myself (It makes me laugh while remembering my childhood - I was inspired by Ambedkar and denounced my caste). By attacking others, they will attack me back. "Satyameva Jayate" - I want to know this truth.

--
* the word 'syam apas' means 'black metal', believed to be iron. It could also be heated copper, I believe this to be anarya(thanks for the word shisy!) propaganda though..

Shishya · Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject:

Namaste PD,

As I indicated earlier, I have been researching this further. I don't think my findings to date will convince you of anything, but I think they are worth mentioning nonetheless. Therefore, I note them below:

Mundaka Upanishad mentions all four Vedas by name:

तत्रापरा ऋग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्ववेदः (...)

tatraaparaa rigvedo yajurvedaha saamavedo 'tharvavedaha (...)
-Manduka 1:5

There is also a direct reference in Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4:5:11.

I will keep looking... Wink

_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject:

No no, I'm ready to change my stance any time. This is not view of sanatana dharmiks for they accept more than just rig, yajur, sama, atharva vedas. Its just that - as i said, i need peace of mind in believing so.

What does tatraaparaa mean by the way Confused

Shishya · Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:

Namaste PD,

I couldn't find a direct correspondence in any of my dictionaries, but I assume it is based on tatra- meaning 'there'. Thus, I would translate it as 'therein'. I guess I should have given a translation of the surrounding text, as it is, in itself, rather interesting...

Shyena · Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject:

Interesting indeed.... If you ask me, that is not wrong - hindus studied vedas in their own manner all these generations but only gained delusory knowledge until Swamiji fixed them... the correct explanation is gained only by experience, for no language can explain the transcendental truth - my POV Wink

Shishya · Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:42 am Post subject:

Namaste PD,

I might have found something more substantial. Wink

Rig Veda 10:90:9 states:

tasmaad yajñaat sarvahuta ricah saamaani jajñire |
chandaamsi jajñire tasmaad yajus tasmaada jaayata ||

"From that (tasmaad) great sacrifice (yajãat sarvahuta) the hymns [of the Rig] (lit: ricah) and the verses [of the Saama] (lit: saamaani) were born (jajñire). The charms [of the Atharva] (lit: chandaamsi) were born (jajñire) from that [sacrifice] (tasmaad). The sacrifical lauds [of the Yajur] (lit: yajus) from that [sacrifice] (tasmaada) were [also] brought into being (jaayata)."

The verse definately makes clear reference to four categories of recited material. And the Atharva contains what are commonly referred to as 'chanda' (just as the Rig contains 'ricah', the Saama contains 'saamaa' and the Yajur contains 'yajus'.). Thus, it would seem even the Rig Veda makes mention of all four Vedas.

Perhaps what makes the Atharva unique is that, if it had followed suit with the other three, it would have been named the 'Chaandas' Veda. Instead, it appears to have been named after the priests who were masters in its content and recitation, the Atharvans.

What do you think?

***EDIT: I just realized this is the verse Swamiji was referring to here. Laughing

I need to get some sleep...
_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Shyena · Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject:

Namaste Shishy,
Lol, I was gonna post this hymn today Laughing

EDIT: So it is as I said - a veda for the atharvaan. One thing i know is that the priest is also called brahmaa, thus it is also called brahmaveda.

Atleast my classification wasn't too flawed Very Happy

Shishya · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:29 am Post subject:

Namaste,

As a note, I found a reference in the Rigvedadi Bhashya Bhumika on the meaning of Atharva:

Shyena · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:52 am Post subject:

Namaste,
I encountered these in the site you linked to:
(Rigveda 10-90-9) “Tasmaad Yajyaat Sarvahuta RrichahSaamaani jagyire”
i.e. “God has created the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas”.
(sarvahuta means atharva btw?)

Yajur Veda (31-7) "The Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda were produced by the Supreme and perfect Being, Parabrahman

If the translations are direct, I'm totally satisfied ^_^

There is one thing I can see though; that atharva veda is referred to by many names.
_________________

Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam meditate

Namaste

Shyena · Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject:

Namaste,
Bumping an old thread...
This is what I found in arthashaastra:

Shishya · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject:

Namaste Shyena,

It's rather interesting that you should choose to bump this thread - as I have spent the last two days reading up on this very topic, among other things. Razz

In particular, I have been carefully studying Sri Parmanand's (Ph.D., P.E.S.) editorial introduction to the Rigvadaadi-Bhaashya Bhuumika by Swamiji. (By the way, I cannot recommend this edition highly enough. It is simply superb and is a must for anyone who has even the slightest doubt regarding the orthodoxy and correctness of Swamiji's translations and interpretations.) Sri Parmanand discusses this issue in several places in adequate depth:

First of all, there are three verses from the Samhitas themselves which declare the existence of all four Vedas. These are RV 10:90:9, YV 31:7 and AV 10:7:20. Also, there are numerous references in the Brahmanas and Upanishads to all four Vedas both collectively and singularly by name.

Second, I have discovered that the Itihaasas and Puraanas - such as those referred to in Chandogya Upanishad - are not the Itihaasas and Puraanas of today. Swamiji quotes several references proving that the Brahmanas were originally referred to as Itihaasas and Puraanas (as well as Kalpas and Gaathaas). Actually, these are the different types of information contained in the Brahmanas. (Look under Section 7 of the R.B.B. entitled The Vedas Defined for more.) Therefore, when the Chandogya refers to the 'itihaasapuraanam' (i.e. the Brahmanas) as being the 'fifth' (panchamam), listed directly after the Veda Samhitas, this makes perfect sense, as the Braahmanas are second only to the Samhitas in importance.

Third, the issue as to why there are so many references in the Vedic literature to the 'three Vedas' or the 'three-fold Veda' remains to be clarified. And, as indicated by Parmanand, exactly this is explained in the Purva Mimamsa, Adhyaaya 2, Paada 1, Verses 30-42. The passage is a discussion between the author and an imaginary objector, and the two are debating (1) whether the Brahmanas are to be considered in the same category as the Vedas Samhitas, (2) how to distinguish between Vedas and Brahmanas, and (3) how many types of verses appear in the four Samhitas. In this discussion, it becomes clear that the 'triple Veda' refers to the types of mantras which appear in the Vedas, and not to the number of texts called 'Vedas'. I give a rough translation (strongly borrowing from that of Pandit Mohan Lal Sandal) with a few explanatory notes below: