Veda - When It Was One

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste


The Vedas are considered apaurusheya shabda or not of human composition;unauthored by humans i.e. they were revealed to mankind, and thus are called śruti or heard ( cognized) by the rishis.

I have been taught that the 4 vedas [Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda] were all one back in earlier yugas. As kali yuga came upon humanity Ved Vayasa muni ( Sri Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa, son of Parasara muni) then divided up the vedas accordingly for comprehension and use.
I also have been taught that the oldest of all the vedas is the Rig Veda.

Yet I have read the orginal veda when it was one was Yajurveda and pondered this information. I have no reason to support this view as yet but ask others if they can refer me to a sloka or shastra that informs me that when the veda was one, was it known as the Rig or the Yajur veda?

Your thoughts on this is apprecited.

pranams

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Yajvan

I a not a authority in the Vedas and to be quite sincere I haven't had the opportunity to read them all!
Never the less I find your question very opportune as recently I have bin dealing with Yajur Veda and have done some readings on the Rig Veda.
My point is in answering to your question that the Rig is the One Veda as Yajur Veda deals with duality, that is Darkness and Light. Being the Rig Veda Advaita, that is self explained while the Yajur is explained to the Self for the sake of its salvation. In the Rig the Self shines as the One and is already saved.

I have heard that the Original One Veda was lost or divided trough the decadence of ages. May be you or somebody else could tell which Veda corresponds with which age? If the Rig was the all complete One in Satya Yuga then the first division give rise to which Veda or Vedas? The Yajur as it deals with duality?

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste nuno,
thank you for your reply... perhaps once we see what others have to offer on the original question we can take up a conversation of the Yajur Veda.

I have been reading the Krishna Yajur¹ Veda ( Taittiriya Samhita) Kanda 1 and 2.

There are some that think Krishna Yajur Veda is so called because the mantras and brahamanas are co-mingled so throughly that it causes confusion and therefore considered dark. Some even call this bhuddhi-mālina or confounding the intellect/mind.

As opposed to the Sukla Yajur Veda where there is seperatation. With the Krishna Yajur Veda the devata, rshi and chhandas are not called out for the slokas, again this co-mingling.

Yet is my opinion after reading information from S.K.Ramachandra Rao and R.L. Kashyap there is more to this then meets the eye of White (sukla) and dark (krisna). More later, so we do not de-rail the initial post request, okay?

pranams

1. Yajur from its root yaj - to consecrate , hallow, to invite/offer sacrifice; to desire to sacrifice or worship. Hence has much to do with yajya - worshipping and sacrifice.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Yajvan

" My point is in answering to your question that the Rig is the One Veda as Yajur Veda deals with duality..."

And as historical evidences expose. Being the oldest and most concise Veda the Rig Veda and the other's over time conserved conjured shruti of Vedic culture. Like ritual, prayers, mantras, magical formulas, and sacrifices. That wore passed trough the ages from father to son; or from mother to son, somebody knows? And conserved as a cultural treasure and reference.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~

And as historical evidences expose. Being the oldest and most concise Veda the Rig Veda and the other's over time conserved conjured shruti of Vedic culture.

Namaste nuno,
yes, I do not doubt your assessment here. I was in hopes of some sloka that pointed out that the Rig veda was the collection of all the other vedas.

As I understand it the mula-veda ( or root veda) had an uninterrupted flow of rchah (stuti - praise), the hymms. It is my understanding that all of the Sama Veda Samhita is contained in the Rig Veda. And there is ~ 25% of the Yajur Veda Samhita and Atharva Veda found in the Rig Veda.

That being so suggests that every mantra of samhita being one of 3 types: rik ( some write rk), yajus or sama. Hence the Rig Veda has only rk mantra, Sama Veda has only sama, the Atharva Veda has rk, yet the Yajur Veda has has a combination of rk and yajur mantras.

Tradition holds he veda was one in the krta yuga, became 3 in treta and finally 4 in dvapara.

So the question is, who then said that Yajur Veda is the original?
Sāyaṇācārya (circa 1300). His works, Vedartha Prakasha or the meaning of the Vedas made manifest, his commentaries on the Vedas.

He suggested the Yajur Veda was more basic ( hence core) then the other two; it is like a canvas on with the Rik and Sama are painted, was his orientation.

The books I read take issue with many of the word interpretations of Sayana, a Mimamsakha. RL Kashyap, T.V. Kapali Shastri, Sri Aurobindo. S.K. Ramachandra Rao, and the like use many resources to get to the word view with the most insightful meanings.. They reference Yaska work ( from ~ 200 B.C.) as a data point, yet go to the core of the words, compare and contrast their use, etc.

I have read some of Sāyaṇācārya's works. As it is flowing and beautiful, my skills are not that of being able to debate the word structure and foundations' accuracy, as the likes of RL Kashyap, T.V. Kapali Shastri, Sri Aurobindo¹. S.K. Ramachandra Rao, and look to their insights.

What are they comparing ? they look to the word use for adhiyajya (ritual) + adhidaiva ( with regard to devata) + adhyatma ( or spiritual ~ esoteric) meanings. Hence the etymological view of the word and its applications.


pranams

1. It is unfortunate that T.V. Kapali Shastri and Sri Aurobindo are no longer with us on this good earth. Yet their knowledge remains in the books they have authored.

[Sahasranama]

The division of the vedas is discussed in the Vishnu Purana. Also of interest is the story of Yajnavalkya in the fifth chapter of book 3.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp078.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp079.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp080.htm

[rainycity]

yajvan what is your opinion on the historical context of the yugas? when did the kali yuga begin?

[atanu]

Hari Om
Namaste nuno,
yes, I do not doubt your assessment here. I was in hopes of some sloka that pointed out that the Rig veda was the collection of all the other vedas.

As I understand it the mula-veda ( or root veda) had an uninterrupted flow of rchah (stuti - praise), the hymms. It is my understanding that all of the Sama Veda Samhita is contained in the Rig Veda. And there is ~ 25% of the Yajur Veda Samhita and Atharva Veda found in the Rig Veda.

That being so suggests that every mantra of samhita being one of 3 types: rik ( some write rk), yajus or sama. Hence the Rig Veda has only rk mantra, Sama Veda has only sama, the Atharva Veda has rk, yet the Yajur Veda has has a combination of rk and yajur mantras.

Tradition holds he veda was one in the krta yuga, became 3 in treta and finally 4 in dvapara.

So the question is, who then said that Yajur Veda is the original?
Sāyaṇācārya (circa 1300). His works, Vedartha Prakasha or the meaning of the Vedas made manifest, his commentaries on the Vedas.

He suggested the Yajur Veda was more basic ( hence core) then the other two; it is like a canvas on with the Rik and Sama are painted, was his orientation.

The books I read take issue with many of the word interpretations of Sayana, a Mimamsakha. RL Kashyap, T.V. Kapali Shastri, Sri Aurobindo. S.K. Ramachandra Rao, and the like use many resources to get to the word view with the most insightful meanings.. They reference Yaska work ( from ~ 200 B.C.) as a data point, yet go to the core of the words, compare and contrast their use, etc.

I have read some of Sāyaṇācārya's works. As it is flowing and beautiful, my skills are not that of being able to debate the word structure and foundations' accuracy, as the likes of RL Kashyap, T.V. Kapali Shastri, Sri Aurobindo¹. S.K. Ramachandra Rao, and look to their insights.

What are they comparing ? they look to the word use for adhiyajya (ritual) + adhidaiva ( with regard to devata) + adhyatma ( or spiritual ~ esoteric) meanings. Hence the etymological view of the word and its applications.

Namaste Yajvanji

As I understand, the Veda is undivided every night when we sleep and gets divided differently for different people as we wake up. For most, the Veda (the knowledge) simply becomes flesh and stones. However, the references cited by Sahsranama indeed says that originally the whole mass of worship (yaj) constitute the "yajus", which Vyasa, on command of brahmA, divides into four books that describe four varities of sacrifices.

Brihadaraynaka U.
I-ii-1: There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was covered only by Death (Hiranyagarbha), or Hunger, for hunger is death. He created the mind, thinking, ‘Let me have a mind’. He moved about worshipping (himself).
------
I-ii-5: He thought, ‘If I kill him, I shall be making very little food.’ Through that speech and the mind he projected all this, whatever there is – the Vedas Rig, Yajus and Saman, the metres, the sacrifices, men and animals.

-----------------------------------

Because the origin of all began with Prajapati worshipping Himself in mind, it is reasonable to assume that all this is Yajus alone. However, the words and their meanings surely part ways after some usage and thus when it is said that originally the undivided Veda is Yajus, I think, the present day divided Yajus is not meant. What is meant, I think, is the primeval worship of Prajapati, which is cause of differentiation but which in itself is one Yaj-worship (or yoga).

Om Namah Shivaya

[akshayp]

In the satyayuga, the veda was one, that is to say, potentially present in the single syllable of praNava (bhAgavata purANa 11.21.35-42). The mANDukya and other upaniShad-s also support this idea.

[Mohit sharma]

Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste nuno,
yes, I do not doubt your assessment here. I was in hopes of some sloka that pointed out that the Rig veda was the collection of all the other vedas.

As I understand it the mula-veda ( or root veda) had an uninterrupted flow of rchah (stuti - praise), the hymms. It is my understanding that all of the Sama Veda Samhita is contained in the Rig Veda. And there is ~ 25% of the Yajur Veda Samhita and Atharva Veda found in the Rig Veda.

That being so suggests that every mantra of samhita being one of 3 types: rik ( some write rk), yajus or sama. Hence the Rig Veda has only rk mantra, Sama Veda has only sama, the Atharva Veda has rk, yet the Yajur Veda has has a combination of rk and yajur mantras.

Tradition holds he veda was one in the krta yuga, became 3 in treta and finally 4 in dvapara.

So the question is, who then said that Yajur Veda is the original?
Sāyaṇācārya (circa 1300). His works, Vedartha Prakasha or the meaning of the Vedas made manifest, his commentaries on the Vedas.

He suggested the Yajur Veda was more basic ( hence core) then the other two; it is like a canvas on with the Rik and Sama are painted, was his orientation.

The books I read take issue with many of the word interpretations of Sayana, a Mimamsakha. RL Kashyap, T.V. Kapali Shastri, Sri Aurobindo. S.K. Ramachandra Rao, and the like use many resources to get to the word view with the most insightful meanings.. They reference Yaska work ( from ~ 200 B.C.) as a data point, yet go to the core of the words, compare and contrast their use, etc.

I have read some of Sāyaṇācārya's works. As it is flowing and beautiful, my skills are not that of being able to debate the word structure and foundations' accuracy, as the likes of RL Kashyap, T.V. Kapali Shastri, Sri Aurobindo¹. S.K. Ramachandra Rao, and look to their insights.

What are they comparing ? they look to the word use for adhiyajya (ritual) + adhidaiva ( with regard to devata) + adhyatma ( or spiritual ~ esoteric) meanings. Hence the etymological view of the word and its applications.


pranams

1. It is unfortunate that T.V. Kapali Shastri and Sri Aurobindo are no longer with us on this good earth. Yet their knowledge remains in the books they have authored.

pranam, it is too late but i want some suggestions so please help me whatever i have read that gives me a conclusion that some part of athrva veda is older than rhigra veda is it true please help me