Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:02 am

(1) Regarding the four Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sam and Atharva), according to Para. 1 in http://creative.sulekha.com/veda-s-interesting-things-i-found-out-from-a-book-today_609663_blog, most of the important ancient Hindu scriptural texts (including the Gita, e.g. in Ch. 9 - V. 17) don't even consider the Atharva Veda as a genuine Veda and mention only the first three as the Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sam), and perhaps for a good reason (as indicated in the following), "Compatibility of a text (on Hinduism) with the Srutis" ...
http://creative.sulekha.com/compatibility-of-a-text-on-hinduism-with-the-srutis_599277_blog

(2) It is just a speculation (Veda Vyasa asking his four students to divide one Veda into four) on the part of some people about the origin of four Vedas, like some 'learned' people these days think that God inspired four rishis (sages) one night to write four Vedas. The truth is that the Atharva Veda is / was never considered (referred to) as the genuine Veda in the ancient Hindu texts.

(3) If Veda Vyasa had anything to do with the Atharva Veda including its origin, as Dr. J. Manohar seems to suggest, then Veda Vyasa as the author / compiler of the Gita (Ch. 18 - V. 75) would have also included Atharva Veda in the list of the Vedas in the Gita (e.g. Ch. 9-V.17) where he lists only the Rig, Yajur and Sam Vedas. Considering Veda Vyasa did not do that (list Atharva Veda as a Veda in Ch. 9 - V. 17 of the Gita), the speculation about Veda Vyasa dividing the original one Veda into four Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sam and Atharva) has little merit.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:32 pm

Well, Rks are the real Veda. Even Yajur and Sama are just elaborations and applications of the Rks.

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:45 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Well, Rks are the real Veda. Even Yajur and Sama are just elaborations and applications of the Rks.

True. That's the reason all other texts in Hinduism are required to be in agreement with the Rig Veda (which has the highest precedence).

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:24 am

Incidentally, Adi Sanakra (only about 1300 years ago) also makes no mention of the Atharva Veda as a Veda in his Vedantic commentaries where he clearly talks about Rig, Yajur and Sama as Vedas (or three Vedas), which indicates that adding (and perhaps the origin of) Atharva Veda as the fourth Veda probably started relatively recently (in the last 1000 years or so).

by Developing Mind Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:43 am

People who do lot of thinking, miss out on "action."

Adi Sankarachary established "four" mutts for "four vedas".

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:34 am

Developing Mind wrote:People who do lot of thinking, miss out on "action."

Adi Sankarachary established "four" mutts for "four vedas".

That's the biggest B.S. Next, you might say "four" castes represent "four vedas".

by Developing Mind Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:51 am

Sir,

I am not a learned man like you. Please don't get angry. I am trying to learn. Also, I can only keep things simple as far as my understanding goes. I have seen Youtube videos of an Indian guru who says Lord Rama might have rejected Atharva Veda practices, but in another video he adds Mahabharata does have some of the practices. So my conclusion is that Atharva Veda may have regained ground in Lord Krishna's time. Also, Doesn't Adi Sankaracharya praise Veda Vyasa(who if I am not mistaken belonged to Lord Krishna's time) as "Purana Muni?" Doesn't Muni mean "the silent one."

Muni = maunam aacarati iti munih = one who maintains the vow of silence to prevent distraction during his tapas (Yahoo! reply)

As in some one who falls silent so he can listen to the Vedas(Sounds)?

I read somewhere "Bhavam veda saaram" which I think means Lord Shiva is the essence of Vedas.

Sankaraa Naadha Shareeraa paraa meaning Siva! The wonderful form of the primordial Sound!

Sorry if I haven't made myself clear.

by Seva Lamberdar Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:47 am

Developing Mind wrote:Sir,

I am not a learned man like you. Please don't get angry. I am trying to learn. Also, I can only keep things simple as far as my understanding goes. I have seen Youtube videos of an Indian guru who says Lord Rama might have rejected Atharva Veda practices, but in another video he adds Mahabharata does have some of the practices. So my conclusion is that Atharva Veda may have regained ground in Lord Krishna's time. Also, Doesn't Adi Sankaracharya praise Veda Vyasa(who if I am not mistaken belonged to Lord Krishna's time) as "Purana Muni?" Doesn't Muni mean "the silent one."

Muni = maunam aacarati iti munih = one who maintains the vow of silence to prevent distraction during his tapas (Yahoo! reply)

As in some one who falls silent so he can listen to the Vedas(Sounds)?

I read somewhere "Bhavam veda saaram" which I think means Lord Shiva is the essence of Vedas.

Sankaraa Naadha Shareeraa paraa meaning Siva! The wonderful form of the primordial Sound!

Sorry if I haven't made myself clear.

Veda Vyasa, as the compiler of the Bhagavad Gita (according to Ch. 18 of the Gita), makes no mention of the Atharva Veda while he talks about Rig Veda, Yajur veda and Sam Veda (in Ch. 9 etc. of the Gita).

Similarly, in his commentary on the Gita, Adi Sankara makes no mention of the Atharva Veda while he writes about (refers to) Rig Veda, Yajur Veda and Sam Veda.

In other words, there is no reason to tie the names of Vyasa and Sankaracharya with the Atharva Veda, which either did not exist during their times or was considered of little (no) significance by them, considering both of them fail to mention the name of Atharva veda in their compilations.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:34 pm

Here is another comment (in red and italics) and my response to it in the following about Atharva Veda (from Sulekha.com).

"Although 'Atharva Veda' is termed the 'fourth Veda' in the usual order of enumeration after Rig Veda, Yajur Veda and Sama Veda, the historical analysis ofAtharva Vedashows that it is as old (if not older) than Rig Veda!

"Some of theAtharva Vedahymns are suspected to be older than the oldest Rig Vedic hymns!

"Tamil scholars date 'atharvanas' to periods of time before the Rig Veda!"

My response:

Please forget about Atharva Veda being as old as the Rig Veda. Atharva Veda most likely did not exist even during Adi Sankara's time (13 or 14 centuries ago). Adi Sankara makes no mention of Atharva Veda in his commentaries and writings, while he refers frequently in his works to Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda, Bhagavad Gita, Upanisads etc. Even the Bhagavad Gita, which supposedly is a post-Vedic text, also makes no mention of Atharva Veda, although it talks about Rig, Yajur and Sam Vedas in a number of hymns.

As for Tamil scholars dating 'atharvans' to periods of time before the Rig Veda to imply that Atharva Veda is as old as Rig Veda, that is highly misleading. Atharvan was a great sage mentioned in the Rig Veda. Using Vedic sage Atharvan's name rather recently (in the last millennium, after Adi Sankara's time probably as I indicated above) was most likely done to push someone else's work as Atharvan's, so as to make it more acceptable to public as "Atharva Veda". It does not make "Atharva Veda" genuinely Atharvan or as old as Rig Veda, even if it might have some of the hymns from the ancient Rig Veda and uses the name / title of Rig Vedic sage Atharvan.

More on this in "Compatibility of a text with the Srutis" (2006): http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/sruti_compatibility.html

by Sponsored content

Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?

Re: Is Atharva Veda a genuine Veda and did sage Vyasa have anything to do with its origin as the Veda?