Text 720292 (164 lines) [W1]
From:     Ramesvara (das) HKS (NJNK - D)
Date:     28-Jul-97 11:27 SST
Refernce: Text 717143 by Caturgati (das) HKS (NE-BBT Russian)
To:       Questions and Answers (Harikesa Swami) [1484]
Cc:       ddgo@juno.com  (sent: 28-Jul-97 11:33 SST)
Subject:  The origin of the Vedic Scriptures
------------------------------------------------------------
I recently asked a similar question to Krsna-ksetra Prabhu and Ekanatha
Prabhu and here´s what they said:

> These are questions which the scholars (both traditional Indian and
> Western) are pondering since centuries!
>
> Regarding the upanisads, yes, they are understood to be "associated" with
> the 4 Vedas, each upanisad from one specific Vedic samhita (Rg veda
> samhita, yajurveda samhita, etc.) I don't know if Vyasa is credited with
> compiling these or not, but they are understood to be revealed by the
> various rsis.
>
> When it comes to historical sequence, it immediately gets sticky. The
> modern scholars of course have their speculations, that "this came before
> that, and that came before the other": for them Rg Veda came first, then
> the other 3, then the Brahmanas, then the Aranyakas, then the Upanisads
> (all based mainly on detecting different styles of language: Hridayananda
> Maharaja says to counter: just like today people write in different styles
> -- poetic, discursive, etc., so also previously. Hence Bhagavatam could be
> contemporary with the 4 Vedas . . . ) Vedangas -- what's available of
> them, are a variety of works by different authors at different times, for
> example Panini wrote his Astadhyayi grammar (vyakarana), they say some
> time around 300 BC, I think. When we speak of "ayurveda" or "dhanurveda",
> these are sort of generic terms for branches of knowledge which find bits
> and pieces throughout vedic literature, beginning with the "original" 4
> and mixed in puranas etc. Here and there will be some compilation by some
> authority. Like there is the Bharata Natyasastra, which deals with drama,
> poetics theory (rasa theory), apparently written by some sage, Bharata.
> Then later (15th c?) Abhinavagupta wrote more on the subject (in addition
> to other things he is more famous for); then Rupa Goswami wrote
> Bhaktirasamrta Sindhu, which even scholars acknowledge as the best
> elaboration on rasa theory.
>
> As for agama-sastra, it is generally considered distinct from "nigama" =
> Veda / upanisads/brahmanas/aranyakas, [nigama-kalpataro galitam phalam: SB
> 1.1.3] and therefore the "smartas" don't accept it at all. But
> Pancaratrika-sastra is a branch of agama, which was accepted by
> Yamunacarya as equal in stature with Veda and vedanta; and Rupa Goswami
> says "sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratra-vidhim vina". . .
>
> "Somewhere" in "my" room there you might find a chart made by Atmatattva
> showing relationships of the various sastras: it was a small booklet, and
> I made it into a seminar (maybe in the "seminars" heft). I could look for
> it when I come there on the 4th of July , and we could discuss some more.
> Hope this helps more than confuses.
>
> Yes, it's ok if you stay there in that room when I come; I can stay in the
> other building.
>
> Your servant, Krsna-ksetra dasa

> > Now what about the 108 Upanisads? Are they different sections of the 4
> > original vedas or are they separate scriptures? If so, when were they
> > compiled?
>
> There is a Vyasa (compiler, one who divides) at the beginning of each kali
> yuga. Sometimes Vyasa is an incarnation of Krsna. Parasara Muni says,
> "Thereafter, during the twenty-eighth manvantara, the Lord in the form of
> my son Vyasa took the one Veda, consisting of four sections, and divided
> it into four separate parts. Just as this intelligent Vyasa divided the
> Veda, previously all other Vyasas, including myself, also divided it. O
> best of the twice-born, understand that in every cycle of four yugas a
> Vyasa comes and arranges the Veda into various branches. But know, O
> Maitreya, that Sri Krsna-dvaipayana Vyasa is Lord Narayana Himself. Who
> else in this world could have written the great epic Mahabharata?"
> (VP.3.4.2-5)
>
> The Upanisads are part of the four Vedas. Very conservative scholars
> would allow only the mantra and the brahmana sections to be called Veda.
> Still, they agree that the Upanisads, with one exception, the Iso, are
> attached to the brahmana section. The Kurma Purana (Parva 52.19-20)
> explains that the four Vedas were divided by Vyasadeva's followers into
> 1,130 branches. Each branch has four subdivisions, known as Samhita
> (Mantra), Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanisad. So in principle there should
> have been 1,130 Upanisads. Nowadays there are only about 11 Samhitas,
> (nine are generally accepted as important or major, and regarded by all
> scholars as actually Vedic), 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads.
>
> In the Twelfth Canto of the SB there is a passage where it is explained
> how Yajnavalkya received the Vajasaneyi recension of the Yajur Veda, by
> worshiping the sun-god as a representative of the Supreme Lord. (om namo
> bhagavate adityayakhila-jagatam atma-svarupena kala-svarupena...). It
> is stated that he received mantras that were even unknown to his spiritual
> master. Now the Isopanisad belongs to the Vajasaneyi recension of the
> white Yajur Veda. Yajnavalkya was a disciple of Vaisampayana, who was a
> direct disciple of Vyasadeva. Of course, it should be understood that he
> could only approach the sun-god with prayers that he had received in
> disciplic succession. But it would be clear from this description that not
> all Upanisads were given by Vyasadeva. However, keep in mind that Vyasa
> is not so much a particular person, but rather a title. So when the
> followers of Sri Krsna-dvaipayana Vyasa assisted him in his work of
> dividing the Vedas, they also became Vyasas. Further, it was only stated
> that Yajnavalkya's mantras were previously unknown in human society, but
> that does not mean that they didn't exist as parts of the Veda.
>
> Before that it is described how the Taittiriya-samhita of the Yajur Veda
> came into existence. Yajnavalkya had learned all these mantras from
> Vaisampayana, who was a disciple of Vyasadeva. Another disciple, Jaimini,
> had received the Chandogya-samhita. Both, Taittiriya and Chandogya are
> names of famous Upanisads. These Upanisads do not belong to the
> samhitas, but it can be assumed that there must have been a Chandogya
> Brahmana and a Taittiriya Brahmana to which the Upanisads were attached.
> One could say that the sages who are named in the Bhagavatam and
> elsewhere, were the ones who received these mantras either directly from
> Vyasadeva of by his mercy from other agencies, and these mantras became
> manifest in human society.
>
> It is also interesting to note that in this section of the SB, the names
> of the disciples and followers of Vyasadeva are given. They are all
> mentioned as persons who took charge of certain sections or branches of
> the Vedas. Their names sound very familiar, in fact, they are the names
> after which many important Upanisads were named: Mandukeya, Sakalya,
> Mudgala, and Jabala.
>
> > The same questions go for the 4 Upa-vedas (Ayur-, Dhanur-, Gandharva-, &
> > Sthapatya-veda) and the 6 Vedangas (Siksa, Vyakarana, Candas, Jyotis,
> > Kalpa & Nirukti).
>
> The same answer as above applies. Only that these scriptures are often
> connected in more indirect ways to the actual Vedas. The Vedangas are
> called Veda because without studying the knowledge of the Vedangas, you
> cannot understand the Vedas. Knowledge of the Vedangas is prerequisite.
> Siksa for example deals with proper pronunciation of the mantras. This was
> taught by the same teacher who would teach the mantra. In fact, each
> school had its own way of pronouncing the mantras. These schools are
> called pratishakas.
>
> The upa-Vedas are even more remotely connected. But still, they are also
> considered revealed knowledge and the rsi who expanded such knowledge can
> be considered Vyasa.
> 
> > And now from Adisesa's Bhakti-yoga book, I learn about the 5 Agamas
> > (Vaikhanasa, Saiva, Sakta, Ganapatya, Surya), which constitute the
> > Upasana-kanda, and two more categories that explain how to practically
> > apply the 4 Vedas: the Brahmanas (for town-dwellers, karma-kanda) and
> > the Aranyakas (for forest-dwellers, jnana-kanda).
> >
> > So for all of these could you tell me if they are actually separately
> > written scriptures or if they are simply parts of something else and
> > when they were compiled?
>
> About Brahmanas and Aranyakas I have explained above. I have never heard
> that the Brahmana section of the Vedas was especially intended for
> town-dwellers. They contained the details of the rituals, the fire
> sacrifices. Where does this town-dweller explanation come from?
>
> The agamas are considered to be sectarian literatures, but not in a
> negative sense. Still, they are more specialized on particular types of
> worship. They are generally not accepted as Vedic in a strict sense. But
> because some of them are based on Vedic material which is then more
> elaborately explained, the connection with the Vedas is also there. May I
> suggest that the term Vaikanasa is misspelled? It should be Vaikhanasa.
> Srila Prabhupada is mentioning five steps of spiritual evolution,
> (661202BG.NY), and elsewhere he is also listing five deities in the
> following sequence, Sakti, Surya, Ganapati, Siva and Visnu, (JAMES.SYA).
>
> Your servant,
> Ekanatha dasa

But it would be interesting to see if Hrdayananda Maharaja or Garuda Prabhu
have anything to add.

ys Ramesvara dasa.
(Text 720292) ----------------------------------------------