1

Almost all Acharyas divide the Vedas into two parts: Karma Kand (as explained by the Purva Mimamsa sutras) and the Jnana Kand (Uttara Mimamsa sutras, aka Brahma Sutras). The Samhitas and Brahmanas texts form Karma Kand, and Upanishads and Aranyakas form the Jnana Kand. The Karma Kand deals with rituals and worship of Devas, and Jnana Kand deals with Brahman and Moksha.

But since Moksha is more important than rituals and temporary material fruits, why are the Vedas overwhelmingly focused on the Karma Kand portion? The Samhitas and Brahmanas section make up the bulk of the Vedas, and not the Aranyakas or Upanishads.

Is this because most traditions and lineages have retained the Karma Kand portion more rigorously than the Jnana Kand? There are only 13 or so major Upanishads that have been preserved well, and the rest of the 108 haven't. So, if the full 108 Upanishads were properly retained, would they be equal to or be larger than the Karma Kand portion?

More of the Jnana related texts are found in the Smritis: Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu Purana, and Bhagavata Purana.

Sarvabhouma
  • 25,803
  • 11
  • 123
  • 202
Ikshvaku
  • 22,130
  • 2
  • 39
  • 116
  • 1
    Each of the four Vedas has many different Shakhas or recensions. Each Shakha has one Samhita, one Brahmana, one Aranyaka, and one Upanishad. Most Shakhas are lost, we only have two surviving Shakhas of the Rig Veda, for instance. Only a few of the Upanishads are from Shakhas which we still have, like Isha, Brihadaranyaka, Taittiriya, Chandogya, Katha, and Kena. Most other Upanishads are either from lost Shakhas, or from unknown Shakhas, or in some cases are not authentic Upanishads at all. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 25 '17 at 23:29
  • 1
    Now if we had more Shakhas, we might have more Upanishads that we don't currently have, but it wouldn't alter the relative lengths of the Karma Kanda and the Jnana Kanda. Now as to why the Jnana Kanda is shorter than the Karma Kanda, I would make two points. First of all, the Vedas are Apaurusheya or authorless, and in some sense it's meaningless to ask why an authorless text is the way it is. (If it had an author then the answer would lie in what the author intended, although I discuss here how Mimamsakas understood intention in authorless texts: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/16772/36) – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 25 '17 at 23:51
  • 1
    In any case, the relative lengths of the Karma Kanda and the Jnana Kanda might be related to the nature of the fruits obtained through these two parts of the Vedas. There are three kinds of happiness: Aihikam or happiness in this world, Amushmikam or happiness in Swarga, and Nihshreyasam or happiness in Moksha. Aihikam is temporary and mixed with sorrow, Amushmikam is unmixed with sorrow but still temporary, and Nihsreyasam is both unmixed with sorrow and eternal. Following the Karma Kanda is what yields Aihikam and Amushmikam, and following the Jnana Kanda is what yields Nihshreyasam. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 26 '17 at 00:33
  • How come those Upanishads are not authoritative? And doesn't Apaurasheya mean "not of human origin," meaning, it's still authored by God? – Ikshvaku Oct 26 '17 at 01:02
  • 1
    Now Aihikam comes in many forms: obtaining a son, acquiring wealth, becoming king, getting magical powers, etc. Similarly Amushmikam comes in many forms like going to Swarga, freedom of movement in Swarga, and rulership of Swarga. So there are many different Yagnas to give these different kinds of fruits. But Nihsreyasam comes in only one form, namely Moksha, and you only need to do one thing to get it: know Brahman. Brahma Sutras Adhyaya 3 Pada 3 makes clear that the Brahmavidyas in different Upanishads are interchangeable/combinable in meditation. So Jnana Kanda doesn't need to be as long. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 26 '17 at 01:37
  • 1
    "How come those Upanishads are not authoritative?" What Upanishads? All genuine Upanishads are authoritative. Of course, you could have a text that is just written by later people which is wrongly claimed to be an Upanishad. "And doesn't Apaurasheya mean "not of human origin," meaning, it's still authored by God?" No, at least the Purva Mimamsa school and the Vedanta school say that the Vedas are absolutely authorless, i.e. not even authored by Brahman. It's only the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools (and some Shaivite and Shweta sects) that say that God is the author of the Vedas. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 26 '17 at 01:44
  • 1
    In fact that's one of the fundamental things that distinguish the Vedanta school from the other Astika schools. For instance, the Vaisheshika school first uses Anumana to try to prove the existence of God, then tries to show that the Vedas are authored by God, and then uses that to try to prove the Pramanya (authoritativeness) of the Vedas. The Vedanta school, on the other hand, believes that you first need to establish the Pramanya and Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas (through the arguments of Adhyaya 1 Pada 1 of the Purva Mimamsa Sutras), and then use the Vedas to prove the existence of Brahman. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 26 '17 at 01:55
  • Sorry, I meant how come some Upanishads are not authentic? You say, "or in some cases are not authentic Upanishads at all." Is it because like you say, someone writes it and then wrongly attributes it to an Upanishad? But isn't this deceptive or malevolent? And how do you know those Upanishads are not authentic for that reason? – Ikshvaku Oct 26 '17 at 02:48
  • Yeah, I was talking about texts someone writes and then attributes it to the Upanishads. One way to detect fake Upanishads is to see if they're listed in the Muktika Upanishad. If they are mentioned in the Muktika Upanishad, then they may or may not be authentic, but if they're not mentioned then they're almost certainly not authentic; see my answer here: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/3012/36 And yes, it's definitely deceptive. Muslims have even created an "Allah Upanishad" to try to convert Hindus to Islam. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 26 '17 at 02:52
  • Wow, but in that post you also say, "This wasn't done maliciously; it was just students innocently thinking that the text they had received was incomplete, since they were aware of supposed Upanishads which were not mentioned." So Upanishads are authentic basically if they were part of Vedavyasa's classification of Vedas? – Ikshvaku Oct 26 '17 at 03:06
  • But aren't Samhitas the only revealed part of the Vedas? Upanishads don't seem revealed, but seem like composed scriptures about a teaching. – Ikshvaku Oct 26 '17 at 03:08
  • 1
    No, the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads are all Apaurusheya (at least according to most Hindus other than Arya Samaj people). The Upanishads refer to various stories, but that's just because these stories keep happening in every creation as discussed in Adhyaya 1 Pada 3 of the Brahma Sutras. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 26 '17 at 03:43
  • But then why do some people claim that only Samhitas are the revealed portions? What do they base it off of? – Ikshvaku Oct 26 '17 at 03:45
  • Well, there's two main groups who claim that the Samhitas are older than the rest of the Vedas: Arya Samaj and Western Indologists. Western Indologists say it on the basis of the fact that the Brahmanas discuss how to employ the verses of the Samhitas in Yagnas, so they assume that the Brahmanas came later. And as far as the motives of Arya Samaj goes, I think it stems from their belief that the Vedas are all about praising the one true God, and it's harder to argue that when you're faced with descriptions of rituals dedicated to Indra and Agni and the like. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 26 '17 at 03:59
  • 1
    Elaboration of various rituals and ceremonials. – Pandya Oct 26 '17 at 15:01
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Oh ok I see. And western Indologists also claim that some of the major Upanishads (like Kaushitaki) have had some interpolations based on some differences in manuscripts, is that true? – Ikshvaku Oct 26 '17 at 15:31

0 Answers0