2

As we all know back in the past there existed many different śākhās ("branches" or "recensions") of various Vedas. For example, in the case of the Rigveda, the pariśiṣṭa ("supplement") of the Yajurveda mentions five śākhās of the Rigveda, these are Śākala, Bāṣkala, Aśvalāyana, Śaṅkhāyana and Māṇḍukāyana. Meanwhile the pariśiṣṭa of the Atharvaveda lists seven śākhās and according to Patanjali there were twenty one, although the last number reflects the number of schools that taught the Rigveda, not the number of recensions of the Rigveda.[1] As of today, only two śākhās are extant, these would be the Śākala and the Bāṣkala, and of these two only the Śākala has survived in its entirety.[2]

Now a widely held belief among Hindus is that the Vedas are the source of dharma, an important concept in Hinduism which instructs us about how we are supposed to conduct ourselves, differentiate between righteous and unrighteous action, know what is beneficial for us and what is not, and so on.[3] And yet not only are the Vedas not fully extant but they also exist in different recensions. And while some parts of two recensions can be nearly identical, other parts can be entirely different from one another. For example in case of the Śākala and Bāṣkala recensions of the Rigveda, the Samhitas of both recensions are nearly the same but the Upanishads are completely different.[4]

So are we supposed to regard all the different recensions as the source of dharma, or is a particular recension the true source of dharma and the others are not?

Sources:

[1] Stephanie W. Jamison, Joel P. Brereton, The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India (2014), Oxford University Press, pg 16

[2] Sures Chandra Banerji, A Companion To Sanskrit Literature Second Edition (1989), Motilal Banarsidass, pg 300–301

[3] Grimes, John A, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy (1996), State University of New York Press, pg 113

[4] CG Kashikar, Rig Veda Mantra Samhita Part V (2018), Sri Aurobindo Kapali Sastry Institute of Vedic Culture, Preface

Abhi
  • 109
  • 7
  • 2
    All recessions of the Veda are valid as they too qualify as divine knowledge revealed by the Rishis. Secondly, no scriptural text states only a single recession of a single Veda is the ultimate authority & all other versions are false. This Rgveda-centric 'monoVedic' interpretation of Hinduism is mostly a legacy of the British, which to some part is carried on by the Arya Samaj. – অনু Jan 19 '23 at 15:12
  • @AnubrataBit Interesting. As a follow up, are we allowed to follow a particular recension and ignore the rest (whilst still regarding them as valid)? For example, let's say I chose four recensions of the four vedas and ignored the rest, would that be a valid thing to do, from a Vedic standpoint? – Abhi Jan 19 '23 at 16:48
  • 1
    I would agree with Anubrata that all śākhās are valid sources even though there may be differences. You can follow a particular śākhā, and there's nothing wrong in that. Sāyaṇa and Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara only chose a specific śākhās for commentary. Śaṅkara chose the Br̥hadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad of just one śākhā for commentary. – Bingming Jan 19 '23 at 16:49
  • 2
    @Abhi Btw, looking at the amount of the treasure that we have already lost, we don't have much to ignore! – Pandya Jan 19 '23 at 16:58
  • 1
    That's right @Pandya . We have little to ignore in the current scenario. Most of śākhās are already lost or extinct. – Bingming Jan 19 '23 at 17:15
  • @Pandya Yes I understand that point. It's just that I as an ordinary person would have to spend a lot of time to read all the existing recensions so I was wondering if it's valid for me to only follow a particular recension. – Abhi Jan 19 '23 at 17:32
  • 1
    You can't cherrypick the śākhā as per your whim. Brahmins are expected to adhere their patrilineal śākhā. By the term śākhā, it includes the samhitā, kalpa & pariśisthas, which deal with the rituals aspects. However there was no prohibition on learning other śākhās for academic purposes, as evidenced by surnames like Dvivedi, Trivedi & Chaturvedi. Abandoning one's family śākhā in favour of another raises eyebrows in the community, such a person is known as śākhāraṇda. However it doesn't a public atonement or punishment, so this phenomenon has occurred in various times of history – অনু Jan 20 '23 at 07:04
  • 1
    For example, Atharvavedi brahmins were for a long time considered inferior in status by other brahmins(Medhatithi infact had to defend the status of Atharvaveda in his bhāsya of Manu). So in case of scarcity or extinction of the line of local Ātharvaṇa ácāryas, Atharvavedi brahmins had switched over to other Vaidika śākhās for survival. Similarly Kaśmīrī Pandits are reportedly abandoning the Kapisthala śākhā of Krsnayajurveda practised by their ancestors in favour of the Madhyandina śākhā of Śuklayajurveda practised by North Indian brahmins in order to secure priesthood. – অনু Jan 20 '23 at 07:15
  • @AnubrataBit That's very informative. If I could ask another question, how does a Brahmin who belongs to a particular śākhā and desires to study all four Vedas decide which other śākhās he should study. For example, let's say a Brahmin belonging to Śākala śākhā of the Rigveda wants to study the other three Vedas, how does he decide which śākhā of the Samaveda, Yajurveda and Atharvaveda he should study? – Abhi Jan 20 '23 at 07:57
  • 1
    I am not a brahmin so I can't say about it but it is more likely influenced by the śākhā followed by the majority brahmins in the area. – অনু Jan 20 '23 at 13:53
  • @AnubrataBit Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Also I would like to thank you for sharing so much valuable information with me. I'm also not a Brahmin so a lot of this is new for me. – Abhi Jan 20 '23 at 13:55
  • your question is asking for opinions – Swami Vishwananda Jan 21 '23 at 05:57
  • 1
    Although the question is opinion based, I don't find personally any problem with it, it's a genuine question. – Bingming Jan 21 '23 at 20:46

0 Answers0