[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Ram Garib wrote:

>
> Tradition holds that veda was one in satyuga and was
> known as mula-veda. See Acharya Madhwa's bhashya on
> atharvana upanishad(1.3) below:
>
> "mUlaveda iti hyAkhyA kAle kR^itayuge tadA"
>
> In the treta-yuga, Lord in the form of
> Hayagriva divided the mUla-veda based on poetry,
> prose and svara/music -- Rik, Nigada and sAma. I
> believe this is the explanation generally given about
> mention of trayi-vidya in scriptures.
>

Needless to say we don't accept Madhva's interpretations as an 
authoritative source of our tradition.  We do agree that originally Veda 
was undifferentiated and its present shape is due to Maharshi Krshna 
Dvaipayana called Veda Vyasa

> In dvapara, Lord in the form of veda vyasa is supposed
> to have extracted a few rik-s from rig Veda, yajus
> from the Nigada, and sAma from sAmaveda. However, here
> also I have not seen atharvana mentioned seaparately.
>

See for example Vishnu Purana 3.6.  Maharshi Sumantu was given the 
Atharvaveda.

> If atharvaNangirasau is taken as a school of veda,
> then how do we explain angiras' quarrel with upholders
> of trayi vidya,

What is your source for this?

> since presumably, everything would
> have been covered in rik, nigada and sama. Isn't it?
>

Actually the contents of the Atharvaveda are rks and substantially the 
same as the Rgveda.  This why I'm thinking a seperate editorial process 
(but not so different as to drive AV out of the canon altogether) is the 
best explanation.

The Rshis were often quarrelsome and temperamental (look how many times 
in our shastras some hapless person gets cursed or some demon gets a boon 
and starts causing mayhem) but its a stretch to draw too many conclusions 
from this I think.


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>