[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Sukla Yajur Veda vs. Krsna Yajur Veda
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Sukla Yajur Veda vs. Krsna Yajur Veda
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 14 Jun 1995 00:05:00 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Tue Jun 13 19: 53:38 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <3rij7l$gg1@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Anand Sethuraman wrote -
> This topic has bugged me for a while and I wanted to get your learned
> opinions. Which samhita, the one of the Sukla Yajur Veda or Krsna Yajur
> Veda do people consider to be the superior one or the one more original.
In the Yajur Veda, both the Krishna and the Sukla versions are remarkably
congruent in their mantra portions. Significant differences can be found
only in the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads of the two. Otherwise, it
is just a question of arrangement of the material within the Veda that
causes this distinction. Traditionally, there has been no question of
superiority of one yajus over the other. There is a geographical
distribution of followers of the two versions. Typically, Yajur Vedis from
the south belong to the Krishna Yajus and those from the north belong to
the Sukla Yajus.
> I know how the story goes about Krsna Yajur Veda being a kind of
> secret intellectual revolt by certain students, but this doesn't explain
> why some follow one recension and not the other.
For some thousands of years now, it has been the practice that people
follow one or the other recension of their Veda. Even within the Sukla
Yajus, there are two important Sakhas, the Madhyandina and the Kanva.
Similarly there are the Taittiriya, Maitrayaniya and Katha in the Krishna
Yajus, and the Saunaka and the Paippalada recensions of the Atharva Veda.
The story about the "revolt" is about the Sukla Yajur Veda, not the
Krishna Yajus. Even here, revolt is a far-fetched interpretation of the
actual story. The legend goes that Yajnavalkya was concerned that the
Yajur Veda was getting corrupted over time, and prayed to Surya to reveal
the correct Veda to him. Consequently, the Yajur Veda, as it existed
before, became known as the Krishna (dark) Yajus and Yajnavalkya's
redaction was called the Sukla (white) Yajus. Apparently, Yajnavalkya's
concern about the corruption was not shared by other teachers in his time,
(it was possibly rejected by other teachers) and both versions have
therefore come down to us. The most that can be said is that there must
have been rivalry between various Vedic schools, who each followed their
own versions, but to label it a secret intellectual revolt is somewhat
unwarranted. Some Western scholars would go to the extent of calling the
whole of the Sukla Yajus as Yajnavalkya's creation, but the fact remains
that one man's work would never have achieved the status of a Veda, in the
eyes of the Brahmanas some thousands of years ago.
Both Krishna and Sukla Yajur Vedas are accorded equal status as Sruti,
traditionally. There have been no claims of superiority of one over the
other. To quote famous examples, among the later philosophers, Kumarila
Bhatta, the Purva Mimamsaka, and Sankara, the Vedantin, were both Krishna
Yajur Vedis, their disciple Viswaroopa/Suresvara was a Sukla Yajur Vedi.
> I also understand that
> Sukla Yajur Veda and Krsna Yajur Veda are followed by descedants of
> different sages, but again, it does not explain which one is the true
> Yajur Veda. There cannot be two, or can there?
The question does not arise. The Krishna Yajus and the Sukla Yajus are
both true, both to their own followers and to others, say Rg Vedis. In
summary, there can be and there are two versions of the Yajur Veda,
Krishna and Sukla. Within each version, there are minor differences among
various Sakhas. Whole passages of the BrhadAraNyaka upanishad differ
between the Kanva and the Madhyandina Sakhas of the Sukla Yajur Veda. But
such differences do not faze the students of the Veda.
S. Vidyasankar
