As per Dr Ambedkar, atleast 11 contradicting explanations are available on the origin of vedas which he detailed in his book "Riddles in Hinduism". These are his findings.

(1) as originating from the mystical sacrifice of Purusha - Rig veda purusha suktam

(2) as resting on Skambha - Atharva veda

(3) as cut or scraped off from him, as being his hair and his mouth - Atharva veda

(4) as springing from Indra - Atharva veda

(5) as produced from Time - Atharva veda

(6) as produced from Agni, Vayu and Surya,

(7) as springing from Prajapati, and the Waters - Satapatha brahmana

(8) as being the breath of Brahma - Manu smriti

(9) as being dug by the Gods out of mind-ocean - Manu smriti

(10) as being the hair of Prajapati's beard - Taitteriya brahmana

(11) as being the offspring of Vac - Brihadaranyaka upanishad.

Can anyone here clarify what is the Truth and why these contradictions are there regarding such a simple question?

  • 1
    Vedas are eternal and have no origin. They are the words of Supreme Brahman. – The Destroyer Apr 20 '16 at 2:27
  • @The Destroyer - thats one of 11 options above. Why it is correct and remaining wrong? – TruthSeeker9 Apr 20 '16 at 2:29
  • 1
    Vedas speak of various things; evrythng that is required is given in Vedas; hence undrstanding the context in which a verse is said is very important. We cannot undrstand it by mere mental speculation or by mundane material education. Hence in ancient times only those capable of understanding its true meaning were allowed to learn Vedas; not others. – Vishal prabhu lawande Apr 20 '16 at 6:59
  • 1
    For example Vedas in some places state that 'Akash' is cause of universe; we may interprete Akash as elemental ether but then Acaryas explain that 'Akash' means supreme Brahman(vedanta 1.1.22). Also in Brahma sutras it is clearly proved by all authentic Acaryas that there is no contrdiction in Vedas. Hence above statements appeared like contradiction to the reader since he dint understand the context or he did not try to understand it from some superior person who is well versed in vedic knowledge. – Vishal prabhu lawande Apr 20 '16 at 7:00
  • 1
    @Ajay The confusion is because the title and body are different. The main question(in bold) is "what is the Truth and why these contradictions are there regarding such a simple question?" The truth is already explained in that question. That's why it is a duplicate. No need to reopen the question. – Sarvabhouma Sep 5 '17 at 7:23

Browse other questions tagged .