Are there any contradictions in the vedas?

[Guest guest]

The bilbe is full of contradicions. Especially in the old testament. Is this also the case for the vedas. Or are the absolutely no contradictions in the vedas?

[Guest guest]

Vyasa compiled the Vedanta Sutra to reconcile the apparent contradictions in the Vedas.

[Guest guest]

apparent?

[Kali_Daughter 0]

There are contradictions in all holy books. That's how you know they are fiction.

[Guest guest]

The narrow-minded are apt to see contradiction in the Veda.

[Guest guest]

studying vedas you can reconcile also the bible's contraddictions

[Guest guest]

Can you give me som examples of contradictions i the vedas?

 

And also some examples of some apparent contradictions, and why they are only apparent.

[Guest guest]

study the vedanta sutra

[maadhav 0]

no aacharya has said vedas, puranas, etc. are fiction.

 

any way, which fiction you live by?

 

 

[maadhav 0]

prabhuipada and other aacharyas have said that if you see any contradiction, it is due to your ignorance.

it is not in the vedas.

 

he further has said that

"we must accept the vedas as they are - all truth."

 

if one rejects one part of the vedas, and another rejects another, then after we will have none.

 

hust knowig a scriouter is not enough.

one has to live by it.

 

gita is the 700 verse short summary of the vedas.

so it is more than enough to solve our problems.

 

it is very wise to talk about gita only.

 

for a serious follower of dharma a guru is needed.

 

[Guest guest]

I don't think there is any contradiction in Vedas. If a person dont' understand and manipulate things as per his mental status then definitely will find contradiction. It is just like a reading the statement wrongly. It is the projection which overpowers the reality and the person sees only the projected reality not the objective reality. Try to see the silver screen behind the film not the film. Thanx...

[barney 0]

What is in record are only some as we all understand that the vedas were written in palm leaves and we must also undestand that not all were preserved due to change in rulership and invasion of foreign raiders. What has been salvaged is what we have been presented with. May be in later part there could have been revision of the scriptures by later sages but as it has been known this are missing or destroyed by time. To argue that what we have such as munusmritis and those that dealt with cast and soforth are the earlier writings but there could have been changes according to period and we do not know about what is written in the missing palm leaves. So, lets not come to a conclution and say that there is no flaws in the scriptures. As all religious scriptures has some flaws we too should come to an understanding.

 

Men of greed have used these scriptures to supress the humble and illetrate people of the time and it has been going on for generations after generations. They have opposed others from knowing what is in the scriptures and have kept to themselves for selfish reasons. Plase do not make the same mistkae as the past generations. I do not wish to say more on this but let us not dig out dirt.

[Guest guest]

you simply are not competent

[dhaa 0]

how the vedas sometimes declare difference & nondifference between atma and brahma

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext05/8sutr10.txt

 

vedanta sutra, sripada ramanujas sri bhasya

 

2.3.

 

Amso nanavyapadesad anyatha chapi

dasakitavaditvamadhiyata eke

 

42. (The soul is) a part, on account of the declarations of difference and otherwise; some also record (that Brahman is of) the nature of slaves(dasa), fishermen, and so on.

 

The Sûtras have declared that the individual soul is an agent, and as such dependent on the highest Person. The following question now arises--Is the individual soul absolutely different from Brahman? or is it nothing else than Brahman itself in so far as under the influence of error? or is it Brahman in so far as determined by a limiting adjunct (upâdhi)? or is it a part (amsa) of Brahman?--The doubt on this point is due to the disagreement of the scriptural texts.--But this whole matter has already been decided under Sû. II, 1, 22.--True. But as a difficulty presents itself on the ground of the conflicting nature of the texts--some asserting the difference and some the unity of the individual soul and Brahman--the matter is here more specially decided by its being proved that the soul is a part of Brahman...

 

Against all these views the Sûtra declares that the soul is a part of Brahman; since there are declarations of difference and also 'otherwise,' i.e. declarations of unity. To the former class belong all those texts which dwell on the distinction of the creator and the creature, the ruler and the ruled, the all-knowing and the ignorant, the independent and the dependent, the pure and the impure, that which is endowed with holy qualities and that which possesses qualities of an opposite kind, the lord and the dependent. To the latter class belong such texts as 'Thou art that' and 'this Self is Brahman.' Some persons even record that Brahman is of the nature of slaves(dasa), fishermen, and so on. The Âtharvanikas, that is to say, have the following text,' Brahman are the slaves(dasa). Brahman are these fishers,' and so on; and as Brahman there is said to comprise within itself all individual souls, the passage teaches general non-difference of the Self. In order, then, that texts of both these classes may be taken in their primary, literal sense, we must admit that the individual soul is a part of Brahman

 

44. Moreover it is so stated in Smriti.

 

Smriti moreover declares the individual soul to be a part of the highest Person, 'An eternal part of myself becomes the individual soul (jîva) in the world of life' (Bha. Gî. XV, 7). For this reason also the soul must be held to be a part of Brahman