Why Are Hindu Scriptures Sometimes Contradictory?

This audio tells you about - 1. How Shastras sometimes apparently contradict each other 2. Why Rishis want to know just the essence of shastras.

The first Suta, Lomaharshana, was the direct disciple of Sage Vyasa. He was narrating Puranas to the Rishis in Naimisharanya during their thousand-year-long yaga. He was killed by Lord Balarama. There was a misunderstanding, and the Lord, in a fit of anger, killed Lomaharshana. But when he realized what had happened, the Lord transferred all the knowledge and qualities of Lomaharshana onto the body of his son, Ugrashrava. He also blessed Ugrashrava with longevity till the end of the yaga. After this, Ugrashrava continued narrating the Puranas in the place of his father.

See what all can be done with yogic power. Balarama was a mahayogi. Of course, he is an avatara of Adishesha. But now he is in human form. Even then, he had so much power in him. He had used Brahmastra to kill Lomaharshana. Then, after realizing the misunderstanding, he transferred everything that Lomaharshana had onto his son’s body. Why did Balarama not revive Lomaharshana himself? That would have been an insult to Brahmastra.

There was a small difference between Lomaharshana and his son Ugrashrava. Lomaharshana never left Naimisharanya. But Ugrashrava went to the banks of the Ganga when Shukadeva was narrating Shrimad Bhagavata to Raja Parikshit. He listened, learned, and then came back to Naimisharanya to narrate the same to the Rishis. This was towards the end of the thousand-year-long yaga.

The Rishis had a strange demand. They wanted to listen to the essence of all shastras, the essence of all teachings. They had heard all other Puranas by then. Shastras are Puranas, teachings based on historical incidents. Historical incidents are narrated so that people can learn what is dharma and what is adharma. The shastras are sometimes apparently contradictory. One shastra will say to do this; another shastra will say not to do it.

For example, the performer of a yajna has to take a deeksha on the previous day. Deeksha is upavasa. From that time, it is as if the Devatas of the particular yajna are present in the yaga vedi. They are like guests. They are given offerings only on the next day. Till that time, can the yajamana, the performer of the yajna, take any food? Naturally, no, because there are guests, and they have not been offered anything. How can the host alone have food? This is what you might think.

But there is a problem here. If you abstain from taking food on the previous night of any ritual, then it resembles pitru-karma. So, the yajna, which is a Deva-karya, may end up looking like a Pitru-karya. You are changing the nature of the ritual. This is one argument. What to do now? The yajamana can take something that the Devas do not consume, such as what grows underground. So there are two options. Either ignore the argument and do complete fasting, risking diluting the nature of the yajna, or take something that Devas do not take. But then, the host is taking food when the guests are not given anything.

Such confusions are there in shastras. There are clear solutions, but it can be confusing for many people. So, the Rishis did not want to get into all these anymore. They just wanted the essence, which would not confuse. So, they asked Suta one question. They made one demand.

Shaunaka Maharshi was the kulapati of the yajna. He told Ugrashrava: 'We have been hearing the Puranas from your father and you as well. We have learned a lot from you both. You have been so kind to us, telling us so much about the incidents of the past. But shastras are endless. Nobody has seen everything. Those Rishis who have told us something, that is as per what they have experienced. Their experiences, they have shared with us. Nobody can say that they have seen everything. Nobody can say that this is everything. Sometimes, the Rishi-vachanas also appear to contradict each other. Because of this, doubts arise. Is this knowledge authentic? If it is, then why does someone else contradict it? Both arguments sound convincing.

'So now, you have seen all the shastras. So far, you told us whatever we asked for. We asked you about Shiva; you told us Shiva Purana. We asked about Vishnu; you told us Vishnu Purana. But now, what we want from you is the essence of all shastras. Since you have learned all the shastras, tell us their essence. What you have understood as their essence, the essence of all teachings. We know, so far, you did not tell us this because we never asked for it. We know you are our well-wisher. You are here for our benefit. Now, please tell us the essence of all teachings, which you have so far kept hidden from us. Please tell us that now.' Shaunaka Maharshi told Suta.

Ramaswamy Sastry and Vighnesh Ghanapaathi