Veda-Pramāṇya-siddhi
Pramāṇas are three —“pratyakṣaṃ cānumānaṃ ca śāstraṃ ca vividhā''gamam |trayaṃ suviditaṃ kāryaṃ dharmaśuddhimabhīpsatā . 105 |” “If one desires to obtain the correct knowledge of Dharma, he should become fully acquainted with these three:—Perception, Inference and the Scriptures of various traditions.—(105)” Among them Śāstra is the highest—“pitṛdevamanuṣyāṇāṃ vedaścakṣuḥ sanātanam | aśakyaṃ cāprameyaṃ ca vedaśāstramiti sthitiḥ . 94 .” “For Pitṛs, gods and men, the Veda is the eternal eye; the teaching of the Veda is beyond power and illimitable. Such is the settled fact.—(94)” As said in the Kaṭha upaniṣad— “नैषा तर्केण मतिरापनेया प्रोक्तान्येनैव सुज्ञानाय प्रेष्ठ ।” This idea cannot be reached by mere Mundane reasoning. This idea, Oh dearest, leads to sound knowledge, only if taught by another [śāstra snigdha sādhu]. Also said in the Kena upaniṣad—“न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति नो मनो न विद्मो न विजानीमो यथैतदनुशिष्यात्। अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि। इति शुश्रुम पूर्वेषां ये नस्तद्व्याचचक्षिरे ॥” “The eye[Pratyakṣa] does not go there, nor speech[material speech not based on scriptures], nor mind[Anumāṇa]. We do not know That. We do not know how to instruct one about It. It is distinct from the known and above the unknown. We have heard it so stated by preceptors[Guru paraṁparā, Āmnaya Śāstra] who taught us that.” Also Śrī Manu Mahārāja said—“बिभर्ति सर्वभूतानि वेदशास्त्रं सनातनम् । तस्मादेतत् परं मन्ये यत्जन्तोरस्य साधनम् ॥” “The eternal lore of the Veda upholds all beings; for this reason I regard this as the best means of accomplishing the ends of every creature.” and it’s independent “autpattikas tu śabdasyārthena saṃbandhas tasya jñānam upadeśo 'vyatirekaś cārthe 'nupalabdhe tatpramāṇaṃ bādarāyaṇasyānapekṣatvāt”[Jaimini 1.1.5] “Certainly there is eternal connection between the word and its meaning ; its knowledge is upadeśaḥ it is never erroneous in matters invisible ; it is authoritative in the opinion of Bâdarâyana by reason of its not depending on others.”
One can’t quote ‘traiguṇya-viṣayā vedā nistraiguṇyo bhavārjuna |’ to downplay vedas, the meaning of this verse is explained by Baladeva prabhu in his commentary ‘ayam arthaḥ - pitṛ-koṭi-vatsalo hi vedo 'nādi-bhagavad-vimukhān māyā-guṇair nibaddhāṃs tad-guṇa-sṛṣṭa-sāttvikādi-sukha-saktān prati tat-kāmān anurudhya phalāni prakāśayan svasmiṃs tān viśrambhayati | tad-viśrambheṇa tat-pariśīlinas te tan-mūrdha-bhūtopanisat-pratīta-yāthātmya-niścayena tāṃ buddhiṃ yāntīti na cākāmitāny api tāny āpateyuḥ kāmitānām eva teṣāṃ phalatva-śravaṇāt | na ca sarveṣāṃ vedānāṃ traiguṇya-viṣayatvaṃ nistraiguṇyatāyā aprāmāṇikatvāpatteḥ |’ ‘Here is the meaning. The Vedas, more affectionate than millions of parents, give people faith in the Vedas by pacifying desires and bestowing results to people turned away from the Lord since no beginning, who are bound to the guṇas, and attached to happiness in sattva, rajas, and tamas, produced by the guṇas. Following the Vedas with such faith, they finally achieve real intelligence, with conviction in ātmā revealed in the Upaniṣads, the topmost portion of the Vedas. Even if the acts are not executed without desire, this result will come, since the scriptures speak of this result. One should also not think that all the Vedas are concerned only with the three guṇas. Otherwise even the state of transcendence of the guṇas could not be proved, since Vedas are the source of proof of transcendence as well.’ In Munḍakopaniṣad, Madhvācārya quotes parama-saṁhitā ‘ṛgādyā aparā vidyā yadā viṣṇorna vācakāḥ, tā eva paramā vidyā yadā viṣṇostu vācakāḥ. iti paramasaṃhitāyām,’ "The Ṛg and other Vedas are inferior knowledge (aparā-vidyā) when they do not express (or point to) Viṣṇu. Those very same texts become supreme knowledge (paramā-vidyā) when they are expressive of Viṣṇu." According to Yaśkācārya[Nirukta 7] and Śrī Madhvācārya [Ṛgbhāṣya 1] every phrase in vedas have three meaning “त्रयोऽर्थाः सर्ववेदेषु ” those are “परोक्षकृताः । प्रत्यक्षकृताः । आध्यात्मिक्यश्च ।” and also the Ṛgveda itself says there are 4 grades of speech one is laukika तुरीयं वाचो मनुष्या वदन्ति, Another three are vaidika and thus concealed “गुहा त्रीणि निहिता नेङ्गयन्ति”. Among the three meanings of the vedas, only the adhibhautika meaning concerned with elemental deities etc. is subject to material modes not the vedas themselves, because later in bhagavad-gītā itself Kṛṣṇa declares himself as the subject of the vedas ‘vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham ||’. Śrīpāda Jayatīrtha explains in his ṭikā to ṛgbhāṣya of Śrīmadānandatīrthācāryapāda ‘ṛgarthaḥ trividho bhavati ekastāvat prasiddhāgnyādirūpaḥ, aparaḥ tadantargateścaralakṣaṇaḥ, anyaḥ adhyātmarūpaḥ’, ‘The meaning of the Ṛg Veda is threefold. First, there is the well-known external meaning, referring to entities like fire, etc. Second, there is a deeper meaning indicating the characteristics of the Supreme Lord concealed within those deities. Third, there is the spiritual context of the mantra.’ Śrīla JĪva Gosvāmi further explains transcendence of vedas in brahmavācakatva in Bhagavat-sandarbha writes ‘tad evaṃ bhagavata eva sarva-vedārthatvaṃ darśitam |...śrutayo brahmaṇīti sāmānyataḥ siddhāntitam |’.
Some may say “āptopadeśaḥ śabdaḥ” “verbal testimony is the instructive assertion of a reliable person.” who is a āpta “āptastu yathārthavaktā” “Āpta is the speaker of truth without alteration”, Śrīla Baladeva prabhu clears this in his tattva sandarbha commentary “āpta-vākyaṃ ca tathā, ekenāptena muninā sarthitasyārthasyāpareṇa tādṛśena dūṣitatvāt | ata uktaṃ nāsav ṛṣir yasya mataṃ na bhinnam iti | evaṃ mukhyānām eṣāṃ sadoṣatvāt tad upajīvinām upamānādīnāṃ tathātvaṃ susiddham eva | kiṃc cāpta-vākyaṃ laukikārtha-grahe pramāṇam eva, yathā himādrau himam ity ādau |” “Apta-vakya or trusted testimony may be perceived as faulty because the meaning given by one trusted sage can be contradicted by the opinion of another learned sage. Nāsav rsir yasya matam na bhinnam: sages cannot show the path because each has a different opinion. (Mahābhārata) Because these are the main methods of proof, the others which depend on these, such as upamāna, are also faulty. However real āpta-vākya (śabda) is a proof for understanding material matters, in statements such as "There is snow on the Hīmālayas." It is also independent of sense perception or inference as in "You are the tenth person." The statement has its effect without using sense perception or inference. Another example is "The planets move in the zodiac signs." Though one may not believe a certain shaved head is real, if a divine voice says "It is real" then sense perception is confirmed by āpta-vākya. Someone may say "O traveler suffering from cold! Do not hope for fire because it has been extinguished by rain. But on the mountain over there from which smoke is pouring there is a fire." Here āpta-vākya confirms inference.” Ārṣa-vākya is not always acceptable as a valid authority for its found in bhāgavatam “एवं वदन्ति राजर्षे ऋषय: के च नान्विता: । यत् स्ववाचो विरुध्येत नूनं ते न स्मरन्त्युत ॥” “Such is the account given by some sages, O wise King, but those who speak in this illogical way are contradicting themselves, having forgotten their own previous statements.”, Because authoritative sages sometimes contradict themselves and say something different, but Vedas are beyond all this and as Śrī Vyāsa is the Ācārya of vedas “apāntaratamāś caiva vedācāryaḥ sa ucyate”, His words are ultimate. One can’t quote “तर्को ऽप्रतिष्ठः श्रुतयो विभिन्ना नैको ऋषिर् यस्य मतं प्रमाणम्। धर्मस्य तत्त्वं निहितं गुहायां। महाजनो येन गतः स पन्थाः” and say that there is ambiguousness in vedas, Such claim is baseless as the “श्रुतयो विभिन्ना” here just means as Vedas have several processes of sādhnā and several vidyās like dahāra, Śāṇḍilya etc in this sense Śrutis are diverse, not in meaning this verse is only applicable in determining sādhnā practise not philosophy. If someone says that Nārada said “सोऽहं भगवो मन्त्रविदेवास्मि नात्मविच्छ्रुतं ह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्यस्तरति शोकमात्मविदिति सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि तं मा भगवाञ्छोकस्य पारं तारयत्विति ॥” in Chāndogya so the vedas must be limited in expressing the truth, such is not true because Here Śrī Nārada spoke that only to show that mere words meaning “bhautika” meaning can’t give one access to transcendental topics rather One should approach a realised guru and read the vedas under their instruction, if the Vedas couldn’t describe the Lord, then Sanata kumāra wouldn’t have said “यद्वै किंचैतदध्यगीष्ठा नामैवैतत् ”, the corollary is if you had understood the true meaning you could have understood the knowledge of self.
As only dry enquiry has been discarded as being unable to produce full knowledge “गार्गि माऽतिप्राक्षीर्मा ते मूर्धा व्यपतदनतिप्रश्न्यां वै देवतामतिपृच्छसि गार्गि माऽतिप्राक्षीरिति ततो ह गार्गी वाचक्नव्युपरराम ॥” “Do not, O Gārgī, push your inquiry too far, lest your head should fall off. You are questioning about a deity that should not be reasoned about. Do not, O Gārgī; push your inquiry too far.’ Thereupon Gārgī, the daughter of Vacaknu, kept silent.”, Śaṅkarācārya explains that beyond that can only be know from śāstras “न्यायप्रकारमतीत्य आगमेन प्रष्टव्यां देवताम् अनुमानेन मा प्राक्षीरित्यर्थः”, Śrī Raṅga Rāmānuja says similar. However ‘tarka’ is not discarded as a whole for ‘tarka’ which is in line with the vedas is accepted ‘pūrvāparānurodhena ko nv artho ’bhimato bhavet | ity ādyam ūhanaṃ tarkaḥ śuṣka-tarkaṃ tu varjayet ||’, ‘śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo’, also we find in the Nirukta ‘manuṣyā vā ṛṣiṣu utkrāmatsu devān abruvan ko nu ṛṣir bhaviṣyati iti tebhya etam tarkam ṛṣim prāyacchan mantra artha cintā abhyūham abhyūḷham tasmād yad eva kiṃ ca anūcānaḥ abhyūhaty ārṣam tad bhavati’, How should such ‘abhyūha’ be performed it was earlier cleared ‘mantrārtha cintā abhyūhaḥ abhyūḷhaḥ, api śrutitaḥ api tarkataḥ na tu pṛthaktvena mantrāḥ nirvaktavyāḥ prakaraṇaśa eva tu nirvaktavyāḥ.’ In the commenatry of Durgācārya comments — ‘api śrutitaḥ api tarkataḥ’ by the grammatical rule ‘abhyarhitaṃ pūrvam nipatati’, ‘That which was once exalted or honored, falls first.’ [Quoted in Kāśikāvṛtti, Mahābhaṣya].Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prabhupāda says in his Laghubhāgavatāmṛtam “nirbandhaṃ yukti-vistāre mayātra parimuñcatā | pradhānatvāt parmāṇeṣu śabda eva pramāṇyate . yatas taiḥ śāstra-yonitvāt iti nyāya-pradarśanāt | śabdasyaiva pramāṇatvaṃ svīkṛtaṃ paramarṣibhiḥ . kiṃ ca tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt iti nyāya-vidhānataḥ | amībhir eva suvyaktaṃ tarkasyānādaraḥ kṛtaḥ .” “Among all the types of proof, I have accepted the chief one, scripture, while vehemently rejecting indulgence in logic. That is because the greatest sages have accepted śabda as the ultimate proof, while showing the place of logic, as shown in the statement śāstra-yonitvāt: logic is not the means of knowing the Lord, because knowledge of the Lord is produced from scripture. Moreover from the statement tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt: logic is insubstantial, the sages have clearly shown disregard for tarka.” In the commentary to ŚB 4.29.3, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmi says ‘pumbhir aśāstra-jñaiḥ nāmādīnāṃ śāstraika-vedyatvāt.’, ‘Persons who do not know scriptures do not know about the Lord, since the names, forms, etc. are known from scripture alone.’Also Śrīla Prabhupāda says “You have to accept anything from the authorized source. So according to Vedic civilization, all knowledge is received from the Vedas, perfect authorized source. Śruti-pramāṇa, evidence from the śruti, from the Vedas, that is perfect. Therefore, according to Vedic civilization, if you want to establish something you have to quote the section or the injunction from the Vedas, Then it is perfect. In learned circle you cannot say anything hodge-podge. That will not be accepted. If you support your statement from the evidence of the Vedas, then you are accepted as authority. Therefore our principle is... Not only our, this is the Vedic principle. You'll find Caitanya Mahāprabhu giving instruction to Sanātana Gosvāmī, to Rūpa Gosvāmī, or He was talking with Rāmānanda Rāya—in Caitanya-caritāmṛta you'll find—and quoting support from the Vedas. Although Caitanya Mahāprabhu is God Himself, Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa-Caitanya, but He is not, what is called, autocratic or, what is called, dictator. No. You'll never find Him. Whatever He'll say, immediately He supported by Vedic evidence. He can say anything. He can manufacture anything. No, that He does not do. He does not violate the principle. In the Bhagavad-gītā also... Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He's also quoting from Vedas. He does not say, "I say." He says, but He says on the Vedic authority. He doesn't say anything superfluous, no." [Talk on Bhagavad-gītā 16.9. February 5th, 1972, Hawaii]One may say Nyāya sutras accept two vākya pramāṇas those are “वैदिकं लौकिकं च ” and for Laukika, Āpta vacana is pramāṇa, but if it contradicts Vedas then they are not pramāṇa as Vedas are the paraṁ pramāṇa. That is why it’s said— आर्षं धर्मोपदेशं च वेदशास्त्राविरोधिना । यस्तर्केणानुसन्धत्ते स धर्मं वेद नैतरः ॥ "One who analyzes and follows the teachings of dharma, derived from the sages (ārṣa) and teachings on dharma, without contradicting the Vedic scriptures, with the help of reasoning—such a person truly understands dharma, not anyone else." The translation “If a man explores, by ratiocination, the Vedic teaching regarding Dharma, he alone, and no other, understands Dharma.” is wrong because it doesn’t capture some nuances and goes against prior verses like “योऽवमन्येत ते मूले हेतुशास्त्राश्रयाद् द्विजः । स साधुभिर्बहिष्कार्यो नास्तिको वेदनिन्दकः ॥” ‘A twice-born who disregards those two sources [of instruction, i.e., the Śruti and Smṛti] on account of adherence to hetu-śāstra [i.e., logic] is an unbeliever (nāstika), a defamer of the Veda, and to be shunned by sādhus.’ Here’s what it lacks: Ārṣa Aspect: The term ārṣaṃ in the original verse refers to teachings derived from the ṛṣis, or sages. This emphasizes that the teachings are not only Vedic but are also sanctified by the wisdom of the ancient sages. Including "derived from the sages" or "teachings of the sages" would highlight this dimension.Non-Contradiction with Vedic Scriptures: The phrase vedaśāstrāvirodhinā specifies that reasoning should be aligned with and not contradictory to Vedic scriptures. This is an important point, as it emphasizes that ratiocination alone is not sufficient; it must respect the authority of the Vedas.Qualification of Reasoning (Tarka): The verse does not merely advocate "exploring by ratiocination" but stresses reasoning (tarka) as a means of analysis that harmonizes with Vedic principles. This nuance implies that logic is to be applied carefully and with respect for scriptural authority.
The Commentary of Medhātiti shows that by example that the logic used must align with śāstras, otherwise it’s not valid. Because the destination of Tārkika who holds tarka superior to vedas is already secured in the body of a jackal. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī writes in tattva sandarbha— yat tv āgame kvacit tarkeṇa bodhanā dṛśyate, tat tatraiva śobhanam, āgama-rūpatvāt, bodhana-saukaryārtha-mātroddiṣṭa-tarkatvāt, yadi ca yat tarkeṇa sidhyati, tad eva veda-vacanaṃ pramāṇam iti syāt, tadā tarka evāstām, kiṃ vedeneti vaidikam anyā api te bāhyā evety ayam abhiprāyaḥ sarvatra, ata eva teṣāṃ śṛgālatvam eva gatir ity uktaṃ bhārate “The teachings seen in the scriptures which sometimes use logic are the glory of the scripture since that logic is the form of the scripture and has been used only to make the meaning easily understood. If one argues that the words of the Veda act as proof only if proved by logic, then that is only logic. What is the use of the Vedas at all? Such types of persons who think themselves followers of the Veda are excluded from understanding the Vedas. That is the meaning given everywhere. Their destination is that of jackals that is described in Mahābhārata as cited in the Tattva Sandarbha.” Next follows the Manubhāṣya of Medhātiti on the same verse—
‘Tarka’—is the process of reasoning where a certain proposition is set up, and rejected, if found to be wrong on examination; the man coming to such conclusions as—‘It is right to accept this, and reject that.’ For instance, the sacred text used at the Āgneya sacrifice is—‘Devasya tvā savituḥ...agnaye tvā juṣṭam nirvapāmi’ (Vājasaneya Saṃhitā, 2.11); now an ectype of this Āgneya is the ‘Saurya’ Sacrifice of which the deity is Sūrya;—and in accordance with the general law that ‘the ectype shall be performed in the same manner as its archetype,’ it would follow that the sacred text just quoted shall be used at the Saurya sacrifice also;—but here one argues that though ‘agnaye tvā’ would be the right form for the Āgneya, where the deity is Agni, it could not be right for the Saurya, where the deity is Sūrya; hence while at this latter, the rest of the text shall be used in the same form, the words ‘agnaye tvā’ should be altered into ‘sūryāya tvā.’ Such a reasoning would not be inconsistent with the Veda.
...
It is only in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and the Vedānta that we find the authority of the Veda unequivocally stated, in the form in which it is set forth in such Vedic texts as—‘The gods came down from the heavenly regions to this world,—the sages followed them,—and the men said to them—How are we going to live?—To them the sages revealed all their duties,—hence the reasonings that the good Brāhmaṇas propound are Vedic.’ This is a passage that explains the exact nature of what is meant by ‘ratiocination’ in the present context.
Tarka [Logic] is totally dependent on some fundamental unitary facts which are not empirically provable, providing the very base of its working. Those Unitary facts are only known by Tradition/Revelation which both come under the category of verbal testimony ‘Śabda’ otherwise the entire system will fall into anāvasthā doṣa ‘regressus ad infinitum’. This is also highlighted by Kurt Gödel in his 1931 paper ‘On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I’, ‘To every ω-consistent (e.g., ω-consistency roughly means that if every finite subset of statements is consistent, the whole set is consistent) recursive class c of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(c) (where v is the free variable of r)’ which he later proves interested readers may refer to page 57 of the same article’s translation by B. Meltzer. J. Barkley Rosser (1936) strengthened the incompleteness theorem by finding a variation of the proof (Rosser's trick) that only requires the system to be consistent, rather than ω-consistent. This part ‘there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(c) (where v is the free variable of r)’ resounds with the writing of the ancient Grammarian Bhārtṛhari ‘atīndriyānasaṃvedyān paśyantyārṣeṇa cakṣuṣā | ye bhāvān vacanaṃ teṣāṃ nānumānena bādhyate ||’ ‘The words of those who, with their divine vision, see things which are beyond the senses and unknowable, cannot be set aside by reasoning. [These are the Ṛṣis who are endowed with 20 lakṣṇas ‘viṃśallakṣaṇatonūnaḥ tapasvī bahuvedavit, veda ityeva yaṃ paśyet sa vedo jñānadarśanāt’. Nirukta defines Ṛṣi as ‘ṛṣir darśanāt stomān dadarśa ity aupamanyavas, tad yad enāṃs tapasyamānān brahma svayambhu abhyānarṣat ta ṛṣayo abhavaṃs tad ṛsīnām ṛṣitvam iti vijñāyate’ ‘A seer is (so called) from his having vision. 'He saw the hymns,' says Aupamanyava. It is known: because the Viṣṇu-born Brahma manifested himself to them while practising austerities,they became seers; that is the characteristic of the seers.’]’, ‘caitanyamiva yaścāyamavicchedena vartate | āgamastamupāsīno hetuvādairna bādhyate ||’ ‘One who has recourse to Tradition which shines uninterruptedly like the ‘I’ consciousness cannot be diverted therefrom by mere reasoning.’ Thus Tarka is dependent on Śabda completely and pratyakṣa is dependent on śabda to differentiate things seen otherwise only as a template of different colours.
Vedas are apauruṣeya (Not a creation), Ślokavārtika of Kumārila bhaṭṭa and other works of ancient Ācāryas like Śrī Madhvācārya etc also prove it rigorously. Vedas are not a creation of anyone they are the eternal breath of the Lord thus He himself as found ‘asya mahato bhūtasya niḥsvasitametadyadṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇam vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ sūtrānyanuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānāni; asyaivaitāni niḥśvasitāni’, ‘vedapraṇihito dharmo hy adharmastadviparyayaḥ, vedo nārāyaṇaḥ sākṣāt svayambhūriti śuśruma’. Few westerners try to draw out historical events from the Vedas like the battle of 10 kings and others but reading them through authoritative commentaries clears those doubts. The antiquity of the oldest manuscript of Ṛgveda is uncontested also the Indus valley civilization has traces of Yajñakuṇḍas made precisely according to the Sulbasutras in purola and other places are found, which are Vedāṅgas themselves, keeping these facts in mind antiquity of vedas can’t be questioned at least even though denying it’s apauruṣeyatva. This tradition of Vedas is unbroken thus we have the very same vedas which were taught to Brahmā by the Lord` which is nothing but his breathing thus eternal, several measures like phonetics(Śikṣā) ‘śīkṣāṃ vyākhyāsyāmaḥ | varṇaḥ svaraḥ | mātrā balam | sāma santānaḥ | ityuktaḥ śīkṣādhyāyaḥ ||’, different styles of recitation like ghanapāṭha, jaṭāpāṭha etc, proper metres like Gāyatri, uṣnik etc. As per the decipherment of the IVC seals by Yajnadevam seals like 594.1 [ārṣa] ‘of the Ṛṣis [Vedas]’ also seals 3670.1, 3677.1 mention ‘kavaṣa’ a ṛgvedic seer, prove a tradition of vedic discipline prevalent in that society as well, most of the seals are short phrasing of vedas as the decipheration. Sutras in the devatādhikaraṇa also prove the same, Historical personalities such as Devāpi or Śāntanu are common nouns not pertaining to the same person in the Itihāsas [samānanāmarūpatvāccāvṛttāvapyavirodho darśanāt smṛteś ca] like Devāpi is defined by Niruktakāra as ‘devāpir devānām āpti ā stuti ā ca pradānena deva sumatim devānām kalyāṇīm matim cikitvāṃs cetanāvān’ Now by some course of events we know that Kṛṣṇa and Yaska were contemporaries like the famous incident of Akrura having the syāmantakamaṇi being recorded in the Nirukta ‘akūro dadate maṇim’ in the śāntiparva we find Kṛṣṇa mentioning Yāska ‘śipiviṣṭa iti hy asmād guhyanāmadharo hy aham stutvā māṃ śipiviṣṭeti yāsko ṛṣir udāradhīḥ matprasādād adho naṣṭaṃ niruktam abhijagmivān na hi jāto na jāye 'haṃ na janiṣye kadā cana’, Thus the eternal vedāṅga nirukta was revealed by Kṛṣṇa through Yāska [this is also a position which a proper jīva gets], Now Devāpi was an ancestor of the Pāṇḍavas, Yāska being their contemporary could have glossed the name as ‘Devāpi, an ancestor of Pāṇḍavas who left his kingdom…’ but he doesn’t do so, Here he describes the eternal post ‘Devāpi’. In every kalpa there is a Devāpi and so on, Brahmā creates the universe as per the names and forms mentioned in the vedas as said in the Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa ‘vede̍na rū̱pe vya̍karot sa̱tā̱sa̱tī pra̱jāpa̍tiḥ’. Some may say that references for the ṛṣis being the composers of the mantra is found such as ‘nama̱ ṛṣi̍bhyo mantra̱kṛdbhyo̱’, How to see this ? in answer Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya writes ‘(Tait. Sam. 5.2.3 ) etc. the eternal nature of the Veda stands to reason, even though it is apprehended that Vasistha and others are the sages of the particular Kanda ( Section ) (and ) the composers of the Mantras. By these very Vedic words such as - He chooses the Mantra-composers, - having thought of the form and the power etc. of the sages, the composers of the Mantras in the various Mantra-hymns and sections, having created the various forms endowed with the various powers, Prajapati appoints the same for remembering the various Mantras etc. And they with powers invested in them by Prajapati, having performed penance befitting those various ( forms and powers ), even without studying the Mantra and others created by the various preceding Vasisthas etc., accomplished by their power, see without any mistake as regards the accents and the syllables. And therefore, the eternal nature of the Vedas, and being the mantra-composers of these do not stand any reason.’ In the Nirukta we find ‘sākṣātkṛtadharmāṇa ṛṣayo babhūvuḥ । te'varebhyo'sākṣātkṛtadharmabhya upadeśena mantrān saṃprāduḥ । … vedaṃ ca vedāṅgāni ca ।’, "The Ṛṣis were the ones who had a direct vision of the truth. For the sake of the inferior people who were not endowed with the vision, they gave these mantras as instruction/teaching. This is the Veda and Vedāṅgas.”, That eternal Vedas [vācā virūpa nityayā] [Vāk] [Śruti abhimāni Lakṣmi] chooses her revealers by her will as per her declaration ‘yaṃ kāmaye taṃ-tam ugraṃ kṛṇomi tam brahmāṇaṃ tam ṛṣiṃ taṃ sumedhām’, Thus in each kalpa the eternal vedas expresses itself through the choosen Ṛṣis ‘yajñena vācaḥ padavīyam āyan tām anv avindann ṛṣiṣu praviṣṭām’ also in the Mahābhārata ‘yugānte 'ntarhitān vedān setihāsān maharṣayaḥ lebhire tapasā pūrvam anujñātāḥ svayaṃbhuvā’. Statements like ‘I offer you this newest hymn’ or ‘I construct this hymn as a carpenter constructs a chariot’ are to be understood as the particular eternal emotion a chosen ṛṣi will feel while revealing the mantra like the in story of yajñavalkya. He receives Śruti mantras which were unrevealed in this particular kalpa on this planet not that Surya Nārāyaṇa Composed new mantras and taught it to him, those mantras were eternally existing as Surya knew them ‘व्योमनाथस्तमोभेदी ऋग्यजुस्सामपारगः । घनवृष्टिरपां मित्रो विन्ध्यवीथीप्लवङ्गमः ॥’[Ādityahṛdaya from Rāmāyaṇa] it’s just that they were revealed through Yajñavalkya ‘evaṁ stutaḥ sa bhagavān vāji-rūpa-dharo raviḥ yajūṁṣy ayāta-yāmāni munaye ’dāt prasāditaḥ yajurbhir akaroc chākhā daśa pañca śatair vibhuḥ jagṛhur vājasanyas tāḥ kāṇva-mādhyandinādayaḥ’. Some argue that if vedas are not created then how do they have a sequence ? The answer to that is just as the pattern of VIBGYOR is eternally present without any reason like there is no reason why red light has low energy and violet has more this particular colour has no reason similarly the pattern of sentences in vedas are eternal without any reason. Because of not having an author liable to err the knowledge of the vedas is non erroneous, these are the fundamental unitary truths as explained above and thus do not depend on logic or sense perception thus Śabda is an authority in its own right as its independent of other proofs as per Śrī Vyāsadeva ‘tatpramāṇaṃ bādarāyaṇasyānapekṣatvāt’, At the end of Dvāparayuga when the teachings of the Vedas [not the vedas themselves] become corrupt meaning that people started drawing wrong conclusions from the Vedas, Bhagavān Nārāyaṇa comes as Vedavyāsa to stabilise the situation being systematically categorising the vedas into four divisions and provide the Mimāṁsa and Brahma sūtras also the Śeṣakāṇḍa to restablish the teachings of the teachings in the society ‘te paramparayā prāptās tat-tac-chiṣyair dhṛta-vrataiḥ catur-yugeṣv atha vyastā dvāparādau maharṣibhiḥ. kṣīṇāyuṣaḥ kṣīṇa-sattvān durmedhān vīkṣya kālataḥ vedān brahmarṣayo vyasyan hṛdi-sthācyuta-coditāḥ. asminn apy antare brahman bhagavān loka-bhāvanaḥ brahmeśādyair loka-pālair yācito dharma-guptaye parāśarāt satyavatyām aṁśāṁśa-kalayā vibhuḥ avatīrṇo mahā-bhāga vedaṁ cakre catur-vidham. ṛg-atharva-yajuḥ-sāmnāṁ rāśīr uddhṛtya vargaśaḥ catasraḥ saṁhitāś cakre mantrair maṇi-gaṇā iva. tāsāṁ sa caturaḥ śiṣyān upāhūya mahā-matiḥ ekaikāṁ saṁhitāṁ brahmann ekaikasmai dadau vibhuḥ’. Some argue that even without accepting the apauruṣeyatva (non-human origin) of the Vedas, notions of puṇya (merit) and pāpa (sin) can be deduced through general worldly morality — that acts promoting well-being are merit, and those causing harm are sin. However, this view is flawed because śāstra alone, not mundane logic, defines puṇya and pāpa. Acts like sacrificial killing, though violent, produce puṇya when performed according to Vedic injunctions, whereas cow dung, although by nature an impure excretion, is declared pure by śāstra. Similarly, the conch shell, a skeletal remnant, becomes sacred. Thus, without the authority of Veda, human reasoning cannot reliably distinguish puṇya and pāpa as in the Rāmāyaṇa ‘dharma-śāstreṣu mukhyeṣu vidyamāṇeṣu durbudhāḥ, buddhim ānvīkṣikīṁ prāpya nirarthaṁ pravadanti te.’ ‘[Even] In the presence of the principal dharma-śāstras, the ignorant take to logic [i.e., purely logic inquiry] and profess assertions which are futile.’, for śāstra alone establishes these categories beyond worldly appearances. Śrīla Vyāsadeva affirms this: "idaṃ puṇyam idaṃ pāpam ity etasmin padadvaye ācaṇḍālaṃ manuṣyāṇām alpaṃ śāstra-prayojanam," meaning all beings depend on śāstra to know right and wrong ‘tasmāc chāstraṃ pramāṇaṃ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau...’, ‘anekasaṃśayocchedi parokṣārthasya darśakam, sarvasya locanaṃ śāstraṃ yasya nāstyandha eva saḥ’ ‘Śāstra is that which removes numerous doubts and reveals realities that are beyond direct perception. It is the eye of all. One who does not possess it is indeed blind.’ Therefore, the acceptance of the Vedas as apauruṣeya is essential. [To read about this in more detail refer to Tattva-sandarbha, Siddhānta darpana, Viṣṇutattvavinirnaya, Nyāyakusumāñjali etc.]
Even the words of the Incarnations of Bhagavān should not be taken if they are Against the vedas as Śrīla Vidyābhuṣana writes—na ca buddhasyāpīśvaratve sati tad-vākyaṁ ca pramāṇaṁ syād iti vācyam; “Nor can it be said that even if the Buddha being an incarnation, his statement would be proof, because his teachings are preaching strategies for a greater purpose” It's said — या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतयो याश्च काश्च कुदृष्टयः । सर्वास्ता निष्फलाः प्रेत्य तमोनिष्ठा हि ताः स्मृताः ॥ Those ‘revealed texts[Letters, Conversations in this regard]’ that are outside the Veda, as also all the false theories, are useless, even when carried to perfection; as they have been declared to be founded on ‘darkness.’ उत्पद्यन्ते च्यवन्ते च यान्यतोऽन्यानि कानि चित् । तान्यर्वाक्कालिकतया निष्फलान्यनृतानि च ॥ Those other (doctrines) which spring up and perish are all worthless and false, being of modern growth. अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽविद्यामुपासते। Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance. That is the condition of material men 'avidyāyāmantare vartamānāḥ svayaṃ dhīrāḥ paṇḍitaṃmanyamānāḥ . dandramyamāṇāḥ pariyanti mūḍhā andhenaiva nīyamānā yathāndhāḥ', unless there is a divine revelation one can't know that which transcends sensory perception, Anumāṇa [inference] is totally based on axioms derived from sensory perception, because it doesn't acquire any new data of its own.
One might object, “How can you be sure that the Vedic sages themselves were not blind or mistaken?” The response lies in the nature of epistemic judgment: to verify or evaluate a text like the Vedas, one must possess an equally authoritative and independent standard that deals with the same metaphysical and spiritual subject matter. But unless there exists a neutral and autonomous body of knowledge—untouched by Vedic influence and yet fully conversant with the same transcendental topics—we cannot use it to judge the Vedas. In the absence of such an independent yardstick, any attempt to assess the Vedas externally becomes circular or speculative.
Moreover, the credibility of the Vedic sages is affirmed by the real, tangible, and reproducible results that their prescribed practices yield when performed correctly. For example, in certain yogic or spiritual states, it is documented that two saints may meet in a transcendental plane—such as the Lord's abode—and exchange specific information. Upon returning to ordinary consciousness, they independently report the same experience and shared details that were previously unknown to one another. This empirical verification through experience and mutual corroboration demonstrates not only the reality of the experience but also the reliability of the process and the seers who prescribe it.
yaḥ sarvaguṇasaṃpannaḥ sarvadoṣavivarjitaḥ
prīyatāṃ prītaye bāḷaṃ bhagavān me paraḥ suhṛt
Comments
Post a Comment