Apaurusheyatvam of Sruti (was non-reality of free will)

[Guest guest]

I'm sending this mail to both the advaita and the bhakti mailing lists.

On the advaita list, we have been having a discussion on the philosophical

status of grace and free will from an advaitic perspective, which has

progressed into a discussion on the status of Sruti. The bhakti list has

been having discussions on the role of grace and individual effort, which

again harks back to free will. My apologies for this cross-fertilization,

but these are universal topics and I think we could all benefit from an

exchange of views.

 

The traditional advaita position on the status of Sruti needs to be

clarified. This will be a long post (apologies again), examining briefly

all the different philosophical positions about it, and how Sankaran

advaita synthesizes some of these and rejects other arguments.

 

advaita vedAnta does not require you to suspend any disbelief in a human

agency for the transmission of Sruti. What is denied is the view that

Sruti is of human or divine authorship.

 

All mImAmsaka and vedAnta schools concede that the mantra-drashTas (the

seers of the Vedic hymns) were human beings, although their status as

rshis exalts them over ordinary human beings. Human agency is admitted,

but only for *transmitting* the Vedas, not for *composing* them.

Therefore, it is not useful to say that the "experience" of the seers

validates the Sruti. The Sruti is always valid, irrespective of the human

experience that revealed it. We might draw emotional strength from some

human experience, but we should be very careful before putting such human

experience on a philosophical pedestal that guarantees the truth of Sruti.

This holds true as much for vasishTha and viSvAmitra, as for the Alvars

and the nAyanmArs, and other saints of the various traditions.

 

The cArvAkas and the non-vaidika schools say that human beings composed

what passes for Sruti, and therefore deny its claim to apaurusheyatvam.

The nyAya and vaiseshika schools try to infer the existence of a God from

a typical teleological argument known to most religions, and then say that

such a creator God must have composed Sruti. This argument is rejected

by mImAmsakas and vedAntins. The classical yoga and sAmkhya schools are of

two types each - a theistic one and a non-theistic one. The theistic

school of yoga is represented by patanjali's yoga sUtras, which considers

God (ISvara) as the original guru, and by extension can be considered to

have taught the Sruti to the first r.shis. Note that teaching Sruti

does not argue for an authorship of the Sruti by this God. But none of the

yoga and sAm.khya schools seem to have a fixed opinion about the

authorship of Sruti.

 

It is only the mImAmsakas and vedAntins who have to take a firm position

about it, because they make it part of their business to do a total

exegesis of the Vedas. The mImAmsakas argue against the contention of the

nyAya and vaiseshika schools that the existence of God as a first cause

can be inferred. They hold that Sruti is co-eternal with creation, but

they also hold that there is no need to postulate a Creator God. Creation

itself keeps repeating in cycles, and Sruti is also revealed to the

mantra-drashTas in each cycle. In the intermediate period of dissolution,

Sruti continues to exist, in some unseen potential form. It does not have

to be created anew, and therefore does not require any agency by an

all-knowing, all-powerful God. This rather severe non-theism of the

mImAmsakas is also motivated by a desire to deny that there can be any

Omniscient beings. This is necessary for the mImAmsaka because he wants to

argue that the doctrines of the Buddhists and the Jains (which are traced

to Omniscient beings by their followers) are faulty. Rather than denying

that the Buddha or Mahavira were Omniscient, the mImAmsaka denies that

there exist *any* Omniscient Beings. Therefore, he also denies that there

is a creator God who knows everything. The mImAmsaka is therefore

non-theistic in one sense, but he is not an atheist. The various Vedic

gods and goddesses are considered to exist, although they also undergo

birth and death with each cycle of creation. The form of each god is

defined by the mantra invoking that god. In practical terms, this

develops into a concern for correct pronunciation and tonality in reciting

the Vedic mantras. Words are therefore endowed with greater significance

than mere conventional meaning. The idea that the form of a god is defined

by the mantra is an ancient one, and this explains why and how the Vedas

have been so faithfully transmitted over the millenia.

 

The mImAmsaka position about the non-authoredness of Sruti is accepted

almost in toto by the different vedAnta schools. Where they part company

is in the existence or otherwise of an Omniscient Being. In Sankaran

advaita, the argument starts by pointing out that nobody, however much he

argues, can deny the Atman. Now, for those who accept Sruti to be

valid, this Atman is described ultimately in 'neti, neti' terms.

This Atman is also Brahman, by the testimony of the same Sruti. To the

mImAmsaka who accepts Sruti as an infallible authority, the advaitin

points out that even according to that same Sruti, the existence of an

Omniscient Brahman cannot be denied *on mImAmsa grounds*. Such an

Omniscient Being is saguNa brahman, no doubt, and when advaita argues for

the ultimate unreality of saguNa brahman, this argument is based upon the

fallacy of assuming that brahman is always saguNa. In other words, brahman

is not denied, but the saguNatvam is denied by advaita. This argument is

on completely different grounds and has completely different implications

as compared to the mImAmsaka's position.

 

Now, what about Sruti? The advaitin agrees with the mImAmsaka that Sruti

is unauthored, i.e. apaurusheya. The advaitin also argues against the

nyAya-vaiseshika position that an ISvara can be inferred and that such an

ISvara is the author of Sruti. This argument is rejected, because rather

than first accepting the validity of Sruti, and then formulating an

argument about God, this view first accepts the validity of a logic based

on human perception and inference, then infers a God, and then assumes

that such a God *must be* the author of Sruti. Some nyAya authors go

further, and say that this Sruti itself also confirms the existence of an

Omniscient creator God. Now, according to the nyAya-vaiseshika view, the

validity of Sruti becomes dependent upon the validity of an inferred

ISvara, and if another argument can prove the nyAya inference of ISvara to

be faulty (which is rather easy to do, in my opinion), then the validity

of Sruti is also lost. This is unacceptable both to the mImAmsaka and the

vedAntin, of any sub-school.

 

The mImAmsA has already shown that the nyAya argument is faulty, but it

upholds the eternal validity of Sruti, and rejects the ISvara that is

inferred by the nyAya. advaita (and other schools of vedAnta) agree that

the nyAya argument is faulty. However, the fault lies in the fact that the

existence of an ISvara cannot be validly inferred on any grounds. This

does not mean that ISvara does not exist. For advaita, ISvara is saguNa

brahman; for other schools of vedAnta, brahman IS ISvara. Why does

advaita accept ISvara as saguNa brahman? Because Sruti says so. In other

words, the validity of Sruti is first acknowledged by the advaitin, and

then the existence of a God is accepted. To say "the sacred book tells

me that God exists, and therefore I accept God, and also to say that the

sacred book is sacred because God composed it" - this is a circular

argument that is very attractive to most people, and is found in the

theology of most religions, but it is not acceptable to any rigorous

mImAmsaka or vedAntin.

 

The mImAmsaka and advaitin have already parted company with respect to the

existence of an ISvara. Now, what about the authorship of the Vedas by

this ISvara? Are the Vedas strictly apaurusheya, so that not even the

Omniscient ISvara is accepted as an author? Or is advaita prepared to

relax this argument and say that ISvara is either the author or the

teacher of the Vedas to the first r.shis?

 

The answer to this is complicated. Orthodox advaita does not look at Sruti

in isolation from other aspects of reality. Yes, Sruti is apaurusheya, and

ISvara (saguNa brahman) should not be called its author. Neither can the

r.shis be called authors, although they were instrumental in revealing

Sruti to humankind. The advaitin does not also object to the theistic yoga

view that ISvara can be considered to be the first teacher, and the idea

that ISvara is a guru is well accepted among orthodox advaita circles,

both in the figure of Lord Krishna, who teaches on the battlefield, and

the figure of Lord Dakshinamurthy, who teaches enigmatically through

silence. Besides, the SvetASvatara depicts brahman as imparting the vedas

to brahmA, the creator at the beginning of the cycle of creation (yo

brahmANam vidadhAti pUrvam, yo vai vedAmSca prahiNoti tasmai). This is

only one of the many features where advaita and classical yoga find common

ground, although they differ in other details.

 

How does advaita interpret the upanishad when it says that the Vedas were

"breathed out" by brahman, just like everything else in this universe?

This is interpreted by advaita commentators to mean that since brahman is

acknowledged to be the source of all creation, Sruti also has its source

in brahman. This may seem like admitting some divine authorship of the

Vedas, but it is not so. This is because side by side with saying that all

creation is dependent upon brahman, advaita also strongly denies that

creation is a real event, or that brahman is a real creator. Thus,

although brahman "breathes out" the universe, brahman is not a real

creator. Similarly, although brahman "breathes out" Sruti, brahman is not

a real author of Sruti.

 

Just as the universe "is", so is Sruti. When the reality of the Atman as

brahman is known, there is no more differentiation, i.e. there is no more

duality. So, according to advaita, one cannot even say "this is Sruti,

this other is me, who recites Sruti, or this third other is you, who does

not know Sruti." The mANDUkya upanishad describes the turIya state

metaphorically as "prapancopaSama" - a state where prapanca vanishes. Just

as the multiplicity vanishes, so does the perception that Sruti is

something out there to be heard and studied. When this is known, just as

questions about creation do not arise, so also, the questions about the

author(s) of Sruti do not even arise. Paradoxically, however, it is

through hearing and studying Sruti that such a conclusion is reached.

 

However, this paradox does not bother the true advaitin, although it

bothers other vedAntins. The dvaitin is able to maintain a position closer

to that of the mImAmsA, because although he accepts hari as the Omniscient

ISvara, in his view, everything is eternally distinct from hari and from

everything else. Thus Sruti continues to be eternally valid and

unauthored, either by ISvara or by human beings. I am not very conversant

with how viSishTAdvaita finds a solution to this. Is nArAyaNa the source

of everything, including Sruti? If so, can Sruti still be considered to be

unauthored? One very respected viSishTAdvaita author, vedAnta deSika,

wrote a treatise called seSvara (sa + ISvara) mImAmsA, where these topics

are discussed, and I'm sure the standard position of that school is to be

found in that work. To sum up, the advaitin position is, "Yes, Sruti is

unauthored, and its validity does not depend upon the seers who first saw

it. Also, Sruti is 'breathed out' by brahman, but this is only a

metaphorical way of speaking, just as the entire universe was 'breathed

out' by brahman. Neither is brahman a creator, in the sense that creation

is a real event, nor is brahman an author, in the sense that any text must

have a real author."

 

S. Vidyasankar