shabdapramANa in VP- 1

[Guest guest]

I propose to post a summary of the chapter on verbal testimony in

vedAntaparibhAshA in installments. This is the first installment.

 

shabda or verbal testimony is one of the six pramANas recognized by

advaita vedAnta. This is dealt with in chapter IV of vedAntaparibhAshA (VP).

 

In the nyAya school shabda is defined thus: AptavAkyam shabdaH—Verbal

testimony is the statement of a trustworthy person.

Verbal testimony is of two kinds—laukikam (secular) and vaidikam

(scriptural). Verbal testimony can be in the form of spoken or written

words. This is adopted in vedAnta also.

 

The statement of a person becomes trustworthy if he is free from such

defects as delusion, incorrect knowledge, intention to deceive, etc. In the

case of statements in the vedas such defects are impossible because the

vedas are apaurusheya, that is, they are not the composition of any person.

The question of reliability arises only in respect of statements made by

human beings.

 

The chapter on verbal testimony in VP starts with the statement--- atha

Agamo nirUpyate, which means—Now verbal testimony is being discussed. The

word 'Agama' means 'authentic word', and also the vedas. This word thus

covers both secular and scriptural statements.

 

Apart from being the words of a trustworthy person (which condition is

automatically satisfied in the case of statements from the vedas), the next

condition laid own for a statement to be a means of valid knowledge

(pramANa) is that it should not be contradicted by any other means of

knowledge, such as perception, inference, etc. In respect of secular

statements it is easy to determine whether this condition is satisfied or

not. Even if, at the time the secular statement is heard or read there was

no knowledge of its being contradicted, it is possible that subsequently a

knowledge arises through any of the other pramANas which shows that the

knowledge conveyed by the secular statement was wrong. In such a

circumstance the knowledge from the secular statement, which was till then

considered to be valid, would become invalid.

 

In the case of statements from the vedas, which include the upanishads,

the question arises as to how the knowledge from such a statement could ever

be contradicted by any other pramANa such as perception. This can be

understood if we remember that our ancients have clearly demarcated the

spheres of authority of the veda on the one hand and all the other means of

knowledge on the other. In matters that cannot be known except from the

vedas, such as what yajna should be performed for fulfillment of a

particular desire, how it should be performed, etc., the only authority is

the vedas. Even though our perception shows that the world is real, the

upanishads say that it is not the truth from the absolute point of view. In

such matters also the upanishads supercede perception because perception is

not competent to dislodge the assertion of the upanishads. The upanishads

are not of human origin (being apaurusheya), and so there is no possibility

of any defect in them, unlike in perception.

 

As regards matters which fall clearly within the scope of perception Shri

Shankara says in his bhAshya on br. up. 3.3.1:--

 

" Nor are the Srutis supposed to have authority in matters that are

contradicted by other means of knowledge, as, for instance, if they said,

'Fire is cold and wets things'. If, however, a passage is ascertained (by

the application of the six tests, namely, beginning and conclusion,

repetition, originality, result, eulogy and demonstration) to have the

meaning given by the Srutis, then the evidence of the other means of

knowledge must be held to be fallacious " .

 

It is through verbal statements, spoken as well as written, that

knowledge is transmitted. The scope of verbal testimony is much wider than

that of the other means of knowledge. Through perception we can know only

what is here and now. Inference, etc., also have their own limitations. But

it is through verbal testimony in the form of books, newspapers and other

records that we come to know what has happened in the past and what is

happening elsewhere at the present time. This is why this means of knowledge

has been analysed at great length in works of the nyAya school as well as in

VP.

 

Sruti is the ultimate pramANa. It is the pramANa which leads to the

highest purushArtha, namely, liberation. Once a person has attained

liberation with the help of Sruti, then Sruti itself ceases to be pramANa

for him.

 

The conditions necessary for a sentence to convey its meaning and the

various ways in which the meanings of words are to be understood are dealt

with in detail in VP. These apply to both secular and scriptural statements.

 

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

> The statement of a person becomes trustworthy if he is free

from such

> defects as delusion, incorrect knowledge, intention to deceive, etc.

In the

> case of statements in the vedas such defects are impossible because the

> vedas are apaurusheya, that is, they are not the composition of any

person.

> The question of reliability arises only in respect of statements made by

> human beings.

 

Sri Shastriji,

 

I want to be silent reader but your post provokes a couple of

important questions, that are worth resolving at the beginning.

 

1. On what pramaana are we stating Vedas are apaurusheya? And in what

sense should we understand apaurusheya? Inference and common-knowledge

would say that sages meditated and discovered these words and truths,

hence they would be attributed to humans.

 

2. If Vedas are apaurusheya and hence infallible, why must we not

accept those parts that are contradicting other pramaana?

 

This is important, since a person could do a yagnya for rain and not

get rain, then conclude that the Vedas (by pratyaksha) is wrong.

 

Does not Shankara assign the upaasana status for the karma-kanda and

satya-status to the jnaana-kanda. That is one interpretation that

resolves such issues; other schools may have other ways of resolving

" fire is wet " (that is fine, not the issue here).

 

(The issue here is the objective statement of infallibility of the

Vedas, rather than recognizing it as a record of spiritual Truths

discovered by rishis. Either way, shraddha in shabdha pramaana is key;

I wan't to know how and where to place the initial emphasis.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> Sri Shastriji,

>

> I want to be silent reader but your post provokes a couple of

> important questions, that are worth resolving at the beginning.

>

> 1. On what pramaana are we stating Vedas are apaurusheya? And in

what

> sense should we understand apaurusheya? Inference and common-

knowledge

> would say that sages meditated and discovered these words and

truths,

> hence they would be attributed to humans.

 

Dear Shri Putran,

The apaurusheyatva of the vedas is dealt with at the end of the

chapter on verbal testimony in VP. I would therefore have come to it

in the normal course, but since you have asked this question now, I

am answering it.

The word `Astika' means `one who believes that the knowledge

contained in the vedas is absolutely valid'. All the Astika

darshanas are founded on this firm belief. Vedanta is one of the

Astika darshanas and so it accepts the vedas as absolute truth. The

reason for this belief is that there is no possibility of any

defect in the vedas because they were not composed by any human

being, but are apaurusheya.

Now we come to the significance of the term `apaurusheya'. In

this matter there is a little difference between the views of the

mImAmsakas and the vedAntins. The mImAmsakas hold that the vedas are

eternal; they have never been created by any person, human or divine

and they are never subject to destruction. They have no beginning

and no end.

The vedAnta view is that the vedas are subject to destruction at

the time of pralaya. The advaitins believe that God, in association

with His mAyA, reveals the veda to certain beings at the beginning

of each cycle of creation on a pattern identical with the veda of

the previous cycle of creation. Thus God Himself is not the creator

of the vedas, but He only passes on what is already there. The

upanishad says that it comes out like his breath. The sages are

said to `hear' the vedas when they are in meditation and they pass

on the knowledge to their disciples. Thus the sages are not creators

of the vedas; they only pass on what they have heard. The vedas are

therefore described as apaurusheya.

 

>

> 2. If Vedas are apaurusheya and hence infallible, why must we not

> accept those parts that are contradicting other pramaana?

>

> This is important, since a person could do a yagnya for rain and

not

> get rain, then conclude that the Vedas (by pratyaksha) is wrong.

 

Answer--I have already said in my previous post that the vedas are

supreme in their own sphere and cannot be superceded by any other

pramANa. If an yajna performed by anybody is not successful, it does

not mean that the veda is invalid. The failure may be due to other

causes such as failure to adhere to all the procedures laid down.

 

Does not Shankara assign the upaasana status for the karma-kanda and

> satya-status to the jnaana-kanda. That is one interpretation that

> resolves such issues; other schools may have other ways of

resolving

> " fire is wet " (that is fine, not the issue here).

>

> (The issue here is the objective statement of infallibility of the

> Vedas, rather than recognizing it as a record of spiritual Truths

> discovered by rishis. Either way, shraddha in shabdha pramaana is

key;

> I wan't to know how and where to place the initial emphasis.)

>

> Answer--Your question is not clear to me. The gIta stresses

shraddha as essential for every action. What is meant by `satya-

status'? Both karma kANDa and jnAna kANDa are valid only as long as

one has not realized the Self. The difference between the two kANDas

does not consist in one being satya and the other not. The two

kANDas are applicable at different stages of a man's life. As the

gItA says, karma is to be practised till one becomes a yogArUDha,

that is, he acquires total detachment. Thereafter jnAna kANDa alone

is necessary. In practice it is however difficult to draw a clear-

cut dividing line.

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sastri-ji.

 

Very interesting and informative.

 

However, if this view is accepted then isn't everything apaurusheya -

Newton's Laws, the Theory of Relativity, the Uncertainty Principle,

Quantum Mechanics etc. etc.? They are all the Lord's laws. They were

revealed to certain perons who then passed the knowledge down. How

do we differentiate here? On the basis of infallibility - that these

laws are subject improvement and correction in future, whereas the

vedAs are not?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

.....The vedAnta view is that the vedas are subject to destruction at

> the time of pralaya. The advaitins believe that God, in association

> with His mAyA, reveals the veda to certain beings at the beginning

> of each cycle of creation on a pattern identical with the veda of

> the previous cycle of creation. Thus God Himself is not the creator

> of the vedas, but He only passes on what is already there. The

> upanishad says that it comes out like his breath. The sages are

> said to `hear' the vedas when they are in meditation and they pass

> on the knowledge to their disciples. Thus the sages are not

creators

> of the vedas; they only pass on what they have heard. The vedas are

> therefore described as apaurusheya.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> >

> > Sri Shastriji,

> >

> > I want to be silent reader but your post provokes a couple of

> > important questions, that are worth resolving at the beginning.

> >

> > 1. On what pramaana are we stating Vedas are apaurusheya? And in

> what

> > sense should we understand apaurusheya? Inference and common-

> knowledge

> > would say that sages meditated and discovered these words and

> truths,

> > hence they would be attributed to humans.

>

> Dear Shri Putran,

> The apaurusheyatva of the vedas is dealt with at the end of the

> chapter on verbal testimony in VP. I would therefore have come to it

> in the normal course, but since you have asked this question now, I

> am answering it.

> The word `Astika' means `one who believes that the knowledge

> contained in the vedas is absolutely valid'. All the Astika

> darshanas are founded on this firm belief. Vedanta is one of the

> Astika darshanas and so it accepts the vedas as absolute truth. The

> reason for this belief is that there is no possibility of any

> defect in the vedas because they were not composed by any human

> being, but are apaurusheya.

> Now we come to the significance of the term `apaurusheya'. In

> this matter there is a little difference between the views of the

> mImAmsakas and the vedAntins. The mImAmsakas hold that the vedas are

> eternal; they have never been created by any person, human or divine

> and they are never subject to destruction. They have no beginning

> and no end.

> The vedAnta view is that the vedas are subject to destruction at

> the time of pralaya. The advaitins believe that God, in association

> with His mAyA, reveals the veda to certain beings at the beginning

> of each cycle of creation on a pattern identical with the veda of

> the previous cycle of creation. Thus God Himself is not the creator

> of the vedas, but He only passes on what is already there. The

> upanishad says that it comes out like his breath. The sages are

> said to `hear' the vedas when they are in meditation and they pass

> on the knowledge to their disciples. Thus the sages are not creators

> of the vedas; they only pass on what they have heard. The vedas are

> therefore described as apaurusheya.

>

 

Sri Shastriji, thankyou for the explanation. I take some of these

points to be important starting point in shraddha for the aim of

ultimate realization.

 

The Upanishads deal with ultimate reality. But one also finds in Vedas

descriptions of lokas, yagnyas, etc that seem to mix transcendental

with loukika. Hence my question, since it is not clear whether the

spheres we are dealing with are entirely those of the shruthi, or

whether we are taking literally that which should be taken figuratively.

 

As Sadaji says, " I don't know " is the real answer. One can genuinely

accept (or not) such shabdha pramaana on karma-details; either case,

the goal of studying Katopanishad remains Brahman and not the

Nachiketa sacrifice (for most of us at least!).

 

In the court-system, one looks for Law rather than 'justice' (which

can be subjective and indefinable). Likewise, our system adheres to a

working-methodology of what to accept and what-not in Vyavahaarika, in

order to guide the aspirant to the Self behind all superimpositions.

 

Ok. I will read further.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

> >

> > 2. If Vedas are apaurusheya and hence infallible, why must we not

> > accept those parts that are contradicting other pramaana?

> >

> > This is important, since a person could do a yagnya for rain and

> not

> > get rain, then conclude that the Vedas (by pratyaksha) is wrong.

>

> Answer--I have already said in my previous post that the vedas are

> supreme in their own sphere and cannot be superceded by any other

> pramANa. If an yajna performed by anybody is not successful, it does

> not mean that the veda is invalid. The failure may be due to other

> causes such as failure to adhere to all the procedures laid down.

>

> Does not Shankara assign the upaasana status for the karma-kanda and

> > satya-status to the jnaana-kanda. That is one interpretation that

> > resolves such issues; other schools may have other ways of

> resolving

> > " fire is wet " (that is fine, not the issue here).

> >

> > (The issue here is the objective statement of infallibility of the

> > Vedas, rather than recognizing it as a record of spiritual Truths

> > discovered by rishis. Either way, shraddha in shabdha pramaana is

> key;

> > I wan't to know how and where to place the initial emphasis.)

> >

> > Answer--Your question is not clear to me. The gIta stresses

> shraddha as essential for every action. What is meant by `satya-

> status'? Both karma kANDa and jnAna kANDa are valid only as long as

> one has not realized the Self. The difference between the two kANDas

> does not consist in one being satya and the other not. The two

> kANDas are applicable at different stages of a man's life. As the

> gItA says, karma is to be practised till one becomes a yogArUDha,

> that is, he acquires total detachment. Thereafter jnAna kANDa alone

> is necessary. In practice it is however difficult to draw a clear-

> cut dividing line.

> S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

>List Moderators's Note: Inspite of repeated appeal some members

>continue to

>include the entire post of previous posters and please keep only the

>minimum necessary part of such postings. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

 

It was due to carelessness, will try to be more careful.

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> As Sadaji says, " I don't know " is the real answer. One can genuinely

> accept (or not) such shabdha pramaana on karma-details; either case,

> the goal of studying Katopanishad remains Brahman and not the

> Nachiketa sacrifice (for most of us at least!).

>

> In the court-system, one looks for Law rather than 'justice' (which

> can be subjective and indefinable). Likewise, our system adheres to

>a working-methodology of what to accept and what-not in Vyavahaarika,

>in order to guide the aspirant to the Self behind all

> superimpositions.

 

 

Barring Michaelji's quotation in the other thread, this may offer some

insight into Sadaji's position. If Brahman is satya and jagan mithya,

then how to assess mithya? Only through admitted pramaana. That is

starting point for " truth " vs " untruth " , " existence " vs

" nonexistence " . We don't cross the boundaries given by the pramaana

and search for independent objective truth as to what is really

" vyavahaarika satya " or " is the shabdha pramaana on transcendental

issues really true? " . It is more like " What do the admissible pramaana

show to be truth? Those are the parameters with which I will guide

myself. " Shabda pramaana is infallible simply because the subject

matter is inaccessible to other pramaanas: i.e. not because it shows

" objective TRUTH " but rather because in our admissible model of

reality, that is the truth regarding transcendental issues, as per

this pramaana. (So if any truth of existence is claimed, it must be

known to exist in the context of the pramaanas).

 

Questions regarding the objective validity/truthvalue of the shabda

pramaana (on transcendental issues), or those beyond the access of any

of the pramaanas, are anirvachaniyam in our model. We don't mess with

such questions (formally speaking).

 

I think that is all Sadaji was stating, more or less.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

praNAms Shri Sastriji,

 

I have a small question.

 

To understand any shabdapramANa, the knower needs knowledge

of the language. If someone did not know Sanskrit, it is unlikely

that the statement 'tat tvam asi' raises a spark in Him.

 

> Answer--I have already said in my previous post that the vedas are

> supreme in their own sphere and cannot be superceded by any other

> pramANa.

 

Given that, does this mean that knowledge of Sankrit is a light in

which Vedas shine? It cannot obviously be because, Vedas are their

own light. Then where am I missing the point? Kindly explain. Also,

please excuse me if this question is too naive.

 

praNAms again,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta " <uramakrishna

wrote:

> > Answer--I have already said in my previous post that the vedas are

> > supreme in their own sphere and cannot be superceded by any other

> > pramANa.

>

> Given that, does this mean that knowledge of Sankrit is a light in

> which Vedas shine? It cannot obviously be because, Vedas are their

> own light. Then where am I missing the point? Kindly explain. Also,

 

praNAms Shri Sastriji,

 

I think you are referring to Veda and and its six limbs (Vedanga),

one of which is Vyakarana. Sorry for missing such an obvious point.

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna