Veda Apaurusheyatva

September 6, 2003

I was earlier discussing with ILK about why Vedas are understood to have no author (apaurusheya). He was unable to get the link (http://www.geocities.com/kadirik/articles/apaurusheyatva_of_vedas.html) to open, so I have posted the article from it here in case anyone is interested.

shrI laxmIhayagrIvAya namaH

shrImadAnandatIrthabhagavatpAdAcharyagurubhyonamaH

shrI gurubhyo namaH hariH OM

An extract of Srimad Acharya's explanation of the concept of apaurusheyatva.

The source of this article is Srimad Acharya's 'viShNu-tattva-vinirNaya'. The section on apaurusheyatva was covered to some depth by Shrisha Rao on the dvaita mailing list. The postings are present in the archives. A very brief summary is presented below. All arguments mentioned by the Acharya and his illustrious commentators are not shown here. Some of my opinions are interspersed in the mainstream text. Since, it is necessary to distinguish between Acharya's words and mine, my own opinions will be enclosed with /* and */. Another point to note that even some of my opinions are actually not mine, but of some commentators on the Acharya's work or on the commentary thereof.

R^IgAdyAbhArataM chaiva paJNchArAtramathAkhilam.h |

mUlarAmAyaNaM chaiva purANaM chaitadAtmakam.h ||

The Vedas, Mahabharata, Mula-ramayana (different from Valmiki Ramayana) and Pancharatraas are held as authoritative and as valid sources of knowledge.

In response to a question regarding the accepting the authority of scriptures,

Srimad Acharya says:

apaurusheyatvAdvedasya -- for, the Vedas are unauthored.

na cha apaurusheyam vAkyameva nAstIti vAchyaM tadabhAve sarvasamayAbhimatadharmAdyasiddeH |

It should not be held that the very concept of apaurusheyatva i.e., unauthoredness is illogical. /* This objection is answered after highlighting the need for and importance of unauthored texts*/. In the absence of unauthored sentences, entities such as dharma, adharma, heaven, hell and even God cannot be established (on a firm basis).

/* This has certain important implications:

None has ever perceived entities such as dharma/adharma. They are, by definition, atIndriya (imperceptible by senses). Arguing that imperceptibility implies absence is equivalent to insisting that microscopic particles don't exist simply because they are not visible to the naked eye. If it is argued that instruments would need to be used to detect their presence, by the same token, it can be argued that without knowing whether one has the right instrument or not, it cannot be argued that the particle does not exist at all.

God cannot be 'established' (which is different from 'postulating His/Her existence) just on the basis of logic. Every logical proposition in favour of existence of God can be countered by an equally, if not more, powerful one. For example, if it is said that this world, being a complex and finished product like a watch found on a beach or a building, should have a creator, a counter-proposition can be made: Just as many building-contractors are involved in the construction of a building, so too, this world needs many gods as its creators. Moreover, if the analogy were to be extended, God should also be subject to life and death, like the creator of the watch. Also, it would not be possible to answer simple questions, if the means to know God were based on logic: 'Does God have one nose or two? It is very easy to realize that logic cannot give company for long. What results is a guess and not any conclusive evidence for existence of God or otherwise.

Dharma or adharma should not be assumed based on personal preferences. It is not infrequent that one hears people say, "God wants me to be happy. And if I have to be happy, I should have a feast on Ekadasi". When nobody even knows what God is, how can His assent over our activities be ascertained? */

Why shouldn't it be held that these atIndriya entities don't exist at all? In response to such a person, Srimad Acharya says:

yasya tau nAbhimatau nAsau samayI samayaprayojanAbhAvat.h |

"Such a philosopher should not be considered wise, for, his philosophy would not have any definitive benefit to anybody".

That is because when such entities are proclaimed as non-existing, it's only chaos and anarchy that results. A situation when there are no standards of morality, where anybody can do anything, will not benefit anybody.

/* It cannot be said that the morality consists in "not harming others" or in "whatever is good for humanity". Such points of view, though very noble, bring in subjectivity into moral standards (How can anything be standard, when it is subjective?). With such, all crimes can somehow be treated as moral acts (for example, a murder having a "noble" purpose of sustaining oneself or for the sake of reducing population growth) and the criminal let gone. Further thought would definitely reveal that such subjective ideas, though noble, encourage anarchy indirectly. Thus, the possibility of a peaceful society without the notions of dharma and adharma is rejected. */

But, would the utility of acceptance of dharma/adharma be enough justification to assume their existence? Just that a person is thirsty does not mean water exists somewhere. In response, the venerable commentator on Sri Madhva's works, Sri Jayatirtha says, "It is not being contended that dharma and other atIndriya entities exist for sure. The claim that holds a doctrine preaching the absence of dharma/adharma as beneficial is being rejected. In the absence of any pramANa (so far discussed; i.e., logic and perception), there can only be a doubt regarding their existence or otherwise."

In addition, one should realize the limitations of the abilities of our senses. Eyes can only see and but not taste. Ears can only hear, but cannot smell. Given such, it is quite possible that there are entities beyond the grasp of these senses. /* This is not a proof, but an observation*/.

Given that known pramANAs do not help us in determining the existence of dharma/adharma, the apaurusheya Vedas should be looked into.

Here, the significance of their being 'unauthored' can be questioned. Given the general acceptance of people like Buddha, Rishabha (founder of the Jaina doctrine) as omniscient, why can't their works be accepted as the sources of dharma and adharma? This is answered as:

na cha paurusheyeNa vAkyena tatsiddhiH aj~nAnavipralambhayoH prApteH |

Knowledge of atIndriya padArthas cannot be obtained from authored sentences on the account of possibility of the authors being ignorant or deceitful. Omniscience as such cannot be proven. It is not possible to know that some other person is omniscient when oneself is not. Moreover, for authored sentences to be authoritative, it is pointed out that more assumptions, in addition to the one of author's omniscience, such as absence of any intention of deceit, willingness to give out the knowledge and more importantly, capability of doing the same, need to be done. Even considering God as the author would not help reduce the number of assumptions. In fact, an extra assumption about God's existence needs to be done. On the other hand,

apaurusheyavAkyAngIkAre na kinchitkalpyaM |

There is nothing to be assumed if one accepts apaurusheyatva. Apaurusheyatva implies flawlessness. The flaws in a sentence arise solely because of the author. Words as such do not have any flaw in them. It's only the ignorance or other intentions of the composer that bring in flaws in a sentence. Thus there is no flaw in authorless sentences. If it is objected that the very acceptance of apaurusheyatva is an assumption and that it does not have any certainty, it is said,

apaurusheyatvaM cha svata eva siddhaM vedakartR^iraprasiddheH |

apaurusheyatva is proven of by itself, only . Here, it should be understood that the vedas have a special quality as being "known not to have any authors/creators ".

/* Note that "known_not_to_have_creators" is different from "authors/creators_are_not_known ". It is only the vedas (and other eternal entities) that fall in the first category, while folk songs and other anonymous literature come under the second category. For the entities in the first category, knowledge of lack of authors was present at all points of time; Whereas, for the entities in the second category, lack of knowledge of authors is present and is confined to the present time and cannot be held true in all past.

Here, Srimad Acharya is only removing the objections to apaurusheyatva. Apaurusheyatva of Vedas is a known fact, atleast so in the earlier generations. It is distorted only the recent set of Indologists, who, under the camouflage of objective research, convert their conjectures to 'facts of history'. Given their skills, it would not be surprising if the British Invasion of India as a legend that never happened.

Anyway, the point here is that pratyaksha, anumAna and Agama cannot _prove_ apaurusheyatva. Apaurusheyatva is proven of itself, just like any other fact. Facts do not need proof; hypotheses countering the facts need disproving, which is what Srimad Acharya is doing here. It is not that vedAs themselves do not talk of their being unauthored. Srimad Acharya has quoted the relevant texts in Gita Bhashya 3.15. However, positing such quotes as a proof would be flawed; it is the case of sva-skandhArohaNa */

Hereafter, the possibility of spurious and secretive works attaining the status of apaurusheyatva is considered. Another quality of Vedic works is an unbroken sequence of study of them by a student from a teacher. Secretly composed works lack this quality. And to filter out ordinary people claiming to have seen the Vedas and thus spurious works getting the status of scriptures, the qualities of a mantra-draShTa (seer of a Vedic mantra) are mentioned on the basis of a quote from Brahmanda purana.

/* Every mantra has three entities attached to it -- Rishi, chandas and devatA. The Rishi is the seer, Chandas the meter and devata, the presiding deity of the mantra. They have to be mentioned prior to chanting a Vedic mantra. This information helps in ruling out the contention that the Vedas obtained the status of apaurusheya over time, though actually these Rishis are the authors. The fallacy becomes obvious when one works backward in time. If the Rishi was the author and known as such, it is unreasonable to expect that the concept of apaurusheyatva (which, according to the contenders, is chronologically preceded by the mantras themselves) could have gained momentum. Would, after, say 2000 years, Kalidasa be considered as the Rishi of 'Meghadoota' and not its actual author? */

Other objections are not discussed here, but are covered in Srimad Acharya's 'Vishnu-tattva-vinirnaya' and 'Gita bhAshya'. They have to be read, compulsorily with Sri Tikacharya's commentary.

Other writers have also explained this concept of apaurusheyatva. Sayanacharya's bhAShya-bhUmika to the samhitAs and Dayananda Saraswati's RgVeda Bhashya bhumika can be referred in this regard. However, they do not anticipate all the objections. They take up merely the objection of Rishi being the actual author (which is actually raised and answered in the mImAmsA sutras). Moreover, they concentrate on the 'eternality' (nityatva) aspect of the vedas. It is only Srimad Anandatirtha who expounds the apaurusheyatva of vedas (Notice that apaurusheyatva directly implies flawlessness, but eternality does so indirectly and through aparusheyatva), considers all other objections and answers them convincingly.

shrImadhveshakR^iShNarpaNamastu