BY: SUN STAFF
Dec 6, CANADA (SUN) —
Tattva Sandarbha
by Srila Jiva Goswami
SECTION TEN
For us who are inquisitive, therefore, about that which is beyond all, yet the support of everything, which is most inconceivable and wondrous in nature, direct perception, inference and so on are not suitable means. For this purpose we accept only the Vedas, whose words are transcendental, which is the source of all mundane and transcendental knowledge, and which have been passed down in humanity through unbroken chains of succession since time immemorial.
Sri Jiva Toshani Commentary
As already noted, direct perception and inference depend on sense perception, which is limited only to empirical objects and which is subject to the four human defects. They cannot be helpful in understanding a realm beyond our senses. By going back along the chain of causes, we can deduce that such a realm exists, but inference can take us no further; nor can it yield valid knowledge about abhidheya, the process of realizing that world. That knowledge can be acquired only through revealed scripture, namely the Vedas, which are not creations of a mortal being and thus are free from the four defects described earlier.
As stated in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (6.8) the Vedas were sprung from the Supreme Lord at the dawn of creation: yo brahmanam vidadhati purvam yo vai vedamsca prahinoti tasmai, "That Lord, who created Brahma, gave him the Vedas at the beginning of creation." Anadi-siddha, used in this anuccheda, means that they were not written at a particular date, but exist eternally like the Lord. They originally manifested in this universe within heart of Lord Brahma, the first created being, tene brahma hrda ya adi-kavaye (S.B. 1.1.1) and were then handed down through disciplic succession. The Vedas deliver both material and spiritual knowledge. Originally knowledge about all phenomena around us such as the trees, water, land, sky, and so forth, along with the divisions of duties for various people according to psycho-physical nature came from the Vedas. This is stated in the Manu Samhita (1.21)
"The knowledge of the names of various objects and the respective duties of various people was obtained by Lord Brahma from the words of the Vedas and thus he propagated the division of names and duties."
Over a period of time various cultures and languages developed which became alienated from the original Vedic culture.
As for acquiring transcendental knowledge, sabda pramana, or the Vedas is the only way. They inform us about the soul's existence beyond the body, the spiritual planets, the Supreme Lord, His pastimes and so on. All these subjects are beyond the reach of our sensual and mental faculties. Without the sabda method, philosophers like Lord Buddha, who did not accept the Vedas, are unable to say a word about transcendence let alone explain a means to attain it. Sabda pramana is so important that although Lord Buddha is counted among the incarnations of the Lord, on the strength of Vedic testimony, His philosophy is rejected, because it was not based on sabda pramana.
All theistic orthodox schools of philosophy in India, whether monistic or dualistic, consider the Vedas as apaurusheya, not written by any mortal being. Some modern scholars do not agree. They speculate various dates for the composition of the Vedas. While most of them agree that the Vedas were composed before 1500 B.C., they disagree about the exact time of their composition. They have yet to arrive at a definitive conclusion.
Here Srila Jiva Gosvami says, anadi siddha sarva purusha paramparasu, "The Vedas are beginningless and have come down in an unbroken chain of disciplic successions." The words sarva purusha, "all humans," includes both human beings as well as the super humans, the demigods. These successions begin with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is an infallible entity in all respects. He has no taint of the four defects. Further, in anuccheda nine, Srila Jiva Gosvami has already shown the alternatives to be unreliable. If no other method except apaurusheya sabda can give access to transcendental reality, how is it possible that the Vedas can be written or developed by a human being? If that was the case Jiva Gosvami would openly contradict himself, having previously rejected humans as an imperfect source of knowledge because of the inherent four defects.
We have only two possibilities about the origin of the Vedas. Either they are human compositions or they are of divine origin. In response to the first proposal we must consider that no one has been able to prove their authorship by any particular mortal. Even those scholars who speculate about when the Vedas were first composed have shed no light on the original author. They cannot give his name, nationality, occupation, qualification or other such historical details.
One may argue that the name of the author has been forgotten over time and thus it is not logical to consider the Vedas of divine origin. This argument is weak, because they have been handed down through the system of disciplic succession from antiquity to the present. Traditionally the upper classes, called dvijas, belong to a particular branch of the Vedas. Thus when studying their branch they studied the historical data related to it. Even today, when the study of the Vedas have declined, people still know the details about their sakha, or branch of the Vedas, who was the sage originally in charge of it and so on. Thus if the Vedas had a human composer his name would have been handed down and remembered.
On the contrary, from the works of philosophers like Kumarila Bhatta, it is understood that the Vedas are not human compositions. Indologists accept that Kumarila lived in the sixth century. At that time Vedic culture still flourished in India along with the system of disciplic succession, but even then there was no author ascribed to the Vedas. Similarly, one can research even further back and still unearth no trace of any human composer of the Vedas. They have always been revealed knowledge from the Supreme Lord and none other.
One may further argue that the author of the Vedas is forgotten because it served no purpose to remember him. This is also a weak argument for to remember the author of the Vedas is not futile. As stated above, while engaged in Vedic studies or sacrifices one recites the names of his sakha (branch), gotra (lineage), pravara (sub-division), and so on. If the sages that propounded the various branches are remembered, then why neglect to remember the author? Of course, the author is not at all forgotten, because all orthodox Vedic scholars know Him to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Indeed the theory of the Vedas having a human composer is a recent development advocated by persons who did not come in disciplic succession. They were mostly outsiders, who refused to believe that India hand anything to offer the world in the realm of philosophy and had their own motives for minimizing the Vedic traditions, in that they were eager to convert India to Christianity. They certainly were not eager to be impartial in judging the matter of the Vedas' origin.
From lack of any definitive proof, therefore, and in light of the many reasonable arguments for their divine origin the first option ought to be discarded. As demonstrated in the last section, the human senses are incapable of approaching the inconceivable object, so even theoretically it is not possible that the Vedas could have been composed by human beings.
In addition, great scholars and saintly persons, such as Sankaracarya, Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Kumarila Bhatta, Rupa Gosvami, and others accepted the Vedas as apaurusheya and eternal. These saintly persons are famed for their renunciation, knowledge, and freedom from selfish motives. Naturally a credibility gap exists between them and contemporary mundane scholars who contest the divine origin of the Vedas, but these materialistic scholars cannot be proven free from ulterior motives, nor can their character and conduct compare favorably with that of the great acaryas.
Another consideration, and an important one, is that the Vedas themselves repeatedly enjoin that one must first approach a guru in disciplic succession if he wants to understand the spiritual knowledge therein. Thus Vedic knowledge is verifiable and not just a collection of abstract ideas. Mundane scholars, however, puffed up with their years of text book knowledge, presume to flout this requirement, yet consider themselves authorities on Vedic knowledge. In reality, by not applying themselves to the knowledge in the prescribed way they are locked out from its mysteries. The attempt of such hapless scholars to understand the Vedas outside of the disciplic succession are like persons who try to taste honey by licking on the jar. Their labor is futile and their resultant analysis and conclusions they draw are useless.
By contrast, the great Vaishnava acaryas all became Vedic authorities on account of their scrupulously following the injunction to surrender to a guru coming in disciplic succession. On the matter of sincerity and credibility, therefore, the verdict weighs heavily in favor of the saintly acaryas. Ultimately, any interested person may take to the process and verify the Vedic conclusions for himself. This requires some effort. Naturally, it is easier to give a glib opinion against the Vedas than to discipline oneself to follow its instructions, but such detractors cannot prove their negative claims.
Furthermore, even if someone says that just as modern science is evolving the Vedas evolved over a period of time, then the question arises why in the annals of recorded history did people stop making further refinements in the Vedas? If the Vedas indeed have a human source, they should have been revised and improved over time and new, improved versions should be available; but this is not the case. Rather, North or South, East or West, the same standard readings of the Vedas are found, and no older or newer versions are seen anywhere. Rather, the Vedic saints have developed a meticulous system to protect the word order of the Vedic texts. Even changing a single syllable is considered criminal. Thus the Vedas are rightly called sruti, or that which is heard from the guru, with proper tone and accent of the syllables.
The Vedas are unique. Can one imagine that in a particular field of science or art we will reach the apex in knowledge, produce one standard book accepted by all, making all other books in that field obsolete? Is it conceivable that no one will make any further changes or additions to such a book, and that book will become worshipable to the people interested in that field? The reasonable, unbiased answer is "no", and yet this is precisely the case with the Vedas for they are free of defects having emanated from the perfect source, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But if someone says "yes", then there is no reason for debate over the authority of the Vedas.
In addition to the spiritual knowledge it contains, the Vedic literature has references to most current scientific achievements. The Vedas have sections on astronomy, medicine, yoga, music, drama, dance, algebra, civil engineering, and so on. The list is long indeed. These are all practical sciences that have been used in India centuries before the dawn of modern astronomy and medical science and other arts and sciences. His Divine Grace, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, writes in his introduction to Srimad Bhagavatam, "The authority of the Vedas is unchallengeable and stands without any question of doubt. The conch shell and cow dung are the bone and stool of two living beings. But because they have been recommended by the Vedas as pure, people accept them as such because of the authority of the Vedas." Now it has been proven by scientific experimentation that cow dung is antiseptic and has medicinal value. It would be simplistic, therefore, to brush aside the Vedas as manmade. Had that being the case, renowned thinkers and powerful logicians such as Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Madhvacarya would have taken no stock in them.
Still, one may question the eternal nature of the Vedas for any scriptural references in support of them will necessarily come from the Vedas themselves. In logic, evidence that relies on itself for proof, or circular reasoning, is unacceptable. This makes the Vedas appear tainted with the defect of svasrya-dosha, or begging the question, relying on themselves to establish their nature and authority.
Circular reasoning would be a serious defect, but a closer look shows that the Vedas are an exception to this fallacy. That the Vedas rely on themselves to establish their authority is not a defect; rather it is logical, sensible. It affirms their absolute or transcendental nature, for if some other source were to confirm the authority of the Vedas, then the authority of that new source would surpass the Vedas. In which case an inquisitive person would be obliged to discard the Vedas and start all over again to analyze the authenticity of the new source. Before long this new source would need confirmation from yet another source. This could go on ad infinitum, but the absence of such a superior source with reference to the Vedas goes to show that the authority of the Vedas as apaurusheya sabda pramana is final.
Logically, therefore, no other pramana can substantiate the Vedas. Traditionally, therefore, the Vedas are accepted as mother. When a person wants to know who is his father, he cannot know the answer by direct perception, nor by inference or by deduction. To know the answer he has to accept her testimony. Similarly, we have to accept the revealed knowledge of the Vedas to learn about the reality beyond our sensual and intellectual power.
The theory advanced by some scholars that the Vedas are of mundane origin is unreliable and untenable because they have not studied the Vedas in a bonafide disciplic succession. Because of the four defects and their being captivated by ulterior motives like name, fame, research funding, or even a university degree, by divine arrangement they are barred from getting any real insight about the Vedic knowledge. They have no inhibition in admitting that for the proper comprehension of any complex material subject one ought to take the help of experts in that field. In the case of the Vedic literature it is an absolute need. Its function is similar to a password protection against insincere persons who either want to exploit the Vedas or refute them. In Bhagavad-gita (7.25) the Supreme Lord affirms this:
"I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible."
This applies whether He comes in His personal form or whether He reveals Himself in scripture. The Lord gives the method whereby the conditioned souls can approach Him. That method is by disciplic succession. Those unwilling to qualify themselves in that way can have no access to Him, even if they study the Vedas on their own for many lifetimes.
In conclusion, owing to the absence of any conclusive proof regarding the authorship of the Vedas by a mortal being, and by the logic known as the law of the remainder (parisesha-nyaya), as well as on the authority of the great acaryas and saints coming in the bonafide disciplic successions, and ultimately by accepting the testimony of the Vedas themselves, it is reasonably concluded that the Vedas exist eternally and are infallible means of knowledge.
Next, Srila Jiva Gosvami shows that inference cannot be an independent means in understanding the Absolute Truth.
Go to Section Eleven
Return to Section Nine
